Appendix B - Description of question variables and response scales in the empirical research

Transcription

1 Appendix B - Description of question variables and response scales in the empirical research This section describes in detail the characteristics of the questionnaires: the questions/variables and the responses that could be given. The original questionnaires were in Dutch. This section only provides a short description of the variables (freely translated from Dutch). For a total overview of the Dutch questionnaires, one can approach the author. The outline of this section is as follows. Tables B1 en B2 describe the characteristics of household questionnaires 1A en 1B, respectively. In addition, table B3 provides insight into household questionnaire 2. Tables B4 and B5, finally, present the details of household questionnaire 3 and the firm questionnaire. A further description/explanation of the fieldwork can be found in chapter 3. It must be noted that the presented following order of the variables in this section is not always exactly in line with how things were presented in the questionnaires. Tabel B1 Household questionnaire 1A: short-term trip trade-offs (stated choice) Questions/Variables Gender male; female Age years old Highest attended education level (either finished or not) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Highest finished education (diploma) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Province of the Netherlands where respondent lives 1 out of the 12 provinces could be selected Number of inhabitants in municipality < 10,000; 10,000-20,000; 20,000-50,000; 50, ,000; 100, ,000; > 400,000 Region (of residence) within The Netherlands 3 biggest cities in the West (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague); rest West; North; East; South Number of working hours per week > 40; 40; 35-39; 30-34; 25-29; 20-24; 15-19; <15; don t know/don t want to say; not employed Status partner self-employed; employed in public sector, other paid employment; no work; don t know/don t want to say Income (household gross annual) 27 classes; don t know; don t want to say Income (household gross annual): 4 classes < 28,500; 28,500-45,000; 45,000-68,000; > 68,000 euro; don t know; don t want to say Household size 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6+ Number of adults in household 1; 2; 3+ Number of children in household 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Number of children in household (age 0-11) 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Household composition single; single + children; partner, no children; partner + children Renter/owner of the house renter; owner Zip code home address 347

2 ACCEPTABILITY OF PRICING MEASURES ACCEPTABILITY OF PRICING MEASURES Respondents were presented with three different price measures. For a detailed overview of these measures (i.e. bottleneck passage, kilometre charge differentiated by vehicle type, kilometre charge with different charge levels and different revenue use) including the different characteristics, see Table 9.1 in Ubbels (2006). After seeing each price measure respondents were asked questions regarding: Justness/righteousness of the price measure Likeliness of reducing (own) car kilometres due to measure Perceived likeliness of a decrease in congestion problems due to measure Perceived likeliness of a decrease in environmental problems due to measure Expectation of in general being better or worse off due to the measure Expectation that the price measure can be implemented without problems with current technologies available Perceived acceptability of the price measure Probably I buy a more environmental friendly car (only asked in case of a kilometre charge differentiated to vehicle type) PRIVACY PROPOSITION Perception that by introducing an electronic device that registers the car kilometres privacy is affected REVENUE USE PERCEPTIONS Revenues go to the government treasury without a specific destination Revenues are used to construct new roads Revenues are used to improve the quality of the public transport Revenues are used to abolish the current car usage taxes (MRB) Revenues are used to reduce fuel taxes Revenues are used to reduce income taxes PERCEPTION OF BETTER/WORSE OFF 7-point Likert scale (very unjust very just) 7-point Likert scale (very likely very unlikely) 7-point Likert scale (very likely very unlikely) 7-point Likert scale (very likely very unlikely) 7-point Likert scale (probably far better- probably far worse off) 7-point Likert scale (totally agree totally disagree) 7-point Likert scale (very acceptable very unacceptable) 7-point Likert scale (totally agree totally disagree) PRIVACY PROPOSITION 7-point Likert scale (totally agree totally disagree) REVENUE USE PERCEPTIONS 7-point Likert scale (very acceptable very unacceptable) PERCEPTION OF BETTER/WORSE OFF 348

3 Respondents were shown two different kilometre charge measures with different charging cost and travel time gain combinations (for details see Appendix D). Respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought they would be better off or worse off due to each price measure. OPINION QUESTIONS I think of car driving as: If I have to go somewhere I automatically take the car I do not have alternatives for the car I often choose the car as transport mode without consciously thinking about it It would take effort not to drive the car anymore If I use my car often I feel morally aggrieved Driving the car is part of my routine I can reduce my car use easily I do not feel morally obliged to use more environmental friendly transport modes such as the bike or public transport I often choose the car as transport mode without realising it in advance Even if I use the car less often I m still well capable of doing my daily things Driving the car is typical for me It is against my principles to use the car if well-suited alternatives are available STATED CHOICE (LOCATION) Needed input questions for the choice experiment regarding: Type of house Rent or owner-occupied house Monthly housing costs 7-point Likert scale (probably far better- probably far worse off) OPINION QUESTIONS I think of car driving as: 7-point Likert scale (much fun no fun at all) 7-point Likert scale (very good very bad) 7-point Likert scale (very pleasant very unpleasant) 7-point Likert scale (very positive very negative) 7-point Likert scale (totally agree totally disagree) STATED CHOICE (LOCATION) detached; semi-detached; house in a row; apartment rent; owned. euro Stated choice experiment (9 choice screens per respondent), see section for details. 349

4 Table B2 Household questionnaire 1B: opinions and long-term (location) trade-offs Questions/Variables Gender male; female Age years old Highest attended education level (either finished or not) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Highest finished education (diploma) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Province of the Netherlands where respondent lives 1 out of the 12 provinces could be selected Number of inhabitants in municipality < 10,000; 10,000-20,000; 20,000-50,000; 50, ,000; 100, ,000; > 400,000 Region (of residence) within The Netherlands 3 biggest cities in the West (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague); rest West; North; East; South Number of working hours per week > 40; 40; 35-39; 30-34; 25-29; 20-24; 15-19; <15; don t know/don t want to say; not employed Status partner self-employed; employed in public sector, other paid employment; no work; don t know/don t want to say Income (household gross annual) 27 classes; don t know; don t want to say Income (household gross annual): 4 classes < 28,500; 28,500-45,000; 45,000-68,000 euro; > 68,000; don t know; don t want to say Household size 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6+ Number of adults in household 1; 2; 3+ Number of children in household 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Number of children in household (age 0-11) 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Household composition single; single + children; partner, no children; partner + children Renter/owner of the house renter; owner Zip code home address Zip code work address Frequency of constraints cost by tight activity schedule Car constraints 5-point Likert scale ((almost) always (almost) never) Departure time constraints 5-point Likert scale ((almost) always (almost) never) Chance of moving house (within 2 years) 5-point Likert scale (very small very big) Chance of changing job (location) (within 2 years) 5-point Likert scale (very small very big) Possibility to work at home yes always; yes days/month; no Number of days per month actually working at home INPUT QUESTIONS STATED CHOICE EXP. Days per week with car to work Days per week in traffic jam (in the morning) Commuting distance by car (one-way) Preferred departure time Always the same route to work If no, travel time other route (compared to regular one) Actual departure time (normal situation) INPUT QUESTIONS STATED CHOICE EXP. on average. times per week on average. times per week. km (hour, minute) on average the same length (in time); longer (. min.); shorter (. min) (hour, minute) 350

5 Arrival time (in general) Arrival time constraint at work Departure time constraint at home Transport options available for commuting trip Average commuting travel time with public transport Payment of commute-related transport costs If, (partly) compensated than respondents were additionally asked to give a separate indication of compensation per type of compensation Type of fuel car used most regularly Weight class car Total amount of annually driven kilometres by car STATED CHOICE POINT EXPERIMENT Stated choice (4 choice screens per respondent), see section for details. EXPLORATION RELOCATION PROBABILITY (hour, minute) yes (+ exact indication); no yes (+ exact indication); no carpool; train; bus, tram, underground; bike, foot; no alternative. min self; partly compensated by employer; totally compensated gasoline; diesel; LPG light; medium-weight; heavy. km STATED CHOICE POINT EXPERIMENT Stated choice (4 choice screens per respondent), see section for details. EXPLORATION RELOCATION PROBABILITY In this part of the questionnaire a kilometre charge was introduced with an unrealistically high charge level ( 0.30/kilometre) to explore (maximum) relocation probabilities that could be expected. Moreover, the sensitivity of relocation responses was studied by dividing the respondents over two groups and asking different questions per group. This information was used to construct better (more valid) relocation related questions in household questionnaire 2. Group A: Chance of moving closer to work due to the charge Reasons for not changing (in case of very small, small chance) Group B: Options one considers in the case of the implementation of the kilometre charge (more than one answer categories could be selected) 5-point Likert scale (very small very big) accept extra costs and just pay; expect compensation from employer; use car less often to go to work/use other means accept extra costs and just pay; expect compensation from employer; work more at home; change residence (closer to work); mitigate costs through using the car less often to go to work/use other means; economise on other expenses; other reaction 351

6 Table B3 Household questionnaire 2: short-term and long-term behavioural changes Questions/Variables Gender male; female Age years old Highest attended education level (either finished or not) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Highest finished education (diploma) LO-LBO; MAVO; MBO; HAVO-VWO; HBO, university bachelor; university masters Province of the Netherlands where respondent lives 1 out of the 12 provinces could be selected Number of inhabitants in municipality < 10,000; 10,000-20,000; 20,000-50,000; 50, ,000; 100, ,000; > 400,000 Region (of residence) within The Netherlands 3 biggest cities in the West (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague); rest West; North; East; South Number of working hours per week > 40; 40; 35-39; 30-34; 25-29; 20-24; 15-19; <15; don t know/don t want to say; not employed Status partner self-employed; employed in public sector, other paid employment; no work; don t know/don t want to say Income (household gross annual) 27 classes; don t know; don t want to say Income (household gross annual): 4 classes < 28,500; 28,500-45,000; 45,000-68,000; > 68,000 euro; don t know; don t want to say Household size 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6+ Number of adults in household 1; 2; 3+ Number of children in household 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Number of children in household (age 0-11) 0; 1; 2; 3; 4+ Household composition single; single + children; partner, no children; partner + children Renter/owner of the house renter; owner Zip code home address Number of cars available in household cars Type of fuel of car used normally gasoline; diesel; LPG (gas) Weight class car 1000 kg; kg; > 1250 kg Avg. annual car kilometres (of respondent) kilometres Division of annual kilometres over trip purposes commute; social/visit; other Avg. annual car kilom. (of resp.) in car used in general kilometres Avg. number of times usage of car in 4-week period to: Go to work alone To carpool To visit someone To do other things Paid job Zip-code work address Distance home work by car ( normal route) Possibility to work at home Fixed times to arrive at work Payment of costs related to commuting trips times times times times yes, ; don t know; don t want to say kilometres yes always; yes days/month; no pay yourself; partly; totally compensated by employer 352

7 Type of costs compensated by employer Number of times/week with car in traffic jam Satisfaction with the current home situation Satisfaction with the current work situation Chance of moving within 2 years Chance of changing job within 2 years (visible on request) average times per week 7-point Likert scale (very satisfied very dissatisfied) 7-point Likert scale (very satisfied very dissatisfied) 5-point Likert scale (very small very big) 5-point Likert scale (very small very big) PRICE MEASURES 1 TO 3 PRICE MEASURES 1 TO 3 Introduction price measure 1 (flat kilometre charge) Perceived likeliness that: Congestion problems decrease due to measure Environmental problems decrease due to measure Questions regarding intended changes in current car trips for: commuting purposes, social visiting purposes, other purposes Likeliness (due to the charge): To change the residential location (closer to work) To search for another job (closer to home) To sell the (or on of the) car(s) Perceived righteousness/justice of the price measure Perception of in general being better off or worse off due to the price measure Perceived acceptability of the price measure (visible on request) 7-point Likert scale (very just very unjust) 7-point Likert scale (probably far better- probably far worse off) 7-point Likert scale (very acceptable very unacceptable) Introduction price measure 2A (flat km charge + time dependent bottleneck charge) Same questions as under price measure 1 Introduction price measure 2B (car weight dependent kilometre charge) Same questions as under price measure 1 Introduction price measure 3 (time dependent kilometre charge) Same questions as under price measure 1 PRICE MEASURE 4: cordon charge Live and work in same city/town Work within the built-up area Leave the official built-up area from home to work Live in a medium/big town (min. 40,000 inhabitants) PRICE MEASURE 4: cordon charge (dependent on previous answers) (dependent on previous answers) 353

8 Drive through other medium/big towns from home to work yes, towns; no (dependent on previous answers) Introduction price measure 4 (cordon charge around cities with a minimum of 40,000 inhabitants) Perceived acceptability of the cordon charge Likeliness (due to the charge): To change the residential location (closer to work) To search for another job (closer to home) PROPOSITIONS Price measures are just/righteous if: The price is the same for everyone I personally do not loose too much People who contribute to the problems (e.g. congestion, environment) to a large extent have to pay more The low income groups can keep using their car when needed I am not harmed more than others The revenues are used to the benefit of car drivers I think of car driving as: Propositions regarding car driving: If I have to go somewhere I automatically take the car It would take effort not to drive the car anymore I regard the national government as reliable I feel morally obliged to not use the car in case of suitable alternatives being available People who are important for me think I should use the car less often Most people I know use the car regularly Car use affects the liveability in cities due to noise and smell nuisance Driving the car is part of my routine Even if I use the car less often I m still well capable of doing my daily things Car use takes a lot of space causing the remaining space for cyclists, pedestrians and children to decrease Most people in my environment think I should use the car less often 7-point Likert scale (very acceptable very unacceptable) PROPOSITIONS 7-point Likert scale (totally disagree totally agree) I think of car driving as: 7-point Likert scale (much fun no fun at all) 7-point Likert scale (very good very bad) 7-point Likert scale (very pleasant very unpleasant) 7-point Likert scale (totally disagree totally agree) 354

9 Car use is an important cause for traffic unsafety I can not make a contribution to solutions for problems caused by car use I have faith in the national government keeping their promises It is a habit in my surroundings to use to go everywhere by car I feel morally obliged to use more environmental friendly transport modes such as the bike or public transport Most people who are important to me think I should use the car often If car use in general decreases, the air pollution will reduce I think I am responsible to contribute to solutions to problems caused by car use By reducing my car use I can contribute to solutions to the global warming problem Driving the car is typical for me I often choose the car as mode of transportation without realising it in advance I can reduce my car use easily When I use my car often I feel morally aggrieved Most people who are important to me always use the car The national government often does not keep their promises 355

10 Table B4 Household questionnaire 3: short-term behavioural changes (shopping) Questions/Variables Age (derived from year of birth) years Gender male; female Size household persons Paid job Average number of days per week with the car to days per week work Name of other city where shopping is done most often Annual car kilometres 0-5,000; 5,000-10,000; 10,000-15,000; 15,000-20,000; 20,000-25,000; > 25,000 Number of inhabitants in place employee lives (not the municipality) + qualitative description of size > 5,000; 5,000-10,000; 10,000-20,000; 20,000-50,000; 50, ,000; 100, ,000; > 150,000 (e.g. big city, rural town) Highest finished education Primary school; LBO, MAVO, MULO, VGLO, LAVO; MBO, HAVO, VWO, Gymnasium, MMS, HBS; HBO, university Income (household gross annual) < 20,500; 20,500-28,500; 28,500-45,000; 45,000-68,000; > 68,000 euro; don t want to say Zip code home address CURRENT SHOPPING CHARACTERISTICS Avg. number of times/week daily-shopping by car When is daily-shopping done most often? Trip chaining daily-shopping trips Avg. number of times/year shopping by car in another city (recreational but also for buying e.g. clothes, furniture, etc.) When is shopping in another city done most often? CHANGE IN SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR CURRENT SHOPPING CHARACTERISTICS times per week weekend; peak period working days; off-peak periods mostly combine daily shopping with another trip; mostly make shopping trip separately times per year weekend; peak period working days; off-peak periods CHANGE IN SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR Introduction of a kilometer charge or cordon charge (see Table 3.6 for details). Questions were sometimes marginally different dependent on the type of charge (see section 3.4.5) Acceptability of the charge Times/week less often daily-shopping by car Division of intended trips changed over alternatives: Daily shopping more often by public transport Daily shopping more often by bike, foot Daily shopping more often in off-peak or weekend Combine daily shopping trips more with other trips Daily shopping more often by car closer to home 7-point Likert scale (very acceptable very unacceptable) on average times per week less often times per week 356

11 Do daily shopping less often Times/year less often shopping by car in another city Division of intended trips changed over alternatives: Shopping (other city) more often by public transport Shopping (other city)more often in off-peak or weekend Shopping (other city) more often by car closer to home Do shopping (other city) less often Most acceptable type of revenues use: Revenues go to the government treasury Improve the quality of public transport Invest in infrastructure Reduce current road taxes Reduce current fuel taxes on average times per year less often times per year rank 1-5 from most to least acceptable 357

12 Table B5 Firm questionnaire: short-term and long-term behavioural changes Questions/Variables GENERAL QUESTIONS GENERAL QUESTIONS Number of settlements in the Netherlands settlements Number of employees settlement in question 20-49; 50-99; ; ; 500 Division of employees over categories (%) management, executives, professionals; supportive; on the floor employees Main business activity (business) service; industry/production/construction; wholesale trade; transport/distribution; public sector Main direction of service outgoing (employees go to customer); incoming Geographical operating scale municipal; provincial/regional, inter-regional; national; international Accessibility settlement: By car/lorry By public transport By bike/foot Extent to which settlement faces congestion Perceived attractiveness location settlement (building and location) 7-point Likert scale (very bad very good) 7-point Likert scale (very rare very often) score (1-10) Importance and score settlement on several characteristics: 1. Representativity building and location perceived importance (1-10); score (1-10) 2. Functional housing/workplaces for employees 3. Security building and terrain 4. Accessibility supply and transport of goods 5. Accessibility for employees 6. Accessibility for customers 7. (Low) costs of building and terrain 8. Low) cost of goods transport 9. (Low) costs of business trips 10. (Low) costs compensation commuting employees 11. Proximity to comparable firms 12. Proximity to raw materials and subcontractors 13. Proximity to knowledge centres/universities 14. Flexible laws and legislation 15. Contacts with official agencies 16. Expansion possibilities within building and on terrain 17. Parking facilities 18. Supply of well-suited personnel in region 19. (Low) competition other firms Probability of relocation of the settlement (within 2 years) 358

13 Type of compensations offered to employees (asked for three types of employees: management, supportive, work floor: Compensation for relocation costs Company/business car Compensation km or fuel costs Compensation costs public transport Flexibility in choosing working times Work at home Perceived acceptability of different uses of the revenues: Reduce current fuel taxes Improve the quality of public transport Abolish current road taxes Revenues go to the government treasury Build new infrastructure Reduce income taxes Invest in good information provision (e.g. congestion warning systems) along the roads ROAD PRICING RELATED QUESTIONS never offered, only under special conditions, always offered 7-point Likert scale (very unacceptable very acceptable) ROAD PRICING RELATED QUESTIONS Introduction of a time differentiated kilometer charge to the respondents (see Table 3.7, 7.2 for details) Expectation of an increase in costs due to the kilometer charge for the flowing types of (firm) activities: Transportation of goods and products Business travel Commuting travel of employees Expectation of a reduction in congestion problems Acceptability of the charge for the firm settlement Perceived attractiveness location settlement (building and location) after introduction of the kilometer charge 7-point Likert scale (very strong- very weak increase) 7-point Likert scale (very unacceptable very acceptable) score (1-10) Change in score of some of the firm characteristics reported above due to the kilometer charge (the previous given score before implementation of the charge was given first to the respondents) (Low) cost of goods transport score after introduction of the charge (1-10) (Low) costs of business trips (Low) costs compensation commuting employees Accessibility supply and transport of goods 359

14 Accessibility for employee Accessibility for customers Expected change in offered employee compensations: Compensation for relocation costs Company/business car Compensation km or fuel costs Compensation costs public transport Flexibility in choosing working times Work at home Expected effect of the charge on trips (compared to the current situation): Business trips by car in general Business trips by car outside the peak period Business trips by car inside the peak period Car/lorry trips for transportation (of goods) in general Car/lorry trips for transportation outside the peak period Car/lorry trips for transportation inside the peak period Use of ICT as substitute for commuting trips (e.g. telework) Use of ICT as substitute for business trip (e.g. ) Expected likeliness other changes: Raise product/service prices Change location within 2 years Recruit personnel more often in the vicinity of the firm Perceived accessibility change due to the kilometer charge: No benefits shown Travel time reliability increases Travel time in congestion reduces with 25 % Travel time in congestion reduces with 50 % Acceptability of the kilometer charge in the case of different types of revenue use: Reduce current fuel taxes Improve the quality of public transport Abolish current road taxes Revenues go to the government treasury Build new infrastructure Reduce income taxes 7-point Likert scale (offered far less- far more often) 7-point Likert scale (make far less- far more often) 7-point Likert scale (accessibility far worse far better) 7-point Likert scale (very unacceptable very acceptable) 360

15 Invest in good information provision (e.g. congestion warning systems) along the roads QUESTIONS LAST RECRUITED EMPLOYEE QUESTIONS LAST RECRUITED EMPLOYEE This part of the questionnaire focused on the last recruited employee. This is another kind of method to study behavioural effects. Advocates of this method state that firms can indicate (possible) changes in a better way for the concrete case of the last recruited employee (concrete and fresh in the memory). This part has been used by another partner of the MD-PIT project to study effects of road pricing on offered employee compensations. Type of function for which the employee was recruited Gender employee Highest finished education level Age employee Estimated travel time employee to the settlement before recruiting Relocated (or is going to locate) closer to the new job Use of following facilities: Compensation for relocation costs Company/business car Compensation km or fuel costs Compensation costs public transport Flexibility in choosing working times Work at home management; supportive; work floor male; female primary school; LBO, MAVO; MBO, HAVO, VWO, gymnasium; HBO, university years old < 20; 20-40; 40-60; > 60 min. Introduction kilometer charge (same as before) Offered facilities if the charge would already have been introduced when the employee was recruited: Compensation for relocation costs Company/business car Compensation km or fuel costs Compensation costs public transport Flexibility in choosing working times Work at home Compensation kilometer charging costs 361