Algunas medidas que el Tribunal Constitucional declara paternalistas o falsamente protectoras de la mujer.

In the third part of the focus group discussions, the willingness-to-pay for noise abatement was discussed. A policy scenario was first presented to participants, outlining the steps that the government could take to reduce noise in Singapore. Payment vehicles to fund the implementation of the noise control policies were then discussed. Finally, for each payment vehicle, participants were asked about their willingness-to-pay for noise control.

6.1.3.1 Policy scenario

The policy scenario sets the context for the willingness-to-pay questions which followed. Participants were informed that the government is considering the implementation of politics to decrease the level of noise from construction sites or roads in Singapore by mandating more stringent noise control.

In order to understand the participants’ views on the levels and attributes in the choice set, a range of policies to mitigate the adverse effects of noise were presented to participants. These mitigation measures are outlined in Table 6-2.

116

Table 6-2 List of proposed mitigation measures to reduce noise from construction sites and roads Type of noise

mitigation

Construction noise Road noise

Noise reduction at source

Mandating the use of quieter construction equipment

Mandating that vehicles meet more stringent noise emission standards Disallowing construction work at

different times-of-day

Mandating the use of quiet paving materials for road construction Disallowing construction work at

different days-of-week (e.g., weekends)

Restricting the maximum speed of vehicles

Disallowing construction work at during public holidays

Mandating changes to duration of construction activity

Noise reduction along the sound path

Blocking noise along the sound path with noise barriers

Blocking noise along the sound path with noise barriers

Noise reduction at the receptor

Retrofit homes with sound-proofing measures (e.g., double glazing of windows)

Retrofit homes with sound-proofing measures (e.g., double glazing of windows)

Participants were informed that these noise mitigation policies are effective over different areas. Specifically, noise reduction at the source affects all areas that are adversely affected by the noise. For instance, if construction activity is prohibited on weekends, then residents will not be affected by construction noise on weekends. However, if the noise reduction measure is sound-proofing within the home, then only residences will experience reduced noise levels. Consequently, participants were reminded that noise reductions at the source and along the sound paths are publicly-provided noise reduction, while noise reduction at the receptor is akin to private provision of noise abatement.

Following the introduction of these policy measures, participants were asked whether they thought that these measures could lead to effective noise abatement and whether they needed more information about each policy measure. Participants also discussed their preferences for each policy measure and whether there were other measures that could be implemented to reduce the adverse effects of noise pollution. Responses to this part of the discussion provided information on the phrasing of the policy scenario presented to participants of the choice modelling survey.

6.1.3.2 Payment vehicles

Next, participants were informed that the policies implemented by the government are costly. Consequently, participants were asked whether they would be willing to pay for noise abatement measures. Participants were reminded that in the previous section of the focus group discussion, some participants made private investments in the reduction of noise in their homes. Consequently, pooling of funds for the government to implement noise abatement measures could potentially lower the costs of private investment into noise abatement.

117

As discussed in Section 5.5, a credible and compulsory payment vehicle must be presented to participants of the choice modelling survey in order for participants to state their true willingness-to-pay. As such, the range of payment vehicles discussed in Section 5.5, namely taxes, maintenance charges and community funds, were presented to the focus group discussion participants. Participants were asked about their preferences for each payment vehicle. Further, participants also discussed their preferences for frequency of contributions to these payment vehicles. For instance, the contribution to each payment vehicle could be monthly, annual, or one-off. Participants were also invited to suggest other payment vehicles.

6.1.3.3 Willingness-to-pay for noise abatement

After the discussion on payment vehicles, participants were asked about their willingness-to-pay for the provision of noise abatement by the government. The moderator asked each participant to record the highest amount that they were willing to pay for each payment vehicle previously discussed. After participants had written down their willingness- to-pay, the moderator asked each participant to reveal their stated willingness-to-pay. Participants were then asked to discuss the reasons for their willingness-to-pay, particularly among participants with low willingness-to-pay or very high willingness-to-pay. Variations of willingness-to-pay between different payment vehicles and frequency of payment were also discussed.

In order to understand the willingness-to-pay for attributes other than noise, participants were asked to discuss factors that could affect their willingness-to-pay. Examples of these factors in the construction noise context could include the duration of construction activity, the time-of-day when construction is permitted, and the effect of different construction phases on willingness-to-pay. For the road noise focus group discussions, examples of factors that could affect willingness-to-pay include time-of-day when road noise is experienced and the effect of different policy measures on the willingness-to-pay.