› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Living in strata › Not in our block: Airbnb shock in Sydney city survey › Current Page
Being a bit of a numbers geek, I spotted a discrepancy in the announced figures and the actual figures in the report.
The Press release says the survey “interviewed 1,001 people including apartment tenants (56%), owner-occupiers (38%) and investors (8%).”
These figure are drawn straight from Table 2 (page 8) of the survey. However the same table shows the raw figures (the ‘n’ numbers) of surveyed residents being 455 tenants and 486 owner-occupiers.
Shouldn’t the percentages then be closer to 46% tenants and 48% owner-occupiers? A simple accidental transposition of a couple of digits?
Actually, no, says a City of Sydney spokesperson who explains why the raw numbers are less accurate than the published figures:
The City of Sydney commissioned Woolcott Research and Engagement to conduct an independent survey of strata owners, occupiers and investors within the City of Sydney local government area.
More than half of City residents are under the age of 34 but only around one-third of survey respondents were under 34. Consequently, in this research, younger respondents were weighted up in the final data tables to take into account their under-representation of younger people.
Woolcott Research advised it is standard practice to weight responses from under-represented demographics to ensure the overall figures accurately reflect the survey population but also to report the raw base sizes (as opposed to weighted base sizes) so readers can see the actual numbers. The n= figures quoted in the question … are the raw figures.
As younger residents are more likely to be renters, the number of renters surveyed has been weighted up when the age weighting is applied. The weighted base sizes are n=577 tenants, n=379 owner occupies, and n=76 investors.
The survey also reported results by different age-groups and by owners and tenants. One of the key results is that there are significant differences in attitude towards short-term letting between younger and older residents and tenants and owners.
Now before we even quote the line about “lies, damned lies and statistics” (oops, I just did) I accept the reasoning and don’t doubt the result.
It does show you, however, how figures can be manipulated and often are. Airbnb tells us that because they are in less than 1 percent of homes in Sydney, they can’t possibly be affecting housing availability or affordability.
But hang on, how many people actually want to come from the USA and Europe to holiday in Bankstown or Mount Druitt?
When you skew the figures only to take in areas of the city where Airbnb has a significant presence, suddenly you find rents have shot up by two or three times and availability has plummeted.
And at the same time they are claiming that they are barely a blip on the radar, Airbnb are boasting that they have the highest penetration in Australia in the world. The key is, how close do you stand to the radar.
Raw figures are just the ingredients, not the cake. Better to trust figures that have been interpreted by organisations with credibility rather than the distorted views of vested interests for whom numbers are just another weapon in their war of words.
By the way, does anyone know who funded the recent Tenants Union survey that “proved” Airbnb has no effect on rents or availability? I always thought the Tenants Union was strapped for cash and, in fact, have used this website to support their fund-raising efforts.
Anyway, would you trust that result more than the recent findings from Sydney University that online short-term letting has taken 6000 homes – or 30 decent-sized apartment blocks – out of the housing market?
Hmmm … I thought not.