bixiou / oecd_climate Goto Github PK

We have enough budget left for 500 (or perhaps 580) more respondents with Dynata. So, if we use it for a third US pilot, we won't have the opportunity to launch other pilots in France, Denmark, India than the 200 already included.

Given that interactions may not be so significant, we could tackle the question of local vs. global climate treatment instead.
For the moment, the consensus is more on the interaction side.

@bixiou and @BPlanterose

Questions on whether questions make sense based on pilot:

Where are political views and sector of work questions?

Block 2:

• miles driven: do people respond reasonable numbers? entry boxes are difficult. I suggest we put "less than X", between "X and Y", etc.. as answer options.
• same comment on flights taken.
• "home-work" is not clear. Use "commute to work or place of study"
• "Leisure" is also not clear. Recreational and leisure activities (excluding holiday travel).
• Q2.9 has "that" twice. Switch that question to be horizontal, wherever possible, with least favorable on the left; most favorable to the right
• "strongly disagree to strongly agree" is the way to go, rather than :"fully"
• Wherever it is NOT a knowledge question do NOT have the "don't know" option. Like do you feel there is sufficient transporation, there is not need ot have dont know.

Block 3:

• question Q3.7 is too vague in my view. What were the answer patterns? Informative at all? I think we need a much simpler question about how pressing of an issue climate change is relative to other issues, and they indicate on a slide from 1 to 10 from "not serious and not urgent at all" to "extremely serious and urgent". If we already have that question (going in order right now..) then we can take this one out altogether.

Block 4, 5, and 6: We never discussed this: were there any interesting things here? Please take out block 4.

I will wait for confirmation that I am looking at most up to date file before I continue.

Vu les réponses des gens, on a trop de questions ou on leur donne des options tres longues et complexes a lire. Au lieu de ca, on doit avoir une question concrete (quitte un peu longue), mais ensuite des options de réponse tres simples, du genre “d’accord/pas d’accord”, des échelles de 1 a 10 d’intensité, etc.. Actuellement, les optons sont très longues a lire et ne sont pas exhaustives et exclusives. Ca va être difficilement utilisable tel quel.

Je vous donne un exemple. Une question du genre: “Do you think humanity can stop emitting greenhouse gases and halt climate change?

o The evolution of the climate is beyond our control, it is an illusion to think humanity can harness it (1)

o We could technically stop emissions, but this would cause more harm than climate change itself, so we’d better adapt to climate change than try to stop it (2)

o We could and we should stop emissions, but unfortunately this is not the way we are taking (3)

o We could stop emissions, and we will eventually succeed in doing so within the next century, thanks to awareness raising and stringent public policies (4)

o We do not have to worry too much about climate change nor enact stringent public policies, because new technologies or habits will suffice to prevent disastrous climate change (5)

o Don't know, don't say (6)

Est ingérable pour les gens. Ca mixe policy action, technology, fairness issues belief in climate change.. on peut meme pas “coder” cette question pour l’utiliser comme outcome, car chaque option de réponse est un theme a part.

Au contraire, il faudrait “to what extent do you think that humankind has the means to stop greenhouse gas emissions and halt climate change” from 1 to 10 where 1 is “not at all” to 10 “has all the means necessary.” Ou quelque chose de ce type.
Donc ce sera ici une question sur la FEASIBILITY.

Si on veut une question sur technologies ou habits, faut poser une autre question simple la dessus..

We have merged the Data Protection Notice that OECD requires with the Data Protection Information from the previous pilot that contains the contact details to Harvard University. This Notice is now approved by the OECD Data Protection Officer and should replace the current 'Welcome' page of the survey (document uploaded below).

We are probably dropping the rural/urban quota as it is not significantly correlated with our variables of interest and it would be hard to reproduce in other countries.
Should we include other quotas instead, e.g. vote, education or ethnicity? We don't include any of these for the moment, and it seems that highly educated and voters (and to a lesser extent, Biden voters) are over-represented, and Hispanic under-represented.

• what precisely are you willing to change in lifestyle? / Ask question more gradually
• specify who is "everyone" in "if everyone did the same"
• be more specific on support of carbon tax conditional on revenue use (specify the amounts)
• reword the question on equal permit for each human
• have a control group bigger than the other groups

French voices are OK but not tremendous:

• should we ask the voice talent to re-record?
• should we use them as is?
• should we hire a new one?
  Personally, I'd vote against hiring a new one, as current ones are already OK. Both first options are fine for me.
  Related question: do we hire Marco right now to make the French climate video?

Following up to the email regarding the data protection rules and deleting IDs. Thanks for deleting the ID column!

We need to provide an explanation to the OECD's Data Protection Officer how we will deal with IDs in the full survey. He is concerned that through data breaches with Dynata/OECD/personal servers IDs could be recovered. Hence, we need to provide some information to him.

Once we launch the survey, the responses will automatically appear in our Qualtrics account from where we then export them, correct? By default at this stage the responses have the ID number. For the pilot you deleted this column after downloading it. One option could be that the first download of the data with the IDs is done to a secure server. We then delete the ID column there and can then use the remaining data also on 'normal' servers. We then also delete the data in the Qualtrics account as soon as we have it downloaded. Would this seem like a feasible approach?

An alternative would be if there is a way that the data in Qualtrics is uploaded without the ID. This seems more difficult because Dynata needs the information for their payment. But perhaps they do not need to give us access to that ID variable. Do you know if this is feasible? I can email Dynata to ask, but wanted to check first with you in case you have a suggestion.