1 / 9

Lessons from survey research on improving housing conditions

Lessons from survey research on improving housing conditions. Scotstat Survey Conference Tuesday 16 March 2010 Lorna Fleming. Rationale. Image: www.independent.co.uk. Image: www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk. Purpose of survey.

dana
Download Presentation

Lessons from survey research on improving housing conditions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lessons from survey research on improving housing conditions Scotstat Survey Conference Tuesday 16 March 2010 Lorna Fleming

  2. Rationale Image: www.independent.co.uk Image: www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk

  3. Purpose of survey • Are there differences between the barriers faced by owner occupiers and those faced by private landlords who own housing in need of repair in the Falkirk Council area? • Does evidence support the use of separate assistance and enforcement policies for private landlords and owner occupiers, to improve housing conditions?

  4. Research Methods (1)Supplementing the LHCS Owner Occupied House Private Rented House Physical condition data (LHCS) Landlords views on barriers to disrepair and usefulness of potential LA assistance (self completion postal questionnaire) • Physical condition data (LHCS) • Owner occupiers views on barriers to disrepair and usefulness of potential LA assistance (LHCS)

  5. Research Methods (2) • physical condition of properties (secondary data) • attitudes of owners (secondary data) • attitudes of landlords (primary data) • Descriptive statistics, weighting & grossing • Tested null hypotheses – e.g there is no significant difference between o/occs & l/lords. • Repeated tests when independent variables isolated (eg house type, condition)

  6. Learning Points Things I would do differently…. • Focus group to avoid ‘designing out’ issues • Consider implications of a low response rate: small sample = wide confidence intervals • Begin with more detailed hypotheses and plan how to test the null hypotheses • Seek advice from the experts earlier • Simplify questions • Be more aware of complexity of analysing data from a disproportionate stratified sample

  7. Findings • Awareness of disrepair • Barriers to carrying out repairs (eg financial, agreeing communal work, finding trusted traders, identifying work) • Willingness to invest • Format of info & advice • Demand for practical assistance (e.g organising communal repairs, hiring contractors, inspection services)

  8. Conclusions • Awareness gap + low demand for inspection services = need education/ awareness raising • Financial barriers reduce relevance of practical assistance for some owners • Findings informative but other sources of evidence important too - triangulation

  9. Questions & Discussion • Has anyone done similar work? • What are other people’s findings in this area? • What potential sources of bias and / or error would have been important in this survey? • Is this kind of survey design worth replicating?

More Related