Social Exclusion

1
Social Exclusion Public Transport

• Janet Stanley
• Brotherhood of St Laurence
• Monash University

2
Context

• Policy goals for passenger transport systems
  typically target economic, social and
  environmental goals
• with a governance goal also becoming more
  commonly considered
• Social goals are probably the least developed or
  understood
• Local PT provision is largely justified by its
  social role its role as a public good or
  service
• So, we need to be much clearer about just what is
  the public good that is being provided, what
  should be provided and how best to meet these
  needs

3
Scope of paper

• Major policy issues in PT in Victoria
• Look closer at social policy SE and
  Accessibility
• Argue that part of the problem is the field has
  become preoccupied with the issue of
  accessibility, therefore other issues have been
  left out
• Community transport as an example of a failure to
  strategically define social policy PT goals

4
Current focus in public transport in Victoria

• Arrangement to produce the best service for the
  least public cost
• Strong interest in public safety
• A very minor interest in Aust. in environmental
  issues
• A concentration with commuters
• Benefits are mainly measured in terms of travel
  time
• Now increasing interest with linking travel
  (connectivity/service integration)
• Some interest in the links between transport and
  land use planning (Melbourne 2030)
• Growing interest in social role of PT but little
  understanding

5
Social excluded (SE) people

• SE is the focus of growing social policy interest
  in PT
• Socially excluded people find it difficult or
  impossible to participate fully in society
• Groups at risk of being SE include aged,
  children/youth, people with a disability, those
  on a low income/ unemployed, Indigenous people,
  new migrants/refugees, rurally isolated people

6
Social excluded (SE) people (continued)

• SE is becoming a driving force in several
  non-transport policy areas (e.g. neighbourhood
  renewal, community arts)
• But SE has had little impact on transport policy
  in Australia to date
• - other than de facto via community transport
• Yet these SE groups are the market segment most
  likely to use PT (other than commuters).
• Indeed, they are most likely to need PT as they
  may have fewer options than other societal groups
  such as commuters

7
Approx. size of some groups of people at risk of
SE in Victoria as a proportion of total
population (2001)
8
Accessibility

• Social policy around SE and transport is
  presently dominated by the concept of
  accessibility
• SEU identified and examined five transport
  accessibility barriers likely to contribute to
  SE
• employment, health services, education, shopping
  and recreation
• But no attempt to establish how improvements in
  accessibility might increase personal wellbeing

9
Accessibility (continued)

• Improved accessibility has become the end being
  pursued, rather than the means to the end of
  improved wellbeing
• Also, links between accessibility, other social
  goals, and social capital and community
  strengthening, as other pathway to improved
  wellbeing, have been largely neglected in the
  transport/SE work
• A broader framework is needed

10
A broader approach accessibility plus social
capital, community strengthening and wellbeing

Unemployed person
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
3. Broad social policy goals
Transport accessibility
Other contributing factors
2. Social capital Community strengthening
Employment
1. Wellbeing
SOCIAL INCLUSION
11
1. What is well-being?

• Various definitions
• 80s and 90s much policy work was based on the
  premise that wealth is the equivalent of an
  increase in well-being
• Now an increasing recognition of other factors
• life quality issues human attachment,
  relationships, connectedness, interactions.
• Such factors are included in Nussbaums central
  capability targets
• Normal length of human life
• Physical health
• Bodily integrity (freedom from violence)
• Access to an adequate education, freedom of
  speech and religion,
• Attachment, full emotional development
• Being able to form a conception of good and
  engage in planning of ones life
• Affiliation self-respect and dignity
• Concern for other species
• Participation in political choices and material
  rights (property, employment)

12
What is well-being (2) ?

• Some broader issues are recognised by the Federal
  Treasury
• ..peoples command over resources to obtain
  goods and services to satisfy needs and wants
  ..in its broadest conceptual sense
• Includes voluntary and community work,
  relationships, social capital, physical
  environment and place, health and leisure
• An understanding may be reached through a broad
  statement such as Manderson (2005) that
• we have a self-interest in meeting the needs of
  people to function fully and independently,
  according to their capacity, thereby to
  contribute to the public good. We also have an
  interest in reducing distress, want and disease
• Sociological theory can give some structure here
• Personal relationships Social Capital
• Place connectedness Community Strengthening

13
A broader approach accessibility plus social
capital, community strengthening and wellbeing

Unemployed person
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
3. Broad social policy goals
Transport accessibility
Other contributing factors
2. Social capital Community strengthening
Employment
1. Wellbeing
SOCIAL INCLUSION
14
2. What is social capital community
strengthening?

• Social capital the development of personal
  social networks, reciprocity and trust
• Community strengthening active engagement and
  social connectedness, leadership, volunteering,
  community pride
• SC An elderly lady, with restricted mobility,
  made a circular bus trip, getting on and off at
  her home, simply to get out of her house and talk
  to other passengers and the drive (Warrnambool
  study 2005)
• CS Communities know very strongly whats
  important to them and if you give them the space
  and the resources to organise their ideas,
  theyll say what they need every time (DVC 2005)
• Direct benefits of social capital and access to
  social capital
• Improved health
• Greater self-reported wellbeing
• Better care for children
• Lower crime rates
• Improved government with higher levels of trust
• (OECD 2001)

15
Summary to date

• Social policy to promote well-being around notion
  of Social Exclusion includes the importance of
  transport to provide
• Accessibility to goods and services (UK work)
• As a means to promote the development of social
  capital and community strengthening
• There was an expressed lower level of
  well-being among seniors (e.g. loneliness) who
  made the least number of trips (e.g. some saved
  for a taxi trip to a shopping centre to talk to
  people) (Warrnambool study)

16
Example to date

• Study on LT unemployed Daniel Perkins
• Factors preventing them getting a job
• Lack of Accessibility to transport
• inner metro 4
• outer metro 14
• non-metro 28
• Social isolation/alienation reported as a barrier
  (social capital/ community strengthening)
• 56

17
A broader approach accessibility plus social
capital, community strengthening and wellbeing

Unemployed person
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
3. Broad social policy goals
Transport accessibility
Other contributing factors
2. Social capital Community strengthening
Employment
1. Wellbeing
SOCIAL INCLUSION
18
3. Incorporating broader social policy goals into
PT policy and planning example from child welfare

• 2 Govt. programs
• Best Start (Victoria)
• Communities for Children (Fed)
• Goals improved educational readiness better
  health improved wellbeing for children under 6
  years stronger, connected communities
• Achieved through social support, parent
  education, social networking, attendance at
  pre-school
• Lack of transport is a stumbling block to
  achieving these goals

19
Proportion of 4 year olds in primary or
pre-primary education in OECD countries 2000
20
Broad policy goals and transport continued

• Individual impact
• Attendance at pre-school is linked with better
  education attainments (especially for
  disadvantaged children)
• Low educational achievement also linked to poor
  access to the labour market and higher youth
  unemployment, poor general health, depression
  risk of SE in adulthood and lower well-being
• Societal impact
• Attendance at pre-school for disadvantaged
  children Return to society 16 return for
  every 1 spent
• Cant attend pre-school if you cant get there
• Where is the conversation in transport circles
  about how these broader social goals can be
  facilitated by improving the availability of PT?

21
Implications

• The Victorian Federal governments are spending
  money on social programs in socially
  disadvantaged areas
• The potential contribution of transport to the
  achievement of program goals has been largely
  ignored.
• We are not taking into account the full potential
  benefit of PT

22
Community Transport (CT) an example of social
goal failure?

• What is CT in Australia?
• provided for specific groups
• usually small buses, but can be private cars
• owned by services local government and usually
  funded by social services
• ad hoc system
• size quite large and growing rapidly
• initiated/run by non-transport sector

23
CT may be excluding (1)

• CT meets some needs for some people some of the
  time but has 2 major drawbacks
• Excluding for those outside CT system
• CT caters for some people at risk of SE
• In people with a disability, aged
• Out children/youth, new migrants, low income
  people
• Establishment of another transport system may
  harden the boundary between CT and PT and risk
  viability of both

24
CT may be excluding (2)

• CT may be excluding for people inside the CT
  system
• CT fosters bonding social capital to the
  detriment of bridging and linking capital
• The larger and more diverse an
  individuals social network, the more access he
  or she will have to functional social
  relationships, and the more potential benefits
  there are likely to be for health.
• (Cooper et al 1999)

Bonding SC trust and reciprocity in closed
networks Bridging SC spreading resources
between networks Linking SC links with those in
power to obtain resources
25
CT may be excluding (3)

• Exclusive/restrictive eligibility and inflexible
• availability (time)
• type of use (eg. priority given to medical
  appointments)
• Treating people as different
• CT may lead to difficulties in achieving other
  policy goals
• Safety
• Drivers
• Vehicle inspections
• Economic efficiency and sustainability
• US In Washington, paratransit catered for 3 of
  trips but required 14.5 of transport budgets

26
Failure of integration of CT and other transport
systems

• Service delivery is typically structured around
  modes rather than around meeting peoples needs
  to foster well-being
• PT/school bus/community transport services
  operate in isolation, rather than as a single
  service delivery system
• However
• some minimum level of CT is important
• it is community led (good governance)

27
Conclusions (1)

• A deeper understanding of social goals in public
  transport is likely to improve social inclusion
  and reduce disadvantage, deliver economic
  efficiencies, and improve environmental outcomes
• Paradoxically, the burgeoning interest in social
  capital and community strengthening (social
  networks) has paid minimal attention to the
  potential contribution of transport networks
• even although given some attention is being given
  to electronic networks
• Transport needs to be better integrated with
  broader community and societal social goals,
  targeting increased wellbeing
• The existence of separate public transport
  systems (eg. route/CT/school) accentuates social
  exclusion for some people. The role and function
  of CT needs a close review in this regard.

28
Conclusions (2)

• Social value of local PT f (impacts on
  accessibility,
• social capital,
• community strengthening,
• other broad social goals (e.g. neighbourhood
  renewal, child welfare, employment programs))
• The challenge is to understand, identify and
  measure the absolute and relative importance of
  each of these dimensions, to inform better policy
  and practice across government to deliver better
  outcomes for people in the form of improved
  well-being