Workshop B7: Surveying ‘Hard to Reach’ Groups 13 participants –Austria:1 –Denmark:1 –France:3 –South Africa:1 –Switzerland:1 –United Kingdom:1 –Unites States:5 Resource paper: Riandey and Quaglia (Surveying hard to reach groups) Contributed paper: Contrino et al (A reexamination of methods in the US National Household Travel Surveys) Contributed paper: Cowham et al (Prioritising street improvements for respondents with disabilities: qualitative and quantitative research)

Questions discussed 1.Who are ‘hard to reach’ groups in travel surveys, and how does this differ by type of survey (e.g. telephonic vs. mail-back vs. home interview, etc.) and by context? 2.What bias is introduced by lack of coverage of ‘hard-to-reach’ groups? E.g. how does their absence/under-representation affect our estimates and forecasts of travel, or public policies? 3.Looking forward, how do we foresee this problem—getting less, getting worse? Why? 4.What measures can be taken to ensure that ‘hard to reach’ groups are included adequately in sample frames and selections? 5.What measures can be taken to ensure that selected ‘hard to reach’ respondents are successfully recruited and surveyed? 6.What forms of survey instruments are appropriate to reach ‘hard to reach’ groups, and how should these instruments be developed and tested? 7.If we could completely re-design survey practice, what kinds of things would we include to integrate respondents from hard-to-reach groups into the survey?

1. Who are ‘hard to reach’ groups in travel surveys, and how does this differ by type of survey (e.g. telephonic vs. mail-back vs. home interview, etc.) and by context? Persistent non-responders: Foreign language Illiterates Disengaged High/low income Adolescents Fearful ‘Gate-kept’ individuals Physically disabled Mentally disabled Non-coverage in sample frames: Illegal immigrants Transients Squatters Homeless Sub-letters Group quarters Inaccessible workers

2. What bias is introduced by lack of coverage of ‘hard-to-reach’ groups? E.g. how does their absence/under-representation affect our estimates and forecasts of travel, or public policies? Bias depends on: –Survey method (e.g. CATI vs. PAPI vs. CASI vs. CAWI) –Context Significance varies by survey purpose –Aggregate travel patterns –Special group surveys Research gap: size of HTR groups

3. Looking forward, how do we foresee this problem— getting less, getting worse? Why? Drivers of change: –Technology –Migration –Demography –Economy –Legal barriers/benefits

4. What measures can be taken to ensure that ‘hard to reach’ groups are included adequately in sample frames and selections? Multi-frame sampling –Land line phone –Mobile phone –Address frame –Association/organization membership lists –Etc. Identification and recruiting –General population surveys – frame completeness –Specific population surveys – cost of screening to identify individuals, or access panels

5. What measures can be taken to ensure that selected ‘hard to reach’ respondents are successfully recruited and surveyed? Toolkit of recruitment techniques –Advertisements –Association registers/lists –Advance letters –Endorsements –Incentives/gifts –Language specialists

6. What forms of survey instruments are appropriate to reach ‘hard to reach’ groups, and how should these instruments be developed and tested? Multi-modal with special components tailored for HTRGs –But are results compatible with main survey? Non-response follow up surveys of two types –Short last-ditch version to get essential travel-related information – Short questionnaire for demographics/reasons for non-response –Mode depends on HTRG –Don’t wait until end Design of instrument depends on purpose

7. If we could completely re-design survey practice, what kinds of things would we include to integrate respondents from hard-to-reach groups into the survey? Ideal device to encourage HTRGs to participate –Inexpensive –Attractive/useful as a give-away after data collection finished –Customizable for HTG group –Non-intrusive –Secure –Passive fully automated data collection –Multiple sensing capabilities – not just GPS –Close to real time data transmission w/feedback

Quantitative survey: visual material (Cowham et al) STREET FURNITURE & BENCHES: EXAMPLE CHOICE CARD