Advertisement

Operationalizing the Capabilities Approach for Modeling Household Welfare Shifts in Urban Systems: A Special Focus on the Transportation Outcomes of Urban Resettlement

  • Xin YangEmail author
  • Jennifer Day
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

This paper operationalizes the Sen-Nussbaum Capabilities Approach (CA) towards measuring household well-being shifts that occur in response to resettlement of urban households. In this chapter, household welfare (we often use the term ‘household well-being’ interchangeably) refers to the quality of people’s lives; urban resettlement is defined as the relocation of residence and/or jobs. With a particular focus on the accessibility and mobility outcomes of urban resettlement, this chapter provides a critical survey of the current quantitative modeling approaches to modelling the impacts of urban resettlement on household well-being. We identify major methodological limitations in the current quantitative approaches, including: (1) structural dependence on instrumental rationality as the guiding framework for representing people’s behavior and welfare after resettlement; and (2) neglect of agency and choice in evaluating the welfare outcomes of resettlement. We then argue that these methodological limitations can be ameliorated based on applying the CA. Our proposed CA-based quantitative models improve upon existing models by incorporating representation of: (1) the presence of a wider range of rationalities in people’s location and travel choices after resettlement, e.g., possible “suboptimal” choices that people may make due to constrains in their decision-making processes; (2) the plurality in agency, i.e., interpersonal diversity in viewing and pursuing well-being after resettlement; and (3) the critical role of real choice, i.e., having real opportunities to choose where to live and how to travel. Such modeling practices could better represent people’s reasons for making location and travel decisions after resettlement, thus generating a more reflective representation of resettlement-welfare outcomes.

Keywords

Mode Choice Location Choice Capability Approach Housing Cost Urban Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander, E.R.: Rationality revisited: planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 19(3), 242–256 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, W.: Location and Land Use: Toward A General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B.: Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. Int. J. of Res. Mark. 12(1), 9–24 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Cascetta, E., Papola, A.: Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand. Transp. Res. C 9, 249–263 (2001) Google Scholar
  6. Cervero, R., Golub, A., Nee, B.: City CarShare: longer-term travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1992(1), 70–80 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherry, C., Cervero, R.: Use characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike users in China. Transp. Policy 14(3), 247–257 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, J.: Effects of involuntary residential relocation on household satisfaction in Shanghai, China. Urban Policy Res. 31(1), 93–117 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day, J., Cervero, R.: Effects of residential relocation on household and commuting expenditures in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34(4), 762–788 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deding, M., Filges, T.: Geographical mobility of Danish dual-earner couples: the relationship between change of job and change of residence. J. Reg. Sci. 50(2), 615–634 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faludi, A.: A Decision-Centred View of Environmental Planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  12. Friedmann, J.: Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1987)Google Scholar
  13. Friedmann, J. (2012). The good city: in defense of Utopian thinking. In: Fainstein, S.S., Campbell, S. (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory (3rd edn). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  14. Golub, A., Balassiano, R., Araújo, A., Ferreira, E.: Regulation of the informal transport sector in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: welfare impacts and policy analysis. Transp. 36(5), 601–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, P., Richardson, H.W., Jun, M.: The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 57, 416–420 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haas, A., Osland, L.: Commuting, migration, housing and labour markets: complex interactions. Urban Stud. 51(3), 463–476 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutabarat Lo, R.S.: Walkability planning in Jakarta. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California Transportation Center. University of California Transportation Center, UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05p5r596 (2011)
  19. Kuklys, W., Robeyns, I.: Sen’s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics. In: Kuklys, W. (ed.) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical insights and empirical applications, pp. 9–30. Springer, Berlin, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, S., Song, Y.: Redevelopment, displacement, housing conditions, and residential satisfaction: a study of Shanghai. Environ. Plann. A 41(5), 1090–1108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski, C.: The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis. 8(3), 229–254 (1977)Google Scholar
  22. Nussbaum, M.C.: Creating capabilities: the human development approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(2), 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robeyns, I.: The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J. Hum. Dev. 6(1), 93–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sen, A.: Capability and well-being. In: Sen, A., Nussbaum, M.C. (eds.) The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  26. Sen, A.: Rationality and Freedom. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Sen, A.: Inequality Reexamined. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1992)Google Scholar
  28. Simon, H.A.: Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 129–138 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swait, J., Ben-Akiva, M.: Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: Mode choice in São Paulo, Brazil. Transp. Res. B: Meth. 21(2), 103–115 (1987)Google Scholar
  30. Swait, J.: Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models. Transp. Res. B: Meth. 35(7), 643–666 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. Talvitie, A.: Things planners believe in, and things they deny. Transp. 24, 1–31 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Ommeren, J., Rietveld, P., Nijkamp, P.: Job moving, residential moving, and commuting: a search perspective. J. Urban Econ. 46(2), 230–253 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Willson, R.: Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transp. 28(1), 1–31 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang, X., Day, J.: Operationalizing the Capabilities Approach for Urban Policy Evaluation: The Travel Welfare Impacts of Government Job Resettlement. Geographical Research 35, 113–137 Forum (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations