The online reader survey was conducted from Oct. 13 to Nov. 18, 2005. 61 readers took part in it - a warm thank you to all who took the effort.
In order to assess the return rate, we can compare this number either with the total number of subscribers to our mailing list (about 1100) or to the number of visitors to the starting page of this issue during this period, which was about 600. Consequently, the return rate of the survey is between 5 and 10%.
 |
A = under 20
B = 20-29
C = 30-39
D = 40-49
E = 50-59
F = 60-60
G = over 70 |
| Conclusion: most of our responders are between 30-69, thus can be considered junior to senior professionals |
 |
A = Engineer
B = Natural scientist
C = Social scientist
D = Consultant
E = Running own company
F = In education
G = Other |
| Conclusion: most of our responders are either engineers or scientists. A view on the 15 respondents that chose the option "other" shows that this is also mostly true for them.
Among the 16 others, there are: a "lecturer", a "retired farmer", a "teacher", a "researcher of Ecological Engineering", someone working in "management information", a "statistician", a "journalist", an "engineer and natural scientist", a "university teacher", someone working in "government affairs: waste management and energy", someone doing a "doctorate in environmental engineering", a "landscape architect", a "system analyst" and a "landscape architect with focus on water and land managment". One person is "currently not working in the field, but environmental scientist/geographer by trade".
|
 |
A = AUS and NZ
B = Southeast Asia
C = South Asia
D = Near&middle East
E = North Africa
F = Central Africa
G = South Africa
H = Russia & NE Asia
I = Eastern Europe
J = South&Central Europe
K = Northern Europe
L = USA&Canada
M = Central America
N = South America |
| Conclusion: Most responders live in Western countries. Most of them live in the USA or Canada, followed by Northern Europe, South and Central Europe and Australia / New Zealand. Even though we do have quite a few subscribers in India, China and Africa, hardly any of them took part in the survey. |
 |
A = university, college, school
B = administrative or governm. body
C = NGO
D = private company >= 5 employees
E = private company < 5 employees
F = self employed
G = jobless
H = other |
| Conclusion: Most responders are employed in the education sector (46%), followed by private companies with more than 5 employees (21%) and self-employment (18%). |
 |
A = Hint from friend or colleague
B = Via search engine
C = Via IEES website
D = Other |
| Conclusion: Almost half off all responders (47.5%) found the newsletter via the IEES website. The role of search engines seems surprisingly unimportant. Among the 15 who answered with "other", there were people who heard about it at a conference or were members in other EE societies. |
 |
A = Only this issue
B = 2 or 3 issues
C = More than 3 issues |
| Conclusion: Two thirds of the respondents keep faith with the EcoEng-Newsletter. Thank you! |
 |
A = > 30 minutes
B = 10-30 minutes
C = < 10 minutes |
| Conclusion: 60 % of our respondents spent 10-30 minutes reading the current issue, which indicates quite some interest (although there is certainly a biad here in that people who are not interested do not fill out such a survey..) |
 |
|
| Conclusion: Most of our readers are not IEES members! This was expected from the composition of the mailing list: only about 10% of all subscribers are IEES members. |
Question 10: How do you like the current issue of the EcoEng-Newsletter?
|
 |
More than 90% find it rather interesting |
 |
88 % find the information provided relevant |
 |
62 % more or less agree that it provides good journalism, although here a significant share is undecided |
 |
Most like the layout, but for about a third it is not notably good or even dislike it |
 |
85 % find it easy to find the way through this issue |
 |
All in all 87% like the issue. Only 1 person completely disliked it. |
Question 11: Now we'd like to get an idea of your wishes for our Newsletter's future. Please rate the following statements: The EcoEng-Newsletter ...
|
 |
More focus on wetlands is rather not the wish of a small majority of our respondents |
 |
Almost 80% want more case studies |
 |
An even share of about 30% of the respondents advocates for and against more ads. |
 |
26% want more articles relevant for businesses, about the same percentage doesn't want that. |
 |
Our respondents rather do not want the newsletter to be financed by donations of readers. |
 |
46% clearly do not want to see the newsletter with a publishing house. However, a large 45% do not have an opinion on this. |
 |
Almost half of our respondents want more than 1-2 issues a year |
 |
Our respondents clearly do not want the newsletter to be restricted to IEES members |
 |
Only a few would appreciate a printed format |
 |
Becoming relevant in terms of the publication record is not what most of our respondents want |
 |
About 40% of the respondents would be willing to pay for a subscription of the EcoEng-Newsletter |
Question 12: Which article did you like best in the current issue of the EcoEng Newsletter?
|
| 9 votes |
Urs Baier: When Indian Ecology Meets Swiss Engineering: Lessons learnt from Ecosan in Rajendra Nagar slum, Bangalore |
| 8 votes |
Astrid Kirchner: Zero emissions development: How does it work? The BedZED example |
| 7 votes |
Interview with Hein van Bohemen |
| 4 votes |
Newsbits |
| 3 votes |
Stewart Dallas: Maintenance of infrastructure in remote indigenous communities in Western Australia’s Western Desert |
| 3 votes |
Etnier et al.: Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System Reliability Analysis |
| 2 votes |
Jantrania & Knapp: Water quality versus process monitoring. Charles City County, Virginia project |
| 2 votes |
Shanthini & Walgama: Aluminum composting unit for your garden |
| 2 votes |
NOWRA articles in general |
| 1 vote |
Ina Jurga: Ecosan conference in eThekwini/Durban 2005 - a brief summary |
| 1 vote |
Review of Hein van Bohemen's book "Ecological Engineering - Bridging between ecology and civil engineering" |
| 1 vote |
Barton Kirk: Peering beyond the end of the pipe: Non-monetary methods for comparing wastewater treatment options |
| 1 vote |
Johnston et al.: Smarter land use with on-site systems: one state's process |
|
The article most liked was Urs Baiers' report on the Ecosan project in India, followed by Astrid Kirchner's report on BedZED - both are case studies! |
