An intersting survey from The Property Council of Australia:
https://www.propertyoz.com.au/Advocacy/Policy.aspx?p=69&id=68
Are they serious???
https://www.propertyoz.com.au/Advocacy/Policy.aspx?p=69&id=68
Are they serious???
Assessing the liveability of Australia's cities in 2013 - Recent Survey
- Thread starter womble66
- Start date
It did not surprise me about the low ranking of Sydney and the high ranking of Canberra. For their respective purposes it's easy to see which is achieving it more than the other. Sydney IMO went through a lost 'decade' with leaders not facing up to the problems of liveability but instead mourning that it has too many people who are causing the 'problem'.
An intersting survey from The Property Council of Australia:
https://www.propertyoz.com.au/Advocacy/Policy.aspx?p=69&id=68
Are they serious???
Having the opportunity/obligation to travel the country pretty well constantly, the ranking broadly accords with the "whinge level" I experience from inhabitants of the respective cities.
My only observation would be that, based on my personal experience, Sydney is rated one spot too high.
Go Adelaide?
I think TF has the idea with the whinge level respective to cities.
I think TF has the idea with the whinge level respective to cities.
Each liveability attribute queried in order of importance to the respondents was as follows. They seem like reasonable questions to me.
It is a safe place for people and their property
It is an affordable place to have a good standard of living
There are good healthcare services
There are good employment and economic opportunities
The city is clean, well maintained and unpolluted
There are good schools and other educational facilities
There is a good public transport service
There is a good range of quality affordable housing
There is a good road network and minimal traffic congestion
There is a wide range of recreational outdoor environments
The climate is good
There is a vibrant cultural entertainment scene
The natural environment is attractive
There is a diverse range of people who get along well
There are good approaches to environmental sustainability
The look and design of the city is attractive
There is a good balance of different housing types
It is a safe place for people and their property
It is an affordable place to have a good standard of living
There are good healthcare services
There are good employment and economic opportunities
The city is clean, well maintained and unpolluted
There are good schools and other educational facilities
There is a good public transport service
There is a good range of quality affordable housing
There is a good road network and minimal traffic congestion
There is a wide range of recreational outdoor environments
The climate is good
There is a vibrant cultural entertainment scene
The natural environment is attractive
There is a diverse range of people who get along well
There are good approaches to environmental sustainability
The look and design of the city is attractive
There is a good balance of different housing types
This is a highly unscientific piece of research and as such has zero credibility. It is the kind of thing which will be reported on ACA or TT.
It means nothing.
How do you scientifically measure such an attribute?
And sure it's scientific, social sciences right there.
People's perception largely dictate what IS 'liveability'.Today I walked into some labourers complaining about their pay. They then turned their attention to me.
Their pay is well past $2,500 per week for the last couple of months and about $2000 on average. The average WORKING person in the city I live in is possibly on $45k or less. (Not a mining town).
I asked them one simple question: “have any of you ever been overseas?”
In my personal experience, people who have had the opportunity to travel understand how truly lucky they are to live in Australia. Sure we pay a lot of tax, how does one expect to maintain the infrastructure and care benefits without it?
Though I do agree, the Sydney government has handled population growth poorly.
Their pay is well past $2,500 per week for the last couple of months and about $2000 on average. The average WORKING person in the city I live in is possibly on $45k or less. (Not a mining town).
I asked them one simple question: “have any of you ever been overseas?”
In my personal experience, people who have had the opportunity to travel understand how truly lucky they are to live in Australia. Sure we pay a lot of tax, how does one expect to maintain the infrastructure and care benefits without it?
Though I do agree, the Sydney government has handled population growth poorly.
You think its unscientific to rank cities on how liveable they are by asking people who live in the city how liveable it is and then ranking their responses?
You think its unscientific to rank cities on how liveable they are by asking people who live in the city how liveable it is and then ranking their responses?
Wheres the beakers, bunson burners and big sciencey calculations? Can't be science.
You think its unscientific to rank cities on how liveable they are by asking people who live in the city how liveable it is and then ranking their responses?
Pseudo science is not science. It is merely anecdotal which has such selection bias. If you ask a Melbournian where they want to live, what else are they going to say? If they didn't like Melbourne why are they living there? Hardly scientific.
Misuse of terms make social scientists cry.
The survey asked people to rate their satisfaction with their city across serious measures. These scores were aggregated and ranked.
It simply represents, in relative terms, how liveable people think their cities are. You could, if you had the data, argue questions of sample size or composition but disputing the validity of a survey that measures what people think about a thing on the basis that what people think is "anecdotal" is nonsense.
And, it goes without saying that lots of people live in places they don't like.
Most of Sydney, for example.
Hobart rating above Sydney, or Brisbane?
It's bloody cold, and colder, and wet. Gets warm for about a week every Feb I think..
Hell; Melb has an 8 month winter, and we're further north than Hobart.
One of the many factors taken into consideration..
Hobart's natural environment sticks it to both Brissie and Sydney big time IMHO.
It looks like there is little margin between the "leaders".
Check out the scores here
But as for the weather in Tassie, just wait a couple of lifetimes and it will be a tropical paradise if the globe warms.
Poor Sample Size Methodology
Great Research Method (not)....from Page 8 of the full report......
Methodology - survey approach
The research results are based on a quantitative on-line survey of 5842 Australians who live in the 11 major cities. These respondents were drawn from a professional social and research panel with participants paid a small incentive for their participation.
The survey was conducted between November 30th and December 24th 2012. Results are also compared with the results from the 2010 study which was conducted in October 2010, and the 2011 study conducted in December 2011.
The sample sizes for each city are outlined below. Results were also weighted to be representative of the age and gender distribution of each cities population as defined in the 2006 census.
Note: All figures in this report have been rounded and accordingly may not total 100%.
8
City
# in sample
Sydney
603
Brisbane
601
Melbourne
602
Perth
603
Adelaide
602
Hobart
600
Darwin (*)
128
Canberra
605
Newcastle
529
Wollongong
597
Geelong
372
Total respondents
5842*The results from Darwin are less reliable than the other cities on account of the relatively small sample size
Apologies for the non-tabulated format; that's how it pasted from the copied table from Page eight. Whilst they claim to have weighted age/gender distribution by census, most cities had a circa 600 person smaple size. Using 600 people from Adelaide is hardly going to give the same reliability or validity (by weighting) as using the same number from Sydney nearly five times Adelaide's population or Melbourne at nearly four times. These are only two examples.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with opinion surveys, there needs to be a weighting given to sample size to reflect the actual % age of population size that sample is used to extrapolate from. As soon as I saw this page, I read no further.
Great Research Method (not)....from Page 8 of the full report......
Methodology - survey approach
The research results are based on a quantitative on-line survey of 5842 Australians who live in the 11 major cities. These respondents were drawn from a professional social and research panel with participants paid a small incentive for their participation.
The survey was conducted between November 30th and December 24th 2012. Results are also compared with the results from the 2010 study which was conducted in October 2010, and the 2011 study conducted in December 2011.
The sample sizes for each city are outlined below. Results were also weighted to be representative of the age and gender distribution of each cities population as defined in the 2006 census.
Note: All figures in this report have been rounded and accordingly may not total 100%.
8
City
# in sample
Sydney
603
Brisbane
601
Melbourne
602
Perth
603
Adelaide
602
Hobart
600
Darwin (*)
128
Canberra
605
Newcastle
529
Wollongong
597
Geelong
372
Total respondents
5842*The results from Darwin are less reliable than the other cities on account of the relatively small sample size
Apologies for the non-tabulated format; that's how it pasted from the copied table from Page eight. Whilst they claim to have weighted age/gender distribution by census, most cities had a circa 600 person smaple size. Using 600 people from Adelaide is hardly going to give the same reliability or validity (by weighting) as using the same number from Sydney nearly five times Adelaide's population or Melbourne at nearly four times. These are only two examples.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with opinion surveys, there needs to be a weighting given to sample size to reflect the actual % age of population size that sample is used to extrapolate from. As soon as I saw this page, I read no further.
Never been to Hobart but it looks real pretty. If it were a swimsuit competition, I'd give it to Hobart.
Melbourne looks like Canada coughed up a furball.
LOL!
Fair-go; Melbourne is terrific....everything is here - except the Harbour Bridge.
Hobart is very spectacular, and not overcrowded. If it wasn't for the weather; I could live there.
All the Poms love it; reminds them of "home" - it certainly does look like England.
Great Research Method (not)....from Page 8 of the full report......
Methodology - survey approach
The research results are based on a quantitative on-line survey of 5842 Australians who live in the 11 major cities. These respondents were drawn from a professional social and research panel with participants paid a small incentive for their participation.
The survey was conducted between November 30th and December 24th 2012. Results are also compared with the results from the 2010 study which was conducted in October 2010, and the 2011 study conducted in December 2011.
The sample sizes for each city are outlined below. Results were also weighted to be representative of the age and gender distribution of each cities population as defined in the 2006 census.
Note: All figures in this report have been rounded and accordingly may not total 100%.
8
City
# in sample
Sydney
603
Brisbane
601
Melbourne
602
Perth
603
Adelaide
602
Hobart
600
Darwin (*)
128
Canberra
605
Newcastle
529
Wollongong
597
Geelong
372
Total respondents
5842*The results from Darwin are less reliable than the other cities on account of the relatively small sample size
Apologies for the non-tabulated format; that's how it pasted from the copied table from Page eight. Whilst they claim to have weighted age/gender distribution by census, most cities had a circa 600 person smaple size. Using 600 people from Adelaide is hardly going to give the same reliability or validity (by weighting) as using the same number from Sydney nearly five times Adelaide's population or Melbourne at nearly four times. These are only two examples.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with opinion surveys, there needs to be a weighting given to sample size to reflect the actual % age of population size that sample is used to extrapolate from. As soon as I saw this page, I read no further.
Actually, 600 is plenty big enough and works just as well for a population of .5M as it does for a popultion of 4M. The relationship between confidence interval and sample size is not linear.
Similar threads
