International
Planning In
Transport-related Social E
in Low-Income Peo
Yori Herwangi
a,*, Pra
aSchool of Architecture, Planning, anAbstract
Motorcycle usage in Indonesia’s big cities ownership of private vehicles, including mot other hand, with the limited public transpo experience social exclusion. In the field o understanding that the provision of transpo individuals and groups (Banister and Hall, transportation systems, can experience socia Raje, 2007). So far, theories explaining tran come from the research in well-developed co the research mostly focuses on automobile. motorcycle ownership as part of the transpo based on literature review. This framework w role and implication of motorcycle ownership
Keywords: motorcycle, transport-related social exclusion
1.Introduction
Urban sprawl experienced by big cities Yogyakarta (Yunus, 2008) resulted in the ra jobs and public facilities. As a result, reside the suburbs may experience difficulties in ac the available facilities in the suburbs does no 2002). This is compounded by the lack of pub Most of low-income people can only affo by Glaeser and Kahn (2003), sprawling me
* Corresponding author. Tel. +62-81392803119;
E-mail address: y.herwangi@gmail.com
al Conference, March 4-5, 2013
In the Era Of Uncertainty
l Exclusion and Motorcycle Owne
eople: A Conceptual Framework
radono
a, Ibnu Syabri
a, Iwan Kustiwan
a and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung,Indonesiaes has been increasing rapidly for the past few years otorcycle, can indeed cause many transportation proble port services, the lack of private vehicles can cause of transportation, the issue of social exclusion arise
portation services could cause different social impact ll, 1981). Individuals and groups, who are not served cial exclusion due to lack of access to opportunities (P ansport-related social exclusion and vehicle ownership countries. In those countries, motorcycle usage is very e. This paper is aimed to formulate a conceptual frame port-related social exclusion theory. The framework is will be used as the methodology in conducting further hip in relation with transport-related social exclusion
ion, vehicle ownership,
es in Indonesia, such as Jakarta, Bandung (Kustiwan, rapid development of the suburbs without the decentr dent’s mobility patterns become inefficient. Residents accessing employment centre and other public facilities
not suit their needs, for example, educational facilities public transport services that reaches out to the suburbs. ford to live in the suburbs because land prices are chea etropolitan area makes low-income residents left behi
they cannot afford to have a car that is required by the sprawling urban form to travel freely. This condition poses potential social exclusion for low-income people who live in the suburbs. It is believed that one of the strategies pursued by the group to reduce social exclusion is by having a motorcycle. As a mode of transportation, motorcycle is relatively more affordable than a car that resulted in a rapid increase of motorcycle ownership.
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.
can cause: 1) difficulty getting a job (SEU, 2 SEU, 2001); 3) difficulty accessing health fa activities (Johnson, Currie and Stanley, 2011
To overcome this, several approaches wer and mobility constraints.Reducing barriers r social assistance (Westwood, 2004). Reducin which may reduce the need for travel. The improving mobility options (Preston, 2004; of improving mobility options, public transpo increasing public transport routes (Preston, 2 and trains, does not fully address the prob suburban areas, public transport services are difficulties experienced by the residents is to of transportation, motorcycle is relatively m motorcycle ownership. As an illustration, th almost doubled (see Figure 1.1).
Fig. 1 Number of Vehicle Ownership in Yog Source:
On the other hand, various studies have cause a heavy financial burden (Froud et al., which is known as the transport poverty (Gle car ownership (Jones 1987; Banister 1994 in income people in the suburbs who are forc options. From the research conducted in De 2007), it is found that most of the motorcycle Rp. 500.000, - to Rp. 2.500.000 per month. situation is potential to cause vulnerability to other family needs. As a result, the family co
To overcome the problem, low-income transportation by organizing trips and fami expenditure, such as entertainment budget (r
0
2001); 2) difficulty accessing educational facilities (C facilities (SEU, 2001); 4) trouble participating in arts a 11).
ere made, i.e by reducing personal constraints, location s related to personal circumstances is done through the p cing location barriers are done by land use planning (Do he latter, which is to reduce barriers to mobility, is do
; Jones, 2004) and mobility substitution (Kenyon, 200 sportation is often used as a solution, for example, by ad
, 2004). However, public transport with fixed route su oblem (Grant, 2004). Even in certain areas, such as re often limited or unavailable. Another solution to redu to increase vehicles ownership, including motorcycle. more affordable than a car that resulted in a rapid the number of motorcycles in Yogyakarta from 2003
ogyakarta Special Province
e revealed that vehicle ownership on low income peop l., 2002 in Currie and Delbosc, 2009; Currie and Sendsb leeson and Randolph, 2002 in Currie and Delbosc, 200 in Currie and Delbosc 2009). This refers to the condit
rced to pay high cost of vehicle ownership due to la enpasar (Erli H, 2006) and Bandung (Adriyana, 2011; cle users are people with a low to middle income, which h. So that, forced motorcycle ownership is possibly occ to low-income families. Little change in transport cost could experience social exclusion.
e families pursue coping strategies to address the h mily budget, especially in the form of reducing the d (research in San Jose, USA by Agrawal et al., 2011). R
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
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
Reducing transportation barrier to decrease
social exclusion
Mobility option Mobility
subtitutes Virtual mobility
Public transport
Non-motorized transport
Automobile
Motorcycle
Decreased social exclusion Increased
participation Increased
accessibility
developing country
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.
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
OUTCOMES
PEOPLE
• Age
• Gender
• Household type
• Dependant
• Responsibilities
• Income/Asset
Coping strategies
ACTIVITIES
• Settlement type
• Topography
• Environment
• Level dan condition of supporting infrastructur
• Level dan quality of local facilities
MODA CHOICE: MOTORCYCLE
• Availability
• Suitability
• Cost of travel
• Information
• Other tranport modes option
Choice rider
Captive rider
Managing travel pattern and transport cost:
- Trip linking
- Reorganising travel habits
- Vehicle sharing
- Reducing total km traveled
Managing household resources and expenditures:
- Looking for extra money (support from extended family, working extra hour)
- Reducing discretionary spending (rokok, makan di restoran, hiburan, rekreasi)
- Reducing non-discretionary spending (food, children education, health)
Increased accessibility Increased
participation Decreased
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
[1] Kustiwan, Iwan. 2010. Bentuk dan Pengembangan Kawasan Perkotaan Berkelanjutan. Unpublished Dissertation, Program Pascasarjana Program Studi Ilmu Lingkungan, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.
[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.
[3] Herwangi, Yori. 2002. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pemanfaatan Fasilitas Pendidikan oleh Penduduk di Kawasan Pinggiran Bandung, Teknik Planologi, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung.
[4] Glaeser, Edward, and Matthew Kahn. 2003. Sprawl and Urban Growth. In NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
[5] Estivill, Jordi. 2003. Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An Overview. Geneva: International Labour Office.
[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] 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]Burchardt, T., J. Le Grand, and D. Pichaud. 1999. Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995. Social Policy and Administration 33 (3):227-244.
[11]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]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]Preston, John, and Fiona Raje. 2007. Accessibility, Mobility and Transport-related Social Exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15:151-160.
[15]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]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]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]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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
