Combining GIS coordinates with Mail Survey Research NTTS 2013 … · Combining GIS coordinates with Mail Survey Research NTTS 2013 6 March 2013 Jeffrey Jacquet, PhD Assistant Professor

Combining GIS coordinates with Mail Survey Research

NTTS 2013

6 March 2013

Jeffrey Jacquet, PhD Assistant Professor of Sociology

South Dakota State University, USA [email protected]

Agenda for this Talk

• Introduction to GIS and Survey Research

• Energy Development and Proximity

• Methods at the Micro Level

• Results

• Challenges and Opportunities

• Discussion for future application

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

• Location data is always used to identify survey sample and analyze survey results

• Typically nominal, sometimes ordinal, while GIS offers ability to gather location-specific, interval data

• “Holy Grail” of Survey Data?

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

• Location data is always used to identify survey sample and analyze survey results

• Typically nominal, sometimes ordinal, while GIS offers ability to gather location-specific, interval data

• “Holy Grail” of Survey Data?

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

• Location data is always used to identify survey sample and analyze survey results

• Typically nominal, sometimes ordinal, while GIS offers ability to gather location-specific, interval data

• “Holy Grail” of Survey Data?

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

• However location data itself is usually not interesting or helpful.

• Location is often a proxy for other variables

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

Location Data = What it Really Means

Countries, Regions Political, Cultural

Neighborhood Income, Age, Race, Ethnicity

Town or County Political, Income, etc.

Geo-points ????

Intro. To GIS and Survey Research

• Survey Representativeness is typically

measured by demographics, not geography

Location on the Micro Scale

Ken Smith, Cornell Cooperative Extension

9

Keith Srakocic, AP

11

– …Universally Panned by Academics….

– Devine-Wright (2009:431) is it:

• a belief or an attitude?

• a behavioral response?

• a collective action?

– Wolsnik and Devilee (2009:219): used without “any adequate investigation of the motives of the opponent”

12

13

NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard)

• What is “a backyard”?

•Proximity –How far away is too far?

–How precise should measurement be?

•Place-Based –Psychological Proximity (temporal)?

–Psychological Regionality?

–Psychological Attachment?”

14

NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard)

• What is “a backyard”?

•Proximity –How far away is too far?

–How precise should measurement be?

•Place-Based –Psychological Proximity (temporal)?

–Psychological Regionality?

–Psychological Attachment?”

15

Other ways to Understand Perception

• Environmental Attitudes – Global Env. Attitudes = Local Support

– Local Env. Attitudes = Local Opposition (Groothuis, et al., 2007:1545; see also Michaud et al, 2008; van der Horst, 2007)

• Fairness of Regulation and Sitting Process (Gross, 2007; Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg, 2001; McComas et al, 2010)

• Perception of Economic Gain (Groothuis, Houtven, and Whitehead, 1998; McComas et al, 2010)

(Untested Conventional Wisdom in Wind And Gas?)

16

Other ways to Understand Perception

• Environmental Attitudes – Global Env. Attitudes = Local Support

– Local Env. Attitudes = Local Opposition (Groothuis, et al., 2007:1545; see also Michaud et al, 2008; van der Horst, 2007)

• Fairness of Regulation and Sitting Process (Gross, 2007; Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg, 2001; McComas et al, 2010)

• Perception of Economic Gain (Groothuis, Houtven, and Whitehead, 1998; McComas et al, 2010)

(Untested Conventional Wisdom in Wind And Gas?)

17

Other ways to Understand Perception

• Environmental Attitudes – Global Env. Attitudes = Local Support

– Local Env. Attitudes = Local Opposition (Groothuis, et al., 2007:1545; see also Michaud et al, 2008; van der Horst, 2007)

• Fairness of Regulation and Sitting Process (Gross, 2007; Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg, 2001; McComas et al, 2010)

• Perception of Economic Gain (Groothuis, Houtven, and Whitehead, 1998; McComas et al, 2010)

(Untested Conventional Wisdom in Wind And Gas?)

18

Research Location

19

Research Location

20

Research Location

21

Research Location

22

Research Location George Frantz, Cornell CRP

23

• Mail Survey of 1800 Landowners in Spring 2011

– 8,000 Property Tax Records

• Contain Current Mailing Address

• Detailed Land Data, size, price, year purchased, usage, structures

• Polygon of Property Outline

– 16km from Nearest Wind Turbine, focus on 3km

– Multiple Mailings

– 58% Response Rate - N = 1051

Methods

24

• Mail Survey of 1800 Landowners in Spring 2011

– 8,000 Property Tax Records

• Contain Current Mailing Address

• Detailed Land Data, size, price, year purchased, usage, structures

• Polygon of Property Outline

– 16km from Nearest Wind Turbine, focus on 3km

– Multiple Mailings

– 58% Response Rate - N = 1051

Methods

25

• Mail Survey of 1800 Landowners in Spring 2011

– 8,000 Property Tax Records

• Contain Current Mailing Address

• Detailed Land Data, size, price, year purchased, usage, structures

• Polygon of Property Outline

– 16km from Nearest Wind Turbine, focus on 3km

– Multiple Mailings

– 58% Response Rate - N = 1051

Methods

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 to 5.33km(453 Cases)

5.34 to 10.66km(362 Cases)

10.67km to 16km(151 Cases)

Distance to Nearest Wind Turbine

Would you say construction of the Wind Farm has made the area better off or worse off than it was 5 years ago?

MuchWorseorWorse

MuchBetterorBetter

Wind proximity has weak effect

r = .100** 33

Environmentalists dislike wind…

r = -.139*** 34

…and dislike gas much more….

r = -.527** 35

For lots more results, see:

• Jacquet, Jeffrey. B. (2012) "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania." Energy Policy, 50: 677-688

36

Advantages

• Richness of Data:

– Specific Geographical Measurement

– Depth of property data

– Current, Complete, population sample

• Richness of Display

• Location Data for survey design and analysis

• Data Display as a new method of analysis

37

Challenges

• Survey Anonymity

– In small scale contexts, you can’t show anyone!

• Representativeness

– Its geography, not demographics

– Multiple addresses, non-landowners omitted

• Data Availability

– Many property records are not still not geocoded

– Rural mailing addresses are not geo-accurate

– Data compatibility

38

Challenges

• Is precise location even needed or useful in survey research?

– Is this even how you measure proximity?

• Need to think creatively about mapping display, anonymity, and uses for this data

39

Any Questions?

40