Skip to main content.

5.  The Research Results

5.6.  Chapters considered least useful

A diverse range of opinion was also expressed as to which chapter was considered the least useful.

Overall, 73% of respondents identified a ‘least useful’ chapter, the result being as follows:

Chapter rated ‘least useful’ (n=254) %
1. Environmental reporting 11
2. Our environment and people 9
3. Household consumption 11
4.Transport 3
5. Energy 1
6. Waste 3
7. Air 5
8. Atmosphere 7
9. Land 1
10. Freshwater 1
11. Oceans 11
12. Biodiversity 10
Don’t know/unsure 27
Total respondents 100%

The main reason for selecting any chapter as ‘least useful’ was its lack of importance or relevance to the respondent’s primary area of interest.  That is:

Reasons for choosing a particular chapter as ‘least useful’ (n=254)
% mentioning
It is not that important/relevant/useful to my work or area of interest 37
Too general/high level; just an overview with insufficient detail 5
Lacks information about specific issues that impact on the environment, e.g. population growth, poverty, farming etc. 4
Most of the information was already known; it didn’t provide much new information 4
It is less relevant to the state of the environment 3
Too technical/scientific; I’m interested in the facts, not the methodology 3
It did not explain/I did not understand the figures/relationship between e.g. household expenditure and environmental issues 2
It lacks teeth/bite – it needs to be more assertive about what is happening to the environment 2
Other reasons 8
Respondents who gave a reason 68%

Other reasons suggest that some readers would like the selected chapters to have more detail, more information and more interpretation.  However, this will need to be balanced against the needs of other readers who seek a high level, national overview of the state of the environment and the key issues/trends that impact on it.

5.7.  Rating of specific aspects of the report

The following results indicate that the vast majority of the readers are satisfied with the presentational aspects of the Environment New Zealand 2007 Report.

Rating of specific aspects  (n=254) Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very
Good		 Excellent Total
  % % % % % % %
Readability - 1 14 31 39 15 100
Clarity of information 1 6 12 34 40 7 100
Layout/presentation of information 2 3 10 29 35 21 100
Tables 1 1 10 39 38 11 100
Figures and graphs 1 1 12 31 38 17 100
Graphics and pictures 1 - 8 27 45 19 100

 

5.8.  Summary format

Respondents read the following explanatory information:

All chapters in Environment New Zealand 2007 have a chapter summary titled “At a Glance”.  There is also a separate Summary report entitled Environment New Zealand 2007 – Summary.  Would you prefer there also to be an Executive Summary for the report, and/or a ‘Summing up’ (conclusion) chapter at the end of the report?

Opinion varied as to which of four possible outcomes readers would prefer. That is:

Summary format preferred (n=254)
%
Retain current format (chapter summary and separate summary report) 37
Add an ‘Executive Summary’ only 11
Add a ‘Summing up’ (conclusion) chapter only 19
Add both an ‘Executive Summary’ plus a ‘Summing up’ (conclusion) chapter 23
Unsure/no preference 10
Total Respondents 100%

It can be noted that opinion was similarly divided across all the major sector groups that participated in the survey.

5.9.  Adequacy of data

Two-thirds of respondents stated that the data in the Environment New Zealand 2007 Report was adequate for their needs.

Was the data adequate for your requirements? (n=254) %
Yes 66
No 30
Unsure 4
Total Respondents 100

 

Opinion varied somewhat across the various sectors examined in the survey.  However, it should be noted that the base sizes for the sector analysis is small.  Therefore, the results should be taken as indicative, rather than finite.

Sector analysis (n=254) Rated the data ‘adequate’ %
Central government (16) 75
Local government (36) 75
Industry & business (33) 60
Professional associations (13) 77
CRIs (21) 62
NGOs (11) 45
Iwi/Maori (6) 50
Educational Institutions (28) 75
General public (49) 69
Sector Unspecified (41) 56

 

The 30% of respondents who considered the data inadequate were asked to explain why the data was not adequate for their requirements.  A summary of their reasons is provided below:

Reasons why the data was not adequate (n=254)%
Important data is missing/not dealt with, e.g. intensive dairy farming, dairying development, pollution and waste, commercial transport’s fuel use, water allocation, surface water quality, changing land use and industry 4
It is too general/broad/high level/a summary of summaries 3
We need (online) access to the data the report is based on 3
More in-depth data is needed in various areas, e.g. on wetlands; effects of pollution in relation to different uses such as biodiversity, fisheries, human contact; the impact of dairy industry on water quality and landscape 2
It lacks regional data; we need data specific to our region 2
It lacked a conclusion/recommendations regarding high priority areas; more interpretation of data is needed 2
A lot of the data was old/outdated 2
I am wary of/question some of the data and base assumptions 2
It needs a summary that enables readers to quickly compare key indicators/trends between periods 2
New Zealand still lacks a set of environmental indicators; it is merely a collection of existing data sets, which is insufficient 2
Other reasons 6
Respondents who gave a reason 30%

[ |