A
Anonymous
Guest
> ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 13 March 2006
>
> BAA SLAMMED FOR SURVEY BIAS - AGAIN
>
> The BAA survey issued as part of its second Stansted runway consultation has
> come in for widespread criticism over bias.
>
> Local residents and parish councils responding on behalf of their
> communities have slammed the questionnaire for providing inadequate
> information on the impact of a second runway and for giving the misleading
> impression that a second runway is a foregone conclusion. The absence of a
> 'No Runway' option in a question about BAA's preferred site for a second
> runway is a major cause of anger over what has been widely regarded as a
> flawed piece of research that falls below the standard necessary for an
> effective consultation.
>
> This is the second time in less than two years that a BAA survey has been
> condemned for being biased. A MORI poll in 2004 on compensation proposals
> caused such a furore (see http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/press141.html) over
> the structure of the questionnaire and the use of leading questions that
> formal complaints were made to MORI and the Market Research Society's
> professional standards department. The results were never published.
>
> Typical of comments on the survey is the criticism by Little Hadham Parish
> Council's chairman, Tony Skidmore, who said the council chose not to
> complete the questionnaire because it was biased. However, in a letter to
> Terry Morgan, Mr Skidmore commented on missing information: "You ask
> respondents to rank various environmental impacts ranging from ground noise
> to housing provision yet, extraordinarily, omit climate change and global
> warming."
>
> The Parish Council thought so-called 'benefits' listed in the questionnaire
> were highly questionable including job creation, particularly at the airport
> where budget airlines were trying to cut staff, and tourism, where low cost
> flights were contributing to the UK's rising tourism deficit.
>
> The current questionnaire was distributed with BAA's consultation document
> on the second runway plans and to those attending its mobile exhibition,
> with a website version available online.
>
> An audit by Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) of comments on the survey from
> residents and councils highlight a series of criticisms, notably:
>
> * Lack of vital information on matters such as the likely impact of a second
> runway on the environment, health, noise, future flight paths and
> transport - information that would materially influence people's opinions
>
> * The presumption that there would be a second runway somewhere, and the
> absence of a 'No Runway' option in BAA's question on preferred location.
> The printed questionnaire even lacks an opening statement that puts the
> questions in context
>
> * No explanation that Government support for an additional runway is
> conditional on BAA satisfying stringent criteria on environmental impact,
> health and surface access, and gaining planning approval
>
> * Questions that are confusing, complex in relation to information provided
> or apparently designed to provide a positive outcome - raising further
> concerns over the soundness of the survey
>
> Criticism of the survey follows SSE's formal response to BAA in which
> chairman Peter Sanders rejected all runway options as unsustainable.
>
> He said that consultation ahead of the planning application compromised the
> planning process. In a letter to Terry Morgan, BAA's managing director, he
> said: "If you are seriously asking members of the public to choose between
> them [the various options], you should at least put forward sufficient
> information to enable a meaningful choice."
>
> The failure to provide a standardised summary of some quite complex issues
> on the questionnaire itself calls into question its validity, compounded by
> an invitation to approach BAA for help in completing the questions.
> Confusing terminology is also employed: respondents are asked how often they
> 'use' the airport rather than fly from it.
>
> Some questions are so lacking in clarity that the answers are likely to be
> meaningless. Others use terms that the residents may not understand, or
> appear skewed.
>
> "It seems that the poll is more designed to convert people to BAA's
> preferred runway option than to gain an objective picture of what people
> really think," said SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone. "Such a
> questionnaire might suffice for a simple product launch but it is scandalous
> for such spin to be put on a complex and sensitive issue. We have grave
> doubts about the value of any analysis which follows from its results."
>
> Stop Stansted Expansion is urging all members of the public concerned about
> BAA's proposals to nevertheless make their opposition clear to the airport
> developer by 24 March, either by letter or by using Uttlesford District
> Council's special response postcard from the latest issue of Uttlesford
> Life. SSE's own letter and appendix in response to the BAA consultation
> and a selection of responses from local councils can be found on SSE's
> website at: http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/baa_consultation2.html.
>
> ENDS
>
> Further information is available from:
>
> The Campaign Office
> info@stopstanstedexpansion.com
> http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com
> T 01279 870558
>
> "Our Community - Our Responsibility
>
>
>
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com
>
> BAA SLAMMED FOR SURVEY BIAS - AGAIN
>
> The BAA survey issued as part of its second Stansted runway consultation has
> come in for widespread criticism over bias.
>
> Local residents and parish councils responding on behalf of their
> communities have slammed the questionnaire for providing inadequate
> information on the impact of a second runway and for giving the misleading
> impression that a second runway is a foregone conclusion. The absence of a
> 'No Runway' option in a question about BAA's preferred site for a second
> runway is a major cause of anger over what has been widely regarded as a
> flawed piece of research that falls below the standard necessary for an
> effective consultation.
>
> This is the second time in less than two years that a BAA survey has been
> condemned for being biased. A MORI poll in 2004 on compensation proposals
> caused such a furore (see http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/press141.html) over
> the structure of the questionnaire and the use of leading questions that
> formal complaints were made to MORI and the Market Research Society's
> professional standards department. The results were never published.
>
> Typical of comments on the survey is the criticism by Little Hadham Parish
> Council's chairman, Tony Skidmore, who said the council chose not to
> complete the questionnaire because it was biased. However, in a letter to
> Terry Morgan, Mr Skidmore commented on missing information: "You ask
> respondents to rank various environmental impacts ranging from ground noise
> to housing provision yet, extraordinarily, omit climate change and global
> warming."
>
> The Parish Council thought so-called 'benefits' listed in the questionnaire
> were highly questionable including job creation, particularly at the airport
> where budget airlines were trying to cut staff, and tourism, where low cost
> flights were contributing to the UK's rising tourism deficit.
>
> The current questionnaire was distributed with BAA's consultation document
> on the second runway plans and to those attending its mobile exhibition,
> with a website version available online.
>
> An audit by Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) of comments on the survey from
> residents and councils highlight a series of criticisms, notably:
>
> * Lack of vital information on matters such as the likely impact of a second
> runway on the environment, health, noise, future flight paths and
> transport - information that would materially influence people's opinions
>
> * The presumption that there would be a second runway somewhere, and the
> absence of a 'No Runway' option in BAA's question on preferred location.
> The printed questionnaire even lacks an opening statement that puts the
> questions in context
>
> * No explanation that Government support for an additional runway is
> conditional on BAA satisfying stringent criteria on environmental impact,
> health and surface access, and gaining planning approval
>
> * Questions that are confusing, complex in relation to information provided
> or apparently designed to provide a positive outcome - raising further
> concerns over the soundness of the survey
>
> Criticism of the survey follows SSE's formal response to BAA in which
> chairman Peter Sanders rejected all runway options as unsustainable.
>
> He said that consultation ahead of the planning application compromised the
> planning process. In a letter to Terry Morgan, BAA's managing director, he
> said: "If you are seriously asking members of the public to choose between
> them [the various options], you should at least put forward sufficient
> information to enable a meaningful choice."
>
> The failure to provide a standardised summary of some quite complex issues
> on the questionnaire itself calls into question its validity, compounded by
> an invitation to approach BAA for help in completing the questions.
> Confusing terminology is also employed: respondents are asked how often they
> 'use' the airport rather than fly from it.
>
> Some questions are so lacking in clarity that the answers are likely to be
> meaningless. Others use terms that the residents may not understand, or
> appear skewed.
>
> "It seems that the poll is more designed to convert people to BAA's
> preferred runway option than to gain an objective picture of what people
> really think," said SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone. "Such a
> questionnaire might suffice for a simple product launch but it is scandalous
> for such spin to be put on a complex and sensitive issue. We have grave
> doubts about the value of any analysis which follows from its results."
>
> Stop Stansted Expansion is urging all members of the public concerned about
> BAA's proposals to nevertheless make their opposition clear to the airport
> developer by 24 March, either by letter or by using Uttlesford District
> Council's special response postcard from the latest issue of Uttlesford
> Life. SSE's own letter and appendix in response to the BAA consultation
> and a selection of responses from local councils can be found on SSE's
> website at: http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/baa_consultation2.html.
>
> ENDS
>
> Further information is available from:
>
> The Campaign Office
> info@stopstanstedexpansion.com
> http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com
> T 01279 870558
>
> "Our Community - Our Responsibility
>
>
>
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com