Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Travellers’ preference for parking at the Vancouver International Airport Romank, Heather 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0641.pdf [ 2.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087016.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087016-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087016-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087016-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087016-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087016-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087016-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087016-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087016.ris

Full Text

TRAVELERS' PREFERENCE FOR PARKING A T T H E V A N C O U V E R INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT by H E A T H E R R O M A N K B A , The University of Alberta, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (The Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration) Division of Transportation and Logistics We accept this thesis as confoiining to tb^egujfetf standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1995 © Heather Romank, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date / 3 / / / / 9 . T DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T Market research is becoming an increasingly important part of an airport's operational strategies as airport managers try to increase customer service and reach operational goals. This research applies conjoint analysis to investigate customer preferences for parking facilities and services at a major Canadian airport. This research will define and determine the relative importance of a set of attributes which influence business travelers' parking choice at the Vancouver International Airport. In addition, market segments for parking services will be identified. Sawtooth Software's Adaptive Conjoint Analysis and Ci2 were used in this study. A questionnaire was administered to a 36 employees among three local companies selected for data collection. Employees of these three companies represented potential local business travelers. This study was limited to the investigation of a subset of traveler (i.e. business traveler) preferences for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. More complete analysis would have to replicate the data collection procedures and target different users under different conditions (i.e. time of day, time of year, duration of stay). Results of the conjoint analysis indicated that price and distance to the terminal building account about equally for the majority of business travelers parking preference ratings ii (approxiniately two-thirds). The provision of video camera security was also an important determinant of customer preference. The provision of electronic signage providing guidance to available parking spaces did not contribute significantly to customer preference. In addition, the provision of a parkade rather than a surface lot contributed little to customer preference. Market share estimates were calculated for YVR's proposed Parkade, Main and Economy parking lots. Estimates of market shares suggested that a majority of business travelers taking an overnight journey in August preferred to park in the Y V R Parkade. Market share estimates were also calculated for various service alternatives in the parkade. Comparing these additional estimates with the base service option revealed the trade-offs that business travelers were likely to make. Results anticipated approximately a 60 percent market share for the proposed parkade service despite charging a higher price ($6 per day higher than the alternative parking lots). Market share estimates predicted that the provision of video camera security and electronic signage in the parkade was significant in enabling a higher price. The predicted market share falls substantially to 28 percent if security and signage are not provided. Results also suggested that more travelers were willing to pay extra for the provision of video camera security than electronic signage in the parkade. iii The success of this exploratory research has led the researcher to believe that similar analysis would assist parking providers in the design and implementation of future parking services. iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract ii Table of Contents v List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Acknowledgments ix INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 The Situation at the Vancouver International Airport 2 Statement of Problem 4 Justification 4 Assumptions 5 Limitations 5 Overview of Research 6 Chapter 2 Review of Literature 8 Approaches Used to Explore Traveler Preferences 8 Conjoint Analysis 11 Overview 11 Attribute Identification 12 Applications 14 Example of Conjoint Analysis 14 Consumer Choice Models and Transportation/Parking Studies 18 Summary 22 Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures 24 Attribute Identification 24 Additional Influences 29 Sampling 31 Data Collection Methods 32 Analysis of Data 34 Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion 35 Description of the Sample 35 Analysis of Conjoint Data 39 Customers' Preferred Product and Comparison with Planned Y V R A A Parking Facility 49 v Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 55 Conclusions 55 Recommendations for Further Research 57 Endnotes 59 Bibliography 60 Appendix 1 Questionnaire 62 vi LIST O F T A B L E S Table 1 Parking/Stopping Facilities Used Among Those in Personal Vehicles 3 Table 2 Advantages and Limitations of Actual Behavior and Stated Preference Models 10 Table 3 Preliminary List of Choice Attributes 25 Table 4 Parking Attributes Used in this Study 29 Table 5 Preliminary List of Additional Influences on Airport Parking Choice 30 Table 6 Questionnaire Structure 33 Table 7 Frequency Distribution of Gender 36 Table 8 Frequency Distribution of Age 37 Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Income 38 Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Number of Times Driven to Y V R Within the Last Year 38 Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Last Time Driven to Y V R 39 Table 12 Group Results 41 Table 13 Gender Segment 46 Table 14 Age Segment 46 Table 15 Income Segment 47 Table 16 Number of Trips Segment 48 Table 17 Last Trip Segment 49 Table 18 Product Comparison — Ideal Product 50 Table 19 Product Comparison — Y V R A A Parking Services 51 Table 20 Market Share Estimation ~ Y V R A A Parking Services 54 vii LIST O F FIGURES Figure 1 Relative Importance Ratings — Group Results 42 Figure 2 Distance Utilities — Group Results 43 Figure 3 Type of Structure Utilities — Group Results 43 Figure 4 Price Utilities ~ Group Results 44 Figure 5 Electronic Signage Utilities — Group Results 44 Figure 6 Video Camera Security Utilities ~ Group Results 45 viii A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S The author wishes to express a special thank-you to Dr. Bill Waters, major advisor, for his generosity, patience and encouragement throughout the study. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. John Claxton for his encouragement and support and to Dr. Dan Gardiner for his valuable advice. ix C H A P T E R 1 INTRODUCTION The recent privatization of many airports has led to dramatic changes in airport operations. An emphasis on a self-supporting operation has forced managers to place more importance on maximizing the property's potential to generate revenue. In response to these changes, airport managers have adopted aggressive marketing strategies to generate more profit and business. Thus, many privatized airports are now emphasizing parking services as a revenue generator. Further, airport managers believe that better meeting customers needs for facilities and services, such as parking, will make the airport more attractive for travelers and will generate repeat business for the airport. More business means increased revenues for the airport, which helps finance airport operations. There is an increasing use of customer surveys by many airports. The role of marketing is becoming an increasingly important part of an airport's operational strategies as airport managers try to increase customer service and generate more business and profits as they try to meet customers' needs. This has led airport managers to realize the impact of parking in the overall satisfaction of the airport experience. From the customer's perspective, parking is considered an important service that is part of the whole travel experience, making traveling from home to final destination more convenient and pleasant. 1 The purpose of this study is to investigate traveler preferences for parking facilities and parking services at a major Canadian airport. The results of this study are exploratory in nature and will provide researchers with a guideline for future research on traveler preferences for parking. In addition, the results of this study will likely provide airport managers with a better understanding of customer needs and preferences for parking services at the airport. This increased understanding will likely help with the design and implementation of parking services. Furthermore, this research will demonstrate an application of conjoint analysis, a technique which is widely used in the field of marketing research to investigate customer preferences. The Situation at the Vancouver International Airport The Vancouver International Airport Authority (YVRAA) has an interest in traveler preferences for parking services at the Vancouver International Airport. Recent customer satisfaction research by Y V R A A has shown that access to the airport and parking are important determinants of overall customer satisfaction for the Vancouver International Airport (YVR). 1 Y V R A A research has also shown that the use of the personal vehicle is the main mode of access to the airport. For example, in 1994, 42 percent of departing passengers came to the airport by private vehicle and 48 percent of airiving passengers left the airport by private vehicle. This compares to the next most common mode of travel to/from the airport which was taxi, at 20 percent and 22 percent respectively. In addition, Y V R A A research results demonstrate that 46 percent of departing and 84 percent of arriving passengers accessing the airport by personal vehicle also use the parking facihties/services. mdividuals parking experiences may have been with the metered 2 parking, hourly parking lot, main parking lot, economy parking lot, valet parking, or privately operated parking lots, (i.e. Park'n Fly and Aeropark). Table 1 exhibits the breakdown of parking faculty and service use by departing and arriving passengers at YVR. T A B L E 1 PARKING/STOPPING FACILITIES USED A M O N G T H O S E IN P E R S O N A L V E H I C L E S Departing (%) Aniving (%) Not parked - curb side drop off / pick up 47 14 Any airport parking 46 84 Main parking lot 16 43 Short term / meters 17 25 Park 'n Fly 8 7 Economy lot 5 7 Parked with valet services 0 2 Off airp ort p arking 1 0 Other 4 2 Not stated 2 0 Source: Vancouver International Airport Authority Customer Tracking Research, 1994. Ensuring quality parking services is a part of the operational strategy for the Vancouver International Airport. Y V R A A is constructing a parkade located in front of the main terminal building. Although Y V R A A has conducted previous parking research, they have not specifically studied travelers' preferences for parking facilities and parking services at the airport. Additional information on traveler preferences would likely make designing parking facilities and services easier for Y V R A A . 3 Statement of the Problem This exploratory research examined traveler preferences for a set of attributes believed to influence choice of parking at the Vancouver International Airport. The objectives of this research were as follows: 1. To determine which attributes influence travelers' parking choice at the Vancouver International Airport. 2. To detennine the relative importance of a set of attributes which influence travelers' parking choice at the Vancouver International Airport. 3. To identify market segments for parking services and to determine the ideal combination of attributes for satisfying the market segments. 4. To determine the implications of these results for managers of parking policies at the Vancouver International Airport. Justification Travel behavior with respect to parking has been explored by researchers in great detail over the past two decades. However, most parking research has focused on how supply and price controls can be used to manage travel demand. There has been little research focusing on traveler preferences for parking services. Therefore, the knowledge gained from this research should aid 4 both Y V R A A and other parking providers in designing parking services that are consistent with operational goals. In addition, an empirical study of this nature may fill some of the gaps in the existing knowledge on traveler preferences for parking services. Assumptions This study assumed that customer preferences for parking were unique to each individual. Furthermore, this study assumed that preferences were a result of a complex decision making process. Individuals were believed to evaluate each product by its attributes and then make trade-offs among product attributes to achieve the most desirable product. This study also assumed that the market research technique of conjoint analysis was an appropriate method for predicting customer preferences. Principles of conjoint analysis and an example are provided in Chapter 3. Furthermore, this study assumed that attributes identified for this study were representative of the customer decision making process for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. Limitations Collection of data for this study was restricted by time and budget constraints. Although the study sample was small, the sample was indicative of the targeted group and appropriate for this exploratory research. Screeners were used to ensure that all survey respondents had experience 5 with parking at the Vancouver International Airport. Prior experience increased the likelihood that survey respondents understood the situation presented to them and evaluated the survey alternatives in the correct context. This study was limited to the investigation of a subset of traveler (i.e. business traveler) preferences for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. It did not consider parking preferences of leisure travelers. This study measured parking preferences for a hypothetical overnight business trip taken in August. Furthermore, this study was confined to the relative importance of preferences for only those attributes included in this study. More complete analysis would have to replicate the data collection procedures and target different users under different conditions (i.e. time of day, time of year, duration of stay). However, resource constraints hmited this research to a specific group of individuals under restrained conditions. Despite the data limitations, this research can be considered a pilot study for a much larger and comprehensive study which would essentially use the same methods. Overview of the Research This study used conjoint analysis to examine traveler preferences for a set of attributes believed to influence choice of parking at the Vancouver International Airport. The research consisted of: (1) identification of salient parking attributes; (2) formulation of an appropriate conjoint design and survey; (3) and collection and analysis of data. Chapter 2 provides a review of literature 6 relevant to this research. This chapter will explain conjoint analysis, the research model chosen for this study, and review applicable parking literature. Chapter 3 outlines the specific methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 presents the rindings and discussion of the results of the survey. Chapter 5 provides conclusion and recommendations. 7 C H A P T E R 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature is divided into four sections. The first is a description of the various approaches used to explore traveler preferences. The second section is a overview of conjoint analysis, a technique widely used to measure consumer preferences. The third section reviews attribute identification and the last section reviews the parking literature related to this study. Approaches Used to Explore Traveler Preferences Over the past three decades there has been increasing research on traveler behavior by both academics and industry experts. Furthermore, there has been an increasing use of mathematical models to explain and predict traveler preferences. In modeling traveler preferences, there is one initial decision regarding the form and application of the model. This is the decision whether to study actual behavior or stated preferences of behavior. Actual or "revealed" behavior data is self explanatory. It involves the collection of individuals' actual behavior through either observation by the interviewer or report by the respondent. In contrast, stated preference data measures an individuals' intended action rather than actual action. As explained by, Kroes and Sheldon (January 1988), stated preference 8 techniques fall under a wide variety of names such as: conjoint analysis, functional measurement, and trade-off analysis. Green and Srinfvasan (September 1978) provide a general definition of stated preference conjoint analysis. They "use the term conjoint analysis broadly to refer to any decompositional method that estimates the structure of a consumer's preferences ... given his/her overall evaluations of a set of alternatives that are pre-specified in terms of levels of different attributes".2 In other words, conjoint analysis estimates the relative importance that consumers place on specific attributes or components that make up a product or service. Actual behavior and stated preference techniques each have their own advantages and limitations. Table 2 outlines the advantages and limitations of these two techniques. In general, actual behavior models provide better predictive value, although they are limited to evaluating current options. Stated preference techniques, on the other hand, do not offer as much predictive value since the data reflects individuals' intended rather than actual behavior. However, stated preference techniques have the advantage over actual behavior models in their ability to evaluate potential options. For example, they can estimate consumer response to alternatives which do not yet exist. 9 TABLE 2 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF ACTUAL BEHAVIOR AND STATED PREFERENCE MODELS Actual Behavior Advantages • Good for estimating demand. • Data represent real choices. • Simple data collection procedures. Actual Behavior Limitations • It can be difficult to obtain sufficient variation in the revealed preference data to examine all variables of interest. • There are often strong correlation's between explanatory variables of interest (particularly travel time and cost). These make it difficult to estimate model parameters reflecting the proper trade-off ratios. • Revealed preference methods cannot be used in direct ways to evaluate demand under conditions which do not yet exist. • Revealed preference methods require that the explanatory variables can be restricted to primary service variables (such as journey time and cost) and can in practice rarely be used to evaluate the impact of changes in secondary travel variables (such as seat design and station facilities). Stated Preference Advantages • Model based on intent-to-purchase. • Researcher defines conditions. • Flexible ~ able to investigate many variables. • Able to obtain preference information on proposed items. • Able to estimated individual utility functions. • Useful for market segmentation. • Cheaper ~ not as many individuals need to be sampled as receive multiple observations from each individual providing enough information. Stated Preference Limitations • Actual behavior may not reflect intended behavior ~ mdividuals tend to overstate behavior ~ represents problem for demand estimation. • There are likely to be attributes excluded from the models that may affect behavior in the marketplace. • Models may not include the effect of mass communication, distribution effort and competitive reactions. • Main purpose limited to identifying relative utility values. • Question of whether respondent can adequately evaluate options. • New products may take several years to be developed and marketed, after which the nature of the competition may be different, and systematic changes in customer preferences may have taken place. Source: Kroes and Sheldon (January 1988), Cattin, Philippe and Wittink (Summer 1982) 10 Conjoint Analysis The remainder of this study will focus on stated preference techniques, referred to as conjoint analysis, the approach selected for this study. Conjoint analysis was chosen for the purpose of this research because of its ability to quantitatively evaluate potential facility and service options, such as the future parkade at the Vancouver International Airport. Overview Stated preference techniques for modeling consumers' choices were developed in the field of mathematical psychology and were introduced to marketing research in the early 1970s (Green and Srinivasan, September 1978). Today, conjoint analysis is commonly used by market researchers to measure consumers' intended behavior. These techniques measure and analyze the relative importance that consumers place on specific attributes or components that make up a product or service. Conjoint analysis assumes that individual decisions are not based upon a single attribute, but rather upon a bundle of attributes. Malhotra (1993) provides the following comprehensive description of the principles behind conjoint analysis: Conjoint analysis attempts to determine the relative importance consumers attach to salient attributes and the utilities they attach to the levels of attributes. This information is derived from consumers' evaluations of brand, or brand profiles composed of these attributes and their levels. The respondents are presented with 11 stimuli which consists of combinations of attribute levels. They are asked to evaluate these stimuli in terms of their desirability. Conjoint procedures attempt to assign values to the levels of each attribute, so that the resulting values or utilities attached to the stimuli match, as closely as possible, the input evaluations provided by the respondents. The underlying assumption is that any set of stimuli, such as products, brands, or stores, is evaluated as a bundle of attributes. Conjoint analysis relies on respondents' subjective evaluations. In conjoint analysis, the stimuli are combinations of attribute levels determined by the researcher.3 The framework of conjoint analysis is easily explained by an example of a transportation decision. Claxton (1994) provides a good description of a relevant decision process: A traveler wanting to go from the airport to downtown may be faced with a number of public transport options: a local bus that costs $2.00, makes many stops, and takes 60 minutes; an express bus that costs $5.00, is nonstop, and takes 45 minutes; or a helicopter service that costs $25.00, and takes 10 minutes. The trip characteristics that might be considered by travelers choosing one of these options include waiting time until the next service, travel time, comfort en route, cost, baggage handling, sights en route, and possibly many other. Each traveler weights the pros and cons and makes a choice. Since all three services attract customers, the implication is that all travelers do not make the same trade-offs ~ each traveler makes the trade-offs that suit individual values and preferences.4 Attribute Identification The first step in designing a conjoint application is to define the variables or attributes and values or levels of interest for evaluation. This is the most critical stage in the design of a conjoint experiment. Claxton (1994) emphasizes the need to carefully identify attributes that are important to consumers and notes that "assessment of consumers' trade-offs ... will only be valid if the measurement process asks about attributes of concern in the actual choice situation".5 12 Furthermore, specification of levels of attributes should also be realistic to the actual choice process. Attributes are most commonly determined from past research and exploratory research with consumer and management input. Cattin and Wittink (Summer 1982) suggest that "in some applications, management may exclusively decide the set of relevant attributes".6 They continue to say that "in general, input from the target market as well as from management should be used. Thus the attributes should include those most relevant to potential customers and those which satisfy the managerial constraint".7 Attributes are best if they represent thinking of the respondents and their characteristics can vary. For example, attributes can be quantitative or qualitative in nature. Hensher (May 1994) elaborates on the definition of attributes. He explains that "attributes can include not only well-defined sources of (indirect) utility such as travel times and travel costs, but also aggregators such as names of products (e.g. car, train) which represent the respondent's perception of the attributes of the alternatives which are not represented by the explicitly defined attributes".8 Deterrjaining the appropriate set of attributes is one of the most important steps in designing a conjoint experiment since it is the basis for the evaluation and analysis. This stage often is the most time consuming and requires the greatest care and attention. Chapter 3 documents the identification of attributes for this research. 13 Applications Since the introduction of stated preference techniques to the field of market research, there has been significant growth in the commercial use of stated preference techniques. Green and Krieger (October 1991) claim that the use of stated preference techniques is becoming more popular for managers "as a planning and sensitivity analysis tool for exploring alternative product and pricing strategies".9 The development and availability of software makes designing, implementing and analyzing conjoint applications easier. Many companies perform conjoint analyses as part of their market research for a variety of application purposes such as: new product/concept identification, pricing, market segmentation, advertising, and distribution.10 Example of Conjoint Analysis The principles behind conjoint analysis can be easily understood through an example. The following section will illustrate a model11 similar to the final one used in this study. Situation A researcher examined customer preferences for 35mm cameras. Prehminary research has detemrined that brand of camera, price, and auto focus were the only attributes of importance in customers' purchase decision for a 35mm camera. The following attributes and levels were ultimately used: 14 Brand Canon, Pentax Price $300, $400 Focus auto focus, no auto focus Preference Different combinations of the attribute levels produce eight possible hypothetical products (2x2x2=8). A questionnaire, addressing the possible products, was administered to each individual. The following table provides the eight combinations and gives one respondent's preferences for these simulated products: PREFERENCE JUDGMENTS Best 1 Canon $300 auto focus 2 Pentax $300 auto focus 3 Canon $400 auto focus 4 Pentax $400 auto focus 5 Canon $300 no auto focus 6 Pentax $300 no auto focus 7 Canon $400 no auto focus Worst 8 Pentax $400 no auto focus Conjoint analysis assumes that individuals have preferences for various levels of attributes. For example, one individual may prefer a camera with auto focus regardless of the brand or price, while another individual may prefer a camera with no auto focus. Conjoint analysis recognizes that each individual has their own preferences. Furthermore, conjoint analysis assumes that 15 kdividuals make trade-offs among attributes to achieve desired products available. For example, the choice implications from the previous preference data may be as follows: IMPLICATIONS FROM PREFERENCE DATA IMPLICATION LOGIC auto focus > no auto focus all auto focus rate higher $300 >$400 hold auto focus constant Canon > Pentax hold auto focus and price constant auto focus > price price changes before auto focus auto focus > brand brand changes before auto focus price > brand brand changes before price Solution All individuals' preference data was inputted into a computer software program for conjoint analysis. Ordinary. least squares regression with dummy variables was used to calculate individuals' part-worth utilities for each of the levels of attributes (i.e. the regression coefficient is the estimated part-worth utility. The preference rating was the dependent variable. The model estimated may be represented by the equation: U = bO + b l X l + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6 where: X I , X2 = dummy variables representing Brand X3, X4 = dummy variable representing Price X5, X6 = dummy variables representing Focus 16 The utility value represents a measure of preference, whereby the higher the utility, the higher the level of preference. Part-worth describes the utility that is attached to each level of attribute. Part-worth utilities are calculated for each individual. There are no right or wrong part-worth utilities as they merely reflect individuals' preferences. One possible respondent's solution for part-worth utilities was: PART-WORTHS BRAND PRICE FOCUS Canon (0.6) $300 (0.7) auto focus (0.9) Pentax (0.4) $400 (0.3) no auto focus (0.1) In this case, each utility is assumed to form a linear fonction. These utilities can then be summed according to each product specification to determine the total utility for each of the possible products. Total utility values can then be used to predict customer preferences for various products. For example, products possessing higher utility values demonstrate higher level of customer preference. PREFERENCE JUDGMENTS R A N K PRODUCTS UTILITY 1 Canon $300 auto focus 0.6+0.7+0.9=2.2 2 Pentax $300 auto focus 0.4+0.7+0.9=2.0 3 Canon $400 auto focus 0.6+0.3+0.9=1.8 4 Pentax $400 auto focus 0.4+0.3+0.9=1.6 5 Canon $300 no auto focus 0.6+0.7+0.1=1.4 6 Pentax $300 no auto focus 0.4+0.7+0.1=1.2 7 Canon $400 no auto focus 0.6+0.3+0.1-1.0 8 Pentax $400 no auto focus 0.4+0.3+0.1=0.8 17 This data show that Canon is preferred to Pentax, a lower price ($300) is preferred to a higher one ($400), and a camera with auto focus is preferred to one without auto focus. Results suggested that Pentax would need a lower price to become more competitive with Canon, who holds a higher value for brand name. Consumer Choice Models and Transportation/Parking Studies Although there is an considerable amount of research and knowledge about consumers' parking behavior, it exists mainly in the form of transportation demand management with little or no emphasis on customer service. There are few empirical studies on parking behavior and what little literature which does exist often focuses on parking cost and time with respect to mode choice. Of the limited parking literature, the majority of it takes an operational approach; for example, how supply and price controls on parking lots can be used to manage travel demand. It does not focus on customer service. Ndoh and Ashford (1993) use a stated preference psychometric scaling technique to evaluate passengers' perceptions of various levels of service attributes. Their research revealed that travelers considered other factors than time, cost and schedule delay. "These factors are (a) mode availability, (b) airport distance, (c) various components of journey time, (d) level of convenience and comfort (ease of use and luggage handling, number of terminal and vehicle transfers, and parking availability), (e) mode reliability to ensure on-time arrival at the airport and reduced risk 18 of missing a flight, (f) cost elements (fare for each mode, parking charge, and intrinsic cost of time), and (g) other factors (safety, privacy, and flexibility of mode)".12 Therefore, Ndoh and Ashford defined and examined the foUowing attributes in their model: ease of luggage handling, access to the terminal, expected journey time, comfort, parking space, convenience of interchange, journey time, delay and congestion, economy of mode, overall opinion of access, access information, and parking cost. Their research discovered that many passengers did not consider alternative modes of access to the airport because of habit or convenience. Ndoh and Ashford found stated preference techniques to be superior to conventional choice models since they allow the respondent to have full information about the alternatives. Ndoh and Ashford's (1993) research found that "access to airports is a major influence on passenger distribution among competing airports" since airport access is an "integral component on the passenger's trip from origin to final destination". 1 3 Providing adequate access to airports is important to ensure that customers arrive at the airport on time for their flight. Hence, they concluded that ensuring an adequate airport access system is a key component for providing a high level of service and, in turn, providing a instrument to attract more passengers. Adib Kanafani and Lawrence H. Lan (1988) used a parking demand model to develop pricing structures for airport parking. Their study examined airport parking through the foUowing attributes: various locations, prices, accessibility, convenience, shuttle, and airport operated versus private operated. Parking structures were defined by various duration categories, whereby each duration category has a different parking rate. Kanafani and Lawrence defined three parking duration categories: (1) short term (less than seven hours), (2) medium term (seven hours to 19 seven days), and (3) long term (over seven days). They noted that short term parking precluded most air travelers, medium term parking was comprised of mostly domestic and short haul commuter traffic, and long term parking was used most frequently by overseas and vacationer travelers. Their study found that "short term parking demand is relatively inelastic under the assumption that parkers are able to slightly adjust their parking duration in response to price changes. On the other hand, medium term parking demand was found to be relatively elastic reflecting the fact that medium term parkers at an airport garage can switch more easily to remote lots, other parking services, or modes of airport access".14 Kay W. Axhausen and John W. Polak (1991) used a stated preference method to examine parking type choice. They defined the following choice set of parking types: free on-street parking, metered on-street parking, off-street surface lot, multi-story facility, illegal parking. Their study evaluated four attributes: access time, search time, egress time, and parking cost. Based on their research, they found that "the results obtained strongly indicate the need to separately identify the costs associated with different components of parking activity and also point to the existence of significant differences in the relative valuation of these components across different journey purposes". 1 5 They also raised the theoretical question of whether "travelers value their time differently in different decision contexts (mode choice-parking/working-shopping)?". As a result, they strongly suggested the need for market segmentation of the analysis.16 D. Van der Goot (1982) developed a logit chance model to examine the choice of parking places of visitors to the central area of Haarlem, The Netherlands. Van der Goot used five attributes to 20 describe the choice of parking places: walking time, parking charges, occupation rates of different parking alternatives (an influence on search time), possible parking time restriction, and accessibility factors. Five user groups were identified to evaluate parking choice: shopping, dwelling, other leisure time activities, occupational activities with permanent working hours, loadkg/unloading, and other occupational activities. Van der Goot's results show that parking charges and walking time has a great impact of parking choice. Van der Goot also found that the effect of occupancy rates of different parking alternatives was not satisfactorily explained. They suggested that search time be estimated and added to the total costs of the trip. Van der Goot concluded that "a positive correlation exists between the distance of the parking facilities to destinations and the occupancy of these groups of parking places, with all resulting consequences for the choice of the parking place".17 In addition, Van der Goot identified the following possible other factors that may be useful in describing the choice of parking places: reserving parking places for permit-holders, public transportation between parking places and destinations, and parking places with a short maximum parking time. Peter Clark and Richard Allsop (1993) developed a stated preference travel demand model to examine parking costs and time related factors on mode choice. They identified the following five attributes to examine the impact of parking on travel choice: access time, search time, walking time, in-vehicle costs and parking costs. Clark and Allsop concluded that parking charges had a significant effect on mode choice. They also found that the components of time had a significant effect on mode choice, although this was to a lesser extent than parking costs. Ultimately, "this study contributes evidence that SP (Stated Preference) methods offer a potentially appropriate 21 method of conducting the research needed to explore issues such as the restraint of parking supply in chcumstances prevailing in central London".18 G. N. Bifulco (1993) used a classic random utility model to evaluate parking policies. Bifulco used the foUowing variables to describe parking behavior: capacity and location of the parking areas, fare structure, parking restrictions, and risk perception for illegal staying or overstaying. The parking type was distinguished by the following categories: free on street, metered on street, on street with limited duration, metered on street with limited duration, off street, and illegal on street. Bifulco found that "the model provides a large quantity of information relative to different aspects of parking facilities (both from the user's and management's point of view) as well as to congestion on the road network".19 The study was particularly useful in estimating the results of potential parking policies, in terms of parking demand, revenues and road congestion. Of note, was the model's effectiveness in evaluating not only potential parking policies but also potential parking facilities. Summary This review of literature contributed to the formulation of the problem statement and methodology used in this study. As indicated by the review of literature, there is a growing number of stated preference studies in commercial applications, as well as transportation and parking studies. Findings of the related literature suggest that a stated preference approach is appropriate for addressing the problem at the Vancouver International Airport. However, no 22 studies were found on traveler preferences for parking that could be directly applicable to the situation at the Vancouver International Airport. There was very limited research available that used a stated preference approach to address customer preferences for parking services and facihties. However the few studies that did examine parking with stated preference techniques, assisted in the identification of attributes for this study. Although there were potentially a large number of attributes to consider, the literature review suggested that price and time/distance factors were believed to be the most influential in customer preferences for parking services. As well, customer preferences for parking services and faculties are expected to differ with market segments, such as purpose of travel (i.e. business or leisure) and duration of trip (i.e. one day versus two weeks). Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the approach and methodology used in this study. 2 3 C H A P T E R 3 METHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S The purpose of this study was to examine preferences for a set of attributes believed to influence traveler's parking choice process at the Vancouver International Airport. The review of literature indicates that conjoint analysis is an appropriate method to examine the traveler's parking choice process. This section describes the identification of attributes, sampling, data collection methods, and analysis of data. Attribute Identification Attributes important in the travelers' parking choice process were identified from: (1) extensive discussions with management and employees with the Vancouver International Airport Authority. Interviews were conducted with several individuals in the Department of Parking and Ground Transportation and the Department of Marketing and Strategic Planning; (2) analysis of secondary data and literature review (Chapter 2); and (3) interviews with customers parking in the hourly lot, main lot and economy lot at the Vancouver International Airport. Information on customer preference for parking at the Vancouver International Airport was gathered from a three day site visit. Table 3 provides the preliminary list of attributes collected from the above sources. 24 TABLE 3 PRELIMINARY LIST OF CHOICE ATTRIBUTES • Access time (i.e. time to enter parking lots) • Accessibility factors (i.e. ease, directions) • Airline check-in at parking lot • Amount of luggage • Availability of baggage carts • Availability of parking spaces • Coupons / Discounts • Distance to terminal bunding • Frequent flyer points • Method of payment (i.e. automated payment, cashier, access cards) • Method of transport to building (i.e. walking, moving sidewalks, shuttle bus) • Parking structure (i.e. surface vs. parkade) • Parking time restrictions • Personal safety • Price of parking • Reservation factors • Search time (i.e. time to find available parking space) • Time it takes to get from car to terminal bunding • Vehicle Security The final selection of attributes was based on three main criteria. These were as follows: (1) attributes included were those most frequently mentioned in personal interviews with Y V R A A management and consumers; (2) attributes included represented real operational alternatives and/or were of great interest for Y V R A A management; and (3) personal assessment by the researcher on importance of attributes with respect to Y V R A A parking operations. The primary constraint on the number of attributes was a result of the available software package, Sawtooth Software's Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA). The available student version of A C A had a limit of five attributes. Despite the limitations by the software package, a reduction in the 25 number of attributes was also necessary to: (1) eliminate attributes that had little or no variation among parking services; (2) eliminate overlap among attribute characteristics; (3) eliminate attributes that are not an important issue to management at this time; and (4) eliminate attributes that are not an issue for this study. The following selection provides a more detailed description of the thought process behind the identification of the final set of attributes. Although also potentially important components of parking, several attributes were eliminated because they were not identified as an issue for this study. These were: ahline check-in at the parking lot, amount of luggage, baggage carts, coupons/discounts, frequent flyer points, method of payment, parking time restrictions, and reservation factors. Many of these influences were believed to represent an ^significant portion of the population being targeted and not a major issue for the cost/distance/structure relationship being examined in this study. Influence of these attributes are best represented in additional research beyond this study. The attributes were chosen from the remaining set of attributes according to importance, as revealed in the interviews and review of secondary data. Two components of parking were most frequently mentioned in the interviews with parking customers at the Vancouver International Airport. These were cost and distance from the terminal bunding. In addition, cost and distance were the most frequently identified components of parking service in the literature review. Further, consultation with Y V R A A management also revealed cost and distance to be their most important aspects of parking services. 2 6 In this study, parking cost was represented by the attribute 'daily price'. Distance was represented by another attribute that referenced the general distance and typical mode of travel from the parking lot to the terminal building. For example, experience by Y V R A A has found that shuttle service is primarily used for access between the terminal building and economy parking lot that is located about one kilometer away from the terminal building, while access between the terminal building and main parking lot is primarily by walking. Although the time it takes to get from a car to the terminal building was identified as an alternative measure to distance from the car to terminal building, interviews with the customers in the parking lots revealed "distance" to be the more common association. The third attribute identified for this study was type of parking structure, referring to either a parkade or surface lot. This attribute was of particular importance for Y V R A A management since Y V R A A had started construction on a four level, 2000 stall parkade. Upon completion, Y V R A A believes this lot will offer premium service over the existing parking services. Information on traveler preferences for this new parking structure would assist Y V R A A Parking and Ground Transportation in allocating and implementing parking services and prices. The fourth attribute identified for this study was related to search time and availability of parking spaces. This attribute was identified as an electronic signage system that provides guidance to available parking spaces. It was incorporated into the, study by the existence or non-existence of electronic signage. This attribute was of importance to Y V R A A management as it would become a part of their premium parking service offered in the new parkade. 27 The final attribute identified for this study was related to personal safety and vehicle security. This attribute was identified as a video camera security system and was incorporated into the study by the existence or non-existence of a video camera system. The new parkade at the Vancouver International Airport would include many enhancements over standard parkades to ensure safety. Ample interior hghting and a camera security system would be used to enhance public safety within the complex. Interviews with experts and customers also identified several other attributes that may also influence the parking choice process as identified in Table 3. However, limitations of the software restricted the inclusion to only five, as explained above. In addition, two attributes were eliminated from the final set because they were seen to have no or very little difference among the various parking services examined in this study. These were: access time and accessibility factors (i.e. ease, directions). For example, access time and accessibility factors for the upcoming parkade are not significantly different from that of existing surface lots, since the new parkade would include many enhancements over standard parkades to ensure convenience. External vehicle ramps would ensure easy access to each of the fours levels of the parkade. Therefore, access time and accessibility factors for the new parkade would not differ significantly from that of the surface lots and hence these attributes were excluded from this study. In summary, the five attributes identified for this study evaluated customer preferences for parking with respect to price, distance and features (i.e. electronic guidance system and video camera 28 security) of the new parkade. Table 4 below lists and defines the final set of attributes. The selection of attribute levels for the purpose of this study resulted from extensive consultation with Y V R A A management. Consideration was given to current and potential parking services at the Vancouver International Airport. The attribute levels also represented realistic service alternatives for Y V R A A and parking customers. T A B L E 4 P A R K I N G A T T R I B U T E S USED IN THIS S T U D Y Attribute Definition Price of Parking Daily price of parking (i.e. $9, $12, $15). Parking Structure Refers to type of parking structure (i.e. Surface Lot, Parkade). Distance to Main Terminal Building Refers to general distance and typical mode of travel from the car to the terminal bunding (i.e. short walk / 2-4 minutes, moderate walk / 6-8 minutes, shuttle ride / 10 minutes). Electronic Guidance Refers to presence of electronic signs providing guidance to available parking spaces (i.e. electronic signage, no electronic signage). Video Camera Security Refers to presence of video camera security (i.e. video camera security, no video camera security). Note: Number/text in brackets represents levels included in this study. Addi t iona l In f luences In addition to choice factors, other factors were also identified as potentially having an influence on an mdividual's parking choice process. These factors were identified from: (1) extensive discussions with experts, (i.e. management at the Vancouver International Airport Authority) and 29 (2) analysis of secondary data and literature review. Table 5 provides the preliminary list of additional influences identified from the above sources. These additional influences were best incorporated in the analysis through either: (1) placing constraints for the preference ratings in the survey, (assuming a one night journey for example) or (2) categorizing the data by demographics (by income level for example). A comprehensive study of travelers' preferences for parking at Y V R would have to investigate the influences / importance of these additional influences. T A B L E 5 P R E L I M I N A R Y LIST O F ADDITIONAL INFLUENCES O N AIRPORT P A R K I N G CHOICES • Duration of stay • Income • Personal schedule flexibility • Physical ability • Place of residence • Previous knowledge / information about parking services • Purpose of travel • Weather Although all of the additional influences identified were of interest to Y V R A A and the researcher, survey manageability and time schedules placed constraints on the inclusion of all influences. The final selection of influences was based on three main criteria. These were as follows: (1) influences included were those most frequently mentioned in personal interviews with Y V R A A management and consumers; (2) influences included represented real operational alternatives and/or were of great interest for Y V R A A management; and (3) personal assessment by the researcher on importance of influences with respect to Y V R A A parking operations. Duration of 3 0 stay, income, place of residence, purpose of travel and weather were included in this study. Personal schedule flexibility, previous knowledge / information about parking services and physical ability were excluded from this study. Physical ability represented an insignificant portion of the population being targeted, while personal schedule flexibility and previous knowledge / information about parking services were a more complex and specific choice issue. These additional influences were best represented in additional research beyond this study. Sampling To facilitate data collection, the survey respondents were selected from among business travelers who have had previous parking experiences at the Vancouver International Airport. Although evaluating the preferences of non-business travelers, as well as those persons without a previous parking experience at the Vancouver International Airport is also important, this study was limited to that of business travelers with previous parking experiences at the Vancouver International Airport only. Three companies located in downtown Vancouver were selected for data collection for this study. Employees of these three companies represented potential local business travelers and were considered representative of potential patrons of the parking services offered at the Vancouver International Airport. The sample was drawn from a list of available and willing employees to complete the survey. 31 Data Collection Methods A preliminary investigation was conducted to aid in the identification of attributes and investigate if parking service profiles for the Vancouver International Airport are understood. This investigation was conducted over a two day period in three of the Y V R A A parking lots at the Vancouver International Airport (short term lot, main lot and economy parking lot). The survey was then pretested on a convenience sample of 15 travelers. The few resulting changes, such as correcting ambiguous wording, were incorporated into the final survey. Computer assisted interviews were used to collect data. An initial interview question was used to identify travelers who have had previous parking experiences at the Vancouver International Airport. The hypothetical situation / assumptions presented to the respondents were that they were to be taking an overnight business trip in August and that they were driving themselves to the Vancouver International Airport and parking. The questionnaire was administered through the use of a portable computer. Questions were presented to each respondent on the computer screen and the respondent keyed their responses directly into the computer. In total, the actual questionnaire took approximately five to ten minutes to complete. Throughout the interview, an interviewer remained nearby for assistance. Design and presentation of the questionnaire was developed by using Sawtooth Software's A C A System and Ci2 System The number and type of questions presented was according to Sawtooth 3 2 Software's recommendations. There were five parts to the questionnaire. The first was a preference ranking section followed by an importance rating section, a pair section, a calibration concepts section and finally a demographic section. Table 6 explains the five sections in the questionnaire in more detail. Appendix 1 provides a sample of the computer interactive questionnaire used for this research. T A B L E 6 QUESTIONNAIRE S T R U C T U R E Section Description 1. Preference Ranking In this section, the respondent ranks the levels within the attributes. 2. Importance Rating The importance rating determines the relative importance of each attribute. The questions in this section are based on previous answers. One importance rating question is asked for each attribute. The Importance Rating, together with the Preference Ranking, allows A C A to automatically estimate an initial set of utilities for the respondent before starting the Pairs section. 3. Pairs This section is the conjoint portion of the interview. Each respondent sees a unique series of pairs, constructed from estimates of his/her utilities, which are updated after each answer. The screen shows two pairs, each described by two or three attributes. The questions in this section provide maximum information for updating A C A ' s estimates of the respondent's utilities and produce a balanced design. 4. Calibration Concepts A C A uses the responses from this section to calibrate the respondent's part-worth utilities. The interview presents two concept questions starting with the one that the respondent should prefer least and ending with the one that should be preferred most. 5. Demographics This section asks the respondent for some basic information about himself/herself. Source: ACA System Manual, Version 3. 33 Analysis of Data Analysis of the data was primarily descriptive. The importance of the attributes were identified through utility values and statistical determination of relative importance or preference for each attribute. Relative importance or preference values indicate which attributes are important in influencing customers' choice. Relative importance or preference is calculated by taking the range of utility for a given attribute, dividing it by the sum of utility ranges for all attributes, and expressing it as a percentage. Ranges are derived over all individuals. Objectives of this study included detennining the customers most preferred product and market segmentation. The optimal product was the result of the combination of attributes that produces the highest utility among the travelers. Market segmentation was conducted with various demographic traveler characteristics to determine if preference was the same for individuals in different market/characteristic groups. Specific groups included: (1) gender, (2) age, (3) income, (4) frequency of travel and (5) the last time a trip was taken. If preference differed by market segment, a specific product design can be made for each group. Simulations of attribute combinations were conducted to determine market share or preference for a given product. Further studies that increased the data set would likely increase the predictive ability of the model. 34 C H A P T E R 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine traveler preferences for a set of attributes believed to influence choice of parking at the Vancouver International Airport. Five attributes were evaluated (two with three levels and three with two levels) using Sawtooth Software's A C A System. Sawtooth Software's evaluation of the conjoint tasks provided part-worth utilities for the 12 attribute levels. In addition, Sawtooth Software's Ci2 System was used to collected basic demographic information from the respondent. The findings of this study are presented in the following three sections: Description of the Sample, Analysis of the Conjoint Data, and Discussion. Description of the Sample The following information describes the sample of those individuals who participated in this survey. A total of 36 valid cases were collected for this study. The respondents were employees among three local companies selected for data collection. These three selected companies were located 35 in downtown Vancouver and were potential business traveler users of the Vancouver International Airport's parking services. Data for this study was collected during the first week of August. Respondents were instructed to evaluate parking alternatives assuming the current time period (i.e. first week of August). Any influences of weather in individual's parking choice process could be determined by further sampling throughout the different seasons. A frequency distribution by gender is shown in Table 7. Two-thirds of the respondents in this study were male and one-third percent were female. T A B L E 7 F R E Q U E N C Y DISTRIBUTION O F G E N D E R Gender Count Percent Male 24 66.7 Female 12 33.3 Total 36 100 A frequency distribution by age is presented in Table 8. The age category 25 to 34 years included the mean value and represented the mode with 53 percent of total respondents. The range of 25 to 54 years accounted for 88 percents of the respondents. 36 T A B L E 8 F R E Q U E N C Y DISTRIBUTION O F A G E Age Category Count Percent 18 to 24 years 2 5.6 25 to 34 years 19 52.8 35 to 44 years 7 19.4 45 to 54 years 6 16.7 55 to 64 years 2 5.6 65+ years 0 0 Total 36 100 Table 9 provides a frequency distribution by individual income before deductions level. The category $50,000 - $74,999 represents the mode with 25 percent of total respondents. The individual income range of $35,000 - $99,999 represents 61 percent of the total. The model number of respondents per category was 4. There was a minimum of two respondents in income categories $100,000 - $150,000 and $150,000 and over, and a maximum of nine respondents in income category $50,000 - $74,999. A frequency distribution by the number of times driven to the Vancouver International Airport within the last year is given in Table 10. The mean number of times driven to the airport during this time frame was 9.5. Eliminating one outlying response of 70 times driven to the airport reduces the mean to 7.8. Eighty-one percent of the respondents reported driving to the airport three or more times within the last year. 37 TABLE 9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME Income Category Count Percent less than $25,000 5 13.9 $25,000 - $34,999 3 8.3 $35,000 - $49,999 8 22.2 $50,000 - $74,999 9 25.0 $75,000 - $99,999 5 13.9 $100,000 -$150,000 2 5.6 $150,000 or more 2 5.6 No response 2 5.6 Total 36 100 TABLE 10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF TIMES DRIVEN TO Y V R WITHIN THE LAST Y E A R # of trips Count Percent 0 3 8.3 1 1 2.8 2 3 8.3 3 2 5.6 4 6 16.7 5 2 5.6 6 3 8.3 7 1 2.8 8 1 2.8 10 3 8.3 12 2 5.6 14 2 5.6 15 2 5.6 20 4 11.1 70 1 2.8 Total 36 100 38 Table 11 provides a frequency distribution of the last time driven to the Vancouver International Airport. The category 'within the last 2 months' was the mode and consisted of two-thirds of total. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents reported deriving to the airport within the last year. T A B L E 11 F R E Q U E N C Y DISTRIBUTION O F L A S T T I M E D R I V E N T O Y V R Last Trip Category Count Percent Within the last 2 months 24 66.7 2 months to 1 year ago 8 22.2 Over 1 year ago 4 11.1 Total 36 100 Analysis of Conjoint Data The results of the conjoint tasks for all respondents is shown in Table 12 Figures 1-6. The relative importance (preference) of each attribute is expressed in percentage terms. As well, part-worth utility values are also given for each attribute level. Higher utility values represent higher customer preference for a given attribute. Negative utility values represent disutilities and reduce the overall utility of an alternative. Group results of conjoint analysis indicated that price and distance nearly accounted equally for the majority of business travelers parking preferences ratings (approximately two-thirds). The lowest price ($9 per day) contributed most positively to price preference rating, the moderate price ($12 per day) had almost no impact and the highest price ($15 per day) contributed 39 negatively to price preference rating. Similar to price, a short walk (2-4 minutes) contributed positively to distance preference rating, a moderate walk (6-8 minutes) contributed very little and a shuttle ride (10 minutes) contributed negatively to distance preference rating. The attribute security attribute was the next highest preference rating. The provision of video camera security accounted for 19 percent of customer parking preferences. Signage and structure attributes accounted for relatively little of parking preference ratings, 8 percent and 6 percent respectively. Provision of electronic signage accounted for the positive signage preference rating and provision of surface lot accounted for the positive structure rating. Market segmentation analysis was limited due to the small sample used for this study. Several of the demographic categories were combined in analysis to achieve a better distribution. Tables 12-17 show the results of the conjoint tasks for various market segments. All market segmentation data revealed similar results to the group data. Price and distance were the most influential attributes, followed by security. As with the group results, signage and structure contributed very little to the preference ratings. Because of the small sample size, it was not possible to conduct statistical tests to determine if results differ significantly by market segmentation. Despite this limitation, several key observations noted from the market segmentation results were: • Females appear to be more willing to trade-off closer distance than males. Females had a higher positive preference rating for parking in a surface lot over a parkade. 40 • mdividuals under the age of 35 appear to be more willing to pay a higher price for parking to have a shorter walk than those individuals 35 years of age and over. • Higher income earners ($50,000 and over) appear to be more willing to pay for security and signage than lower income earners (under $50,000). Lower income earners appear to be more willing to trade-off security and signage for lower price and also appear more willing to park in a surface lot. • Market segmentation by number of trips taken in the last year and last trip taken produced no apparent difference in preference ratings among the various attributes. T A B L E 12 G R O U P R E S U L T S ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY Distance 32% Short walk 0.81 Moderate walk -0.08 Shuttle ride -0.34 Structure 6% Surface Lot 0.24 Parkade 0.02 Price 36% $9 per day 0.82 $12 per day 0.07 $15 per day -0.5 Signage 8% Electronic signage 0.27 No electronic signage -0.01 Security 19% Video camera security 0.47 No video camera security -0.21 T O T A L 100% 41 FIGURE 1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE RATINGS GROUP RESULTS Security Signage Price Structure Distance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 42 FIGURE 2 DISTANCE UTILITIES GROUP RESULTS __ Short walk 1 1 Moderate walk i SI 8t&!9 de FIGURE 3 TYPE OF STRUCTURE UTILITIES GROUP RESULTS 0.25 j 0.2 -0.15 -0.1 I 0.05 X 1 Surface lot Parkade 43 FIGURE 4 PRICE UTILBTIES G R O U P R E S U L T S — 1 1 - $9 per day $12 per day $1 1 ay 0.3 FIGURE 5 E L E C T R O N I C SIGNAGE UTILITIES G R O U P R E S U L T S 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 1 | Yes No 44 0.5 0.4 + 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 + -0.2 -0.3 F I G U R E 6 VIDEO C A M E R A SECURITY UTILITIES G R O U P R E S U L T S Yes 45 T A B L E 13 G E N D E R S E G M E N T M A L E F E M A L E M A L E F E M A L E ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY UTILITY Distance 35% 27% Short walk 0.81 0.82 Moderate walk 0 -0.25 Shuttle ride -0.44 -0.14 Structure 3% 11% Surface Lot 0.18 0.36 Parkade 0.07 -0.07 Price 35% 38% $9 per day 0.78 0.89 $12 per day 0.03 0.14 $15 per day -0.45 -0.6 Signage 9% 6% Electronic signage 0.28 0.26 No electronic signage -0.04 0.03 Security 18% 19% Video camera security 0.45 0.51 No video camera security -0.2 -0.23 T O T A L 100% 100% T A B L E 14 A G E S E G M E N T 18-34 35-64 18-34 35-64 ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY UTILITY Distance 36% 23% Short walk 0.98 0.58 Moderate walk -0.12 -0.03 Shuttle ride -0.49 -0.13 Structure 4% 9% Surface Lot 0.21 0.28 Parkade 0.04 0 Price 34% 40% $9 per day 0.85 0.77 $12 per day 0.04 0.12 $15 per day -0.51 -0.48 Signage 7% 9% Electronic signage 0.27 0.27 No electronic signage -0.03 0 Security 18% 20% Video camera security 0.49 0.45 No video camera security -0.24 -0.17 T O T A L 100% 100% 46 T A B L E 15 I N C O M E S E G M E N T <$50 >$50 <$50 >$50 ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY UTILITY Distance 30% 33% Short walk 0.77 0.85 Moderate walk -0.08 -0.09 Shuttle ride -0.31 -0.37 Structure 11% 2% Surface Lot 0.33 0.17 Parkade -0.07 0.09 Price 40% 32% $9 per day 0.92 0.73 $12 per day -0.02 0.15 $15 per day -0.52 -0.48 Signage 4% 11% Electronic signage 0.19 0.34 No electronic signage 0.06 -0.07 Security 15% 22% Video camera security 0.39 0.54 No video camera security -0.13 -0.27 T O T A L 100% 100% 47 T A B L E 16 N U M B E R O F TRIPS S E G M E N T LESS T H A N 3 3 OR M O R E LESS T H A N 3 3 OR M O R E ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY UTILITY Distance 33% 33% Short walk 0.86 0.8 Moderate walk -0.44 0 Shuttle ride -0.08 -0.4 Structure 6% 6% Surface Lot 0.23 0.24 Parkade 0.01 0.02 Price 35% 35% $9 per day 0.95 0.79 $12 per day -0.15 0.12 $15 per day -0.45 -0.51 Signage 9% 7% Electronic signage 0.3 0.27 No electronic signage -0.07 0 Security 17% 19% Video camera security 0.46 0.47 No video camera security -0.23 -0.21 T O T A L 100% 100% 48 T A B L E 17 L A S T TRIP S E G M E N T <2 MONTHS >2 MONTHS <2 MONTHS >2 MONTHS ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE PREFERENCE L E V E L UTILITY UTILITY Distance 35% 26% Short walk 0.83 0.79 Moderate walk 0.03 -0.31 Shuttle ride -0.37 -0.27 Structure 6% 6% Surface Lot 0.27 0.19 Parkade 0.06 -0.05 Price 33% 40% $9 per day 0.73 0.99 $12 per day 0.15 -0.08 $15 per day -0.4 -0.7 Signage 8% 8% Electronic signage 0.29 0.25 No electronic signage 0.03 -0.11 Security 18% 20% Video camera security 0.46 0.49 No video camera security -0.14 -0.36 T O T A L 100% 100% Customers Preferred Product and Comparison with Planned Y V R A A Parking Facility Theory of conjoint analysis assumes the customers most preferred product among the choices given is the one composed of the highest utility values. Using the group conjoint task results, the ideal parking lot from the point of view of the customers would consist of the following attribute levels: • Short walk (2-4 minutes) • Surface lot 49 • $9 per day • Electronic signage • Video camera security Changing one or more of these levels resulted in a product which is less than ideal for the customer. Table 18 provides a comparison of the Vancouver International Airport future parkade with the optimal combination. The lowest price level was incorporated into the Y V R Parkade as it provided the highest total utility. The higher price levels of $12 and $15 per day resulted in lower levels of total utility which deviated a great deal from the optimal product, 1.64 and 1.07 respectively. T A B L E 18 P R O D U C T C O M P A R I S O N I D E A L P R O D U C T Ideal Product (Utility) Y V R Parkade 2 0 (Utility) Short walk (.81) Short walk (.81) Surface Lot (.24) Parkade (.02) $9 per day (.82) $9 per day (.82) Electronic Signage (.27) Electronic Signage (.27) Video Camera Security (.47) Video Camera Security (.47) Total Utility (2.61) Total Utility (2.39) Y V R A A can use this research model to identify feasible pricing and parking alternatives consistent with their operational goals and profit generation. For example, Y V R A A will operate other parking services in addition to the parkade. The additional parking services will be located at their current locations beyond the parkade from the terminal bunding (Main Lot) and 50 approximately one kilometer away from the terminal bunding (Economy Lot). Currently, the additional parking locations do not provide video camera security or electronic signage for guidance to available parking spaces. Simulations of different parking alternatives can be conducted by summing appropriate part-worth group utility values to achieve total utility values. Table 19 provides a comparison of YVRAA's immediate parking options, the Parkade, Main Lot and Economy Lot. This is a comparison of current location services. In addition, the Parkade assumes the highest price level while the Main and Economy Lots assume the lowest price level. It is interesting to note that the Parkade holds the highest total utility irrespective of price. These are based on aggregate or group results. T A B L E 19 P R O D U C T C O M P A R I S O N Y V R A A P A R K I N G SERVICES Y V R Parkade (Utility) Y V R Main (Utility) Y V R Economy (Utility) Short Walk (.81) Moderate Walk (-0.08) Shuttle Ride (-0.34) Parkade (.02) Surface (.24) Surface (.24) $15 per day (-0.5) $9 per day (.82) $9 per day (.82) Electronic Signage (.27) No Electronic Signage (-0.01) No Electronic Signage (-0.01) Video Camera Security (.47) No Camera Security (-0.21) No Camera Security (-0.21) Total Utility (1.07) Total Utility (0.76) Total Utility (0.5) Further analysis of the conjoint data can be conducted by examining individuals' total utility values for various parking service alternatives. Since conjoint analysis generates part-worth utility values for each mdfvidual, we can examine each person's utility rating of the alternatives. By 51 assigning each individual to the parking alternative with the highest utility rating, the model predicts how the individuals in the sample would divide themselves among the alternatives (i.e. predicted market share for the travelers and conditions represented by the sample). Market share calculations were first conducted for the above three parking services (YVR Parkade, Y V R Main, and Y V R Economy). These are shown in the first row of Table 20. The predicted market shares for the Y V R Parkade, Y V R Main and Y V R Economy lots are 60 percent, 26 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Additional market share calculations of other parking service alternatives can be conducted by replicating the same procedures, mdividuals' total utility values for YVR's parking services are supplied in Appendix 2. Table 20 provides market share estimation for these parking service alternatives. Option two tests the impact on predicted market share of removing security and signage from the parkade. It predicts a decline in market share in the parkade from 60 percent to 28 percent, a substantial decline. Option three tests the impact on predicted market share of reducing price in the parkade to $12 per day, in addition to removing security and signage. It predicts an increase in market share in the parkade from 28 percent to 36 percent, a slight increase. Option four further tests the impact on predicted market share of reducing price to $9 per day, in addition to removing security and signage. It predicts an increase in market share in the parkade from 36 percent to 64 percent, a substantial increase. Option five tests the impact on predicted market share of eliminating signage from the parkade's base case. It predicts a decline in market share in the parkade from 60 percent to 53 percent, a slight decrease. Option six tests the impact on predicted market share of eliminating security from the parkade's base case. It 52 predicts a decline in market share in the parkade from 60 percent to 33 percent, a substantial decline. Estimates of market share suggested that travelers' were willing to pay extra for the provision of video camera security and electronic signage in the parkade. For example, market share estimates predicted that the provision of security and signage in the parkade would maintain market share at approximately 60 percent, despite a $6 per day increase in parking fees. Results also suggested that travelers' were more willing to pay extra for video camera security than electronic signage. This research concludes that the parkade offering video camera security and electronic signage is a preferred parking service for a majority of business travelers. Provision of these extra services (video camera security and electronic signage) in the parkade permit a higher price to be implemented without a significant decrease in market share. A full scale data collection and analysis should be conducted for Y V R A A in order to confirm these results. 53 T A B L E 20 M A R K E T S H A R E E S T I M A T I O N Y V R A A P A R K I N G SERVICES Parking Lot Y V R Parkade Y V R Main Y V R Economy Option 1: Base case, Parkade and existing alternatives Market Share Short Walk Parkade $15 per day Security Signage 60% Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 26% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 14% Option 2: Delete signage and security from parkade base case Market Share Short Walk Parkade $15 per day No Security No Signage 28% Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 36% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 36% Option 3: Reduce parkade base case price to $12 per day Market Share Short Walk Parkade $12 per day No Security No Signage 36% Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 36% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 28% Option 4: Reduce parkade base case price to $9 per day Market Share Short Walk Parkade $9 per day No Security No Signage 64% Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 25% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 11% Option 5: Delete signage from parkade base case Market Share Short Walk Parkade $15 per day Security No Signage 53 % Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 31% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 17% Option 6: Delete security from parkade base case Market Share Short Walk Parkade $15 per day No Security Signage 33 % Moderate Walk Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 36% Shuttle Ride Surface $9 per day No Security No Signage 31% Note: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. 54 C H A P T E R 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine travelers' preferences for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. Conjoint analysis provided the technique for this research. Identification and preference measurement of important attributes in the travelers' parking decision process was the main focus of this study. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 36 potential business travelers with prior parking experience at the Vancouver International Airport. All respondents represented potential parking patrons for the Vancouver International Airport. This study was limited to a subset of traveler (i.e. business traveler taking an overnight journey in August) preferences for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. More complete analysis would have to replicate the data collection procedures and target different users under different conditions (i.e. time of day, time of year, and duration). The attributes which influenced customer preference for parking at the Vancouver International Airport most strongly were price and distance. When respondents were segmented by various demographic variables, price and distance consistently remained the two most important 55 attributes. Security was the next most influential attribute, followed by structure type and signage which were relatively unimportant to potential travelers. Market share estimates were calculated for YVR's proposed Parkade, Main and Economy parking lots. Estimates of market shares suggested that a majority of business travelers taking an overnight journey in August preferred to park in the Y V R Parkade. Market share estimates were also calculated for various service alternatives in the parkade. Comparing these additional estimates with the base service option revealed the trade-offs that business travelers were likely to make. Results anticipated approximately a 60 percent market share for the proposed parkade service despite charging a higher price ($6 per day higher than the alternative parking lots). Market share estimates predicted that the provision of video camera security and electronic signage in the parkade was significant in enabling a higher price. The predicted market share falls substantially to 28 percent if security and signage are not provided. Results also suggested that more travelers were willing to pay extra for the provision of video camera security than electronic signage in the parkade. Study findings suggest that conjoint analysis is an appropriate technique for investigating customers' preference and trade-offs for parking at the Vancouver International Airport. 56 Recommendations for Further Research Since this study was exploratory in nature, study objectives were set in the initial stages of the research. Objectives may now be established for future research. A more structured instrument could be used with a larger sample to investigate the relative importance of attributes for a more comprehensive sample of Y V R travelers and uses of parking facilities. Based on the findings of this study, further investigations on preference should consider differences among various market segments. Since this study was limited to a specific user group of business travelers and further limited by an overnight journey, the sample should be expanded to included leisure travelers, as well as varying duration of stay. Moreover, sampling procedures should account for varying preferences due to weather conditions at different times of year. The questionnaire used in this study can serve as a basis for a more comprehensive study for Y V R There were several implications from the market segmentation data that were inconclusive from the results of this study. Additional questions for future research could include the following: • Do females perceive surface lots as being safer? • Do lower income earners perceive surface lots as being less expensive? Future research should also incorporate pricing sensitivity analysis into the survey. For example, at what price level will mdividuals seek out other modes of access to the airport. A better 57 understanding of traveler preferences and trade-offs will assist Y V R A A with designing parking facilities and parking services. However, benefit-cost research should be conducted to assess the appropriateness of preferred parking facilities and parking services. In summary, the results of this study shed some light on understanding customer preferences and trade-offs regarding parking design and implementation at the Vancouver International Airport. Results were consistent with fmdings in the literature review (i.e. that price and distance from the parking facility to the terminal were the most influential). Potential travelers were willing to pay more for the use of the new parkade provided it offered video camera security and electronic signage. 58 ENDNOTES 1 Vancouver International Airport Authority Customer Tracking Research, 1994. Satisfaction results are confidential. However, summary reports have indicated parking an important determinant in overall satisfaction. 2 Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (September 1978), p. 104. 3 Malhotra, Naresh A. (1993), p. 684. 4 Claxton, John D. (1994), p. 513. 5 Claxton, JohnD. (1994), p. 517. 6 Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (Summer 1982), p. 46. 7 Cattin, Philippe and Dick R. Wittink (Summer 1982), p. 46. 8 Hensher, David A. (May 1994), p. 109. 9 Green, PaulE. and Abba M . Krieger (October 1991), p. 29. 1 0 Cattin, Plrihppe and Dick R. Wittink (Summer 1982), p. 45. 1 1 Shocker, Allan D. (October 1992). 1 2 Ndoh, N.N. and N.J. Ashford (1993), p. 35. 1 3 Ndoh, N.N. and N.J. Ashford (1993), p. 34. 1 4 Kanafani, Adib and Lawrence H. Lan (1998), p. 74. 1 5 Axhausen, Kay W. and John W. Polak (1991), p. 59. 1 6 Axhausen, Kay W. and John W. Polak (1991), p. 76. 1 7 Van der Goot, D. (1982), p. 114. 1 8 Clark, Peter and Richard Allsop, (August 1993), p. 354. 1 9 Bifulco, G.N. (1993), p. 282. 2 0 Lowest price level was incorporated into the Y V R Parkade as it provided highest utility. Using higher price levels would result in lower levels of utility. 59 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Arons, William C. (1994) "The art of designing airport parking structures". Airport Technology International. Axhausen, K.W. and J.W. Polak (1991) "Choice of parking: Stated preference approach". Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 59-81. Bifulco, Gennaro Nicola (December 1993) "A stochastic user equilibrium assignment model for the evaluation of parking policies". European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 71, No. 2, p. 269-287. Cattin, Philippe and Dick R Wittink (Summer 1982) "Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, p. 44-53. Clark, P. and K E . Allsop (August 1993) "The use of stated preference techniques to investigate likely responses to changes in workplace parking supply". Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 34, No. 7-8, p. 350. Claxton, John D. (1994) "Conjoint analysis in travel research: A manager's guide". Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, 2nd edition, edited by J.R Brent Ritchie and Charles R Goeldner. Green, Paul E. (September 1974) "On the design of choice experiments involving multifactor alternatives". Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, p. 61-68. Green, Paul E. and Abba M . Krieger (October 1991) "Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, p. 20-31. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinfvasan (October 1990) "Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, p. 3-19. Green, Paul E . and V. Srinivasan (September 1978) "Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlooks". Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, p. 102-123. Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind (July-August 1975) "New ways to measure consumers' judgements". HarvardBusiness Review, p. 107-117. Green, Paul E . , Abba M . Krieger, and Manoj K Agarwal (May 1991) "Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions". Journal of Market Research, Vol. 28, p. 215-222. Griffin, Michael G. (1994) "Airport parking facilities - an 'asset-management' perspective". Airport Technology International. 60 Hensher, David A. (May 1994) "Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice". Transportation, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 107-133. Kanafani, A. and L . H . Lan (1988) "Development of parking strategies for airport parking: A case study at San Francisco airport". International Journal of Transport Economics, Vol. 15, p. 55-76. Kroes, Eric P. and Robert J. Sheldon (January 1988) "Stated preference methods: An introduction". Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, p. 11-25. Malhotra, NareshK (1993) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Ndoh, N.N. and N.J. Ashford (1993) 'Evaluation of Airport Access Level of Service", Transportation Research Record, 1423, p. 34-39. Ross, Richard (July 1975) "Measuring the influence of soft variables on travel behavior". Traffic Quarterly, p. 333-346. Segal, Madhav N. (February 1982) "Rehability of conjoint analysis: Contrasting data collection procedures". Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, p. 139-143. Shocker, Allan D. (October 1992) "Conjoint Analysis: What it is and isn't". Conjoint Methods Workshop, Institute of Transport Studies, Graduate School of Business, The University of Sydney. Van der Goot, D. (1982) "A model to describe the choice of parking places". Transportation Research, Vol. 16A, p. 109-115. Wittink, Dick and Philippe Cattin (February 1981) "Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: A Monte Carlostudy". Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, p. 101-106. 61 APPENDIX 1 62 On the following screens, there are descriptions of various features of parking services. We are interested in your parking needs for the Vancouver International Airport. When answering, think of the following situation: Y O U A R E TAKING A N OVERNIGHT BUSINESS TRIP, DRIVING YOURSELF TO T H E AIRPORT A N D PARKING. Press any key to continue. All answers are inputted by simply typing a number from the top row of the key board. You shouldn't have any trouble, but if you do there will be someone nearby to help you. Please note: There are no correct answers. We are interested in your opinion and it is important that you complete all questions. There are 5 short parts to this questionnaire. Press any key to continue. 63 The following five features will be considered: 1. Distance from parking lot to terminal building. 2. Type of Parking Structure. 3. Daily Price of Parking. 4. Electronic signage providing guidance to available spaces. 5. Video Camera Security. Press any key to continue "Type of Structure" refers to either PARKADE or SURFACE LOT. When thinking of these structures, think of: SURFACE L O T as a paved, open air parking lot, and PARKADE as a 4 level, brightly Ut parking lot, with easy and ample access for vehicles and pedestrians. Press any key to begin. 64 Part 1 Please state your PREFERENCES for the following features of parking services. Press any key to continue. Type the number of your FIRST CHOICE, assuming everything else to be equal. Type X to back up or correct an error. 1. Video Camera Security 2. No Video Camera Security 65 Part 2 Please state how IMPORTANT each of these features is to you. Press any key to continue. If two parking services were identical, except for the following, how important would THIS DIFFERENCE be? To answer, type a number from the scale below. A : Video Camera Security versus: B: No Video Camera Security 4 = Extremely Important (I could almost never accept B) 3 = Very Important (B would have to be outstanding in other ways) 2 = Somewhat Important (I would not base my decision on this) 1 = Not important At All 66 Part 3 In each of the following questions, two alternatives are presented, (each described by combinations of features) Please state which of the two alternatives you PREFER and how strong your preference is, by selecting a number on the scale. Press any key to continue. WHICH DO Y O U PREFER? Type a number from the scale below to indicate your preference. Video Camera Security No Video Camera Security $15 per day $12 per day Strongly Don't Strongly Prefer Care Prefer Left 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 — 8 — 9 Right 67 Part 4 FoUowing are two parking alternatives. You should like the last one more. Please state how LIKELY you would be to use each parking option if it were available right now. Press any key to continue. * How L I K E L Y are you to use this service if it were available? Answer by typing a percentage from the scale. Very Likely 100% Video Camera Security 90% $15 per day 80% Shuttle Ride (i.e. 10 minutes) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not At All Likely Type a number from 0 to 100, then press ENTER. (Type X for review.) 68 Part 5 Following are a few general questions that will be used to group your responses with others. To answer, simply enter the number of the response. Press any key to continue. Your Gender? 1. Male 2. Female 3. No comment Please enter the appropriate number. Your age group? 1. 18 to 24 years 2. 25 to 34 years 3. 35 to 44 years 4. 45 to 54 years 5. 55 to 64 years 6. 65 years and over 7. No comment Please enter the appropriate number. 69 Your personal 1994 income before deductions? 1. Less than $25,000 2. $25,000 - $34,999 3. $35,000 - $49,999 4. $50,000 - $74,999 5. $75,000 - $99,999 6. $100,000 - $150,000 7. $150,000 or more 8. No comment Please enter the appropriate number. Approximately how many times have Y O U driven to the Vancouver International Airport in the last year? Please enter the appropriate number. Approximately when was the last time that Y O U drove to the Vancouver International Airport? 1. Within the last 2 months 2. 2 months to 1 year ago 3. over 1 year ago Please enter the appropriate number. 70 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087016/manifest

Comment

Related Items