Social & Distributional Impacts: A Mobilities and Livelihoods Approach

1. Social & Distributional Impacts:A Mobilities and Livelihoods Approach Dr. Karen Lucas Professor of Transport and Social Analysis

2. A mobiliites and livelihoods approach • Focuses on people’s activity needs and their social wellbeing rather than facilitating the transport system • Specifically brings to light the needs of vulnerable populations and disadvantaged social groups • Moves away from transport as mobility per se to consider (in)accessibility, (dis)connectivity, immobility and network resources. • Considers wider contextual factors – cognitive, experiential, cultural, social, distributional, socio-political, power, etc. • Considers social wider consequences of (im)mobility now and in the future.

3. Grounded in a theoretical framing of sustainable development

4. But an emphasis on social progress BUT ALSO RESPECTING ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS

5. Governance & instutituonal persepective To highlight ethical & distributional issues

6. 5 key aims of mobilities and livelihoods approach To provide • Equal opportunities for the potential to be mobile in order to access basic ‘life chance’ activities • A fair allocation of mobility capital • A duty to reduce the adverse negative effects (including sensory) of transport system and to protect vulnerable populations from pollution, accidents and transport-related social exclusion • Participation in transportation decision-making and legal recourse to mobility justice • Socially just transitions to low carbon mobilities

7. Transport is expensive ... “It’s cheaper to live in the township [on the outskirts of the city centre]. The problem is transport. You have to use taxis to come to town on a daily basis and we cannot afford that money. If we are here, at least we can walk or use a train and therefore we spend less on transport”

8. Journeys are long and difficult ... “I walk to the taxi for 10 minutes and I wait for the taxi to get full and its takes the taxi 35 minutes to get to the taxi rank and then I get another taxi, but I don’t wait for the taxi because it gets full fast. Then it drops me near to the clinic. Then I walk to the clinic for 35 minutes.”

9. Taxis are often the only way ... “If you want to take your child to the clinic, there is no other way … you will have to use a taxi and it is expensive … there are many taxis available but the buses are only available to transport people who are going to work and students”

10. But they are unsafe “The taxis speed a lot and they don’t care about our lives” “It costs me R12 for a one way trip”

11. The ways are hard and fraught with dangers

12. Greater opportunities for change? • Build in public transport as the city grows • Promote localised self-sufficiency, including local job, distributive energy and local choice and decision-making • Improve safety, work conditions and customer service for the informal transport system that is currently in place • Integrate the informal and formal public transport system to a mobility network • Place limits on freeway systems in urban areas and replace with trains & buses and safe walking and cycling

13. A paradox …… • Many westernised countries are now learning the importance of small scale, community, localised and participation to solve environmental and social problems at the same time • Developing countries are moving away from this model and creating extensive envirionmeantal and social problems

14. Another paradox….. Those who are most in need of transport assistance are usually not the main beneficiaries of major transport projects • Informal system needs help with safety, improving stock quality, route coordination, staff training and support • Make room for alternative transport – walking, cycle, animals, etc.

15. State-of-the-art technology

16. Better assessments for M & L Source: Author, 2014

17. M&L also requires an integrated governance approach • Governance structures which includes community, bottom up decision-making • Meet basic needs on a local area basis – food, water tanks, energy generation and support with financial assistance where necessary • Improve local services infrastructure - housing health, schools, civic buildings and co-location of schools, shops, housing, jobs • Price all costs and benefits correctly – ecosystem services, natural resources, pollution • Integrate targets for transport, mobility & access within Social Millennium Goals

18. Key references • Lucas k., and Porter G. (2016) Mobilities and Livelihoods in Urban Development Contexts: an introduction Journal of Transport Geography 55: 129-131 • Dimitirou, H.T. (2011) ‘Transport and city development: understanding the fundamentals’ in Dimitirou, H.T. and Gakenheimer R. (eds.) Urban Transport in the Developing World: A Handbook of Policy and Practice Cheltenham: Edward Elgar • Salon, D. and Gulyani, S. (2010) ‘Mobility, Poverty and Gender: Travel ‘Choices’ of Slum Residents in Nairobi, Kenya’Transport Reviews 30: 5: 641-657. • Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, Penguin, London.

19. Morereading • Bryceson, D.F., Bradbury, A. and Bradbury, T. (2008) ‘Roads to Poverty Reduction? Exploring Rural Roads’ Impact on Mobility In Africa and Asia’Development Policy Review 26: 4: 459-482. • Dimitirou, H.T. (2011) ‘Transport and city development: understanding the fundamentals’ in Dimitirou, H.T. and Gakenheimer R. (eds.) Urban Transport in the Developing World: A Handbook of Policy and Practice Cheltenham: Edward Elgar • Fouracre P.R., Sohail M. and Cavill S. (2006) ‘A Participatory Approach to Urban Transport Planning in Developing Countries’Transport Planning and Technology 29/4: 313-330. • Lucas, K. (2011) ‘Making the connections between transport disadvantage and the social exclusion of low income populations in the Tshwane Region of South Africa’. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6): 1320-1334. • Salon, D. and Gulyani, S. (2010) ‘Mobility, Poverty and Gender: Travel ‘Choices’ of Slum Residents in Nairobi, Kenya’Transport Reviews 30: 5: 641-657. • Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, Penguin, London.

20. Thanks to: • Republic of South Africa Department for Transport • Marina Lombard, South Africa Transport Surveys • CNPq - Scientific Research Council of Brazil • Dr. Maria Leonor Maia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco • Dr. Geraldo Marinho, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco • Prof. Enilson Santos, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte • Milton Botler and staff of InsituoPelopidasSilveira, Prefectura Pernambuco • Scott Ferguson and Sustainable Transport Committee, Asian Development Bank • Ifigenia Psarra, Urban Planning Group, Department of Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology • Dr Juan Carrasco, University of Concepcion, Chile

21. And thanks to you for listening K.Lucas@leeds.ac.uk @drkarenlucas http:/www.leeds.ac.uk/people/k.lucas