The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a program of state-wide surveys of local government leaders in Michigan. The MPPS is designed to fill an important information gap in the policymaking process. While there are ongoing surveys of the business community and of the citizens of Michigan, before the MPPS there were no ongoing surveys of local government officials that were representative of all general purpose local governments in the state. Therefore, while we knew the policy priorities and views of the state's businesses and citizens, we knew very little about the views of the local officials who are so important to the economies and community life throughout Michigan.The MPPS was launched in 2009 by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan and is conducted in partnership with the Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, and Michigan Townships Association. The associations provide CLOSUP with contact information for the survey's respondents, and consult on survey topics. CLOSUP makes all decisions on survey design, data analysis, and reporting, and receives no funding support from the associations.The surveys investigate local officials' opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues and solicit factual information about their localities relevant to policymaking. Over time, the program has covered issues such as fiscal, budgetary and operational policy, fiscal health, public sector compensation, workforce development, local-state governmental relations, intergovernmental collaboration, economic development strategies and initiatives such as placemaking and economic gardening, the role of local government in environmental sustainability, energy topics such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and wind power, trust in government, views on state policymaker performance, opinions on the impacts of the Federal Stimulus Program (ARRA), and more. The program will investigate many other issues relevant to local and state policy in the future. A searchable database of every question the MPPS has asked is available on CLOSUP's website. Results of MPPS surveys are currently available as reports, and via online data tables.Out of a commitment to promoting public knowledge of Michigan local governance, the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy is releasing public use datasets. In order to protect respondent confidentiality, CLOSUP has divided the data collected in each wave of the survey into separate datasets focused on different topics that were covered in the survey. Each dataset contains only variables relevant to that subject, and the datasets cannot be linked together. Variables have also been omitted or recoded to further protect respondent confidentiality. For researchers looking for a more extensive release of the MPPS data, restricted datasets will be available through openICPSR's Virtual Data Enclave.Please note: additional waves of MPPS public use datasets are being prepared, and will be available as part of this project as soon as they are completed.

Abstract (en): The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a program of state-wide surveys of local government leaders in Michigan. The MPPS is designed to fill an important information gap in the policymaking process. While there are ongoing surveys of the business community and of the citizens of Michigan, before the MPPS there were no ongoing surveys of local government officials that were representative of all general purpose local governments in the state. Therefore, while we knew the policy priorities and views of the state's businesses and citizens, we knew very little about the views of the local officials who are so important to the economies and community life throughout Michigan. The MPPS was launched in 2009 by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan and is conducted in partnership with the Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, and Michigan Townships Association. The associations provide CLOSUP with contact information for the survey's respondents, and consult on survey topics. CLOSUP makes all decisions on survey design, data analysis, and reporting, and receives no funding support from the associations. The surveys investigate local officials' opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues and solicit factual information about their localities relevant to policymaking. Over time, the program has covered issues such as fiscal, budgetary and operational policy, fiscal health, public sector compensation, workforce development, local-state governmental relations, intergovernmental collaboration, economic development strategies and initiatives such as placemaking and economic gardening, the role of local government in environmental sustainability, energy topics such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and wind power, trust in government, views on state policymaker performance, opinions on the impacts of the Federal Stimulus Program (ARRA), and more. The program will investigate many other issues relevant to local and state policy in the future. A searchable database of every question the MPPS has asked is available on CLOSUP's website. Results of MPPS surveys are currently available as reports, and via online data tables. The MPPS datasets are being released in two forms: public-use datasets and restricted-use datasets. Unlike the public-use datasets, the restricted-use datasets represent full MPPS survey waves, and include all of the survey questions from a wave. Restricted-use datasets also allow for multiple waves to be linked together for longitudinal analysis. The MPPS staff do still modify these restricted-use datasets to remove jurisdiction and respondent identifiers and to recode other variables in order to protect confidentiality. However, it is theoretically possible that a researcher might be able, in some rare cases, to use enough variables from a full dataset to identify a unique jurisdiction, so access to these datasets is restricted and approved on a case-by-case basis. CLOSUP encourages researchers interested in the MPPS to review the codebooks included in this data collection to see the full list of variables including those not found in the public-use datasets, and to explore the MPPS data using the public-use datasets. On 2016-08-20, the openICPSR web site was moved to new software. In the migration process, some projects were not published in the new system because the decisions made in the old site did not map easily to the new setup. This project is temporarily available as restricted data while ICPSR verifies that all files were migrated correctly.

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a program of state-wide surveys of local government leaders in Michigan. The MPPS is designed to fill an important information gap in the policymaking process. While there are ongoing surveys of the business community and of the citizens of Michigan, before the MPPS there were no ongoing surveys of local government officials that were representative of all general purpose local governments in the state. Therefore, while we knew the policy priorities and views of the state's businesses and citizens, we knew very little about the views of the local officials who are so important to the economies and community life throughout Michigan.The MPPS was launched in 2009 by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan and is conducted in partnership with the Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, and Michigan Townships Association. The associations provide CLOSUP with contact information for the survey's respondents, and consult on survey topics. CLOSUP makes all decisions on survey design, data analysis, and reporting, and receives no funding support from the associations.The surveys investigate local officials' opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues and solicit factual information about their localities relevant to policymaking. Over time, the program has covered issues such as fiscal, budgetary and operational policy, fiscal health, public sector compensation, workforce development, local-state governmental relations, intergovernmental collaboration, economic development strategies and initiatives such as placemaking and economic gardening, the role of local government in environmental sustainability, energy topics, trust in government, views on state policymaker performance, and more. The program will investigate many other issues relevant to local and state policy in the future. The Spring 2020 MPPS wave asked Michigan's local government leaders about the expected impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in their communities, how effectively various governments are coordinating efforts, what kinds of resources they need, how long they expect various impacts to last, and more. Additional questions on local government fiscal health, election administration, the 2020 U.S. Census, views on state policymaker performance, and more, were also asked. Responses to these questions will be available in a separate data collection available in 2021.

Studies of public opinion on welfare policy implement increasingly concrete and complex survey measures that frequently assume relative preferences on the part of respondents. Yet, we lack evidence on whether voters hold such structured attitudes towards welfare policies. We rely on novel survey data from eight West European countries to study horizontal attitudinal constraint in welfare policy preferences. Addressing both logical and relational consistency, we find that most respondents hold structured welfare belief systems and relative preferences about where reform is more important, even when confronted with complex tasks and tradeoffs. Moreover, by addressing individual-level heterogeneity we show that differences related to socio-demographic factors and attitudes are rather minor. Consistent welfare attitudes are not exclusive to highly sophisticated individuals. These results validate the effort of implementing more fine-grained indicators of social policy preferences (and other policies) across the population.

Granite State Poll is a quarterly poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. The poll sample consists of about 500 New Hampshire adults with a working telephone across the state. Each poll contains a series of basic demographic questions that are repeated in future polls, as well as a set of unique questions that are submitted by clients. This poll includes two questions related to preferences about dams. These questions were designed by Natallia Leuchanka Diessner, Catherine M. Ashcraft, Kevin H. Gardner, and Lawrence C. Hamilton as part of the "Future of Dams" project.This Technical Report was written by the UNH Survey Center and describes the protocols and standards of the Granite State Poll #68 (Client Poll), which includes questions related to preferences about dams, designed by Natallia Leuchanka Diessner, Catherine M. Ashcraft, Kevin H. Gardner, and Lawrence C. Hamilton as part of the "Future of Dams" project.The first file is a screenshot of the Technical Report to provide a preview for Figshare. The second file is the Technical Report in Microsoft Word format.

The Chicago Council Surveys are part of a long-running series of public opinion surveys conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs beginning in 1974. They were conducted quadrennially from 1974 to 2002, biennially from 2002 to 2014, and are now conducted annually. The surveys are designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate. This public opinion study of the United States focused on respondents' opinions of the United States' leadership role in the world and the challenges the country faces domestically and internationally. Data were collected on a wide range of international topics, including: United States' relations with other countries, role in foreign affairs, possible threats to vital interests in the next ten years, foreign policy goals, situations that might justify the use of United States troops in other parts of the world, international trade, United States' participation in potential treaties, U.S. policy towards Russia in Ukraine, the embargo on Cuba and the effects of renewed diplomatic relations with Havana, views of the nuclear deal with Iran and what effects that deal is likely to have, and United States' relations with allies in Asia. Respondents were also asked their opinion on domestic issues including climate change, measures to improve the United States' economic competitiveness, and their views on US immigration policy. Demographic information collected includes age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, left-right political self-placement, political affiliation, employment status, highest level of education, and religious preference, household income, state of residence, and living quarters ownership status.

The FR 3075 collects information from certain types of institutions regulated by the Board in order to assess the effects of proposed, pending, or recently adopted policy changes at the domestic and international levels. The Board uses the survey to collect information used for certain quantitative impact studies (QISs) sponsored by financial stability bodies such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). Recent collections have included the Basel III monitoring exercise, which monitors the global impact of the Basel III framework, the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) exercise, which assesses firms’ systemic risk profiles, and a survey of the domestic systemic risk footprint of large foreign banking organizations. Since the collected data may change from survey to survey, there is no fixed reporting form. The surveys are conducted on a voluntary basis. The number of respondents per survey and the number of surveys conducted per year fluctuate.

Restoring and accelerating SDG progress requires financing (see Part 1), data and statistics (see Parts 2 and 4) and sound and ambitious SDG policies and roadmaps. To operationalize the 17 SDGs and 169 targets, SDSN and partners promote six SDG Transformations that must be implemented in parallel and adapted to local contexts. These include quality education (SDG 4); access to good quality and affordable health care (SDG 3); renewable energy and a circular economy (SDGs 7, 12, and 13); sustainable land and marine management (SDGs 2, 14, and 15); sustainable urban infrastructure (SDGs 6, 9, and 11); and universal access to digital services (SDG 9). Scientific knowledge and networks are key to model structural changes over a time horizon of 10–30 years, which can inform policy discussions and consultations on the six SDG transformations.This section discusses efforts made by governments (primarily the executive branch) to integrate the SDGs into public policies. The SDG Index and Dashboards focus on internationally standardized outcome statistics. Due to data gaps and time lags in international reporting, national policies and commitments must also be considered in gauging a country’s efforts to achieve the SDGs. We present an assessment of governments’ efforts to achieve the SDGs, including the 2022 SDSN Policy Coordination Survey for the SDGs and the Six Transformations Scorecards. For the first time, we also present prototype scores of government commitments and efforts in support of the SDGs.Six years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in 2015, a majority of governments had by 2021 developed strategies and action plans to implement the goals. For many governments, this takes the form of a national sustainability strategy that is explicitly linked to the 2030 Agenda goals and targets. Some governments though have preferred to take a mainstreaming approach, whereby the SDGs are implemented by each government ministry within the scope of its mandate (instead of via an overarching national action plan). Our survey is unable to evaluate, in practice, political and administrative support for the implementation of these strategies, although SDSN has published a detailed analysis of SDG integration in recovery and resilience plans within the European Union (Lafortune et al., 2021).Regarding SDG coordination units and mechanisms: we find that most countries have appointed a lead unit or agency responsible for coordinating implementation of the SDGs (Figure 3.1). Yet less than a third of the countries surveyed have located this unit at the center of government (offices of the President or Prime Minister, or cabinet offices).Figure 3.1 | Designated lead unit for SDG coordination, at the central/federal level of governmentNote: SDSN 2022 Survey on national coordination and implementation mechanisms at the central/federal level of government (February 2022)Many countries have also developed strategies for SDG monitoring. 46 out of the 61 governments covered in the survey have adapted the SDG framework to their context and identified a set of nationally relevant indicators. On average, such national sets comprise around 135 indicators. Several countries have also developed online platforms to report on progress towards the SDGs. These efforts to strengthen mechanisms to monitor sustainable development are critical to inform SDG interventions. Challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic also sparked new innovations in monitoring and data collection, which are discussed in Part 4.Official speeches and government efforts to prepare voluntary national reviews (VNRs) are also relevant proxy measures to gauge commitment to the SDGs. Over the past 12 months, just over half of the surveyed countries have reinforced their commitment to the SDGs in the context of an official speech or statement made by the head of state (president or prime minister). Since 2016, 187 UN Member States have prepared VNRs – the official government-led process to report on SDG progress, gaps, and policy efforts (see Figure 3.2). This year, 45 countries have committed to submitting a VNR, which is comparable to the pre-pandemic period. But while some countries are preparing their fourth VNR, six countries have still never submitted one – Haiti, Iran, Myanmar, South Sudan, the United States, and Yemen (UN, 2022b).Figure 3.2 | Submissions of voluntary national reviews (number of countries)Note: Data includes VNRs that will be submitted by countries this year.Source: Authors' analysis. Based on data from the United Nations (2022).As in previous years, there is some discrepancy between expressed political support for the SDGs and integration of the goals into strategic public policy processes, most notably national budgets. About a third of the governments surveyed (21 out of 61) mention the SDGs or use related terms in their latest official budget document – no improvement over last year. And only half of these include the SDGs in a dedicated section of their national budgets or in a dedicated budget line. The other half refer to the SDGs only in the general narrative, providing less SDG-specific budget allocations. Several countries surveyed do specifically refer to the SDGs in their national budget to support both domestic SDG implementation (including national health, education, social protection, or economic development reforms) and SDG implementation abroad (for example, aid allocation or foreign policy).This discrepancy is evident also in COVID-19 recovery plans. Among the 44 countries with national recovery plans in place, we found that most (26) do not refer to the SDGs at all. Only 9 have a COVID-19 recovery plan in which the SDGs form a central pillar to guide a sustainable, inclusive, and resilient recovery. This aligns with some of the findings from green recovery policy trackers (Green Economy Tracker, 2022; O’Callaghan et al., 2022; Vivid Economics, 2021; Wuppertal Institut and E3G, 2021). As countries work to recover from the pandemic, it is important to maintain – and increase – the focus on achieving the long-term goals agreed by the international community in 2015, including the SDGs, the 2030 Agenda, and the Paris Climate Agreement.As shown in Figure 3.3, G20 countries are on average less ambitious than others when it comes to integrating the SDGs into key policy processes. Particularly with regards to linking budgets to the goals and developing national SDG indicator sets, G20 countries lag behind. As G20 countries represent two-thirds of the world’s population and 85 percent of global GDP, integrating the SDGs into their governance systems is particularly important.Figure 3.3 | Integration of the SDGs into key policy processes, G20 countries versus other countriesNote: Percentage of countries where Table 3.1 shows a “yes” for the respective question. For COVID-19 recovery plans: Percentage of countries where Table 3.1 shows a “yes” out of the number of countries that have adopted a recovery plan.Source: Authors' analysis. Based on SDSN 2022 Survey on national coordination and implementation mechanisms at the central/federal level of government (February 2022)Besides the executive branch of government, parliamentary committees and groups promoting SDG action have also emerged over the years. For instance, the SDG Alliance is an informal group of European Parliament Members from different committees and political groups who are mobilized around the SDGs. In France in 2022, a Member of Parliament put together a comprehensive assessment of the country’s SDG gaps and priorities (Provendier, 2022). Public participation processes at various levels (including regions and cities), whether organized through national legislature, citizen assemblies, or councils, can also help to identify better policy interventions, build legitimacy, and strengthen ownership of SDG actions.Figure 3.4 | National government efforts to implement the SDGs

In the past decade, policymakers have increasingly used behaviourally informed policies, including ‘nudges,’ to produce desirable social outcomes. But do people actually endorse those policies? This study reports on nationally representative surveys in five countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, South Korea, and the US) carried out in 2017/2018. We investigate whether people in these countries approve of a list of 15 nudges regarding health, the environment, and safety issues. A particular focus is whether trust in public institutions is a potential mediator of approval. The study confirms this correlation. We also find strong majority support of all nudges in the five countries. Our findings in general, and about trust in particular, suggest the importance not only of ensuring that behaviourally informed policies are effective, but also of developing them transparently and openly, and with an opportunity for members of the public to engage and to express their concerns.

Survey researchers testing the effectiveness of arguments for or against policies traditionally employ between-subjects designs. In doing so, they lose statistical power and the ability to precisely estimate public attitudes. We explore the efficacy of an approach often used to address these limitations: the repeated measures within-subjects design (RMWS). This study tests the competing hypotheses that 1) the RMWS will yield smaller effects due to respondents’ desire to maintain consistency (the “opinion anchor hypothesis”), and 2) the RMWS will yield larger effects because the researcher provides respondents with the opportunity to update their attitudes (the “opportunity to revise” hypothesis). Using two survey experiments, we find evidence for the opportunity to revise hypothesis, and discuss the implications for future survey research.

The Orange County Survey a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. This is the first of an annual series of PPIC surveys of Orange County. The purpose of this study is to inform policymakers by providing timely, accurate, and objective information about policy preferences and economic, social, and political trends. The sample size is 2,004 Orange County adult residents.Online data analysis & additional documentation in Link below. Methods The Orange County Survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which is directed by Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, with research assistance from Lisa Cole and Eric McGhee. The survey was conducted in collaboration with the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine; however, the survey methodology and questions and the content of this report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare.The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,004 Orange County adult residents interviewed from August 20 to August 31, 2001. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers, ensuring that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in Orange County were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to five times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the "last birthday method" to avoid biases in age and gender.

Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of Orange County's adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures.The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences.

The sampling error for the total sample of 2,004 adults is +/2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all Orange County adults were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject.

Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing.Throughout the report, we refer to two geographic regions. North County refers to cities and communities north of the 55 Freeway, including Anaheim, Orange, Villa Park, La Habra, Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, Yorba Linda, La Palma, Cypress, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Seal Beach, Westminster, Midway City, Stanton, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Tustin, Tustin Foothills, and Costa Mesa. South County refers to cities and communities south of the 55 Freeway, including Newport Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Coast, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Portola Hills, Rancho Santa Margarita, Foothill Ranch, Coto de Caza, Trabuco, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, San Clemente, Capistrano Beach, and San Juan Capistrano. In the analysis of questions on the proposed El Toro airport, we include Newport Beach in the North County.

We also present results for non-Hispanic whites (referred to in the tables as "whites"), Latinos, and Asians because each group accounts for a substantial number of the county's adult population. We also contrast the opinions of Democrats and Republicans with "other" or "independent" registered voters. This third category includes those who are registered to vote as "decline to state" as well as a fewer number who say they are members of other political parties.

In some cases, we compare the Orange County Survey responses to responses in the 1982-2000 Orange County Annual Surveys at the University of California, Irvine, the PPIC Statewide Surveys, and national surveys by the University of Michigan and CBS/New York Times.

The QoG Institute is an independent research institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. Overall 30 researchers conduct and promote research on the causes, consequences and nature of Good Governance and the Quality of Government - that is, trustworthy, reliable, impartial, uncorrupted and competent government institutions.

The main objective of our research is to address the theoretical and empirical problem of how political institutions of high quality can be created and maintained. A second objective is to study the effects of Quality of Government on a number of policy areas, such as health, the environment, social policy, and poverty.

The QoG Expert Survey is a unique dataset based on the QoG institution’s own web survey. In the third wave of the study (2020), 996 country experts from 117 countries have participated in the study. The data set contains information about the structure and behaviour of public administrations in a wide range of countries.

There are two datasets available for the QoG Expert Survey, one individual dataset and one aggregated dataset. In the individual set each expert answers are presented individually and in the aggregated dataset we have pooled the answers by country.

Previous versions of QoG Expert Survey Dataset can be found in the Data Archive of the QoG Institute.

A country-level dataset based on QoG Expert Survey Data, where IRT models are used to calculate country scores for each country with at least three respondents have been included.

This paper uses exit surveys of voters in four House primaries to ask how well voters are able to use primaries for the purpose of giving policy direction to their congressional parties. The surveys found that nearly half of voters could not recall the names of any candidate and that 11% were uncertain or could not recall for whom they had just voted. The surveys also found that nearly 40% of voters could not offer a political evaluation – that is, a like or dislike having political content – about any candidate, and that fewer than a quarter could offer political evaluations of as many as two candidates. The surveys found no evidence of policy-motivated voting in three of the four primaries, but substantial evidence of it in one. Yet even in that one race, voters split their support among three candidates sharing majority voter opinion on the key election issue and thereby opened the way for nomination of a candidate not sharing majority opinion. The paper concludes from this evidence that voters in these House primaries, and probably more widely, made little use of them for the purpose of giving policy direction to their parties.

Granite State Poll is a quarterly poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. The poll sample consists of about 500 New Hampshire adults with a working telephone across the state. Each poll contains a series of basic demographic questions that are repeated in future polls, as well as a set of unique questions that are submitted by clients. This poll includes four questions related to preferences about dams. These questions were designed by Natallia Leuchanka Diessner, Catherine M. Ashcraft, Kevin H. Gardner, and Lawrence C. Hamilton as part of the "Future of Dams" project.This Technical Report was written by the UNH Survey Center and describes the protocols and standards of the Granite State Poll #68 (Client Poll), which includes questions related to preferences about dams, designed by Natallia Leuchanka Diessner, Catherine M. Ashcraft, Kevin H. Gardner, and Lawrence C. Hamilton as part of the "Future of Dams" project.The first file is a screenshot of the Technical Report to provide a preview for Figshare. The second file is the Technical Report in Microsoft Word format.

Pre-analysis plan for "The Mass Politics of Austerity".

Principal Investigator: Dr WONG Yee Hang, Matthew Institution/Think Tank: The University of Hong Kong Five years after completion of the research projects granted under the PPR Funding Scheme, quantitative empirical data generated from the research would be released to the public. Only research raw data (e.g. surveys) of completed projects that are provided in file format of comma-separated values (CSV) will be uploaded under the Open Data Plan. Raw data provided in formats other than CSV will only be uploaded onto the scheme’s webpage. PPR Funding Scheme’s webpage: https://www.cepu.gov.hk/en/PRFS/research_report.html Users of the data sets archived are required to acknowledge the research team and the Government. [Remarks: Parts of the data sets archived may contain Chinese/English version only.]

The data were collected in the project funded by grants from Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding Scheme (Special Round), Hong Kong SAR (Project Number SR2020.A5.028).

This survey of 2,007 adult residents includes questions from earlier Orange County Annual Surveys. It also includes key indicators from the PPIC Statewide Survey for comparisons with the state and regions of California. It also considers racial/ethnic, income, and political differences. The following issues are explored in this Orange County Survey: county conditions, public policy, and economic and political trends. County conditions include such questions as: What are the most important issues facing the county? How satisfied are residents with their local surroundings, local public services, and with life in Orange County in general? Compared to other regions of the state, how much of a problem are issues such as air pollution, the economy, growth, and housing in Orange County?
Online data analysis & additional documentation in Link below.

This dataset (in .csv format), accompanying codebook and replication code serve as supplement to a study titled: “Does the mode of administration impact on quality of data? Comparing a traditional survey versus an online survey via a Voting Advice Application” submitted for publication to the journal: “Survey Research Methods”). The study involved comparisons of responses to two near-identical questionnaires administered via a traditional survey and through a Voting Advice Application (VAA) both designed for and administered during the pre-electoral period of the Cypriot Presidential Elections of 2013. The offline dataset consisted of questionnaires collected from 818 individuals whose participation was elicited through door-to-door stratified random sampling with replacement of individuals who could not be contacted. The strata were designed to take into account the regional population density, gender, age and whether the area was urban or rural. Offline participants completed a pen-and-paper questionnaire version of the VAA in a self-completing capacity, although the person administering the questionnaire remained present throughout. The online dataset involved responses from 10,241 VAA users who completed the Choose4Cyprus VAA. Voting Advice Applications are online platforms that provide voting recommendations to users based on their closeness to political parties after they declare their agreement or disagreement on a number of policy statements. VAA users freely visited the VAA website and completed the relevant questionnaire in a self-completing capacity. The two modes of administration (online and offline) involved respondents completing a series of supplementary questions (demographics, ideological affinity & political orientation [e.g. vote in the previous election]) prior to the main questionnaire consisting of 35 and 30 policy-related Likert-type items for the offline and online mode respectively. The dataset includes all 30 policy items that were common between the two modes, although only the first 19 (q1:q19) appeared in the same order and in the same position in the two questionnaires; as such, all analyses reported in the article were conducted using these 19 items only. The phrasing of the questions was identical for the two modes and is described per variable in the attached codebook.

Roughly ** percent of the respondents to a 2022 survey from Italy would support the government imposing taxes on the leading companies for CO2 emissions and only allowing renewable energy production. However, the majority of them would not support extra fees on flight tickets or more taxes on vehicles' fuels, similarly to what is shown by the same survey on attitudes toward climate change policies in France.