Trip deprivation among older adults in the context of the capability approach

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103325Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Places transportation research in the context of the capability approach

  • Argues that trip deprivation reflects both capability and functioning

  • Examines trip deprivation among older adults in New Jersey with survey data

  • Logit model shows personal, relational, and household characteristics are important

  • Place variables such as jobs and transit stations and stops are not important

Abstract

Transportation researchers have been increasingly interested in integrating the capability approach (CA) into transportation equity analysis during the past decade. The limited number of empirical studies published in that context have assessed individuals' capabilities (i.e., freedom or opportunities) and functionings (i.e., achievements) by variables such as accessibility, transit availability, ability to use transit, ideal travel options versus actual travel, etc. This paper argues that trip deprivation can legitimately reflect both functioning and capability when deprivation is carefully defined. Using data from a recent survey of 3003 older adults in New Jersey, it subsequently compares the personal, household, and locational characteristics of the trip-deprived with the characteristics of other older adults with a multi-level logit model. The trip-deprived are defined in this research as people who had forgone trips for lacking transportation at least sometimes during a six-month period. Consistent with mainstream CA literature, evidence was found that trip deprivation is significantly explained by personal attributes, household resources, and relational support, but not by location-related variables such as jobs or transit stations/stops in municipalities. The results provide empirical evidence supporting recent theoretical studies in the CA context asserting that accessibility in equity analysis should be defined as the ease of travel for individuals instead of aggregation of proximate activities. The paper concludes by suggesting that meaningful questions about potential trips, deprived trips, and the importance of visiting specific activities should be included in the National Household Travel Survey as well as various metropolitan household travel surveys for improved transportation equity analysis.

Introduction

As a result of the growing dissatisfaction with conventional transportation equity analysis undertaken by planning agencies, researchers in America, Europe, and Asia have explored the integration of the capability approach (CA) expounded by Sen, 1979, Sen, 1987, Sen, 1993, Sen, 1999a, Sen, 2009a into transportation planning. Although Sen has convincingly demonstrated the limitations of other justice doctrines and made a strong case for considering capabilities and functionings for the assessment of quality of life, by his own admission (2009a, p. 232), the approach “does not, on its own, propose any specific formula for policy decision.” Because the concept evolved organically through Sen's publications in multiple disciplines, influential CA scholars (e.g., Robeyns, 2000, 2017; Alkire, 2005, Alkire, 2015; Gasper, 2007) have emphasized the importance of exercising caution when interpreting CA. Furthermore, because of the mostly theoretical nature of the mainstream CA literature, there exist many unresolved issues about the application of CA in empirical studies (Alkire, 2005, Alkire, 2015; Nussbaum, 2011). By taking advantage of the open-ended nature of CA, transportation researchers have analyzed different types of variables as representative of capabilities and functionings, including accessibility, transit availability, perceived ability to use public transit, ideal travel options, actual travel options, etc. Arguing on the basis of mainstream CA literature that the approach is fundamentally about deprivation of individuals with different levels of abilities and support mechanisms, this study assesses trip deprivation among older adults in the context of CA.

This paper contains two equally important components. The first is theoretical and the second is empirical. In the first, through a comprehensive review of mainstream CA literature, it identifies the salient features of CA, and subsequently, through a review of literature in transportation, examines how researchers have interpreted and applied CA concepts in transportation. Based on the review of the two streams of literature, an argument is made that trip deprivation is a legitimate measure to assess individuals' quality of life in the CA context because a properly defined variable on trip deprivation can reflect both capability and functioning. Because trip deprivation has been rarely studied in the realm of CA, a general review of literature on trip deprivation has been provided to emphasize the link between trip deprivation and well-being. In the empirical component of the paper, data are analyzed from a survey of older adults in New Jersey to examine the characteristics of the trip-deprived, defined as the people who could not make at least some trips for lacking transportation. Socioeconomic and residential location characteristics are compared between the trip-deprived and the non-trip-deprived based on basic statistical tests and a logit model.

This research is distinct from previous research for a number of reasons. First, it is the first study to consider trip deprivation as a measure of well-being in the context of CA. Second, it includes a comprehensive review of mainstream CA literature, including some of Sen's observations that have been missed by past studies in transportation. For that reason, this article includes more direct quotes than typical articles in transportation journals. Third, because the empirical results of the study are derived from statistical tests and a model that used a large integrated dataset containing survey data and location-specific secondary data, the results have utility for statewide transportation planning. Fourth, the results of this study provide empirical evidence in support of theoretical arguments made by other researchers, and thereby help to question conventional wisdom in transportation. Finally, because empirical studies in the realm of CA are rare in general, this study has the potential to provide insights and incentives to researchers beyond transportation.

Section snippets

Basic tenets of the capability approach

Sen (2009b, p.16) defined CA as “an intellectual discipline that gives a central role to the evaluation of a person's achievements and freedoms in terms of his or her actual ability to do the different things a person has reason to value doing or being.” In CA nomenclature, the word capability is used to describe freedom or real ability to choose, whereas the term functioning is used to describe achievements. As Sen (1987, p. 36) put it, “A functioning is an achievement, whereas a capability is

Survey of older adults in New Jersey

The primary data source for this research is an online survey of adults aged 55 or over (i.e., 55+) living in New Jersey. The one-time survey was conducted as part of a larger government-funded project to address the mobility needs and barriers of New Jersey's rapidly aging population. The link to the online survey was disseminated to potential respondents through the AARP and 17 other organizations engaged in service to older adults. Representatives of several of these organizations also

Analysis

The analysis consisted of cross-tabulation, ordinal correlation, and a random-intercept multi-level binary logit model. Cross-tabulation and correlation analysis were undertaken in an initial step to examine the potential association between municipality-level variables and trip deprivation of the survey respondents. For ease of understanding, the original municipality-level continuous variables (e.g., number of jobs, number of bus stops, proportion of households without cars, etc.) were

Discussion

The theoretical transportation literature in the CA context (e.g., Beyazit, 2011; Basta, 2016; Pereira et al., 2017; Banister, 2019) has tried to make sense of an enormous body of mainstream CA literature in the field of transportation that is still dependent on utilitarian concepts and methods for planning and forecasting purposes. On the other hand, empirical studies (e.g., Smith et al., 2012; Ryan et al., 2015; Hickman et al., 2017; Cao and Hickman, 2019a, Cao and Hickman, 2019b) have sought

Caveats and limitations

Care is needed in generalizing the study results in larger contexts because the empirical analysis in this paper was conducted with a dataset pertaining to older adults in New Jersey only. Although the survey data were collected from a large number of individuals and sampling biases were corrected to some extent by weighting the data by several demographic and socioeconomic variables, the survey was not conducted by using a random sampling method because of the high cost of such surveys.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Devajyoti Deka: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgement

The data analyzed in this paper were collected through a survey of older adults that was made possible by a grant from the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (NJDOT Contract No. 19­60158). However, the agencies bear no liability for its content or use. The author is solely responsible for any errors and omissions in the paper. The author thanks the reviewers for their comments on the original manuscript.

References (57)

  • J. Ryan et al.

    Exploring public transport as an element of older persons’ mobility: a capability approach perspective

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2015)
  • J. Ryan et al.

    Disparities in mobility among older people: findings from a capability-based travel survey

    Transp. Policy

    (2019)
  • M. Shirgaokar et al.

    Do rural older adults take fewer trips than their urban counterparts for lack of a ride?

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2020)
  • A. Siren et al.

    Private car as the grand equaliser? Demographic factors and mobility in Finnish men and women aged 65+

    Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav.

    (2004)
  • A. Siren et al.

    Baby boomers’ mobility patterns and preferences: what are the implications for future transport?

    Transp. Policy

    (2013)
  • N. Smith et al.

    Accessibility and capability: the minimum transport needs and costs of rural households

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2012)
  • M. Wachs et al.

    Physical accessibility as a social indicator

    Socio Econ. Plan. Sci.

    (1973)
  • S. Alkire

    Why the capability approach?

    J. Hum. Dev.

    (2005)
  • S. Alkire

    The Capability Approach and Wellbeing Measurement in Public Policy (OPHI Working Paper 94)

    (2015)
  • P.D. Allison

    Logistic Regression Using SAS®: Theory and Application

    (2012)
  • D. Banister

    Transport for all

    Transp. Rev.

    (2019)
  • C. Basta

    From justice in planning toward planning for justice: a capability approach

    Plan. Theory

    (2016)
  • E. Beyazit

    Evaluating social justice in transport: lessons to be learned from the capability approach

    Transp. Rev.

    (2011)
  • C. Bigonnesse et al.

    Ageing in place processes in the neighbourhood environment: a proposed conceptual framework from a capability approach

    Eur. J. Ageing

    (2021)
  • M. Cao et al.

    Urban transport and social inequities in neighbourhoods near underground stations in greater London

    Transp. Plan. Technol.

    (2019)
  • F. Di Ciommo et al.

    Transport equity analysis

    Transp. Rev.

    (2017)
  • M. Ene et al.

    Multilevel models for categorical data using SAS PROC GLIMMIX: The basics

  • FHWA (Federal Highway Administration)

    2017 National Household Travel Survey

    (2017)
  • View full text