, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 953–966 | Cite as

Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage

  • Graham CurrieEmail author
  • Alexa Delbosc


This paper presents the results of a research project aiming to develop a robust empirical model to measure links between transport disadvantage (TD), social exclusion (SE) and well-being (WB). Its principal aim is to improve on current research methods in this field. Existing approaches derive associations between TD and its impacts through simple comparative methods, through qualitative methods and using limited and prescriptive definitions of SE. The new method draws from an interview questionnaire measuring TD through self-reported difficulties with transport. A principal components analysis of responses identifies four statistically significant sub-scales (transit disadvantage, transport disadvantage, vulnerable/impaired and rely on others). SE is represented in five dimensions including income, unemployment, political engagement, participation in activities and social support networks. Well-being adopts standard psychological measures—‘Satisfaction With Life Scale’ (SWLS), ‘Positive Affect’ (PA) and ‘Negative Affect’ (NA). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to model links between TD, SE and WB. A hypothesised model proposed negative associations between SE and WB and between TD and WB and a positive association between TD and SE. Modelling results showed that scales used to measure TD, SE and WB were all statistically related to their underlying concepts. Modelling of the hypothesised links between constructs was generally favourable with a good statistical fit. However the relationship between TD and WB was not significant. An exploratory analysis supported the hypothesis that this was caused by high reported travel difficulties for both highly mobile and less mobile people. A revised theoretical model explored the theory that feelings of isolation due to time poverty might be mediating the TD-WB link. SEM analysis of the revised model confirmed a good model fit with statistically significant measures between TD, time poverty and WB. Time poverty was not found to be associated with social exclusion. The final model suggested that TD is positively associated with SE with a measured strength of .27. SE is strongly negatively associated with WB (−.87). TD is positively associated with time poverty (.19) while time poverty is negatively associated with well-being (−.14). Areas for future research are identified.


Transport disadvantage Social exclusion Well-being Structural equation model 


  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Household income and income distribution, 2005–06. Report 6523.0 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. Banister, D., Bowling, A.: Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transp. Policy 11, 105–115 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhalla, A., Lapeyre, F.: Social exclusion: towards and analytical and operational framework. Dev Change 28, 413–433 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boarini, R., Johansson A., d’Ercole, M.M.: Alternative measures of well-being. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 33 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Burchardt, T.: Social exclusion: concepts and evidence. In: Gordon, D., Townsend, P. (eds.) Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty, pp. 385–403. Policy Press, Bristol (2000)Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, B.M.: Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Task Force. Context for social exclusion work. (2009). Accessed 6 Feb 2009
  8. Capability Scotland: The influence of public transport provision on the social exclusion of disabled people in Scotland (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Casas, I.: Social exclusion and the disabled: an accessibility approach. The Prof Geogr 59(4), 463–477 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero, R.: Job isolation in the US: narrowing the gap through job access and reverse-commute programs. In: Lucas, K. (ed.) Running on Empty: Transport Social Exclusion and Environmental Justice, pp. 181–196. The Policy Press, Bristol (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Church, A., Frost, M., Sullivan, K.: Transport and social exclusion in London. Transp. Policy 7(3), 195–205 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. A.: Life satisfaction: measurement issues and a homeostatic model. In: Zumbo, B. (ed.) Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research Methods: Methodological Developments and Issues, Yearbook, 1999. Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  13. Currie, G.: Gap analysis of public transport needs: measuring spatial distribution of public transport needs and identifying gaps in the quality of public transport provision. Transp. Res. Rec. 1895, 137–146 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currie, G.: Young Australians: no way to go. In: Currie, G., Stanley, J., Stanley, J. (eds.) No Way to Go: Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities. Monash University ePress, Clayton (2007)Google Scholar
  15. Currie, G.: Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.12.002
  16. Currie, G., Delbosc, A.: Quantifying Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social Exclusion. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  17. Delbosc, A., Currie G.: Transport problems that matter—social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. J. Transp. Geogr. (2010). Published on line doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.01.003
  18. Department for Transport: Focus on personal travel: including the report of the National Travel Survey 2002/2003 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. Department for Transport: Guidance on accessibility planning in local transport plans. (2006). Accessed 2 June 2009
  20. Diener, E.: Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 95(3), 542–575 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S.: The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 49(1), 71–75 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., Sipe N.: Transport Disadvantage and Social Status: A Review of Literature and Methods. Urban Policy Program, Griffith University (2004)Google Scholar
  23. Dodson, J., Buchanan, N., Gleeson, B., Sipe, N.: Investigating the social dimensions of transport disadvantage—I. Towards new concepts and methods. Urban Policy Res. 24(4), 433–453 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fritze, J.: You Might as Well Just Stay Home: Young Mums and Transport in Victoria, pp. 1–40. Victorian Council of Social Services, Melbourne, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Hine, J.: Transport disadvantage and social exclusion in Urban Scotland. Built Environ. 30(2), 161–171 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson, F.C., Turner, J.: Participation not consumption: the need for new participatory practices to address transport and social exclusion. Transp. Policy 10, 265–272 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmes, K., Clifford, S., Gregory, K., Mabelis, J.: ECLIPSE: Good Practice Review—Final Version Year Two. European Commission (2007)Google Scholar
  28. Hu, P.S., Reuscher T.: Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation (2004)Google Scholar
  29. Hurni, A.: Transport and Social Exclusion in Western Sydney. Australasian Transport Research Forum, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Hurni, A.: Marginalised groups in western Sydney: the experience of sole parents and unemployed young people. In: Currie, G., Stanley, J., Stanley, J. (eds.) No Way to Go: Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities. Monash University, Melbourne (2007)Google Scholar
  31. Kahn, R.L., Juster, F.T.: Well being: concepts and measures. J. Soc. Issues 58(4), 627–644 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kish, L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  33. Lenoir, R.: Les exclus, un français sur dix, 2nd edn. Editions du Seuil, Paris (1974/1989)Google Scholar
  34. Lucas, K.: Transport and Social Exclusion: A Survey of the Group of Seven Nations. FIA Foundation, London (2004)Google Scholar
  35. Lucas, R.E., Diener, E.: Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71(3), 616–628 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., Sugawara, H.M.: Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychol. Methods 1, 130–149 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mollenkopf, H., Baas, S., Marcellini, F., Oswald, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M., Wahl, H.-W.: Mobility and quality of life. In: Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M. (eds.) Enhancing Mobility in Later Life. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  38. Penfold, C., Cleghorn, N., Creegan, C., Neil, H., Webster, S.: Travel behaviour, experiences and aspirations of disabled people. National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). (2008)
  39. Rajé, F.: The impact of transport on social exclusion processes with specific emphasis on road user charging. Transp. Policy 10, 321–338 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schonfelder, S., Axhausen, K.: Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transp. Policy 10, 273–286 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spinney, J.E.L., Scott, D.M., Newbold, K.B.: Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: a time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transp. Policy 16(1), 1–11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stanley, J., Stanley, J.: Public transport and social policy goals. Road Transp. Res. 16(1), 20–30 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. The Centre for Bhutan Studies: Gross national happiness. (2009). Accessed 29 May 2009
  44. The Urban Transport Institute: Victorian integrated survey of travel & activity 2007–08: Survey procedures and documentation, The Victorian Department of Transport (2008)Google Scholar
  45. Titheridge, H., Solomon, J.: Social Exclusion, Accessibility and Lone Parents. UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference, Belfast (2008)Google Scholar
  46. UK Social Exclusion Unit: Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (UK) (2003)Google Scholar
  47. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54(6), 1063–1070 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, D.: The life and death of cars: private vehicles on the Pitjanjatjara Lands, south Australia. In: Miller, D. (ed.) Car Cultures, pp. 35–58. Oxford, Berg (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Transport StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations