residential preferences versus sustainable ?) planning ... · residential preferences versus...

I

RESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES VERSUS (SUSTAINABLE?) PLANNING POLICY: CONJOINT ANALYSIS IN THE TOWN OF

BERKHAMSTED

by

Sarah Helen Gibson

(1161184)

This dissertation is submitted as part of a MSc degree in Sustainable Cities at King’s College London.

2012

II

Declarations PAGE INSERT

III

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the question of the social acceptability to the public of current planning

policies which favour the concept of urban compaction to deliver sustainable development.

The importance of doing so is highlighted by the preservationist paradox (Murdoch &Lowe:

2003) Using the method of conjoint analysis, the valued aspects of the town of Berkhamsted

to its residents are researched. The findings are compared to the likely development of the

town as set out in the National Planning and Policy Framework and the local authority Core

Strategy. The results show that the prospect of increased housing in the town as out of favour

with the residential desirability and therefore prompts concerns that the actualisation of such

developments could be the catalyst for increased counterurbanisation.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ VII

Chapter1 .................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................... 4

Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Is high density socially desirable? .............................................................................. 4

2.2 Rural renaissance or urban renaissance? .................................................................... 6

2.3 ‘Too urban to be rural and too rural to be urban’ ....................................................... 8

Morris (2011 p13) ................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Understanding and preventing the NIMBY phenomenon ........................................ 10

Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................. 12

Berkhamsted ............................................................................................................................ 12

Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................. 14

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Conceptual approach: Fallibilism ............................................................................. 14

4.2 Conjoint analysis ...................................................................................................... 15

4.3.1 Suitability of method to issues of urban sustainability ..................................... 18

4,3 Survey design and administration ............................................................................ 18

4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 23

Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................. 24

Planning Policy Context .......................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Planning Reform ....................................................................................................... 24

5.2 Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy ............................................................... 24

Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 28

6.1 Research respondents ............................................................................................... 28

6.2 Conjoint analysis results ........................................................................................... 29

6.3 Residential mobility .................................................................................................. 35

6.4 Housing as a source of stress .................................................................................. 37

6.6 Compromise ............................................................................................................. 39

6.6.1 Trade-off analysis .............................................................................................. 40

V

6.7 Policy Implications ................................................................................................... 42

6.7.1 Education ........................................................................................................... 42

6.7.2 High Street......................................................................................................... 43

6.7.3 Housing .................................................................................................................. 43

6.7.4 Travel ................................................................................................................ 46

Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................. 48

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 48

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................. 51

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................. 55

Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................................. 56

Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................................. 57

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 58

VI

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Selected demographic statistics for Berkhamsted and Berkhamsted’s wards. ONS

Census 2001 ............................................................................................................................ 13

Table 2. Example of 2 scenarios ............................................................................................. 16

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages for the ranking and rating evaluating methods ........ 18

Table 4. Attributes and levels used in conjoint analysis (numbers in brackets refer to number

of levels) .................................................................................................................................. 19

Table 5. Response rates of similar studies. ............................................................................. 22

Table 6. Demographic characteristics of research sample and population. ............................ 28

Table 7. Part-worth utilities for attribute levels ...................................................................... 30

Table 8. Part-worth utilities ranked from highest to lowest .................................................... 31

Table 9 Highest possible total utility ...................................................................................... 34

Table 10 Lowest possible total utility ..................................................................................... 34

Table 11. ‘Ideal scenarios’ drawn on surveys by respondents. ............................................... 35

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Net out-migration from metropolitan England to the rest of the UK (1991-2004) .. 7

Figure 2. Rates of within-UK and international net migration, for England, by settlement

types (2003-2004) ..................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Relative importance of each attribute to overall preference .................................... 32

Figure 4. Results to survey question on residential mobility .................................................. 33

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank the residents of Berkhamsted who took the time to

participate in my research. A special thanks goes to those who suggested other avenues I

could follow up and who put me in touch with a wealth of interesting people.

I would like to thank David Green for his guidance throughout the research project and for

his support of my eagerness to use an innovative methodology. I would also like to thank

Richard Wiltshire for his support throughout the academic year.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, Ollie and Lucy for helping me to print and distribute

the seemingly endless number of surveys! Your assistance and support is, as always, most

appreciated.

1

CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTION

While the planning system in many Western countries has put ever-increasing emphasis on

the merits of urban compaction in order to achieve greater sustainability, many claims made

in favour of the ‘compact city’ have been subject to criticism, particularly in relation to their

social acceptability (Breheny: 1997, Howley et al: 2009; Bramley et al: 2009). Whilst

tackling housing shortages, planning in England faces the challenge of delivering

sustainability and liveability, a task that will require addressing the conflicts between these

two visions (Godschalk: 2004). For instance, Howley et al (2009) and Neuman (2005) raise

the concern that there is a perception amongst many sections of public that living in

environments of high population density poses too high a sacrifice to quality of life. Termed

the compact city paradox (Neuman: 2005), this disparity is evident in migration trends such

as the ‘urban exodus’ (Champion & Fisher: 2004). This paper argues that such apparent

residential preferences adds urgency to calls that sustainability has to be reconceptualised

within the realities of social values and desires for “urban forms cannot be considered

sustainable if they are not acceptable to people as places in which to live, work and interact”

(Bramley et al: 2009 p2125).

Powe & Hart (2011) argue that in order to alleviate resistance of residents to population

densification in their community, it is important to understand the perceived impacts of

development on the valued aspects of the town. The significance of co-aligning policy

requirements of development with the values of residents takes on added urgency with

consideration of the ‘preservationist paradox’: the unintended consequence of preservationist

policies that have made rural areas more attractive to urban migrants (Murdoch & Lowe:

2003). Small towns have an important role in this paradox as they often provide the best of

both worlds – the ‘accessible rural’ (Daniels: 1999 p25). However, the concern then becomes

that if small towns cannot absorb more population while maintaining the desirability of the

town to current residents, people may move out to increasingly decentralised locations in

search for the qualities that once attracted them to the small town.

Therefore, from a perspective which favours the social aspect of sustainability, this paper will

use the method of conjoint analysis to research the valued aspects of a small town to its

residents in order to establish if there is conflict or correlation between the preferences of

2

residents and likely development trajectories of the town as expressed in local and national

planning policy. The empirical research will be focused on the small town of Berkhamsted,

Hertfordshire – an area of significant development pressure.

In favour of an engagement with pragmatism, this paper will step away from philosophical

influences such as Marxism, post-modernism and Foucauldian post-structuralism which are

commonplace in human geography and in urban environmentalism literature. Evans and

Marvin (2006) address the difficulties in researching the sustainable city due to the

interdisciplinary nature of the concept. Their work puts particular emphasis on the general

failure to realise the value of knowledge which is social in nature. It seems, perhaps, that

pragmatism provides a frame in which the inescapably pluralistic nature of sustainability can

exist and its constituting parts converse. Hepple (2008 p1536) takes this train of thought in

relation to the Geography discipline and maintains that the ‘engaged fallibilism pluralism’ of

pragmatism provides the frame within which social and natural sciences can converse and

coexist. I argue that this subscription to falibillism is attractive to the study of urban

sustainability. To that end, this paper is exposing current housing distribution and urban

compaction policies to falsification with the hope that the research can contribute to an

evidence base which is sympathetic to the pluralistic nature of sustainability. Further, while

pragmatism encourages pluralisms, “it also demands that we remember they interlock into the

holism of social life” (Hepple: 2008 p1537). Incorporating analysis of the recently published

National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Dacorum Borough Council Core

Strategy, the moral frame encouraged by pragmatism becomes a key leitmotif of the present

paper.

The paper begins with a brief review of literature relating to criticisms of the urban

compaction agenda ; evidence of counter-urbanisation trends; and the importance of

maintaining residential desirability. Chapter 3 will provide some background information

about Berkhamsted before chapter 4 describes the research methodology, detailing facets of

the conjoint analysis method and discussing the suitability of the method to considering

planning for preferences. Chapter 5 will review the relevant planning policy. Chapter 6 will

present the results of the conjoint analysis and will situate them amongst existing literature

before emphasising any conflict and correlation between the results and planning policy.

Finally, chapter 7 will reflect on the research presented in this paper and provide concluding

3

comments on the importance of incorporating compromises into planning in order to achieve

sustainable development.

4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The question ‘the people – will they go?’ was a central theme in Ebenezer Howard’s three magnets diagram in 1902 and was also considered by the Town and Country Planning

Association in 1996 within a number of publications in response to government housing

projections (i.e Breheny & Hall: 1996). Today, the question remains a key issue in the UK as

population decentralisation persists while planning policy continues to encourage

centralisation and compaction of land use. (Pacione: 2004) The following literature review

will present evidence of these trends and use the ‘preservation paradox’ (Murdoch and Lowe:

2003) to highlight why these contradicting ‘anti-urban’ and ‘pro-urban’ processes are

important in the context of small towns and ambitions for planning policy to deliver on

sustainable development.

2.1 Is high density socially desirable?

In recent debates about sustainable urban form the concept of urban compaction has been

widely adopted by political institutions and policymakers in western countries (UTF: 1999,

Jenks et al: 2000, EC: 2010, UNHABITAT: 2011, OECD: 2012). Urban compaction policies

promote a multitude of benefits including inner city regeneration; conservation of the

countryside; a reduction in car use; and improved public transport.

However, claims made about the sustainability of urban compaction are frequently

challenged, notably in relation to their social acceptability. In particular, there is significant

concern about the neglect of ‘liveability’ by the compaction agenda (Vallance et al: 2011,

Godschalk: 2007, Neuman: 2005, Howley et al: 2009, Senior et al: 2004). Liveability

operates at the scale of the everyday and is concerned with the satisfaction which residents

experience with a place. While planning has become the arena expected to deliver

sustainability and liveability, many have become frustrated that in practice sustainable

development is interpreted narrowly as an environmental problem (Vallance et al: 2011) and

that the question ‘is compaction acceptable to the people involved?’ is not being asked. This

question represents what Breheny (1997) termed the ‘acceptability test’. Breheny refused to

5

accept conventional belief in the merits of urban compaction policies and was concerned that

the acceptability test has been largely ignored. Similarly, Howley (2009) asserts that unless

people feel that a place has high quality residential areas there is little chance that the place

could ever be sustainable.

Such arguments are what Vallance et al (2011) have identified as ‘maintenance social

sustainability’: literature which “speaks to traditions, preferences and places people would

like to see maintained”. Howley et al (2009) warn that while the public may endorse broad

environmental principles there is a perception that high density residential development

“poses too great a cost on quality of life” (849). Indeed, several studies have shown an

inverse relationship between population density and area satisfaction. For example a large

study on urban form and social sustainability by Bramley et al (2009) found that :

The outcomes with the strongest negative relationship with density are home

satisfaction and safety, both important factors influencing residential location

choices, suggesting that housing-market choices are still likely to favour lower density

options where available. (p2139)

Similarly, in their Cardiff based analysis of the acceptability of higher density residential

alternatives, Senior et al (2006) found that:

The majority preference is for more spacious, lower density suburban housing,

rather than the higher density living on regenerated inner urban or city-centre sites

that urban sustainability policies promote. (p53).

It seems that such preferences are not new as Hedges & Clemens found in a 1994 study of

housing attitudes that there was an inverse relationship between population density and area

satisfaction.

Neuman (2005) correctly identified an important caveat to the suggestion that liveability is

greater in one settlement form than another. Qualities associated with residential suburbs and

small towns such as greenery, good schools, and a sense of safety exist in some of the densest

cities in world. Therefore, “liveability is not only a matter of urban form but also a matter of

6

personal preference.” (p16). However, as the next section identifies, migration trends in the

UK suggest that preference for decentralised locations exists.

2.2 Rural renaissance or urban renaissance?

After several decades of economic decline, population reduction and social deprivation, it

seemed that cities were synonymous with decay (Champion: 2001). However, since the early

1990s there has been a change in how cities are viewed and an accompanying repositioning

of the policy agenda. Cities are now increasingly appreciated as the national ‘growth

machines’ (Logan & Molotch: 1987) and have consequently received significant investment

to improve their global competiveness. There has been a renewed interest in urban living and

associated cultural opportunities, particularly by “urban seeking” middle classes (Butler:

2004 p269). Numerous reports into the future of urban areas have been published, such as the

1999 report by the Urban Task Force (UTF) which has been particularly significant and

championed an ‘urban renaissance’ and a vision for ‘compact and connected cities’.

Evidence of rising growth rates of many British cities is not difficult to find. The State of

English Cities Report detailed that cities contributed 42% to national population growth

between 1997 – 2003 (ODPM: 2006). An update of the report published in 2010 also stated

that large and small cities in the north and south of the country were growing quickly, and

that half were doing so faster than the national average growth rate (DCLG: 2010). Further,

the update of the original UTF report (2006) details the ‘notable success’ that people have

started to move back into city centres. However, while city populations are rising, the

proximate causes of such growth require closer analysis and consideration. As part of the

Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Census Research Programme, Champion et al (2007) did just

this and the result of their research highlighted that the ‘urban exodus’ (Champion: 1997,

Pacione: 2011) from metropolitan England has in fact been sustained and that it is often

overlooked because international migration into large cities is significantly offsetting losses

of within-UK migration. The consequence of this can be celebration of an urban recovery.

Figure 1 clearly shows the existence of an urban exodus from metropolitan England to the

rest of the country and Figure 2 shows the impact of this trend on the rest of the UK for the

year 2003 – 2004: both the south and north regions exhibit counter-urbanisation trends. Of

particular note is that the ‘small towns and rural’ settlement type is the biggest gainer of

7

population resulting from within-UK migration and that while larger settlements gain much

more from international in-migration, they are the biggest losers to with-UK migration. The

State of English Cities Report (2006) also emphasises that international migration is “highly

skewed towards the cities, especially the larger ones” and that “by contrast, migration within

the UK is exactly the opposite, with the largest gains made by the small towns and rural

types” (p47)

Figure 1. Net out-migration from metropolitan England to the rest of the UK (1991-2004) Source: Champion et al (2007) p7.

For Davoudi & Stead (2002), these migration trends are the outcome of a “largely idealized

perception of rural life” (p271). Once the planning system differentiated between urban and

rural with the introduction of green belts and the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, it

was noted that people were moving to rural areas to take advantage of the protected

countryside and associated high quality of life. This phenomenon has been termed the

preservationist paradox by Murdoch & Lowe (2003). This paper agrees with Powe and Hart

(2011) that preservationist policies face a particular challenge in relation to larger rural

settlements such as small towns which provide residents with a compromise between the

advantage of urban and rural: if their residential desirability is not maintained, there could be

a increased migration to more dispersed rural areas such as villages and isolated homes in a

bid to ‘re-find’ some of those desired qualities.

8

Figure 2. Rates of within-UK and international net migration, for England, by settlement types (2003-2004) Source: Champion et al (2007) p9 Calculations from data provided by ONS.

2.3 ‘Too urban to be rural and too rural to be urban’

Morris (2011 p13)

In contrast to cities, smaller towns have been largely overlooked in the burgeoning sustainability literature. The main exceptions to this are the ‘Action for Market Towns’

initiative; the Rural Evidence Research Centre; case studies of Mayer & Knox ( 2010) on

movements of associated with towns such as Slow Food and Transition Towns; and Neil

Powe and his colleagues in Newcastle (2007, 2011) who primarily focus on market towns.

With these notable exceptions aside, there is little research on the relationships between

sustainability and small towns. This gap is important because small towns absorbed 60% of

population growth in England between 1991 and 2001 and are home to 11million people:

over a fifth of the population (Small Towns for Tomorrow: 2012).

One possible reason why small towns have been neglected in academic and policy discourses

could be due to the range of definitions on what comprises an urban or rural area. Physical

and functional boundaries of urban and rural areas have become increasingly obscured,

particularly since the acceleration of suburbanisation in the 1960s. Further, there is no agreed

government method to distinguish small towns from other urban areas: settlements with a

population over 10,000 are considered ‘urban’ (ONS: 2012). This broad category prompts

9

initial concerns that the trends, challenges and opportunities of small towns could be

overlooked, further justifying the importance of this research.

With a population of 18,500 Berkhamsted is well within the definitions of ‘small town’ that

exist: the ‘Small Towns for Tomorrow’ forum (2011) have identified a population band of

1,500 to 40,000; and Mayer & Knox (2010) define small towns as urban areas with no more

than 50,000 residents. It is therefore a suitable location for a case study into the relationships

between sustainability and urban growth. Further, as the only places in rural areas where new

housing will be permitted; towns are bearing a significant amount of the pressure of the

housing shortage. Dacorum Borough Council is classified as ‘significant rural’ with 38% of

the population living in ‘rural settlements or large market towns’(DEFRA: 2009).

Mayer & Knox (2010) suggest that the “innovative approachs to sustainability” (p1551) they

find characteristic of many small towns are in response to the ‘the second modernity’ – an era

of “reflexive modernization” resultant from exceptional global interdependencies and

characterised by processes of individualization, flexible labour markets and global risks such

the vulnerability of financial markets (Beck & Lau: 2005). However, it would be naïve to

suggest that all small town residents are preoccupied with distancing themselves from the

effects of globalization. Indeed, many small towns double up as commuter towns and

therefore directly support the networks of globally competitive markets which flow through

larger cities. Further, Halfpenny et al (2004) argue that having ‘good suburbs’ for

professional workers is important for many cities to secure competitive city status.

While for many the city has become disorientating, the rural continues to be associated with

values of “home ownership and family centeredness”, which has resulted in “a very British

version of white flight, or perhaps more accurately, “retreat” from the city” (Lowe et al: 1995

p65). Decentralised areas then are where members of the middle class in particular “find a

sense of belonging” (p82) , imbuing them with a desire to protect this space from any change

that threatens the ‘accessible rural’ ambiance (Daniels: 1999). However, with housing

pressures such as seen in the south of England, many small towns are the focus of population

change and growth. The challenge for small towns then is how to maintain residential

desirability while absorbing more population. The preservationist paradox (Murdoch &

10

Lowe: 2003) shows why this is important to do: failure could translate into a behavioural

push for lower density sprawling housing and an increased reliance on the car.

2.4 Understanding and preventing the NIMBY phenomenon

When development proposals challenge the utility of residents, the NIMBY (not-in-my-

back-yard) phenomena is often manifest. Due to complex perceptions of a place’s capacity

for growth (Powe & Hart: 2011) and the fact that “change, even change for the better, upsets

the status quo” (Vallance et al: 2011 p346), alleviating NIMBY opposition is difficult.

Schively (2007) is particularly concerned that planners only have a “very partial

understanding” of why opposition occurs and that NIMBY responses are too quickly

classified as “self interested...and not representative of broader community interests” (p262).

A fundamental starting point to alleviating this impasse requires understanding what qualities

underpin residents’ perceptions of the value of a place. This is an important element of

sustainability, since desirability is a fundamental part of what makes a place ‘sustainable’ in

the first place. High rates of residential turnover can lead to social decline and place

‘malaise’. Therefore, understanding why people value a place and how that leads to

residential stability is an integral part of the wider debates about sustainability (Jenks et al

1996, 2000).

The critique by Schively that NIMBY research is over-concerned with technical issues of risk

and often fails to consider the social context of risk is comparable to calls that a stronger

social orientation to sustainability discourse is required. For example, Vallance et al (2012)

suggest that simplistic technocratic readings of sustainability are common because they deal

with “things that can be achieved in clear, measurable ways, unlike policy proposals

associated with the messy, subjective and rich realm of the real people who actually inhabit

the city” (p1704). Issues relating to social sustainability are often belittled, it seems, due to

the fact that they are harder to operationalize, and are therefore frequently overlooked – and

unprotected - in urban planning.

Accordingly, in order to understand NIMBY responses and work to avoid conflict with

planning and development policies, we require a better consideration of “what is already

11

there” which is of value to residents (Amin: 2006 p1020). Amin (2006) emphasises the

importance of recognising and considering those spaces which may not be obvious or

spectacular but which act as places of solidarity against sources of anxiety or hopelessness

characteristic of modern life. Asking people to employ responsibility for future generations –

as sustainability does – can be seen as a daunting task, and can create a sense of helplessness

(Williams: 2008). It seems that what we require to re-vitalize many places is not necessarily a

planning default to the compact city: before we even consider that, we need the confidence to

work with those spaces of “rich civic virtue” (Amin:2006 p 1020) which are central to our

everyday urban existence, therefore adopting the call for socially sensitive urban sustainable

development but rejecting the arguments that place bio-physical sustainability above all else.

Such placement, this research argues, is ultimately self-defeating because through a neglect

of the human spaces, needs and values, there is also neglect of those aspects of a place that

not only create a sense of place but also a ‘love of place’ (Tuan: 1974), to which people

develop meaningful attachment – a key aspect of sustainable urban form (Bramley et al:

2009).While Amin (2006) is focused primarily on physical spaces, the focus of this report is

the characteristics of a place which are desirable to residents, without which a settlement

would be vulnerable to both higher residential mobility and capital flight, both of which

seriously undermine the chance of maintaining a sustainable community.

12

CHAPTER 3

BERKHAMSTED

The case study approach adopted here provides an opportunity to develop a rich

understanding of residential desirability in a small town and the possibility of focussing on

local as well as national planning policy. The town of Berkhamsted is interesting because of

its geographical location in south-east England – an area of considerable planning pressure;

its heritage as a historic market town; and because of the large scale development currently

being proposed. The town is very popular amongst commuters due to the good rail service

into London and has a population of 18,500 (Dacorum Borough Council: 2011).

Berkhamsted is in the English Home Counties, “the quintessential heart of the English

nation” (Whitehead: 2007 p142) and falls under the jurisdiction of Hertfordshire County

Council and Dacorum Borough Council (henceforth DBC). The town is split into three

wards, of which Berkhamsted East was chosen as the focus of the empirical research,

primarily as ONS statistics show that it is most similar to town averages for numerous

statistics. See Table 1 for a selection of demographic statistics.

13

Table 1. Selected demographic statistics for Berkhamsted and Berkhamsted's wards. ONS Census 2001

Survey Category Berkhamsted (%)

Berkhamsted East (%)

Berkhamsted West (%)

Berkhamsted Castle (%)

Census categories if different from survey

Households: Owner Occupied

77.7 75.2 70.93 85.07 Owns outright

Owns with mortgage or loan

Shared ownership

Households: Rented from Council

12.04 15.19 22.88 2.05 Rented from Council (Local Authority)

Household spaces and accommodation type: Detached

34.25 27.67 36.38 35.63 Whole House or Bungalow Detached

Household spaces and accommodation type: Terrace

26.86 29.95 14.07 23.63 Whole house or bungalow Terraced

Percentage of households comprising: Family with children

30.32 32.35 35.93 27.93 Married couple: with dependent children

Cohabiting couple with dependent children

Lone parent: with dependent children

Other: with dependent children

Percentage of households comprising: All pensioner households

25.19 21.82 25.84 20.87 One person: pensioner

One family: all pensioners

Other: All pensioner

14

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

To understand better the discourses surrounding perceptions of planning and sustainability,

primary data was gathered from residents of Berkhamsted East ward by a household survey

designed in the form of a conjoint analysis experiment. Prior to the design of the survey, it

was essential to analyse the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy and the NPPF to

identify key themes and proposals for the development of Berkhamsted. The key research

questions are:

• What are the aspects of Berkhamsted on which residents place most value?

• To what extent is there a conflict or a correlation with the most valued aspects of the

town and the possible development trajectories of the town as expressed in the

Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy and the NPPF?

4.1 Conceptual approach: Fallibilism

Adopting a pragmatic imperative, the objective of this paper is to uncover knowledge which

can help solve practical problems related to sustainable planning. The pragmatism position

appreciates the fallibilism of knowledge (Hepple: 2008, Wood: 2008). While discussing the

fallibilist approach to research, Marshall (1985) identifies that a scientific investigation

begins with a problem and the presentation of a theory. The presence of a theory for the

fallibilist is crucial as it guides the approach to the problem and helps decide what kind of

data to collect. In contrast to the positivist position, fallibilism puts great importance on the

ability and desire to “confront these speculations [theories] with pertinent empirical

observations, thereby exposing them to the possibility of refutation” (p122). At the end of the

investigation, a theory may need to be modified but is rarely outright rejected.

15

By subscribing to fallibilism, this paper is approaching research in the following way. As the

literature review demonstrated, existing research indicates that there is a preference for low

density residential environments and there exists a negative perception of development.

However, planning policy continues to encourage centralisation and intensification of land

use. What are the implications of this impasse? This represents the problem at which this

research begins.

This paper’s theory, then, builds on the preservationist paradox (Murdoch & Lowe: 2003)

and noted migration trends by suggesting that this impasse could be the catalyst for increased

decentralisation by residents. This in turn would very likely lead to increased reliance on the

private car and the need to travel for employment and services. The theory suggests the need

to find out what aspects of a place residents place most value in order to discourage further

decentralisation. The conjoint analysis method is well suited to gathering this type of data as

it considers the joint effect of two or more variables on over all preferences and is therefore

compatible to problems of residential choice in which preferences typically depend on the

joint effect of numerous variables such as schooling, transport links and house prices.

If the theory outlined above is found to be correct when it is confronted with the primary

data, the original problem of the conflict between policy and preference takes on added

urgency. If the theory is not entirely correct, then it may need modifying in light of the data.

Such exposure to falsification contributes towards a progressive understanding of the

problem.

4.2 Conjoint analysis Originating in mathematical psychology, conjoint analysis (also called stated preference

analysis i.e. Senior et al: 2006) has become an attractive modelling tool for gauging consumer

preferences toward multiattribute goods. Applications are popular in urban geography and in

particular with studies that examine issues of spatial choice and transport preferences (Molin

et al: 1996, Walker et al: 2002, Senior et al: 2006, Joseph et al: 1989, Betanzo: 2012). One of

16

the key benefits of conjoint analysis is the ability to evaluate preference for products or

scenarios that do not currently exist in the real world (Blank et al: 2002, Walker et al: 2002).

Conjoint analysis requires the simulation of a set of hypothetical scenarios or profiles which

are composed of two or more attributes (for example, see Table 2). As the name suggest, the

method follows Lancaster (1971) by recognising that the attractiveness of a ‘good’ is

dependent on the joint effect of a number of characteristics. Conjoint analysis therefore

requires prior identification of attributes which are thought to influence the desirability of a

particular good. For example, preferences for different housing types may depend on

attributes such as price and size of garden. These attributes in turn have a number of levels.

For example, size of garden may have the levels ‘10m2’ and ‘25m2’.

Table 2. Example of 2 scenarios

Scenario Price per month Size of garden Size of living room

A £1200 25m2 7m2

B £600 10m2 10m2

During a conjoint analysis experiment, the respondent is presented with hypothetical

scenarios and either rank or rate each of the scenarios. Analysis of this data using SPSS

software results in a utility score called a part-worth for each attribute level, where a larger

score corresponds to greater preference. Part-worths are expressed as a common unit,

therefore they can be added together to give the total utility (preference) for any combination

of attribute levels. Also, it is possible to calculate the relative importance for the attribute to

overall preference. To do this, the attributes’ ranges are considered. - “An attributes range is

the difference between the highest and lowest estimate part-worth utility of its levels” (Molin

et al: 1996 p 306). The ranges of all attributes are summed, and the percentage contribution of

each attribute to this total is calculated.

17

Walker et al (2002) decided that no more than five attributes should be included in their

conjoint analysis of the residential preferences of public sector housing tenants while Molin

et al (1996) identified nine attributes in their study of new housing preference in the

Netherlands and Blank et al (2002) used eight attributes to define residential alternatives in

their Cardiff based study. Attribute selection inevitably includes a simplification of the

factors which influence the decision making process in the real world , but is necessary

because as the number of attributes and their levels increases, the number of profiles required

to reflect all combinations quickly become impractical(Walker et al: 2002). Therefore, in

practice, often a fractional factorial design is used, the most common of which is the

orthogonal array. Orthogonal designs extract from the scenarios of the full factorial design a

fraction in which the attribute levels are balanced and orthogonal (Wang and Li: 2002).

Another important factor in the design of the conjoint experiment is whether respondents will

be asked to score or rank the scenarios. In a scoring exercise, respondents are asked to assign

a score to the scenarios to indicate their preference. The range of scores open to respondents

are usually in the form of a Likert scale, for example the scores available may be 1 to 5 where

1 equals ‘very unpreferable’ and 5 equals ‘highly preferable’. In a ranking exercise,

respondents are asked to assign a rank to the scenarios from 1 to the total number of profiles.

Both techniques have benefits and disadvantages, as described in Table 3.

18

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages for the ranking and rating evaluating methods

Ranking Rating

Pros • Forces respondent to make a choice between scenarios (Sayadi et al: 2005)

• Reliability for the most liked and least liked options is very high (Louviere et al: 2000)

• Responses give a degree of preference rather than just order (Abely: 2002)

• More suitable with more profiles as the option to rate scenarios with the same value is considered to be less onerous on respondent

Cons • Accuracy deceases as profiles increase as respondents are more susceptible to fatigue (Louviere et al: 2000)

• Differences may be expressed that respondents do not perceive as preferences as they are forced to rank(Sayadi et al: 2005)

• More weakly ordered than complete ranking (Louviere et al: 2000 p31)

4.3.1 Suitability of method to issues of urban sustainability

Unlike a ‘regular’ survey, conjoint analysis allows for the joint effect of several variables to

be observed. This is important because, as emphasised by Betanzo (2012), allowing

preferences to guide urban design “may perpetuate socially undesirable tendencies” (p183).

Conjoint analysis can, in effect, be likened to a game of give and take: it highlights what

‘negative’ impacts of a place can be afforded if in return another aspect is protected or

ameliorated. This approach respects the need to maintain love of place, and also the need for

collective responsibility to accommodate rising populations. To suggest total planning for

preferences would be myopic. Therefore, here conjoint analysis is used for the comparison of

those aspects of the town on which residents place most value, with the likely development of

town as indicated in local and national planning policies which postulate to be governed by

sustainable development objectives.

4,3 Survey design and administration Taking these methodological issues into account, and also recognising the practical

limitations of time arising from the research framework and respondents’ ability to

19

participate, it was decided to focus on 5 attributes and a total of 14 levels (seeTable 4)

Therefore, the lowest number of profiles required is 18. Accordingly, it was decided that a

rating exercise would be more suitable for respondents given the number of profiles required

for the experiment.

Table 4. Attributes and levels used in conjoint analysis (numbers in brackets refer to number of levels)

Attribute Levels Bus service (2) Good improvement;

No change New homes (4) Yes – infill homes;

Yes – ridge top sites; Yes – green belt/on edge of town; No more homes

High street (3) More chain shops and eateries; More independent shops and eateries; No change

Public car parking (3) More in town centre; More at railway station; No change

Schooling (2) 2 tier system; No change

SPSS software was used to create the orthogonal array which was exported to word to make

the font more respondent friendly (see Figure 3). In a pilot study, the array used had more

detail within the table and while respondents largely understood the task, they felt the array

was ‘too busy’. Therefore, detail was removed from the array and an instruction sheet

(appendix 3) was created instead.

A cover letter, the instruction sheet, and the array were all given to respondents with a

stamped addressed envelope. The survey was hand delivered between July 6th and July 20th

within the Berkhamsted East ward. The ward was split into 4 sections along postcode

boundaries/major roads and 155 surveys were distributed in each section on alternate roads

where possible (Map 1).Originally, attempts were made to do the questionnaire with the

respondent. However, after distributing 50 and only 5 opting to do it there and then, it was

decided that the surveys would just be put through the letter box. This saved significant time

on the distribution.

20

Figure 3. Scenario array given to respondents (this version is smaller)

SCORE O

PTIO

NS: 1 = Highly un-preferable

2 = Quite un-preferable

3 = Preferable 4 =Quite Preferable 5 = Highly Preferable

Please score all of the following development scenarios on a scale of 1 to 5 in far right column:

Scen

ario

Bus service

New

hom

es lo

cation

High street

Pub

lic parking

Scho

oling

SCORE

A

No change

Yes - Infill

No change

No change

No change

B

No change

Yes - Ridge top sites

More independent

More in town centre

2 tier system

C

No change

Yes - Green belt on edge of

town

More chains

More at rail station

2 tier system

D

Good

improvement


town

More independent

More in town centre

No change

E

No change

Yes - Infill

More chains

More in town centre

2 tier system

F

No change

No more homes

More independent

No change

2 tier system

G

Good

improvement


More chains

No change

No change

H

Good

improvement

Yes - Infill

More chains

More in town centre

2 tier system

I No change


More chains


No change

J

Good

improvement


No change

More in town centre

2 tier system

K

No change


town

No change

More in town centre

No change

L

Good

improvement

Yes - Infill

More independent


No change

M

Good

improvement

No more homes

No change


2 tier system

N

Good

improvement


town

More chains

No change

2 tier system

O

Good

improvement

No more homes

More chains

More in town centre

No change

P

No change

No more homes

More chains

More in town centre

No change

Q

Good

improvement


town

More independent

No change

No change

R

No change

Infill

No change


2 tier system

SHEET

C

21

Map 1

1

2

3

4 Map

to

show

4 d

istr

ibut

ion

area

s w

ithi

n Be

rkha

mst

ed E

ast

Ber

kham

sted

Eas

t Bo

unda

ry

Sour

ce: B

ase

OS

Stre

et M

ap d

ownl

oade

d fr

om E

dina

Dig

imap

(2

012)

22

The response rates of other studies which used household questionnaires and the conjoint

analysis experiment were reviewed and are seen in Table 5. Israel (2009) recommends that it

is useful to consider the sample sizes of similar studies.

Table 5. Response rates of similar studies.

Reference Relevant method(s) Response rate (number of responses)

Howley et al (2009) Household questionnaire to evaluate residential satisfaction

25% (270 responses)

Powe and Hart (2011) Household questionnaire to gain understanding of local experiences of growth

39% for town 1 (236)

43% for town 2 (259)

Champion and Fisher (2004)

Household questionnaire of residents past migration reasons

Rate unknown (720)

Bramley et al (2009) Household questionnaire concerning social sustainability themes

37% (4381)

Senior et al (2004) Household questionnaire in form of conjoint analysis

23% (108)

Molin et al (1996) Household questionnaire in form of conjoint analysis to elicit housing preference

45% (95)

Borgers et al (2008) Household questionnaire in form of conjoint analysis to assess preference of car restrained residential areas

27% (324)

For this study, a function of the spatial distribution strategy, a total of 620 questionnaires

were distributed. 260 useable responses1 were returned, representing a response rate of 41%.

Considering the 5600 population of Berkhamsted East , this response rate represents a 95%

confidence level and sampling error ± 6%.

1 267 questionnaires were returned but 7 were unusable

23

As expected, some surveys (n=7) were returned which had not been completed correctly.

Five surveys were returned with an enclosed letter from the respondent detailing their further

comments on the development of the town. Interestingly, seven surveys were returned with

an added row on to the array detailing the respondents ‘ideal’ scenario.

4.3 Limitations The main drawback of the conjoint analysis method is that relies on concept of rational

behaviour (Abely: 2002) and assumes that respondents will trade off different attributes in

order to find the scenario which maximises their residential utility. In reality however,

“respondents are not committed to behave in accordance with their stated preferences” and

responses may be influenced by unknown factors (Walker et al: 2002 p668).

Any errors in the responses may be due to misunderstanding of the exercise, or due to

‘strategic bias’ in which the respondent answers in a way which they believe affirms the

study objectives. In order to mitigate against this, a clear effort was made to ensure that the

exercise put no emphasis on particular attributes. For example, during the pilot study, the full

dissertation title was included at the top of the cover letter. However, several respondents

commented on the fact I had a question mark after sustainable and began to voice

assumptions about the key issues I was interested in. Accordingly, on the final cover letter, I

removed the title from the prominent position and instead asked ‘How would you like

Berkhamsted to develop?’- a more objective and appealing opening to the survey.

24

CHAPTER 5

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 Planning Reform The present Coalition Government has been characterized by a range of policy reforms

including the flagship Localism Act 2011 which abolishes a range of large scale planning

functions that the government claims have previously blocked development. In particular,

Regional Spatial Strategies and regional housing targets have been replaced with growth

incentives such as the new homes bonus and Community Right to Build. On March 27th 2012

the government published the NPPF which dramatically consolidates the previous suite of

planning policy statements into a 50 page document.

Central to the NPPF is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which means

that the default response to a proposal for development is ‘yes’ unless it clearly goes against

the Local Plan or the Local Plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or out of date” (DCLG: 2012

p4). The NPPF states that the presumption should be seen “as a golden thread running

through plan-making and decision-making” (p4).

However, the NPPF has received criticism for its neglect of issues of social sustainability.

Chief Planner at the Town and Country Planning Association Hugh Ellis is particularly

critical that the NPPF has failed to reflect the progress that has been made in last 20 years

understanding sustainable development. Instead, it presents “more or less disconnected policy

priorities, represented as a list of criteria with an implicit sense that economic growth is the

priority” (Ellis: 2012 p224). A good example of this is perhaps the new Neighbourhood

Development Plan (NDP) which allows neighbourhood forums to set planning policies for

their area. However, a NDP has to be in ‘general conformity’ with the Local Plan and has

power to support more, but not less, development than the Local Plan.

5.2 Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy

25

Under the national planning reform the local plan (or ‘core strategy) is still at the heart of the

planning system. The NPPF states that

Policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can

be approved without delay.(p 4)

The purpose of the DBC Core Strategy is to act as a blueprint to control the level and location

of development in the years to 2031 (DBC: 2012). After a consultation period in 2011, the

Council submitted its Core Strategy to the Planning Inspectorate on June 22nd 2012. It should

be noted therefore that the version of the Core Strategy used in this paper, the most up to date

version, is the Core Strategy Pre-Submission document (henceforth Core Strategy).

The vision set out for the Borough is complemented by Place Strategies which express

“specific aspirations for the individual towns and large villages.” (DBC: 2011 p46). The

Berkhamsted Place Strategy identifies the following local objectives:

• Provide around 1,180 new homes between 2006 and 2031.

• Bring forward the strategic site at Durrants Lane/Shootersway (Egerton Rothesay

School) to deliver new homes, improvements to the school and informal leisure space

for the community.

• Deliver 2 new primary schools.

• Support the British Film Institute to consolidate on their site.

• Maintain the current level of employment provision.

Space prohibits full attention to the majority of the aforementioned policies, but the Table 6

highlights those themes which were deemed to receive significant emphasis within the

documents; and to be of most relevance to the context of this report. These themes then

influenced the identification of attributes for the conjoint analysis experiment.

26

The

me

Nationa

l Plann

ing an

d Policy

Framew

ork (paragraph number in

brackets)

DBC Core Strategy

(paragraph

number in brackets)

Other

Attribu

te(s)

and levels

Travel

• “The transport system needs to be

balanced in favour of sustainable

transport modes, giving people

choice about how they travel.” (29)

• “Plans and decisions should ensure

that developments which generate

significant movement are located

where the need to travel will be

minimised and the use of sustainable

transport modes maximised”. (34)

• “Local authorities should seek to

improve the quality of parking in

town centres so that it is convenient,

safe and secure”.(40)

• “Improved cycle routes and

facilities (for example at the

train station),will in part help

tackle a number of parking

and traffic issues in the town.

An additional deck at the

railway station car park and

the development of the Water

Lane / High Street site will

also provide for a modest

increase in spaces “(21.13)

• “Undeniably the issue which

has caused most interest and

concern (for the Transport

and Environment

Committee) is that of

Parking...The Council is

faced with the basic problem

that there is not enough

parking in the town

centre...There is no doubt

that no single solution suits

everyone...”

(Report to the Annual Town

Council Meeting 2012)

Bus service

(good

improvement;

no change)

Pub

lic car

park

ing

( more at rail

station; more

in town centre;

no change)

Hou

sing

•

“Housing applications should be

considered in the context of the

presumption in favour of sustainable

development.”. (49)

• “The supply of new homes can

sometimes be best achieved through

planning for larger scale

development” (52)

• “Local planning authorities should

support a pattern of development

which, where reasonable to do so,

facilitates the use of sustainable

modes of transport.” (30)

• “Around 1,180 homes will be

provided over the period 2006

– 2031, chiefly within the

town boundary. A key priority

will be maximising

opportunities for affordable

homes and family sized

accommodation, especially in

larger developments” (21.2)

• “Not all of the housing

required can be achieved

within the urban areas of the

town and a local allocation has

• “W

e continue to maintain

that 750 dwellings rather

than the 1180 proposed is

more appropriate were

Berkhamsted to be treated in

the same manner as other

market towns.

• We object to any release of

Green Belt land.”

(Report to the Annual Town

Council Meeting 2012)

New

hom

es

( Yes – infill;

Yes – ridge top

sites; Yes –

green belt

sites; No more

homes)

Table 6. Policy themes from local and national policy used to compose the attributes.

27

been identified at Hanburys,

Shootersway “(Green Belt)

(21.3)

Econo

my •

“The government is committed to

securing economic growth...in order

to meet the twin challenges of global

competition and of a low carbon

future.” (18)

• “Planning policies should promote

competitive town centres that provide

customer choice and a diverse retail

offer which reflects the individuality

of town centres” (23)

• “The proposed redevelopment

of the High Street / Water

Lane site will deliver high

quality buildings, a new

supermarket and small shop

units, and improved public car

parking.”(21.9)

• There are proposals for a

Marks and Spencer Simply

Food store on the west end of

High Street and it is reported

that Marks and Spencer have

been trying to open their

market in the town for

several years (Gazette: 2012)

High Street

(More

independent

outlets; M

ore

chains; N

o change)

Edu

cation

•

“Key facilities such as primary

schools and local shops should be

located within walking distance of

most properties” (38)

• “The Government attaches great

importance to ensuring that a

sufficient choice of school places is

available...Local planning authorities

should ...give great weight to the

need to create, expand or alter

schools” (72)

• “Two new primary age

schools are required in the

town...It would be prudent to

plan for one school to the

north west and another to the

south east of Berkhamsted”

(21.4)

• “Planning policy needs to be

applied sensibly to allow

for...improvements to school

capacity to take place and to

ensure that the wider interests

of the town are met” (21.5)

Sc

hooling

(2 tier system;

no change)

28

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is structured as follows. To begin, a review of the survey respondents is given;

secondly, the results of the conjoint analysis will be explained and then discussed in the

context of existing literature; and finally, any conflict or correlation of the stated preferences

with planning policy will be considered.

6.1 Research respondents Table 7. Demographic characteristics of research sample and population.

Sample Berkhamsted East Frequency Percent Percent Home type

Detached 130 50.0% 23.45% Semi-detached 48 18.5% 20.6% Terrace 64 24.6% 25.26% Apartment 15 5.8% 15.66 Other 3 1.2% 1.2%

Tenure Owner-occupier 205 78.8% 75.2% Rent private 41 15.8% 6.72% Rent council 12 4.6% 15.19% Other 2 0.8% 2.89%

Household type Single non-pensioner 29 11.2% 15.96% Couple no children 48 18.5% 26.44% All pensioner household 83 31.9% 21.82% Family with children 95 36.5% 32.35% Other 5 1.9% 3.43%

Car ownership (household) No Car 17 6.5% 15.3% One Car 123 47.3% 43.2% Two or more cars 120 46.2% 41.4%

Age 18-24 25 9.6% 8.06% 25-44 87 33.5% 40.4% 45-64 78 30.0% 33.06% 65-84 67 25.8% 15.81% 84+ 3 1.2% 2.58%

Source: Berkhamsted East data from ONS Census 2001

29

Table 7shows the demographic characteristics of the 260 questionnaire responses in

comparison to the population of Berkhamsted East. The key points to note are: the sample is

shown to over-represent detached home types and under-represent apartments; while the

representation of owner-occupiers in the sample is very comparable to the ward, the tenure

type rent from council is significantly underrepresented; and while families with children

were accurately represented, couples with no children were underrepresented and pensioner

households overrepresented. While these points will be taken into consideration when

drawing conclusions, the response rate was excellent and in general the sample represents the

population reasonably well.

6.2 Conjoint analysis results

Table 8 shows the part-worth utility scores for attribute levels grouped by attribute and Table

9 shows the part-worth utility scores for the attribute levels ranked from the highest

preference to the lowest preference. The higher the part-worth utility score corresponds to a

higher the level of preference.

30

Table 8. Part-worth utilities for attribute levels

Attribute Level Part-worth utility

New homes location No more homes 1.198

Infill 0.294

Ridge top sites -0.542

Green belt land -0.950

Bus service No change -0.098

Good improvement 0.098

Public Parking More in town centre 0.027

No change -0.141

More at rail station 0.114

Schooling No change -0.122

2 tier system 0.122

High street More chains -0.202

More independent 0.200

No change 0.003

From its position as the two least preferred and the two most preferred attribute levels, new

homes location is clearly a very important town attribute to residents. The utility score for no

more homes is very high (1.198) compared to all other utility scores emphasising the

preference of residents for there to be no more homes added to the town. More independent

shops on the high street corresponds to a higher utility than more chain outlets. With regards

to public parking, there is a preference for more parking over no change. However,

surprisingly, utility is higher for more parking at the rail station than more parking in the

town centre.

31

Table 9. Part-worth utilities ranked from highest to lowest

Rank Attribute Level Part-worth utility

1 New homes location No more homes 1.198

2 New homes location Infill 0.294

3 High street More independent 0.200

4 Schooling 2 tier system 0.122

5 Public parking More at rail station 0.114

6 Bus service Good improvement 0.098

7 Public Parking More in town centre 0.027

8 High street No change 0.003

9 Bus service No change -0.098

10 Schooling No change -0.122

11 Public parking No change -0.141

12 High street More chains -0.202

13 New homes location Ridge top sites -0.542

14 New homes location Green belt land -0.950

32

Figure 4. Relative importance of each attribute to overall preference

As can be seen in the tables, the utility scores differ quite substantially between the attributes.

Therefore, as detailed in section 4.2, the relative importance of each attribute to overall

development preference is calculated (Figure 4).The relative importance calculations show

that new homes location is by far the most important attribute with a relative importance of

over 50%. Bus service is clearly the least important attribute, which means that there is a very

small difference in preference between development scenarios containing the most preferred

and least preferred bus options. So while there is a higher utility for a good improvement in

bus service (0.098) than no change in bus service (-0.098), the influence bus service has on

overall preference is minimal. This is highlighted well when considering scenarios O and P

which have the same combination of attribute levels except for bus service, with O having

good improvement and P having no change. The average score given to O by respondents is

3.392 and for P is very similar at 3.277. Further, for both the scenarios, 62%2 of the scores

given by respondents were 3 (‘preferable’) and 4 (‘quite preferable’). Therefore, the bus

service has a minimal impact on overall residential utility. Of the respondents, only 6.5% live

in a household with no car, while 47.3% have one car and 46.2% have two or more cars. The

high percentage of respondents with access to a car could help explain the low influence of

bus service. However, while the respondent sample slightly under-represents those with no

car, car ownership levels of Berkhamsted East are comparable to the sample which indicates

that bus service could likely be of low importance to the population.

2 O = 62.3% P = 62.7%

7.096

54.876

14.885

14.139

9.005

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Bus Service

New homes location

High street

Public parking

Schooling

Percentage (%)

Included in the postal survey was a question which asked respondents if any of the scenarios

would cause them to consider moving out

Figure 5.

Figure 5. Results to survey question on residential mobility

The results in Figure 5 shows that while the scenarios presented to respondents would not

make the majority consider moving out of the town, 44.2% would consider it if the town

developed in a manner undesirable to t

Question

Would any of the scenarios A-cause you to consider moving out of Berkhamsted?

If yes, which one(s)?

1 59

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

L H A

Freq

uenc

y


would cause them to consider moving out of Berkhamsted, the results of which can be seen in

. Results to survey question on residential mobility

shows that while the scenarios presented to respondents would not


developed in a manner undesirable to them. N was the scenario most frequently mentioned,

Response

-R cause you to consider moving out of

No – 55.8%

Yes - 44.2%

18

23

29 29

3335

41

J B D G I Q C

Scenario

33


of Berkhamsted, the results of which can be seen in

shows that while the scenarios presented to respondents would not


hem. N was the scenario most frequently mentioned,

4446

K N

34

while E, F, M, O, P and R were not mentioned by any respondents. The top 4 most frequently

mentioned scenarios all include the characteristic of housing in the green belt but vary in all

other attributes. Similarly, the six scenarios which were not mentioned all contained either no

more homes or infill housing but varied in the other attributes.

The nature of the utility function means that it is possible to calculate the utility for the most

(Table 10) and least (Table 11) preferable scenarios.

Table 10 Highest possible total utility

Good improvement in bus service

No more homes

More independent businesses on the high street

More parking at the rail station

2 tier school system

Total Utility

0.098 1.198 0.200 0.114 0.122 1.732

Table 11 Lowest possible total utility

No change in bus service

Green belt homes

More chains on the high street

No change in public parking

No change in schooling

Total Utility

- 0.098 -0.950 -0.202 -0.141 -0.122 -1.513

Interestingly, seven surveys were returned with an extra row drawn onto the array indicating

the respondents ‘ideal’ scenario. These are given in Table 12 with corresponding total

utilities:

35

Table 12. 'Ideal scenarios' drawn on surveys by respondents.

Attribute levels Total utility

1 Good improvement in bus service

No more homes

More independent businesses

More parking in town centre

2 tier schooling system

1.549

2= Good improvement in bus service

No more homes


More parking at rail station


1.488


No more homes




1.488


Infill housing




0.741


Infill housing




0.741

6 No change Infill housing




0.632

7 Good improvement in bus service

Infill housing

No change More parking in town centre


0.544

While seven is a small number, it is interesting to note that all the ideal scenarios contain no

more homes or infill housing; and all desire more parking.

6.3 Residential mobility Shumaker & Stokols (1982) detail the theory of mobility which argues that if a place fails to

provide the resources or environment to meet ones needs, this initiates a situation which is

stressful. The resident then considers relocating when the stress reaches what Speare (1974)

36

has termed the “threshold of dissatisfaction”. In the case of this research therefore, the

addition of more housing to the town is evidently the characteristic which has the potential to

create most stress on current residents. It seems then that if residential relocation to smaller

settlement types/lower density areas is considered as potentially harmful (such as in terms of

travel related emissions), then steps should be taken to ensure that the threshold of

dissatisfaction is not met. This could be achieved by ensuring that a place develops in such a

way that includes characteristics which can help ‘off-set’ the negative impacts of required

developments (such as housing). Planning policies which fail to sufficiently consider the

delicate requirement for ‘trade-offs’ have the potential to be, this paper argues, highly

unsustainable; retrogressive; and an indirect catalyst for further counterurbanisation.

In their investigation of residential preferences for re-locating householders in Cardiff, Senior

et al (2006) found that the most preferred residential location was the suburb and that there

was least enthusiasm for city centre locations. However, the study also found that

counterurbanisation to small town locations also had low preference. The study does

acknowledge, however, that there is very limited availability of small settlements in the

Cardiff region which could have influenced this result. In contrast, the home counties of

London have a large availability of small ‘accessible rural’ settlement types: Figure 1alone

shows the Rural Evidence Research Centre’s (RERC) mapping of small towns characterised

by commuters. The implication of this is that if the residential desirability of a small town

decreases beyond the ‘threshold point’ (Speare: 1974), then residents may be more likely to

move as there is a wide variety of other small towns and villages which may offer strong pull

factors. The research presented in Figure 5 suggests that residents are open to the idea of

moving out of the town and the strong aversion to more homes in the town suggest that

preferred locations would either be of similar or smaller population to Berkhamsted; and/or

areas of lower housing density.

37

Figure 6. RERC mapping of small towns characterised by commuters (2009)

6.4 Housing as a source of stress

Consistent with the findings of Powe and Hart’s (2011) study on the perceptions of growth in

Norfolk market towns, the conjoint analysis results illustrate that the idea of more housing in

the town is not well received. Further, comments added to the survey emphasise that there is

a clear perception that more housing will have a negative impact on the liveability of the

town. Additionally, the concern about future growth within the town is well illustrated by the

existence of several local campaigns established to oppose large scale development.

Berkhamsted Residents Action Group (BRAG) was formed by residents in the direct

response to the South Berkhamsted Concept (SBC), a proposal by a joint hedge fund and

developer partnership for 800 dwellings on a 97 acre site of productive green belt land

(BRAG: 2012). DBC and the town council both rejected the SBC and therefore it is not part

of the housing allocations in the Core Strategy. However, it has been submitted to the

planning inspector who will hold a public inquiry in September/October.

38

The objectives of Save Your Berkhamsted Residents Association (SYBRA) are broader and

are not focused on one proposal. SYBRA state that while they accept the need for more

housing in the town, they believe “such development should be in line with existing housing

density; of a type which preserves the town’s character and should take account of the

infrastructure issues presented by Berkhamsted’s valley situation and its already significant

growth over recent years” (SYBRA: 2012). However, while recognizing that residents of

small towns in south-east England are comcerned about losing their ‘small-town feel’ and

about the delicate balance between development and the ability to absorb it, Gunn et al

(2007) warn under-expansion should be as much of a concern and that “if they attempt to

stand still they could stagnate” (p104).

Transition Town Berkhamsted (TTB) has also been involved in planning consultations and

recently hosted a Building Community Event at the local Ashridge Business School.

Attendees represented 28 town groups and included schools, businesses, youth groups,

Churches and sports groups. I attended a meeting of the TTB Outreach group and it was

interesting to hear the organizers reflecting on comments they received from attendees which

were along the lines of ‘we thought you were just a bunch of tree-huggers!’

Following the terminology of Speare (1974) the existence of these and other groups, along

with the results of the conjoint analysis, it is clear that the prospect of large scale housing

developments in the town is a source of stress. What is unclear is whether this stress has

reached the threshold which would make residents consider moving out of the town. While

the results in table Figure 5 give some suggestions, it is important to note that some studies

have warned of the difference between stated preference and revealed preference. That is to

say, in contrast to revealed preference experiments which are based on actual choices, stated

preference respondents are not committed to behave in accordance with their responses

(Walker et al: 2002) Nevertheless, there is a clear indication that the prospect of large scale

housing developments is unsatisfactory to residents.

39

6.6 Compromise

In their evaluation of residential satisfaction and high density living, Howley et al (2009) find

that while there is high levels of neighbourhood dissatisfaction for residents of high density

residential areas in central Dublin, it might not be high density per se that is the basis of

dissatisfaction. Rather, they suggest that the roots of dissatisfaction are other related factors

such as crime, traffic and poor environmental quality. This brings to mind the study of

Bramley et al (2009) which warns that restricted focus on achieving high density

accommodation with little attention to dimensions of social sustainability is “unlikely to

produce happy and well functioning communities” (p2139). The paper argues that trade-offs

between different dimensions of sustainability will have to made. This argument has

important policy implications, not least that if higher density urban development is to be

socially acceptable then efforts need to be made to compromise between the environmental

objectives behind compaction and liveability considerations such as those raised by Howley

et al (2009).

Conjoint analysis is well suited to examining the trade-offs that respondents might make

when considering characteristics of a good (Jansen et al: 2011). Therefore, it is possible to

reflect on how the presence of low utility attribute levels can be compensated for in order to

maintain residential desirability. This is particularly important in the context of this paper

because the issue of new homes is one of large discontent, but – unlike say a shopping mall

or sports facility – homes have to be built to meet the specific housing targets and distribution

set out in the Core Strategy. Further, the NPPF requires that local authorities identify “a

supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against

their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%.” And “to be considered

deliverable, sites should be available now...” (p18). Indeed, just before time-of-writing a

proposal to build 200 homes on a greenfield site in Cheshire was given the go ahead by the

planning inspector despite the Cheshire East Council refusing planning permission, because

the council was not seen to have had an adequate 5-year supply of housing (Planning

40

Resource: 2012). This emphasises the importance of the local council identifying sensitive

and responsible sites for housing.

The fact that the most preferable attribute level – no more homes – is the one which almost

certainly will not realistically materialise, adds urgency to calls to consider where trade-offs

can be made.

6.6.1 Trade-off analysis

As the part-worth utilities are expressed as a common unit, the total utility of any given

scenario can be calculated by summing the utilities of its attribute levels. This is useful as it

allows suggestions to be made for how to compensate for the negative effect of an attribute,

or in other words, it is possible to “use the utilities to analyze what average consumers would

be willing to give up on one particular attribute to gain improvements in another” (Wilcox:

2003 p5). For example Borgers et al (2008) used this technique to show how the

undesirability of car restrained residential areas can be compensated for by the provision of

public transport facilities closer to residences.

So for example in the case of this paper, consider the following hypothetical development

scenario:


Infill housing development

No change on the high street



Total Utility

0.098 0.294 0.003 0.114 0.122 0.631

41

Then consider the following scenario which is the same in all but the high street attribute:


Infill housing development

More independent businesses on the high street



Total Utility

0.098 0.294 0.200 0.114 0.122 0.828

The second scenario represents an increase in utility of 0.828 – 0.631 = 0.197 over the first

scenario without more independent businesses on the high street.

This implies that we can reduce the utility of one of the other attributes by 0.197 and the

overall preference will be the same as it was in the scenario without more independent

businesses. For example we could ask what kind of housing development would residents be

willing to accept ‘in exchange’ for the added independent businesses? To do this, we have to

convert the change in utility with a change in housing. So, we note the housing in the original

scenario (infill) and the associated utility, 0.294. We know that we can reduce the homes

utility by 0.197. In other words, we can reduce the homes utility to 0.294 – 0.197 = 0.097.

However, by referring to Table 8, it is apparent that there are no housing options of a lower

utility than infill housing than could directly replace infill without reducing the overall utility.

What we can see is that reducing homes utility to 0.097 implies a home option in between

infill (0.294) and ridge top (-0.592) because 0.294 > 0.097 > - 0.542. As no attributes levels

were tested for which were mixed home development type (for example ‘half infill and half

ridge top’) it is difficult to pin down exactly where between infill and ridge top homes utility

could be without reducing the overall utility of the scenario( i.e. a total utility below 0.631). If

‘new homes’ was a quantitative attribute, and there was a linear relationship between home

type and utility this would be possible by performing a linear interpolation. For example, in

the housing preference conjoint analysis experiment by Molin et al (1996), the residential

42

utility decreases with increasing monthly rent from 800 to 1400 in a relationship that is nearly

perfectly linear (1.27, 0.02, -1.27). Similarly, utility increases in an almost perfectly linear

way with the depth of back yard. Both these attributes are quantitative and therefore it would

be possible to calculate the exact price or garden depth that residents would be willing to

accept if it meant, for example, that they got a very large living room. In other words, the

large living room could compensate for a smaller back yard.

So, this trade-off analysis has shown that while the value of having independent shops to

residents is high, it is not substantial enough to compensate for a reduction in housing utility

to the extent of ridge top developments. Further, as independent shops is the attribute level

with the highest utility after no more homes and infill housing, no other attribute level could

compensate for the replacement of infill housing with ridge top housing developments.

Similarly, as green belt housing has a lower utility than ridge top, it is impossible to

compensate for its very low utility score with the attributes used in this design.

6.7 Policy Implications This section will focus on comparing the results of the conjoint analysis with existing policy

which is likely to impact the future development of Berkhamsted. Space prohibits rightful

attention to many areas of policy therefore the following sections will primarily focus on the

themes of housing and transport. First however, education and high street will be briefly

considered.

6.7.1 Education

The preference indicated by the conjoint analysis for schooling to move to a two tier system

is in correlation with the announcement from Hertfordshire County Council on July 19th 2012

that between 2013 and 2015 the age range of selected Berkhamsted schools will be altered so

that the town has a two-tier education system. The relative importance of the ‘education’

attribute was 4th lowest with 9% (Figure 4). This could be attributed to the fact the 31.9% of

43

pensioners and 11.2 % of single non pensioner households may not have been impacted by

the schooling attribute when considering the scenarios.

6.7.2 High Street

A proposal for a Marks and Spencer Simply Food has been rejected by the Town Council

which reflects the preferences of residents for more independent businesses (The Gazette:

2012). However, the Core Strategy states that “The proposed redevelopment of the High

Street / Water Lane site will deliver high quality buildings; a new supermarket and small

shop units, and improved public car parking” (para21.9). There is no detail at this time of

what kind of businesses could be involved in this redevelopment. However, the relative

importance of the high street to residents is high (Figure 4) therefore there could be a strong

conflict with residents if the redevelopment subtracts from the individuality of the high street

and it begins to look like it’s following many others to becoming a “non-place” of face-less

chain shops and fast-food outlets. (Minton: 2006 p7). Such a fate is also concerning

economically as the New Economics Foundation(2005) warn that in a recession, chain stores

are the most likely to close branches.

6.7.3 Housing

As previously touched on, the preference of residents for no more housing in the town is very

problematic. Berkhamsted will need to supply around 1,180 homes by 2031 which would

increase the number of households in the town by 15%. The NPPF states that large scale

developments should be considered by local authorities to meet housing supply. Similarly,

the Core Strategy has indicated that a key priority in Berkhamsted will be the provision of

family sized accommodation “especially in larger developments” (para 21.2). Durrants Lane,

the strategic housing site, is a ridge top location for 180 homes while Hanbury’s, a local

allocation, is green belt with a proposal for 60 homes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest

that the residential utility of the average resident will be reduced somewhat with the

actualisation of these developments.

44

The Durrants Lane proposal includes improvements to Edergerton Rothsay school facilities

which could make the plans more appealing to town residents. However, the location of this

development is particularly concerning as it is a ridge top site on the edge of town and will

therefore generate significant need for travel. This is in conflict with the NPPF statement that

local planning authorities should support a pattern of development which facilitates

sustainable transport. The topography of Berkhamsted means that opportunities for cycling

and walking are restricted for many demographics. Further, the low relative importance of an

improvement of bus service to residents (Figure 4) puts in doubt public transport options

which could be utilised by these ridge top developments.

The term “NIMBY” conveys notions of self-interest and the results presented in this paper

with regard to the strong opposition to any more housing in the town could be labelled an

epitome of NIMBY-ism. However the strong opposition of residents also to housing in the

green belt could suggest a broader collective environmental concern. Without researching the

root of opposition to building on the green belt, no firm conclusions on this account can be

made, however, to suggest that the preferences of the respondents were of total self-interest

would be unsubstantiated.

This paper has raised difficult questions associated with the acceptability of housing growth

to small town residents and is relevant to wider meta-narratives of regional housing

shortages. Some comfort can be drawn from the preference level expressed for infill housing.

However, while infill development is supported in the NPPF, the Berkhamsted Place Strategy

reflects that infill development in Berkhamsted provides only limited opportunities,

insufficient to reach the housing target.

The above findings in relation to housing preferences take on added interest when considered

with Massey’s (2004) work on geographies of responsibility and Betanzo’s (2012)

consideration of the negative outcomes attachment to place. Massey’s Russian doll theory

considers a layering of the degrees of responsibility humans feel towards their environment.

That environment which is geographically closest to us, we feel most responsibility towards,

whereas those further away we feel less or no responsibility for. Betanzo (2012) notes that

45

while most research into place attachment is in relation to positive outcomes of social

cohesion and responsibility, a potential negative outcome is residents’ desire to protect the

place they are attached to by opposing any change or development. This has direct relation to

the opposition displayed in Berkhamsted to the addition of new housing to the town. Such

discussion brings to light a potential flaw in Vallance’s (2011) identification of ‘maintenance

social sustainability’ – what if those aspects of a place people would like to see maintained

are problematic at a larger scale? Should those preferences still be protected? The research

presented in this paper highlights the importance of this question and to some extent

undermines planning for preferences.

The fundamental question for policy makers then is whether Berkhamsted is perhaps not a

suitable location for more development; or, whether the quality of life for residents of the

town may need to be reduced in some respects in order for the town to take some

responsibility and absorb population rises. Anti-growth sentiments identified in this and other

papers complicate hopes of the current government who are putting “significant faith on the

ability of individuals to behave as citizens rather than simply consumers” (Lowndes &

Pratchett: 2012 p34). While critics’ claim that localism will lead to elite pluralism, the

research presented in this paper suggests that perhaps a bigger concern is that local patriotism

will transform into an inability for small towns (which pride themselves on a certain

ambiance of escapism) to successfully embrace change and growth. That is not to say that I

am postulating all places should have to grow, however I think it would be idealistic and

ignorant to suggest that anywhere can be immune from change resultant from the needs of

those beyond its borders. In this context of complicated responsibilities, housing is a vital and

difficult topic as sufficient housing is perhaps one of the most basic amenities for society to

be sustainable. Equally as important is the reminder by Samuels (2006) that ignoring

consumer preferences and aspirations will create more problems and that without realistically

understanding what makes a development sustainable in the long term, there is “a danger of

building homes that meet the targets in terms of numbers but which will fail to meet society’s

aspirations and will not be places people desire to live in the future” (p22). The challenge

here then is finding a planning strategy which marries collective interests and consumer

preferences.

46

6.7.4 Travel

Many of the fiercest debates surrounding residential development are on the location of new

housing, central to which is the greenfield-brownfield debate and the question of sustainable

transport (Pacione: 2004). Additionally, in the case of Berkhamsted, the topography of the

town is central to decisions on the location of development. The current settlement pattern is

of the high street along the valley floor and housing up the valley sides and on to the ridge

tops.

The results of the conjoint analysis experiment with regards to the attributes bus service and

car parking give little good news with relation to objectives for sustainable transport. While

some comfort can be gained from the fact that there is a greater preference for improved bus

service than no change, the relative importance calculations showed in Figure 4 highlight that

the importance placed on bus service is very low compared to other attributes, indicating that

encouraging more sustainable travel options in Berkhamsted will be difficult.

The Berkhamsted Place Strategy indicates a ‘vision’ that in 2030 Berkhamsted will be “a

sustainable and vibrant market town where travel by non-car use is promoted” (p183).

However, in the section which indicates steps for ‘delivering the vision’, there is quite

minimal detail about how this will be achieved:

The careful location of new development and promoting opportunities for sustainable

travel, including improved cycle routes and facilities (for example at the train

station),will in part help tackle a number of parking and traffic issues in the town. An

additional deck at the railway station car park and the development of the Water Lane

/ High Street site will also provide for a modest increase in spaces. Road

improvements at the junction of Shootersway / Kingshill Way will be linked to new

housing development

(2011 p185).

47

There is no further detail in the place strategy about how cycle routes could be improved and

it seems that most attention is given to improving the experience for car users. The Transport

and Environment Committee of Berkhamsted Town Council have identified parking as the

issue which has caused most interest and concern of the past year (Berkhamsted Town

Council: 2012). The NPPF also advises that local authorities should “seek to improve the

quality of parking in town centres” (p40).Therefore, while the stated preference by residents

for more car parking is in correlation with local policy which has set out plans for an parking

amelioration, they are in direct conflict with objectives which encourage sustainable modes

of transport.

Betanzo (2012) argues that making car use appealing through investment in areas such as

parking works against policy which encourages public transport and actually that a reduction

in car parking could encourage a mode shift. While measures which regulate the use of the

car are often criticised (Neuman: 2005, Gordon & Richardson: 1997), Betanzo argues that

“the primacy of personal freedoms must be questioned when they are seen to negatively

affect others” (p20). However research by the Countryside Agency (2004) on existing

patterns of behaviour in relation to service use found that high levels of mobility that

characterise market town residents mean that the influence of nearby large urban centres is

significant. There is a concern, therefore, that if congestion in Berkhamsted town centre

worsens, rather than a mode shift, residents could increasingly avoid the town centre and take

their custom out of town. Diminished localisation of service use and travel patterns need to be

considered together to protect the environmental and economic sustainability of the town

centre. Innovative proposals should be considered which encourage a reduction in car use and

simultaneously support local businesses.

A key deficiency of the CS is that it doesn’t seem to have a tangible solution to ameliorate the

problem of un-sustainable travel in Berkhamsted. The topography of the town and the current

settlement pattern no doubt make this a complex situation which requires a pioneering urban

transport plan.

48

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to demonstrating the main outputs of conjoint analysis, this report has given

insights into the valued aspects of a small town to its residents and has discussed the

relevance of such preferences in the context of planning policy.

The utility score for infill housing indicates that residents are not fully against all facets of the

compaction agenda, but at the same time the overwhelming preference for no more homes

indicates a significant level of concern for the ability for the town to successfully absorb

population rises. This paper would suggest that to accommodate more housing without an

exodus, policymakers and planners need to make serious assurances about parking

improvement and the business constitution on the high street. In the long term, this could

reduce car travel that would be incurred from an urban exodus. Further, the results presented

in this paper echo Vallance et al (2011) in suggesting that unless sustainability becomes more

‘context-aware’ and is presented in a dialogue which resonates with everyday experiences,

the many environmental benefits possible from new urban forms will largely be negated. In

practice, of course, this is challenging, but not impossible. There are opportunities for duel

gains. For example, TTB have been researching the possibility of creating a ‘Berkhamsted

Town Square’ on one half of the high street on Saturdays. Such a proposition would allow the

current market to expand and would allow further independent retailers to visit the town.

Further, the part closure of the high street would encourage residents to walk to the town

centre. Such simple innovative ideas which have a strong social framing and an awareness of

local values have the potential of building the trust of residents in the planning system and

contributing to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the town.

Conjoint analysis was found to be very well suited to researching residential preferences.

However, there are improvements that could have been made to the research design. Firstly,

the surveys could have been subtly marked in some way that would give an indication of

what area they were returned from. This is particularly pertinent as the controversial SBC is

located in East Berkhamsted so it would have been interesting to see if responses from the

49

roads around the proposed site were more critical about the possibility of new homes than

residents from other areas. Secondly, it would have been useful to have had an additional

question on the survey to ask residents that if they were to move, what settlement type they

would consider moving to. This would allow stronger conclusions to be drawn in relation to

the potential existence of the preservationist paradox. In particular, it would allow the theory

set out in section 4.1 to be exposed to falsification more fully. While it would be imprudent to

read too much into a single case study of a complex process, the finding that over two fifths

of the sample would consider moving out of the town as a result of one or more of the

scenarios does however confirm the presence of a population open to the prospect of moving

if conditions in the town reaches their threshold of dissatisfaction (Speare: 1974).

In order for planning to fulfil its duel duties to sustainability and liveability it has to find the

delicate balance between respecting preferences and honouring wider responsibilities,

because what is sustainable may not always be desirable. Pragmatism’s subscription to

fallibilism and rejection of incommensurability, I argue, provides a starting point. That is to

say, if we live by the notion that there are barriers between individuals or groups which

prevent learning from other views (incommensurability), then the inflexibility this would

bring to our plans would make it impossible to achieve liveable and sustainable places which

transcend time. Accepting the possibility of change is the most responsible quality we can

have. Finding the answer to Howard’s question ‘where will the people go?’ is very difficult.

But by ignoring the clear preferences of significant sections of the population for low density

environments and the ambiance provided by small settlements, policymakers are refusing to

accept that urban compaction in its current conception may, in the long run, not be the most

sustainable option. Certainly, in some cities the regeneration of dockland areas has proved

very successful and is providing significant accommodation options. But each settlement is

unique and planners need to recognise that a theory or plan that was successful in one place

may in fact, in light of the preferences and situation of another place, be unsuitable. If

residents trust that planners are taking their fears and values into account, opposition would

likely decrease and the liveability of a place would strong. In this way, planners would do

well to take heed of Geertz’s (1973) caution to researchers not to “regard a remote locality as

the world in a teacup” (p23). Such a realization would ensure that planning is context-aware.

50

The NPPF seems confused in its principles. While the government is keen to emphasise that

at its heart is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” and the final NPPF is

without a doubt an improvement on the draft document, it still seems to fall short of

providing a coherent vision of ‘what we are planning for’. Samuels (2006) seems to offer a

more realistic understanding which appreciates the fragility of goodness in a place, and

therefore has overlaps to the seminal work of Tuan (1974). The NPPF, on the other hand,

unfortunately seems almost over confident in its polices. The weight of my argument is not

that the NPPF should have wholly committed to planning for preferences – our preferences

are not responsible enough for that – but that it, and local authority Core Strategies, need to

accept that the population can vote with their feet and therefore need to acknowledge that

planning which is emptied of residential preferences will not be relevant to people’s everyday

lives. The English planning system should not just apply technical fixes in accordance with

the romance of the compact city ideal. There is clearly a very important role for planners in

delivering sustainable development. However, the planning system has to be flexible and

have the courage to reject previously undisputed authority and recognise the values and ideas

of those formerly discounted. For the neighbourhoods envisaged by policymakers to be

acceptable to consumers, there needs to be some compromise

51

APPENDIX 1

55

APPENDIX 2

HOW WOULD YYOOUU LIKE BERKHAMSTED TO DEVELOP? Hello! My name is Sarah, I live in Berkhamsted and I am currently studying towards my Masters – MSc Sustainable Cities - at Kings College London. I would like to invite you to participate in my postgraduate research project. The aim of my research is to uncover those aspects of Berkhamsted on which residents place most value. The reason for doing this is so I can study if there is a conflict between the valued aspects of the town and the potential development trajectories of the town as suggested in the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy (including Berkhamsted Place Strategy) and the National Planning and Policy Framework. In order to do this I am trying to collect as many household questionnaires as possible. Should you wish to take part, I would be extremely grateful if you could complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the enclosed stamped addressed envelope. The questionnaire should take about 5 minutes. The answers you provide are totally anonymous and will only be used in this research project. Returning questionnaire implies your consent to participate. As participation is anonymous it will not be possible for me to withdraw your data once you have returned your questionnaire If you have any questions or would like to discuss my research further please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected] . In addition, my supervisor’s contact details are below should you require them. If you would like a copy of my completed report, please indicate this at the end of the questionnaire and I would be very happy to share it with you in a few months time. Thank you in advance for considering taking part, Yours faithfully, Sarah Gibson [email protected] Supervisor: Professor David Green (Geography Department, Kings College London) [email protected] REC Reference Number: KCL/11-12_1352

mailto:[email protected]



56

APPENDIX 3 (this version is smaller than the one distributed)

To complete this questionnaire please:

1. Complete the rating exercise in the accompanying sheet. Rate each development scenario A-R on a scale of 1-5, where 1 stands for ‘I find this scenario highly un-preferable’ and 5 stands for ‘I find this scenario highly preferable’ Scenarios are made up of 5 attributes which represent different aspects of the town. Each attribute has several different possibilities:

Bus service. • No change = no change in the current bus service in Berkhamsted. • Good Improvement = good improvement in the bus service, particularly from ridge tops down into town.

New homes • Yes – Infill = More homes in the town, primarily infill development, located amongst existing housing • Yes – Ridge top sites = More homes in the town, primarily in developments on the ridge tops • Yes – Green belt/ on edge of town = More homes in the town, primarily located in edge of town

developments • No more homes = No more homes in the town

High street • More chains = More retail and eatery chains in the High street • More independent = More independent retail and eatery businesses in the High street • No change = No change in the current variety of businesses on the High Street

Public Parking • No change = No change in the current number and location of car park spaces • More in town centre = More car park spaces in town centre • More at rail station = More car park spaces provided at station for commuters

Schooling • No change = No change in the current school system • 2 tier = Change to the 2 tier schooling system ( Primary and High school), including 2 new primary

schools

2. Please answer the following questions:

Would any of the scenarios on sheet C cause you to consider moving out of Berkhamsted? (please circle) Yes No If yes, which one (s)? .........................

What is your current home type? (please circle)

-Detached -Semi-detached -Terrace -Apartment -Other

What is your household car ownership? (please circle) -No Car -One car -Two or more cars What is your current household type? (please circle)

-Single non-pensioner -Couple no children -All pensioner household -Family with children - Other

What is your current tenure type? (please circle)

-Owner occupier -Rent from private landlord -Rent from council -Sheltered accommodation -Other

SHEET B

57

Map showing

Berkhamsted East

ward overlaid with

postcode boundaries.

APPENDIX

4

Sour

ces:

O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey S

tree

t Map

dow

nloa

ded

from

Edi

na D

igim

ap ‘O

S M

appi

ng D

ata

Dow

nloa

d’ (2

012)

Post

code

Bou

ndar

ies

dow

nloa

ded

from

Edi

na D

igim

ap ‘B

ound

ary

Dow

nloa

d’ (2

012)

=

Berk

ham

sted

Eas

t

58

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abley, JS (2002) Stated Preference techniques and consumer choice behaviour. PhD thesis. Cranfield University Amin, A (2006) The Good City. Urban Studies. 43. 5.p1009 – 1023. Beck, U. & Lau , C. (2005) Second modernity as a research agenda: theoretical and empirical explorations in the ‘meta-age’ of modern society. British Journal of Sociology. 56.4 p525-557 Bentanzo, D (2012) Preference Planning and Unsustainable Desires: A hypothesis toward ‘How’ contextual and psychological factors influence travel attitudes through qualitative and quantitative measures. PhD Thesis: Victoria University of Wellington. Faculty of Architecture and Design Berkhamsted Town Council (2012): Report to the Annual Town Council Meeting 2012 Blank, NE., Senior ML. & Webster, CJ. (2002) Mixed Use, Densification and Public Choice. in Planning in the UK eds Rydin, Y & Thornley A. p337-356 Borgers, A., Snellen, D., Poelman, J & Timmermans, H (2008): Preferences for Car-restrained Residential Areas, Journal of Urban Design, 13:2, p257-267 Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C & Watkins, D. (2009) Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British Cities. Environment and Planning A. 41. p2125-2142 Breheny, M. & Hall, P . (1996) So where will they go? Town and Country Planning. Vol 65. 7. p200-206 Breheny, M (1997) Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? Cities. 14.4. p209-217 Butler, T (2004) The middle class and the future of London. In M Boddy & M Parkinson City Matters: competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance. Bristol: Policy Press p269-282 Champion, T. (1997) The facts about the urban exodus. Town and Country Planning. Vol 66. 3. p77-80 Champion (2001) Urbanization, suburbanization, counterurbanization and reurbanization. In Handbook of Urban Studies. Eds... Champion, T & Fisher, T (2004) Migration, residential preferences and the changing environment of cities. In M Boddy & M Parkinson City Matters: competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance. Bristol: Policy Press. P111-128

59

Champion, T.,Coombes,M., Raybould, S & Wymer , C.(2007) Migration and social change. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Countryside Agency (2004) The role of rural settlements as service centres. Research Note CRN83. Dacorum Borough Council (2011) Dacorum’s Local Planning Framework: Pre-Submission Core Strategy. October. Daniels, T (1999) When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe Davoudi, S. & Stead, D. (2002) Urban-rural Relationships: An introduction and Brief History. Built Environment. Vol 28.4. p269-277 Department of Communities and Local Government (2010) State of English Cities Report (update) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/regeneration/pdf/154184.pdf Accessed July 15th Department Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning and Policy Framework. Crown Copyright Ellis, H. (2012) A vision for England? Look to the west. Town and Country Planning Vol81.5. p223-224 European Commission (2010) World and European Sustainable Cities – EU research. Luxemburg: European Union Publications Office Evans, R & Marvin, S. (2006) Researching the sustainable city: three modes of interdisciplinarity Environment and Planning A. 38. p1009-1028 Godschalk, D. (2004) Land Use Planning Challenges: coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and liveable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association. 70.1. p5-13 Gunn, S & Powe, N. (2007) Capacity vs. need: exploring regional differences in housing provision in market towns. In Powe, N., Hart, T. & Shaw, T. Market Towns: roles, challenges and prospects. Routledge: London. p93-104 Halfpenny, P., Britton, NJ., Devine, F. & Mellor, R. (2004) The good suburb as an asset in enhancing a city’s competitiveness. In M Boddy & M Parkinson City Matters: competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance. Bristol: Policy Press p255-268 Hedges, B & Clemens, S. (1994) Housing Attitudes Survey. Crown Copright. London: HMSO Hepple, L. (2008) Geography and the pragmatic tradition: a threefold engagement. Geoforum. 39. p1530-1542 Hoshino, T. (2011) Estimation and analysis of Preference Heterogeneity in Residential Choice Behaviour. Urban Studies. 48. p363-382

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/regeneration/pdf/154184.pdf

60

Howley, P., Scott, M. & Redmond, D. (2009) Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 52.6 p847-864 Howley, P. (2009) Attitudes towards compact city living: towards a greater understanding of residential behaviour. Land Use Policy. 26. p792-798 Israel, GD (2009) Determining Sample Size. Institute of Food and Agriculture Services. University of Florida. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006 Accessed on June 12th 2012 Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. (1996) The Compact City: a sustainable urban form? Taylor & Francis: London Jenks, M., Williams, K., & Burton, E. (2000) Urban consolidation and the benefits of intensification. In: Roo and Miller, eds. Compact cities and sustainable urban development: a critical assessment of policies and plans from an International perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, p17–30. Joseph, A E Smit & McIlravey, G (1989) Consumer preferences for rural residences: a conjoint analysis in Ontario, Canada. Environment and Planning A. 21. P47-63 Logan, JR & Molotch, HL (1987) Urban Fortunes: the political economy of place. University of California Press: Berkley Louviere, J. & Timmermans, H. (1990) Hierarchical Information Integration Applied to Residential Choice Behaviour. Geographical Analysis. 22. P127-145 Louviere, J., Hensher, D and Swait, J. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lowe, P., Murdoch, J. & Cox, G. (1995) A Civilised Retreat? Anti-Urbanism, Rurality and the Making of an Anglo-centric culture. In Healy, P., Davoudi, S., Huth, A. & Madami-Pour A eds Managing Cities: the new urban context. Wiley: Chichester Lowndes, V. & Pratchett, L. (2012) Local Governance under the Coalition Government: Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’. Local Governance Studies. 38.1 p21-40 Marshall, J (1985) Geography as scientific enterprise. in The Future of Geography ed Johnson, R J. London: Methuen. P113 - 129 Mayer, H. & Knox, K. (2010) Small-town sustainability: prospects in the second modernity. European Planning Studies. 18.10. p1544-1565

Minton, A (2006) The privatization of public space: what kind of world are we building? Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: London

https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006

61

Molin, E., Oppewal, H. & Timmermans, H. (1996) Predicting consumer response to new housing: a stated choice experiment. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 11.3 p297 – 311

Morris, G. (2011) Small towns, Big Societies. Small Towns for Tomorrow. Murdoch, J. & Lowe, P (2003) The preservationist paradox: modernism, environmentalism and the politics of spatial division. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 28. p318-332. New Economics Foundation (2005) Clone Town Britain: survey results on the bland state of the nation. Neuman, M (2005) The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 25.11. p11-25 ODPM (2006) The State of English Cities Report OECD (2012) Compact City Policies: a comparative assessment. ONS (2012) 2011 Census population and household estimates, first release. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/stb-e-w.html#tab-Key-Points Accessed July 20th 2012 Pacione, M (2004) Where will the people go? – accessing the settlement options for the UK.Progress in Planning. 62. p73-129 Planning Resource (2012) http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Development_Control/article/1146013/planning-inspector-allows-cheshire-greenfield-homes/ Accessed August 20th 2012 Powe, N., Hart, T. & Shaw, T. (2007) Market Towns: roles, challenges and prospects. Routledge: London Powe, N & Hart, T. (2008) Competing for the custom of small town residents: exploring the challenges and potential. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 27.9. p732-747. Powe, N. & Hart, T. (2011) Housing Development and small town residential desirability. Town Planning Review. 82.3 p317-338 Rural Research Evidence Centre (2009) Small town England: a framework for understanding the ‘forgetten fifth’. Presentation for Commission for Rural Communities. http://www.rerc.ac.uk/CRCMasterclass.pdf Accessed February 5th 2012 Samuels, I. (2005) What Homebuyers Want: Attitudes and Decision Making among Consumers. London: CABE

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/stb-e-w.html#tab-Key-Points

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/stb-e-w.html#tab-Key-Points

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Development_Control/article/1146013/planning-inspector-allows-cheshire-greenfield-homes/

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Development_Control/article/1146013/planning-inspector-allows-cheshire-greenfield-homes/

http://www.rerc.ac.uk/CRCMasterclass.pdf

62

Sayadi, S., Gonzalez, C R., and Requena, JC. (2005) Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in south-eastern Spain. Ecological Economics. 55. p539-550. Schively, C. (2007) Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature. 21. p255-266 Senior, ML., Webster, CJ. & Blank NE. (2004) Residential preferences versus sustainable cities: qualitative and quantitative evidence from a survey of relocating owner-occupiers. Town Planning Review. 75. 3 p337-358 Senior, ML., Webster, CJ. & Blank NE. (2006) Residential relocation and Sustainable Urban Form: Statistical Analyses of Owner-occupiers’ preferences. International Planning Studies. 11.1 p41-57. Small Towns for Tomorrow (2011) Essay No1, Small towns of the future, not the past. Tuan, Y (1974) Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitude and values. Prentice Hall: Englewood Urban Task Force (1999, 2005) Towards an Urban Renaissance UNHABITAT (2011) Urban patterns for a Green Economy: leveraging density. Vallance, S., Perkins, HC. & Dixon JE. (2011) What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum. 42. p342-348 Vallance, S., Perkins, HC., Bowring, J. & Dixon, JE. (2012) Almost invisible: glimpsing the city and its Residents in the Urban Sustainability Discourse. Urban Studies. 49. p1695-1710 Walker, B., Marsh, A., Wardman, M. &Niner, P. (2002) Modelling Tenants’ choices in public rented sector : a stated preferences approach. Urban Studies. 39. 665-690 Wang, D. & Li, J. (2002) Handling large numbers of attributes and/or levels in conjoint experiments. Geographical Analysis. 34. 4 p351-362. Whitehead, M. (2007) Spaces of Sustainability. Routledge: London Williams, A (2008) The Enemies of Progress: the dangers of sustainability. Societas: Exeter Wood, N. & Smith, S (2008) Pragmatism and Geography. Geoforum. 39.p1527-1529

63

BLANK FINAL PAGE

residential preferences versus sustainable ?) planning ... · residential preferences versus...

Documents