DECLARA EL “COMITE SISTEMA-PRODUCTO” QUE:

The initial questionnaire design followed closely to that used by Arsenio (2002).

The interviewers were asked to mark the position of the block with respect to the main traffic road and also indicate the name of the traffic road. This was then followed by a brief description of the objective of the survey which took the following form:

This research is being conducted to characterise some flat attributes and the local environment in this residential area. For this purpose, we would like to ask you some questions and we thank you in advance for your cooperation.

This was followed by the address of the apartment and its position in relation to the main traffic road. Based on the questionnaire design adapted from Arsenio (2002), the household familiarity question followed where the respondents were asked to indicate the number of years they have lived in the apartment, the number of people and children living in the apartment and the reasons for choosing the location and the particular apartment as well as the information on the apartment tenure.

However, during the pilot study it was observed that these questions considerably

increased the amount of time spent on the questionnaire before the choice experiment was conducted and hence the interviewers were trained to ask this question later in the interview. Thus the choice experiment question took precedence over this question during the main survey of both the survey phases.

In the first phase of the survey which used the location method of attribute representation, respondents’ familiarity with flat characteristics was assessed by asking them to indicate the rent, service charge, number of rooms, area and garage parking space for the locations 6F, 6T, 3F and 3T that were used as levels in the choice experiment (and are described in Section 5.3.1 of this chapter). During the pilot study it was known that respondents faced much problem in answering this question and they also required some time to respond. As the question was not considered to be extremely significant to the objectives of the survey, the interviewers were trained not to spend too much time on it if the respondent had difficulties in the familiarity of these characteristics. The purpose to include this question was to accustom the respondents to the different apartment locations that would be used in the choice experiment as the different attribute levels. Thus during the main survey, care was taken that considerable time is not spent on this particular question if the respondents were not familiar with the apartment characteristics.

Following the question on the apartment characteristics for the apartment locations used in the survey, the respondents were asked to classify attributes such as view, noise and sunlight for each of the apartment locations in terms of a linguistic category as well as a perception rating (from 0 - 100). It was assumed that as respondents might have difficulty to imagine the attribute levels of the specified apartments during the decision-making for the choice experiments, they would anchor the levels for the apartment based on the ratings they give. Thus, they were asked to give the attribute ratings prior to the choice experiment. During the course of the survey, it was also observed that some respondents cross-referenced their attribute ratings with the interviewer before the decision-making.

Thus for example, for view, respondents were asked to give a linguistic category and a rating in the following form:

Table 5.11 Attribute rating exercise for the location method Characteristic of the apartment View

Very bad (0) _____________________________________ Very good (100) Very bad Bad Neither Good Very good Ratings 6F ● ● ● ● ●

6T ● ● ● ● ● 3F ● ● ● ● ● 3T ● ● ● ● ●

The linguistic category and ratings followed suit for noise and sunlight. The SP choice experiment followed the question on attribute perception. The SP exercise was in a form of a payment card where the respondents were shown a card of each choice scenario. Depending on the type of the experiment, different forms and sequences of choice elicitation method were used as described in section 5.3.

An example of the choice scenario with a five point Likert scale choice elicitation method can be given as:

Table 5.12 Example of a five point Likert scale choice scenario with the location method

OPTION A OPTION B

View: 6F View: 6F

Noise: 3F Noise: 6F

Housing service charge:

€ 40

Housing service charge:

€ 75

Sunlight: 6F Sunlight: 3T

Definitely A

Probably A

Uncertain Probably B

Definitely B

While an example of a choice scenario with two stage Likert scale question can be given as the following:

Table 5.13 Example of a two stage Likert scale choice scenario with location representation

OPTION A OPTION B

View: 6F View: 6F

Noise: 3F Noise: 6F

Housing service charge:

€ 40

Housing service charge:

€ 75

Sunlight: 6F Sunlight: 3T

A B

Degree of certainty/confidence:

I have the absolute certainty I have some doubts

Comparing the levels used in the two elicitation methods it can be noted that in the case of the two stage Likert method, the ‘I have some doubts’ (not so certain) could possibly include aspects of ‘probably’ and ‘uncertain’ levels of the five point Likert question. As in the case of the two stage Likert the preference elicitation question followed a post-choice certainty format, a separate ‘uncertain’ option would not be logical in the second stage of the choice question (where choice certainty was elicited). Though the ‘uncertain’ alternative could have been included in the first stage of the elicitation method where respondents were offered the two alternatives, this was not conducted for two reasons – 1) the inclusion of ‘uncertain’ alternative at this stage could have possibly increased task complexity/fatigue in respondents for later choice scenarios as it would involve examining the alternatives at three levels of choice (A, uncertain or B) and then indicating the level of preference certainty in cases where they chose A or B and 2) the exclusion of the ‘uncertain’

alternative in the two stage while its inclusion in the one stage Likert method can allow for the examination of differences between the two elicitation methods and the effect of the ‘uncertain’ alternative on respondents’ choices.

Though the two stage Likert elicitation process is different from the five point Likert method and can be argued by some as a ‘debriefing’ exercise, it would

however not be entirely appropriate to term it as such¹⁸. Moreover, terming it as a two stage Likert question follows from the notation used by Albaum (1997) who compared the effects of one and two stage Likert methods, with the split question technique employed in the two stage Likert method working as an ‘unfolding’

process where respondents first indicates their choice and then the preference/strength level for their choice. As Albaum (1997) revealed a difference in the effect of one and two stage Likert methods based on their ability to capture the direction and intensity of preferences, a purpose of using these different elicitation methods in the current research is to examine the effects and differences of the two methods within CE and in the specific experimental context. An alternative nomenclature of the two stage Likert method could be the ‘post-decisional certainty’ measure as has been termed by Li and Mattsson (1995).

However, deviating from the current nomenclature of the method would be of little value as the research aims to compare the effects of one and two stage Likert methods outlined by Albaum (1997).

Another possible aspect of contestation could arise from the terminology of the choice elicitation question. In the preference uncertainty literature, examples can be found where the elicitations of respondents’ preferences have been termed as the strength of preference (SOP) exercise or as eliciting preference uncertainty, sometimes used interchangeably. A distinction of the two terms is thus required in order to clarify which technique has been applied in this research.

18 In contingent valuation as well choice experiments, debriefing questions are asked in a separate section from the choice/WTP elicitation question in order to estimate respondent’s attitudes or factors that influenced respondent’s choice or a WTP level as well as to identify

‘protest’ bidders and respondents who did not understand the experiment (Alpizar and Carlsson, 2001; Navrud, 2002; Romano and Vigano, 1998). However Li and Mattsson (1995) ask respondents a follow-up question after a dichotomous WTP elicitation (yes/no) question asking respondents to indicate their level of confidence on the WTP question.

Terming this follow-up question as a follow-up debriefing question could possibly result in confusion concerning the usage of terms for the preference elicitation exercise in choice experiments. While the question adapted by Li and Mattsson (1995) could be termed as a debriefing question within the CVM framework to some extent, following the standard notations used in the valuation questionnaire formats, terming the follow-up certainty question from a binary choice exercise in CE as a ‘debriefing’ question could be inappropriate as well as confusing.

While the strength of preference (SOP) elicits respondents’ level of preference (strong vs. mild), it does not account for any uncertainty. Eliciting respondents’

strength of preference, Johnston and Swallow (1999) offered respondents a trichotomous choice (accept, neutral, reject) where respondents were asked to indicate their preference strength as strongly, moderately or slightly accept (or reject). Another example of an application of SOP indicator can be found in Swallow et al. (2001) who offered respondents a binary choice and for either of the choice made, asked the respondent to indicate their preference strength on a five point scale ranging from ‘slightly prefer’ to ‘strongly prefer’.

Confusion in the literature on the use of SOP for the level of preference uncertainty could possibly be from Whelan and Tapley (2006) who defined a five point Likert scale of preference certainty between bridge and tunnel of: definitely tunnel, probably tunnel, no preference, probably bridge and definitely bridge as respondents’ SOP. In Whelan and Crockett (2009) the SOP method was correctly applied where respondents were asked to indicate whether they: strongly prefer A, prefer A, prefer B or strongly prefer B. Thus, different from the preference certainty level, a ‘moderate’ or ‘slight’ preference indicates the level of respondent’s preference for an alternative (but not the level of certainty). In case where the level of certainty is explicitly sought either in the case of a five point Likert scale or a two stage Likert method where respondents are asked to indicate their certainty level after a choice is made, this is to be considered as a preference uncertainty measure and not a strength of preference indicator. A SOP indicator is thus to be understood to depict the level of preference strength (mostly as a matter of taste) without any uncertainty involved. The choice elicitation method applied in this research (mainly the one and two stage Likert elicitation methods) will thus henceforth be termed as methods to capture preference uncertainty rather than methods to elicit SOP.

While some distinction between the SOP indicator and the preference uncertainty measure has been outlined, it is important to recognise that these two measures could also be intricately connected. Thus, in case where an individual ‘strongly’

prefers alternative A over B, he could indicate that he ‘definitely’ prefers A. Thus,

some ambiguity remains between the preference uncertainty and the strength of preference terminology which can be recognised as a limitation of the study.

The questionnaire for both phases of the survey included questions on reasons for choosing the particular apartment and the residential location, number of hours spent in the apartment during the week and on weekends, the levels and cause of noise annoyance during day and night, perception ratings for the attribute levels for view, noise and sunlight and socio-economic questions such as education, income, occupation and gender. The choice experiment section of the questionnaire varied according to the phase and the experiment involved. The phases of the SP survey and the types of different experiments are graphically represented in Figure 5.2.

Following from the choice experiment question, questions on the respondent’s perception and causes for day and night time noise at home (from external sources), the level of noise annoyance, the main causes of noise as well as any measures undertaken to reduce the noise impact within the household were asked. These questions were followed by the respondent’s household characteristics such as the number of people and children living in the household and the reasons for choosing the location and the particular apartment followed by socio-economic questions such as education, age, income, gender and occupation. A sample of the questionnaire (translated in English) can be found in APPENDIX A.

To recollect, in the location method pilot study, following from the questionnaire design employed by Arsenio (2002), question was asked to know the respondents’

level of knowledge about other flat characteristics in the block. Thus the respondents were asked to indicate their knowledge of rent, housing service charge, number of rooms, area and the availability of garage for the apartments 6F, 6T, 3F and 3T (which are as described in section 5.3.1 and which formed the levels for the choice experiment in phase 1 of the survey).

For the second phase of the survey which employed the linguistic representation of attribute levels, the question on the knowledge of the respondent about other flat characteristics was excluded from the questionnaire as it was irrelevant. Thus, compared to the location method, only one additional question (eliciting

respondents’ familiarity with price/rent, housing tax, number of apartments, flat area and availability of garage for the different apartments used in the location method) did not precede the choice experiment question in the linguistic method as it was not required for the choice exercise. This question was included with the location method as it was needed to accustom the respondents to the attribute levels that would be used in the choice exercise and hence this question was used to define the different levels (in terms of the different apartments) to the respondents; the responses for the question were not deemed to be extremely necessary for the survey. Moreover, the interviewers were trained not to spend more than a couple of minutes on the question especially if the respondent found it difficult to answer.

The important purpose of the question for the location representation survey was to accustom the respondent to the apartment locations that would be used in the survey.

The effect of exclusion of this question with the linguistic method was not expected to be extremely significant in terms of affecting the survey length and consequently, the respondent’s performance as – 1) respondents with the location method questionnaire were asked not to spend too much time (more than a few minutes) on thinking about the answers if they did not know the apartment characteristics and 2) in most of the cases, respondents chose to reply by a ‘don’t know’ though the question was still posed in order to define the levels. Thus, no substantial time variation across the two survey types was obtained due to this question. However the variation in the survey length across the two phases could imply increased fatigue in some cases prior to the choice experiment question for the first phase of the survey and thus can be regarded as a limitation of the study.

In the second phase of the survey (employing linguistic representation), the respondents were again asked to give a rating from 0 (very bad) – 100 (very good) for all the linguistic categories (very good, good, neither, bad and very bad) and for all the attributes in the block. Thus, they were asked, for example, ‘if you were to give a rating from 0-100 for “very good” view in this block what rating would you give?’ The rating question again preceded the choice experiment although it was considered that the linguistic representation of attributes would be relatively

simpler to understand and the respondents will not have to anchor their understanding of the attribute level to the numeric ratings that they have given.

This question was of particular relevance as the ratings obtained from the respondents for each of linguistic level would be used to design the membership function in the fuzzy logic analysis. Thus the rating question outlined in Table 5.11 was modified as the following for the phase 2 experiments:

Table 5.14 Attribute rating exercise for phase 2 Characteristic of apartment View

Very bad (0) _____________________________________ Very good (100) Ratings Very bad

Bad Neither Good Very good

Compared to the location method where respondents are asked to rate the attribute levels in terms of verbal as well as a numeric scale, it can be noted that only numeric ratings are elicited against a word scale in the linguistic method. The basis of this variation lies in the fundamental difference between the location and the linguistic methods. As the location method used different apartment locations in the block as the basis of the attribute levels for view, noise and sunlight, respondents’ perceptions on the attribute levels were sought on a numeric rating scale (0-100) along with a linguistic category that they were asked to identify. The purpose of eliciting both the linguistic category as well as the numeric rating for the location method was to obtain the link between the different attribute levels, the linguistic categories as well as the numeric ratings in order to develop the experimental design for the linguistic method.

The method of developing the levels in the choice experiment for the linguistic method using the attribute levels, linguistic category and numeric ratings data obtained from the location method is outlined in Section 5.3.2. In case of the

linguistic method which represented the attribute levels in semantic terms, asking respondents to identify a linguistic level on a linguistic category would be a redundant and confusing exercise for the respondents and hence only numeric ratings information, which would be used in the modelling process, was elicited with this representation method. Thus, for the linguistic method, respondents were only asked to provide a subjective numeric rating associated for each of the attributes represented in linguistic categories.

This section detailed the survey method and the questionnaire design. The next section will now describe the initial descriptive statistics of some of the socio-economic as well as noise perception characteristics of the respondent.