1.Introduction - Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic ... Web viewMarket and Social Research + Evaluation + Consultation. ... There are no significant differences between men and

Winton Sustainable Research Strategies Pty Ltd

Sydney : 202A Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067

Canberra: 32 Fihelly Street Fadden ACT 2904

Internet: www.wintonsrs.com.au Email: [email protected] Phone: (Mobile): 0414 504 832

Market and Social Research + Evaluation + Consultation

Advising Government and Community Sectors since 1981

Results to a Series of Questions onPublic Housing Issues

Conducted for thePublic Housing Renewal Taskforce

ACT Government

On the September 2015CRSMS Omnibus Survey

Interviews conducted19 to 28 September 2015

Final Report7 October 2015

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................1

2. The Research Approach.........................................................................................2

3. Summary of the Main Survey Findings.................................................................3

Summary Tables:...................................................................................................5

4. Detailed Tabular Results.......................................................................................8

5. Survey Questions.................................................................................................16

1. Introduction

The Public Housing Renewal Taskforce has been established to deliver the public housing renewal program. The public housing renewal program is intended to improve outcomes for public housing tenants in the ACT and support the renewal of Canberra’s urban areas.

In July 2014 the ACT Government committed to replace 1,288 public housing dwellings along the Northbourne Avenue corridor and in other key locations around Canberra, including sites in Inner South (Griffith, Narrabundah and Red Hill).

Extensive public consultation has taken place, closing on Monday 17th August 2015 except for Red Hill which has been extended until the end of August.

Consultation has so far indicated strong support for the demolition and replacement of these older (1960s) housing commission estates, although it also shows some debate about what should replace them.

The current study was commissioned to provide an objective, representative measurement of community views in Inner South and to compare these views with those in the rest of Canberra.

1

2. The Research Approach

The Canberra and Region Social and Market Survey (CRSMS) is a regular survey tailored cost-effectively to meet the needs of a range of government, academic, not-for-profit and business clients. It is usually run monthly throughout the year.

Each wave involves telephone interviews with a fresh, reliable sample of 1,000 people, representative of the 18+ years Canberra community. Weights are applied at the analysis to align the sample on key demographics. Questions are analysed by relevant socio-demographics and by region and compiled into a succinct tabular report.

On this occasion, as the Inner South component of the CRSMS sample is relatively small (75 out of 1,000), it was over-sampled with an additional 400 interviews. At the analysis stage the Inner South subsample was weighted back to 75 so that the total results represented population proportions. However, as it is actually based on 475 interviews (75 in the main sample plus an additional 400) it attracts a much lower sampling tolerance of around ±4½%. In other words, if the results show that 55.0% of people in Inner South answer ‘yes’ to a question, the ‘true’ result (ie, the result if the whole population had been interviewed) would be somewhere between 50.5% and 59.5% at the 95% confidence level – see below for explanation.

A Note on Sampling Tolerances:

Regarding sample size, whenever a survey is based on a sample of the population, the results can vary from those that would have been obtained had everyone been included in the survey, as indicated in the table below.

Whenever a random sample is drawn to be representative of a given population of ‘infinite’ size, sampling tolerances (‘s’) can be calculated using the formula s = ±2 x (p{100-p}/n), where ‘p’ is the level of response (eg, 68%), and ‘n’ is the sample or sub-sample size upon which it is based. The following table provides sampling tolerances that can be applied in interpreting the results of surveys of this nature:

Table 1.1 – Sampling tolerancesSampling Tolerances for Sample SurveysSize of Sample or Sub-Sample

Sampling tolerance (plus or minus) for various response levels at the 95% confidence level – ‘infinite’ universe, where the proportion answering one way (eg, “yes”) approaches:

n 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%75 ±6.8% ±9.1% ±10.4% ±11.1% ±11.3%100 ±5.9% ±7.8% ±9.0% ±9.6% ±9.8%200 ±4.2% ±5.5% ±6.4% ±6.8% ±6.9%300 ±3.4% ±4.5% ±5.2% ±5.5% ±5.7%400 ±2.9% ±3.9% ±4.5% ±4.8% ±4.9%500 ±2.6% ±3.5% ±4.0% ±4.3% ±4.4%600 ±2.4% ±3.2% ±3.7% ±3.9% ±4.0%700 ±2.2% ±3.0% ±3.4% ±3.6% ±3.7%800 ±2.1% ±2.8% ±3.2% ±3.4% ±3.5%900 ±2.0% ±2.6% ±3.0% ±3.2% ±3.3%

1,000 ±1.9% ±2.5% ±2.8% ±3.0% ±3.1%1,200 ±1.7% ±2.3% ±2.6% ±2.8% ±2.8%

3. Summary of the Main Survey Findings

The main findings emerging from the study are as follows:

2

1. Close to three in five Canberrans (57.7%) are aware of the consultation process that the ACT government has been undertaking over the past year or so with the community concerning redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates throughout Canberra, with 40.3% not aware and 2.0% unsure. [Tables 4.2a-4.2c]

a. Slightly more Inner South residents (61.1%) are aware of the consultation process than other Canberrans (57.4%), although the difference is not statistically significant. [Table 3.1]

2. Around two in three Canberrans (66.7%) say that these older public housing estates should be redeveloped, with 5.9% disagreeing and 27.4% unsure. [Tables 4.3a-4.3c]

a. There is little difference in support between Inner South and the rest of Canberra on this issue, around two-thirds of both groups being in agreement. [Table 3.1]

b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who agree with redevelopment range from as low as 57.5% in Gungahlin to 72.8% in Tuggeranong. [Table 3.2]

c. There are no significant differences between men and women or across age groups on this question. [Table 3.3]

3. Around three in five Canberrans (60.7%) agree with allowing some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space, with 21.1% disagreeing and 18.2% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.4a-4.4c]

a. Although still in the majority, significantly fewer Inner South dwellers support this proposition (50.7% agree, 35.4% disagree, with 13.9% ambivalent or unsure) compared to the rest of Canberra (61.5% agree, 19.9% disagree, with 18.6% ambivalent or unsure). [Tables 3.1 and 4.3a]

b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who agree with allowing some increase in height and density range from as low as 50.7% in Inner South to 70.0% in Gungahlin. [Table 3.2]

c. Men are somewhat more likely to agree with this proposition than women (65.4% vs 56.4%), as are younger people compared to older people (65.3% among 18-39 years versus 54.9% among 65+ years). [Table 3.3]

4. More than seven in ten Canberrans (72.9%) are in favour of urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links, with 13.7% not in favour and 10.4% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.5a-4.5c]

a. There is little difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (69.7% and 73.1% respectively). [Table 3.1]

3

b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 52.5% in Gungahlin to 85.2% in Tuggeranong. [Table 3.2]

c. Although there is little difference between men and women (74.9% vs 70.9%), significantly more younger and middle-aged people are in favour than are older people (82.1%, 76.7% and 58.7% respectively). [Table 3.3]

5. Nearly three in four Canberrans (73.6%) are in favour of offering a wider range of housing choices, which could include townhouses and apartments, in existing suburbs, with 18.0% not in favour and 8.3% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.6a-4.6c]

a. There is a small but insignificant difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (69.0% and 74.0% in favour respectively). [Table 3.1]

b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 65.8% in Belconnen to 83.8% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]

c. Marginally more men (78.3% of men versus 69.4% of women) are in favour of a wider range of housing choices, as are the younger and middle-aged (76.9% and 76.8%) versus older Canberrans (66.8% among 65+ years). [Table 3.3]

6. Over seven in ten Canberrans (72.5%) are in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in their suburb, with 16.2% not in favour and 11.4% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.7a-4.7c]

a. Slightly more Inner South dwellers are in favour than are those in the rest of Canberra (77.3% versus 72.1%) [Table 3.1]

b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 59.1% in Belconnen to 83.8% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]

c. Marginally more women (75.7% of women versus 69.2% of men) are in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in their suburb, as are the middle-aged (78.9%) versus younger (67.0%) and older Canberrans (70.9%). [Table 3.3]

7. Well over four in five Canberrans (84.4%) agree that public housing should be provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates, with 9.3% disagreeing and 6.3% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.8a-4.8c]

a. There is little difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (81.5% and 84.7% agree respectively) [Table 3.1]

b. Although always substantially in the majority, the proportions who agree range from as low as 74.7% in Woden-Weston to 96.3% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]

c. Smaller public housing developments rather than large estates by significantly more women than men (74.7% versus 93.4%), and by

4

middle and older age groups (90.2% and 91.8%) versus younger people (71.2%). [Table 3.3]

5

Summary Tables:

Table 3.1: Inner South versus the rest of CanberraProportion responding positively and negatively to: Total

%

Inner South

%

The Rest of Canberra

%

Q1. Aware of community consultation over the past year or so concerning redevelopment of older public housing estates throughout Canberra?

57.7 61.1 57.440.3 37.3 40.5

Q2. The redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates?

66.7 66.7 66.75.9 14.9 5.2

Q3. Some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space?

170.6 180 61.521.1 35.4 19.9

Q4. Urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links?

362.3 395.4 73.113.7 16.2 13.6

Q5. A wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs?

738.3 807.0 74.918.0 19.1 17.9

Q6. The continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb?

1494.6 1633.1 72.116.2 17.9 16.0

Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates?

3005.4 3284.1 84.79.3 8.8 9.3

Chart 3.1: Proportions offering positive responses – Inner South versus the Rest of Canberra

6

Table 3.2: Findings by Area

Proportion responding positively and negatively to: Total

%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%


66.7 66.7 66.9 57.5 62.6 70.4 72.85.9 14.9 12.5 1.7 5.8 3.7 3.2


72.6 81.6 79.4 59.2.0 68.4 50.4 7621.1 35.4 14.0 19.2 19.8 24.7 20.4


166.3 198.6 172.8 137.6 156.6 149.2 172.413.7 16.2 9.6 20.8 17.9 17.9 4.8


346.3 413.4.0

355.2 296 331.1 316.3 349.618.0 19.1 9.5 22.5 22.6 22.9 12.4


710.6 845.9 719.9 614.5 684.8 655.5 711.6.0

16.2 17.9 6.6 17.5 17.9 27.2 11.2Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates?

1437.4

1709.7

1446.4

1246.5

1387.5.0

1338.2

1434.4

9.3 8.8 0.0 2.5 9.0 20.4 10.8

Table 3.3: Findings by Gender and Age


%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%


66.7 70.3 63.4 66.5 65.2 68.65.9 7.4 4.5 1.4 5.2 11.5


72.6 77.7 67.9 67.9 70.4 80.121.1 18.9 23.1 13.3 25.0 24.7


166.3 174.3 158.9 149.1 165.8 184.913.7 10.2 17.1 6.2 12.7 22.9


346.3 358.8 334.9 304.4 344.3 392.718.0 11.3 24.3 16.2 18.0 20.0


710.6 728.9 694.1 625.0 706.6 805.416.2 15.5 16.7 16.5 12.9 19.5


1437.4

1473.3

1404.9

1266.5

1426.1

1630.3

9.3 16.5 2.5 22.3 1.5 4.4

7

Table 3.4: Findings by Aware of Consultation and Tenure


%

Aware consultation Tenure

Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%*

In public housin

g%*

Other%


66.7 73.0 58.1 68.4 72.3 64.9 79.0 51.55.9 6.6 5.0 8.4 2.9 6.5 9.5 2.9


72.6 79.6 63.1 76.8 75.2 53.0 88.5 54.421.1 23.1 18.3 25.5 10.0 19.4 29.7 17.7


166.3 182.3 144.5 179.1 160.4 143.8 206.7 126.513.7 12.4 15.5 16.4 9.9 6.5 19.7 13.2


346.3 377 304.5.0

374.6 330.7 294.1.0

433.1 266.218.0 15.4 21.6 16.8 18.4 1.0 65.1 13.6


710.6 769.4 630.6 766.0 679.8 589.2 931.3 54616.2 15.8 16.5 17.5 19.2 1.0 8.2 15.7


1437.4

1554.6

1277.7

1549.5

1378.8

1179.4

1870.8

1107.7

9.3 4.7 15.5 3.2 6.1 6.5 34.7 23.1* Caution: small base sizes, n = 81 and 86 respectively.

8

4. Detailed Tabular ResultsTable 4.1: Sample Size

TotalN

Area

Inner South

n

Inner North

n

Gung-ahlin

n

Belco-nnen

n

Woden-

Westonn

Tugger-anong

n

Inner South

n

Rest of C’berr

an

Raw SampleWeighted Base

14001000

475*75

136136

120120

257257

162162

250250

475*75

925925

TotalN

Gender Age

Menn

Womenn

18-39yrs

n

40-64yrs

n65+yrs

nRaw SampleWeighted Base

14001000

634482

766518

433329

501357

466314

TotalN


Yesn

No/dkn

Own outrigh

tn

Paying offn

In private rental

n

In public housin

gn

OtherN

Raw SampleWeighted Base

14001000

821577

579423

657447

310264

8162

8649

266178

* The usual CRSMS sample of 1,000 people 18yrs+ has a sampling tolerance of around ±3% (at the 95% confidence level). On this occasion, as the Inner South component of the CRSMS sample is relatively small (75 out of 1,000), it was over-sampled with an additional 400 interviews. At the analysis stage the Inner South subsample was weighted back to 75 so that the total results represented population proportions. However, as it is actually based on 475 interviews (75 in the main sample plus an additional 400) the inner South subsample has a sampling tolerance of around ±4½% (compared to a sampling tolerance of just over ±11% for the usual Inner South subsample of 75).

9

Q1. Are you aware of the consultation process that the ACT government has been undertaking over the past year or so with the community concerning redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates throughout Canberra?

Table 4.2a: Q1 Aware of consultation process

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Yes 57.7 61.1 81.6 60.8 49.8 62.3 47.2 61.1 57.4No 40.3 37.3 17.6 39.2 47.1 35.8 50.0 37.3 40.5Unsure 2.0 1.7 0.7 0.0 3.1 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.1

Table 4.2b: Q1 Aware of consultation process

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Yes 57.7 55.2 60.0 47.5 61.0 64.5No 40.3 44.0 36.9 52.5 36.7 31.6Unsure 2.0 0.8 3.1 0.0 2.3 3.8

Table 4.2c: Q1 Aware of consultation process

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Yes 57.7 100.0 0.0 66.3 49.2 57.8 21.5 58.5No 40.3 0.0 95.2 31.8 46.4 42.2 78.5 41.5Unsure 2.0 0.0 4.8 1.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

10

Q2. Do you think these public housing estates should be redeveloped or not? Table 4.3a: Q2 agree with redevelopment

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Yes 66.7 66.7 66.9 57.5 62.6 70.4 72.8 66.7 66.7No 5.9 14.9 12.5 1.7 5.8 3.7 3.2 14.9 5.2Unsure 27.4 18.3 20.6 40.8 31.5 25.9 24.0 18.3 28.1

Table Q.3: Q2 agree with redevelopment

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Yes 66.7 70.3 63.4 66.5 65.2 68.6No 5.9 7.4 4.5 1.4 5.2 11.5Unsure 27.4 22.3 32.1 32.1 29.6 19.9

Table Q.3: Q2 agree with redevelopment

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Yes 66.7 73.0 58.1 68.4 72.3 64.9 79.0 51.5No 5.9 6.6 5.0 8.4 2.9 6.5 9.5 2.9Unsure 27.4 20.4 36.9 23.2 24.8 28.6 11.5 45.6

11

Q3. As part of the redevelopment of these sites, do you agree or disagree with allowing some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? If ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, probe: Do you (dis)agree a lot or a little?

Table 4.4a: Q3 Agree height and density

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Agree a lot 28.2 20.2 23.5 38.3 36.6 12.1 30.8 20.2 28.9Agree a little 32.5 30.5 40.4 31.7 24.5 38.3 33.6 30.5 32.6Neither/nor 6.3 5.5 3.7 10.8 3.5 9.5 6.0 5.5 6.4Disagree a little

10.2 11.6 8.1 11.7 6.2 14.2 11.6 11.6 10.1

Disagree a lot 10.9 23.8 5.9 7.5 13.6 10.5 8.8 23.8 9.8Unsure 11.9 8.4 18.4 0.0 15.6 15.4 9.2 8.4 12.2Agree a lot/little

100 100 100 100.0 100 50.4 100 100 61.5

Disagree a lot/little

200 200 200.0 200 200 150.4 200 200 19.9

Table 4.4b: Q3 Agree height and density

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Agree a lot 28.2 29.8 26.8 21.5 37.2 25.1Agree a little 32.5 35.6 29.6 43.8 24.4 29.8Neither/nor 6.3 6.2 6.4 10.6 4.9 3.4Disagree a little

10.2 12.3 8.2 13.3 9.8 7.3

Disagree a lot 10.9 6.6 14.9 0.0 15.2 17.4Unsure 11.9 9.5 14.2 10.7 8.5 17.1Agree a lot/little

100 100 100.1 99.9 100 100.1Disagree a lot/little

200 200 200.2 199.8 200.0 200.2

Table 4.4c: Q3 Agree height and density

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Agree a lot 28.2 24.5 33.2 29.9 36.4 23.5 11.5 24.0Agree a little 32.5 35.0 29.1 28.4 39.9 29.5 48.6 36.4Neither/nor 6.3 6.5 6.1 3.5 3.0 14.1 0.0 10.4Disagree a little

10.2 12.5 7.0 10.3 2.5 11.9 1.3 16.2

Disagree a lot 10.9 10.6 11.3 15.2 7.5 7.5 28.4 1.5

Unsure 11.9 10.9 13.3 12.8 10.7 13.6 10.2 11.6

Agree a lot/little

100 100 100 100.1 100 53.0 100 100.1Disagree a lot/little

200 200 200 200.2 200.0 19.4 200 200.2

12

Q4. Redevelopment of existing suburban sites will reduce the rate of Canberra’s urban sprawl. Are you in favour or not in favour of urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?

Table 4.5a: Q4 in favour if close to schools, shops and transport links

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Strongly in favour

41.8 42.3 52.2 30.0 37.4 43.8 44.8 42.3 41.7

Mildly in favour

31.1 27.4 25.0 22.5 31.1 29.6 40.4 27.4 31.4

Neither/nor 3.1 2.5 8.8 3.3 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.5 3.1Mildly not in favour

3.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 8.6 1.6 2.9 3.5

Strongly not in favour

10.3 13.3 9.6 20.8 12.5 9.3 3.2 13.3 10.1

Unsure 10.4 11.6 4.4 23.3 12.1 6.8 7.6 11.6 10.3Strongly/mildly in favour

100.1 100 100 99.9 100.1 100 100 100 73.1

Strongly/mildly not in favour

200.2 200 200 199.8 200.2 200 200 200 13.6

Table 4.5b: Q4 in favour if close to schools, shops and transport links

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Strongly in favour

41.8 41.7 41.8 34.8 52.2 37.2

Mildly in favour

31.1 33.2 29.1 47.3 24.5 21.5

Neither/nor 3.1 2.6 3.5 0.0 2.7 6.8Mildly not in favour

3.4 1.9 4.9 0.0 3.4 7.1


10.3 8.3 12.2 6.2 9.3 15.8

Unsure 10.4 12.4 8.5 11.6 8.0 11.7Strongly/mildly in favour

100.1 100.1 100 99.9 100.1 100.1


200.2 200.2 200 199.8 200.2 200.2

Table 4.5c: Q4 in favour if close to schools, shops and transport links

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Strongly in favour

41.8 46.5 35.3 48.1 30.4 59.4 22.3 41.9

Mildly in favour

31.1 31.0 31.1 22.5 44.9 13.0 45.3 34.4

Neither/nor 3.1 3.2 3.0 4.9 1.9 0.0 8.2 0.0Disagree a little

3.4 2.4 4.9 3.8 3.0 6.5 10.2 0.0

Disagree a lot 10.3 10.0 10.6 12.6 6.9 0.0 9.5 13.2Unsure 10.4 6.9 15.1 8.0 12.9 21.1 4.6 10.4Strongly/mildly in

100.1 100 100 99.9 100 100 100.1 99.9

13

favourStrongly/mildly not in favour

200.2 200 200 199.8 200 200 200.2 199.8

14

Q5. Urban renewal in existing suburbs will offer a wider range of housing choices, which could include townhouses and apartments. Are you in favour or not in favour of a wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?

Table 4.6a: Q5 Urban renewal if wider housing choice

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Strongly in favour

39.8 48.4 50.0 37.5 35.8 40.7 36.4 48.4 39.1

Mildly in favour

33.8 20.6 33.8 38.3 30.0 27.2 44.0 20.6 34.9


8.0 6.5 2.9 10.8 14.0 1.9 7.6 6.5 8.1


10.0 12.6 6.6 11.7 8.6 21.0 4.8 12.6 9.8


99.9 99.9.0 99.9 100 100.1 100.1 100 99.9.0 74.0


199.8.0

199.8 199.8 200 200.2 200.2 200 199.8 17.9

Table 4.6b: Q5 Urban renewal if wider housing choice

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Strongly in favour

39.8 42.1 37.7 30.6 42.2 46.8

Mildly in favour

33.8 36.2 31.7 46.3 34.6 20.0


8.0 2.5 13.1 11.0 5.6 7.5


10.0 8.8 11.2 5.2 12.4 12.5


99.9 100 100 100 100.1 100


199.8.0

200 200 200 200.2.0

200.0

Table 4.6c: Q5 Urban renewal if wider housing choice

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Strongly in favour

39.8 42.2 36.6 47.7 23.8 72.4 26.7 36.1

Mildly in favour

33.8 35.7 31.4 27.1 52.3 14.6 8.2 37.2


8.0 8.1 7.8 6.7 9.1 0.0 10.2 11.8

Disagree a lot 10.0 7.3 13.8 10.1 9.3 1.0 54.9 1.8Unsure 5.5 4.0 7.6 4.3 2.0 12.0 0.0 13.1Strongly/mildly in

99.9 100 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.0 100 100

15

favourStrongly/mildly not in favour

199.8.0

200 200 200.2 199.8 200.0 200 200

16

Q6. Are you in favour or not in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?

Table 4.7a: Q6 Continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Strongly in favour

39.2 39.8 42.6 35.8 45.1 27.8 40.0 39.8 39.1

Mildly in favour

33.3 37.5 41.2 23.3 23.7 37.0 40.0 37.5 33.0


6.1 2.1 0.7 7.5 3.5 16.7 5.2 2.1 6.4


10.1 15.8 5.9 10.0 14.4 10.5 6.0 15.8 9.6


100.1 100 100 100 99.9 100 100.0 100 72.1


200.2 200 200 200 199.8 200 200 200 16.0

Table 4.7b: Q6 Continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Strongly in favour

39.2 29.7 48.1 38.4 41.7 37.1

Mildly in favour

33.3 39.5 27.6 28.6 37.2 33.8


6.1 5.6 6.5 10.6 3.2 4.5


10.1 9.9 10.2 5.9 9.7 15.0


100.1 100 100 100.0 100 100


200.2 200 200 200 200 200

Table 4.7c: Q6 Continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Strongly in favour

39.2 42.4 34.8 38.5 37.5 78.9 44.3 28.3

Mildly in favour

33.3 29.2 38.9 32.5 40.4 14.6 47.5 27.4


6.1 9.4 1.4 4.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 10.1

Disagree a lot 10.1 6.4 15.1 13.5 9.9 1.0 8.2 5.6Unsure 6.0 3.9 8.8 8.2 1.5 5.5 0.0 9.0Strongly/mildly in favour

100.1 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.1 100 100 100

17


200.2 199.8 199.8 200 200.2 200.0 200 200

18

Q7. In general, do you agree or disagree that public housing should be provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? If ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, probe: Do you (dis)agree a lot or a little?

Table 4.8a: Q7 public housing in smaller developments

Total%

Area

Inner South

%

Inner North

%

Gung-ahlin

%

Belco-nnen

%

Woden-

Weston%

Tugger-anong

%

Inner South

%

Rest of C’berr

a%

Agree a lot 66.0 61.3 90.4 63.3 60.3 61.7 64.0 61.3 66.4Agree a little 18.4 20.2 5.9 23.3 23.7 13.0 20.4 20.2 18.3Neither/nor 3.7 2.5 0.0 10.8 4.3 3.1 2.4 2.5 3.8Disagree a little

5.1 4.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 13.0 8.8 4.0 5.2

Disagree a lot 4.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 7.4 2.0 4.8 4.1Unsure 2.6 7.2 3.7 0.0 2.7 1.9 2.4 7.2 2.3Agree a lot/little

100 100 100 99.9 100.0 100.1 100 100 84.7

Disagree a lot/little

200 200 200 199.8 200.0 200.2 200 200 9.3

Table 4.8b: Q7 public housing in smaller developments

Total%

Gender Age

Men%

Women%

18-39yrs

%

40-64yrs

%65+yrs

%Agree a lot 66.0 57.2 74.2 47.7 77.1 72.6Agree a little 18.4 17.5 19.2 23.5 13.1 19.2Neither/nor 3.7 5.5 2.0 5.5 2.9 2.8Disagree a little

5.1 9.5 1.0 11.3 1.1 3.1

Disagree a lot 4.2 7.0 1.5 11.0 0.4 1.3Unsure 2.6 3.2 2.1 1.0 5.5 1.1Agree a lot/little

100 99.9 100 100 100.1 100.1Disagree a lot/little

200 199.8 200 200 200.2 200.2Table 4.8c: Q7 public housing in smaller developments

Total%


Yes%

No/dk%

Own outrigh

t%

Paying off%

In private rental

%

In public housin

g%

Other%

Agree a lot 66.0 73.6 55.6 73.9 63.7 78.9 41.9 51.7Agree a little 18.4 14.9 23.2 17.9 26.8 0.0 22.0 12.7Neither/nor 3.7 4.8 2.2 2.1 1.9 0.0 1.3 12.3Disagree a little

5.1 4.6 5.8 2.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 20.9

Disagree a lot 4.2 0.1 9.7 1.0 6.1 0.0 34.7 2.2Unsure 2.6 2.0 3.6 3.0 1.5 14.6 0.0 0.0Agree a lot/little

100 100 100.1 100.1 100 100 99.9 99.8Disagree a lot/little

200 200 200.2 200.2 200 200 199.8 199.6

19

5. Survey QuestionsQ1. Are you aware of the consultation process that the ACT government has been

undertaking over the past year or so with the community concerning redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates throughout Canberra?

Yes 1No 2Unsure/Don’t know/No opinion 3

Q2. Do you think these public housing estates should be redeveloped or not? Yes 1No 2Unsure/Don’t know/No opinion 3

Q3. As part of the redevelopment of these sites, do you agree or disagree with allowing some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? If ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, probe: Do you (dis)agree a lot or a little?

Agree a lot 1Agree a little 2Neither/Nor 3Disagree a little 4Disagree a lot 5Unsure/Don’t know/No opinion 6

Q4. Redevelopment of existing suburban sites will reduce the rate of Canberra’s urban sprawl. Are you in favour or not in favour of urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?

Strongly in favour 1Mildly in favour 2Neither/Nor 3Mildly not in favour 4Strongly not in favour 5Unsure/Don’t know/No opinion 6

Q5. Urban renewal in existing suburbs will offer a wider range of housing choices, which could include townhouses and apartments. Are you in favour or not in favour of a wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?


Q6. Are you in favour or not in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? If ‘in favour’ or ‘not in favour’, probe: Are you strongly or mildly (not) in favour?


Q7. In general, do you agree or disagree that public housing should be provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? If ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, probe: Do you (dis)agree a lot or a little?

Agree a lot 1Agree a little 2Neither/Nor 3Disagree a little 4Disagree a lot 5Unsure/Don’t know/No opinion 6

20

Documents

1.Introduction - Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic ... Web viewMarket and Social Research + Evaluation + Consultation. ... There are no significant differences between men and