A sample of 60 respondents does not warrant a full statistical analysis, however, there are some comparisons we can make to learn a bit more about different methods. The pro-rating scale is subject to a certain measure of sensitivity. Changing the weighting of the scale to separate ratings of "Highest," for example, may change the numbers somewhat although there is no way to tell whether or not this is statistically significant. Shown below is the graph of priorities, sorted by the standard prorating scale and compared with 2 other scales:   Standard Weighted Highest and High Weighted Highest Highest 100 100 100 High 80 90 50 Medium 60 20 30 Low 40 10 10 Lowest 20 5 5

Click to enlarge 1. Wider distribution in weighted scales 2. Weighted Highest and High gives preference to Contaminated Sites and Biodiversity 3. Ranking seems insensitive to weighting scales

Instead of a statistical analysis which would yield essentially meaningless results, a analysis was conducted comparing both the prorated and additive methods, as well as counting methods (# of responses of Highest, # of responses Highest or High, etc.).

Other prioritization schemes (such as ranking, scoring out of 100, etc.) could be used for a specialized and experienced audience to get a more sophisticated analysis. However, one should take care when claiming that the survey is intended to reach beyond the "usual crowd,"-- the prioritization scheme should be accessible to a wider audience. .

Click to enlarge 1. Counting methods relatively comparable 2. Public Health gets a minor boost in the prorated counting system 3. Counting and prorating have similar rankings but counting yields a much wider discrimination between topics 4. Additive and prorated methods relatively similar