Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“The difference to current ways of assessing transport schemes: Social inclusion and equality considerations are often secondary in transport decision-making when compared to factors such as journey time savings and economic benefits. The emphasis on these factors is entrenched in practice and policy and results in fundamentally different decisions to what would be the case if equivalent emphasis were placed on social inclusion.”(Transport for the North [9] (p. 27).)
2. Literature Review
- Household income—less than a threshold of AUD 500 gross per week (AUD 2008 prices, when the survey was undertaken), which was the highest level of welfare payment at that time;
- Employment status—not employed, in education or training, nor looking after family or undertaking voluntary activities;
- Political activity—did not contribute to/participate in a government political party, campaign or action group to improve social/environmental conditions, or to a local community committee/group in the past 12 months;
- Participation—did not attend one of the following: a library, sporting or exercise event (participant or spectator), hobby, leisure or interest group, or arts or cultural event in the past month;
- Social support—not able to get help if you need it from close or extended family, friends or neighbours.
3. Materials and Methods
- social exclusion: the existence of barriers which make it difficult or impossible for people to participate fully in their society. Policy-related barriers are of particular interest for this research;
- accessibility: the ease with which a person, from a particular place, can reach particular services, locations and/or other people;
- mobility: the ease with which a person moves around (measured here by trip-making);
- social capital: the benefit a person derives from social networks, trust and reciprocity within a community (or communities), with bridging and bonding social capital associated with social networks the main research focus here [70,71]. While social capital is a widely used term, it remains a controversial concept, as there is no agreed or consistent definition or measurement. Yet, there are agreed concepts around networks, trust and reciprocity and also about the difference between bonding and bridging forms of social capital. The authors have used networks because of the obvious connection between networks and mobility, the main research focus. In addition, it could be argued that trust and reciprocity are more likely to develop if people can meet and form networks (Trust was tried as an additional explanatory variable in modelling but did not contribute significantly to risk of social exclusion. However, trust is highly correlated with bridging (p = 0.035) and bonding social capital (p < 0.001) networks, suggesting that building those networks will support development of trust);
- transport disadvantage: a situation where people experience a shortage of transport options and/or have restricted ability to use available options, which inhibits their mobility and hence their access to goods, services, places and/or relationships [55];
- wellbeing: a person’s rating of their quality of life. The current paper includes evaluative wellbeing, which is a measure of overall life satisfaction, called subjective wellbeing herein [74,75]. Related research [24] also considers affective wellbeing, which is an assessment of positive and negative emotional states [76,77] (negative affect is not significant in the research modelling of risk of social exclusion and is not discussed further) and eudaimonic wellbeing, which refers to living a life with meaning and purpose, a desire to grow and develop to one’s full potential [50,78]. The focus herein on subjective wellbeing is because of the paper’s intention of exploring the idea of a subjective wellbeing threshold being required for inclusion. Also, subjective wellbeing is the most widely used wellbeing indicator in appraisal/impact assessment settings. Interested readers are referred to Stanley et al. [24] for monetary values of affective and eudaimonic wellbeing.
4. Results
4.1. Modelling Risk of Social Exclusion
- a significant association between increased subjective wellbeing and reduced risk of social exclusion but this only applies for those with the lowest levels of subjective wellbeing (i.e., PWI1 = PWI score below six out of 10), supporting the idea that a wellbeing threshold is important for inclusion. The 0.896 co-efficient attached to PWI1 infers that someone whose subjective wellbeing level is in category PWI1 is 2.45 times (95% CI = 1.29 to 4.65) more likely to be in a higher risk level for social exclusion than someone with the highest level of PWI (=PWI5, the reference level for this variable). Alternative cut-points between PWI categories were tested during model development, the significance of this variable typically applying up to a score of around six, so whole number cut-points have been used for ease of interpretation;
- moving someone from a low to medium or medium to high level of both bridging and bonding social capital reduces risk of exclusion;
- moving someone to a higher level of sense of community also reduces exclusion risk throughout the category ranges of this variable;
- risk of social exclusion is expected to be reduced if the socio-economic status of the most disadvantaged postcode areas is increased.
4.2. Monetisation of Main Pathway Variables
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Characteristics | Sample (N = 765) (Labour Force) (%) | Melbourne Statistical Division (Labour Force) (%) |
---|---|---|
Labour force status | ||
Full-time | 18.1 (37.0) | 42.2 (64.9 a) |
Part-time or casual | 21.4 (43.8) | 19.2 (27.7 a) |
Unemployed | 9.4 (19.3) | 3.7 (5.3 a) |
Retired | 20.2 | 10.4 b |
Study | 16.7 | 5.8 b |
Home duties | 5.7 | 10.4 b |
Age | ||
15–17 | 17.1 | 4.8 |
18–39 | 25.6 | 40.7 |
40–64 | 38.4 | 38.7 |
65+ | 18.9 | 15.8 |
Education | ||
Some primary school | 0.5 | Na |
Finished primary school | 0.5 | Na |
Some secondary school | 43.2 | Na |
Finished secondary school | 15.2 | 17.2 |
Diploma/Certificate | 20.4 | 22.3 |
Degree | 11.5 | 18.5 |
Post-graduate | 8.7 | 9.0 |
Country of birth | ||
Australia | 77.2 | 64.1 |
English speaking | 8.7 | 15.2 |
Non-English-speaking country | 14.2 | 20.7 |
References
- The World Commission on Environment and Development, Commission. For the Future Our Common Future: United Nations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- HM Treasury. The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.gihub.org/resources/publications/the-green-book-central-government-guidance-on-appraisal-and-evaluation/ (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- NSW Treasury. TPG 23—08: NSW Government Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis; NSW Treasury: Sydney, Australia, 2023. Available online: https://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-04/tpg23-08_nsw-government-guide-to-cost-benefit-analysis_202304.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Hickman, R.; Dean, M. Incomplete cost—incomplete benefit analysis in transport appraisal. Transp. Rev. 2017, 38, 689–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, C.; Pearce, D.; Stanley, J. An evaluation of cost-benefit analysis criteria Scott. J. Political Econ. 1975, XXII, 121–134. [Google Scholar]
- Vella-Brodrick, D.; Stanley, J. The significance of transport mobility in predicting well-being. Transp. Policy 2013, 29, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mella Lira, B. Why the capability approach can offer an alternative to transport project appraisal. In A Companion to Transport: Space and Equity; Hickman, R., Mella Lira, B., Givoni, M., Geurs, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J.; Stanley, J.; Hansen, R. How Great Cities Happen: Integrating People, Land Use and Transport, 2nd ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Transport for the North. Socially Inclusive Transport Strategy: Draft for Consultation; Transport for the North: Manchester, UK, 2022; Available online: https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TFN_SociallyInclusive_Draft-for-consultation.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Mayor of London. The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London; Greater London Authority: London, UK, 2021. Available online: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Metro Vancouver. Metro 2050: Regional Growth Strategy; Metro Vancouver: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2022; Available online: www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/Metro2050.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development: The 17 Goals. 2023. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- The Treasury. The Living Standards Framework (LSF); The Treasury: Wellington, New Zealand, 2021. Available online: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/tp/living-standards-framework-2021-html (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Betts, J. Transport and social disadvantage in Victoria. In No Way to Go: Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities; Currie, G., Stanley, J., Stanley, J., Eds.; Monash EPress: Melbourne, Australia, 2007; pp. 12.1–12.18. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J.; Stanley, J. Public transport and social inclusion. In The Routledge Handbook of Public Transport; Mulley, C., Nelson, J., Ison, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 367–380. [Google Scholar]
- Musgrave, R. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson, W.; Pickett, P. Income inequality and social dysfunction Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009, 35, 493–511. [Google Scholar]
- Pigou, A. The Economics of Welfare; McMillan and Co.: London, UK, 1920. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J. Opportunity equity in strategic urban land use transport planning: Directions in London and Vancouver. Transp. Policy 2023, 136, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adli, S.; Chowdury, S.; Shiftan, Y. Justice in public transport systems: A comparative study of Auckland, Brisbane, Perth and Vancouver. Cities 2020, 90, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randal, E.; Shaw, C.; Woodward, A.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Macmillan, A.; Hosking, J.; Chapman, R.; Waa, A.; Keall, M. Fairness in transport policy: A new approach to applying distributive justice theories. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Hensher, D.; Stanley, J.; Vella-Brodrick, D. Mobility, social exclusion and well-being: Exploring the links. Transp. Res. Part A 2011, 45, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Hensher, D.; Stanley, J.; Currie, G.; Greene, W. Social exclusion and the value of mobility. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2011, 45, 197–222. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J.; Hensher, D.; Stanley, J.; Vella-Brodrick, D. Valuing changes in wellbeing and its relevance for transport policy. Transp. Policy 2021, 110, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Hensher, D.; Stanley, J. Place-based disadvantage, social exclusion and the value of mobility. Transp. Res. Part A 2022, 160, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamruzzaman, M.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Yang, J.; Mohamed, M. Measures of transport-related social exclusion: A critical review of the literature. Sustainability 2016, 8, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Titmuss, R. Poverty and Population; Macmillan: London, UK, 1938. [Google Scholar]
- Townsend, P. Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living; Fabian Tract 371; Fabian Society: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Alcock, P.; Glennerster, H.; Oakley, A.; Sinfield, A. Welfare and Wellbeing: Richard Titmuss’s Contribution to Social Policy; The Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, P.; Naidoo, Y.; Griffiths, M. Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia; Social Policy Research Centre: Sydney, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Luz, G.; Portugal, L. Understanding transport-related social exclusion through the lens of capabilities approach. Transp. Rev. 2022, 42, 503–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenyon, S.; Lyons, G.; Rafferty, J. Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 2002, 10, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burchardt, T.; LeGrand, J.; Piachaud, D. Degrees of exclusion: Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure. In Understanding Social Exclusion; Hills, J., Le Grand, J., Piachaud, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 30–43. [Google Scholar]
- Eck, J.; Schoel, C.; Greifeneder, R. Coping with or buffering against the negative impact of social exclusion on basic needs: A review of strategies. In Social Exclusion: Psychological Approaches to Understanding and Reducing its Impact; Riva, P., Eck, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 227–251. [Google Scholar]
- Abrantes, P.; Fuller, R.; Bray, J. The Case for the Urban Bus the Economic and Social Value of Bus Services in the Metropolitan Areas; pteg Report Template for Office 2010; Public Transport Executive Group: Leeds, UK, 2013; Available online: urbantransportgroup.org (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Drivers of Social Exclusion a Review of the Literature for the Social Exclusion Unit in the Breaking the Cycle Series; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London, UK, 2004; Available online: https://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/pdf/drivers.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Sen, A. The Idea of Justice; Penguin Books: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M.C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickman, R.; Cao, M.; Mella Lire, B.; Fillone, A.; Biona, J. Understanding capabilities, functionings and travel in high and low income neighbourhoods in Manila. Sustainability 2017, 5, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Social Exclusion Unit. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. Social Exclusion: Concept, Application and Scrutiny; Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank: Manilla, Philippines, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J.; Stanley, J. Equity in transport. In Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Transport Economics and Policy; Nash, C., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 418–436. [Google Scholar]
- Church, A.; Frost, M.; Sullivan, K. Transport and social exclusion in London Transp. Policy 2000, 7, 195–205. [Google Scholar]
- Mollenkopf, H.; Baas, S.; Marcellini, F.; Oswald, F.; Ruoppila, I.; Szeman, Z.; Tacken, M.; Wahl, H. Mobility and Quality of Life: Enhancing Mobility in Later Life; ISO Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Currie, G.; Stanley, J.; Stanley, J. (Eds.) No Way to Go: Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities; Monash EPress: Melbourne, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Preston, J.; Rajé, F. Accessibility mobility and transport-related social exclusion. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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 2009, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, K. Transport and social inclusion: Where are we now? Transp. Policy 2012, 20, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredrickson, B. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lochner, K.; Kawachi, I.; Kennedy, B. Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health Place 1999, 5, 5259–5270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ryff, C. Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, J.; Wretstrand, A.; Schmidt, S. Disparities in mobility among older people: Findings from a capability-based travel survey. Transp. Policy 2019, 79, 177–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musselwhite, C.; Attard, M. Public transport use in later life. In The Routledge Handbook of Public Transport; Mulley, C., Nelson, J., Ison, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 393–404. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, J.K.; Stanley, J.R. The Humble School Bus: An Opportunity for Improving Regional Mobility, Working Paper, ITLS-WP-20-22; Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2021; Available online: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/23928/ITLS-WP-20-22-Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Morris, E.; Blumenberg, E.; Guera, E. Does lacking a car put the brakes on activity participation? Private vehicle access and access to opportunities among low-income adults. Transp. Res. Part A 2020, 136, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbosc, A.; Currie, G. Taking it apart: Disaggregate modelling of transport, social exclusion and wellbeing. In New Perspectives and Methods in Transport and Social Exclusion Research; Currie, G., Ed.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; pp. 169–186. [Google Scholar]
- Oviedo, D.; Guzman, L. Revisiting accessibility in a context of sustainable transport: Capabilities and inequalities in Bogota. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahmias-Biran, B.; Shiftan, Y. Using activity-based models and the capability approach to evaluate equity considerations in transportation projects. Transportation 2020, 47, 2287–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Kim, J.; Xu, Y. Inequality in activity participation: Multi-dimensional disadvantages and daily trips by purpose and trip day. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 29, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Stanley, J.; Hensher, D. Mobility, social capital and sense of community: What value? Urban Stud. 2012, 49, 3595–3609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Hensher, D.; Wei, E.; Liu, W. Major urban transport expenditure initiatives: Where are the returns likely to be strongest and how significant is social exclusion in making the case. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 10071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, R. The Cross-Sector Benefits of Backing the Bus; Urban Transport Group: Leeds, UK, 2019; Available online: https://www.urbantransportgroup.org/system/files/general-docs/UTG%20%E2%80%93%20Bus%20Sector%20Benefits%20report%20WEB.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- DfT (Department for Transport); McDonald, M. Valuing the Social Impacts of Public Transport: Final Report; DfT: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Praag, B.; Carbonell-i-Ferrer, A. Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- HM Treasury; SITF (Social Impacts Task Force). Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Orlowski, J.; Wicker, O. The monetary value of social capital. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2015, 57, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suriyanrattakorn, S.; Chang, C.-L. Valuation of trust in government: The wellbeing approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groot, W.; Van Den Brink, H.; Van Praag, B. The compensating income variation of social capital. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007, 82, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Putnam, R. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J. Democr. 1995, 6, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stone, W.; Gray, M.; Hughes, J. Social Capital at Work: How Family, Friends and Civic Ties Relate to Labour Market Outcomes: Research Paper No. 31; Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne, Australia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- McMillan, D.; Chavis, D. Sense of community: A definition and theory. J. Community Psychol. 1986, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, N.A.; Speer, P.W.; Hughey, J. Measuring sense of community: A methodological interpretation of the factor structure debate. J. Community Psychol. 2006, 34, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Suh, E.M.; Lucus, R.; Smith, H. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 276–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Wellbeing Group. Personal Wellbeing Index, 5th ed.; Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University: Melbourne, Australia, 2013; Available online: http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures (accessed on 2 July 2023).
- Watson, D.; Clark, I.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huppert, F.; Whittington, J. Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Implications for quality of life assessment. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2003, 8, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huta, V.; Waterman, A. Eudaimona and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J. Happiness Stud. 2014, 15, 1425–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanton, R.; Peel, D.; Vidyattama, Y. Poverty in Victoria; NATSEM, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- McLachlan, R.; Gilfillan, G.; Gordon, J. Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia; Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper; Media and Publications Productivity Commission: Canberra, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Biddle, N.; Edwards, B.; Gray, M.; Sollis, K. Hardship, Distress, and Resilience: The Initial Impacts of COVID-19 in Australia; ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods: Canberra, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Fujiwara, D.; Dass, D. Incorporating Life Satisfaction in Discrete Choice Experiments to Estimate Wellbeing Values for Non-Market Goods; Simetrica Jacobs: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Stopher, P.; Stanley, J. Introduction to Transport Policy: A Public Policy View; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Legaspi, J.; Hensher, D.; Wang, B. Estimating the wider economic benefits of transport investments: The case of the Sydney North West Rail Link project. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3, 182–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, J.; Stanley, J.; Balbontin, C.; Hensher, D. Social exclusion: The roles of mobility and bridging social capital in regional Australia. Transp. Res. Part A 2019, 125, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frederickson, R. The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2004, 359, 1367–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urry, J. Mobility and proximity. Sociology 2002, 36, 255–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calastri, C.; Pawlak, J.; Batley, R. Participation in online activities while travelling: An application of the MDCEV model in the context of rail travel. Transportation 2022, 49, 61–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malokin, A.; Circella, G.; Mokhtarian, P. Do millennials value travel time differently because of productive multi-tasking? A revealed preference study of Northern California commuters. Transportation 2021, 48, 2787–2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Units | Sample Means (N = 765) |
---|---|---|
Social exclusion risk factors | 0 to 5 a | 1.05 |
Trips | Number/day | 3.66 |
Bonding capital | Index b | 18.32 |
Bridging capital | Index c | 7.07 |
Sense of community | Index d | 57.61 |
Personal (subjective) wellbeing | Index e | 7.10 |
Household income | AUD 2008/day | 226.33 |
Attribute | Units | Combined Sample (N = 765) |
---|---|---|
Age (continuous variable) | Years | 0.016 (<0.001) |
Number of Trips (continuous variable) | Trips/day | −0.060 (0.034) |
PWI1 (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.896 (0.006) |
PWI2 (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.264 (0.410) |
PWI3 (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.008 (0.980) |
PWI4 (cat. var.) | 1.0 | −0.111 (0.727) |
Sense of Community Low (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.824 (<0.001) |
Sense of Community Medium (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.508 (0.008) |
Bridging Capital Low (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 1.177 (<0.001) |
Bridging Capital Medium (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.640 (<0.001) |
Bonding Capital Low (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 1.255 (<0.001) |
Bonding Capital Medium (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.461 (0.017) |
Household Income Day Squared (cont. var.) | AUD/day | −0.000009446 (<0.001) |
SEIFA Low (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.536 (0.004) |
SEIFA Med (cat. var.) | 1.0 | 0.254 (0.144) |
Sample Type (cat. var.) | 1.0 | −1.115 (<0.001) |
Threshold parameters | ||
Mu (01) | 0.421 (0.329) | |
Mu (02) | 2.614 (<0.001) | |
Mu (03) | 4.203 (<0.001) | |
Model fitting information (−2 Log Likelihood) | <0.001 | |
Test of Parallel Lines | 0.202 | |
McFadden Pseudo-R2 | 0.219 |
Household Daily Income | Bonding Social Capital | Bridging Social Capital | Sense of Community | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low to Medium | Medium to High | Low to Medium | Medium to High | Low to Medium | Medium to High | |
80 | 525 | 305 | 355 | 423 | 209 | 336 |
160 | 263 | 152 | 178 | 212 | 104 | 168 |
320 | 131 | 76 | 89 | 106 | 52 | 84 |
480 | 88 | 51 | 59 | 71 | 35 | 56 |
Sample mean = 226 | 186 | 108 | 126 | 150 | 74 | 119 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stanley, J.; Stanley, J. Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511902
Stanley J, Stanley J. Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511902
Chicago/Turabian StyleStanley, John, and Janet Stanley. 2023. "Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511902
APA StyleStanley, J., & Stanley, J. (2023). Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion. Sustainability, 15(15), 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511902