TGRG would like to congratulate Paul Plazier from the University of Groningen for being awarded first prize in the Transport Geography Research Group postgraduate paper prize for his presentation, The potential of electrically assisted cycling in the everyday commute – a mixed methods approach. The prize is sponsored by Emerald.
The Postgraduate Paper Prize is awarded to the best conference paper presented in a TGRG-sponsored session at the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Annual Conference.
Paul’s presentation slides and paper abstract are below.
The potential of electrically assisted cycling in the everyday commute – a mixed methods approach
Paul Plazier (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) Gerd Weitkamp (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) Agnes van den Berg (University of Groningen, The Netherlands)
E-bike use in the Netherlands is growing fast. When substituting motorized travel, it can play an important role in developing sustainable transport systems. This study assessed travel behavior of e-bike commuters, their motives for e-bike adoption and daily use, and
experiences on the road. We GPS-tracked outdoor movements of 24 e-bike users in the
north of Netherlands for two weeks and used their mapped travel behavior as input for
follow-up in-depth interviews. The majority of the commutes was done by e-bike, altered
with car use. E-bike use was highest in work-related, single-destination journeys. It gave
participants the benefits of conventional cycling over motorized transport (physical, outdoor activity) while mitigating relative disadvantages (longer travel time, increased effort). E-bike commutes took longer compared to other modes, but this was deliberately traded for the experience of cycling. In route choice, participants were inclined to choose enjoyable itineraries over shorter or faster routes. Results support that e-bikes can substitute motorized commuting modes on distances too long to cover by bike, and stress the importance of subjective experience in e-bike commuting. This provides impetus for future actions to encourage commuting by e-bike.
Accessibility, the ease with which an individual can get to destinations, is now well established as a social justice issue in transport planning. In 2003, Making the Connections, a report by the Social Exclusion Unit highlighted poor accessibility as one of the multi-faceted aspects leading to social exclusion. This resulted in many transport practitioners engaging with issues of transport-related social exclusion and issues of inequality through the process of Accessibility Planning. However, efforts were largely focused around the quantification and measurement of access to destinations in order to produce threshold based accessibility targets. A database of accessibility statistics covering the whole of England at zone level was also produced. Such attempts at quantification have been critiqued, especially in the context of understanding social exclusion, for their black box approach, which fails to understand the lived experience of (in) accessibility and its potential impacts.
However, another source of data, the National Travel Survey (NTS) has been largely underutilised in this regard. Between 2005 and 2012 there was a bank of questions in the NTS, which asked how long it would take respondents to reach the nearest of each of a set of destinations using public transport or walking; this has recently been replaced by a computer generated ‘objective’ measure [i],[ii].
Increasingly, moves towards big data and the ability to link to administrative records means that we may be able to replace information previously asked in social surveys with official records. For example, rather than asking people about their health, we might be able to access their health records. But there may be some cases, where understanding an individuals’ perception of their health is more important than a record of visits to the GP. It is therefore crucial to be clear about what we can and cannot understand by asking certain questions in a survey, or by replacing them with information from large scale datasets. The same applies to the replacement of this set of questions in the NTS with objective measures.
It seems timely to consider what might be gained from including the question regarding self-reported journey times to destinations and what the implications of excluding it might be in terms of our understanding of accessibility. What does this change in measurement technique mean for the way in which we understand accessibility to local services based on the NTS data and does the move away from self-reported data have any implications?
According to the NTS guidance, the previous question in the survey was an objective measure:
“These questions are measures of fact, not of opinion. Interviewers are encouraged to make use of information other than that provided by the household if this provides a more accurate indication of the true position. ‘Walk time’ assumes a walk speed of three miles per hour, and takes no account of, for example, any infirmity or disability of the respondent” (NTS 2006, p.60)[iii].
On this basis, the move in the latest NTS to include ‘objective’ measures of accessibility calculated using TRACC, utilising geo-coded destinations and public transport timetables based is a positive development towards including a measure which is more comparable across the sample and is not affected by individual’s experience of the time taken or definition of what might constitute a grocery store, for example. However, while the objective potential accessibility provided by the transport and land use system is important for understanding the opportunities an individual does or does not have, when trying to address issues of transport and social inclusion it might be that how an individual perceives or really experiences accessibility is more important in determining their travel behaviour, and subsequently outcomes which may or may not contribute to processes of social exclusion.
In the National Travel Survey, there is however no indication of whether interviewers did override respondents answers or not and given that responses are self reported (either by the respondent or the interviewer) they are by nature subjective and likely to be influenced by individuals’ abilities and constraints, rather than being an indication of any ‘objective’ or ‘factual’ level of service provision. I have previously compared the NTS survey question to another nationwide objective dataset of public transport journey time access to destinations, the DfT Accessibility Statistics using data from the same year and at comparing at the postcode sector level and found socio-spatial differences between self reported and objective measures. The very fact that differences exist, suggests that the NTS was not as ‘accurate’ as an objective measure as was intended, again supporting the change of methodology towards one which does not rely of self-report or interviewer reports. However, the fact that differences exist also highlights that there is variation in self reported levels of accessibility compared with objective measures, which has implications in terms of policy interventions and targets to improve accessibility.
The new linked data includes a caveat that it is not directly comparable to the previous questions due to the change in methodology. This is clear from Figure 1, which shows clear shifts in the proportion of the population with access to each type of destination between 2012 and 2014. While not dramatic they do show a clear departure from previous trends and extrapolated to the population might have considerable impact. For example, the increase from 22% to 25% of the population having access to a hospital within 15 minutes, equates to 1.8 million people (based on 2012 and 2015 mid-year population estimates for England). This might have substantial implications for planning and policy decisions around accessibility to hospitals, and lead to a possibly incorrect assumption that accessibility has improved against targets. It is clear that the change in methodology has affects destinations differently, some showing and increase and some a decrease. It is also likely that there change has differential impact geographically and across socio-demographic groups. Unfortunately, by not including the two approaches in the same survey year, it is not possible to evaluate the impact of this change in methodology, although we can speculate as to what some of the implications might be, it is not possible to control for any actual changes over time.
Figure 1 suggests that there may be a difference in the definition of destinations between self-reported responses and the dataset used to calculate objective measures. The increased proportion of the population who can reach a hospital, GP or post office according to the new measure might be interpreted as meaning that there are more destinations in a national dataset than would be considered in a subjective choice set. On the other hand, we might assume that, particularly for hospitals, these are infrequent journeys which might be reported times are longer due to unfamiliarity. Familiarity has previously been reported as a reason explaining the ‘accuracy’ of journey time estimations.
Individual difference is one of the main reasons for disparities between the two types of measure. A place based measure cannot encapsulate the different travel experiences of all those living in a particular place. In my thesis I found that older people and car drivers reported longer journey times than measured objectively. There are two potential mechanisms at play here: in some cases differences occur because of inaccuracies in objective measures, for example because of the spatial scale used or the destinations included; differences may also occur because self reported measures are not accurate, relative to the objective measure. Differences may occur because an individual is not aware of a particular journey or destination, issues of familiarity or perceiving unfamiliar journeys to be longer than they are, or because a journey actually does take longer for an individual than an objectively measured average, because of mobility constraints such as children or older age.
Therefore, for some population groups, the differences between the TRACC and survey question data may be much larger than others, which leads us to think about what implications this might have for issues of social inclusion in transport planning. While contour mapping and cumulative accessibility measures might demonstrate that certain population groups are more likely to be at risk of transport related social exclusion, the fact that some of these groups may perceive accessibility to be worse than an objective measure would suggest could mean that they are at even greater risk of social exclusion. On the other hand, people may adapt to adverse circumstances and therefore not report problems, highlighting the need to compare self reported measures to objective measures.
If we can calculate public transport accessibility to destinations at the population level (using either the CAI or TRACC) then the value of attaching this data to a representative sample and then using this to extrapolate to the population seems limited. Would it not be better to have the national dataset available separately and keep the NTS as a survey which can be linked to a whole range of other data sets? One clear benefit, of course, is the ability to link data regarding accessibility to destinations to the rich information available in the NTS, which presents a range of research opportunities outwith the scope of the discussion here. The NTS had value in understanding how individual’s experiences might differ from an objective ‘norm’ (or at least a self reported measure, which did not intend to represent an objective reality, would).
The NTS is a continuous survey, designed to measures change over time. The change of methodology undermines this role. It should be remembered that the DfT reverted to traditional travel diary methods following a trial of using GPS to replace the traditional travel diary element of the NTS due to large discrepancies which meant that the use of the NTS as an ongoing measure of travel behaviour would be limited. This is not to say that the GPS data, or in this case, objective measures of accessibility are not useful, but it must be remembered that they measure something different to questions asked in a social survey. The nature of the knowledge is different, and evidence showing differences should make it clear that we need both kinds of knowledge to address issues of inclusion in transport.
The focus here has been on journey time, which is an important component of accessibility to destinations. However, for those at risk of transport related social exclusion, it may not be the most important factor and more work is needed to understand the importance of other aspects of accessibility across the social spectrum. A greater understanding of how perceptions differ from objective measures, for whom and why is crucial to addressing exclusion as it might illuminate why some groups feel unable to access destinations, despite measures which otherwise suggest reasonable levels of accessibility.
Transport planning has been criticised for its positivist approach, considering averages and not individuals’ experience. In this regard the change in methodology would appear to be a backwards step, moving away from understanding how individuals experience access to destinations. Of course, both approaches to measurement are needed if we are to make any progress in improving accessibility against a baseline. But while much academic research and professional practice has focussed on objective measurement of accessibility, perceptions have recently been highlighted as an important area for future research, at the very same time as the NTS is moving away from asking people what they think in favour of trying to capture the ‘reality’.
This brand new book by John Whitelegg of the Stockholm Environment Institute sets out a rationale for a transformation of the mobility landscape and argues that the sustainable transport options simply cannot thrive in a world that remains wedded to more mobility and the manifestations of that cultural and political bias (subsidy, infrastructure and an astonishing lack of attention to death, injury, air pollution, climate change and social justice). See here for more information and await a review in the TGRG.
In April 2014 the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds hosted 21 delegates from the University of Leeds alongside other British and European Universities for a workshop on “Writing Transport Geography”. TGRG Postgraduate reps Ian Philips and Joanna Elvy successfully won a grant from the Royal Geographical Society to host a workshop, which was aimed at encouraging interdisciplinary engagement amongst postgraduate and early career researchers from a variety of disciplines engaged in research with a transport geographical nature.
The one day session included a keynote address from Dr Karen Lucas exploring writing and publication from both the academic journal and policy perspectives (Lucas1_slides / Lucas2_slides). Cristina Irving Turner from Emerald also gave delegates a publisher’s perspective on writing for transport geography (Cristina-Irving-Turner_slides). Nine postgraduate and early career researchers also presented papers outlining their own research which generated lots of discussion and ideas for further work. Their papers included:
Anna Davidson (University of Oxford) – Bringing into conversation queer and material feminist theory to understandings of urban cycling practices (Think Piece) – Davidson_paper / Davidson_slides
Reka Solymosi (University College London) – Mapping Fear of Crime as a Dynamic Event in the Whole Journey Environment – Solymosi_paper / Solymosi_slides
Dr Giulio Mattioli (Univeristy of Aberdeen) – Car dependent practices: initial findings from a sequence pattern mining study of the 2000 British time use survey – Mattioli_slides
Daniel Oviedo Hernandez (University College London) – Transport strategies in a context of social and spatial peripheries in Colombia – Oviedo_paper / Oviedo_slides
Anna Plyushteva (University College London) – A Journey of Habits: Making, Sustaining and Transforming Everyday Urban Mobilities – Plyushteva_paper / Plyushteva_slides
Ersilia Verlinghieri (University of Leeds) – Planning for resourcefulness: a participatory approach to transport planning – Verlinghieri_paper
Nicole Badstuber (University College London) – Governance structures and policy frameworks of public transport systems (Think Piece)
Alison Rumbles (University of Plymouth) – A critical evaluation of ITSO Smart Ticketing, policy, practice and outcomes (Think Piece) – Rumbles_paper / Rumbles_slides
The day ended with a review session and social networking event which enabled delegates to further discuss the themes that had arisen during the workshop. The TGRG would like to thank all delegates and speakers for attending and also for individual permissions to reproduce the materials from the workshop.
A recent survey of TGRG members provided feedback for the committee and other members involved in convening and presenting at the Royal Geographical Society annual conference and other events. A summary of The role of the Journal of Transport Geography was widely and warmly recognised and developments in communications were commended. Please see below for the full report.
I attended the annual GIS Research UK conference (GISRUK) last week and have some very interesting work to report back to transport geographers.
Transport Geography and GIS have much in common, yet there is relatively little in terms of joint research spanning both fields. There have been efforts to overcome that, with many researchers proudly donning both GIS and Transport hats. There has, for example been a recent Special Issue onGeographic Information Systems for Transportation in the Journal of Transport Geography, as well as papers illustrating the benefits of linking transport models to GIS systems (e.g. Lektauers et al 2012). Despite this progress, there is much to do in terms of collaboration between the fields.
This article reports three papers at the intersection between Transport Studies and GIS, two of which were presented at the conference.