CIVITAS - Training on Social Inclusion Coimbra, Portugal March 22-23, 2012

1. CIVITAS - Training on Social Inclusion Coimbra, Portugal March 22-23, 2012 Transport-related Social Exclusion:Research Achievements and Gaps António Pais Antunes (University of Coimbra)

2. Introduction (1) • Inequality/equity issues have “always” been a matter of concern for transportation scientists, policy-makers, and planners … but perhaps this concern has not been clearly expressed until the late 1990s. Example of early work where such issues are explicitly dealt with: Wachs, M., Kumagai, G.T., 1973. Physical accessibility and a social Indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Science 7 (5), 437–456. • Since then, and particularly after the publication in the UK of Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion in 2003, the subject is attracting significant attention from the scientific community, with numerous articles being published each year in good-quality scientific journals.

3. Introduction (2) • In this presentation an account of the main research achievements and gaps in the area of transport-related social exclusion is given, essentially based on: • a survey of the scientific literature; • a EU research project report (MATISSE – Methodology for Assessment of Transport ImpactS on Social Exclusion).

4. Introduction (3) • Main sources – Authors (Institutions) • Antonio Páez (School of Geography & Earth Sciences, Mc Master U., Hamilton, Canada) • Fiona Rajé (Newcastle Business School, UK, formerly U. of Oxford) • Graham Currie (Institute of Transport Studies, Dep. Of Civil Engineering, Monash U., Melbourne, Australia) • John Preston (Civil, Maritime and Environmental Engineering and Sciences Unit, U. of Southampton, UK) • Karen Lucas (Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and Environment, U. of Oxford, UK) • Susan Kenyon (School of Sociology Social Research and Social Policy, U. of Kent, UK, formerly U. of Southampton)

5. Introduction (4) • Main sources – Journals • Journal of Transport Geography (IF=1.706 / HI=30) • Transport Policy (IF=1.171 / HI=22) • Transport Reviews (IF=1.722 / HI=27) • Transportation (IF=1.875 / HI=29)

6. Outline • Introduction • Key concepts • Some facts - UK • Assessment techniques • Where and how much is transport-related social exclusion felt? • Policy measures • How can (is) transport-related social exclusion be (being) attenuated? • Conclusion

7. Key concepts (1) • Social exclusion • “The process by which an individual or group is denied of access to the opportunity of participating in the social and political life of the community, resulting not only in diminished material and non-material quality of life, but also in tempered life chances, choices and reduced citizenship.” (Source: based on Kenyon et al., 2002)

8. Key concepts (2) Dimensions of social exclusion • (Source: Kenyon et al., 2002)

9. Key concepts (3) Dimensions of social exclusion (cont’d)

10. Key concepts (4) • Transport-related social exclusion • “The process by which people are prevented from participating in the economic, political and social life of the community because of reduced accessibility to opportunities, services and social networks, due in whole or in part to insufficient mobility in a society and environment built around the assumption of high mobility (Source: Kenyon et al., 2002).

11. Key concepts (5) (Source: Lucas, 2012)

12. Key concepts (6) • Categories of transport-related social exclusion • Physical exclusion: whereby physical barriers, such as vehicle design, lack of disabled facilities or lack of timetable information, inhibit the accessibility of transport services. • Geographical exclusion: where a person lives can prevent them from accessing transport services, such as in rural areas or on peripheral urban estates. • Facility exclusion: when the distance of key facilities such as shops, schools, health care or leisure services from where a person lives prevents their access. • Economic exclusion: when the high monetary costs of travel can prevent or limit access to facilities or employment and thus impact on incomes. • (Source: Church et al, 2000)

13. Key concepts (7) • Categories of transport-related social exclusion (cont’d) • Time-based exclusion: when other demands on time, such as combined work, household and child-care duties, reduces the time available for travel (often referred to as time-poverty in the literature). • Fear-based exclusion: where fears for personal safety preclude the use of public spaces and/or transport services. • Space exclusion: where security or space management prevent certain groups access to public spaces, e.g. gated communities or first class waiting rooms at stations.

14. Key concepts (8) • Types of potential transport-related-socially-excluded persons • Low-income households. • Households that do not own an automobile (sometimes called zero-vehicle households). • People who do not have a driver license. • People with significant physical or mental disabilities. • People who are unemployed or underemployed. • People on social assistance and other programs to help disadvantaged groups. • People too young to drive, or being elderly (i.e., over 70 years of age). • Recent immigrants from developing countries. • (Source: Litman, 2003)

15. Some Facts (UK) • Employment: 2 out of 5 jobseekers find transport is a barrier to getting a job. • Education and training: 50% of all 16-18 year old students find their transport costs hard to meet. • Health: 7% of people without cars say they miss, turn down, or chose not to seek medical help because of transport problems • Food shopping: 16% per cent of people without cars find access to supermarkets hard, compared with 6% of people with cars. • Social networks: 18% of non-car owners find seeing friends and family difficult because of transport. • Road safety: Children from the poorest families are five times more likely to die in a road accident than children from better off families. • Car ownership: Average per household is 0.85 vs. less than 0.50 for the lowest income quintile households. • (Main source: Social Exclusion Unit, 2003)

16. Assessment methods (1) • Several methods have been proposed/used in the literature to assess transport-related social exclusion, essentially based on: • Analytical calculations of the accessibility of people to “opportunities” (work, facilities/services, leisure) • Numerous accessibility measures/indicators exist, but there seems to be no consensus about the best ones to use in relation with transport-related social exclusion – the ones from UK’s DfT are an interesting alternative. • Specialized GIS-based software available (Accession by Basemap), expensive. • Household surveys on the mobility problems faced by interviewees.

17. Assessment methods (2) UK DfT Accessibility Indicators (Source: UK DfT, 2005)

18. Interesting studies (1) • Currie et al. (2009) + Currie and Delbosc (2010) • Analyzes the links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion, and well-being in Melbourne, Australia, using Structural Equation Modeling (SE and WB are strongly related, TD and SE are weakly related, TD and WB are not related). • Hine and Mitchell (2003) • Identifies ways in which the transport system was creating transport disadvantage and establishes how this might be addressed through policy, based on three case study areas (Scotland). • Páez et al. (2009, 2010) • Defines relative accessibility deprivation indicators and demonstrates their use with a case study of food deserts in the city of Montreal, Canada, highlighting the difficulty of access of low-income households to food services.

19. Interesting studies (1) • Preston and Rajé (2007) • Proposes a matrix of area accessibility, area mobility and individual mobility as a possible schema for identifying concentrated and scattered manifestations of social exclusion and inclusion and for suggesting appropriate policy responses. • PriyaUteng (2009) • Uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the mobility patterns and transport-related exclusion of a specific sector of the Norwegian population, namely non-Western female immigrants. • Viry et al. (2009) • Shows that having ‘a strong mobility capital’ allows individuals to maintain or widen their social capital based on data from Zurich, Genoa and Basle (Switzerland), and that not having weaken their social capital.

20. Policy Measures (1) (Source: MATISSE Consortium, 2003) • Mobility • Adapted vehicles to assist physical and sensory impaired persons, frail, and for people escorting babies and young people + associated kerbside and building measures. • Measures to provide access to cars – car pools, car clubs, car sharing schemes. • Short term loans of cars, mopeds, bicycles etc. • Widen eligibility criteria to provide access to transport services for excluded groups. Note: little appears to be known about the efficiency – benefits vs. costs – of these (and other) measures.

21. Policy Measures (2) • Physical accessibility (in time and space) • Access criteria and benchmark in planning and transport service provision. • Co-ordination of service operating times, working hours regimes, school hours etc. with transport services and timetables, ‘open-house’ facilities. • Provide flexible routing on ‘demand’ public transport and special services. • Provide door to door transport services, utilize advanced scheduling and booking. • Improve overall network efficiency of public and special needs transport. • Core and feeder networks - Services at fringe times/weekends - Priority measure, enforcement - Co-ordinate public and social services transport. • Special facility, shuttle services to inaccessible locations – works buses, non emergency health transport – feeder access within large sites

22. Policy Measures (3) • Affordability • Purchase loans, leases and discounts on cars, mopeds, bicycles to eligible groups + Assistance with vehicle taxation payments. • Green mortgage schemes for those wishing to locate in more accessible, car free housing. • Assistance with driving education and license examination for eligible groups. • Public transport fare concessions for eligible groups (all journeys or specific types of trip - job interviews, hospital visiting etc.) • Concessionary parking permits for physically and sensory disabled persons. • Travel mobility vouchers for public transport modes including taxis. • Integrated multi-modal ticketing regimes.

23. Policy Measures (4) • Assurance • Civil police presence, neighborhood wardens, buddy schemes. • Telematics security support, CCTV, alarms on vehicle and at stops/interchanges. • Secure lighting and visibility on ends- legs and at stops/interchanges. • Traffic calming measures. • Road safety and education measures targeting deprived ‘blackspot’ areas; reducing exposure. • Crime reduction strategies. • Mobility training and mentoring. • Dedicated staff and training for staff to meet specific needs.

24. Policy Measures (5) • Awareness • Personal mentoring/tutoring on travel options. • Personalized information provision. • Multi-lingual advice and information. • Customized information media to meet the needs of those with sensory disabilities, physical disabilities and learning difficulties • Multi-media information on trip opportunities and fare options (telephone/mobile, printed, internet) • Local neighborhood travel advice centers • Real-time pre-trip and in-trip information • Advice on accessible mobile local services, delivery and internet options • Provide travel information at the point of need – worksite, jobcenters, hospital etc.

25. Policy Measures (6) • Avoidance • Mobile shops and services. • Delivery services and service outreach. • ‘Remote’ working, distance learning local subsidized internet access. • ‘Accessible’ land-use planning to reduce travel requirements.

26. Conclusion • Transport-related social exclusion is clearly a hot subject, with many recent scientific contributions – mainly from the UK, Australia, and Canada. • Key concepts are well defined/understood, but assessment methods (including accessibility indicators) need to be standardized/ systematized. • Relevant policy measures have been identified, but little appears to have been done with respect to the evaluation of their efficiency (in theory and in practice).

27. References (1) • Church, A., Frost, M., and Sullivan, K., 2000. Transport and social Exclusion in London. Transport Policy 7, 195–205. • Currie, G. and Delabosc, A., 2010. Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage. Transportation 18, 31–41. • Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Broderick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., Stanley, J., Morris, J., Kinnear, R., and Stanley, J., 2009. Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne. Transport Policy 16, 97-105. • Kenyon, K., Lyons, G., and Rafferty, J., 2002. Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting social exclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 10, 207–219. • Litman, T., 2003. Social Inclusion as a Transport Planning Issue in Canada. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada.

28. References (2) • Lucas, K., 2012. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy doi:10.1016/ j.tranpol.2012.01.013. • MATISSE Consortium, 2003. Transport Strategies to Combat Social Exclusion. Transport and Travel Research Ltd, UK. • Páez, A., Mercado, R.G., Farber, S., Morency, C., and Roorda, M., 2010. Relative accessibility deprivation indicators for urban settings: Definitions and appli- cation to food deserts in Montreal. Urban Studies 47 (7), 1415–1438. • Preston, J. and Rajé, F., 2007. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (3), 151–160. • Priya Uteng, T., 2009. Gender, ethnicity and constrained mobility: Insights into the resultant exclusion. Environment and Planning A 41, 1055–1071. • Social Exclusion Unit, 2003. Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.