Mobile Homes Act 1983 - pitch fee uprating: consultation analysis

5) Approach to Analysis

The consultation involved a questionnaire with six questions, of which three had free-text components as well as a closed component, and three were free-text questions. The consultation responses were analysed by the Scottish Government. The majority of the analysis was undertaken using the summary report and analysis tools provided in Citizen Space. Citizen Space provided an overview of information on respondents and a numerical breakdown of the answers to questions with a closed component.

Responses were moderated to remove language that was inappropriate prior to publication. Any personal information that might identify the respondent or that was not material to their response was redacted. This included, for example, information about which site they live on or details of medical conditions.

Responses were sorted by respondent and email address and the content reviewed. This identified that there were 8 duplicate responses which were deleted from Citizen Space and a record kept of the reasons why each was removed. This review process also identified that some respondents who were residents had not responded to the question to indicate that they were. Since their responses made it clear that they were residents, they were classified as residents for the purposes of the analysis.

Qualitative responses were reviewed by the policy team and for each question common themes were identified. The responses were then tagged in Citizen Space with the relevant theme or themes to determine the proportion of respondents who gave that view. Where a detailed breakdown was not available directly on Citizen Space, responses were downloaded and analysed using Microsoft Excel. Cross-tabulations were produced to break down responses by respondent category (e.g. by individuals, organisations and by organisation sector). These tables were used to identify any differences or patterns in opinion between different groups.

Patterns were identified in responses to some questions from individuals. A degree of consistency was identified among a small number of responses and it is possible that they were informed by a small scale campaign. Although such consistency may also arise from similar views and discussions between residents, potentially those living on the same site or linked by a residents’ association. These responses have therefore been treated as separate individual responses.

Throughout the analysis, terms have been used to indicate the prevalence of certain viewpoints or suggestions. The following provides definitions of the approximate proportions referred to when these terms are used:

• all – 100%
• many – More than half
• the majority – over four-fifths
• a minority – less than one fifth
• some – one fifth to a half
• a few – up to 5

Figures in response tables have been rounded to the nearest 1% and may not sum to 100% as a result. As with any public consultation exercise, it should be noted that respondents usually have a particular interest in the subject area. The self-selecting nature of the respondents therefore means that the views expressed in the following summary cannot necessarily be seen as representative of wider public opinion.