Planning In the Era Of Uncertainty related Social Exclusion and Motorcycle Ownership Income People: A Conceptual Framework
International al Conference, March 4-5, 2013
Planning In In the Era Of Uncertainty
Transport-related Social E l Exclusion and Motorcycle Owne nership
in Low-Income Peo eople: A Conceptual Framework
a, a a a a
Yori Herwangi *, Pra radono , Ibnu Syabri , Iwan Kustiwan
School of Architecture, Planning, an and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung,Indonesia
AbstractMotorcycle usage in Indonesia’s big cities es has been increasing rapidly for the past few years ars. Increased
ownership of private vehicles, including mot otorcycle, can indeed cause many transportation proble blems. O n the
other hand, with the limited public transpo port services, the lack of private vehicles can cause e a person to experience social exclusion. In the field o of transportation, the issue of social exclusion arise ises from the understanding that the provision of transpo portation services could cause different social impact act on certain individuals and groups (Banister and Hall, ll, 1981). Individuals and groups, who are not served d by existing transportation systems, can experience socia cial exclusion due to lack of access to opportunities (P (Preston and Raje, 2007). So far, theories explaining tran ansport-related social exclusion and vehicle ownership ip are mostly come from the research in well-developed co countries. In those countries, motorcycle usage is very y rare, so that the research mostly focuses on automobile.
e. This paper is aimed to formulate a conceptual frame ework of the motorcycle ownership as part of the transpo port-related social exclusion theory. The framework is is developed based on literature review. This framework w will be used as the methodology in conducting further er study of the role and implication of motorcycle ownership hip in relation with transport-related social exclusion
Keywords: motorcycle, transport-related social exclusion ion, vehicle ownership, 1.
Introduction
Urban sprawl experienced by big cities es in Indonesia, such as Jakarta, Bandung (Kustiwan, n, 2010) and Yogyakarta (Yunus, 2008) resulted in the ra rapid development of the suburbs without the decentr ntralisation of jobs and public facilities. As a result, reside dent’s mobility patterns become inefficient. Residents ts who live in the suburbs may experience difficulties in ac accessing employment centre and other public facilities ies because of the available facilities in the suburbs does no not suit their needs, for example, educational facilities es (Herwangi, 2002). This is compounded by the lack of pub public transport services that reaches out to the suburbs.
Most of low-income people can only affo ford to live in the suburbs because land prices are chea eap. As stated by Glaeser and Kahn (2003), sprawling me etropolitan area makes low-income residents left behi ehind because
- Corresponding author. Tel. +62-81392803119;
Meanwhile, theories derived from research on the relationship between social exclusion and vehicle ownership in developed countries, cannot explain the phenomenon that occurs in developing countries. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a conceptual framework to measure the role of motorcycle ownership on reducing social exclusion in Indonesia. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The second section provides literature review on transport-related social exclusion, and vehicle ownership. The third section explains the contribution of research on motorcycle ownership to transport-related exclusion theory; and framework to measure the role of motorcycle ownership in reducing social exclusion. The paper is finally concluded with short conclussion and further work.
2. Transport-related Social Exclusion and Vehicle Ownership
Social exclusion is a concept that was first emerged in France by Rene Lenoir through his writings, entitled Les Exclus (Estivill, 2003). Lenoir purpose at the time was to raise the attention at some marginalized groups that emerged in the ongoing economic expansion. These groups include people who experience disabilities in a state of physical, mental or social (Estivill, 2003: 5). This concept later evolved, not only includes people who have physical limitations, mental, or social, but includes all people or groups of people who experience lack of resources that causes inability to totally participate in normal activities that can be accessed by the majority of population (Levitas et al., in Lucas, 2012; Social Exclusion Task Force, 2001; Philo, 2000; Foley, 1999; Burchardt et al, 1999). According to Burchardt, normal activities include: 1.
Consumption activity: being able to consume at least up to some minimum level of goods and services which are considered normal for the society;
2. Savings activity: accumulating savings, pension entitlements, or owning property.
3. Production activity: engaging in an economically or socially valued activity, such as paid work, education or training, retirement if over state pension age, or looking after a family.
4. Political activity: engaging in some collective efforts to improve or protect the immediate or wider social or physical environment.
5. Social activity: engaging in significant social interaction with family or friends and identifying with a cultural group or community Sometime after its emergence, the concept of social exclusion began to be applied in transport field. However, at the time the application of this concept in transport is still unpopular, because the focus of transportation planning at that time is still on engineering aspect. In this case the emphasis is on technical solutions of problems associated with the mobility, but less attention to the process as well as the social impact arising from the mobility performed. The social impact of transport is a topic that received less attention than the economic and environmental impact (Jones and Lucas, 2012; Geurs, Boon & Van Wee, 2009). Yet to achieve a sustainable city, the social aspect is just as important to the economic and environmental aspects.
In the field of transportation, the issue of social exclusion arises from the understanding that the provision of transportation services could cause different social impact on certain individuals and groups (Banister and Hall, 1981). Individuals and groups, who are not served by existing transportation systems, can experience can cause: 1) difficulty getting a job (SEU, 2 2001); 2) difficulty accessing educational facilities (C (Currie, 2009; SEU, 2001); 3) difficulty accessing health fa facilities (SEU, 2001); 4) trouble participating in arts a ts and cultural activities (Johnson, Currie and Stanley, 2011 11).
To overcome this, several approaches wer ere made, i.e by reducing personal constraints, location n constraints, and mobility constraints. Reducing barriers r s related to personal circumstances is done through the p e provision of social assistance (Westwood, 2004). Reducin cing location barriers are done by land use planning (Do odson, 2007) which may reduce the need for travel. The he latter, which is to reduce barriers to mobility, is do done through improving mobility options (Preston, 2004; ; Jones, 2004) and mobility substitution (Kenyon, 200 002). In terms of improving mobility options, public transpo sportation is often used as a solution, for example, by ad adjusting and increasing public transport routes (Preston, 2 , 2004). However, public transport with fixed route su such as buses and trains, does not fully address the prob oblem (Grant, 2004). Even in certain areas, such as as in rural or suburban areas, public transport services are re often limited or unavailable. Another solution to redu duce transport difficulties experienced by the residents is to to increase vehicles ownership, including motorcycle . . As a mode of transportation, motorcycle is relatively m more affordable than a car that resulted in a rapid id increase of motorcycle ownership. As an illustration, th the number of motorcycles in Yogyakarta from 2003 03 to 2012 is almost doubled (see Figure 1.1).
1800000 1600000 1400000
Motorcycle 1200000 1000000
Light truck 800000
Bus 600000 400000
Passanger car 200000 2007 2008 2009
09 2012 Fig. 1 Number of Vehicle Ownership in Yog ogyakarta Special Province Source:
On the other hand, various studies have e revealed that vehicle ownership on low income peop ople can also cause a heavy financial burden (Froud et al., l., 2002 in Currie and Delbosc, 2009; Currie and Sendsb dsberg, 2007), which is known as the transport poverty (Gle leeson and Randolph, 2002 in Currie and Delbosc, 200 009) or forced car ownership (Jones 1987; Banister 1994 in in Currie and Delbosc 2009). This refers to the condit dition of low- income people in the suburbs who are forc rced to pay high cost of vehicle ownership due to la lack of other options. From the research conducted in De enpasar (Erli H, 2006) and Bandung (Adriyana, 2011; 1; Aritonang, 2007), it is found that most of the motorcycle cle users are people with a low to middle income, which ich is between Rp. 500.000, - to Rp. 2.500.000 per month.
h. So that, forced motorcycle ownership is possibly occ ccurred. This situation is potential to cause vulnerability to to low-income families. Little change in transport cost osts can affect other family needs. As a result, the family co could experience social exclusion.
To overcome the problem, low-income e families pursue coping strategies to address the h high cost of transportation by organizing trips and fami mily budget, especially in the form of reducing the d discretionary coping strategies is important but rarely done, both in developed countries (Agrawal et al., 2011) as well as in developing countries. Whereas, this kind of research will be useful in complementing the theoretical gap between the approaches of transportation model and social dimensions of transport.
3. Contribution and conceptual framework of the study of motorcycle in transport-related social exclusion theory
Based on theories derived from research on the relationship between social exclusion and vehicle ownership in developed countries, it appears that these theories cannot fully explain the phenomena occurring in developing countries. Firstly, when talking about social exclusion and vehicle ownership in developed countries, the object of the study is automobile. There are different characteristics between automobile and motorcycle in term of its usage pattern and cost that influence family behaviour in conducting its participation. Secondly, these kinds of studies are still rarely discussed in the context of developing countries where the non-discretionary needs such as health and education are not guaranteed by the state. This has become an important phenomenon to be studied in the context of Indonesia considering sprawling phenomenon is still persist, while on the other hand the number of low-income people is also not reduced. From the literature described in the previous sections, position of the study of motorcycle in social exclusion theory can be summarized in Figure 2
Mobility Virtual mobility subtitutes Reducing transportation Public transport barrier to decrease social exclusion
Decreased Non-motorized Increased Increased social Mobility option transport accessibility participation exclusion
Automobile Contribution of this study developing country Motorcycle
Fig.2 Contribution of the study of motorcycle ownership to the transport-related social exclusion theory The conceptual framework of this study, modified from the diagram of factors affecting accessibility as proposed by Lucas (2004). According to Lucas, there are three factors that influence an individual's decision relating to his/her accessibility which are: activity factors, human factors and transportation factors. The level of accessibility is then affects the occurrence or reduction of social exclusion. In terms of transportation factors, previous studies have discussed the link between the availability of vehicles such as public transportation (bus, train), non-motorized vehicles, and cars, with other factors, namely the activity factors and human factors in improving accessibility and reducing social exclusion. Some of the studies discussed further to decisions and strategies taken by individuals and families regarding the mode being used, particularly with respect to car ownership in low-income families. But until now, no one has discussed the motorcycle about how its relation with human and activity factors and how it is influencing decisions and strategies of individuals and families in fulfilling their needs and improving social inclusion, particularly for low-income people. For that the conceptual framework of this study will be based on a model created by Lucas, with additions and modifications to the context and purpose of the study. Developed further from Lucas’ diagram, this study will also develop further into the strategy by individuals and families in improving accessibility, as seen in Figure 3.
PEOPLE Age
- OUTCOMES
Gender
- Household type
- Dependant •
Managing travel pattern and Responsibilities
- transport cost:
Income/Asset
- Trip linking
- Reorganising travel habits
- Vehicle sharing Choice rider
MODA CHOICE:
- Reducing total km traveled MOTORCYCLE
- Availability • Suitability
Managing household resources Coping
- Cost of travel
and expenditures: strategies
- Information
- Looking for extra money
- Other tranport modes
(support from extended option family, working extra hour)
Captive rider
- Reducing discretionary spending (rokok, makan di
ACTIVITIES restoran, hiburan, rekreasi)
- Settlement type
- Reducing non-discretionary
- Topography
spending (food, children
- Environment
education, health)
- Level dan condition of supporting infrastructur
- Level dan quality of local facilities
Decreased Increased Increased social participation accessibility exclusion
Fig.3 Motorcycle ownership and transport related social exclusion: A conceptual framework 4.
Conclusion and Further Study
This paper has developed a conceptual framework to analyze the role and impact of motorcycle ownership to transport-related social exclusion. Motorcycle creates more mobility option, so that increasing accessibility and participation, and as a result decreasing social exclusion. Based on the Lucas’ work (2004) of factor affecting accessibility, this model is modified by adding the process of adaptation (coping strategies) done by low income family. It is assumed that there are two kinds of coping strategies, which are managing travel pattern and transport cost; and managing households resources and expenditure. These strategies would influence the degree of social exclusion of a person. Further study is needed to test the framework by using primary data of low income people living in a sprawling urbanized area.
References
Preston, John, and Fiona Raje. 2007. Accessibility, Mobility and Transport-related Social Exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15:151-160. [15]
[21] Kenyon, Susan, Glenn Lyons, and Jackie Rafferty. 2002. Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 10:207-219.
[20] Jones, Martin. 2004. A road less travelled: case studies from community transport. In Running on Empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice, edited by K. Lucas. Bristol: The Policy Press.
[19] Preston, Mike. 2004. BraunstoneBus: a link with the future. In Running on Empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice, edited by K. Lucas. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Dodson, Jago. 2007. Transport disadvantage and Australian urban planning in historical perspective: The role of urban form and structure in shaping household accessibility. In No Way To Go: Transport and social diasadvantage in Australian communities, edited by G. Currie, J. Stanley and J. Stanley. Clayton: Monash University ePress.
Westwood, Julian. 2004. Halton Neighbourhood Travel Team. In Running on Empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice, edited by K. Lucas. Bristol: The Policy Press. [18]
Johnson, Victoria, Graham Currie, and Janet Stanley. 2011. Exploring transport to arts and cultural activities as a facilitator of social inclusion. Transport Policy 18:68-75. [17]
Currie, Graham, and Alex Delbosc. 2009. Car Ownership and Low Income on the Urban Fringe - Benefit or Hindrance? In 32nd Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF). Auckland. [16]
Geurs, Karst T., Wouter Boon, and Bert Van Wee. 2009. Social Impacts of Transport: Literatur Review and the State of the Practice of Transport Appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Transport Review 29 (1):69-90. [13] Banister, David, and Peter Hall, eds. 1981. Transport and Public Policy Planning. London: H. W. wilson. [14]
[1] Kustiwan, Iwan. 2010. Bentuk dan Pengembangan Kawasan Perkotaan Berkelanjutan. Unpublished Dissertation, Program Pascasarjana Program Studi Ilmu Lingkungan, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.
Jones, Peter, and Karen Lucas. 2012. The Social Consequences of Transport Decision-Making: Clarifying Concepts, Synthesising Knowledge and Assesing Implications. Journal of Transport Geography 21:4-16. [12]
Burchardt, T., J. Le Grand, and D. Pichaud. 1999. Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995. Social Policy and Administration 33 (3):227-244. [11]
Philo, C. 2000. Social Exclusion. In The Dictionary of Human Geography edited by R. e. a. Johnston. Oxford: Blackwell [9] Foley, K. 1999. Getting the Measure of Social Exclusion. London: London Research Centre. [10]
[6] Lucas, Karen. 2012. Transport and Social Exclusion: Where Are We Now? Transport Policy. [7] Social Exclusion Unit. 2001. Preventing Social Exclusion: Cabinet Office. [8]
[5] Estivill, Jordi. 2003. Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An Overview. Geneva: International Labour Office.
[4] Glaeser, Edward, and Matthew Kahn. 2003. Sprawl and Urban Growth. In NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
[3] Herwangi, Yori. 2002. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pemanfaatan Fasilitas Pendidikan oleh Penduduk di Kawasan Pinggiran Bandung, Teknik Planologi, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung.
[2] Yunus, Hadi S. 2008. Dinamika Wilayah Peri-Urban: Determinan Masa Depan Kota. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar Strunk Jr W, White EB. The elements of style. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1979.
[22] Grant, Murray. 2004. Ensuring access and participation in the Liverpool city region. In Running on Empty: Transport, social
[23]
H., Ketut Dewi Martha Erli. 2006. Studi Peluang Pengalihan Penggunaan Sepeda Motor ke Angkutan Umum di Kota Denpasar Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung.
[24] Adriyana, Diana. 2011. Studi Fenomena Pertumbuhan Penggunaan Moda Sepeda Motor di Kota Bandung, Tugas Akhir,
Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung [25]
Aritonang, Herbert Oloan. 2007. Studi Pengaruh Pemilihan Moda Sepeda Motor terhadap Volume Penumpang Angkutan Kota di Kota Bandung, Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung. [26]
Agrawal, Asha, Evelyn A. Blumenberg, Sarah Abel, Gregory Pierce, and Charles N. Darrah. 2011. Getting Around when You're Just Getting By: The Travel Bahavior and Transportation Expenditure of Low-Income Adults. In MTI Report 10-02. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University.
[27] Lucas, Karen. 2004. Transport and social exclusion. In Running on Empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice, edited by K. Lucas. Bristol: The Policy Press.