Winton Sustainable Research Strategies Pty Ltd / Sydney : 202A Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067
Canberra: 32 Fihelly Street Fadden ACT 2904
Internet: www.wintonsrs.com.au Email:
Phone: (Mobile): 0414 504 832
Market and Social Research + Evaluation + Consultation
Advising Government and Community Sectors since 1981
Results to a Series of Questions on
Public Housing Issues
Conducted for the
Public Housing Renewal Taskforce
ACT Government
On the September 2015
CRSMS Omnibus Survey
Interviews conducted
19 to 28 September 2015
Final Report
7 October 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. The Research Approach 2
3. Summary of the Main Survey Findings 3
Summary Tables: 5
4. Detailed Tabular Results 8
5. Survey Questions 16
1. Introduction
The Public Housing Renewal Taskforce has been established to deliver the public housing renewal program. The public housing renewal program is intended to improve outcomes for public housing tenants in the ACT and support the renewal of Canberra’s urban areas.
In July 2014 the ACT Government committed to replace 1,288 public housing dwellings along the Northbourne Avenue corridor and in other key locations around Canberra, including sites in Inner South (Griffith, Narrabundah and Red Hill).
Extensive public consultation has taken place, closing on Monday 17th August 2015 except for Red Hill which has been extended until the end of August.
Consultation has so far indicated strong support for the demolition and replacement of these older (1960s) housing commission estates, although it also shows some debate about what should replace them.
The current study was commissioned to provide an objective, representative measurement of community views in Inner South and to compare these views with those in the rest of Canberra.
2. The Research Approach
The Canberra and Region Social and Market Survey (CRSMS) is a regular survey tailored cost-effectively to meet the needs of a range of government, academic, not-for-profit and business clients. It is usually run monthly throughout the year.
Each wave involves telephone interviews with a fresh, reliable sample of 1,000 people, representative of the 18+ years Canberra community. Weights are applied at the analysis to align the sample on key demographics. Questions are analysed by relevant socio-demographics and by region and compiled into a succinct tabular report.
On this occasion, as the Inner South component of the CRSMS sample is relatively small (75 out of 1,000), it was over-sampled with an additional 400 interviews. At the analysis stage the Inner South subsample was weighted back to 75 so that the total results represented population proportions. However, as it is actually based on 475 interviews (75 in the main sample plus an additional 400) it attracts a much lower sampling tolerance of around ±4½%. In other words, if the results show that 55.0% of people in Inner South answer ‘yes’ to a question, the ‘true’ result (ie, the result if the whole population had been interviewed) would be somewhere between 50.5% and 59.5% at the 95% confidence level – see below for explanation.
A Note on Sampling Tolerances:
Regarding sample size, whenever a survey is based on a sample of the population, the results can vary from those that would have been obtained had everyone been included in the survey, as indicated in the table below.
Whenever a random sample is drawn to be representative of a given population of ‘infinite’ size, sampling tolerances (‘s’) can be calculated using the formula s = ±2 x Ö (p{100-p}/n), where ‘p’ is the level of response (eg, 68%), and ‘n’ is the sample or sub-sample size upon which it is based. The following table provides sampling tolerances that can be applied in interpreting the results of surveys of this nature:
Table 1.1 – Sampling tolerances
Sampling Tolerances for Sample SurveysSize of Sample or Sub-Sample / Sampling tolerance (plus or minus) for various response levels at the 95% confidence level – ‘infinite’ universe, where the proportion answering one way (eg, “yes”) approaches:
n / 10% or 90% / 20% or 80% / 30% or 70% / 40% or 60% / 50%
75 / ±6.8% / ±9.1% / ±10.4% / ±11.1% / ±11.3%
100 / ±5.9% / ±7.8% / ±9.0% / ±9.6% / ±9.8%
200 / ±4.2% / ±5.5% / ±6.4% / ±6.8% / ±6.9%
300 / ±3.4% / ±4.5% / ±5.2% / ±5.5% / ±5.7%
400 / ±2.9% / ±3.9% / ±4.5% / ±4.8% / ±4.9%
500 / ±2.6% / ±3.5% / ±4.0% / ±4.3% / ±4.4%
600 / ±2.4% / ±3.2% / ±3.7% / ±3.9% / ±4.0%
700 / ±2.2% / ±3.0% / ±3.4% / ±3.6% / ±3.7%
800 / ±2.1% / ±2.8% / ±3.2% / ±3.4% / ±3.5%
900 / ±2.0% / ±2.6% / ±3.0% / ±3.2% / ±3.3%
1,000 / ±1.9% / ±2.5% / ±2.8% / ±3.0% / ±3.1%
1,200 / ±1.7% / ±2.3% / ±2.6% / ±2.8% / ±2.8%
3. Summary of the Main Survey Findings
The main findings emerging from the study are as follows:
1. Close to three in five Canberrans (57.7%) are aware of the consultation process that the ACT government has been undertaking over the past year or so with the community concerning redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates throughout Canberra, with 40.3% not aware and 2.0% unsure. [Tables 4.2a-4.2c]
a. Slightly more Inner South residents (61.1%) are aware of the consultation process than other Canberrans (57.4%), although the difference is not statistically significant. [Table 3.1]
2. Around two in three Canberrans (66.7%) say that these older public housing estates should be redeveloped, with 5.9% disagreeing and 27.4% unsure. [Tables 4.3a-4.3c]
a. There is little difference in support between Inner South and the rest of Canberra on this issue, around two-thirds of both groups being in agreement. [Table 3.1]
b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who agree with redevelopment range from as low as 57.5% in Gungahlin to 72.8% in Tuggeranong. [Table 3.2]
c. There are no significant differences between men and women or across age groups on this question. [Table 3.3]
3. Around three in five Canberrans (60.7%) agree with allowing some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space, with 21.1% disagreeing and 18.2% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.4a-4.4c]
a. Although still in the majority, significantly fewer Inner South dwellers support this proposition (50.7% agree, 35.4% disagree, with 13.9% ambivalent or unsure) compared to the rest of Canberra (61.5% agree, 19.9% disagree, with 18.6% ambivalent or unsure). [Tables 3.1 and 4.3a]
b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who agree with allowing some increase in height and density range from as low as 50.7% in Inner South to 70.0% in Gungahlin. [Table 3.2]
c. Men are somewhat more likely to agree with this proposition than women (65.4% vs 56.4%), as are younger people compared to older people (65.3% among 18-39 years versus 54.9% among 65+ years). [Table 3.3]
4. More than seven in ten Canberrans (72.9%) are in favour of urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links, with 13.7% not in favour and 10.4% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.5a-4.5c]
a. There is little difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (69.7% and 73.1% respectively). [Table 3.1]
b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 52.5% in Gungahlin to 85.2% in Tuggeranong. [Table 3.2]
c. Although there is little difference between men and women (74.9% vs 70.9%), significantly more younger and middle-aged people are in favour than are older people (82.1%, 76.7% and 58.7% respectively). [Table 3.3]
5. Nearly three in four Canberrans (73.6%) are in favour of offering a wider range of housing choices, which could include townhouses and apartments, in existing suburbs, with 18.0% not in favour and 8.3% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.6a-4.6c]
a. There is a small but insignificant difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (69.0% and 74.0% in favour respectively). [Table 3.1]
b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 65.8% in Belconnen to 83.8% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]
c. Marginally more men (78.3% of men versus 69.4% of women) are in favour of a wider range of housing choices, as are the younger and middle-aged (76.9% and 76.8%) versus older Canberrans (66.8% among 65+ years). [Table 3.3]
6. Over seven in ten Canberrans (72.5%) are in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in their suburb, with 16.2% not in favour and 11.4% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.7a-4.7c]
a. Slightly more Inner South dwellers are in favour than are those in the rest of Canberra (77.3% versus 72.1%) [Table 3.1]
b. Although always in the majority, the proportions who are in favour range from as low as 59.1% in Belconnen to 83.8% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]
c. Marginally more women (75.7% of women versus 69.2% of men) are in favour of the continued inclusion of public housing in their suburb, as are the middle-aged (78.9%) versus younger (67.0%) and older Canberrans (70.9%). [Table 3.3]
7. Well over four in five Canberrans (84.4%) agree that public housing should be provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates, with 9.3% disagreeing and 6.3% ambivalent or unsure. [Tables 4.8a-4.8c]
a. There is little difference between Inner South dwellers and the rest of Canberra on this issue (81.5% and 84.7% agree respectively) [Table 3.1]
b. Although always substantially in the majority, the proportions who agree range from as low as 74.7% in Woden-Weston to 96.3% in Inner North. [Table 3.2]
c. Smaller public housing developments rather than large estates by significantly more women than men (74.7% versus 93.4%), and by middle and older age groups (90.2% and 91.8%) versus younger people (71.2%). [Table 3.3]
Summary Tables:
Table 3.1: Inner South versus the rest of Canberra
Proportion responding positively and negatively to: / Total% / Inner South
% / The Rest of Canberra
%
Q1. Aware of community consultation over the past year or so concerning redevelopment of older public housing estates throughout Canberra? / 57.7 / 61.1 / 57.4
40.3 / 37.3 / 40.5
Q2. The redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates? / 66.7 / 66.7 / 66.7
5.9 / 14.9 / 5.2
Q3. Some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? / 60.7 / 50.7 / 61.5
21.1 / 35.4 / 19.9
Q4. Urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? / 72.9 / 69.7 / 73.1
13.7 / 16.2 / 13.6
Q5. A wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? / 73.6 / 69.0 / 74.9
18.0 / 19.1 / 17.9
Q6. The continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? / 72.5 / 77.3 / 72.1
16.2 / 17.9 / 16.0
Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? / 84.4 / 81.5 / 84.7
9.3 / 8.8 / 9.3
Chart 3.1: Proportions offering positive responses – Inner South versus the Rest of Canberra
Table 3.2: Findings by Area
% / Area
Inner South
% / Inner North
% / Gung-ahlin
% / Belco-nnen
% / Woden-Weston
% / Tugger-anong
%
Q2. The redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates? / 66.7 / 66.7 / 66.9 / 57.5 / 62.6 / 70.4 / 72.8
5.9 / 14.9 / 12.5 / 1.7 / 5.8 / 3.7 / 3.2
Q3. Some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? / 60.7 / 50.7 / 63.9 / 70.0 / 61.1 / 50.4 / 64.4
21.1 / 35.4 / 14.0 / 19.2 / 19.8 / 24.7 / 20.4
Q4. Urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? / 72.9 / 69.7 / 77.2 / 52.5 / 68.5 / 73.4 / 85.2
13.7 / 16.2 / 9.6 / 20.8 / 17.9 / 17.9 / 4.8
Q5. A wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? / 73.6 / 69.0 / 83.8 / 75.8 / 65.8 / 67.9 / 80.4
18.0 / 19.1 / 9.5 / 22.5 / 22.6 / 22.9 / 12.4
Q6. The continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? / 72.5 / 77.3 / 83.8 / 59.1 / 68.8 / 64.8 / 80.0
16.2 / 17.9 / 6.6 / 17.5 / 17.9 / 27.2 / 11.2
Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? / 84.4 / 81.5 / 96.3 / 86.6 / 84.0 / 74.7 / 84.4
9.3 / 8.8 / 0.0 / 2.5 / 9.0 / 20.4 / 10.8
Table 3.3: Findings by Gender and Age
Proportion responding positively and negatively to: / Total% / Gender / Age
Men
% / Women
% / 18-39yrs
% / 40-64yrs
% / 65+yrs
%
Q2. The redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates? / 66.7 / 70.3 / 63.4 / 66.5 / 65.2 / 68.6
5.9 / 7.4 / 4.5 / 1.4 / 5.2 / 11.5
Q3. Some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? / 60.7 / 65.4 / 56.4 / 65.3 / 61.6 / 54.9
21.1 / 18.9 / 23.1 / 13.3 / 25.0 / 24.7
Q4. Urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? / 72.9 / 74.9 / 70.9 / 82.1 / 76.7 / 58.7
13.7 / 10.2 / 17.1 / 6.2 / 12.7 / 22.9
Q5. A wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? / 73.6 / 78.3 / 69.4 / 76.9 / 76.8 / 66.8
18.0 / 11.3 / 24.3 / 16.2 / 18.0 / 20.0
Q6. The continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? / 72.5 / 69.2 / 75.7 / 67.0 / 78.9 / 70.9
16.2 / 15.5 / 16.7 / 16.5 / 12.9 / 19.5
Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? / 84.4 / 74.7 / 93.4 / 71.2 / 90.2 / 91.8
9.3 / 16.5 / 2.5 / 22.3 / 1.5 / 4.4
Table 3.4: Findings by Aware of Consultation and Tenure
Proportion responding positively and negatively to: / Total% / Aware consultation / Tenure
Yes
% / No/dk
% / Own outright
% / Paying off
% / In private rental
%* / In public housing
%* / Other
%
Q2. The redevelopment of many of the older (1960s) public housing estates? / 66.7 / 73.0 / 58.1 / 68.4 / 72.3 / 64.9 / 79.0 / 51.5
5.9 / 6.6 / 5.0 / 8.4 / 2.9 / 6.5 / 9.5 / 2.9
Q3. Some increase in height and density to support high quality design and open space? / 60.7 / 59.5 / 62.3 / 58.3 / 76.3 / 53.0 / 60.1 / 60.4
21.1 / 23.1 / 18.3 / 25.5 / 10.0 / 19.4 / 29.7 / 17.7
Q4. Urban renewal in locations that are close to schools, shops and transport links? / 72.9 / 77.5 / 66.4 / 70.6 / 75.3 / 72.4 / 67.6 / 76.3
13.7 / 12.4 / 15.5 / 16.4 / 9.9 / 6.5 / 19.7 / 13.2
Q5. A wider range of housing choices in existing suburbs? / 73.6 / 77.9 / 68.0 / 74.8 / 76.1 / 87.0 / 34.9 / 73.3
18.0 / 15.4 / 21.6 / 16.8 / 18.4 / 1.0 / 65.1 / 13.6
Q6. The continued inclusion of public housing in your suburb? / 72.5 / 71.6 / 73.7 / 71.0 / 77.9 / 93.5 / 91.8 / 55.7
16.2 / 15.8 / 16.5 / 17.5 / 19.2 / 1.0 / 8.2 / 15.7
Q7. Public housing (being) provided in smaller developments rather than in large public housing estates? / 84.4 / 88.5 / 78.8 / 91.8 / 90.5 / 78.9 / 63.9 / 64.4
9.3 / 4.7 / 15.5 / 3.2 / 6.1 / 6.5 / 34.7 / 23.1
* Caution: small base sizes, n = 81 and 86 respectively.