Homelessness vis-à-vis Transportation-Induced Social Exclusion: An Econometric Investigation of Travel Behavior of Homeless Individuals in Toronto,Canada
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017
Homelessness vis-à-vis Transportation-Induced Social Exclusion: An Econometric Investigation of Travel Behavior of Homeless Individuals in Toronto,Canada
The intersection of homelessness and transportation is an overlooked component of transport-related exclusion research, yet mobility is recognized as playing a significant role in anyone’s well-being. The lack of research in this field is concurrent with the lack of understanding of homeless individuals’ mobility needs and travel behavior. As a result, there is little that can guide the policy-making process for the travel needs of homeless individuals. In 2015, as a response to this research gap, an interview was designed and then conducted with 159 homeless individuals across eight shelters and drop-in agencies in the city of Toronto, Canada. The interview included stated adaptation experiments to reveal how transportation affected or hindered homeless individuals’ activity participation processes. Decision choice models were estimated with econometric modeling methods, which indicated the influence of variables such as age, income, and duration of homelessness on the decision to reject or accept employment opportunities. The results also showed that a person’s accustomed mode choice and daily number of trips had an effect on the decision to travel for social activity purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MiguelA., and AbughannamS.. Housing First Social Impact Bond Feasibility Study. MaRS Centre for Impact Investing and Social Finance, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014.
2.
SergeL., KrausD., and EberleM. P.. What Works: Effective Policies and Programs for the Homeless Population in Canada: Final Report. Human Resources and Social Development, Ottawa, Canada, 2006.
BoschmannE. E.Job Access, Location Decision, and the Working Poor: A Qualitative Study in the Columbus, Ohio Metropolitan Area. Geoforum, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2011, pp. 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.06.005.
8.
McCrayT., and BraisN.. Exploring the Role of Transportation in Social Exclusion Through the Use of GIS to Support Qualitative Data. [NETS]. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2007, pp. 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-007-9031-x.
9.
MorencyM., PáezA., RoordaM. J., MercadoR., and FarberS.. Distance Traveled in Three Canadian Cities: Spatial Analysis from the Perspective of Vulnerable Population Segments. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2011, pp. 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.013.
10.
PáezA., ScottD., PotoglouD., KanaroglouP., and NewboldK.. Elderly Mobility: Demographic and Spatial Analysis of Trip Making in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), Vol. 44, No. 1, 2007, pp. 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601023885.
11.
PrestonJ., and RajeF.. Accessibility, Mobility, and Transport-Related Social Exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2007, pp. 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002.
WolchJ. R., RahimianA., and KoegelP.. Daily and Periodic Mobility Patterns of the Urban Homeless. Professional Geographer, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1993, pp. 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00159.x.
14.
JocoyC., and Del CasinoV.Jr. Homelessness, Travel Behavior, and the Politics of Transportation Mobilities in Long Beach, California. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 42, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1943–1963. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42341.
PyrialakouV. D., GkritzaK., and FrickerJ. D.. Accessibility, Mobility, and Realized Travel Behavior: Assessing Transport Disadvantage from a Policy Perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 51, 2016, pp. 252–269.
17.
KamruzzamanM., and HineJ.. Analysis of Rural Activity Spaces and Transport Disadvantage Using a Multi-Method Approach. Transport Policy, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012, pp. 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.09.007.
18.
FarberS., BartholomewK., LiX., PáezA., and Nurul HabibK. M.. Assessing Social Equity in Distance Based Transit Fares Using a Model of Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 67, 2014, pp. 291–303.
19.
HuiV., and Nurul HabibK.. An Investigation of Transport-Related Social Exclusion of the At-Risk Community (Homeless People) in Toronto, Canada. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014.
20.
van BladelK., BellemansT., JanssensD., WetsG., NijlandL., ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.. Design of Stated Adaptation Experiments: Discussion of Some Issues and Experiences. Presented at 8th International Conference on Survey Methods in Transport, Annecy, France, 2008.
21.
GaetzS., DonaldsonJ., RichterT., and GulliverT.. The State of Homelessness in Canada 2013. Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press, Toronto, Canada, 2013.
22.
HuiV., and HabibK. N.. Transportation Related Social Exclusions and Homelessness: What Does the Role of Transportation Play in Improving the Circumstances of Homeless Individuals?Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
23.
PáezA., FarberS., MercadoR., RoordaM., and MorencyC.. Jobs and the Single Parent: An Analysis of Accessibility to Employment in Toronto. Urban Geography, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2013, pp. 815–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778600.
24.
SandovalJ. S. O., CerveroR., and LandisJ.. The Transition from Welfare-to-Work: How Cars and Human Capital Facilitate Employment for Welfare Recipients. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England), Vol. 31, No. 1, 2011, pp. 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.07.008.
25.
AllisonP. D., and ChristakisN. A.. Logit Models for Sets of Ranked Items. Sociological Methodology, Vol. 24, 1994, pp. 199–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/270983.
26.
MalaithamS., NakagawaD., MatsunakaR., YoonJ., and ObaT.. An Analysis of Residential Location Choice Behavior in Bangkok Metropolitan Region: An Application of Discrete Choice Models for the Ranking of Alternatives. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 10, 2013, pp. 989–1008.
27.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2002.
GiergicznyM., ValasiukS., CzajkowskiM., De SalvoM., and SignorelloG.. Including Cost Income Ratio into Utility Function as a Way of Dealing with “Exploding” Implicit Prices in Mixed Logit Models. Journal of Forest Economics, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2012, pp. 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.002.
30.
ErlanderS.Cost-Minimizing Choice Behavior in Transportation Planning: A Theoretical Framework for Logit Models. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11911-8.
31.
Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration, and Chief Customer Officer, Toronto Transit Commission. Toward a Policy Framework for Toronto Transit Fare Equity, Report and Appendix A. June17, 2014. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-70755.pdf.
