Confirman resolución que declaró improcedente solicitud de inscripción
RESOLUCIÓN Nº 849-2014-JNE Expediente Nº J-2014-0
In recent years, there has been a surge of studies in the field of transport and social exclusion research. While these studies have considerably deepened our knowledge of transport disadvantage, they have generally remained separate from studies concerned with the negative environmental consequences of transport. In this article, based on existing literature on car dependence and on travel and the built environment, I put forward an integrated theoretical framework to conceptualise both the environmental and the social consequences of increasing motorisation.
There are two main reasons why these two aspects should be studied together. Firstly, most environmental policy in the field of transport makes
, including not only the goal of reducing environmental externalities, but also contrasting social inequalities. Secondly (and relatedly), scholars have observed that there is sometimes a tension between these two goals (Lucas, Grosvenor, & Simpson, 2001; Cucca & Tacchi, 2012) and that this can be an obstacle to environmental policy-making (Mattioli, 2013b). Recognition of this latent tension has underpinned a recent attempt by the British
31
Sustainable Development Commission to put forward an integrated policy framework to tackle both the social and the environmental consequences of transport (2011). In a nutshell, the
Commission where higher priority is given to
measures that reduce the need to travel, such as changing land use and the built environment
(minimising distances between destinations) and tions
to accessibility problems using ICTs (see Kenyon, Lyons& Rafferty, 2002). Conversely, lower priority should be given to other sustainable transport measures, such as modal shift, efficiency improvements and capacity increases for powered transport. The goal of the
-
negative environmental impacts of transport and transport disadvantage, are implemented.
The theoretical framework put forward in this article, based on the notion of car dependence as a self-reinforcing process with both social and environmental consequences, is intended to be a contribution to this debate.
From an empirical viewpoint, the goal of this article was to show how the composition and travel behaviour of the group of households without cars changes systematically across different types of area. Based on the empirical results for the British case study, I put forward the argument that the composition of the group of households without cars is a good indicator for the level of car dependence in a local area.
By showing the variety of situations that correspond to non-car ownership, the findings reported in this article are potentially useful for sustainable transport policy and research, both in terms of environmental and social goals.
Studies assuming an environmental perspective have shown the variety of situations that corresponds to car ownership, both in terms of socio-demographic conditions and of preferences. This reflects the policy goal of encouraging modal shift and multimodal travel
32
behaviour among car users. The variety of situations that correspond to non-car ownership has received comparatively less attention, perhaps reflecting the assumption that the travel behaviour of the carless is less problematic from an environmental perspective.
I argue by contrast that studying the composition of the group of carless households is a good way to reveal the structural constraints that sustain car ownership and use. In other words, looking at who non-car owning households are and how they travel sheds light on why many others are reluctant to make do without cars in that area. The results of the cluster analysis provide several interesting examples of this. The fact that the PTC cluster is only of a significant size in the largest urban areas, for example, could be taken to indicate that it is only in that type of area that accessing employment and education with public transport is possible without excessive inconvenience. Similarly, the size of the SL cluster might indicate the extent to which it is possible to access other essential services and opportunities with modal alternatives to the car. Finally, the results show that the CR and IM clusters are best conceived as the hard core of the carless and represent approximately the same share of the total population across types of area12: they are associated mainly with old age, mobility difficulties, low mobility levels and/or reliance on others for car lifts. When most of the carless group is composed of this kind of household, it suggests that powerful structural constraints stand in the way of more environmentally sustainable travel patterns in that area.
Studies in the transport and social exclusion research field have devoted considerable attention to the issue of car deprivation. However, they often focus on the most marginal and immediately policy-relevant types of carless households. An inadvertent outcome of this
12
It must be remembered, however, that the analysis focuses exclusively on individuals in non-car
owning households. In fact, s
33
situation is that the overall view of the sheer variety of forms of transport disadvantage associated with lack of car access is lost.
In this article, I have put forward a typology of carless households, based on their travel behaviour, showing how it is articulated across different types of area. This counters the simplistic assumption that lack of car ownership is per se conducive to transport disadvantage, and the typology might serve as a blueprint for further studies based on ad-hoc surveys or adopting a qualitative approach. In the following, I provide two examples of possible research directions.
The CR cluster is interesting in that it shows how older non-drivers (more than 60% do not have a driving licence) can also be very dependent on the automobile for their daily activities. When this is the case, they are very much dependent on others for travel. Existing literature suggests that such reliance on car lifts, while it can partially offset their transport disadvantage (Gray, Shaw & Farrington, 2006), can be a burden for those who offer lifts (Rosenbloom, 2010) and challenge the sense of independence of the elderly (Davey, 2007), with potential knock-on effects on their well-being (Currie, 2011).The fact that CR is the largest cluster in the most car dependent areas suggests that measures such as car clubs / car sharing are unlikely to reduce the transport disadvantage of non-car owning individuals in these areas, since most of them are unable to drive anyway13. Other measures, such as community transport, are probably better suited to improve the living conditions of older people and of their car-owning relatives and friends.
I are the polar opposite of CR. However, it
would be unwise to conclude that they are not at any kind of disadvantage: the vast amount of
34
time that individuals in the PTC group spend travelling (one hour more than the average Briton) and the fact that they do not seem to travel much for reasons other than work or education, for example, both suggest that the lack of a household car for these individuals might lead to them missing out on activities that are essential for participation in society, as a consequence of time poverty. The results of the analysis presented here suggest that this particular form of transport disadvantage perhaps counter intuitively might be more widespread in the least car dependent areas.
Acknowledgements:
This article is based on the PhD thesis "Where sustainable transport and social exclusion meet: households without cars and car dependence in Germany and Great Britain" defended in July 2013 at the University of Milan-Bicocca, in the context of the European doctoral programme in U L E “ U‘BEU‘. The scholarship was funded from 2009 to 2012 by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research.
35
References:
Anggraini, R., Arentze, T. A., & Timmermans, H. J. (2008). Car allocation between household heads in car deficient households: a decision model. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research , 8 (4), 301-319. http://www.ejtir.tudelft.nl/
Blumenberg, E., & Manville, M. (2004). Beyond the spatial mismatch: welfare recipients and transport policy. Journal of Planning Literature , 19, 182-205. doi: 10.1177/0885412204269103 Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 354-367. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008
Clifton, K., & Lucas, K. (2004). Examining the empirical evidence of transport inequality in the US and UK. In K. Lucas (Ed.), Running on empty. Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Cucca, R., & Tacchi, E. M. (2012). Tradeoffs and entanglements among sustainability dimensions: the case of accessibility as a missing pillar of sustainable mobility policies in Italy.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8 (1), 70-81. http://sspp.proquest.com
Currie, G. (Ed.). (2011). New perspectives and methods in transport and social exclusion research. Bingley: Emerald.
Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2011a). Transport disadvantage: a review. In G. Currie (Ed.), New perspectives and methods in transport and social exclusion research (pp. 15-26). Bingley: Emerald.
Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2011b). Mobility vs. affordability as motivations for car-ownership choice in urban fringe, low-income Australia. In K. Lucas, E. Blumenberg, & R. Weinberger (Ed.),
Auto motives. Understanding car use behaviours. Bingley: Emerald.
Currie, G., Stanley, J., & Stanley, J. (Ed.). (2007). No way to go. Transport and social disadvantage in Australian communities. Clayton: Monash University Press.
Dargay, J. (2002). Determinants of car ownership in rural and urban areas: a pseudo-panel analysis. Transportation Research E, 38, 351-366. doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(01)00019-9
Dargay, J., Gately, D., & Sommer, M. (2007). Vehicle ownership and income growh, worldwide: 1960-2030. Energy Journal, 28 (4), 163-190. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-7 Davey, J. A. (2007). Older people and transport: coping without a car. Ageing and Society , 27, 49-65. doi:10.1017/S0144686X06005332
de Jong, G., Fox, J., Daly, A., Pieters, M., & Smith, R. (2004). A comparison of car ownership models. Transport Reviews , 24 (4), 379-408. doi:10.1080/0144164032000138733
36
Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2012). Choice and disadvantage in low-car ownership households.
Transport Policy , 23, 8-14. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.006 Dennis, K., & Urry, J. (2009). After the car. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Department for Transport. (2012) National Travel Survey, 2002-2010 [computer file]. 7th Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]. SN: 5340. doi:10.5255/UKDA-SN- 5340-3
Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2007). Oil vulnerability in the Australian city: assessing socioeconomic risks from higher urban fuel prices. Urban Studies, 44 (1), 37-62. doi:10.1080/00420980601023810
Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., & Sipe, N. (2004). Transport disadvantage and social status: a review of literature and methods. Brisbane: Griffith University, Urban Policy Program, Research Monograph 5. Retrieved from Griffith University website: http://www.griffith.edu.au/
Dupuy, G. (1999). From the "magic circle" to "automobile dependence" : measurements and political implications. Transport Policy, 6, 1-17. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00028-6
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 265-294. doi:10.1080/01944361003766766
Farber, S., & Páez, A. (2011). Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of of automobile oriented land-use and travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 782-793. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.09.008
Gray, D., Shaw, J., & Farrington, J. (2006). Community transport, social capital and social exclusion in rural areas. Area, 38 (1), 89-98. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00662.x
Gray, D., Farrington, J., Shaw, J., Martin, S., & Roberts, D. (2001). Car dependence in rural Scotland: transport policy, devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, 113-125. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00035-8
Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: what does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28 (2), 146-167. doi: 10.1177/0160017604273626
Hine, J., & Mitchell, F. (2003). Transport disadvantage and social exclusion. Exclusionary mechanisms in transport and urban Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion with through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 207-219. doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00012-1
Knowles, R. D. (2006). Transport shaping space: differential collapse in time-space. Journal of Transport Geography , 14, 407-425. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.07.001
37
Kwon, T.-H., & Preston, J. (2005). Driving forces behind the growth of per-capita driving distance in the UK, 1970-2000. Transport Reviews, 25, 467-490. doi:10.1080/0144164052000336489
Lucas, K. (2003). Transport and social exclusion: a G7 comparison study. Annual European Transport Conference. Strasbourg. Retrieved from Act Travelwise website: http://www.acttravelwise.org
Lucas, K. (2004). Towards a 'social welfare' approach to transport. In K. Lucas (Ed.), Running on empty. Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice (pp. 291-298). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Lucas, K., & Jones, P. (2009). The Car in British Society. London: RAC Foundation. Retrieved from RAC foundation website: http://www.racfoundation.org
Lucas, K., Grosvenor, T., & Simpson, R. (2001). Transport, the environment and social exclusion.
Retrieved from Joseph Rowntree Foundation website:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859352936.pdf
Mattioli, G. (2013a). Different worlds of non-motoring: households without cars in Germany. In J. Scheiner, H.-H. Blotevogel, S. Frank, C. Holz-Rau, N. Schuster (Eds.), Mobilitäten und
Immobilitäten(pp. 207-216). Essen: Klartext.
Mattioli, G. (2013b). Car dependence, sustainability and the transport policy stalemate: the potential trade-offs between intra- and intergenerational equity. The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, 8 (1), 45-57. http://ijspp.cgpublisher.com/
Motte-Baumvol, B., Massot, M.-H., & Byrd, A. M. (2010). Escaping car dependence in the outer suburbs of Paris. Urban studies, 47, 604-619. doi:10.1177/0042098009349773
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Washington DC: Island Press.
Næss, P. (2009). Residential self-selection and appropriate control variables in land use: travel studies. Transport Reviews , 29 (3), 293-324. doi: 10.1080/01441640802710812
Paaswell, R. E., & Recker, W. W. (1976). Problems of the carless (Report prepared for the U.S.
Department of Transportation). Retrieved from:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/7295651-AehF8m/7295651.pdf
Polacchini, A., & Orfeuil, J.-P. (1999). Les dépenses pour le logement et pour les transports des
ménages franciliens. Recherche Transport Sécurité, 63.
http://www.springer.com/engineering/journal/13547
Rofique, J., Humphrey, A., Pickering, K., & Tipping, S. (2011). National Travel Survey 2010 - Technical Report. Retrieved from Department for Transport website: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/national-travel-survey/nts2010-technical.pdf
38
Rosenbloom, S. (2001). Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: an international assessment. Transportation , 28, 375-408. doi:10.1023/A:1011802707259
Schäfer, A., Heywood, J. B., Jacoby, H. D., & Waitz, I. A. (2009). Transportation in a climate- constrained world. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Scheiner, J., & Holz-Rau, C. (2012). Gendered travel mode choice: a focus on car-deficient households. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 250-261. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.011 Simma, A., & Axhausen, K. (2001). Structures of commitment in mode use: a comparison of Switzerland, Germany and Great Britain. Transport Policy, 8, 279-288. doi:10.1016/S0967- 070X(01)00023-3
Smith, N., Hirsch, D., & Davis, A. (2012). Accessibility and capability: the minimum transport needs and costs of rural household. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 93-101. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.004
Stead, D., & Marshall, S. (2001). The relationship between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1 (2), 113-141. http://www.ejtir.tudelft.nl/
Stradling, S. G. (2003). Reducing car dependence. In J. Hine& J. Preston (Eds.), Integrated futures and transport choices. UK transport policy beyond the 1998 White Paper and Transport Acts. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Sustainable Development Commission. (2011). Fairness in a car dependent society. Retrieved from: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf Taylor, J., Barnard, M., Neil, H., & Creegan, C. (2009). The travel choices and needs of low income households: the role of the car (Report Prepared by the National Centre for Social Research for the Department of Transport). Retrieved from the UK Transport Research Centre website: http://www.uktrc.ac.uk/
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies. Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 65-74. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006
39
Online figures
Households without cars NTS 2002-2010 sample Single-person units 57 29 No member under 16 83 73 Female HRP 60 37 Age of HRP 16-29 15 10 30-59 36 56 60+ 49 34
At least one member with mobility difficulties 37 23
HRP not in employment 70 39
Income quintile: lowest or second 70 40
Tab. online 1 Composition of the carless households group, for key socio-demographic characteristics, as compared to the NTS 2002-2010 sample (percentage values). Source: own elaboration on NTS 2002-2010 data.
Slow and local Car reliant Public transport commuters Long distance week Travel week Distance travelled (km) -0.28 -0.18 -0.01 +2.87 Average Speed (kmh) -0.42 +0.34 -0.25 +2.46
Share of travel distance by car, taxi and other private motorised modes
-0.63 +1.30 -0.42 +0.36
Share of trips for work / education -0.53 -0.49 +1.63 +0.16
Tab. online 2 Cluster analysis results, values of the centroids (standardized input variables). Source: own elaboration on NTS 2002-2010 data.
40 Slow and local Car reliant Public transport commuters Immobile Long distance week Carless adults Household structure 1 or 2 adults youngest child 0- 15 19 16 31 10 14 20 Family adult child(ren) 11 8 15 13 9 12 Pensioner household 41 56 2 53 24 35 Other household 29 20 52 24 53 33 Singles 41 54 18 46 38 39 Age 16-29 21 15 45 17 34 25 30-59 33 24 51 23 39 35 60+ 46 61 4 61 27 40
Mobility difficulties (foot and/or
bus) 21 45 3 51 11 24 Income quintile Lowest 48 42 29 43 28 41 Second 29 33 22 31 21 28 Third or higher 23 25 49 26 51 31
Tab. online 3 Typology of carless adults: descriptive statistics for selected socio-demographic and mobility difficulties variables. Source: own elaboration on NTS 2002-2010 data.
Fig. online 1 V M F -R2 for logistic regression models including only socio-demographic predictors, fitted separately for the different types of area. Source: own elaboration on NTS 2002-2010 data.
41
Fig. online 2 Total annual distance per person (km), by transport mode and type of area, for car-owning individuals. Source: own elaboration on NTS 2002-2010 data.