Small housing developers in Scotland: report

Annex A: Method and Detailed Tables

Method

The research consisted of an electronic survey of small developers. The sample was not intended to be a statistically representative ^[11] of all small developers, but efforts were made to include a full range of small developers from across Scotland (urban and rural, of different sizes and those that had and had not registered for Help to Buy).

This method means that the findings are not presented as percentages of developers that answered questions one way or another, rather we report the absolute number of responses and any patterns in answers by groups. We have in some instances used proportions of respondents replying in one way or another for comparisons, so for example, if developers from rural or urban areas of Scotland are tending to reply to questions in particular ways or have a higher proportion of respondents answering the questions a particular way.

The survey was distributed by email to developers registered on the Help to Buy schemes and members of Homes for Scotland. We also targeted small developers through electronic newsletters (including Housing Scotland Today and Federation of Master Builders newsletter). Further, stakeholders including Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Homes for Scotland put a link to the survey on their websites.

A note on timeframes

We asked respondents to tell us about their experience over the previous three years and their expectations for the following five years. The timeframes differed for pragmatic reasons. For past work we didn't want to go back too far into the post credit crunch economy and for future work we wanted to explore the five years of the next parliament, the time frame the Scottish Government set for delivery of 50,000 homes.

A note on sample size

We received 66 responses, and every response is valid and represents a developer's experience and expectations. Overall considering this number of responses, the spread across the country, the spread of sizes and the degree of consensus in the responses we can suggest that majority of small developers experiences and expectations may be represented in general. On the contrary, when we group the respondents by size and geography (see below) the smaller categories are unlikely to represent the majority of experiences and expectations of the particular group. Nevertheless we use the groupings in the report to describe the experiences and expectations of those who responded to the survey and to compare groups with each other.

A note on 'base' sizes

The base set out in each table is the number of respondents that answered each particular question and it can differ significantly. It is key to understanding the findings to know the bases because they give an indication of the weight of the issue. So for example, if 10 of 66 respondents answered the question in a particular way it is likely that the answer, although valid and significant for those 10, was less of an issue than if 10 of 14 did so. In an attempt to make the report more readable we have minimised the use of the bases in the text to the first number that base refers to, as such consequent numbers will also refer to that base.

Detailed Tables

Table A.1: Numbers of respondents doing main and other business by local authority area
Base 66

Table A.2: Proportions of types of work- Rural
Base 38

Table A.3: Proportions of types of work- semi rural
Base 17

Table A.4: Proportions of types of work- Urban
Base 11