Name: Meggan Bain s2854743

2056ENV Urban Analysis Studio

Part 1
1a. Briefly describe the time and date and venue / setting where you conducted the surveys
(e.g. a noisy caf in Surfers Paradise). Note the temperature, noise conditions, windiness
etc. of your surroundings as these confounding factors could influence your results.
I conducted the first set of my surveys on the Corner of Young Street and Davenport Street
which is right in the heart of Chinatown (see Location A in Figure 1). Then the other half of the
surveys I conducted just out the front of Australia Fair Shopping Centre, closest to Chinatown (see
Location B in Figure 1). At the time of data collection, Location A was warm and sunny with a mild
breeze; it was just after midday and there was an unusual amount of people passing though the
area. There was also construction work in progress, surrounding the Confucius statue and the
CoGC was handing out parking fines. At the time of data collection, Location B was a cool
afternoon with minimal breeze; it was late afternoon and there was only a relatively small amount
of people around. The streets seemed alive with cars possibly some afternoon traffic.

Figure 1 Location map for data collection in and around the Gold Coast
Chinatown. Source: Google Maps, 2015.

1b. Now reflect on the survey experience:

Describe what it was like to be involved (e.g. what worked or did not work?)
It was an interesting experience conducting survey research and was even entertaining when
observing peoples body language when. This exercise was also great experience to practise
approaching people and learning the best way to request survey participation, there were many
things I considered when I was conducting the surveys and there were multiple things that worked
and did not work.
What I believe went well for me was having the confidence to approach strangers and ask them to
participate this part of the research was one of the hardest elements for my group, but I found it
relatively easy. This meant that it might have been easier for me to get people interested in the
survey and holding a meaningful conversation before administering the document. Even though
this isnt reflective in non-response data, the fact that I have a lot of rejections is independent of
my feelings of acceptance from the respondents. There were more specific physical cues that I
used when conducting the surveys that included, certain words, tone of voice, standing location
and body position.
What worked well was choosing the right words, tone of voice, standing location and eye contact
and body position. It worked better when I did not even say the word survey; I chose to use words
like questionnaire and making sure to tell them it was short or small. Tone of voice is also
important; you have to sound inviting and friendly. Standing location was crucial, being in a spot
that was hard to avoid, for example, standing between a wall and impermeable garden edging
meant that people could not physically avoid walking past me (even if they knew what I was up to).
Finally, eye contact and body position meant I was positioning my body slightly away from oncoming pedestrians and if I wanted to survey them, I would turn in the last 7-8 steps and make
friendly eye contact.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this type of research?
McLafferty (2010) outlines that when conducting surveys, responses to the survey questions are
as just as important as the questions themselves. This means that the questions are key to
successful data collection. In terms of qualitative versus quantitative survey questions, McLafferty
(2010) argues that qualitative questions allow participants to craft their own responses,
whereas quantitative questions offer a limited set of responses (McLafferty, 2010, p.79). This
2

section will outline the advantages and disadvantages for both forms of survey design.
There is a range of strengths and weaknesses under this type of research and as the survey
administered questions that were both qualitative and quantitative, I will outline both the
advantages and disadvantages of both forms. McLafferty (2010) and Bryman (2012) identify some
of the advantages of quantitative questions include the level of guidance; they are more
straightforward to answer and can be analysed and interpreted more simply. Contrastingly, the
disadvantage to quantitative research is that such responses lack the detail, richness and
personal viewpoints that can be gained from open-ended questions (McLafferty, 2010, p.80). On
the other hand, qualitative research also contains its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
In terms of qualitative questionnaire design, McLafferty (2010, p.79) details that respondents are
not constrained in answering questions and that they can express in their own words the fullest
possible range of attitudes, preferences and emotions. In this research method, the respondents'
personal viewpoints are better represented and can be more effective when researching topics
that regard attitudes and opinions (McLafferty, 2010; Bryman, 2012). There are also
disadvantages, Bryman (2012) tells us that the questions can sometimes be difficult or confusing
to answer and can cause issues in response analysis. Case examples of survey questionnaires
working simultaneously with both qualitative and quantitative questions can showcase the
effectiveness of mixed-mode form of research.

Gilbert (1998) used a mixed-mode form of survey design when analyzing the survival strategies of
working, poor women in regards to their use of place-based social networks. Gilbert (1998) used
quantitative questions when collecting demographic and household data of the women, whereas,
the qualitative questions collected rich detail of the participants attitudes and emotions. Similarly,
Xu (2015) used this mixed-mode when conducting research of the Gold Coast Chinatown to
assess the relationship between culture-based tourism development and cultural sustainability.
Quantitative questions were used collect socio-demographic information i.e. age, occupation,
education level, income, nationality, gender, and length of residence (Xu, 2015, p.123). Whereas,
qualitative questions, were used to assess the cultural attitude of participants whilst addressing
how Chinatown could be made a more memorable experience for tourists and local residents. The
next section will discuss some of the issues I encountered when conducting the surveys in
Chinatown.
3

 Did you experience any problems in conducting or participating in the survey

exercise? If so, describe them here.
Something that did not go well for me was getting drawn into conversations and getting women to
take the survey this was, at times, frustrating, and hindered the efficiency of survey collection.
For instance, a couple of times when I approached someone and started a conversation after
they completed the survey, they wanted to continue talking. Without stereotyping, I did notice that
there was a trend in demographics older white males. Furthermore, I also recognised a possible
trend of the response rates for females versus males. As seen in the non-response data, I had 14
non-responses from females and six from males. I went through a stage where every third person
happened to be a female and I was getting consistent non-responses. In contrast to this, a male
colleague had 10 non-responses from males but only six non-responses from females.
Part 2
2a. Describe the characteristics of the survey population:
The demographics of the survey population are listed in Table 1 below, along with the
corresponding non-respondent data and ABS (2011) statistics for Southport Statistical Local Area
(SLA).
Table 1 Demographics of non-respondents, respondents and the corresponding ABS (2011) data. Source:
Meggan Bain, 2015.

Demographics

Non-respondent

Respondent

ABS (2011)

Sex

N=162

N=206

N=28,315

Male

80 (49.3%)

116 (56.4%)

13,744 (48.5%)

Female

82 (50.7%)

90 (43.6%)

14,571 (51.4%)

Age

N=166

N=208

N=28,315

15-19

8 (4.8%)

37 (17.7%)

6.8%

20-29

48 (28.9%)

81 (38.9%)

21.5%

34 (16.3%)

14.3%

21 (10%)

11.6%

18 (8.6%)

11%

15 (7.2%)

10%

1 (0.4%)

6.6%

1 (0.4%)

5.5%

30-39
40-49
50-59

61 (36.7%)
36 (21.6%)

60-69
70-79

13 (7.8%)

80+

Ancestry

N=167

N=195

N=28,315

Asian

45 (28.4%)

51 (26.1%)

4%

Pacific-Islander

8 (17.7%)

12 (6.1%)

Middle-Eastern

10 (6.3%)

8 (4.1%)

European

89 (56.3%)

91 (46.6%)

38.9%

African

1 (0.6%)

1 (0.5%)

Aboriginal/Torres Strait

1 (0.6%)

3 (1.5%)

Latin-American

N/A

5 (2.5%)

Other

4 (2.5%)

24 (12.3%)

Occupation

N=214

Student

76 (35.5%)

Professional

31 (14.4%)

2,467 (20.5%)

Unemployed

11 (5.1%)

1,300 (9.8%)

Self-employed

17 (7.9%)

Technician

0 (0%)

Trade

15 (7%)

Community Service

1 (0.4%)

1,607 (13.4%)

Clerical/Administrative

4 (1.8%)

1,511 (12.6%)

Sales

18 (8.4%)

1,505 (12.5%)

Manager

8 (3.7%)

1,095 (9.1%)

Labour

5 (2.3%)

1,357 (11.3%)

Machine Operator

0 (0%)

548 (4.6%)

Other

28 (13%)

Industry

N=133

Caf/Restaurant/Food

36 (27%)

884 (7.4%)

Tourism

7 (5.2%)

Health/Medical

13 (9.7%)

659 (5.5%)

Accommodation

3 (2.2%)

497 (4.1%)

School Education

11 (8.2%)

447 (3.7%)

Tertiary Education

12 (9%)

289 (2.4%)

Other

51 (38.3%)

1,694 (14.1%)

Adapted from Knittel et al (2010) and Byrne et al (2009).

Table 1 shown above, does not include every data; this was for a number of reasons. Some of the
ABS (2011) data was simply not available as well as that, not all data was collected for the nonrespondent. For example, Latin-American was not included in the non-respondent data as it may
be hard to distinguish from other racial categories. This can be a limiting factor when analysing the
responses for research. Other limiting factors can be identified through the analysis of the truth
value and consistency, which will inform the validity of the data collected.
5

Appleton (1995, p.995) outlines, researchers have traditionally used terms such as establishing
truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality. These terms will be used as a framework to
analyse the validity and reliability of data collected (Appleton, 1995, p.995). Truth value is in
regards to the preservation of key aspect and ideal in regards to the data; that participants would
be able to look at the data and recognise it as their own (Appleton, 1995). I believe this may be a
relevant source of error as there is a high possibility some surveys may have been falsified by the
students conducting the research. Furthermore Appleton (1995, p.996) defines the degree of
consistency or dependability with which an instrument measures the attribute it is designed to
measure. In regards to the data collected in Chinatown, it is also highly possible that some
students violated the survey recruitment system, i.e. administering the survey to every 3rd person.
This means that the consistency of the data is questionable. It is then fair to say that, to a degree,
it must be noted that the data collected has questionable validity and low reliability.
(i) What percentage was male vs. female?
As seen in Table 1 above, the percentage of the male and female respondents are 56.4% and
43.6%, respectively. This is comparative to both the ABS (2011) data and the non-response data.
The data for the non-respondents for male and female were 49.3% and 40.3% and for ABS (2011)
48.5% and 51.4%, respectively. As you can see, the data for the respondents are skewed towards
male, whereas, the data for the non-respondents and the ABS (2011) data are leaning towards
female. The possible reason for this will be discusses later in this report.
(ii) What was the age range of respondents?
As seen in Table 1 above the age range of respondents was 15 to 80 + is comparative to both the
ABS (2011) data and the non-response data. There are clearly issues with the data set in regards
to the age of respondents. As I will elaborate more in the next section, the respondent data is not
reflective of the ABS (2011) data.

(iii) Do you think that the characteristics of the survey sample are representative of
Southport generally? Why, why not?
Figure 2 above shows the collated age range data of the respondents and the ABS (2011) age
range data of Southport SLA. The n for the respondents is 208 and 28,315 for ABS (2011). As you
can see, there are inconsistencies when comparing ABS (2011) and the respondent data, the
respondents age distribution is concentrated mostly in the 20-29 years of age category, whereas,
the ABS (2011) is more evenly distributed, most notably, from 60 years of age, onwards. This
clearly shows that survey participant characteristics are not representative of Southport SLA; but it
does not mean that it is not representative of the people who are using Chinatown. As we only

Figure 2 Comparative graph of age range of respondents (n=208) and the ABS (2011) (n=28,3125) data.
Source: Meggan Bain, 2015.

took surveys from within, and a sometimes in a small perimeter around Chinatown, it is not fair to
say that this should have been more consistent with the rest of the Southport SLA. It is possible
that this data may represent a trend in who is more likely to visit Chinatown. Although, it is
important for me to remind you of the validity of the data, as a large majority of students ages are
concentrated in the 20-29 category, it is possible that they violated the recruitment system
7

because they felt more comfortable approaching people their own age. But, for arguments sake,
we will omit this fact to discuss whether the characteristics of the survey population affected the
results.
(iv) Do you think that the characteristics of the survey population affected the results of
the survey? Why, why not? How?
It is highly possible that the demographics of the survey populations had an affect on the data
collected. As we have already discovered, the age of the respondents are not reflective of the
population of Southport; and this is now reflecting in the occupation of the survey respondents. As
seen in Figure 3, the most common occupation of the survey respondents was student at 35.5%.

Figure 3 Occupation of survey population (n=214). Source: Meggan Bain, 2015.

This means infers that people who are using the Southport are, one, more likely to be in the 20-29
age category, and two, more likely to be a student.
2b. Based on the survey responses, is the Gold Coast Chinatown an effective place-making
intervention? What survey results support your conclusion(s)?
Place, according to Zhou (1998, p.533) refers to the areal context of events, objects, and
actions, including natural elements and human construction, both material and ideal. This means
8

that the construction of place encapsulates

particular elements that the physical structure
otherwise known as the space cannot. Zhou
(1998) also argues that the construction of place
is a social process and must be created through
the study of social process itself. This idea that
social construction is the driver for place
making in a space can be useful for analysis of
Figure 4 Chinatown awareness of respondents
(n=206). Source: Meggan Bain, 2015.

Chinatown on the Gold Coast. Before my

analysis, it is important to understand that there

are three main social processes that play an important role in place making.
Zhou (1998) argues that the three main social place-making activities include geographical
location, localized socio-economic conditions, and social infrastructure. First, geographic location
refers to the spatial separation of ethnic groups and the potential of chain migration. This means
that, there must be opportunity for ethnic enclaves of immigrants to drive the formation of an
authentic Chinatown. Second, localized socio-economic structures also imply different

Figure 5 Visitation type to Chinatown (n=393). Source: Meggan Bain, 2015.

opportunities and limitations for immigrant groups, thus circumscribing the choices available to
them (Zhou, 1998, 533). Third, each place is characterized by a different set of dynamic
linkages with the outside world. Immigrant populations often are the conduits for international
linkages to their home countries (Zhou, 1998, p.533). These place-making elements can be
compared to the Gold Coast Chinatown to help analyse why the precinct may be falling short of its
potential.

Figure 6 Level of agreement and disagreement. Source: Gim Dumagat, 2015

The Gold Coast Chinatown appears to be lacking the place-making infrastructure that Zhou (1998)
discusses in regards to the social infrastructure. The City of Gold Coast has spent money on
creating the physical infrastructure in the Chinatown, but is has missed to opportunity to create a
social infrastructure that would make Chinatown a thriving precinct. The data shows that 77% of
the respondents are aware of Chinatown (Figure 5), but the one most common activities at 20.1%,
is passing though (Figure 5). This data infers that most people are aware that it is a Chinatown,
but are not engaging with the space. Can these findings be changed by the implementation of
better place-making initiatives? Recommendations will be discusses in the next section.
Chinatown has a lot of potential with a place-making intervention. As seen in Figure 6, the survey
population has a high agreement that Chinatown will benefit Southport. This suggests that people
have a lot of faith that Chinatown will be a positive intervention in the area. This intervention will
change the status quo of how the CoGC handles the Chinatown and other places to come.
Change begins with discussing it, which will lead to a policy reform. The CoGC has lacked in its
10

ability to take Chinatown from space to place. It needs something thats makes it interesting and
special. Recommendations for change will be discussed in the next section
2c. Recommendations
There are multiple elements that be improve as a response to my conclusion above about
Chinatown being an ineffective place-making intervention. Some of these things include better
implementation of place-making techniques. I have a range of recommendations to make
Chinatown easier identifiable, without crossing the line into what Ip (2005) describes as the
stereotypical Chinese images. I would aim for it to honour Asian culture as a whole, inviting the
non-Chinese to get involved. Some possible intervention strategy to make Chinatown is seen in
Figure 7. This could also double as community involvement as you may be able to do a design a
lantern night at the markets, which would save money for council.

Figure 7 Hoi An in Vietnam have enclosed the street with lanterns. Source: Asia Charm Tour

11

References
Anderson, K. J. 1987, The idea of Chinatown: the power of place and institutional practice in the
making of a racial category, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol.
77, no. 4, pp. 580598.
Appleton, J. V. 1995, Analysing Qualitative Interview Data: addressing issues of validity and
reliability, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 22, pp. 993-997.
Byrne, J., Wolch, J. & Zhang, J. 2009, Planning for environmental justice in an urban national
park, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 365-382.

Entrikin, J. N. 1991, The Betweenness of Place, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Gilbert, M. 1998 Race", Space and Power: the survival strategies of working poor women',
Annals off the Association of American Geographers, vol. 88, pp. 595-621.
Ip, D. 2005, Contesting Chinatown: place-making and the emergence of ethnoburbia in Brisbane,
Australia, Geojournal, vol. 64, pp. 63-74.
Knittel, A. K., Wren, P. A. & Gore, L. 2010, Lessons learned from a peri-urban needle exchange,
Harm Reduction Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17.
McLafferty, S. 2010 Conducting questionnaire surveys, in Key Methods in Geography, 2nd edn,
N. Clifford, S. French & G. Valentine, Sage, London, pp. 77-88.

Xu, K. D. B. 2015,The new Gold Coast Chinatown: stakeholders development preferences,

International Tourism Studies Association, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.119 138.

12