The Regional Population Information Centre conducted a readers' survey for the Asia-Pacific POPIN Bulletin in October 1994. Since it was the first survey for the Bulletin, the main purpose of the survey was to get feedback on how readers use the publication and assess its quality. Another purpose of the survey was to update the mailing list for it.
A total of 1,296 survey forms were mailed out to those who were receiving the Bulletin. The survey form used is contained in Attachment 1. Out of 1,296, only 299 were returned as of 30 May 1995, producing a response rate of 23.07 per cent. Among these, 199 (65.56 %) stated that the current mailing address was correct while 53 (17.7 %) stated the address was incorrect and send the correct address. Forty-seven of the survey population did not respond to this question; so it was assumed that the addresses were correct.
Table 1: No. of responses by region/sub-region
| region/sub-region | resp. |
| Africa | 2 |
| North America | 74 |
| South America | 1 |
| East Asia | 21 |
| South-East Asia | 109 |
| South Asia | 39 |
| West Asia | 2 |
| Pacific | 26 |
| Europe | 25 |
| Total | 299 |
Table 1 show the number of respondents by region/subregion. South-East Asia and the North America are the largest regions receiving the publication. When combined, they comprise 61.2 per cent of the total respondents. Although the "type of organization with which the respondent is affiliate" was not included in the survey form, the information was available from the mailing list survey by linking the two files through the user identification number. However, since some of the respondents to the Bulletin survey did not respond to the mailing survey, the "type of organization" could be identified for only 207 respondents. Table 2 show the respondents by type of organization. The largest proportion of respondents were from univesity/college followed by library/information centre and government ministry/agency.
Table 2: No. of responses by type of organization
| type of | organizationno. of resp. | % |
| 1 parliamentary/legislative | 4 | 1.93 |
| 2 government ministry/agency | 42 | 20.29 |
| 3 non-governmental organization | 27 | 13.04 |
| 4 university/college | 75 | 36.23 |
| 5 technical/training institution | 7 | 3.38 |
| 6 research institution | 31 | 14.98 |
| 7 library/information centre | 61 | 29.47 |
| 8 media/comunication | 4 | 1.93 |
| 9 donor agency/funding institution | 9 | 4.35 |
| 10 United Nations body/agency | 41 | 19.81 |
| 11 intergovernmental orgnization | 2 | 0.97 |
| 12 other | 4 | 1.93 |
| Total | 207 | 100.0 |
Almost all (96.32 % or 288 respondents) stated that they would like to continue to receive the Bulletin while only six respondents (2 %) stated that they would like to discontinue receiving the publication. Five did not respond to this question.
Regarding the second question on how do respondents use the Bulletin, 64.21 per cent of them stated that they deposit the publication in the library after their use, 47.02 per cent responded that they circulate it to colleagues and 14.04 per cent stated that it was used by the respondent only. Since the respondents were not asked to check only one item out of four given choices, they checked more than one item for the question. In many cases, respondents checked "circulated to colleagues" and "deposited in library", indicating, perhaps, that they deposit in the library for future use after circulating among colleagues. In any case, the response shows that the publication is being used widely, even though it is addressed to a person in many cases.
To assess the usefulness and relevance of different sections of the Bulletin, users were asked to rank individual sections depending on its usefulness and relevance. Although readers were asked to use numerals (1 for the most useful and 7 for the least useful), the responses varied widely. Some ranked only few, some assigned the same number for several items, perhaps indicating the same level of usefulness, some used a check mark for a few or all items which they considered useful, and some others did not rspond to the question at all.
Seventy-six readers rated the news section as the most useful, 45 readers rated ADOPT (Asian-Pacific Documentson Population Topics) section as the most useful, and 28 readers rated the feature section as the most useful. Electronic networking and information technology news, new books, recommended titles and interview sections were rated highest by 27, 21, 14 and 4 respondents, respectively.
Table 3: Area of interest
| Area of interest | Total | % |
| a population policy/legislation | 75 | 25.08 |
| b demographic research/theory/methods | 104 | 34.78 |
| c internal migration/urbanization | 52 | 17.39 |
| d international migration | 46 | 15.38 |
| e population growth/structure/projection/estimates | 98 | 32.78 |
| f mortality, morbidity | 64 | 21.40 |
| g fertility trends/levels/determinants | 74 | 24.75 |
| h nuptiality/family | 37 | 12.37 |
| I population and manpower/HRD | 66 | 22.07 |
| j information, IEC and training | 61 | 20.40 |
| k population and poverty alleviation | 32 | 10.70 |
| l population and economic interrelation | 54 | 18.06 |
| m population and environment | 73 | 24.41 |
| n population and development | 102 | 34.11 |
| o population policies and programmes | 64 | 21.40 |
| p population and the status of women | 79 | 26.42 |
| q population data processing/analysis/survey | 42 | 14.05 |
| r MCH/public health | 61 | 20.40 |
| s FP organization/management/evaluation | 65 | 21.74 |
| t FP policy/legislation | 41 | 13.71 |
| u sociocultural factors | 46 | 15.38 |
| v ageing | 39 | 13.04 |
| w other | 15 | 5.02 |
| Total | 299 | 100.0 |
The survey data was linked again to the mailing list survey to examine the Bulletin readers' area of interst. Table 3 shows the readers' area of interest. When compared with that of the mailing list, which may represent overall areas of interest of the readers of the Division's publications, the Bulletin readers showed lower rates of interest in all areas, particularly the areas of population growth / structure / projection / estimates, population and manpower/HRD, and population and poverty alleviation. Surprisingly, the data shows that the Bulletin readers had lower interest in information, IEC and training than the readers of other publications.
Concerning the size of the publication, 130 (43.48%) considered it "well designed", 143 (47.83%) stated it "suitable", one (0.33%) responded "needs improvement", 25 (8.36%) did not respond to this question. The responses to the question regarding the layout were quite similar to those on the size of publication. One hundred twenty-seven (42.5%) responded that layout was "well designed", 131 (43.8%) responded that it was "suitable" while nine (3%) stated that it "needs improvement". For overall quality of the Bulletin, 21.4 per cent of the readers rated it "excellent", 55.52 per cent rated it "high", and 10.7 per cent rated it "medium". Nobody rated it below "medium" while 37 (12.35 %) did not respond to this question.
The replies to the open-ended question regarding "how this publication has helped you in your work" include: finding reference for teaching and research; source for own publications; keep up with topics and population information activities; bibliographic sources; helps to select and collect new books; current awareness; and to be informed about Asia-Pacific region. It shows that the readers use the publication to receive news, as a reference tool for their bibliographic information and for their collection development, conforming with the findings regarding the usefulness and relevance.
Regarding suggestions for improvement, responses varied widely. Some of the responses include: add information on health and population development; more coverage on NGOs; increase number of pages, larger font for ADOPT section; use recycled paper for cover; and publish papers presented at seminars as a series.