CONSULTATION STARTS HERE - THE REPORT, THE RESULTS
Analytical Approach
5.1 Our overall sample for
analysis was 2,313, contained in 2,094 questionnaires (see
paragraph 4.1, Chapter
4). 5.2 We have been concerned to
report the results of the consultation in an objective,
value neutral manner. We have therefore tried to devise a
method of analysis that allows proper comparisons to be
drawn. 5.3 One of the problems
confronting us has been that not all respondents answered
all the questions posed. We decided not to demand that they
do, as appears from the instructions above the
questionnaire. Table 3 shows the numbers of people who
answered each question and the categories of their
responses. 5.4 This is liable to produce
some distortions. For example, someone who voted for ecology
for the Top Site may not have troubled to state whether they
wanted a commercial/leisure centre there, since they would
have considered their preference already clearly stated.
Conversely, the proponents of a commercial/leisure centre
may not have considered it worth expressing a view on the
merits of managed parkland on the site. For this reason, the
numbers answering NO or NO OPINION to particular questions
are less indicative of the general view than the number of
people answering YES. 5.5 Therefore, in general, we
have concentrated on the numbers of the YES responses to
each of the questions. At the same time, however, we do on
occasion draw attention to the differential between the YES
and NO votes for a particular option, so as to highlight the
overall feeling, whether positive or negative. We call this
a "satisfaction rating". The full data, including the
numbers who did not answer particular questions, are set out
in Table 3.
Regional Variations
5.6 |
Park users come from a
wide social and geographic spectrum, and it is of particular
interest to know whether there is a division in views
between different parts of the community. If there is, then
the task of anyone wishing to regenerate this Park is to
ensure that each sector of the community understands the
views of the others, with a view to achieving consensus. It
might be supposed that those who live nearest the Park would
have a different set of priorities from those who live
further away, since they would be more affected by intensive
activities in the Park. |
5.7 |
Therefore, as an aid to
analysis, we have divided the consultation area into inner
and outer zones, by postcode. The inner zone consists of
those postcode areas immediately abutting the Park; see
Figure 6. Respondents within those areas comprised 63% of
the overall response to the questionnaire. The outer zone
consists of the remaining postcodes, together with those few
responses that came from outside the postcodes surveyed. |
5.8 |
In each of the chapters, we have set out both the overall results and a brief analysis of the inner and outer zones, to see if and where differences arise. |
Qualitative Responses
5.9 |
Of the 2,313 respondents,
1,280, or 55%, responded to the invitation for general
comments. We have found these comments valuable, since they
give ideas for the next round of research. We have tried to
categorise the answers so as to be able to understand the
nature and weight of the community's views. This was a
challenging task. If too many categories were created, we
would have as many categories as answers. If too few were
created, the resultant data would be too bland to be
helpful. We have tried to overcome this problem by creating
category headings, such as "community", and then clusters of
uses within that heading, so as to facilitate further
analysis. The list of categories, and their coding, is shown
in Table 4. |
5.10 |
We do, however, sound a
note of caution. We did not demand that qualitative
responses be given. In fact, because of the form of the
questionnaire, most of those giving qualitative responses
were those who had answered YES to "Do you want any building
at all on the Parade Top Site?" Furthermore, respondents
have not always distinguished their views about the Top Site
from views about other parts of the Park. It would therefore
be unsafe to attach more weight to these qualitative
responses than to answers to the main questions. |
5.11 |
We believe that the chief value of the qualitative responses is to provide an understanding of what sort of buildings are wanted by those who have voted for a building on the Top Site. |
Verification
5.12 |
We have subjected this
report to scientific scrutiny*, to ensure that the
methodology and conclusions are statistically valid. |
5.13 |
Finally, in the text, percentages are rounded to the nearest integer, for ease of reading. |