IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7465-d427874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Mobility Digital Ecosystems for Age-Friendly Urban Public Transport: A Narrative Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Eugène Loos

    (Utrecht University School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands
    Authors contribute equally.)

  • Maria Sourbati

    (School of Media, University of Brighton, Brighton BN2, UK
    Authors contribute equally.)

  • Frauke Behrendt

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Authors contribute equally.)

Abstract

Within the context of the intersection of the global megatrends of urbanisation, ageing societies and digitalisation, this paper explores older people’s mobility, with a particular interest in public transport, and a strong consideration of digital/ICT elements. With a focus on (smart) mobility, the paper aims to conceptualise transport, one of the main domains of age-friendly cities as a core element of a smart, age-friendly ecosystem. It also aims to propose a justice-informed perspective for the study of age-friendly smart mobility; to contribute towards a framework for the evaluation of age-friendly smart transport as a core element of the global age-friendly cities programme that comprises mobility practices, digital data, digital networks, material/physical geographies and digital devices and access; and to introduce the term “mobility digital ecosystem” to describe this framework. The paper uses the method of a narrative literature review to weave together a selected range of perspectives from communications, transport, and mobility studies in order to introduce the embeddedness of both communication technology use and mobility practices into their material conditions. Combining insights from communications, mobility and transport and social gerontology with a justice perspective on ICT access and mobility, the paper then develops a framework to study age-friendly smart mobility. What we call a “mobility digital ecosystem” framework comprises five elements—mobility practices, digital data, digital networks, material geographies, digital devices and access to services. The paper contributes a justice-informed perspective that points towards a conceptualisation of age-friendly smart mobility as a core element of the age-friendly cities and communities in the WHO’s global age-friendly cities programme.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugène Loos & Maria Sourbati & Frauke Behrendt, 2020. "The Role of Mobility Digital Ecosystems for Age-Friendly Urban Public Transport: A Narrative Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7465-:d:427874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7465/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7465/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rusul Abduljabbar & Hussein Dia & Sohani Liyanage & Saeed Asadi Bagloee, 2019. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Transport: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Coutinho, Felipe Mariz & van Oort, Niels & Christoforou, Zoi & Alonso-González, María J. & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "Impacts of replacing a fixed public transport line by a demand responsive transport system: Case study of a rural area in Amsterdam," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. Lena Levin, 2019. "How May Public Transport Influence the Practice of Everyday Life among Younger and Older People and How May Their Practices Influence Public Transport?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Hannah R. Marston & Joost van Hoof, 2019. "“Who Doesn’t Think about Technology When Designing Urban Environments for Older People?” A Case Study Approach to a Proposed Extension of the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-35, September.
    5. Carlo Luiu & Miles Tight & Michael Burrow, 2017. "The unmet travel needs of the older population: a review of the literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 488-506, July.
    6. Daniels, Rhonda & Mulley, Corinne, 2013. "Explaining walking distance to public transport: The dominance of public transport supply," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 6(2), pages 5-20.
    7. Peter Merriman & Lynne Pearce, 2017. "Mobility and the humanities," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 493-508, July.
    8. Sonja Haustein & Anu Siren, 2015. "Older People's Mobility: Segments, Factors, Trends," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 466-487, July.
    9. David Banister & Dominic Stead, 2004. "Impact of information and communications technology on transport," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 611-632, January.
    10. Behrendt, Frauke, 2016. "Why cycling matters for Smart Cities. Internet of Bicycles for Intelligent Transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 157-164.
    11. Rafael H. M. Pereira & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2017. "Distributive justice and equity in transportation," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-191, March.
    12. David Hulme, 2007. "The Making of the Millennium Development Goals: Human Development Meets Results based Management In an Imperfect World," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 1607, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    13. Frauke Behrendt, 2019. "Cycling the Smart and Sustainable City: Analyzing EC Policy Documents on Internet of Things, Mobility and Transport, and Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-30, February.
    14. Nordbakke, Susanne, 2013. "Capabilities for mobility among urban older women: barriers, strategies and options," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 166-174.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joost van Hoof & Hannah R. Marston, 2021. "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Dadashzadeh, Nima & Woods, Lee & Ouelhadj, Djamila & Thomopoulos, Nikolas & Kamargianni, Maria & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2022. "Mobility as a Service Inclusion Index (MaaSINI): Evaluation of inclusivity in MaaS systems and policy recommendations," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 191-202.
    3. Zhu, Chunxiao & Shou, Minghuan & Zhou, Yitong & Li, Wenrui, 2023. "Modeling the effect of social media on older adults’ usage intention of public transport," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 239-250.
    4. Jianbo Han & Edwin H. W. Chan & Esther H. K. Yung & Queena K. Qian & Patrick T. I. Lam, 2022. "A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean Ryan, 2020. "Examining the Process of Modal Choice for Everyday Travel Among Older People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Deka, Devajyoti, 2022. "Trip deprivation among older adults in the context of the capability approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Carlo Luiu & Miles Tight & Michael Burrow, 2018. "Factors Preventing the Use of Alternative Transport Modes to the Car in Later Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Bantis, Thanos & Haworth, James, 2020. "Assessing transport related social exclusion using a capabilities approach to accessibility framework: A dynamic Bayesian network approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Vecchio, Giovanni, 2020. "Microstories of everyday mobilities and opportunities in Bogotá: A tool for bringing capabilities into urban mobility planning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Azmoodeh, Mohammad & Haghighi, Farshidreza & Motieyan, Hamid, 2023. "The capability approach and social equity in transport: Understanding factors affecting capabilities of urban residents, using structural equation modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 137-151.
    7. Yixue Zhang & Steven Farber & Mischa Young, 2022. "Eliminating barriers to nighttime activity participation: the case of on-demand transit in Belleville, Canada," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1385-1408, October.
    8. Ryan, Jean & Pereira, Rafael H.M., 2021. "What are we missing when we measure accessibility? Comparing calculated and self-reported accounts among older people," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. He, Sylvia Y. & Cheung, Yannie H.Y. & Tao, Sui, 2018. "Travel mobility and social participation among older people in a transit metropolis: A socio-spatial-temporal perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 608-626.
    10. Hannah Ramsden Marston & Linda Shore & P.J. White, 2020. "How does a (Smart) Age-Friendly Ecosystem Look in a Post-Pandemic Society?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-43, November.
    11. Nikolaeva, Anna & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Raven, Rob & Ranson, James, 2019. "Smart cycling futures: Charting a new terrain and moving towards a research agenda," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Buehler, Ralph & Pucher, John & Wittwer, Rico & Gerike, Regine, 2024. "Trends and determinants of the mobility of older adults in the USA and Germany, 2001–2017," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    13. Wei Chiang Chan & Wan Hashim Wan Ibrahim & May Chiun Lo & Mohamad Kadim Suaidi & Shiaw Tong Ha, 2020. "Sustainability of Public Transportation: An Examination of User Behavior to Real-Time GPS Tracking Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Ma, Jingwen & Zhao, Shengchuan & Li, Wu & Liu, Meng & Luo, Huanhuan, 2022. "Heterogeneity in seniors' unmet walking needs: A latent class analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Ravensbergen, Léa & Newbold, K Bruce & Ganann, Rebecca & Sinding, Christina, 2021. "‘Mobility work’: Older adults' experiences using public transportation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Giovanni Vecchio & Riccardo Porreca & Daniela Jácome Rivera, 2020. "Socio-Spatial Concerns in Urban Mobility Planning: Insights from Competing Policies in Quito," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Luiu, Carlo & Tight, Miles, 2021. "Travel difficulties and barriers during later life: Evidence from the National Travel Survey in England," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Jin, Tanhua & Cheng, Long & Wang, Kailai & Cao, Jun & Huang, Haosheng & Witlox, Frank, 2022. "Examining equity in accessibility to multi-tier healthcare services across different income households using estimated travel time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-13.
    19. Boisjoly, Geneviève & Serra, Bernardo & Oliveira, Gabriel T. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2020. "Accessibility measurements in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Recife, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. Lou, Jiehong & Shen, Xingchi & Niemeier, Deb, 2020. "Are stay-at-home orders more difficult to follow for low-income groups?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7465-:d:427874. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.