Step 1 data collection

The interviews conducted in step one sought to validate the literature review from academics with a published interest in car parking. They also formed the foundations with which to construct insightful questions to pose to sector leaders of the stakeholder groups.

4.3.1 Sampling

Initially, the number of academics to include in step one of phase one was guided by Gillham (2000, p12) who believes that interviews, “can be very effective even with as few as four or five

88

interviews of individuals, carefully selected as typical.” In which case, the academics selected as

‘typical’, were those who had a published interest in parking. In other words, they were considered to be ‘experts’ (i.e. individuals with specialised knowledge in a specific field with demonstrated experience and involvement which is of particular to a specific study (Gläser and Laudel, 2004). They were first identified from the literature review and second via a ‘snowballing’

technique whereby participants suggests further experts whose contribution they deemed to be of benefit, in line with inductive theory building analysis, (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Despite the size of the sample not being the most important part of the interview data collection method, (Oppenheim, 2000), ‘four or five interviews’ felt insufficient as the academics were enthusiastic to put forward names of more individuals whose input they felt would benefit the research.

Hence the number of actual interview participants increased from the agreement of four to the agreement of eight. Two additional academics (one based in Europe and one based in Asia) were sought but declined, however the remaining participants all had experience or knowledge of car parking within the UK environment.

Contact was made via email which comprised an invitation to participate, plus an outline of the research under discussion, so that the academics could make a more informed decision about whether or not to accept the invitation (Appendix 2). Eight positive responses were received, and their individual roles and locations are presented in Table 6 below. Once an acceptance had been received, a telephone interview was organised at the convenience of each of the academics concerned, with the exception of Academic C, who consented to the interview but whom specifically requested that it was conducted via Skype. As Skype was something that this particular academic felt comfortable with, as it was a tool he regularly used, this was agreed to without issue.

Table 6 Academics intervied: role, location and analysis code

Academic Role Location

A Professor of Transport Policy UK

B Professor of Urban Planning USA

C Professor of Public Transport Australia

D Professor of Transport Policy and Strategy UK

E Professor of Transportation Engineering and Planning USA

F Professor of Civil Engineering Australia

G Professor of Urban Planning USA

H Professor of Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning USA

89 4.3.2 Academics interview questions

The interview questions put to the academics served to answer the three research questions, from an academic’s perspective:

1. Who are the stakeholders involved with car parking?

2. What are the key car parking issues that are of concern to stakeholders?

3. How do stakeholders value car parking?

Satisfying these three research questions helped to focus the questions for the next set of interviews with representatives of the actual car parking stakeholder groups, that is, step two.

The academic interview questions are shown in figure 3 below.

90

Figure 3 Step 1, interview questions, academics

The questions were divided into three different sections to reflect the topics of the three different research questions. Also, in line with nature of the interview type; semi-structured, all of the questions were open and no closed or fixed choice questions were asked. The final question involved presenting a Table of car parking stakeholders according to their group and role, as adapted from the literature review, and asking the academics to discuss it in terms of its validity.

The stakeholder Table is given below.

1. Please describe your academic interest in car parking Car parking issues

2. What do you consider to be the main problems currently associated with car parking to be?

3. In your opinion, how serious are the car parking issues in the UK?

Stakeholder identification

4. What do you understand by the term stakeholder and why?

5. Which key stakeholders are involved in car parking and what are their roles?

6. How would you categorise these different types of stakeholders into groups?

7. In your opinion, what goals are the groups of stakeholders you have identified aiming to achieve through car parking policy and what approach might they have to achieve this?

8. How do the different stakeholder groups engage with decision making about car parking?

9. Describe what you think are the barriers are to stakeholder engagement when shaping car parking policy and what are the consequences of such barriers?

10. Describe how stakeholders are currently prioritised within the process

11. How is stakeholder satisfaction of car parking currently measured and evaluated?

12. Explain how you think each stakeholder groups perceives the car parking issues that you have identified

13. Describe what impacts their perceptions have on their own goals and on shaping car parking policy

14. What would you identify to be the key car parking policies and in your opinion, how effective are they in achieving the goals of the stakeholders?

Value and stakeholders in car parking

15. What do you understand the term value to mean?

16. For each of the groups of stakeholders you have identified, describe how you think each one values car parking

17. What factors influence how these stakeholders value car parking?

18. How much does the way that each stakeholder values car parking impact on decision making in the parking sector?

19. To what extent do you think each one of the stakeholder groups takes the other stakeholder groups perceptions of value into account when setting their own car parking policy agenda?

20. Car parking stakeholder table discussion

91

Table 7 Car parking stakeholders according to their group and role

Group Role Stakeholders

92