Geographies:Canada
25a_r1. Why do you say this approach might be more effective?Why excavation? Recode1
25a_r1. Why do you say this approach might be more effective?Why excavation? Recode1
Results
| 2005-03-20 | |
|---|---|
Site can be re-used | 10% |
Less likely to spread/keep if from spreading | 0% |
Easier/faster way to contain/control | 10% |
Something being ... problem/better than doing nothing | 0% |
Would remove it from/clean up area/would be gone | 3.33% |
Can take waste where .../treated effectively and safely | 13.33% |
Better way to contain and control/gets results | 3.33% |
Cost issues (various) | 10% |
Potential negative effects on environment/wildlife | 6.67% |
Less people affected/less threat to locals | 6.67% |
Depends on location | 10% |
Could still seep into/effect the ground | 10% |
Don't/can't trust anyone to monitor it | 10% |
Other | 6.67% |
DK/NA | 0% |
Sample size | 2,000 |
Sample size calculated by VoxDash | 30 |
Probability sampling | |
Margin of error | ±3% |
Margin of error (calculated by VoxDash) | ±17.86% |
Calculated by VoxDash | |
Data provider | |
General population | |
Respondent qualification age | autocomplete.Respondentqualificationage.18 |
Data sampling | autocomplete.SamplingMethods.stratified sample |
Geographies | Canada |
Coverages | autocomplete.DataCoverage.Provincial/State |
Maps
Main graphics
Pie chart
Graphics
Maps
Select map
Canada
Accept
Reject
Information of Contaminated Sites 2005 Dataset