Analytical Approach


Our overall sample for analysis was 2,313, contained in 2,094 questionnaires (see paragraph 4.1, Chapter 4).


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



We have subjected this report to scientific scrutiny*, to ensure that the methodology and conclusions are statistically valid.


Finally, in the text, percentages are rounded to the nearest integer, for ease of reading.

*By consulting an expert in social research modelling and also see Appendix A.

Top of page
Report Contents
Go to Chapter 4 -The Response (previous page)
Go to Chapter 6 - The Top Site (next page)

Crystal Palace Campaign March 2002 - Consultation Starts Here
Copyright: Day, Kolvin, Sacks 2002
Last updated: 26 March 2002