APPENDIX A THE FOCUS GROUPS 1. FOCUS GROUPS: CONDUCTrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9855_LEQAppendices… · for Transport Studies. The timings of the focus groups (12 noon

APPENDIX A THE FOCUS GROUPS

1. FOCUS GROUPS: CONDUCT

The focus groups are intended to obtain independent input on the set of factors including the

public understanding of their definition and the suitability of the levels set for each factor. Are

the levels different enough to be distinguishable and do they cover an appropriate range? A

decision was made early on to double the number of focus groups from one to two, as this

would allow a wider range of perceptions to be obtained and offer the opportunity to identify

areas of agreement between as well as within groups.

Recruitment was from University of Leeds staff; a convenient sample was necessary given

the extremely short project time frame. Particular care was made to ensure that a wide

range of socio economic groups were represented and that any academic bias was kept to a

minimum. In order to achieve this, an email recruitment campaign was undertaken that

targeted a wide range of staff groups across the campus. Among the groups targeted were:

Academic and administrative staff across various schools of the University;

Staff at the University nursery, mailing office, media services and sports centre.

Interested participants were asked to provide details about their age and economic status

(employed or student) so that a good mix of participants could be gathered to ensure a wide

range of views. The makeup of the two focus groups is outlined in Table A1. In return for

giving up their time to take part in the focus group discussion participants were offered a

financial incentive of £30.

Both focus groups took place on Thursday, 13th January in the Board Room of the Institute

for Transport Studies. The timings of the focus groups (12 noon and 5.30pm) were set so as

to allow people the opportunity to attend without adversely affecting their working day. Each

focus group was scheduled to last 1.5 hours. In the event both ran to time.

The focus groups were structured into 3 phases. The first ice breaking phase saw an

around the table discussion about what were the best and worst aspects of the participants‟

local environment. The next phase contained specific discussion of the 12 local environment

factors. This involved asking respondents what they thought about a number of images and

descriptions which might be used to illustrate the local environmental factors in the survey

questionnaire. The final phase asked the respondents‟ to complete two ratings exercises

with regards to „how important‟ they thought the 12 specific local environmental factors were,

in the context of their local neighbourhood; and then to rate how satisfied they were with

their current level of factors, again in relation to their local neighbourhood.

Table A1 Composition of Focus Groups

Gender Economic Status Occupation Age

Male Employed Sports Administrator <35

Male Employed Environmental Officer >35

Female Employed Nursery assistant >35

Female Employed Nursery assistant >35

Male Retired Retired >35

Female Employed Student Advisor <35

Female Employed Marketing Manager <35

Male Employed IT Project Manager >35

Gender Employed Occupation Age

Female Employed Portfolio Manager >35

Male Employed Office support >35

Male Employed Personal Trainer <35

Female Employed Secretary >35

Female Employed Secretary >35

Male Employed Sports Administrator <35

Female Student PHD Student <35

Female Student PHD Student <35

2. FOCUS GROUPS: FINDINGS

2.1 Ice breaker

The “ice breaker” round the table discussion of the best and worst things about your local

environment drew forth the following examples:

Best Thing

Quiet featured strongly with the majority stating they felt their area was quiet

compared to the surrounding roads, i.e. „an oasis of quiet‟, „it‟s quite secluded‟.

Close to the countryside was another factor to come out strongly, i.e. „we are only 10

mins driver from open country‟, „I can be in the countryside within 5 mins‟, „the

countryside is on my doorstep‟.

Proximity or outlook to other features was mentioned, i.e. Parks, allotments, canals,

tree lined streets, living in a cul–de-sac.

At the same time having good access to the city centres or neighbourhood facilities

was another strong point, i.e. „I am only 15 bus rides from Leeds city centre‟, „I can

walk into Leeds city centre in 20 mins‟.

One person liked the busy urban environment they lived in, i.e. „there is lots to do,

plenty of bars etc…).

Another person liked the rural environment, i.e. „I was brought up on a farm and I

want to give my kids a similar experience‟.

Worst Thing

Transport and poor facilities for pedestrians/cyclists featured heavily in this

discussion, i.e. Too much traffic, pavements in poor condition, wheelie bins and poor

parking obstructing pedestrians progress along the pavement, roads poor for cycling

and not safe for cycling.

Litter and noise also prominent, i.e. „litter is appalling, despite the area being

plastered with £75 litter signs which don‟t get enforced‟. I can‟t sit outside in a coffee

bar and enjoy my drink because of the noise‟, „drinkers make a noise when walking

back from the pub‟.

Rubbish was mentioned several times. This problem seemed to be a combination of

seeing the street lined with wheelie bins – „it just makes the whole area look grim‟ –

and is then exacerbated by some bins being overflowing with rubbish, or extra bags

piled up beside them.

A couple of participants mentioned anti-social behaviour.

Another focused on there not being enough light in his area, caused because of the

numerous streets of terrace housing that don‟t let enough natural light in.

Another person found narrow streets and too many cars parked on them difficult to

drive around.

Someone thought the noise from overflying planes was particularly bad in the

summer when sat outside or gardening.

This was a helpful exercise in getting participants thinking about their local environment and

it clearly indicates that at least to these groups quiet and litter emerge as important issues.

The comments about overflowing rubbish bins (which are not a part of this study) suggests

that it will be important to be very clear in our definitions of litter and fly-tipping such that

there is no confusion with household bin collections.

The groups then moved on to examine the presentation of each indicator at different levels.

The images presented to the focus groups (in the form of a powerpoint presentation) may be

found in Appendix A.

2.2 Litter

Slide 1 Worst Picture of Litter

Whilst litter came across first and obviously – as in „it looks like a Saturday morning‟. There

were other features that participants also commented on:

Poor parking – lots of gaps between the cars – „it‟s a pet hate of mine‟

Poor hygiene

The locals don‟t care about their area.

One participant was not bothered by the litter on the road but was upset by the litter on the

pavement, i.e. „The council will eventually clean up the litter on the road but not on the

pavement‟.

Slide 2 Graded Litter Pictures – 4 levels (NI195 standards pictures)

A number of key points came out of the discussion:

P1 (in each set of pictures they are numbered with P1 being the worst state for the

factor) looks more like overspill from the bins rather than just litter.

The pictures show different types of streets – doesn‟t seem right to be comparing

residential streets (P1 & 2) and city centre streets (P3 & 4). You need to have all the

same type.

You would expect the city centre pictures to be cleaner – they have yellow lines so

street cleaning vehicles can access them easily.

Impact of litter will vary according to the context, i.e. „I would be very disturbed to see

litter in a green area or in gardens but not so much on the road or pavement‟.

Conclusion - Litter

Whilst the NI195 pictures do illustrate different levels of littering, they also introduce

confounding factors by showing very different types of area. This is understandable as they

are designed to illustrate measurable standards to those with responsibility for such

measurement, not to present different levels to the general public. To avoid any confusion a

decision was made to seek pictures of similar residential areas with differing degrees of litter

as the focus of the study is the local environment.

2.3 Detritus

Slide 3 Worst Picture of Detritus

There was some initial confusion as to what this picture was meant to show with several

comments on the state of the pavement and road. After prompting the consensus view was

that this was not a problem, i.e. „it‟s part of nature‟, „it‟s a seasonal thing – you expect to see

that‟.

Slide 4 Graded Detritus Pictures - 4 levels (NI195 standards pictures)

There was a strong feeling that the condition of the pavement and roads drew your attention

not the detritus, particularly the state of the yellow lines. It was seen to be difficult to grade

the detritus, particularly as the condition of the roads differed markedly across the pictures.

After prompting, there was a general feeling that it would only become an issue if it was

allowed to build up over time, i.e. „it would not look nice if a substantial amount was left‟, „it

would make cycling a bit more tricky‟, „could make it more difficult for pedestrians if it got

onto the pavement – would be more slippy‟.

Conclusion - Detritus

There was a consensus within and between groups that the NI195 pictures drew attention to

the differing state of the road and yellow lines rather than the detritus. There was also a

view that detritus was not a problem at these levels. Again the decision was to take further

photos – perhaps at only two or three levels given the difficulty in showing variation and the

relative lack of importance attributed to this attribute.

2.4 Graffiti

Slide 5 Worst Picture of Graffiti

There was a consensus that this type of graffiti looks „quite good‟ and is enhancing an

otherwise rundown environment. A clear distinction seemed to be drawn between „good

graffiti‟ and „bad graffiti‟. The former is „artistic‟, „colourful/bright‟ whilst the latter is „scruffy‟,

„offensive‟, „tags‟. The setting is also important and adds another layer to whether graffiti is

„good‟ or „bad‟, i.e. city centre vs Roundhay; concrete wall vs sandstone side of a house.

Slide 6 Graded Graffiti Pictures – 3 images (NI195 standards pictures)

P2 looks much worse than P1.

P3 is very minor and not seen as a problem.

Conclusion - Graffiti

The image perceived to be of “artistic” graffiti was removed from the set due to the feeling

within the groups that this was a good thing in the environment shown. The picture of the

shop front was effective and, again there was a need to seek further images.

2.5 Fly-posting

Slide 7 Worst Picture of Fly-posting

One group viewed this in a similar way to the “worst” graffiti image, thus it wasn‟t a problem

because it was brightening up an otherwise run down area. The posters also had

information value. The same group felt that the examples of fly-posting on lampposts within

this picture were much worse because, „they don‟t belong there‟. The other group‟s initial

reaction was that there were lots of other „things‟ going on in the background which

distracted them from focusing on the fly-posting. When prompted about the fly-posting –

they too felt that it wasn‟t an issue as it was in an appropriate/designated area.

Slide 8 Graded Fly-Posting Pictures – 3 images (NI195 standards pictures)

It was agreed by everyone that P2 (stickers very high up on lamppost) would not register

with them. P3 (fly-posting on recycling bins) was felt to be worse that P1 as it wasn‟t

appropriate to put them on there. One view was that, „because it isn‟t in a designated area

then the posters will get out of date – thus they have no information value and just wear

away‟. There was a strong view that with P3 some of the emphasis is taken away from the

fly-posting because of the rubbish beside the recycle bins (and their ugliness to begin with).

Conclusion Fly-posting

Again there are confounding effects in the images and the response is not clear – with the

most severe image being viewed favourably and the second worst seen as more about

rubbish. It is clear that different images are needed or a move to a verbal scale. Again it

seems that three levels may be adequate.

2.6 Dog Fouling

Here four different scales were tested:

Slide 9 Dog Fouling – Problem scale

Overwhelming agreement that words are better than pictures here. Participants found it easy

to agree with a description of a very bad situation, i.e. „you are having to look around you all

the time to avoid it‟. But it was more difficult to describe lower levels. Felt probably too

many levels.

Slide 10 Dog Fouling – Time Occurrence scale

There was a clear view that this was much better and easier to interpret. A feeling that rating

this might vary with location, i.e. park vs city centre. Where there was a view that a park

should be free of fouling. Suggested that respondents be told what area it should apply to.

In terms of the scales used felt that the jump between never to every 5 minutes was too

large so need an extra scale or a general revision.

Slide 11 Dog Fouling – Distance Occurrence scale

There was a view that „judging distances is much harder than judging time‟.

Slide 12 Dog Fouling – Monthly/weekly Occurrence

Here the groups differed. One group thought this was very clear but the other found too

difficult to imagine recalling that information. The groups agreed that “fouling” was the right

word to use. There was also some discussion around the “never” end of the scale – this

might be better expressed as “never or extremely rarely”.

Conclusion – Dog Fouling

A verbal scale based on frequency of occurrence appeared to perform best.

2.7 Discarded Chewing Gum

Slide 13 Worst Picture of Chewing Gum

Both groups agreed that it looked like an extreme level of discarded chewing gum. When

asked what else it could look like some people suggested coins in a well (it had been

raining) or bird droppings. It would be much clearer if the picture had been taken when the

weather was dry.

Slide 14 Graded Pictures of Chewing Gum

Agreement that whilst the grading was fine there was a need for all the pictures to be on the

same road or pavement surface and in dry conditions

Conclusion – discarded chewing gum

The pictures do show the levels clearly – but pictures should be obtained to show the

different levels on the same surface. Three levels as here.

2.8 Fly-tipping

When asked a preliminary question about what image fly-tipping conjured up the responses

reached a consensus based around „the dumping of household and industrial waste in quiet

country lanes or wasteland areas, out of view/sight‟, „Vans pulling up in a lay by and throwing

out rubbish particularly industrial waste that would costs firms money to dispose of it‟, „Not

pleasant rubbish hidden in black bin liners‟, „sofas, mattresses‟.

Slide 15 Worst Picture of Fly-Tipping

Strong consensus that the picture shown was not „fly-tipping‟, rather it was rubbish left out

for the bin men to pick up because it was in an urban street environment; the material was

„too personal‟ to be fly-tipping

Slide 16 Graded Pictures of Fly-Tipping

As per slide 16.

Conclusion – Fly-tipping

The groups clearly felt that fly-tipping does not occur in standard residential contexts.

Therefore images were needed that show the “typical” levels of such waste – bin bags

and/or furniture in a more appropriate context.

2.9 Trees

A general question was asked as to whether trees are „good‟? Clear view that if maintained

well then „definitely‟. If not maintained well there could be some issues such a, „breaking up

of pavements‟, „blocking of sunlight‟, „falling branches‟.

Slide 17 Graded Aerial Pictures of Trees

There was a strong opinion that the contextual setting of each picture was very different and

this made it difficult to assess each one relative to the other; views were also not the same.

Respondents also found it difficult to distinguish between the levels of trees in P2 and P3.

Slide 18 Graded Street Level Pictures of Trees

There was a strong consensus that a street view was best. There was also a consistency in

the type of street. Perhaps not so many were required.

Conclusion – Trees

The street view pictures were adopted.

2.10 Quiet Areas

Two different scales were tested.

Slide 19 Quiet Areas – How far in minutes

There was agreement that this was a difficult one to express in terms of what is a quiet area.

Key reason is that the term „quiet area‟ is mixed up with other factors, i.e. green spaces.

Could sound bites be used instead? Reasonably strong view that describing in minutes was

useful but a few issues: (1) Is 30 mins walk still in your neighbourhood? It may be too far;

(2) Is there a need for a 6th point on the scale in case your house is in a quiet area?

Slide 20 Quiet Areas – Relative quietness

This was very strongly disliked by both groups – partly because seen as too wordy.

Conclusion – quiet areas

The distance in time from your home was adopted at 5 levels. The 30 minute walk was

deleted and a “best” level added “It is very quiet immediately outside” or similar.

2.11 Odour

People didn‟t have strong views on this, mainly because they hadn‟t really encountered any

bad odours or not with any great frequency. A discussion about what would constitute a bad

odour listed the following:

Takeaways/restaurants

Bins

Traffic fumes – especially buses when they are sat in traffic or pile up behind one

another.

Smoking on pavements

Waste dumps.

Train stations.

Slide 21 Odour – How often you encounter bad odour

In terms of the descriptions and scales used it was generally thought that this was a useful

way to present odour. Someone questioned whether there was any difference between 3 &

4. Another person felt that it was important not to mix up the time periods, i.e. monthly vs

occasionally. There was some consensus that a 4 point scale was required.

Conclusion – odour

The verbal scale worked well and a four point scale was adopted – using 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the

slide.

2.12 Light Intrusion

Slide 22 Light Intrusion

Light intrusion was a genuine issue for some people in the groups. They had mitigated the

intrusion by using either heavy curtains or blackout curtains. As such people got used to it.

Someone mentioned that astro turf floodlights can be particularly intrusive but accepted that

this was not as widespread as street lights. It was strongly felt that the current picture did not

demonstrate light intrusion and that other pictures should be sourced that show street lights

close to houses.

Conclusion - light intrusion

A picture indicating a lamp shining into a house was sought. This attribute may be best

presented as two levels – on or off. If necessary this scale could be verbal.

2.13 Light Pollution

Slide 23 Graded pictures of the sky at night

The general view was that the pictures got across the general gist of the grading but not

perfectly with some people noting that the context changed across the pictures, i.e. city

centre sky lines and non city centre sky lines. It was suggested that when conducting the

hall test that people be asked to focus on the sky lines and not the townscape. If the pictures

are used in the hall tests then P3 needs some stars adding to it, whilst P4 may need to be

replaced with a picture that shows lots more stars, more clearly. Maybe it is an idea just to

have shots of the sky and not include the buildings.

Conclusion – light pollution

Again we sought to improve the images within a two or three point scale.

2.14 Other Factors

Slide 24 Missing Factors

Below is a list of possible missing factors:

1) Air pollution from cars – came across strongly

2) Pedestrian issues – came across strongly

3) Cyclist issues

4) Rubbish as opposed to litter – came across strongly

5) Anti social behaviour

6) Security of pedestrians.

Overflowing rubbish bins were a clear concern. This isn‟t reflected in the litter attribute.

2.15 Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

The full tables may be found in Appendix B. Although the sample was only 16 we can draw

some indicators from the average scores. Here the 12 factors of interest in this study were

mixed in with 10 other local quality of life factors. With respect to importance 6 factors

scored 8 or over (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being extremely important. 3 of these were

litter (8.7), trees (8.7) and quiet (8.5); only crime and local amenities were scored more

highly. Whilst detritus here expressed as grit and dust was the least important. In terms of

satisfaction the sample was relatively content with the 12 key factors with light pollution and

litter having the lowest satisfaction scores. 3 of the other factors had negative scores – road

congestion, state of roads and pavements and council tax.

2.16 Conclusions and Actions from the Focus Groups

Litter – obtain further photos to show different levels of litter within the “same” residential

environment. Four levels were used as with the NI195.

Detritus – take further photos to show different levels of detritus on otherwise similar quality

road surfaces. Given the low importance placed on this attribute alongside the difficulty of

clearly showing difference levels only three levels are used.

Graffiti - the slide of “artistic” graffiti was not used due to the feeling within the groups that

this was a good thing in the environment shown. The picture of the shop front was effective

and was used alongside four further images.

Fly-posting - again there are confounding effects in the images and the response is not

clear – with the most severe image being viewed favourably and the second worst seen as

more about rubbish. It was clear that new images were needed and five were obtained.

Dog fouling – verbal scale based on distance or occurrence worked well and was applied at

five levels.

Discarded chewing gum - the pictures do show the levels clearly – but sought to obtain

pictures showing different levels on the same surface. Three levels as here. However,

these images could be used.

Fly-tipping - needed to obtain images that show the “typical” levels of such waste – bin

bags and/or furniture in an appropriate context. Four images were used.

Trees - the street view pictures are appropriate and four levels used.

Quiet areas - the distance in time from your home at 5 levels was adopted. The 30 minute

walk was dropped and a “best” level added “It is very quiet immediately outside” or similar.

Odour - the verbal scale worked well.

Light intrusion – the difficulty in obtaining effective images led to this factor being given a

verbal scale relating to the presence and impacts of intrusion at four levels.

Light pollution – similarly a lack of images that effectively communicated this factor at

different levels led to the Adoption of a verbal scale at three levels based on the visibility of

the stars.

Essentially some scales worked well in the focus groups and others were substantially

revised prior to the pilot survey. The NI195 images do not work well in this context having

been devised to guide grading.

Images in powerpoint lose some precision and will provide “photo packs” for each

respondent. It is also necessary to be very clear about the area respondents should think of

as their local environment and this should be the area where they live.

APPENDIX B IMAGES USED IN THE FOCUS GROUP

Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT

Local Environmental FactorsFocus Groups - 2011

Abigail Bristow & Jeremy Shires

Slide 1

Slide 2Picture 1 Picture 2

Picture 3Picture 4

Slide 3


Picture 3Picture 4

Slide 5


Picture 3

Picture 4

Slide 7


Picture 3

Slide 9 – Dog Fouling

Dog fouling is:

1) Not a problem

2) Quite a bad problem

3) Moderately bad problem

4) Very bad problem

5) Extremely bad problem


Dog fouling occurs:

1) Never

2) Every 5 minutes or so when walking

3) Every minute when walking

4) Always dog mess in view


Dog fouling occurs:

1) Never

2) Every 500 metres or so

3) Every 100 metres

4) Always dog mess in view


Dog fouling occurs:

1) Never

2) About once a month

3) About once a week

4) Every day

Slide 13


Picture 3

Slide 15

Slide 16Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3

Picture 4 Picture 5


Picture 3 Picture 4

Slide 18Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3

Picture 4 Picture 5 Picture 6

Slide 19 – Quiet Areas

1.No quiet areas

2.Quiet area within 30 mins walk of home




Slide 20 – Quiet Areas

1.No where quiet around here.

2.Places around that are a little bit quieter

than the surrounding noise.

3.Places around that are somewhat quieter

than the surrounding noise.

4.Places around that are much quieter than

the surrounding noise.

5.It‟s really quiet around here.

Slide 21 – Odour

1.Bad smells all the time

2.Bad smells occur weekly

3.Bad smells occur every month or so

4.Bad smells occur very occasionally

5.No bad smells

Slide 22 – Light Intrusion

Picture 3


Picture 3 Picture 4

Slide 22 All Factors

1.Litter

2.Grit & Dust

3.Fly-Posting

4.Graffiti

5.Dog Fouling

6.Discarded Chewing Gum

7.Fly-Tipping

8.Quiet Areas

9.Odour

10.Light Pollution – Intrusive

11.Light Pollution – The Night Sky

12.Trees

APPENDIX C FOCUS GROUP IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS

Table C1 Average Rating of Importance

Mean N StdDev

Local Crime 9.4 16 0.96

Litter 8.7 15 1.29

Local Schools 5.9 16 3.73

Road Traffic Congestion 7.4 16 2.16

Grit & Dust 4.6 16 2.18

Graffiti 5.8 16 2.08

Traffic Noise at Home 7.8 16 1.44

Fly-Posting 5.53 16 2.47

Neighbourhood Air Quality 7.69 16 1.54

Dog Fouling 7.19 16 2.26

Discarded Chewing Gum 5.38 16 2.31

General Condition of Local Roads & Pavements 6.88 16 2.13

Fly-Tipping 6.94 16 1.84

Planes Going By 6.13 16 2.45

Quiet Areas 8.50 16 1.10

Odour 6.81 16 1.87

Council Tax 6.80 15 2.57

Amenities Nearby (i.e. shops, GPs etc.) 8.88 16 1.50

Light Pollution – Intrusion 6.25 16 2.54

Light Pollution – The Night Sky 5.63 16 2.50

Recreation Facilities (i.e. Library, sports centre etc.) 8.00 16 1.71

Trees 8.70 16 1.35

Note: 1 = Not At All Important and 10 =Extremely Important.

Table C2 Average Rating of Satisfaction

Mean N StdDev

Local Crime 1.94 16 3.11

Litter 0.75 16 3.59

Local Schools 1.06 16 2.24

Road Traffic Congestion -0.94 16 2.59

Grit & Dust 1.81 16 2.32

Graffiti 2.25 16 1.77

Traffic Noise at Home 2.00 16 3.14

Fly-Posting 1.81 16 2.54

Neighbourhood Air Quality 1.31 16 2.94

Dog Fouling 2.13 16 2.16

Discarded Chewing Gum 2.25 16 2.14

General Condition of Local Roads & Pavements -0.47 15 2.72

Fly-Tipping 2.31 16 1.96

Planes Going By 1.75 16 2.46

Quiet Areas 3.94 16 0.77

Odour 2.31 16 2.44

Council Tax -0.60 15 2.44

Amenities Nearby (i.e. shops, GPs etc.) 3.75 16 3.03

Light Pollution – Intrusion 0.44 16 3.03

Light Pollution – The Night Sky 0.75 16 2.84

Recreation Facilities (i.e. Library, sports centre etc.) 2.44 16 2.31

Trees 2.50 16 2.16

Note: -5 = Extremely Dissatisfied 5 =Extremely Satisfied

APPENDIX D LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SP

APPENDIX E RATINGS PHOTOGRAPHS

Q1 CHEWING GUM

PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2

PICTURE 3

Q2 PICTURES OF LITTER

PICTURE 4 PICTURE 5

PICTURE 6 PICTURE 7

Q3 PICTURES OF TREE PRESENCE

PICTURE 8 PICTURE 9

PICTURE 10 PICTURE 11

Q4 FLY TIPPING


PICTURE 14

PICTURE 15

Q5 GRAFFITI

PICTURE 16 PICTURE 17 PICTURE 18


Q6 FLY POSTING

PICTURE 21 PICTURE 22 PICTURE 23


APPENDIX F FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Quality of Life Research Questionnaire

Section 1

We would first of all like to ask you some questions about the area in which you live,

and about what you think the ‘quality of life’ is like in this area.

Q1 Please give the name of the

street where you live, and

postcode

Street Postcode

Q2 About how long have you lived at your current address?

Years

Q3 Thinking about the area where you live – please tell us the three BEST things about living in

your area

1

2

3

Q4 Thinking about the area where you live – please tell us the three WORST things about living

in your area

1

2

3

Q5 Please indicate how much you agree or

disagree with the following statements

using the scale against each statement

please only circle one option for each statement

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

The effects of climate change are too far in

the future to really worry me 1 2 3 4 5

I don‟t pay much attention to the amount of

water I use at home 1 2 3 4 5

It's not worth me doing things to help the

environment if others don't do the same 1 2 3 4 5

If things continue on their current course, we

will soon experience a major environmental

disaster

1 2 3 4 5

It's only worth doing environmentally-friendly

things if they save you money 1 2 3 4 5

People who fly should bear the cost of the

environmental damage that air travel causes 1 2 3 4 5

It's not worth Britain trying to combat climate

change because other countries will just

cancel out what we do

1 2 3 4 5

I don't really give much thought to saving

energy in my home 1 2 3 4 5

For the sake of the environment, car users

should pay

higher taxes

1 2 3 4 5

The environment is a low priority for me

compared with a lot of other things in my life 1 2 3 4 5

It takes too much effort to do things that are

environmentally friendly 1 2 3 4 5

We are close to the limit of the number of

people the earth can support 1 2 3 4 5

I would be prepared to pay more for

environmentally-friendly products 1 2 3 4 5

Q6 Listed below are various factors which may impact on quality of life. Please indicate how important these are to you and your household? Please circle one number on each line

Importance Extremely

Important

Very

Important

Moderately

Important

Slightly

Important

Not at all

Important

Quality of local schools 1 2 3 4 5

The amount of road traffic in your area 1 2 3 4 5

Road traffic noise experienced at home 1 2 3 4 5

Neighbourhood air quality 1 2 3 4 5

Condition of roads and pavements 1 2 3 4 5

Level of local crime 1 2 3 4 5

Access to quiet areas 1 2 3 4 5

Amount of local council tax 1 2 3 4 5

Level of dog fouling in the area 1 2 3 4 5

Other (Please write in)

1 2 3 4 5

QUALITY OF LIFE WHERE YOU LIVE

Worse Situation Better Situation

Local Crime -

Burglaries per 1000

households

28 22 16 10 4

Local Schools - %

gaining 5 GCSEs

grades A to C

35% 45% 55% 65% 75%

Road Traffic 10% More

Traffic

5% More Traffic As Now 5% Less

Traffic

10% Less

Traffic

Traffic Noise at

Home

Extremely Noisy Very Noisy Moderately

Noisy

Slightly Noisy Not at all

Noisy

Dog Fouling occurs Always dog

mess in view

Every minute

when walking

Every 5 minutes

or so when

walking

Every 15

minutes or so

when walking

Never or very

rarely

General condition

of Pavements

Very Poor Poor Neither Good

nor Poor

Good Very Good

Access to quiet

areas

No quiet areas

around here

Quiet area

within 15

minutes walk of

home

Quiet area

within 10

minutes walk of

home

Quiet area

within 5

minutes walk

of home

Quiet area

within a 1

minute walk

of home

Council Tax you

would pay

£12 more

each

month

£5 more

each

month

£1 more

each

month

As Now £1 less

each

month

£5 less

each

month

£12 less

each

month

Follow the instructions as given by the survey team. If you have any queries, please ask –

we will come and help you.

Section 2

We would now like you to consider various quality of life issues. Look at the chart

below which is about your local area - please do not write anything until you are

asked to do so.You will need a YELLOW highlighter pen.

Q3 For each image please rate the

presence of TREES shown

Please circle one number on each line

Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Section 3

We would now like you to consider some photographs AND verbal descriptions that

present a range of local environmental factors. For each factor we present different

conditions and we would like you to tell us how good or bad each is – IF YOU WERE

TO EXPERIENCE IT IN YOUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT.

Please see the booklet provided for larger versions of the pictures.

You should rate these on a scale from very bad (0) to very good (10).


level of DISCARDED CHEWING GUM

shown


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


level of LITTER shown


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


level of FLY-TIPPING shown


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


level of GRAFFITI shown


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 19 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


level of FLY-POSTING shown


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Picture 21 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Picture 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Verbal Descriptions

Q7 Please rate access to QUIET

AREAS as described below


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

No quiet areas around here 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quiet area within 15 minutes walk of home 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



Quiet area within a 1 minute walk of home 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q8 Please rate the levels of DOG

FOULING occurrence described below


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Always dog mess in view 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Every minute when walking 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Every 5 minutes or so when walking 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Every 15 minutes or so when walking 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Never or very rarely 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q9 Please rate the levels of ODOUR as

described below


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Bad smells all the time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bad smells occur weekly 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bad smells occur every month or so 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bad smells occur once or twice a year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No bad smells 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q10 Please rate the level of LIGHT

INTRUSION at night described below


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

Light intrusion that affects my sleep or that

of someone else in my household 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Light intrusion that I can‟t block out with

heavy curtains but doesn‟t affect my sleep 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Light intrusion into my home that I can

block out with heavy curtains 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No light intrusion from any source 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q11 Please rate the level of LIGHT

POLLUTION at night described below


Very Very

Bad Neither Good

On a clear night I can‟t see any stars 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

On a clear night I can see some stars 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

On a clear night I can see many stars 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Q12 Did you find the photographs and descriptions of the local environmental factors to be clear? Please circle one number on each line

Clarity of Presentation Very

Clear

Quite

Clear

Neither Clear

Nor Unclear

Quite

Unclear

Very

Unclear

Litter 1 2 3 4 5

Graffiti 1 2 3 4 5

Fly-posting 1 2 3 4 5

Dog fouling 1 2 3 4 5

Quiet areas 1 2 3 4 5

Trees 1 2 3 4 5

Light intrusion 1 2 3 4 5

Light pollution 1 2 3 4 5

Odour 1 2 3 4 5

Fly-tipping 1 2 3 4 5

Discarded chewing gum 1 2 3 4 5

Q13 Please indicate how important each of the following is to you in your local area? Please circle one number on each line

Importance Extremely

Important

Very

Important

Moderately

Important

Slightly

Important

Not at all

Important

Litter 1 2 3 4 5

Graffiti 1 2 3 4 5

Fly-posting 1 2 3 4 5

Dog fouling 1 2 3 4 5

Discarded chewing gum 1 2 3 4 5

Fly-tipping 1 2 3 4 5

Presence of trees 1 2 3 4 5

Access to quiet areas 1 2 3 4 5

Odour 1 2 3 4 5

Light intrusion 1 2 3 4 5

Light pollution 1 2 3 4 5

Section 4 – Appeared as an A3 sized sheet - See Appendix D

Section 4 Follow Up Questions

Q1 When completing the table in section 4 please tell us what you thought of

the proposed changes to Council Tax

(please circle the number of the statement that is closest to your thinking)

I considered both increases and reductions in Council Tax to be equally likely 1

I did not believe that reductions in Council Tax would happen and so did not

consider them in my answers 2

I focussed on the environmental factors and didn‟t really take the changes in Council

Tax seriously 3

I paid more attention to increases in Council Tax than reductions 4

Q2 If you did not fully complete the table in section 4 please tell us why this

was:

(please circle one number)

I ran out of time 1

The remaining choices were not at all important to me 2

I found it too difficult 3

Section 5 About You and Your Household

Q1 In which age group are you? Please tick one box

18-24 25-29 30-44 45-59 60-64 65-74 75 and

over

Q2 Are you…..

Please tick one box

male female

Q3 How many children aged 5 or less are in your household? Please tick one box

None

One Two Three Four or more

Q4 How many children aged 6 to 16 are in your household? Please tick one box

None

One Two Three Four or more

Q5 How many people in total (including yourself) are in your household? Please tick one box

One Two Three Four Five Six 7 or more

Q6 Do you belong to any environmental organisations?

Please tick one box Yes No

Q7 Which of these best

describes your home?

Please tick one box

Flat/Apartment

Terraced house

Semi detached house

Detached house

Other

Q8 Does your home have: A garden

Please tick the boxes that apply to

you.

A back yard

Access to shared green space

No outside space

Q9a Are there any pets in your household?

Tick one box Yes No

Q9b If yes please tell us how many Pet

(please tick applicable

categories)

Number

(please record the

number)

Dogs

Cats

Other

Q10 About how much does your household pay each month in Council Tax? Tick one box

Under £80

£80 to £99.99

£100 to £124.99 £125 to £149.99

£150 to £174.99 £175 to £199.99 £200 or over Don‟t know/paid for me

Q11 Who is responsible for

paying the Council tax in your

household? Please Tick one box

Me

Me jointly

with another

or others

Someone

else

Q12 What is your employment

status?

Circle one number

Run my own company 1 go to Q13

Self employed 2 go to Q14

Employed full-time 3 go to Q14

Employed part time 4 go to Q14

In part/full-time education 5 go to Q16

Retired 6 go to Q16

Home maker 7 go to Q16

Not working at present 8 go to Q16

Other (Please write in) 9 go to Q16

Q13 How large is the

company that you run?

Circle one number

1 to 10 staff 1 go to Q16

11 to 50 staff 2 go to Q16

50+ staff 3 go to Q16

Q14 How would you classify

your occupation?

Circle one number

Managerial occupation 1

Professional occupation 2

Supervisory & technical occupation 3

Semi-skilled or skilled manual

occupation 4

Clerical occupation 5

Other 6

Q15 What is the full title of your

occupation?

Q16 Please provide an estimate your

gross annual household income:

Please Tick One box

Under £10,000

£10-19,999

£20-29,999

£30-39,999

£40-49,999

Over £50,000

Don‟t know

Documents

APPENDIX A THE FOCUS GROUPS 1. FOCUS GROUPS: CONDUCTrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9855_LEQAppendices… · for Transport Studies. The timings of the focus groups (12 noon