Household Surveys

This section describes the development and distribution of the two household surveys; the Camden survey was developed in the light of the experience from the online survey; the Poole survey followed both. In both cases, the previous questions served as the starting point. The

following chapter describes the observational visits to each of the locations, which also helped to inform the process.

Camden

Having decided on a geographically focussed household survey in Bloomsbury and Kings Cross wards, a choice was required between a random sample across the two, or a survey focussed on a smaller area within them. As described in Section 6.1, the observational visit found a diverse mixture of buildings, land uses and local environments; it was not possible to identify a

‘representative’ smaller area within them. The random sample was chosen, therefore.

The predominance of shared buildings without identifiable letterboxes suggested a postal survey rather than a hand-delivered one. Around half of the adult population was included on the electronic version of the electoral register – the others having opted not to receive any mailings.

Unfortunately no information was available on any self-selection differences which might introduce an element of bias into the sample. It would only be possible to assess how representative the final sample was by comparing selected indices with Census data.

The online survey (Appendix iii) was used as the starting point for the questionnaire; the final questions are shown on Appendix iv. Although several of the questions were amended to reflect local circumstances, it was hoped to keep many of them similar to facilitate comparisons. The branching structure of the online survey was considered too complicated for a paper-based questionnaire, however, so this was simplified, with colour coding used to facilitate branching to numbered sections.

The population of the area appeared diverse both in terms of ethnicity and national origin (the presence of a university may have been a factor in this). This raised some potentially significant issues for the survey. Existing research into the attitudes of ethnic minorities towards transport issues, mainly relates to public transport and public communication issues (e.g. Welsh Consumer Council. 2004, Social Research Associates 2003). There did not appear to be any UK research into how ethnicity affects attitudes to car ownership.

Collecting information on both ethnicity and national origin was considered. The ethnic categories used in the Census would introduce a lengthy question which, though familiar to many people, could still prove off-putting. Given the apparent diversity of the area, a very large sample would probably be needed to enable statistically significant comparisons between sub-samples, apart from simple binary divisions such as white/non-white. This posed an ethical question concerning

elsewhere in the UK, or overseas. The possibility of moves outside the UK would also be relevant to the questions about future intentions.

200 pilot questionnaires with a box inviting comments on the questions, were sent out to randomly selected individuals from the electoral register in May 2007. As suggested by Oppenheim (1992) question wording is not the only reason for piloting. Appropriateness of layout is another. The use of colour can aid clarity, particularly where respondents are asked to follow branching options.

Appendix iv illustrates how colours were used to differentiate the sections under which questions were grouped. 19 (9.5%) of the pilot questionnaires were returned in the freepost envelopes provided, suggesting only minor amendments. Unfortunately some of the problems identified with the full survey, such as respondents overlooking whole pages, were not evident in the pilot returns;

these problems did help to inform the Poole survey.

Anticipating a low response rate typical of postal surveys in Inner London, 2,000 copies of the main survey were mailed out in July 2007. As only minor amendments were made from the pilot

version, it would be possible to combine the two for the purposes of analysis.

Poole Quarter

Unlike the two wards in Camden, Poole Quarter was a single development in a relatively small area, so a survey of all households was considered feasible. As the electoral register was not up to date, it was initially decided to deliver the questionnaires by hand to all occupied properties.

Access arrangements to the blocks of flats varied but access was eventually gained to all bar eight properties – a total of 228 questionnaires delivered.

The Camden questionnaire was adapted to reflect the different circumstances, concentrating on Poole Quarter as a development, and deleting the references to moving intentions (as respondents had only recently moved, this was judged inappropriate). Parking restrictions and the residential travel plan were two reasons why Poole Quarter had been selected. All its residents had moved there recently, so this enabled questions to be posed about how their travel behaviour had changed, and whether the residents believed the travel plan had been effective.

The hypothetical question about carfree areas was phrased in a slightly different way, following the questions about the Poole Quarter travel plan:

24) Some European countries have gone further, with ‘carfree neighbourhoods’, where parking is further reduced and separated from the housing. They are designed around public transport, walking and cycling. Traffic is only allowed to enter at walking pace

for pick-up or deliveries. If you were looking to move in the future, and such a neighbourhood were built in this country, would you:

[6 options]

Some improvements were made to the layout of the questionnaire following the Camden experience – changing the position of page numbers and coloured boxes, for example, with the aim of reducing the number of questions omitted in error. The final questions are shown on Appendix v.

After some consideration it was decided to ask one person per household to complete the questionnaire. The alternative, with response boxes for each person, was considered too complicated and likely to reduce response rates.

The response rate following the first delivery was 25%. By the end of 2007 an updated electoral register became available. A second mailing of households which had not responded was carried out in December 2007, which increased the response rate to 42.5% – 97 returns.