Two University of Otago academics putting together a new survey to gauge public support - or lack of it - for the Awatea St stadium hope to have it sent to homes by the end of the year.
Department of Marketing lecturers Dr John Williams and Ben Wooliscroft began the project after heeding a call for a new survey from Stop the Stadium president Bev Butler, offering their time free of charge.
They have completed a draft copy, and are now waiting for information from the Dunedin City and Otago Regional councils and the Carisbrook Stadium Trust.
They also need $7000 to fund the survey.
Asked what was the point of another survey on the stadium, Dr Williams said yesterday he wanted to create a survey that had credibility with the majority of people.
A subsidiary goal was to give a voice to the "silent majority" - a group regularly referred to in the debate.
Dr Williams said he was happy with the research and draft questionnaire that had been developed, and was waiting on information from the trust that would be included, and financial figures from the two councils.
After those were received, all parties had to agree with what was in the survey, something he admitted may not be easy.
Dr Williams said while the councils, the stadium trust, the Stop the Stadium group and the Dunedin Householders and Ratepayers Association had agreed to be involved, and agreed in principle to fund it, there was as yet no commitment to funding, and that was essential for it to go ahead.
Asked about the response from the organisations to the survey, Dr Williams said that apart from Stop the Stadium, "I would characterise it as not enthusiastic - somewhere between lukewarm and enthusiastic".
The draft proposal asks respondents whether they want the stadium to go ahead, whether they would support it at various costs, and whether they trust the accuracy of predictions of the costs and benefits of the project.
Asked how the survey would deal with hidden costs, like the funding coming from the city council's group of companies, Dr Williams said upper and lower estimates of costs had been included.
Opportunity costs had not been included, as it was too difficult to include them in a survey.
Asked where the pair stood in relation to pro and anti groups, Dr Williams said they were trying to remain as objective and disinterested as possible, and involving people on both sides of the argument.
The pair hoped this would produce a survey that would not be subject to endless criticism after it was finished.
Who would fill in the survey - ratepayers or residents - and which person in each household had yet to be decided.
