Designing and Publicising the Online Survey

Because of its greater flexibility, it was decided to begin with the online survey and develop the paper-based surveys in the light of this initial experience. Following the discussion in Section 5.3, the purpose of the online survey was twofold: to provide quantitative data concerning the target groups, and also a pool of volunteers for the qualitative interviews.

The survey design presented a number of particular challenges related to: the identification of the target groups, hypothetical questioning, the wording and order of the questions, and the

expectations created by the introductory text. Each of these is discussed in turn, followed by a brief discussion of the groups who were approached and participated in the survey.

Identifying the Target Groups

The process of designing the online survey revealed some areas of potential ambiguity in the definitions of the possible groups shown on Table 5-1. The starting point for assessing the desire and ability to change car ownership status was the subjective assessment of the individuals themselves. The definition of the Carfree Possibles raised questions about their seriousness of intent, and the feasibility of the changes which might permit these people to give up car ownership.

As they currently owned cars, presumably, at least in the short-term, either the intent or the ability to change must be lacking. For initial classification, it was decided to identify the Carfree Possibles by a statement: “I would like to live without a car if circumstances changed”. What these

circumstances might be would require further investigation. The seriousness of intent was addressed by the addition of a further criterion: that the individuals had already given up car ownership in the past and subsequently reacquired a car. This refinement had a number of implications (e.g. relating to age profile) as discussed in Chapters 7 and 9.

Another issue affecting the definitions of both the Carfree Possibles and Carfree Choosers was how to classify individuals who lived in households with a car, but did not own one themselves. As many of the questions would focus on decision-making at the household level, it was decided to classify these people as car owners in most cases. An exception was made where another household member owned a car, but the respondent did not drive it. In these circumstances, the respondent was classified as a non owner. The definition of the Carfree Choosers (and the Other Nonowners) did not preclude them from driving other cars, owned outside the household. The questionnaires and interviews would need to explore the influence of other household members and their car ownership status on the respondents.

These three scenarios are summarised in Table 5-6:

Situation Classified As

Respondent does not own a car – drives a car owned by another household member

Car owner Another household member owns a car – respondent does not drive

it.

Non owner No cars in household – respondent drives other cars Non owner

Table 5-6 Household Car Ownership and Classification of the Possible Groups

The financial constraints on car ownership raised another potential ambiguity. If someone lives without a car for financial reasons, should this be considered a choice or a constraint? Again, the principle of self-definition was followed. Someone who was unable to afford car ownership would be classified according to their choice between the three mutually exclusive options shown in Table 5-7.

Statements Classified As

I live without a car by choice Carfree Chooser

I do not own a car but would like to Other Nonowner

I am unable to own a car for physical or health reasons Other Nonowner Table 5-7 Statements Defining the Non Owner Groups

Hypothetical Questions

The literature on survey design often advises caution (Fowler 2002), or complete avoidance of hypothetical questions (Oppenheim 1992). As discussed in Section 5.3, to address the research questions some element of hypothetical questioning was unavoidable, although efforts were made to minimise the hypothetical content of the questions and frame them in a way which would permit

At the beginning it was intended to keep the wording of the online and a future paper-based survey identical, to enable comparisons. However, once the draft survey was entered onto the software package (on www.questionpro.com) and the full potential of the branching tool was explored, it became apparent that attempting to replicate this in a paper-based survey (e.g. ‘if you ticked “yes”

go to question x’) would make the latter too long and complicated. A key advantage of the online software is that respondents only see the questions relevant to them.

The particular software chosen had already been successfully used for another survey within the Faculty and this research was able to benefit from some of the technical lessons learned. The use of a previously tested software helped address some potential problems with survey design. For example, consistency in the format of multiple option questions is one means of reducing the demands on respondents, encouraging them to continue (Oppenheim 1992).

The questionnaire went through eight drafts and a pilot before the final version, shown in Appendix iii. The pilot survey ran during December 2006 using members of the Faculty with experience of administering surveys, and members of two of the target organisations: the CTC and Friends of the Earth. 21 completed the survey, making a range of observations, which influenced the final version. The latter ran from February until July 2007.

Some questions were given particular attention, and amended several times, such as Question 22:

22) Which of the following factors would most influence your choice of place to move to?

(Please choose 3 or 4):

[11 options + ‘Other’]

The hypothetical factors most influencing “your choice of house or flat to move into” in Q. 22 were initially informed by the housing literature including Kim et al (2005), Leishman et al (2004) and Walker (2002), as well as the literature on the relationship between transport and the built form.

Initially, factors related to both the neighbourhood and individual property were included. These were later removed because it was felt that asking respondents to balance these against the locational factors would overstretch the hypothetical nature of the responses. Other questions would collect some (limited) information about respondents’ current housing type and broad preferences. Following the discussion above, questions 7 and 8 about the advantages and problems of the areas where respondents currently lived (Q.7 and 8) would provide a comparison to Q.22, based on a more concrete situation.

The initial order of the questions was amended following advice from a marketing specialist experienced in commissioning market research (C. Melia, Commercial Services Director of Tourism Southeast), beginning with more straightforward factual ones, followed by ones requiring more complex evaluation, with personal questions such as household income towards the end, once an element of trust had been established.

Following Oppenheim (1992) several of the draft questions were reworded to make them appear more polite, less brusque (e.g. “How would you describe your household?” rather than “Your household:” followed by a list). The definition of income was one potential problem raised by Oppenheim which was never entirely resolved. People’s views and recollections might result in the inclusion or exclusion of investment or property income, for example. More specific guidance was considered but ultimately, to avoid over-complication and the appearance of intrusiveness, it was decided to limit this to: “annually, before tax”.

It was not judged feasible to build a full ‘mobility biography’ (following Lanzendorf 2003) from the survey responses, but questions 14 and 15 about past car ownership were introduced to provide some context for the analysis of responses to the hypothetical questions. The third stage of qualitative interviews would probe the reasons for people’s changes in car ownership in more detail.

The introductory text on the survey home page (shown on Appendix iii) presented a challenge: to what extent to acknowledge the political/environmental objectives of the study. On the one hand, it could influence some of the responses. On the other hand, the literature emphasises the need in motivating respondents to explain the purpose of the questions they are about to answer (Fowler 1998). Given the self-selecting element amongst the participants it was felt that the advantages of disclosing the broad objectives would outweigh the disadvantages – the chosen wording was not judged to suggest any new ideas with which they would not already be familiar (carfree

development was not mentioned). The media of communication chosen, through environmentally-related organisations and publications made some acknowledgement of the rationale for the study inevitable in any case.

The organisations approached for assistance with dissemination were as follows:

Organisation Response? Media of Communication

A2B Magazine* No -

CTC Yes Electronic newsletter

Environmental Transport Association Yes Electronic newsletter

Friends of the Earth Yes Website and electronic newsletter

Greenpeace Yes Electronic newsletter

Green Party Yes Electronic newsletter and website

Grown up Green Yes Electronic newsletter and website

Living Streets Yes Electronic newsletter

London Cycling Campaign Yes Members magazine

Sustrans Yes Electronic newsletter and magazine

Transport 2000 Yes Informal email contact

Women’s Environmental Network No -

Sustainable Travel Demonstration Towns:

Darlington Free magazine delivered to homes

Peterborough Electronic & paper newsletters

Worcester Newsletter

Table 5-8 Organisations Contacted for Publicising the Online Survey

Following the discussion in Section 5.4, the first section of Table 5-8 lists environmental

organisations (a publication in one case) and/or organisations representing utility cyclists. With hindsight, the logic for the inclusion of the three Sustainable Travel Demonstration Towns was not so clear. They were contacted following a discussion with the project’s contact at the Department for Transport. None of these towns had particularly low car ownership. The justification for their inclusion was simply that the population there had already been sensitised to the issues of sustainable transport. In the event, no more than a dozen respondents came from these towns, and some of these were members of the environmental or cycling organisations.

A domain name: www.transportsurvey.org.uk was purchased to simplify the online address for people reading paper-based media. A press release was sent to two local newspapers in

Camden, publicising the online survey. At least one of them did run the story, although this did not produce many respondents (only 3 indicated that they had heard through a newspaper article).

Following this it was decided to run the separate paper-based survey there.