Posts by James Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul: I'm wearing my academic hat when I'm saying this. Adjusting for demographics is a small step in the right direction, but the research pretty clearly argues that it is nowhere near enough. It could still be easily out by 20-30% (in either direction, although the tail toward the middle is slightly longer).This is why pretty much nobody uses mail surveys.
And this still doesn't counter the fact that students were out of town.I'm still very mixed on the use of referendums, but for a project of this size, I can see some sense. I would love to see a more definitive answer though, whether it be a referendum or even a more reliable survey.
-
There was an earlier mail-out survey
I don't put any credence in that survey either.
Mail Survey=largely pointless.There was, however, a telephone survey in 2007, which is somewhat more credible, if a little old. It put stadium support at ~62%. Interestingly, that survey did canvas whether people wanted the DCC to fund it (65%) and at a level of 91.4million (~49%). Taking the latter figure, even 2 years ago, those wanting the DCC to fund it were in a minority. Now it is entirely likely that this group may have decreased, but a low quality survey won't tell us that.
the raw data gave (I think, it was a while ago) a 72% against - the 78% against figure was after correcting for city demographics - which probably means that the pro-stadium people either went out of their way to respond to it to try and skew it their way - or they care more about the issue and were more likely to respond - either way it still shows the pro-stadium people in a small minority.
Actually no. It's a pretty simple issue of extrapolation. Where people self-select to participate, you can't extrapolate their answers to the people that didn't respond. The higher the proportion of non-responders, the more dangerous the extrapolation.
To put it more clearly, the results of the survey were
32% Against
10% Support
3% Undecided
56% Didn't respond
So there is no doubt that there are a lot of people who are clearly against the stadium, relatively few who are clearly for the stadium, but more than half, who, well, who knows.Finally, non-response is an issue in all research (some academic outlets demand 80+), but the research on research suggests that mail surveys are more biased by non-response than phone surveys (NB: phone surveys are by no means perfect, but there is a reason why people are bombarded with phone surveys, and not mail surveys in their evenings, assuming they don't have a home PABX).
-
78% of the community [are against the Dunedin stadium] according to the most recent survey
I rather wish someone would carry out a more independent survey.
This number is bandied around a lot, but is essentially meaningless.
a) It was a mail survey. Any textbook will tell you that mail surveys achieve poor response rates (here c.40%), and that the people that do reply are skewed towards those that hold a strong opinion on the issue.
b) In the light of (a), it is often suggested that this survey tells us what the 'silent majority' think. However, with the low response rate, the silent majority are still clearly silent.
c) It was conducted while 20% of the usually resident population were out of town. Some argue that students aren't ratepayers, but I would be very surprised if there are any landlords who don't attempt to recover their rates through rent. There is a counter claim that students don't stay for very long, so the next group of students might be unhappy with the decision. However, I think excluding their opinion altogether is unwise.I have heard some strong reservations about the questions themselves, but having not seen the survey I can't comment. I think the sampling issues themselves are enough to invalidate the results. That said, I suspect there may be a majority of people who are now against the stadium, but for lack of a decent quality survey it is hard to tell.
-
As a writer of surveys, I think there is a more fundamental question around referundums, as to whether they actually tap the beliefs of the population. We certainly see this with the current Citizens Initiated Referendum system, where the questions are objective fail. There is also a real danger in asking only one question, especially if it is simply a binary (yes/no) response.
In addition to the questions being poor, the sampling is not great either. Any given standalone referendum will likely suffer a poor turnout, and the people who do vote are most likely going to be those with more extreme and polarised opinions. The people who aren't much bothered, or who don't have a strong opinion simply won't vote. Given the already poor turnout in local body elections, I think the turnout is not likely to be poor (Wanganui's run at around 50%).
On this basis, I am not excited about the prospect. It might be living dangerously, but I think I would be happier with a neutral third party designing questions, and carrying out sampling by phone!
-
On the issue of compensation, the Dean of Law at Otago considers that he not eligible under current guidelines. Therefore, it would have require that nice John Key, and a change of the guidelines by Cabinet.
-
The counter argument to not borrowing to invest, is that borrowing to invest is the key driver of the private sector. Leverage is entirely where it's at -- ask Graeme Hart or any property investor. Judgement is a thorny thing though.
-
Ooops. The correct link. Other reports indicate figures of up to $5 million, and suggest that they're trying to get central govt funding for it.
-
Just a thought, but if you accept Transit's figure as a worst case scenario, Dunedin is slowly finding $3 million for the harbourside cycle/walkway, but Auckland is what 10x the size of Dunedin, which is the $30 million suggested. Again, scaling up, the Dunedin one (above expectations) gets 500 people a day. Would a 10x scaling figure be innappropriate for Auckland (including sight-seers, exercisers, and commuters)? The Dunedin path is co-funded by councils, transit and a variety of other organisations...
-
The tunnels have only been blocked off for 5 years or so. The problem is not so much the gates or the lack of lighting, but the urgent need for a decent amount of gravel. It was extremely wet and boggy every time I went in (on foot). Estimates vary, but the cost of lighting, surfacing and security is not huge. The other apparent issue is that the one closest to town has a watermain running through it. But as I say, they have only been shut off in recent times.
The other really neat possibility is that there is already a footpath running along side the railway for parts of it, and it would be easy enough to have a cyclepath well away from roads, which would be a great asset.
Also, if you're in Dunedin, there's a great new cycle/walkway getting a lot of use, but at the moment it doesn't go very far.
-
I'll gladly take my flick on the ear if I can visit again.
Our campaign is to open two disused railway tunnels to gain better access for cyclists and pedestians, to those very plains.