7 Online Survey Findings
8.2 Camden Survey
Appendix iv lists the questions, frequencies and percentage responses from the survey of the Camden wards of Bloomsbury and Kings Cross. 199 people responded, including the pilot survey, representing a 9% rate of return. Low rates of return are common in postal surveys within Inner London. The population of these wards is relatively mobile. Just over 5% of the questionnaires were returned by Royal Mail as the addressee had left or was not known at the address.
Unlike the online survey, respondents were able to miss out questions or ignore instructions like:
‘please tick three or four’, which many of them did. In a few cases, it was possible to impute missing data from responses to other questions e.g. number of adults and children in a single person household. In Question 11 two additional categories were introduced at the data entry stage to capture those who had missed out the question but were identifiable as drivers or non-drivers of cars.
The questions used to identify the possible groups were the same as those described in Table 7-1 for the online respondents, although the question numbering was different, as shown in Table 8-1:
Possible Group Question Responses
Carfree Choosers: 16 I live without a car by choice Carfree Possibles: 13
&: 12
I would like to live without a car if circumstances changed options 2 or 3 (have lived without a car in the past)
Other Nonowners: 16 options 2 or 3 (would like to own a car, or I am unable to)
Other Owners: 13
&/or: 12
options 1 or 2 (would not give up car, or not possible) options 1 or 4 (never lived without a car since passing test) Table 8-1 Questionnaire responses identifying the Camden possible groups
199 (9.5%) of the questionnaires were returned. In 21 cases missing data prevented their classification into to one of the potential groups. The distribution of the remainder is shown in Figure 8-1:
Carfree Choosers 104 Other Nonowners 32
Carfree Possibles 10 Other Owners 32
Total valid responses: 178
Figure 8-1 Camden Survey – Proportions & Sizes of Potential Groups
The high proportion of Carfree Choosers confirmed the hypothesis which led to the selection of these two wards. The small number of Carfree Possibles precluded any separate statistical analysis of that group. There are fewer statistically significant associations in the Camden sample for two reasons: the smaller sample size and its greater homogeneity. The entire sample was by definition living in similar inner urban conditions. The rest of this section will compare the total sample with data for the two wards, from the 2001 Census – and in one case the Greater London Authority. Comparisons were made between the Carfree Choosers and the rest of the sample for all of the variables below. Most of these were found to be statistically insignificant; some
exceptions are described below.
The demographics of the Bloomsbury and Kings Cross wards are rather different from national averages. One striking example is the age distribution, skewed towards the 18 – 29 bands (ONS 2009 Census table CS010). Amongst the survey respondents These groups were
under-represented – and most of the older groups over-under-represented as shown in Figure 8-2.
58.4%
18.0%
18.0%
5.6%
Distribution of Possible Groups
Carfree Choosers
Other Nonowners
Other Owners
Carfree Possibles
Figure 8-2 Camden Survey - Age Distribution
The proportions sum to 100% i.e. children have been excluded. The differences between the Carfree Choosers and the rest of the sample were not significant. The 18 – 29 year olds in the Census data, but missing from the survey sample, fall mainly into the ‘other’ categories shown in Figure 8-3. These include unemployed, carers, and people claiming long-term sickness or disability benefits (which collectively made up 6% of the 18 – 24 year olds in the Census). There were significantly more (69%) employed and self-employed people amongst the Carfree Choosers.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
18 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 +
% Age Distribution (Q.24)
Census
Survey - All
Figure 8-3 Camden Survey - Economic Status
Unlike the online survey, there was no significant gender bias amongst the respondents (51%
female – Q. 23). 45% of the sample were born overseas; only 22% within London (Q. 27). The Carfree Choosers were similar to the rest of the sample in these respects.
Single person households form a particularly large proportion of the local population in inner
London. As with the online survey, they were under-represented amongst the survey respondents:
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
employee self-employed student Other categories
% Economic Status (Q.25)
Census
Survey -All
Figure 8-4 Camden Survey - Household Size
The proportion of adults with children was low in the two wards 22% (ONS 2009 Census table CS014), slightly lower (18%) in the sample, and significantly lower amongst the Carfree Choosers (11%).
The graph below shows a smoothed line between points at different data intervals indicating that the lower and higher income levels are both over-represented somewhat amongst survey
respondents. The household size shown above – higher in the sample than the general population – does not appear to be reflected in higher incomes.
Household Size (Q.3)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
1 2 3 or 4 5 or more
% Census
Survey
Figure 8-5 Camden Survey - Distribution of Household Income
The Carfree Choosers had a similar income distribution to the rest of the sample, but as in the online survey, a significantly higher income than the Other Nonowners (49% and 20% earned over
£30,000, respectively).
As with the online survey, people in social rented accommodation are under-represented compared to the Census data (ONS 2009 table CS050):
Distribution of Household Income (Q.26)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
£10,000 £15,000 £20,000 £25,000 £30,000 £35,000 £40,000 £45,000 £50,000 £60,000 £80,000£100,000 Proportion of Households Earning at Least:
* GLA Data Management. Simple Average of Bloomsbury & Kings Cross
Cumulative %
Survey DMAG*
Figure 8-6 Camden Survey - Tenures
Individual houses make up just 4% of the dwellings in the two wards. The vast majority of these are terraced or town houses, so the survey did not attempt to distinguish between house types.
43% of the dwellings had just one bedroom – including studio flats and bed-sitters (Q. 8).
Figure 8-7 Camden Survey - Housing Type 0.0
Just over a quarter of respondents indicated that their address in Camden was not their sole residence (Q. 5). A quarter of these were students. Half had household incomes over £50,000 and half were home owners.
Car Ownership and Travel
Two thirds of households had no car (Q. 10), which compares very closely with the Census data (ONS 2009 table CS061). 9% of the Carfree Choosers lived in a household with a car (difference significant at the 99% level).
Figure 8-8 Camden Survey - Car Ownership
Amongst the car owners, 47% had some experience of living without a car (Q.12) but 42% said they would not want to give up their car under any circumstances (Q. 13) – compared to just 11%
in the online survey.
Half of the non-owners said they had never owned a car (Q. 15). Three quarters – the Carfree Choosers – said they lived without a car by choice (Q. 16). Their reasons for this (Q. 17) were markedly different from the online survey; half cited ‘no need’ as the main reason, followed by cost (24% main, 54% secondary). The environment and lack of parking were more secondary than primary reasons.
Only 8% of respondents drove on most days; 53% never drove (Q. 9). 81% of respondents walked most days, used buses (34%), the underground (22%), and bicycles (12%).
0.0
The frequencies in Question 9 need to be treated with some caution. Unlike the online survey, there was no mechanism forcing respondents to tick the relevant box relating to each mode of transport. Appendix iv shows the frequencies and percentages of those who ticked one of the four boxes for each mode, so no assumptions are made about missing values (note the different basis used for comparison in the table below). This probably overstates the percentage for cycling, where most of the (larger number of) missing values are likely to be non-cyclists.
All purpose modal share statistics were not available down to ward level. The Census does provide a modal split for travel to work, however (ONS 2009 table CS119). Work journeys only make up a minority of the total, so can only provide a basis for broad observations. Table 8-2 juxtaposes the Census figures with the survey frequencies from Question 9 re-expressed as a percentage of the total in each column (so, for example, the ‘Most days’ column roughly equates to the modal shares on most days, though note that respondents could tick more than one ‘most days’ option):
Table 8-2 Camden Survey - Travel Compared to Census
*proportion of trips to work (main mode, excluding home workers)
Subject to those caveats, the above table appears to suggest higher bus use and possibly lower car use than the Census. Bus patronage in London increased by 48% between 2000/1 and 2006/7 (Knowles, Abrantes 2008) which would account for part of this. None of the other modes obviously differ from the Census data.
Figure 8-9 shows the regular (most weeks or most days) travel by mode6. The only statistically significant differences were the Carfree Choosers’ higher rate of walking and lower rate of driving.
Figure 8-9 Camden Survey Regular Travel by Mode
Attitudes to Neighbourhoods and Moving Home
The three most frequently ticked advantages of living in the area are shown in Table 8-3:
Q. 6: Advantages of living in the area Survey – All
close to central London 93%
accessible public transport 71%
convenient for work/study 67%
Table 8-3 Most Frequent Responses to Q.6
These were also the top responses for the Carfree Choosers. The only significant differences in their responses to this question were a higher proportion ticking convenient for work/study (73%) and lower proportions ticking close to family/friends (14%) good schools (4%) and available parking (4%).
The top three problems of living in the area are shown in Table 8-4: 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Regular (most weeks) Travel by Mode (Q.9)
Survey -all Carfree Choosers
Q. 7: Problems of living in the area Survey – All
too much traffic in the immediate area 50%
distant from countryside 45%
lack of parking 38%
Table 8-4 Most Frequent Responses to Q.7
Although strongly associated with car ownership (see Appendix vi), 23% of Carfree Choosers also cited parking problems. In other respects, their responses to these questions were similar to the rest of the sample.
23 people (16%) entered an ‘other’ problem, seven related to noise and five related to anti-social behaviour.
11% of respondents planned to leave the UK in the next two years (Q. 18); 27% had no intention of moving. Of the remaining 62%, just over a third would and could buy; a quarter would only move if and when they could buy (Q. 19). Preferences to rent privately or from a social landlord (17%
each) largely reflected existing tenures (see Appendix vi).
71% of the ‘potential movers’ would prefer to stay near where they lived – double the proportion in the online survey (Q. 20). Preferences for flats and terraced houses were higher in the Camden survey than the online survey. A quarter would prefer and three quarters would consider a flat, with slightly lower proportions for terraced housing (20%, 47%). Preferences for detached and semi-detached houses were lower. These preferences may simply reflect the realities of the housing stock in that area.
The top four factors influencing moving choices are shown in Table 8-5:
Q. 21: Influences on moving choice – Survey – All
Well served by public transport 68%
Close to central London 66%
Close to place of work or study 45%
Close to shops and other amenities 45%
Table 8-5 Most Frequent Responses to Q.22 – Carfree Possibles
The only significant differences between the Carfree Choosers and the rest of the sample were lower frequencies for schools (4%) and available parking (4%).
Interest in carfree neighbourhoods (Q. 22) was not quite as high as the online survey, as shown in Table 8-6. The slightly more favourable responses of the Carfree Choosers were not significantly different from the rest of sample.
Q. 22: Attitude to living in a carfree neighbourhood
Survey All
Carfree Choosers Be keen to move there even if it meant moving some distance 4% 5%
Consider moving there, if it were somewhere convenient 45% 47%
Possibly consider the idea 19% 23%
Not consider moving there 19% 15%
Don’t know 13% 11%
Table 8-6 Attitudes to Carfree Neighbourhoods – Camden Survey
Significance of the Camden Findings
The small proportion of Carfree Possibles and the absence of statistically significant differences between the Carfree Choosers and the rest of the sample mean that this data cannot be used to address research question two in the same way as the online data. There was, likewise, no support for the hypothesis in research question three. Two areas of the findings are relevant in these respects, however. The high proportion of Carfree Choosers confirmed the expectations which led to the selection of the two wards for survey. Secondly, the lack of statistically significant differences was partly due to the smaller sample size but also because the answers of the Carfree Choosers were more similar to the rest of sample in this survey: this applied to their responses on travel behaviour (Q9) and their attitudes towards: their neighbourhood (Q 6 & 7), moving home (Q21) and moving to a carfree neighbourhood (Q22). This suggests that the characteristics and attitudes of Carfree Choosers are more similar to those of the general population in Inner London, where conditions are more supportive of carfree living, than they are elsewhere. The next chapter will explore some of the reasons for, and influences on, these attitudes.