Data analysis

In February 2022. Our group uses the Likert Scale to apportion to Kang Chiao International School Linkou Champus’s teacher, classmate, and our parents. We also recycle questionnaires and use this data to analyze the topic of algae reefs. In this case, our group will show what people think and what’s the consideration. Questionnaires analyze the data shown below:


According to the results of the questionnaire, the respondents have 62.3% people are male, and 37.7%


According to the results of the questionnaire, there are 28.6% of people are under eighteen years old, 26% are thirty-one to forty years old, and 31.2% are forty-one to fifty years old.


According to the results of the questionnaire, about 36.4% of respondents are graduates or study in from college, 32.5% of the respondents are graduates or study in senior high school, and 23.4% of them are graduates or study in the graduate institute.


According to the results of the questionnaire, over 68.8% of people have participated in the referendum, and 31.2% didn’t.


According to the results of the questionnaire which is the reason why they haven’t participated in the referendum, there are about 39.6% not qualified to participate in the referendum. Over 34% of people have no time to participate in a referendum and 22.6% of people are not in domicile.


According to the results of the questionnaire which is the reason why they haven’t participated in the referendum, over 45.8% of people want to express their opinion, about 29.2% of people want to care about the country. Also, there are 20.8% of people are always concerned about this issue.


According to the results of the questionnaire, about 44.2% of people have already known about algal reefs before the referendum, and 55.8% haven’t.


According to the results of the questionnaire, about 68% of people did learn about algal reefs after the referendum, and 32% didn’t.


According to the results of questionnaire, 1 mean very disagree and 5 mean very agree, about 11.7% of people think that the third natural gas terminal doesn’t need to move out of the sea area near the Dai Tam algae reef. And 27.3% of people think that the third natural gas terminal must move out of the sea area near the Dai Tam algae reef.


According to the result of questionnaire, most of them want the third natural gas terminal must move out of the sea area near the Dai Tam algae reef because the hope that the oil company can find the other place to built it so that can prevent to destroy alge reefs. Some of them want to have the open and transparent dialogue. Few of them think that other place not necessarily better than Dai Tam, also using the electricity is very urgent so they disagree.



mean very disagree and 5 mean very agree, there have up to 36.4% of people think agree that to continued use of the third natural gas terminal will cause negative impact on the environment.



Following the result of questionnaire, 1 mean very disagree and 5 mean very agree, noticeably, there have most of the people think which the government said that can also protect algal reefs at the same time when constructing the third natural gas terminal can’t be too possible.


Following the result of questionnaire, most of the people think it is not necessary to enable the third natural gas terminal, and few of them think it must be enable.


In accordance with the result of questionnaire, the half of the people think if the third natural gas terminal are removed can protecting the environment to be achieved. Some of them think in the opposite. Few of the people think it is uncertain that to achieve protecting environment just rely on remove the third natural gas terminal. The following comments are from respondents with different opinions.

Other comments:

  1. Depends on whether people want to give an effort, otherwise it will only become a temporary effect.
  1. If we don’t construct the third gas terminal, power supply problems and green energy development will be hindered.
  1. I tend to be centrist.
  1. Although removing the third natural gas terminal is good for environmental conservation, it’s not a main reason to protect the environment effectively.
  1. At least it can slow down the pollution problem.
  1. Achieving environmental conservation effectiveness, needs to cooperate with the implementation of government policies. It’s hard to achieve the goal by removing the third natural gas terminal.
  1. It’s impossible not to destroy, but I hope to minimize the damage.
  1. Not necessarily, but whether the environment would destroy is uncertain.