PhD title: “Stakeholder perceptions on the value of car parking to support and inform decision makers” Supervisors: Dr Enoch, Dr Tuuli and Dr Davison Isobel.

PhD title: “Stakeholder perceptions on the value of car

parking to support and inform decision makers”

Supervisors:Dr Enoch, Dr Tuuli and Dr Davison

Isobel Frances BeethamBA (Hons) First, MSc., Ph.D. Student Loughborough University

Content

1. Introduction2. Why research car parking?3. About my research topic4. Progress to date5. Key Findings6. Future work7. Conclusion

1.0 Introduction

Subject knowledge + academic rigour + quality of research = Ph.D

Outcome

Ph.D.

Expert

RigourQuality

2.0 Why Research Car Parking?

Car Parking . . .

A routine part daily lifeExperiences similar issues in most urban areas around the worldGenerates numerous negative externalitiesInvolves using up spaceCan create complex dilemmas for those involved in managing itRelatively underexplored by the research community

3.0 About my research topic

Stakeholder perceptions on the value of car parking to support and inform decision makers

Stakeholder perceptions Who are they? How are they affected?

Value How is value defined by the stakeholders? How do they value parking?

Car parking What issues do stakeholders have? Are their issues reflected in policy?

Inform Decision makers

3.1 About my research topic: Literature review

What are the right questions to ask?

What does the literature say?

3.2 About my research topic: Literature review

What is a stakeholder?

“Individuals or groups that depend on an organisation to fulfil their own goals and on whom, in turn, the organisation depends,” (Johnson, Whittington et al. 2011)

Who are the stakeholders?

• Commuters (Feeney 1989, Enoch 2002, Marsden 2006) • Shoppers (Matsoukis 1995, Meek, Ison et al. 2011) • Retailers (Rye, Hunton et al. 2008) • Employers (Valleley, Garland et al. 1997)• The government including: planning officers (Forinash, Millard-Ball et

al. 2003, Kenworthy, Laube 1996); transport planners (McShane, Meyer 1982); enforcement (Barter 2011, Cullinane, Polak 1992)

• Pedestrians (Wood, Frank et al. 2010), cyclists and public transport users (Shatnawi 2010)

3.3 About my research topic: Literature review

What is value?

Value laden words e.g. murder (Mueller, 1967)

Subconsciously motivated by value (Mackelim, 2001)

Alienable (traded for a price) or unalienable (e.g. religion) (Miller, 2006)

Results in a particular behaviour and something which can be shared (e.g. political view) (Thomson, Austin et al. 2003)

Individuals express their meaning of value differently (Zeithaml, 1988)

What is perceived value?

Helps to understand the comparison that customers make between price and quality (Oh, Jeong 2004, Dodds, Monroe et al. 1991)

Relative to an individual’s psychological dimension (e.g. ego, feelings, emotions, mood) (Groth, 1994)

Linked to willingness to pay (Netemeyer, Krishnan et al. 2004)

Consensus: it is only the consumers themselves who can determine what value truly is (Timo Rintamäki, Kuusela et al. 2007)

Contributes the overall assessment of something’s worth (Lai, Chen, 2011)

3.3.1 About my research topic: Literature review

Prospect theory: uses losses and gains to determine value worth (Kahneman, Tversky 1984)

“Reflected in car parking policy decisions, such as with minimum parking requirements where the desire to achieve gains for individual users has appeared to exceed the losses experienced elsewhere.” (Beetham et al 2013)

3.4 About my research topic: Literature review

“The literature seems preoccupied with exploring offsetting decisions made by individual users when they are presented with a series of choices based on location, time and price attributes, as present in the work of Glazer, A. 1992; Anderson, S.P. 2004; Shoup, D.C. 2006; Arnott,R. 2006; Calthrop, E. 2006; Kelly,J.A. 2009”

Value and Commuters

3.5 About my research topic: Literature review

Governmental Issues

Parking policy can help to achieve six desirable urban goals (McShane, Meyer 1982) p133:

1. Healthy economic climate, and a business community able to support local employment needs

2. Most efficient use of existing transportation, land, and other public resources

3. Ease of mobility/accessibility 4. Equity of resource distribution and preferential allocation of some

resources5. Environmental goals, especially reduced air pollution and the

related goal of minimised energy consumption 6. Enhanced amenity and cultural attractiveness, preservation of a

city's unique character

3.6 About my research topic: Literature review

Land Use Issues

• Urban sprawl (Forinash, Millard-Ball et al. 2003)

• A consequence of high levels of parking in Central Business Districts (CBDs) is that it reduces population density, attracts more car use while supressing public transport use, thus negatively impacting on town and city sustainability (Kenworthy, Laube 1996)

• Commuter car parking in areas subject to minimum parking requirements is often supplied to commuters for free, there is little incentive for individual users to seek alternative modes (Shoup 1995)

3.6.1 About my research topic: Literature review

Public Space Issues

Definition: “How good a city is at facilitating exchange determines its health – economic, social, cultural and environmental. Public space forms a vital conduit in this exchange process, providing platforms for everyday interaction and information flows – the basis and content for the public life of cities” (Tims, Mean 2005, p5)

Shared Space Issues

Car user dominance in areas of shared spaces triggers their segregation from non-users (such as pedestrians) who become less comfortable and confident in engaging with their environment (Kaparias, Bell et al. 2012)

3.7 About my research topic: Aim and objectives

Aim

To investigate stakeholder perceptions on the value of parking to support and inform decision makers

Objectives

1. To identify the issues, practices and policies relating to how parking is valued by stakeholder groups across the sectors

2. To examine the key parking stakeholder perceptions of the current parking situation and the main parking issues affecting them

3. To explore the value expectations of parking policies by key parking stakeholders

4. To evaluate the relationships between the key parking stakeholders and their value perceptions of each other

5. To develop recommendations for practitioners and policy makers to improve the formulation and implementation of parking policy

4.0 Progress to date: Method

Two phase research design

Phase 1Exploratory

Qualitative:Literature ReviewInterviews withAcademicsSector Leaders

Phase 2Main study

Quantitative:Stated PreferenceStatistics

4.1 Progress to date: Achieved so far

Phase 1: Exploratory Phase 2: Main Study

Choice-sets designed Multidimensional Scaling

(MDS) preference mapping questions written

Distribution channels established

Survey launched

Literature review completed 8 Academics interviews conducted Literature review findings validated Stakeholders identified & classified Results validated 20 Sector leaders from all stakeholder

groups interviewed Core values of parking identified Context of values established Results verified Further 9 Sector leader interviews

conducted to the bridge gap between research design Phases 1 and 2

4.1 Progress to date: Achieved so far

Academic interviews

Academic Role Location

A Professor of Transport Policy UK

B Professor of Urban Planning USA

C Professor of Public Transport Australia

D Professor of Transport Policy and Strategy UK

EProfessor of Transportation Engineering and Planning

USA

F Professor of Civil Engineering Australia

G Professor of Urban Planning USA

HProfessor of Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning

USA

5.0 Key Findings: StakeholdersGroup Role

ownersrenters

businessleisure

city plannerstransport planners

traffic engineersPoliticians councillors

National Regional Local

Consumers

Suppliers

Parking entrepreneursTechnology providersParking enforcers

GovernmentalOfficer

RetailersEmployersFinanciers to developersDevelopersArchitectsProfessional associations

Parking profession Public transport providersParking operators

Individual user The disabledResidents

CommutersEmployees / trade unionsTravellers

ShoppersVisitors

Local business sector

StakeholdersNon-consumers

Individual non-user PedestriansCyclistsPublic transport user

5.1 Key Findings: Academic perspective on parking issues1st Order category

2nd Order category Description

1.0 Characteristics of parking issues

1.1 Land used for parking limits other opportunity uses

The impacts of dedicating land to parking which can limits other opportunity uses. Often magnified in urban environments where land is scarce and populations are higher

1.2 Parking is complicated The potential of parking policies is not always fully understood or recognised. Parking spans both transport and land use, consequently understanding the impacts on one in an effort to resolve the other, can be challenging

1.3 Parking problems usually exist in areas of density

The majority of parking problems are mostly linked to the urban environment

1.4 Parking is one component

Parking is a part of a mechanism used to achieve a broader aim. For instance, parking can be used alongside improved public transport provision to contribute towards influencing travel behaviour

1.5 Parking triggers emotion

People often trivialise parking offences, possibly because they believe that parking should both be provided and be provided for free as a matter of course. This can lead to people becoming emotional about parking Some people are starting to take a different attitude to parking

1.6 Challenging decision making

Parking decisions are challenging due to both the complex nature of parking and a volatile stakeholder environment

2.0 Potential parking issue solutions

2.1 Pricing Parking pricing is often seen as a less effective policy, particularly when compared with road user charging (RUC)

2.2 Oversupply Particularly in the US, parking policies have traditionally supplied more parking than might otherwise be required

2.3 Free or low cost to user Parking is often provided to the user for free or at a low cost

5.2 Key Findings: Academic perspective on stakeholder value1st Order category

2nd Order category

Description

2.0 Stakeholder parking values according to academics

2.1 Objective based The value of parking for most stakeholders is motivated by their end goal

2.2 Revenue stream

For some supplier stakeholders such as parking operators, parking is valued as a direct source of revenue

For some supplier/ consumer stakeholders such as airports, parking is valued as a supplementary source of revenue

For some supplier / consumer stakeholders such as independent retailers, parking is valued as an indirect source as they believe that customers rely on parking in order to access their premises

2.3 Policy facilitator

Some cities may value parking as something which they can use to help them realise their wider vision

2.4 Lack of complaints

As local authorities respond to complaints, a lack of complaints potentially liberates them to focus on other issues

2.5 Unwanted cost

Some stakeholder suppliers of parking are required to provide parking and incur the cost

2.6 User perspective

The user value of parking is the main perspective through which the value of parking is viewed (it comprises multiple factors)

2.7 Lifestyle facilitator

Most users value parking as something which enables them to go about their daily lives, particularly if they are not charged for their parking

4.1 Progress to date: Achieved so far

Sector leaders representative of stakeholder groups interviews

Group Group role Code

Non-consumerBritish campaigners and organisations supportive of alternates to the car

NC 1, 2, 3, 4

ConsumerBritish campaigners and organisations supportive of motorists

C1, 2, 3, 4

Local Business Sector

Organisations representative of the British local business sector affected by parking

LBS1, 2, 3, 4

Parking Profession

A broad range of organisations representative of the British parking profession

PI1, 2, 3, 4

GovernmentalRepresentatives from local, regional and central UK government

G1, 2, 3, 4

5.3 Key Findings: Stakeholder perspective on value

What Sector Leaders consider stakeholders value about car parking

Value Stakeholder groupPositive/ negative

value

Efficient use of land All groups - / +

Impact on public spaceNon-consumersLocal business sector - / +

Facilitates accessConsumers, Parking profession, Governmental +

Sustains economic activity Consumers +

A commercial product Local business sector +

Revenue streamParking professionGovernmental +

Convenience, safety and price Parking profession +

Part of an efficient transport system Governmental +

5.4 Key Findings: Stakeholder value context

Key influencers of how stakeholders value parkingaccording to stakeholder group

Non-

consumers Consumers

Local business

sector

Parking profession

Governmental

Key influencers

of how stakeholders

value parking

Government l l l l Social l l

Focus on the

consumer l

4.1 Progress to date: Achieved so far

Additional interviews with ‘experts’

Group Expert representatives

Local Business Sector & Parking Profession

2 x Membership organisations with significant public and private sector members 1 x Consulting firm responsible for critical infrastructure (public & private clients)2 x National parking operators and parking services providers

Governmental 4 x Governmental officers (regional & local levels)

6.0 Future Work

Main Study Phase

Survey:https://www.survey.lboro.ac.uk/carparking

6.1 Future Work: A Statistical Measure

Mimics real life through hypothetical yet realistic scenarios Captures the views of all the stakeholders Deconstructs decisions over competing criteria Analysis at either a disaggregate or aggregate level Analysis of each factor contribution and factor-level

interaction to estimate the value of competing choice sets

Choice-based conjoint analysis

6.1.1 Future Work: Choice-sets

Given these choices, which one would you choose?

Survey Link: https://www.survey.lboro.ac.uk/carparking

7.0 Conclusion

Isobel F Beetham email: [email protected] Link: https://www.survey.lboro.ac.uk/carparking

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

END

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by it’s ability to climb a tree, it will live it’s whole life believing it is stupid.”

A. Einstein