mtpolitics.net

Survey Data

In a comment below James pointed out an upcoming meeting of the Environmental Quality Council, where they will be presenting the results of a web survey done in February. I have sent the following to one of the contacts listed:

In regard to the meeting of the Environmental Quality Council in May to discuss the CCAC recommendations, I would like to get a copy of the raw data used in the web survey, along with the methodology used to compile it.

If possible, an Excel file or .CSV file would be preferable.

Thank you for your time.

I will keep you posted.

[UPDATE]:  The next morning, (4/10/08), I did receive the survey results. Along with this note:

I will attach the spreadsheet that was used in collecting the survey results. The survey was not scientific and was not presented as such to the EQC during the March meeting. You can listen to the discussion concerning the survey at the EQC Website. The March meeting is under the “listen” link and the Website is http://leg.mt.gov/css/lepo/2007_2008/default.asp Ultimately the EQC used an analysis prepared by Sen. Bob Hawks, an EQC member. Sen. Hawks combined (5 and 4) ranking scroes for EQC and public responses totaling over 50 percent.
Unfortunately, I just discovered that our Web designer took the survey results, synopsis information, etc. down from the Website when the new information was posted yesterday. I have asked that it be put back up by Friday. The Website did (and will again) contain the 600 pages of public comment we received, results, and a synopsis of the information.
Here is the background presented to the EQC:

The survey was available to the public from February 4 until February 29 at 5 p.m.

Before the survey went online, a draft was sent to the chair and vice chair and received the OK to go up. Based on instructions from the full EQC following the January meeting, the public was invited to participate in ranking the recommendations in the same format as EQC members. Along with the rankings, participants were invited to comment on the individual recommendations. We received more than 600 pages of public comment, which are available on the EQC Website.

As noted on the overview, this was not a scientific survey. We did not limit participation. There were no controls requiring participants to leave a name or affiliation. And there was no limit on the number of times an individual could take the survey. Staff discussed the survey, with Sen. Wanzenried and discussed options, like password encryption or requiring a participant to leave his or her name. There was concern that a password would create confusion, and such a password also could be shared, limiting its usefulness. We also do not have the capability to verify that the person submitting the survey and required to leave a name is the actual person taking the survey.

Because this was not a scientific survey and did not have a controlled sample, it can’t be viewed as a scientifically accurate gauge of public opinion on climate change or on individual recommendations. I present the analysis to the EQC as an informational tool only. The two synopsis forms were compiled in an effort to look for trends in support or lack of support for particular recommendations.

If you would like additional information, or if I can be of assistance, let me know. [Emphasis mine. –Ed.]

I haven’t had time to go through the data yet, but you are free to download it from the link above. It is public record, so have at it. The brief look I took suggests that it will take a little work to correlate everything, but that is the nature of raw data.

I just want to add that the response to my request for data was timely, honest and professional, and much appreciated.

Meantime, looks like there’s plenty more reading (and listening) to do.