---
category: literaturenote
citekey: mejiatransportpovertysystematicliterature2022
title: "Transport Poverty: A systematic literature review in Europe"
authors: "Mejía, DORANTES Lucía; Murauskaite-Bull, Ingrida"
year: 2022
date: 2022-00-00 2022
doi: 10.2760/793538
url: "https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC129559"
zotero_key: PVHM3KBB
zotero_storage: TMVM4VAV
collections: imporditud
folder: 001_artiklid
firstAuthor: "Mejía, DORANTES Lucía"
status: converted
---
![](_page_0_Figure_1.jpeg)

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

#### **Contact information**

Name: Ingrida Murauskaite-Bull

Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands

Email: Ingrida.Murauskaite-Bull@ec.europa.eu

Tel.: +31 224 56 5092

#### **EU Science Hub**

[https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu](https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/)

JRC129559

EUR 31267 EN

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-58571-8 ISSN 1831-9424 [doi:10.2760/793538](JRC%20Science%20for%20Policy_Transport%20poverty.pdf) KJ-NA-31-267-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022

#### © European Union, 2022

![](_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg)

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence [\(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

All content © European Union, 2022, except front page: adaptation from ©procinemastock – AdobeStock

How to cite this report:

Mejía Dorantes, L. and Murauskaite-Bull, I., *Transport poverty: a systematic literature review in Europe*, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, doi:10.2760/793538, JRC129559.

|                    |                                                                                 | Acknowledgements2                                              |  |  |  |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|
|                    |                                                                                 | Executive summary3                                             |  |  |  |
| 1<br>Introduction6 |                                                                                 |                                                                |  |  |  |
| 2                  | Methodology8                                                                    |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 2.1                                                                             | Search Strategy9                                               |  |  |  |
|                    | 2.1.1                                                                           | Other search strategies9                                       |  |  |  |
|                    | 2.2                                                                             | Findings10                                                     |  |  |  |
| 3                  | Concepts, definitions and metrics11                                             |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.1                                                                             | Background: Risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe11   |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.2                                                                             | Definition and metrics of transport poverty12                  |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.2.1                                                                           | Moving towards a holistic concept14                            |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.2.2                                                                           | Metrics14                                                      |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.3                                                                             | Populations at higher risk19                                   |  |  |  |
|                    | 3.3.1                                                                           | Gender20                                                       |  |  |  |
| 4                  |                                                                                 | Issues that shape transport poverty: Causes and consequences22 |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.1<br>Spatial mismatch and social exclusion22                                  |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.2<br>Affordable housing and gentrification22                                  |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.3<br>Rural and remote locations23                                             |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.4                                                                             | The three As: Accessibility, Affordability, and Availability23 |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.4.1                                                                           | Accessibility24                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.4.2                                                                           | Affordability24                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.4.3                                                                           | Availability25                                                 |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.5                                                                             | Car dependence25                                               |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.6                                                                             | Time poverty26                                                 |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.7                                                                             | Health & climate change-related risks26                        |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.8                                                                             | Technological barriers and digital divide27                    |  |  |  |
|                    | 4.9                                                                             | Transport poverty in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic27      |  |  |  |
| 5                  | Interventions and measures to alleviate or reduce transport poverty29           |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.1<br>Gender Mainstreaming29                                                   |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.2                                                                             | Social justice policies at international and European level29  |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.3<br>Housing, sustainable mobility, polycentricity and the 15-minute cities30 |                                                                |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.3.1                                                                           | Housing30                                                      |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.3.2                                                                           | Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning30                          |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.3.3                                                                           | Active mobility31                                              |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.3.4                                                                           | Polycentricity and the 15-minute cities31                      |  |  |  |
|                    | 5.4                                                                             | Fighting isolation in rural areas and remote regions32         |  |  |  |

|   | 5.5 | Reducing the digital divide32 |  |
|---|-----|-------------------------------|--|
| 6 |     | Conclusions34                 |  |
|   |     | References35                  |  |
|   |     | List of boxes43               |  |
|   |     | List of figures44             |  |
|   |     |                               |  |
|   |     | List of tables45              |  |
|   |     |                               |  |

# <span id="page-4-0"></span>**Abstract**

Transport systems are a very powerful tool for overcoming deprivation, reducing inequalities and ensuring access to essential services. However, studies have observed that certain population groups are particularly vulnerable to adverse transport conditions, restricting them to a certain area and therefore hindering their opportunities for development and pushing them to poverty and social exclusion. Transport poverty means the lack of available, affordable and accessible transport choices, hindering essential activities and participation in society.

This report aims to improve the understanding of transport poverty in the European Union and to analyse its many components through a systematic literature review, taking into account current societal changes such as those triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, and future challenges regarding new services, digitalisation, climate change and the transition towards climate neutrality. We highlight the importance of establishing an EU-wide definition and measurement for transport poverty, and offer a definition based on the literature review. We emphasise the importance of prioritising the most sustainable transport modes, such as active travel and public transport, along with urban and rural development and housing policies which reduce the chances of falling into transport poverty, while transforming the built environment to make it sustainable, fair, just and inclusive.

# <span id="page-5-0"></span>**Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank colleagues who made suggestions and helped review this report:

Giorgos Koukoufikis, Catriona Black, Aliki Georgakaki, Andreas Uihlein (JRC.C.7), Alejandro Ortega Hortelano (JRC.C.2), Ellen Durst, Ruth Lopian (MOVE.DDG1.B.5), Niccolo Pieri, Javier Villar Burke (MOVE.A.3), Piotr Rapacz (MOVE.DDG1.B.3), Thais Goncalves, Tillmann Heidelk, Boris Arnold (EMPL.F.3), Gilberto Pelosi (EMPL.D.1) and Teresa Aristegui (ENER.B.1).

## *Authors*

Lucía Mejía Dorantes<sup>1</sup> Ingrida Murauskaite-Bull<sup>2</sup>

<sup>1</sup>Consultant, Karlsruhe 76185, Germany

<sup>2</sup> European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Petten, The Netherlands

# <span id="page-6-0"></span>**Executive summary**

Transport poverty is still an underestimated phenomenon outside of academia, having no commonly used definition and direct measurement in the EU. The aim of this report is to analyse the many components of transport poverty in Europe, through a systematic literature review, to make the link between theory, policy and practice.

Transport systems are an essential part of our society, allowing us to exercise our rights as residents. Good quality, accessible, available and affordable transport systems are a very powerful tool for overcoming deprivation, reducing inequalities, ensuring access to services, and increasing wellbeing. However, limited transport conditions may have serious consequences and hinder certain population groups from taking part in multiple socioeconomic activities, reducing their chances to progress and leading them to poverty or social exclusion. A wide variety of population groups experience limitations in their mobility practices: for instance, older people, people with disabilities, low-income households, those living in rural or remote locations, women, unemployed people and frontline workers. Vulnerable households are also being affected by various crises and issues that pose new challenges and impact their mobility patterns, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase of energy prices, climate change, the transition towards climate neutrality and the digital divide. While the EU is addressing these issues, it is important to highlight the current and future societal changes from the transport poverty perspective.

This systematic review on transport poverty collects and summarises the existing literature and serves as a building block, clarifying the concept of transport poverty and highlighting the related knowledge gaps that can be addressed by future research. Apart from discussing the main definitions and approaches to measuring transport poverty, it aims to identify the population groups at the highest risk as well as describing the consequences and reviewing the proposed measures designed to contribute to alleviating or reducing transport poverty in Europe. Such measures include various social justice policies, gender mainstreaming, housing and sustainable mobility strategies, fighting isolation in rural and remote areas and reducing the digital divide.

### *Main findings*

Transport poverty can be present in rural as well as urban areas and it describes a situation where households have to spend a large share of their money and time to meet their essential transport needs, such as travelling for work, education, healthcare, groceries and other similar vital trips that promote their development and overall wellbeing. Individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status, disability or reduced mobility, education, age, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex and gender play a significant role in transport poverty.

Transport poverty may occur in all types of areas, where communities are underserved by affordable and reliable public transport systems and/or by essential services. Sometimes the lack of local services reduces proximity trips, and correspondingly, increases the time and money spent on each trip.

In this respect, dwelling and transport costs are interconnected. Poorer households move to suburban areas to reduce their dwelling costs, forcing them in many cases to spend more time and money to carry out activities or to become reliant on private transport by car. This car dependency for those needing to move to suburban areas as well as those in rural areas only boosts negative externalities in their communities and increases both transport poverty and energy poverty.

All these issues may result in reduced mobility, giving up certain activities and thereby hindering professional and education opportunities, with negative consequences for health and wellbeing. Finally, it leads to social exclusion.

Therefore, the reviewed literature and EU policy documents encourage the offering and distribution of transport services in a uniform manner to ensure that they can be accessed using active and sustainable means, and tackling pollution and safety and security in neighbourhoods, therefore making cities, as well as rural areas, more friendly and liveable. They also discuss the importance of improving mobility systems by providing better infrastructure for walking, cycling, public transport and other solutions such as shared mobility.

Furthermore, given that nowadays, certain trips can be replaced with digital services such as teleworking and teleconferencing, policy design also aims to encompass ICT infrastructure and services in communities, along with the necessary skills, which need to be available for all individuals under most conditions as an alternative to certain trips.

Access to transport is included in Principle 20 of the European Pillar of Social Rights as an essential service. Public transport is also a service of general (economic) interest and, therefore, subject to specific public service obligations (European Commission, 2011). However, there is currently no commonly agreed definition and measurement for transport poverty in the EU. An agreed EU definition would lead to a better understanding of the concept and would encourage Member States to take mitigating measures.

### *Key conclusions*

The reviewed literature suggests that for social infrastructure planning to be fair, it has to benefit all individuals in society, and land use and transport policy cannot be considered independently of each other. The efficient combination of mobility services, spatial proximity to resources and local services of good quality, affordable housing alternatives, digital infrastructure and lifelong education need to be designed in an inclusive and sustainable manner. In this respect, the participation in planning and design of all stakeholders is of utmost importance for transforming cities and rural areas to make them healthy, inter- and intra-generationally inclusive, resilient, liveable, friendly and accessible.

In order to mitigate transport poverty, it first needs to be better identified, which is the main focus of the report. After reviewing a number of attempts to define the issue and summarising those which are most relevant, the study proposes its own working definition that highlights the main components of accessibility, availability and affordability of transport:

'Transport poverty may hinder certain population groups from taking part in multiple socioeconomic activities, reducing their chances to progress, leading them to poverty or social exclusion and affecting the health and wellbeing of the individual. A person can be considered transport-poor regardless of their individual characteristics (such as socioeconomic status, disability, education, age, religion, race and gender) and geographical living area. Transport poverty occurs when an individual or household cannot access essential transport services due to a lack of alternatives to cover the distance between the place of departure and the destination; there are no suitable and affordable transport alternatives at a reachable distance to their departure and destination points, in service hours and frequencies which meet their needs; the individual's transport expenditure brings their residual income below or close to the official poverty line; the total duration of travel leads to time poverty; or the available transport options fail to ensure the individual's safety and security.'

The digital divide may pose a new transport poverty challenge if long-term, wide-reaching measures are not implemented to target various social groups, and older people in particular, so that everyone may benefit from equal access to ICT services such as online travel information, digital tickets and digital parking systems.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on vulnerable groups, causing job losses, reducing mobility alternatives, and reinforcing the digital divide. In particular, it has affected those using public transport due to health and safety concerns or reduced frequency, leading people to find alternative transport modes such as private cars and cycling, depending on the distance and infrastructure available.

Climate change and the transition towards climate neutrality may also impact vulnerable households disproportionately if measures are not taken to mitigate their effects. While public transport and the infrastructure improvements needed for active mobility are heading in the right direction, much attention is often focused on zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). While this option helps to make the transport sector more sustainable, it requires further cost reduction to become affordable to vulnerable households, along with better and more widely distributed infrastructure, available outside urban areas. The reviewed literature questions the availability of raw resources for such massive production and notes that with a focus on ZEVs, societies continue to be car-dependent and to suffer from the associated shortcomings.

Lastly, the energy crisis in 2021 and 2022, exacerbated by Russia's war against Ukraine, worsens the situation both in terms of transport poverty and energy poverty. The increase in energy prices, which have skyrocketed since the invasion, are making a significant impact on vulnerable groups, limiting their mobility options and jeopardising current and future opportunities. People have also had to move out of cities to reduce their housing costs, where public transport infrastructure is scattered and offers poorer services, thus making them reliant on private vehicles. However, the rising cost of fuel puts further strain on household budgets. These issues reveal the vulnerability of the current system and the urgency of taking action. Recent EU strategies, such as the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy<sup>1</sup> and the New EU Urban Mobility Framework<sup>2</sup> , have dedicated more

<sup>1</sup> Commission Communication on a Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the Future[, COM\(2020\) 789 final.](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5e601657-3b06-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF)

<sup>2</sup> Commission Communication on The New EU Urban Mobility Framework, [COM\(2021\) 811 final.](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12916-Sustainable-transport-new-urban-mobility-framework_en)

| attention to prioritising public transport and urban development, and will help citizens to overcome the economic |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| crisis while also transforming cities (and rural areas) to make them sustainable, just and inclusive.             |

# <span id="page-9-0"></span>**1 Introduction**

The aim of this report is to analyse the many components of transport poverty in Europe through a systematic literature review.

Transport systems are an essential part of our societies, allowing us to exercise our rights as residents. They are a very powerful tool for overcoming deprivation, reducing inequalities, ensuring access to essential services, and increasing wellbeing. On the other hand, transport also has negative effects such as air pollution, noise, and habitat fragmentation. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), the transport sector consumes one third of all final energy in the EU (European Environment Agency, 2020), and generates around 25% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission, 2020). In fact, emissions in the transport sector were estimated to be around 29% above 1990 levels in 2018 (EEA, 2020), and will require substantial efforts to achieve a 90% emissions reduction and meet the 2030 and 2050 targets established in the EU's Fit for 55 package<sup>3</sup>

Mobility is conditioned by the distance between places, the topography of the region, the topology of the transport network and weather conditions, along with transport costs and time budget (Mejía-Dorantes, Montero, and Barceló, 2021). In addition, mobility is shaped by our individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status, disabilities or reduced mobility, education, age, religion, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, sexuality and gender (Vacchelli and Kofman, 2018; Mejía-Dorantes and Soto Villagrán, 2020). All these characteristics shape our choices in terms of the transport modes available and affordable to us.

Studies have observed that low-income and certain population groups, such as those in work, are particularly vulnerable to transport conditions (Koukoufikis and Uihlein, 2022). Indeed, limited transport alternatives may hinder various population groups from taking part in multiple socioeconomic activities, reducing their chances of progress and leading them to poverty or social exclusion. Although there is no agreed and commonly used definition, it is agreed that transport poverty may be seen a lack of available, affordable and accessible transport alternatives, restricting the mobility of a person to a certain area and hindering his or her essential activities and participation in society. Many researchers have documented the strong relationship between poverty, social exclusion, and transport (Lucas et al., 2016; Levitas et al., 2007; Titheridge et al., 2014; Lucas, 2012).

Recent crises with the COVID-19 pandemic at the forefront have posed new challenges for society, affecting certain population groups and economic sectors (including tourism, transport, leisure, hotels and restaurants), our social habits (teleworking and social distancing), the way we carry out our daily activities, the transport modes we use and the way we use them, e.g. decreased use of public transportation. They have shown that it is necessary to build a fairer Europe, strengthening its social dimension. This social component is also a crucial element of the European Green Deal, addressing the consequences of climate change and making our society climate neutral, considering all population groups and specific needs, and leaving no one behind. The Just Transition Mechanism is necessary to prevent inequalities, which would otherwise lead to an increase in poverty and social exclusion.

Many living areas across Europe, both urban and rural, are now being planned in a way that reduces as much as possible the negative consequences of transport. In this respect, the spatial arrangement of the built environment is vital to carrying out daily activities and accessing goods and services. The Urban Agenda for the EU<sup>4</sup> and the long-term vision for the EU's rural areas<sup>5</sup> set out the guiding principles for how the urban and rural dimensions can be prosperous, resilient, sustainable and connected (including from the digital and transport perspective). They both aim to improve mobility systems by providing better infrastructure for walking, cycling and public transport, and the introduction of new technologies, such as car and bike-sharing services, and most importantly, ensuring that these solutions are achieved through socially inclusive and progressive policies.

The Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, ensuring that the EU's transport sector is fit for a clean, digital and modern economy, includes improved transport connectivity and access as one of its key objectives. The REPower EU plan<sup>6</sup> puts forward an additional set of actions to increase the resilience of the EU energy system, accelerating and scaling up the use of renewable energy in transport and the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels.

6

 <sup>3</sup> Commission Communication 'Fit for 55': delivering the EU's 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality, [COM/2021/550 final](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550&from=EN)

<sup>4</sup> [The Urban Agenda for the EU](https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/urban-agenda) offers a new form of multilevel and multi-stakeholder cooperation with the aim of strengthening the urban dimension in EU policy.

<sup>5</sup> Commission Communication on a long-term vision for the EU's rural areas, [COM\(2021\) 345 final](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:6c924246-da52-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF)

<sup>6</sup> Commission Communication on the REPower EU plan, [COM\(2022\) 230 final.](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:fc930f14-d7ae-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF)

Lastly, we have the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan<sup>7</sup> that expresses the principles and rights essential for fair and well-functioning labour markets and welfare systems in the EU. Principle 20 focuses on access to essential services, including transport.

While these strategies and programmes demonstrate the general policy context, more research is required to achieve a common definition of, and measurement for, transport poverty. This is recognised in the Fit-for-55 package, which explicitly includes a mandate to further research and define transport poverty.

The current systematic review collects and summarises existing literature to begin the process of clarifying the concept of transport poverty, highlighting knowledge gaps for future research. It also aims to identify the population groups at the highest risk and the consequences they face, and to review the proposed policy measures designed to address the issue in Europe. Although the focus is mainly on the EU, other studies are discussed where relevant.

We assess the fundamental issues at play today and in the future, and the challenges faced in planning and designing a fairer society.

<sup>7</sup> [The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan](https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/en/) turns the [20 key principles](https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/economy-works-people/jobs-growth-and-investment/european-pillar-social-rights/european-pillar-social-rights-20-principles_en) into concrete actions to benefit citizens and proposes headline targets for the EU to reach by 2030.

# <span id="page-11-0"></span>**2 Methodology**

To analyse transport poverty in Europe, the study is based on a systematic literature review approach. It is a popular method to conduct a rigorous and thorough analysis based on the comparison of different sources in a methodical manner to bring about a discussion on recurrent issues, findings and relevant interventions (Kelly, 2011). This type of analysis is quite popular in areas such as healthcare (Lame, 2019; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009).

To carry out a systematic review, it is necessary to define the review question, explain why it is necessary and identify the issues that need responses. In this study, the main research objectives are:

- 1. To discuss the ways in which transport poverty is being defined and measured and the relative merits of different approaches and definitions.
- 2. To unveil the kinds of transport poverty that exist with regard to aspects including availability, accessibility, affordability and adequacy (in terms of time budget).
- 3. To identify, through analysis, those specific population groups which are at higher risk, taking into account gender, age, income, health, employment status and location type (rural/urban), discussing available data.
- 4. To describe the consequences of transport poverty.
- <span id="page-11-1"></span>5. To review the interventions and measures that have been proposed and implemented to alleviate or reduce transport poverty. To assess whether these measures were effective in alleviating transport poverty and whether alternative/more effective measures have been considered for the future.

![](_page_11_Figure_8.jpeg)

**Figure 1.** Simplified diagram of review question

*Source:* Authors' elaboration

**Figure 2.** Diagram of review process regarding transport poverty

<span id="page-12-2"></span>Identification • Definition of research objectives and questions • Identification of key research question • Methodological approach Screening • Search scientific databases • Define and apply inclusion or exclusion criteria • Search additional bibliographical resources • Analysis of eligible references • Classification of results according to topics and countries Results • Analysis of results • Critical assessment of strengths and limitations of case studies and documents • Conclusions and recommendations

*Source:* Authors' elaboration

# <span id="page-12-0"></span>**2.1 Search Strategy**

This study reviews literature published from the beginning of 2000 to April 2022. However, older works were also considered, to reflect on definitions and highlight similarities or differences regarding transport poverty and relevant aspects that need to be considered. Although the study primarily addresses the EU, it also considers other geographical areas. Most sources are in English, although some in other EU languages have been included.

This study covers the broadest possible range of sources relevant to the research question, and a range of highquality databases was therefore used. This includes Scopus, Science Direct, JSTOR and Google Scholar.

Results were filtered per subject area: for example, excluding results from nursing, neuroscience, immunology and microbiology, medicine, agricultural and biological sciences, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology and other fields not directly linked to the study field. Annex 1 shows the exact terms that were included in the search. To fine-tune the results, research articles were also filtered by countries where research was carried out, which means that some non-EU countries were excluded where it was evident that the system described was not related to the European arena. Finally, duplications were removed at the end of the process.

## <span id="page-12-1"></span>**2.1.1 Other search strategies**

To avoid knowledge bias, the search strategy also included published reports from EU projects (for example through the European Commission's Transport Research and Innovation Monitoring and Information System (TRIMIS) database), reports and information from European Statistics (for example through Eurostat), reports published by think-tanks, peer-reviewed papers, working papers, recent Transportation Research Group (TRB)

annual meeting conferences and the Joint Research Centre database. Where relevant, some newspaper articles were also included.

Given that there are many terms related to transport poverty, reference-harvesting was also relevant for this study. For this reason, a snowballing strategy was used.

Moreover, additional sources of information were taken into account, such as theses, grey literature, ongoing studies, conference papers, workshops and project presentations. These were found through newspapers, reviewers, colleagues and wider networking. The quality of all sources was verified.

# <span id="page-13-0"></span>**2.2 Findings**

In total, more than 320 sources of information were gathered and evaluated. Approximately half of them were found to be useful for this report. Our findings are discussed below.

Results show that a great amount of the academic literature regarding transport poverty and its interrelated concepts has been produced in the UK after 2000. Many of this work has been leaded by K. Lucas and colleagues. After the book edited by K.Lucas (2004), with a comparison of issues on both sides of the Atlantic, researchers have triggered a thorough discussion of this multidimensional issue in many other countries. In comparison, a more limited production may be found in reports out of the academic field, and there is a clear lack of metrics concerning transport poverty.

In the next sections we will discuss in detail the multiple issues that shape transport poverty with special emphasis on the European Union.

# <span id="page-14-0"></span>**3 Concepts, definitions and metrics**

Transport systems play a fundamental role in accessing opportunities and exercising our rights as residents; therefore, a fair design of transport systems is crucial. The main components defining transport poverty encapsulate the accessibility, affordability and availability of transport, as this chapter further describes.

The social justice concept is also extremely relevant in this context, as it is based on the egalitarian principle of promoting a fair and equal society in which each individual's rights and needs are recognised (Park, 2007). Furthermore, transport justice highlights the need to develop transport-related strategies to ease accessibility for all with a fair and inclusive approach (Lucas, 2006; Martens, 2012). In this regard, Pereira et al. (2017) also discuss various theories of justice which are key to analysing the distributional effects of transport policies based on individuals' rights, giving priority to disadvantaged groups, while reducing inequalities of opportunity and transport negative externalities. Lucas et al. (2016) observe that egalitarian and sufficientarianism theories are necessary to implement transport policies that place equity in accessibility in the forefront. Furthermore, the authors observe that they should be based on the differences between population groups that need a specific transport service with a minimum threshold to key activities or destinations.

Transport poverty is an issue that can trigger severe adverse consequences for different population groups and can be shaped by a variety of factors, for example, the poor design of transport networks. The European Social Policy network (ESPN) report (Baptista and Marlier, 2020) observes that the uneven distribution of public transport networks in EU Member States restricts accessibility to essential daily activities (e.g. travelling for work, education, healthcare, groceries and other similar vital trips) for low-income groups, with negative consequences.

Individual characteristics determine how people may suffer from transport poverty, in terms of gender, age, income and education levels, physical and mental disabilities, migration background and race. External factors also play a role, whether in the urban or rural environment, or related to services provided by a range of institutions and administrations. None of these issues stands alone; each is intertwined with the others to limit the opportunities of those vulnerable to transport poverty. These issues are discussed more fully below.

# <span id="page-14-1"></span>**3.1 Background: Risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe**

According to Eurostat (2021), more than 96 million people (2020 Statistics) are at risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU. This corresponds to approximately 30% of the EU population and almost 24 million people more than in the previous year (Eurostat, 2021).

The statistics from 2020 show that in the EU, the risk of poverty or social exclusion is higher for women. This risk is also higher among young adults, people with low educational levels, and unemployed people. People living in single adult households are also particularly vulnerable across the EU: more than 42% of these households are at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

In 2019, 22.6% of children under the age of 16 in the EU-27 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Eurostat, 2022). Also at risk were 20.2% of people aged 65 and over (Eurostat, 2022). 28.4% of the EU population lived with an activity limitation (persons with disabilities) and were at risk of social exclusion (Eurostat, 2021). Around 5% of the EU population were non-EU citizens.

The EEA stresses that poorer people live shorter lives with fewer healthy life-years and have a higher prevalence of long-term health problems (European Environment Agency, 2020). For example, in terms of air pollution, there are about 51 000 premature deaths in the EU per year due to PM2.5 and 900 for NO2 exposure (Khomenko et al., 2021). The EEA recognises that pregnant women, older people and children are more sensitive to air pollutants, and children's lifetime cognitive development is jeopardised (European Environment Agency, 2020).

Even if there is a high variability of these figures among Member States (MS), it is worth noting that these numbers increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and will likely keep on increasing due in part to the economic consequences of COVID-19, the energy crisis and climate change.

The European Commission has made clear that its measures in pursuit of sustainability and climate neutrality should create a just transition, leaving no one behind. In fact, social protection and inclusion are one of the principles of the European Social Pillar. Effective access to essential services of sufficient quality, such as water, sanitation, healthcare, energy, transport, financial services and digital communications is fundamental for living in dignity (European Commission, 2021).

The lack of effective access to those goods, services and places is at the heart of transport poverty, and specific measures should be put in place to overcome it.

### <span id="page-15-1"></span>**Box 1.** Just Transition

Climate change is one of the most critical challenges we face today. Urgent measures are being taken to transition to a climate-neutral and environmentally friendly society, away from the unsustainable structures currently in place. This change involves mobility systems, one of main pillars of modern society. Social justice is a crucial element of this response to the challenge of climate change and of the transition itself.

In 2015, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2015) defined the Just Transition "*as a process towards an environmentally sustainable economy, which needs to be well managed and contribute to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and the eradication of poverty*".

Recently, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that "*Change towards a greener, fairer and more inclusive future will entail short-term costs and challenges. That is why it is so important to accompany the change and to help communities and individuals adjust to the new world. This requires keen attention to social issues*" (European Commission, 2021).

While the transition to climate neutrality undoubtedly entails costs and change, these costs should not exacerbate the problem of poverty and social exclusion, and by extension, transport poverty. The European Social Climate Fund (SCF) aims to help vulnerable households, micro-businesses and transport users to meet the costs of the green energy transition in buildings and road transport. The SCF is designed to counter the additional costs that vulnerable consumers may face when the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) directive is extended to these two sectors, as proposed in the Fit-for-55 package.

The transport sector generates around 25% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions and it will need to undergo massive transformation to achieve the 90% reduction of emissions promised by 2050. It also contributes around 5% to EU GDP and employs more than 10 million people in Europe (European Commission, 2020). While making the transport sector more sustainable, support measures such as the SCF must be in place for the most vulnerable consumers, and up- and reskilling opportunities must be made available for workers, along with high-quality jobs. In this context, the Council Recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality, adopted on 16 June 2022, proposes actions to support people most affected by the green transition, and puts a focus on education and training measures. The Recommendation builds on the ILO guidelines and urges countries to integrate the employment and social aspects of the green transition in the development and implementation of relevant national strategies.

# <span id="page-15-0"></span>**3.2 Definition and metrics of transport poverty**

Researchers in the UK, and in particular Lucas and colleagues (Lucas, 2004), have carried out pioneering work in the field of transport and social exclusion, leading the way in the international arena. They have coined many terms and concepts, by describing a multidimensional issue that entails the lack of fulfilment of transport systems or mobility alternatives of certain quality levels to carry out our daily activities, which hinder our everyday life (Lucas, 2006; Lucas et al., 2016). The terms used include transport and mobility justice, mobility and accessibility poverty and barriers, transport deprivation, transport fairness, spatial mismatch, transport and mobility disadvantage, transport adequacy or forced car ownership.

Case studies in different geographical contexts have shown that the lack of efficient access to transport services leads to social exclusion, restricting opportunities for development and hindering chances to progress, affecting wellbeing (Hine, 2009; Currie et al., 2010; Páez et al., 2010; Lunke, 2022).

Lucas et al. (2016) state that transport poverty comprises a number of concepts: mobility poverty, accessibility poverty, transport affordability and exposure to transport externalities. These authors move forward towards a clearer definition by observing that, given these concepts, transport poverty may be defined as follows:

"An individual is transport poor if, in order to satisfy their essential activity needs, at least one of the following conditions apply:

- There is no transport option available that is suited to the individual's physical condition and capabilities.
- The existing transport options do not reach destinations where the individual can fulfil his/her daily activity needs, in order to maintain a reasonable quality of life.
- The necessary weekly amount spent on transport leaves the household with a residual income below the official poverty line.
- The individual needs to spend an excessive amount of time travelling, leading to time poverty or social isolation.
- The prevailing travel conditions are dangerous, unsafe or unhealthy for the individual."

Furthermore, according to Mattioli et al. (2017), two different perspectives are seen in academic literature regarding transport poverty. A broader understanding is to use it to refer to all kinds of inequalities related to transport and access which covers the term transport-related social exclusion. The narrower definition of transport poverty focuses on the affordability of transport costs. Based on the overall literature review of this report, it seems that even the narrower approach of transport poverty should consider availability (e.g. the existence of public transport options) in order to capture the issue, and that it is most beneficial to focus the definition on both the individual or household-based solutions and the structural or community level approaches.

There is also debate in the literature concerning the use of the terms transport poverty and mobility poverty. As previously stated, Lucas et all. (2016) observes that transport poverty comprises, among other concepts, mobility poverty, whereas other authors observe that mobility poverty encompasses transport poverty and moves to a broader concept (Kuttler and Moraglio, 2020).

The debate on the concept is still far from over. For example, according to the Amendment 23 of the draft on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Social Climate Fund (European Parliament, 2022) transport poverty means:

"poverty affecting households that have a high share of mobility expenditure to disposable income or a limited availability of affordable public or alternative modes of transport required to meet essential socioeconomic needs, with a particular focus on households in rural, insular, mountainous, remote and less accessible areas or less developed regions or territories, including less developed peri-urban areas, caused by one or a combination of the following factors: high fuel expenditures, the phase-out of internal combustion engine cars, high costs for the replacement of internal combustion engine cars with zero emission cars, high costs or lack of availability of adequate, affordable public or alternative modes of transport."

Although this definition moves towards a broader and holistic approach, it is necessary to highlight that transport poverty may happen in all types of communities, when public transport services are insufficient to meet a household's needs.

The definition also places great emphasis on zero-emission cars, which are far beyond the budget of most people who suffer from transport poverty. While they certainly contribute to reducing air pollution, they do not address negative externalities, such as safety, security and congestion. Replacing internal combustion engine cars with zero-emission cars in the context of transport poverty also does not address the issue of overall transport costs and a dependency on energy expenditure, putting households into the dual bind of transport poverty alongside energy poverty. Car dependence is an issue that needs to be resolved, as described in section [4.5.](#page-28-1) Finally, if the definition includes one private single mode, it should also include others, like walking and cycling as we seek a sustainable transition. Having said that, the question goes back to the inadequacies of the network of essential services within the built environment, along with affordable housing alternatives, which would contribute to alleviate transport poverty for many disadvantaged groups through another perspective.

After reviewing a number of articles discussing best ways to define the issue of transport poverty, it can be concluded that the definition of transport poverty should entail five crucial elements – accessibility, availability, financial affordability, affordability from a time perspective, and the quality, safety and security of the transport mode. Based on all the points and definitions described above and drawing insights from the literature review, this report suggests the following working definition:

'Transport poverty may hinder certain population groups from taking part in multiple socioeconomic activities, reducing their chances to progress, leading them to poverty or social exclusion and affecting the health and wellbeing of the individual. A person can be considered transport-poor regardless of their individual characteristics (such as socioeconomic status, disability, education, age, religion, race and gender) and geographical living area. Transport poverty occurs when an individual or household cannot access essential transport services due to a lack of alternatives to cover the distance between the place of departure and the destination; there are no suitable and affordable transport alternatives at a reachable distance to their departure and destination points, in service hours and frequencies which meet their needs; the individual's transport expenditure brings their residual income below or close to the official poverty line; the total duration of travel leads to time poverty; or the available transport options fail to ensure the individual's safety and security.'

This suggested way to define transport poverty considers not only the five crucial elements discussed but also emphasises the severity of consequences and the fact that it is not limited to a specific population group but can rather occur in various socioeconomic situations and geographical living locations. It is essential to highlight these points as for instance, while rural areas can experience more accessibility problems, people living in cities can suffer from transport poverty just as well. The report suggests that defining transport poverty using the five elements discussed is more accurate instead of dividing population between rural and urban, highlighting any specific individual characteristic when it comes to transport poverty or else.

# <span id="page-17-0"></span>**3.2.1 Moving towards a holistic concept**

Transport poverty may occur anywhere, when communities are underserved by affordable and reliable public transport systems and/or by essential services, forcing households to use private transportation in detriment to more sustainable transport alternatives. The lack of services in their own communities reduces proximity trips, which correspondingly increases the economic and time resources spent for each trip.

In this respect, the trade-off between dwelling and transport costs cannot be disregarded. Poorer households move to suburban areas to reduce their dwelling costs, forcing them in many cases to allocate more economic and time resources to carrying out various activities or making them dependent on private transport. This car dependency makes a negative impact on their communities, increasing both transport poverty and energy poverty.

It is assumed that in developed economies, people avoid certain trips to limit their expenditure beyond a certain threshold, which is known as the problem of suppressed travel costs (Lucas et al., 2016) or simply immobility. This immobility makes people give up certain activities, with negative consequences for their health and wellbeing, and ultimately, social exclusion. Immobility has been disregarded in traditional mobility surveys and transport planning.

Therefore, the reviewed literature highlights the need for essential services to be scattered in a uniform manner, to assure that active and sustainable means are preferred for accessing essential services, tackling pollution, safety and security in neighbourhoods, and therefore increasing friendly and liveable communities, with a positive impact on wellbeing for all.

Furthermore, given that nowadays certain trips can be replaced with digital services, the importance iof encompassing ICT infrastructure and services in communities is also noted, along with the necessary skills, which need to be available for all individuals under most conditions as an alternative to travelling.

# <span id="page-17-1"></span>**3.2.2 Metrics**

Different approaches have been taken to define transport poverty thresholds, based on varying terms and the specificities of the region or country where they are applied. Mattioli et al. (2017) and Lucas et al. (2016) have compiled many studies in England and worldwide that aim to quantify transport affordability problems. From a European perspective, Table 1 and Table 2 present the direct and indirect metrics which have been identified in the literature review.

<span id="page-18-0"></span>**Table 1.** Transport poverty direct metrics

| Term                               | Region/Country<br>1 | Description                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               | References                         |
|------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Transport Poverty                  | UK                  | More<br>than<br>10%<br>of<br>the<br>household<br>expenditure, for using a car or a suitable<br>alternative                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | (RACC,<br>2012;<br>Sustrans, 2012) |
| Transport<br>Poverty<br>risk score | Scotland            | Composite concept based on Household<br>income, car availability and access to<br>public transport network in each Scottish<br>data zone. The data comes from the<br>Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation<br>(SIMD), the Scottish<br>census and public<br>transport<br>service<br>frequency<br>statistics.<br>Each sub-indicator is scored 1-3 (where 1<br>is low risk and 3 is high risk), and the<br>scores are combined to give a single<br>Transport Poverty score. | (Sustrans, 2016)                   |

<sup>)</sup> This table captures EU-related metrics. For the sake of this report, definitions outside the EU scope are not cited.

*Source:* Own compilation from different sources.

<span id="page-18-1"></span>**Table 2.** Transport poverty indirect metrics

| Term                                                                                                                                                | Region<br>/Country1                                                                                                 | Description                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | Comment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | References                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |--------------------------------------------------------|
| At<br>risk<br>of<br>poverty                                                                                                                         | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | The threshold is set at 60 %<br>of<br>the<br>national<br>median<br>equivalised<br>disposable<br>income<br>(after<br>social<br>transfers).                                                                                                                                                      | It is expressed in Purchase<br>Parity Standards (PPS) in order<br>to take into account differences<br>in the cost of living across EU<br>Member States.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | (Eurostat, 2022)                                       |
| People at risk<br>of poverty and<br>social<br>exclusion<br>through<br>the<br>EU<br>Statistics<br>on Income and<br>Living<br>Conditions<br>(EU-SILC) | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | The category Poverty and<br>Social<br>Exclusion<br>contains<br>different items for different<br>population<br>groups:<br>elderly,<br>children,<br>persons<br>with<br>disabilities,<br>migrants,<br>and<br>their living conditions. It also<br>gives statistics from different<br>SDGs: 1,2,10. | According to Eurostat (2022),<br>this indicator corresponds to<br>"the sum of persons who are: at<br>risk<br>of<br>poverty<br>or<br>severely<br>materially deprived or living in<br>households with very low work<br>intensity. Material deprivation<br>covers indicators relating to<br>economic strain and durables.<br>Severely<br>materially<br>deprived<br>persons have living conditions<br>severely constrained by a lack<br>of resources, they experience at<br>least 4 out of 9 following<br>deprivations<br>items:<br>cannot<br>afford i) to pay rent or utility<br>bills, ii) keep home adequately<br>warm,<br>iii)<br>face<br>unexpected<br>expenses, iv) eat meat, fish or a<br>protein equivalent every second | (Eurostat, 2014;<br>Eurostat, 2020;<br>Eurostat, 2022) |

|                                                                                                                                   |                                                                                                                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | day, v) a week holiday away<br>from home, vi) a car, vii) a<br>washing machine, viii) a colour<br>TV, or ix) a telephone. People<br>living in households with very<br>low work intensity are those<br>aged 0-59 living in households<br>where the adults (aged 18-59)<br>worked less than 20% of their<br>total work potential during the<br>past year."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |-------------------------------------|
| Time<br>poverty<br>through<br>the<br>Harmonised<br>European<br>Time<br>Use<br>Surveys<br>(HETUS)                                  | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | National surveys conducted<br>in<br>European<br>countries<br>quantify<br>how<br>much<br>time<br>people<br>spend<br>on<br>various<br>activities, including paid work,<br>household chores and family<br>care, personal care, voluntary<br>work, social life, travel and<br>leisure. | According to Eurostat (2019) it<br>includes three indicators: mean<br>time spent on the activities by<br>all individuals; mean time spent<br>on<br>the<br>activities<br>by<br>those<br>individuals who took part in the<br>activity; participation rate: the<br>proportion of individuals per day<br>who spent some time on the<br>activities.<br>Indicators<br>are<br>compiled by sex, age group;<br>household composition; highest<br>level of education attained; self<br>declared<br>labour<br>status,<br>information<br>on<br>labour<br>and<br>professional status; date.<br>It does not include a threshold. | (Eurostat, 2018;<br>Eurostat, 2019) |
| Public<br>transport<br>affordability<br>through<br>the<br>EU<br>Statistics<br>on Income and<br>Living<br>Conditions<br>(EU-SILC)  | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | Persons who cannot afford<br>the regular use of public<br>transport<br>by<br>age,<br>sex,<br>employment<br>status<br>and<br>income group. Below 60% of<br>median equivalised income.                                                                                               | By age, sex,<br>income group,<br>employment status, and income<br>quintile.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | (Eurostat, 2021;<br>Eurostat, 2021) |
| Private<br>transport<br>affordability<br>through<br>the<br>EU<br>Statistics<br>on Income and<br>Living<br>Conditions<br>(EU-SILC) | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | The variables record whether<br>the household cannot afford<br>a personal car (enforced lack,<br>ilc_mddu05).                                                                                                                                                                      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | (Eurostat, 2020;<br>Eurostat, 2022) |
| Pollution,<br>grime, noise or<br>other<br>environmental<br>problems.                                                              | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and                                                         | The indicators relevant to the<br>subject area of environment<br>of the dwelling concern the<br>following:<br>noise<br>from<br>neighbours<br>or<br>from<br>the<br>street;<br>pollution, grime or                                                                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | (Eurostat, 2020;<br>Eurostat, 2021) |

|                                                                                | candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year.                                                                | other<br>environmental<br>problems; crime, violence or<br>vandalism in the area.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Internet<br>connection at<br>home                                              | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | Persons who cannot afford<br>internet<br>connection<br>for<br>personal use at home by<br>employment<br>status<br>and<br>income quintile.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | (Eurostat, 2022)                                       |
| Income<br>inequality<br>through<br>income<br>and<br>living<br>conditions (ilc) | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | Data shows inequalities in<br>the distribution of income.<br>The quintile share ratio is the<br>proportion<br>of<br>the<br>total<br>equivalised<br>disposable<br>income received by the 20%<br>of the population with the<br>highest income (top quintile)<br>to that received by the 20%<br>of the population with the<br>lowest<br>income<br>(lowest<br>quintile).                                                                                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | (Eurostat, 2014;<br>Eurostat, 2020;<br>Eurostat, 2018) |
| Others:                                                                        | EU<br>Member<br>States,<br>UK,<br>third<br>countries<br>and<br>candidate<br>countries.<br>It<br>differs<br>by year. | Primary variables such as,<br>basic<br>data,<br>material<br>deprivation, housing, income<br>education, health, labour and<br>child care.<br>Secondary<br>variables<br>including<br>material<br>deprivation,<br>wellbeing,<br>housing difficulties, health,<br>access to services, social and<br>cultural participation.                                                                                                                                                     | Primary variables are collected<br>every year. They refer either to<br>household or to individuals aged<br>16 and over.<br>Secondary<br>variables<br>are<br>collected every five years or<br>more. They include information<br>either at household or personal<br>level about specific topics.                    | (Eurostat, 2022)                                       |
| Fuel<br>Poverty<br>gap                                                         | UK                                                                                                                  | Measure<br>that<br>focuses<br>on<br>people and households with<br>low incomes and high fuel<br>costs.<br>Households are considered<br>fuel poor if the required fuel<br>costs are above the median<br>contemporary<br>modelled<br>energy requirement. They set<br>a<br>boundary<br>between<br>reasonable and unreasonable<br>costs.<br>According<br>to<br>Hills<br>Fuel<br>Poverty<br>Review,<br>a<br>fuel<br>poverty<br>indicator<br>should<br>measure<br>incomes<br>after | It takes into account household<br>size<br>and<br>composition<br>to<br>understand energy<br>spend at<br>home.<br>It seeks to fine-tune the official<br>indicator<br>of<br>10%<br>which<br>compares the ratio between<br>households'<br>energy<br>spending<br>needs and their income against<br>a fixed threshold. | (Hills<br>Fuel<br>Poverty Review,<br>2012)             |

| housing costs and adjusted<br>for<br>household<br>size<br>and   |  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|
| composition. "The threshold<br>should be set at 60 % of         |  |
| median<br>income<br>plus<br>calculated household energy         |  |
| requirements.<br>Overpassing<br>this<br>amount<br>would<br>lead |  |
| households to move below<br>the<br>official<br>poverty          |  |
| threshold."                                                     |  |

<sup>)</sup> This table captures EU-related metrics. For the sake of this report, definitions outside the EU scope are not cited.

*Source:* Own compilation from different sources.

Figures 3 and 4 provide a visual example of one of these metrics – people who cannot afford a personal car in the EU, firstly by country and income (Figure 3), and secondly by gender (Figure 4). We observe citizens in the first income quantile struggling the most when it comes to being able to afford a car, but this fluctuates among Member States, from nearly 90% in Luxemburg, 77% in Finland and 75% in Cyprus to 30% or below in Latvia and Romania. This demonstrates how easy or difficult it is for citizens with the lowest income to afford having a car. Buying a car is only one part of the cost; prices for car ownership, maintenance and replacement, vehicle and road taxes and fuel prices are important determining factors, and they vary across the EU. However, this situation is expected to change rapidly, and in most countries likely worsen, due to escalating inflation in 2022. Energy prices are the main driver of the current growth in inflation, with countries like the Netherlands witnessing an energy price increase of more than 150%, the transport sector being the second most affected (Villani & Vidal Lorda, 2022).

In the majority of Member States, women are less likely to be able to afford a car. In the three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – around 70% of those not able to afford a car are female, the highest shares in the EU. Romania is the only country where the opposite is true, where only 31% of those who would like to have a car but cannot afford it are female.

<span id="page-21-0"></span>**Figure 3.** Distribution of households that would like to but cannot afford to have a car for private use by income group across EU countries

![](_page_21_Figure_6.jpeg)

*Source:* JRC, based on Eurostat, EU-SILC, 2019

EU countries

<span id="page-22-1"></span>**Figure 4.** Distribution of households that would like to but cannot afford to have a car for private use by gender across

*Source:* JRC, based on Eurostat, EU-SILC, 2019

# <span id="page-22-0"></span>**3.3 Populations at higher risk**

Transport poverty affects certain population groups in a significant manner. Some policies in Europe have been designed taking into account that people in low-income groups are at higher risk of transport poverty and therefore targeting their policies at them, as reported by Baptista and Marlier (2020). However, societies are much more complex and policies need to be targeted beyond one specific group.

It is also the case that people rarely belong exclusively to one group. This is known as intersectionality, a term first coined by Crenshaw (1989) to explore sexism in the context of other overlapping characteristics such as race, ethnicity and class. Intersectionality is used more widely as an analytical framework for understanding how social and political identities combine to create different discrimination and privileges (Cooper, 2015).

Various authors highlight that lower income groups tend to make more trips by public transport and by foot than other groups (Titheridge et al., 2014), and this has become even more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mejía-Dorantes, Montero, and Barceló, 2021). Higher income groups have more flexibility and can use different transport means. Women are also particularly sensitive to mobility constraints. In addition to women and low-income people, a wide variety of other population groups also experience limitations in their everyday mobility practices, namely:

- children,
- older people,
- people with disabilities,
- people living in rural & remote locations,
- frontline workers (employees within essential industries who must physically show up to their jobs, such as healthcare workers, protective service workers and cashiers in supermarkets),
- people with lower educational attainment,
- people (aged less than 65 years) living in a household with very low work intensity,
- LGBTQI+,

- unemployed,
- single parents,
- migrants,
- minority ethnic groups, and population of colour and mixed race.

While these population groups are known to be more vulnerable to transport poverty, it is difficult to identify those which are most affected and to quantify the constraints they face. We are limited here to discussing those groups whose challenges are further explored in the literature available.

As mentioned in several reports (Soto Villagrán and Mejía Dorantes, 2022; Weintrob et al., 2021; Di Ciommo, Kilstein, and Rondinella, 2022), it is necessary to plan cities using an intersectional approach to ensure that all citizens, from children to older people, regardless of religion, sexuality, race, gender, disabilities and any other identity, are integrated into the planning vision with an equal right to enjoy the city.

## <span id="page-23-0"></span>**3.3.1 Gender**

Although it is accepted that transportation eases the daily activities of residents, Creswell, Uteng (2008) and others observe that the gender-differentiated organisation of public and private spaces, based on a traditionally masculine vision of cities, has shaped mobility practices, transport systems and spaces in the built environment.

Gender equality refers to the differentiated needs and interests of women, an issue disregarded for decades in terms of housing, mobility, and space (Cresswell and Uteng, 2008; Hanson, 2010; Miralles-Guasch, Melo, and Marquet, 2016; Jirón, Carrasco, and Rebolledo, 2020; Libertun de Duren, 2021; Soto Villagrán and Mejía Dorantes, 2022). As noted by these authors in various international contexts, the application of gender equality requires a fair redistribution of resources, power, opportunities and responsibilities. In this regard, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined in 2015, clearly target gender equality to empower all women and girls (United Nations, 2022). Two years later, gender equality was defined as the second principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed at the 2017 Gothenburg Summit (European Commission, 2021).

Factors modelling the differences between women and men in the labour market, known as the gender gap (EIGE, 2019; EIGE, 2022), include employment rate, part-time work, unpaid care and family responsibilities, access to rights and assets (professions and decision-making positions), working conditions, hourly wages (gender pay gap) and other possibilities for economic independence. "The mobility of care" is a term first coined by Inés Sánchez de Madariaga to define and make visible the trips that adults undertake to accompany and look after dependent children or other family bonds, such as elderly (Sánchez de Madariaga, 2009; Sánchez de Madariaga, 2016).

All these previous issues shape gender-differentiated mobility practices. The statistics observe that in 2019 in Europe, women were paid on average 16.4% less than men in all professions, and the gender pay gap in pensions stands at 39% (EIGE, 2019; EIGE, 2022). Furthermore, various reports highlight that women are more likely to be in temporary, part-time and precarious employment than men: these jobs often come with lower pay, weaker legal protection and difficulties in accessing social protection (EIGE, 2021; OECD, 2020). Statistics also show that the COVID-19 pandemic has likely undermined the gender equality achievements made previously, as women have disproportionately lost more jobs, with direct impacts on their current and future opportunities. All these factors contribute to shaping gendered mobility patterns and women's time and economic budgets. Women face more barriers to accessing transport services, in some cases with negative consequences for their health and wellbeing.

These issues are translated into more complex and multi-purpose trip patterns. Women combine paid and unpaid activities, as they are often responsible for escorting children and other dependents to different locations. They have longer total trips divided into shorter, more frequent, more dispersed and complicated trips during the day, making use of different transport modes, which is known as trip chaining. These different transport needs might imply a differentiated set of unmet needs, based on availability and affordability. Men have fewer and more direct trips to and from their workplace, as various studies observe (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2022).

Interestingly, several studies highlight that women have greater awareness of sustainability and more sustainable travel patterns than those of men. Women perform more proximity trips, using active mobility (such as walking) or public transport, whereas men tend to use cars more (Cubells, Marquet, and Miralles-Guasch, 2020; Mejía-Dorantes, Montero, and Barceló, 2021).

However, women's travel patterns are not necessarily determined only by choice and consciousness. Shorter trips reveal that women are responsible for many household and caring chores, while men more often have a single and stable activity. It can also be the case that the private car simply remains with the men as they are perceived as the main household providers.

Women still have less space in the built environment and tend to avoid places at certain times. In many cases, due to security concerns, for example when travelling at night or in overcrowded public transport, as described in section [4.4.1,](#page-27-0) women tend to adjust their travel patterns due to safety concerns.

Furthermore, multiple daily tasks and trips for unpaid and paid work, due to gender roles in reproductive, productive and community activities, may cause time limitations, leading to time poverty. This influences the opportunities available to women, as it limits where they go, and when, how far, how long, and which transport means could be used when scheduling a trip. As a result, women miss economic opportunities at further distances as they are not able to combine all tasks and responsibilities (Asian Development Bank, 2013).

In addition, women are also still underrepresented in jobs linked to transport science, engineering and transport research in the EU. The study performed by Hortelano et al. (2019) came to this conclusion after selecting 769 transport researchers working in 21 European projects (selected from the TRIMIS database) and 223 organisations, and the results showed that only approximately 22% of the workers are female.

### <span id="page-24-0"></span>**Box 2.** Gender in EU transport Research and Innovation (R&I)

Sánchez de Madariaga (2013) observes that gender mainstreaming in European science began in 1999. Since then, an increasing number of European-funded projects aims to analyse the inequalities facing women in all aspects of daily life.

In the transport arena, some projects address gender equality directly. For example, the recent EU projects DIAMOND<sup>8</sup> (2018) and TInnGO<sup>9</sup> (2022) focus on understanding mobility needs with a gendered perspective. For that reason, they collect gender-disaggregated data to evaluate the needs of users for a fairer, more inclusive, and more equitable transport sector. Previous EU-funded projects such as TEA-Cost Action (2017), along with international conferences and networks such as Women's Issues in Transportation (WIiT, 2014) and Women and Gender in Transportation (TRB Standing Committee AME20, 2021) have also contributed to setting the agenda and putting gender equality in the spotlight.

However, fewer than 1% of the projects in the TRIMIS database analyse women's issues in transport (Hortelano et al, 2021). R&I projects should pay more attention to the impact of new technologies (e.g. technologies aimed at low emission mobility) on gender equality and, in particular, on women's mobility needs. This is particularly important given that women are more willing to use environmentally friendly transport modes (Hortelano et al., 2021).

21

 <sup>8</sup> Revealing fair and actionable knowledge from data to support women's inclusion in transport systems

<sup>9</sup> Transport Innovation Gender Observatory

# <span id="page-25-0"></span>**4 Issues that shape transport poverty: Causes and consequences**

Transport poverty does not have only one cause or component, but is rather a complex interaction between different causes and consequences. There is therefore no one-size-fits-all solution. Apart from poverty and low educational attainment, other causes can include poor land-use planning and lack of mixed land use (lack of essential services locally), spatial mismatch, dwelling affordability, gentrification, accessibility barriers, urban fragmentation, transport costs, digital illiteracy, and poor transport infrastructure provision, service and maintenance, especially in remote and rural locations, leading in many cases to transit or transport deserts.

The consequences of transport poverty are also myriad, including social exclusion, immobility, time poverty, community ghettoisation and segregation, reduced educational chances, health inequalities and related problems such as food deserts and pollution along with health and environmental problems, unhousing, discrimination and redlining, car dependent societies and dependence on local fuel prices, leading to energy poverty.

# <span id="page-25-1"></span>**4.1 Spatial mismatch and social exclusion**

Many studies recognise that transport poverty is linked to spatial mismatch. As explained by Titheridge et al. (2014), this theory was developed in North America around 50 years ago, to identify the spatial barriers faced by deprived inner-city populations poorly connected to the increasingly suburbanised centres of economic growth. Spatial mismatch is a contributing factor to the lack of employment opportunities in deprived neighbourhoods, since it increases the physical separation between jobs and low-income people (Ong and Miller, 2005; Gobillon, Selod, and Zenou, 2007; Matas, Raymond, and Roig, 2010). Spatial and transport mismatches are more likely to impact low-income people and are associated with the lack of mobility resources required to perform daily activities. This may force long-term unemployment with its consequent impact on general wellbeing. Poor urban planning, along with inequalities created by a liberalised housing market and gentrification, therefore feed into transport and social poverty.

Social exclusion may also be seen as a consequence of transport poverty. Social exclusion is defined by Levitas et al. (2007) as a complex, multi-dimensional process which *"involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political areas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole".* 

As explained by Titheridge et al. (2014), this theory dates back to the early 1970s (developed in France) and is based on the inability to take part in daily activities to fully participate in society, focusing on the individual.

# <span id="page-25-2"></span>**4.2 Affordable housing and gentrification**

As many reports observe, in recent years many cities worldwide have experienced a rise in dwelling costs due to poor urban planning policies along with excessive pressure from tourism (Paramati and Roca, 2019; Schäfer and Hirsch, 2017). The former has exacerbated dwelling costs and has caused residents, especially those on medium or low incomes, to relocate to fringe areas, increasing their commuting time and costs. These issues are amplified for women, as they have more complicated and longer transport patterns, based on chained trips, with more household responsibilities, and the effects of the gender pay gap (Mejía-Dorantes, Montero, and Barceló, 2021).

Transport poverty is also a consequence of gentrification. According to authors like Hammel (2009) and Atkinson (2012), gentrification is the displacement of the working-class or lower-income residents in a specific neighbourhood by wealthier, higher income households. This process is enormously complex and unfolds in waves, where at least three practices are evident: (re)development, speculation and increasing house prices (Anguelovski et al., 2021).

It normally occurs in inner-city areas and may take place both in urban and rural settlements. Its controversy is based on the rapid change that it brings to upgraded neighbourhoods, which consequently impact housing affordability, thus pushing former residents out of the area. As highlighted by Atkinson, (2012), this displacement process is facilitated by systemic inequality where politicians and the state fail to protect and compensate lower-income households. This process may trigger social exclusion for former residents, who, pushed out to new locations by unaffordable housing, are provided with poor alternatives and services to carry out their daily activities or exercise their rights as individuals. This results in spatial mismatch.

Various authors observe that as a result of liberalisation and gentrification, cities across Europe experience the suburbanisation or decentralisation of poverty. Low-to-middle income and unemployed households are hit especially hard by this process. Hochstenbach and Musterd (2018) portrait the situation in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. In the UK, Bailey and Minton (2018), analyse 25 British cities, and Zhang and Pryce (2020) provide details of this situation with data from England and Wales.

In this respect, Anguelovski et al. (2021) and Zhang (2020) document how these issues jeopardise people's quality of life, health and wellbeing. For example, Anguelovski et al. (2021) observe that infrastructure development projects (including those seen as ecological upgrades) transform existing urban development patterns and often risk displacing the urban poor.

# <span id="page-26-0"></span>**4.3 Rural and remote locations**

Transport poverty has mainly been addressed in urban areas, although rural and remote areas experience more accessibility problems, as services are not homogeneously scattered. In recent decades, investment in services and infrastructure has decreased, isolating rural areas and leaving them with less essential service infrastructure (such as schools, health services and banks). At the same time, the provision of reliable and efficient bus and rail services has been difficult to achieve due to the economic resources needed.

Many trips are therefore affected, such as commuting to work or school, the need for using essential services and mobility of care. All these issues constitute spatial mismatch: it becomes more complicated to meet needs and maintain resources. Lucas (2006) documents how rural UK households with no car face many constraints to participating in activities and accessing services.

Migration to cities has been a response to this lack of services. Until recently, rural and remote areas have traditionally experienced lower housing costs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has been slowly changing this trend as some reports observe, at least temporarily (Booth, 2021).

In this respect, EU border areas are more complex and have been under the spotlight due to the lack of accessible public transport services. Closing the gaps in these areas has often been discussed as an urgent issue, for example, during the LivingRAIL EU project (Doll, Mejía-Dorantes, and Dönitz, 2016; LivingRAIL Project, 2016). The New European Mobility Framework (European Commission, 2021) is designed to remove obstacles and barriers in cross-border rail services, to increase the efficiency of the network, and to provide sustainable mobility services to ease mobility in border regions.

Schade et al. (2013) document the particularities and problems that the European Outermost Regions (ORs) face due to their remoteness and isolation. The lack of scattered services in isolated regions makes it difficult for residents to carry out their daily activities. Most transportation takes place by road. As several of the ORs are archipelagos, ferry services are an essential element for the transportation of passengers, goods and vehicles between the various islands. If the distances are long enough, scheduled air services can be seen as a valid mode of intraregional public transport. While inter-island ferry transport is mostly government-regulated in terms of public service obligations and price, inter-island air transport is an open market with subsidies paid to residents using them. Inter-island ferry and air connections are few and seasonal availability varies. All these transport alternatives are necessary for locals who need to carry out administrative procedures, use health services or access higher educational opportunities. The use of private cars is predominant, and increasing, due to the lack of public transport alternatives. New mobility concepts and innovations are therefore necessary to overcome accessibility barriers.

# <span id="page-26-1"></span>**4.4 The three As: Accessibility, Affordability, and Availability**

Mobility is highly dependent on the spatial location of services and places we need to reach, along with the necessary transport infrastructure to move from one place to the other. Furthermore, it is shaped by the field environment around us, which encourages us to prefer one transport means over the others. Finally, all the alternatives depend on the economic and time resources we have available. In the next sections we describe these three issues.

# <span id="page-27-0"></span>**4.4.1 Accessibility**

Accessibility may be defined as the ease with which a person can access services, places, or facilities for different interaction possibilities. It covers the distance between place of departure to destination and reflects the alternatives that a person has to make use of transport services and infrastructure during a journey, according to their own characteristics and needs. As highlighted by Rodrigue (2020), it is a key element, an expression of mobility with regards to people, freight or information.

Lucas, van Wee, and Maat (2016) examine how accessibility should match the specific needs of different population groups. The lack of sufficient accessibility triggers transport poverty, leading to social exclusion and poverty as recognised by different authors in different geographical contexts (Currie and Delbosc, 2010; Mejía-Dorantes and Soto Villagrán, 2020). Martens (2012) observes that traditionally, transport infrastructure and services lack distributive planning policies. Transport planning fails to observe which societal groups benefit from policy measures, focusing only on the use of the level-of-service criterion, a traditionally used approach to evaluate how a future or current infrastructure perform in terms of speed, time, traffic interruptions, and so on. It tends to forget how different user groups of a certain infrastructure may benefit (for example car users versus other potential users i.e. walking, cycling or public transport users).

According to Mejía Dorantes and Soto Villagrán (2020), barriers that increase the risk of transport poverty and social exclusion may be classified into physical, economic, institutional and emotional. Physical accessibility is related to the reliable transport infrastructure necessary to move around. The provision of infrastructure that provides a good level of service to all, considering socioeconomic level, disability or reduced mobility, education, age, religion, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, sexuality, and gender issues, is often disregarded. For example, Musselwhite (2021) documents how the mobility needs of older people are often forgotten in infrastructure planning, hindering their mobility in their own communities, with resultant negative impacts on their health and wellbeing.

If we turn our attention to the emotional barrier, it is clear that this is often neglected and disregarded due to the lack of a gendered analysis of mobility patterns and understanding of the social component of mobility. It refers to the feelings and emotions of insecurity which shape our trip choices: how, when, where and with whom we move. Even though European cities are perceived as safe, a gendered analysis shows that some neighbourhoods and specific areas are not perceived as secure, notably during night time, and especially by women (Rodríguez-Rata, 2022). This is also a major concern for the LGBTQI+ population in the international arena, but also in the European context as various studies observe (Weintrob et al., 2021; Soto Villagrán and Mejía Dorantes, 2022).

Institutional barriers include the lack of public investment in well distributed and good quality essential services, available close to the residence area, where residents may carry out their daily activities and take part in social life.

## <span id="page-27-1"></span>**4.4.2 Affordability**

Affordability is related to the travel costs and/or the efforts employed to move from one place to another (e.g., money and time spent on travel). This issue varies among individuals depending on their economic, individual and household situation, and can prove to be a barrier to accessing essential services.

It is clear that economic barriers are higher for poorer households who have more restrictions in their travel patterns. They may not be able to use the full range of transport services available in their area due to high costs. In other cases, when there is a lack of efficient and reliable transport alternatives, poorer households may be forced to own a car, which means higher expenditures (an issue also covered in section 4.5).

We must not forget that the transport network is denser in inner urban areas. For that reason, when households are obliged to leave neighbourhoods because of the higher dwelling costs, they struggle with new economic barriers related to transport costs or face immobility. This trade-off between housing or transport affordability is normally separately analysed, despite its enormous consequences for poorer households.

The European Social Policy Network (ESPN) reported in a comparative analysis (Baptista and Marlier, 2020) that transport affordability is a major issue which disproportionally affects low-income people, and has direct consequences on employment opportunities, key activities and services. Many Member States lack any kind of measure aimed at facilitating access to public transport for low-income groups.

# <span id="page-28-0"></span>**4.4.3 Availability**

This concept describes the suitable transport alternatives within a reachable distance of individuals' homes and destinations, in services hours and frequencies that meet people's particular needs. In fact, accessibility and availability are highly interrelated. Various studies highlight the unequal distribution of transport infrastructure, which restricts the mobility of low-income people. Also, some population groups, such as older people, have specific requirements of transport infrastructure, as described by Shrestha et al. (2017).

Availability is dependent both on economic resources and on universal accessibility. Even if a person has a transport service or station close to her/his place of residence, and she/he is able to pay for it, it is excluded from this transport system if it does not match her/his needs. For example, if there are accessibility barriers, it is simply not available to some population groups, such as older residents or people with disabilities.

People in rural areas are much more car dependent because they have less access to essential services than people living in urban areas, while public transport is also less available to them, as Titheridge et al. (2014) observe.

As noted above, inner cities have dense public transport networks, while suburban and peri-urban areas are characterised by more road networks and scarce, infrequent public transport provision. Bearing their time budget in mind, households living on the outskirts are highly car-dependent when accessing services and opportunities. People without a car experience higher transport availability problems on account of a lack of both public and private transport means. Car dependence develops as a result of the scarcity of other more sustainable transport alternatives. This issue is further developed in [4.5.](#page-28-1) 

# <span id="page-28-1"></span>**4.5 Car dependence**

Car dependence is an issue that develops when no other transport means (especially active travel and public transport alternatives) are a mobility solution for households, and is a major concern for low-income households. Car dependence is a consequence of urban sprawl, car-oriented urban developments, gentrification, inequality, and the gendered design of cities. As various researchers observe, cities all over the world have been planned around cars for decades, giving them priority in our urban space (Millonig et al., 2022; Braun and Randell, 2022). European citizens also live in car-dependent societies (Mattioli, 2021). Furthermore, in many rural and remote locations, a higher share of car ownership has been documented (Schade et al., 2013).

Lower-income residents and other groups who are highly dependent on public transport alternatives may be located in areas where public transport services are scarce, unreliable, or simply do not exist. This type of area is known as a transport desert or transit desert (Jomehpour Chahar Aman and Smith-Colin, 2020). In order to avoid immobility and social exclusion, forced car dependency arises. Allen (2017) argues that the underlying causes of this phenomenon include the dismantling of public housing, increased dwelling costs, and forced migration to underdeveloped areas, increasing inequality.

Furthermore, people living in rural areas and remote locations are highly dependent on private cars available in their own households to carry out their daily activities, which becomes a challenging issue for certain population groups. For example, as many citizens get older, they must give up driving, with limited mobility alternatives, impacting their quality of life. The EU Mamba project (2017) observes that innovative mobility solutions such as buses, mobility as a service (MaaS) and ride-sharing applications could be useful to overcome isolation, increasing the availability of transport services (although again, this may be difficult for older people with poor digital skills or reduced access to IT infrastructure).

As noted in various parts of Europe, having a car increases the chances of accessing the job market, especially in areas not well served by public transport alternatives and for socioeconomically deprived groups (Mahieux and Mejia-Dorantes, 2017). However, as energy expenditures are traditionally inelastic and already consume a large share of poorer households' budgets, the rise of energy prices poses new challenges to the everyday mobility of vulnerable groups.

It is worth noting again that, as international literature shows, there is evidence that women rely more on public transport than men. For example, the OECD documents the case of Sweden, where 70% of cars were used or owned by men. When women use private transport, they tend to use it to make small trips (often to carry out caring duties – to school or hospital, and to care for other members of the family), whereas men tend to make longer journeys, and spend more time in traffic (OECD, 2021). This is particularly important if we consider

subsidies related to energy consumption, which in this case would tend to benefit men more than women, unless measures targeted public transport.

More cars on the streets and more roads themselves also diminish safety and the environmental quality of neighbourhoods, they decrease pedestrian movement, divide communities, and limit interaction and social cohesion (Di Giulio et al., 2009).

Car traffic has significant consequences for health and wellbeing. Although the number of electric cars on the roads is increasing, most used cars are still noisy air polluters. It is more often the vulnerable and poorer groups in society that are exposed to these issues, adding yet another layer to inequality. Moreover, people are less likely to walk and cycle in congested cities. As Müller et al. summarise (2020), active school transportation (AST) has negatively evolved all over the globe in recent decades, with negative consequences for children's development. Lucas (2006) observes that in the UK, children are not allowed to walk alone for fear of accidents or assaults. As a result of the decrease in children's independent mobility, more escorting trips take place, many carried out by car, which increases negative transport externalities, such as accidents, congestion, noise and air pollution, and environmental damage, along with a higher fuel dependency. Furthermore, escorting trips increase time poverty.

# <span id="page-29-0"></span>**4.6 Time poverty**

Currie and Delbosc (2010) observe that transport disadvantages are associated with time poverty, and transport poverty has negative impacts on wellbeing. Although there is no single definition of time poverty, it describes the lack of time a person experiences due to many activities (work and other), hindering monetary income. There is therefore a trade-off between income poverty and time poverty, as people may only alleviate their economic situation by worsening their time budget (Burchardt, 2008; Charmes, 2006). Walker (2013) observes that time poverty focuses on how a person's resources define what they are able to fulfil, with a direct impact on their quality of life. This includes time for the labour market, for domestic and care work, for obtaining critical resources, and also for rest and leisure.

Clearly, time poverty has an important gender component. The European Institute on Gender Equality (EIGE) (EIGE, 2019) stresses that the disproportionate amount of time that women spend on care and unpaid work directly impacts employment opportunities and other activities, which reinforces gender segregation. Hence, time poverty has important effects on the socioeconomic opportunities and health of women as described by Hyde et al (2020).

In this respect, time-use surveys have become an important set of information used to analyse how women and men use their time to carry out different activities, in relation to paid and unpaid work, leisure and personal time, normally over 24 hours, seven days a week (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016; United Nations Statistics Division, 2018). As noted by the UN (2018), they are useful for understanding the quality of life or wellbeing of a population, and analysing gendered patterns: divisions of labour between men and women, in terms of paid work, care and unpaid work, and are a relevant indicator for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), specifically target 5.4 (United Nations, 2022).

In Europe, Eurostat gathers the [Harmonised European Time Use Surveys \(HETUS\),](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/time-use-surveys) with information coming from the national surveys of many European countries, using methodology developed for comparability, to quantify how much time people spend on various activities, including paid work, household chores and family care, personal care, voluntary work, social life, travel and leisure (Eurostat, 2018). Walker (2013) conducts an interesting discussion on how social norms and power relations may limit the exercise of autonomous choices. The former is translated into how and with whom people, according to gender expectations, devote their time. He proposes a qualitative assessment of time use by individuals to understand the particularities of their choices and focus on their wellbeing.

# <span id="page-29-1"></span>**4.7 Health & climate change-related risks**

Poorer people live shorter lives and fewer healthy life-years. They tend to live in neighbourhoods with higher rates of pedestrian deaths and a higher concentration of roads, and are therefore likely to be affected by a high concentration of pollution (Khomenko et al., 2021). This issue was recently legally recognised by a jury for the first time in the UK ('Air Pollution Death Ruling', 2020).

On top of this, climate change may impact certain population groups disproportionately. Authors such as Scholsberg and Collins (2014), observing that climate change will increase inequalities, developed the concept of climate justice. It is the most disadvantaged classes that suffer the most from the consequences of climate change and have the least capacity to adapt. This can be seen in extreme weather events, when wealthier economic groups have more opportunity to react and adapt than the more vulnerable groups.

Unpaid domestic activities limit women further in terms of economic resources, which authors have described as the feminisation of poverty (McLanahan and Carlson, 2001; Mejía-Dorantes and Soto Villagrán, 2020). Climate change has a more virulent impact on these population groups. Likewise, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 26 (UN Climate Change Conference, 2021), it was pointed out that efforts to act against climate change must focus on protecting the rights of, among others, local communities, migrants, children, people with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations, thus ensuring gender and intergenerational equity.

Moreover, the transition to net zero may place significant burdens on disadvantaged groups. If the transition is focused on ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles), disadvantaged groups may not be able to access services due to the prohibitive purchase costs, while mobility solutions will remain constrained to private mobility. Society will remain car-dependent, an option available only to higher income groups, and with all the knock-on effects discussed above. Policies must therefore take all societal groups into account in order to effect a genuinely sustainable transformation that leaves no one behind.

# <span id="page-30-0"></span>**4.8 Technological barriers and digital divide**

Developments in information and communications technology (ICT) have transformed people's activities, spatiotemporal patterns and lifestyles. Activities that were only possible in the past through physical presence are now available through other means, as described by Lyons et al. (Lyons et al., 2018) as "urban digitalisation".

Shrestha et al. (2017) observe that acceptability plays a key role in using new technological services to cover the mobility needs of certain population groups, such as older people. EU projects such as DIGNITY and INDIMO (Bosch et al., 2021; INDIMO, 2022) have noted that information and communication technologies are specifically targeted at certain population groups which tend to be urban, young, tech-savvy and advantaged. Poorer people and other vulnerable groups are left aside in this transformation, increasing inequalities. It is therefore necessary to broaden the spectrum of people who benefit from digital mobility solutions.

In fact, since the COVID-19 pandemic, ICT alternatives have become more important for carrying out our daily activities and have replaced many which would previously have required trips. Apart from telecommuting, teleleisure and online shopping, the spread of activities such as home schooling, online meetings and participation in courses, nowadays we book and pay for tickets electronically as basis to carry out trips. On the other hand, the pandemic showed that in the EU, only 25% of the population were able to work from home (Fana et al., 2020). Those who are able are more likely to be high-skilled, with higher wages and better social and health protection and contracts. In addition, frontline workers tend to be paid less and be more dependent on public transport. It has been documented that households with fewer educational and economic resources had problems during home schooling (Trujillo Sáenz, Fernando, 2021).

Given that many of the trips we make are to carry out daily activities and access opportunities, if these are replaced by digital alternatives or booked through digital platforms, those who lack the digital skills or resources to take part will find themselves isolated. Examples of such digital tools include mobility as a service (MaaS) transport platforms, the ticketing and booking of train seats and buying bus tickets.

In this respect, the EIGE shows that workers with digital skills are better placed to access the job market (EIGE, 2021). Those who do not have the skills or infrastructure tend to come from low-income and less educated groups such as older people, migrants, or even children in households without the necessary resources. According to the same source, gender also plays a role in digital literacy, where fewer women than to men hold the necessary digital skills and experience with digital technologies.

ICT has the potential to decrease the number of trips necessary and therefore help people to save time and money, but for this to benefit those who need it most, and not isolate them further, measures must be taken to eliminate the digital divide.

# <span id="page-30-1"></span>**4.9 Transport poverty in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic**

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a deep economic crisis, worse than that of 2008. The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) Action Plan recognises that the pandemic has posed more challenges for certain population groups: low-skilled, low-paid and temporary workers were the first to lose their jobs. Migrants were also disproportionally affected by the pandemic (European Commission, 2021). Moreover, according to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2021; 2022; 2022; 2022), the pandemic has brought about different consequences for women and men.

According to the EIGE (2021; 2022), employment rates dropped in all Member States during the pandemic and the recovery shows gender-segregated effects: men gained more jobs than women. Moreover, both male and female workers with a migrant background are more often engaged in the informal economy. These include domestic workers, the majority of them women (95%), with relatively low skills, working part-time and often with informal contracts.

The EIGE observes that the poorest households with children, especially single mothers, have suffered the most from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the pandemic has magnified existing societal inequalities and increased social differences. Digital connectivity and infrastructure have been vital for home schooling, business opportunities, maintaining work and exercising our rights. In homes with reduced earnings, the risk of dropping out of school increased, reducing future career opportunities. Furthermore, digital skills are essential for people of all ages, to reduce chances of long-term unemployment, carry out daily activities and overcome other accessibility barriers.

According to the World Bank, the number of poor people may increase due to the pandemic (World Bank, 2020). Most of the new poor are likely to be in urban settings, working in the sectors most affected by lockdowns and mobility restrictions. Many of these jobs are carried out by low-skilled workers, women, migrants, and young people. Furthermore, seasonal workers, migrants and refugees may not be covered by health and social security or benefit from tax relief.

The pandemic made clear that women are over-represented in essential jobs (i.e. service and health sectors), and that there are gender differences in teleworking opportunities. School and daycare closures and the resulting unpaid care work revealed the extent of gender inequality.

Mejía Dorantes et al. (2021) noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, people on higher incomes were able to reduce their daily trips, while lower income groups did not, even increased their trip rate due to the lack of teleworking opportunities. For instance, some were employed in retail, health services and other sectors where their work could not be performed remotely. Again, gender segregation in employment led to women often needing to travel more than men during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on 2018 data, in Europe, women made up 86% of personal care workers in health services, 93% of childcare workers and teachers' aides, 95% of domestic cleaners and helpers, and 82% of cashiers in supermarkets (EIGE, 2022).

In addition to all these issues, in many cities, the frequency of public transportation diminished, which increased transport poverty and affected people's wellbeing. Moreover, some activities were transferred to ICT-solutions, which posed barriers to people with a lack of digital skills or access to IT infrastructure, such as poor households, women, older people and children. Furthermore, many population groups, such as frontline workers, could not telecommute and in the worst part of the pandemic, kept commuting, most of them using public transport systems, facing in many cases reduced frequencies. People with higher wages, made use of private transport. Indeed, many public transport companies, such as Auvasa in Spain, affirm that they have not recovered the passengers they used to move before the pandemic outbreak (Auvasa, 2020).

# <span id="page-32-0"></span>**5 Interventions and measures to alleviate or reduce transport poverty**

The efficient coordination of services in land-use and transport is of utmost importance in the battle to reduce transport poverty. In this section, we examine five initiatives in the context of various approaches to transport poverty, some direct and others more indirect. The following subsections provide details of each one.

# <span id="page-32-1"></span>**5.1 Gender Mainstreaming**

Gender mainstreaming is a tool used to address gender-based discrimination. It seeks to achieve the full integration of the gender perspective and its dimensions in all phases of programmes, projects or policy implementation processes. This concept was included in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 in order to incorporate it into all European policymaking. Gender mainstreaming aims to guarantee that policymaking and legislative work responds to the needs of all citizens, ensuring that inequalities disappear by analysing existing situations and developing policies to undo the mechanisms that cause them (European Institute for Gender Equality., 2016; UN Women, 2020).

Although gender mainstreaming does not directly address transport poverty, it is key to overcoming it. Gender mainstreaming requires the allocation of specific structures and individuals for its implementation. However, public institutions, who are co-responsible for its implementation, are traditionally male dominated, and staff need to be sensitised to the importance and overall benefits of this approach. The EIGE has described many applications in Europe of gender mainstreaming in transport (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016).

For example, in the UK, the Department for Transport (DfT) published the Guidance and Checklist for Gender Auditing on Public Transport. In 2006, the DfT implemented the Gender Equality Scheme Action Plan 2007- 2010 to eliminate discrimination based on sex and sexual harassment and to promote gender equality.

In 2002, gender mainstreaming in public transport was declared one of the major objectives for transport policy in Sweden (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016). The city of Malmo and Kalmar have implemented various measures to mainstream gender in sustainable transport policies. For example, in the city of Malmo, consultations were carried out with politicians, secondary school students, representatives of female-dominated workplaces and other stakeholders to discuss gender issues in public transport. As a result, measures were implemented that ease the mobility of women by addressing the security of the public transport system. Both women and men participated in the planning process for two tram lines in Malmo. In Kalmar, night-time security was improved, and night buses drop passengers off beyond the regular bus stops to ease access to their destinations (last mile).

The city of Vienna has documented Gender Mainstreaming strategies and interventions for Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development (Urban Development Vienna, 2013). Its approach considers not only women and men, but also different life phases – children, young people, and older people – while reducing barriers for all residents. It addresses urban structure, space creation and housing quality along with public space and mobility. It focuses on a sustainable mobility approach, highlighting the importance of active mobility (walking and cycling).

France has taken important steps towards addressing sexual harassment on public transport and sexual violence in public spaces. Transport operators were included in this process, through training, adapting alarm systems, providing stops on demand, and through national awareness-raising campaigns (Haut Conseil à l' Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, 2015).

Finally, the EIGE also documents the strategies adopted by the city of Bolzano in 2005 (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016). For example, the pink taxi "taxi Rosa" and female-dedicated parking areas.

# <span id="page-32-2"></span>**5.2 Social justice policies at international and European level**

In 2013, the European Commission developed the concept of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to improve the overall quality of life of all residents while addressing major problems in urban areas regarding air and noise pollution, climate change, road accidents, congestion, parking areas and the challenges brought about by new mobility services (European Commission, 2013). Its central goal was to improve the accessibility of urban areas by providing high-quality and sustainable mobility and transport for urban areas, beyond administrative boundaries. It noted that accessibility should meet the needs of all users, balancing the need for economic viability, social equity, health and environmental quality (European Commission, 2013).

Nowadays the concept of social justice plays a fundamental role in many transition plans, actions and reports, including the European Green Deal, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the European Pillar of Social Rights, the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), and most recently, the New EU Urban Mobility Framework (European Commission, 2021). These proposals, which were presented on 14 December 2021, seek to support the transition to cleaner, greener, and smarter mobility, in line with the European Green Deal, through four main approaches. Through these, the European Commission targets greater efficiency and more sustainable travel by encouraging Member States to develop urban transport systems that are safe, accessible, inclusive, affordable, smart, resilient and emission-free. In this respect, it highlights the need to "make it easier to choose different transport options in an efficient multimodal transport system, to put the transport sector on track to cutting its emissions by 90%".

Among the four proposals highlighted in this New EU Urban Mobility Framework are cities and their mobility challenges, including congestion, emissions and noise. It is noted that cycling, walking and public transport should be prioritised, along with better multimodal and digital services. The framework also seeks to increase the sustainability of urban areas by easing commuting in rural, suburban and urban areas. Multimodality and active mobility are put at the heart of the transformation of our cities to make them sustainable, safe and equitable.

# <span id="page-33-0"></span>**5.3 Housing, sustainable mobility, polycentricity and the 15-minute cities**

Active mobility and sustainable mobility strategies are central to the fight against transport poverty. This can only be attained when residents, irrespective of their individual characteristics and the place they live, have the necessary essential infrastructure and good quality services, along with reliable public transport services, to carry out their daily activities and assure their wellbeing.

In the following sections, we discuss the aspects which contribute to a good quality of life for all.

## <span id="page-33-1"></span>**5.3.1 Housing**

To ensure inclusion for all, housing strategies should aim to create equitable cities which can be enjoyed by everyone. The city of Vienna (City of Vienna, 2020) has a long tradition of providing affordable housing, taking the needs of its tenants into account, in a strategy which has become known as the Vienna model. Around 50% of Vienna's population, combining lower and middle income groups, live in municipal flats or subsidised dwellings. Its programme of 'gentle urban renewal' seeks to keep housing affordable and improve neighbourhoods, taking into account energy savings, barrier-free solutions and quality of life, while controlling the effects of gentrification. As a result it has regularly been recognised as an example of best practice by UN-Habitat (UN-HABITAT, 2010).

The platform EUROCITIES (2022) aims to ensure a good quality of life for all, where people live in vibrant and open public spaces, live and move in healthy environments and take part in inclusive societies. It calls for action to ensure social inclusion and a green transition while leaving no one behind. It recognises that active mobility is necessary to improve the quality of life of cities. The European Parliament (European Parliament, 2021) recently adopted the text, Decent and affordable housing for all, calling for adequate housing as a fundamental right and for increased investment in social, public, energy-efficient, adequate and affordable housing, and in tackling homelessness and housing exclusion, using EU-funded mechanisms.

## <span id="page-33-2"></span>**5.3.2 Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning**

A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) is a strategic planning instrument through which local authorities can foster the development and integration of all transport modes to create a shift towards more sustainable modes. A SUMP aims to address urban transport problems and contribute to reaching objectives at different levels, based on the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic development (CH4LLENGE Project, 2016).

For example, in Valladolid, Spain, Auvasa is a local public transport company that seeks to combine public transport with active mobility. At the height of the pandemic, the company increased the provision of bus services, to support essential workers and the mobility of care, and now, post-pandemic, it is keen to effect a sustainable mobility transition.

Auvasa has therefore proposed a SUMP (Auvasa, 2020) to introduce a range of measures including more space for pedestrians, improving accessibility in neighbourhoods with hilly terrain, improving cycling

infrastructure, creating low-traffic zones, providing permeability or connectivity to ease the movement of people, connecting points of the existing network, and expanding the network of segregated bus lanes to improve the commercial speed of buses.

## <span id="page-34-0"></span>**5.3.3 Active mobility**

In the last decade, many European cities have implemented policies to encourage cycling among their citizens for different reasons: to improve air quality in dense areas, to reduce congestion, to contribute to decarbonisation in line with climate targets, to promote healthy lifestyles and to provide fairer transportation alternatives.

In the Netherlands, cycling accounts for around one quarter of all daily trips (Pucher and Buehler, 2012). As documented by van der Kloof et al. (2014), cycling lessons have been provided to immigrant and refugee women in the Netherlands for at least 30 years. The authors observe that, together with other measures for inclusion, bicycle lessons increase these women's mobility, saving time and money, and contributing to integration and active participation.

Urban cycling policies were rapidly implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to allow commuters to observe social distancing, free up capacity in public transport systems and limit private transportation by cars (Medina et al., 2020). In most cases, the interventions have since remained in place.

The SUMP guidance documents include many positive examples of active mobility, as outlined by the European Commission's Urban Mobility Package. For instance, SUMPs provide a practical policy framework to create European cities where people are able to walk as a way of travel. Walking has positive effects on public health, sustainability, equity, congestion, liveability and urban economy (Walker at al., 2019). While many places in the EU would still benefit from safer cycling infrastructure, much is happening to encourage cycling, e.g. pubic bikesharing, cycling tourism, cargo bikes, electric bikes, awareness-raising campaigns and more (Küster, 2019).

## <span id="page-34-1"></span>**5.3.4 Polycentricity and the 15-minute cities**

Strengthening the provision of essential services of good quality across a territory, giving priority to public transport, is vital to facilitating and reducing commuting trip costs, both regarding time and economic expenditure. It also increases the quality of life in these areas by reducing traffic congestion and pollution, and increasing safety. Urban developments with this approach are known as mixed land-use or polycentric areas, and transit-oriented developments (TOD).

In Germany, the planning concept of Daseinsvorsorge<sup>10</sup> means that essential services are offered not necessarily on a market-oriented basis, but in recognition of their importance for society as a whole. They are of general interest and, therefore, subject to specific public service obligations. These can be, for instance, in the field of public transport, postal services and healthcare (European Commission, 2011). There is no single definition of the concept, which creates problems in terms of identifying which specific services should be considered essential, especially in peri-urban and rural areas suffering from financial constraints. To overcome these problems, some local governments cooperate with regional partners to secure funding for specific initiatives of general interest. Küpper (2012) documents the case of the cycle path network in the German rural area of Ostprignitz-Ruppin, where negotiations between regional and local actors helped the development to go ahead.

During the last decade, moves towards polycentric walkable areas have been made in various cities worldwide. In 2010, the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability of the City of Portland presented the Portland Plan, with a 20 minute neighbourhood concept analysis (City of Portland, 2010). Other cities have implemented similar concepts in the last years. The 15-minute city seeks to improve people's way of life and reduce polluting trips, with services and amenities accessible to neighbourhoods through active mobility, making them friendlier and more equitable. Paris has embraced the idea of the quarter of an hour city, or the city of proximity, where all essential activities such as shopping, work, and health, educational, cultural and sport services may be reached within 15 minutes on foot (Ville de Paris, 2020; Alexandre, et al., 2020).

In Barcelona, the Superblocks project (Superilles in Catalan) seeks to transform the entire city, taking back space from private vehicles. Its goal is to promote healthier, greener and safer public spaces, transforming communities, improving the local economy and reinforcing social relations (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2022).

<sup>10</sup> "Daseinsvorsorge" is a political-legal concept in German spatial planning discourse, rooted in the normative political goal of guaranteeing comparable living conditions throughout Germany.

It is worth highlighting that women already have more sustainable trip patterns and use more proximity services than men. Women walk, use more public transport, and have less access to cars. Therefore, facilitating the access of high-quality essential services to the population will reinforce equity. These services should be universally available, not only in key cities, but also in peri-urban and rural locations.

# <span id="page-35-0"></span>**5.4 Fighting isolation in rural areas and remote regions**

Rural areas and remote locations can often lack sufficient public transport alternatives. In these areas, efficient transport alternatives to car ownership are necessary to overcome isolation, increase opportunities and exercise our rights as residents.

There are some strategies that could be useful for reducing transport poverty in these areas. These include mobility as a service and ICT alternatives to reduce unnecessary trips. E-biking and e-cargo bikes can reduce driving costs and may prove to be a more suitable and sustainable alternative in rural and remote areas.

E-biking can help in rural areas, especially in countries where cycling is difficult, due to mountainous areas for instance. Modal interchange between public and private e-bike sharing schemes and the public transport system seems to positively impact the number of active mobility trips (ITF, 2021). However, while being very useful for some, e-bikes are not an easily affordable solution for everyone, and require a good, safe cycling infrastructure which is not universally available in the EU.

Mahieux and Mejia Dorantes (2017) documented a carpooling system implemented by the higher education Institute of Technology of Lens (Pas-de-Calais, France) with minimal resources. Students were allocated to groups according to their home addresses. This worked well for students, because they only had to register their names, addresses, and the start and end times of their activities. It was then easy to arrange carpooling informally with their classmates. The same authors also documented less centrally organised carpooling examples, where low-income workers seek to overcome the lack of public transport alternatives in their area while reducing transport costs. Other people offer carpooling to earn extra money. In Germany, the Mitfahrerbänkle offers simple carpooling and ride services in small towns and rural areas. It has been implemented with very clear and simple rules to facilitate mobility for all, regardless of IT literacy (Gemeinde Rickenbach, 2022). The International Transport Forum (ITF, 2021) notes that such community transport alternatives often face constraints due to a lack of implementation know-how or funding, and safety and legal issues.

Demand-responsive transport (DRT) in rural areas uses small fleet vehicles, merging bus and taxi services, using technology to optimise routes and services (ITF, 2021). The Flemish Dial-a-Bus (De Lijn, 2022), allows users to book their trips online or by telephone. The SMARTA EU project compiles information on other demandresponsive rural transport services (SMARTA Project, 2022).

Mobility as a service (MaaS) goes a step beyond, integrating transport services into one single mobility platform, offering the user a wide variety of mobility alternatives and combinations such as public transport, bike-sharing, car-sharing, car-pooling and taxi. The EU-funded project HiReach (2020) explored viable business models for small-scale, modular and easily replicable mobility services such as community transport services, ridesharing and minibus and van pooling, based on affordable prices and/or with minimum subsidies.

# <span id="page-35-1"></span>**5.5 Reducing the digital divide**

As discussed in Section 3.4, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of ICT, replacing a number of everyday activities which had previously required trips. This poses a challenge for those who are excluded from ICT services and makes IT literacy programmes and support, particularly in rural locations, vital.

Estonia boasts perhaps the most relevant long-term strategy. In 1991, Estonian policymakers decided that the country should build a technology infrastructure to catch up with its western counterparts. The milestones cited in e-Estonia (e-Estonia, 2022) include the drafting and ratification by parliament in 1998 of a strategic outline for IT development, with 1% of GDP earmarked for IT funding. In 1996, Estonia launched the Tiger Leap Initiative, which aimed to update local IT infrastructure and establish computer skills as a priority in schools. Other longterm state programmes included, for example, digitalisation for older people in Estonia (Ole kaasas, translated as 'come along' or 'be included') (Republic of Estonia, 2020). As a result, 99% of the population uses the internet regularly and Estonia is ranked number 1 in the Digital Development Index (e-Estonia, 2022).

Strategies have recently been implemented in other European countries, such as Portugal's digitalisation programme for older people, EUSOUDIGITAL, carried out by volunteers in 1 500 centres across the country (A2D Consulting, 2021; Constenla, 2022).

European research projects such as DIGNITY and INDIMO (Bosch et al., 2021; INDIMO, 2022) test strategies to overcome the digital inclusion barrier across Europe. INDIMO adopts an approach based on the principles of cocreation and cooperation between users, developers, operators, and policymakers.

# <span id="page-37-0"></span>**6 Conclusions**

Transport poverty needs to be better identified and addressed at European level. An agreed EU definition would help Member States to better understand the concept and take mitigating measures. We propose a definition which takes a holistic view while specifying key characteristics such as accessibility, availability and affordability.

Transport poverty does not have only one cause or component, but is rather a complex interaction between different causes and consequences. There is therefore no one-size-fits-all solution. Apart from poverty and low educational attainment, other causes can include poor land-use planning and lack of mixed land use (lack of essential services locally), spatial mismatch, dwelling affordability, gentrification, accessibility barriers, urban fragmentation, transport costs, digital illiteracy, and poor transport infrastructure provision, service and maintenance, especially in remote and rural locations, leading in many cases to transit or transport deserts.

The consequences of transport poverty are also myriad, including social exclusion, immobility, time poverty, community ghettoisation and segregation, reduced educational chances, health inequalities and related problems such as food deserts and pollution along with health and environmental problems, unhousing, discrimination and redlining, car dependent societies and dependence on local fuel prices, leading to energy poverty.

This report highlighted the importance of taking an intersectional view during all phases of initiatives, considering the overlapping needs of children, older people, people with disabilities or reduced mobility, people living in rural & remote locations, frontline workers, people with low educational attainment, people under 65 living in households with low work intensity, LGBTQI+, unemployed, single parents, migrants, ethnic groups, and people of colour and mixed race.

The report also discussed that land-use and transport policies cannot be considered independently. Social infrastructure planning must aim to benefit all socioeconomic groups. The efficient combination of mobility, spatial proximity to resources and services, digital infrastructure and skills can be designed in an inclusive and sustainable manner, placing people at the centre. Affordable housing and gentrification issues should be tackled together to ensure that all residents have access to the necessary services offering education, health, and current and future socioeconomic opportunities. The participation of all stakeholders is of utmost importance for the transformation of urban and rural areas, making them healthy, equitable, inclusive, resilient and liveable.

Finally we identified some of the measures taken to address transport poverty which include gender mainstreaming, social justice policies, active mobility solutions, polycentricity and the concept of 15-minute cities, reducing isolation in remote areas as well as the digital divide. There are many other workstreams available which collect examples of good practices in the EU on these issues, such as those described in the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) guidance documents for active mobility. These can serve as potential solutions to be applied by other Member States.

# <span id="page-38-0"></span>**References**

- A2D Consulting, 'EU Sou Digital', Project description and objective, *Eu sou digital: Programa de capacitacao digital de adultos*, 2021. https://www.eusoudigital.pt/.
- Ajuntament de Barcelona, 'Welcome to Superilles | Superilles', *Barcelona Superblocks*, 2022. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/en.
- Alexandre, V., S. de Livonnière, C. Robinet, and E. le Mitouard, 'Paris, Future Capitale Mondiale Du «quart d'heure» ?', *Le Parisien*, Paris, September 17, 2020.
- Allen, D.J., *Lost in the Transit Desert: Race, Transit Access, and Suburban Form*, 1st ed., Routledge, First Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2017. |, 2017.
- Anguelovski, I., H.V.S. Cole, E. O'Neill, F. Baró, P. Kotsila, F. Sekulova, C. Pérez del Pulgar, et al., 'Gentrification Pathways and Their Health Impacts on Historically Marginalized Residents in Europe and North America: Global Qualitative Evidence from 14 Cities', *Health & Place*, Vol. 72, November 2021, p. 102698.
- Anguelovski, I., Irazábal‐Zurita, C. and Connolly, J.J., 'Grabbed urban landscapes: Socio‐spatial tensions in green infrastructure planning in Medellín', *International journal of urban and regional research*, 43(1), 2019, pp.133-156.
- Asian Development Bank, *Gender Tool Kit: Transport: Maximizing the Benefits of Improved Mobility for All*, Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines, 2013.
- Atkinson, R., 'Gentrification', *International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home*, Elsevier, 2012, pp. 269–274.
- Auvasa, 'Auvasa. Planes de Movilidad.', 2020. http://www.auvasa.es/auv\_planes\_mov.asp#plan\_03.
- Bailey, N., and J. Minton, 'The Suburbanisation of Poverty in British Cities, 2004-16: Extent, Processes and Nature', *Urban Geography*, Vol. 39, No. 6, July 3, 2018, pp. 892–915.
- Baptista, I., and E. Marlier, *Access to Essential Services for People on Low Incomes in Europe: An Analysis of Policies in 35 Countries : 2020.*, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. European Social Policy Network (ESPN)., Publications Office. European Commission, Brussels, 2020.
- Booth, R., 'Rural House Prices in England and Wales Rise Twice as Fast as in Cities', *The Guardian*, June 20, 2021, sec. Society.
- Bosch, E.R., B. Wybraniec, B. Lazzarini, M.V. Junyent, and À.G. Crespo, 'The DIGNITY Project Toward a System of Inclusive Digital Mobility in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area', *XIV Conference on Transport Engineering, CIT2021*, Vol. 58, January 1, 2021, pp. 134–141.
- Braun, R., and R. Randell, 'The Vermin of the Street: The Politics of Violence and the *Nomos* of Automobility', *Mobilities*, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2, 2022, pp. 53–68.
- Burchardt, T., 'Time and Income Poverty', Vol. CASE report 57, 2008.
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, *CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare*, 3. ed., *Systematic Reviews*, York Publ. Services, York, 2009.
- CH4LLENGE Project, 'Addressing the Four Key Challenges of Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMPs)', Text, *SUMP Challenges*, 2016. http://www.sump-challenges.eu/.
- Charmes, J., 'A Review of Empirical Evidence on Time Use in Africa from UN-Sponsored Surveys', *Gender, Time Use, and Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa*, Vol. 39, 2006.
- City of Portland, '20-Minute Neighborhoods', *Portland Plan*, October 1, 2010. https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=52256&a=288098.
- City of Vienna, 'The Vienna Model Socialhousing', 2020. https://socialhousing.wien/policy/the-vienna-model.
- Constenla, T., 'Los nativos digitales de Portugal instruyen a sus abuelos', *El País*, January 28, 2022. https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-01-28/los-nativos-digitales-de-portugal-instruyen-a-susabuelos.html.
- Cooper, B., *Intersectionality*, Edited by L. Disch and M. Hawkesworth, Vol. 1, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Crenshaw, K., 'Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics', *University of Chicago Legal Forum*, Vol. 8, *1989*, 1989.

- Cresswell, T., and T.P. Uteng, 'Gendered Mobilities: Towards an Holistic Understanding', *Gendered Mobilities*, 2008, pp. 1–12.
- Cubells, J., O. Marquet, and C. Miralles-Guasch, 'Gender and Age Differences in Metropolitan Car Use. Recent Gender Gap Trends in Private Transport', *Sustainability*, Vol. 12, No. 18, September 5, 2020, p. 7286.
- Currie, G., and A. Delbosc, 'Modelling the Social and Psychological Impacts of Transport Disadvantage', *Transportation*, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2010, pp. 953–966.
- Currie, G., T. Richardson, P. Smyth, D. Vella-Brodrick, J. Hine, K. Lucas, J. Stanley, J. Morris, R. Kinnear, and J. Stanley, 'Investigating Links between Transport Disadvantage, Social Exclusion and Well-Being in Melbourne – Updated Results', *Research in Transportation Economics*, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2010, pp. 287–295.
- De Lijn, 'Anrufbus De Lijn', *De Lijn*, 2022. https://www.delijn.be/de/belbus/.
- De Vos, J., B. Derudder, V. Van Acker, and F. Witlox, 'Reducing Car Use: Changing Attitudes or Relocating? The Influence of Residential Dissonance on Travel Behavior', *Journal of Transport Geography*, Vol. 22, May 2012, pp. 1–9.
- Di Ciommo, F., A. Kilstein, and G. Rondinella, 'Intersectionality as a Goal in Data Collection for Mobility Needs of Social Minorities.', *TRB Annual Meeting*, Washington, DC, 2022.
- Di Giulio, M., Holderegger, R., and Tobias, S. 'Effects of habitat and landscape fragmentation on humans and biodiversity in densely populated landscapes', *J. Environ. Manage*. 90, 2959–2968. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.002, 2009.
- DIAMOND Project, 'DIAMOND-Revealing Fair and Actionable Knowledge from Data to Support Women's Inclusion in Transport Systems', EU Project, 2022 2018. https://diamond-project.eu/.
- Doll, C., L. Mejía-Dorantes, and E. Dönitz, 'Applying Visioning, Roadmapping and Simulation Techniques for Planning the European Railway Sector-Results from the Livingrail Study.', *95th Meeting*, Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- e-Estonia, 'Story', *E-Estonia Story*, 2022. https://e-estonia.com/story/.
- EIGE, 'Economic Hardship', *European Institute for Gender Equality*, 2022. https://eige.europa.eu/covid-19-andgender-equality/economic-hardship-and-gender.
- ———, 'Employment', *European Institute for Gender Equality*, 2022. https://eige.europa.eu/gendermainstreaming/policy-areas/employment.
- ———, 'Essential Workers', *European Institute for Gender Equality*, 2022. https://eige.europa.eu/covid-19-andgender-equality/essential-workers.
- ———, *Gender Equality and the Socio-Economic Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.*, European Institute for Gender Equality. Publications Office, LU, 2021.
- ———, 'Gender Statistics | Gender Statistics Database', *European Institute for Gender Equality*, October 31, 2019. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/data-talks/what-lies-behind-gender-pay-gap.
- ———, *What Lies behind the Gender Pay Gap? Gender Statistics Database.*, European Institute for Gender Equality, 2019.
- Eurocities, 'Eurocities Network', 2022. https://eurocities.eu/.
- European Commission, *A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: COM(2013) 913 final*, Brussels, December 17, 2013.
- ———, *Quality Framework for Services of General Interest (SGI) in the EU*, Brussels, COM(2011) 900 final, 20.12.2011.
  - https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state\_aid/overview/new\_guide\_eu\_rules\_procurement\_en.pdf
- ———, *Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy*, COM/2020/789 final, https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5e601657-3b06-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC\_1&format=PDF. European Commission, 2020.

- ———, 'Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans', *Mobility and Transport*, 2013. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transportthemes/clean-transport-urban-transport/urban-mobility/urban-mobility-actions/sustainable-urbanmobility-plans\_en. ———, *The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan*, Publications Office, LU, 2021. ———, *The New European Urban Mobility Framework*, COM/2021/811 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0811European Commission. Eurostat., *Quality of Life: Facts and Views : 2015 Edition.*, Publications Office, LU, 2015. European Environment Agency, *Healthy Environment, Healthy Lives: How the Environment Influences Health and Well Being in Europe.*, Publications Office, LU, 2020. ———, 'Transport', March 5, 2020. https://www.eea.europa.eu/de/themes/transport/intro. European Institute for Gender Equality, *Gender in Transport*, Publications Office, LU, 2016. ———, 'Time Use Survey', *Glossary & Thesaurus*, 2016. ———, 'Transport', *European Institute for Gender Equality*, 2022. https://eige.europa.eu/gendermainstreaming/policy-areas/transport. European Institute for Gender Equality., *What Is Gender Mainstreaming?.*, Publications Office, LU, 2016. European Parliament, *DRAFT REPORT on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Social Climate Fund*, Draft Report, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, January 18, 2022. ———, 'Texts Adopted - Decent and Affordable Housing for All - Thursday, 21 January 2021', January 21, 2021. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0020\_EN.html. Eurostat, 'Being Young in Europe Today - Demographic Trends', *Eurostat Statistics Explained*, July 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Being\_young\_in\_Europe\_today\_- \_demographic\_trends. ———, 'Database - Income and Living Conditions - Eurostat', Statistics, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database. ———, 'Disability Statistics - Poverty and Income Inequalities', January 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Disability\_statistics\_- \_poverty\_and\_income\_inequalities. ———, 'EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) Methodology - Environment of the Dwelling', April 13, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=EU\_statistics\_on\_income\_and\_living\_conditions\_(EU-SILC)\_methodology\_- \_environment\_of\_the\_dwelling. ———, 'Income Inequality in the EU', April 26, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/- /EDN-20180426-1. ———, 'Living Conditions', European Commission, February 14, 2014. ———, 'Living Conditions in Europe - Poverty and Social Exclusion', October 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living\_conditions\_in\_Europe\_- \_poverty\_and\_social\_exclusion. ———, 'Overview - Harmonised European Time Use Surveys (HETUS) - Eurostat', 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/time-use-surveys. ———, 'People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion by Age and Sex - New Definition', *Statistics | Eurostat*, February 3, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc\_peps01n/default/table?lang=en.
- Fana, M., S. Tolan, S. Torrejón, C. Urzi Brancati, and E. & Fernández-Macías, *The COVID Confinement Measures and EU Labour Markets.*, Publications Office European Commission. Joint Research Centre., LU, 2020.

\_statistics\_on\_main\_results#Structure\_of\_household\_consumption\_expenditure

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics explained/index.php?title=Household\_budget\_survey\_-

———, 'Household budget survey - statistics on main results', September 2020.

- Gemeinde Rickenbach, 'Mitfahrerbänkle', *Council services*, 2022. https://www.rickenbach.de/seite/495659/www.rickenbach.de/seite/495659/mitfahrerb%C3%83%C2% A4nkle.html.
- Gobillon, L., H. Selod, and Y. Zenou, 'The Mechanisms of Spatial Mismatch', *Urban Studies*, Vol. 44, No. 12, November 2007, pp. 2401–2427.
- Hammel, D.J., 'Gentrification', *International Encyclopedia of Human Geography*, Elsevier, 2009, pp. 360–367.
- Hanson, S., 'Gender and Mobility: New Approaches for Informing Sustainability', *Gender, Place & Culture*, Vol. 17, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 5–23.
- Haut Conseil à l' Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, 'Lancement de la campagne gouvernementale contre le harcèlement sexiste dans les transports : une mesure volontariste à essaimer largement - Haut Conseil à l'Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes', November 9, 2015. https://www.haut-conseilegalite.gouv.fr/violences-de-genre/actualites/article/lancement-de-la-campagne.
- Hills Fuel Poverty Review, *Getting the Measure of Fuel Poverty*, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, CASE, London, UK, 2012.
- Hine, J., *Transport and Social Exclusion*, *International Encyclopedia of Human Geography*, Elsevier Inc., 2009.
- HiReach Project, 'HiReach-Innovative Mobility Solutions to Cope with Transport Poverty', EU Project, 2020. https://hireach-project.eu/.
- Hochstenbach, C., and S. Musterd, 'Gentrification and the Suburbanization of Poverty: Changing Urban Geographies through Boom and Bust Periods', *Urban Geography*, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 2, 2018, pp. 26–53.
- Hortelano, A.O., Grosso, M., Haq, G. and Tsakalidis, A, 'Women in Transport Research and Innovation: A European Perspective' *Sustainability*, Vol. 13, No. 12: 6796, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1312679
- Hortelano, A.O., Grosso, M., Haq, G., Tsakalidis, A., Gkoumas, K., Van Balen, M. and Pekar, F., 'Women in European Transport with a focus on Research and Innovation', EUR 29833 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019.
- Hyde, E., M.E. Greene, and G.L. Darmstadt, 'Time Poverty: Obstacle to Women's Human Rights, Health and Sustainable Development', *Journal of Global Health*, Vol. 10, No. 2, December 2020, p. 020313.
- ILO, *Guidelines for a Just Transition towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies for All*, International Labour Organization, Geneve, 2015.
- INDIMO, 'INDIMO INclusive DIgital MObility Solutions for All', EU Project, *Project*, 2022. https://www.indimoproject.eu/.
- ITF, *Innovations for Better Rural Mobility*, *ITF Research Reports*, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021.
- Jirón, P., J.-A. Carrasco, and M. Rebolledo, 'Observing Gendered Interdependent Mobility Barriers Using an Ethnographic and Time Use Approach', *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, Vol. 140, October 2020, pp. 204–214.
- Jomehpour Chahar Aman, J., and J. Smith-Colin, 'Transit Deserts: Equity Analysis of Public Transit Accessibility', *Journal of Transport Geography*, Vol. 89, December 2020, p. 102869.
- Kelly, E., 'Systematic and Just: The Use of a Systematic Review Methodology in Social Work Research', *Social Work and Social Sciences Review*, Vol. 15, No. 3, January 1, 2011, pp. 72–85.
- Khomenko, S., M. Cirach, E. Pereira-Barboza, N. Mueller, J. Barrera-Gómez, D. Rojas-Rueda, K. de Hoogh, G. Hoek, and M. Nieuwenhuijsen, 'Premature Mortality Due to Air Pollution in European Cities: A Health Impact Assessment', *The Lancet Planetary Health*, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2021, pp. e121–e134.
- van der Kloof, A., J. Bastiaanssen, and K. Martens, 'Bicycle Lessons, Activity Participation and Empowerment', *Case Studies on Transport Policy*, Vol. 2, No. 2, *Social Exclusion in the Countries with Advanced Transport Systems*, September 1, 2014, pp. 89–95.
- Koukoufikis, G., and A. Uihlein, *Energy Poverty, Transport Poverty and Living Conditions: An Analysis of EU Data and Socioeconomic Indicators*, European Commission. Joint Research Centre.Publications Office, LU, 2022.

- Küpper, P., 'Sicherung der Daseinsvorsorge durch regionale Kooperation Erfahrungen aus ländlichen Räumen', *Polyzentrale Stadtregionen – Die Region als planerischer Handlungsraum*, Vol. Arbeitsberichte der ARL 3, Vol. Arbeitsberichte der ARL 3, Hannover, 2012.
- Küster, F., 'Supporting and encouraging cycling in sustainable urban mobility planning', Brussels: European Commission, 2019. https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/supporting\_and\_encouraging\_cycling\_in\_sumps.pdf
- Kuttler, Tobias, and Massimo Moraglio, eds., *Re-Thinking Mobility Poverty: Understanding Users' Geographies, Backgrounds and Aptitudes*, Routledge, London, 2020.
- Lame, G., 'Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction', *Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19)*, Delft, The Netherlands, 2019.
- Levitas, R., C. Pantazis, E. Fahmy, D. Gordon, E. Lloyd-Reichling, and D. Patsios, 'The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion', 2007.
- Libertun de Duren, N., 'Gender Inequalities in Cities: Inclusive Cities', *The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures*, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021.
- LivingRAIL Project, 'LIVINGRAIL (Living in a Sustainable World Focused on Electrified Rail)', CORDIS EU research results FP7, *European Commission*, January 25, 2016. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314036/reporting.
- Lowans, C., D. Furszyfer Del Rio, B.K. Sovacool, D. Rooney, and A.M. Foley, 'What Is the State of the Art in Energy and Transport Poverty Metrics? A Critical and Comprehensive Review', *Energy Economics*, Vol. 101, September 2021, p. 105360.
- Lucas, K. (Ed.), 'Running on empty: Transport, social exclusion and environmental justice', *Policy Press,* 2004.
- Lucas, K., 'Transport and Social Exclusion: Where Are We Now?', *Transport Policy*, Vol. 20, 2012, pp. 105–113.
- Lucas, K., 'Providing Transport for Social Inclusion within a Framework for Environmental Justice in the UK', *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, Vol. 40, No. 10, December 2006, pp. 801–809.
- Lucas, K., G. Mattioli, E. Verlinghieri, and A. Guzman, 'Transport Poverty and Its Adverse Social Consequences', *Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport*, Vol. 169, No. 6, December 2016, pp. 353– 365.
- Lucas, K., B. van Wee, and K. Maat, 'A Method to Evaluate Equitable Accessibility: Combining Ethical Theories and Accessibility-Based Approaches', *Transportation*, Vol. 43, No. 3, May 2016, pp. 473–490.
- Lunke, E.B., 'Modal Accessibility Disparities and Transport Poverty in the Oslo Region', *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, Vol. 103, February 2022, p. 103171.
- Lyons, G., P. Mokhtarian, M. Dijst, and L. Böcker, 'The Dynamics of Urban Metabolism in the Face of Digitalization and Changing Lifestyles: Understanding and Influencing Our Cities', *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*, Vol. 132, May 2018, pp. 246–257.
- Mahieux, A., and L. Mejia-Dorantes, 'Regeneration Strategies and Transport Improvement in a Deprived Area: What Can Be Learnt from Northern France?', *Regional Studies*, Vol. 51, No. 5, May 4, 2017, pp. 800– 813.
- mamba Project, 'MAMBA-Maximised Mobility and Accessibility of Services in Regions Affected by Demographic Change', EU Project, 2020 2017. https://www.mambaproject.eu/about-us/.
- Martens, K., 'Justice in Transport as Justice in Accessibility: Applying Walzer's 'Spheres of Justice' to the Transport Sector', *Transportation*, Vol. 39, No. 6, November 2012, pp. 1035–1053.
- Matas, A., J.-L. Raymond, and J.-L. Roig, 'Job Accessibility and Female Employment Probability: The Cases of Barcelona and Madrid', *Urban Studies*, Vol. 47, No. 4, April 2010, pp. 769–787.
- Mattioli, G., 'Transport Poverty and Car Dependence: A European Perspective', *Advances in Transport Policy and Planning*, Vol. 8, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 101–133.
- Mattioli, G., K. Lucas, and G. Marsden, 'Transport Poverty and Fuel Poverty in the UK: From Analogy to Comparison', *Transport Policy*, Vol. 59, October 2017, pp. 93–105.

- McLanahan, S.S., and M.J. Carlson, 'Poverty and Gender in Affluent Nations', in N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (eds.), *International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences*, Pergamon, Oxford, 2001, pp. 11894– 11900.
- Medina, M.A., C. Álvarez, Y. Clemente, and M. Zafra, 'Carriles bici: la respuesta de las ciudades ante la pandemia', *El País*, Spain, October 28, 2020.
- Mejía-Dorantes, L., L. Montero, and J. Barceló, 'Mobility Trends before and after the Pandemic Outbreak: Analyzing the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona through the Lens of Equality and Sustainability', *Sustainability*, Vol. 13, No. 14, July 15, 2021, p. 7908.
- Mejía-Dorantes, L., and P. Soto Villagrán, 'A Review on the Influence of Barriers on Gender Equality to Access the City: A Synthesis Approach of Mexico City and Its Metropolitan Area', *Cities*, Vol. 96, January 2020, p. 102439.
- Millonig, A., C. Rudloff, G. Richter, F. Lorenz, and S. Peer, 'Fair Mobility Budgets: A Concept for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Transport Equity', *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, Vol. 103, February 2022, p. 103165.
- Miralles-Guasch, C., M.M. Melo, and O. Marquet, 'A Gender Analysis of Everyday Mobility in Urban and Rural Territories: From Challenges to Sustainability', *Gender, Place & Culture*, Vol. 23, No. 3, March 3, 2016, pp. 398–417.
- Müller, S., L. Mejia-Dorantes, and E. Kersten, 'Analysis of Active School Transportation in Hilly Urban Environments: A Case Study of Dresden', *Journal of Transport Geography*, Vol. 88, October 2020, p. 102872.
- Musselwhite, C., 'Prioritising Transport Barriers and Enablers to Mobility in Later Life: A Case Study from Greater Manchester in the United Kingdom', *Journal of Transport & Health*, Vol. 22, September 2021, p. 101085.
- OECD, *Gender and the Environment: Building Evidence and Policies to Achieve the SDGs*, OECD, 2021.
- ———, *Women at the Core of the Fight against COVID-19 Crisis - OECD*, OECD, 2020.
- Ong, P.M., and D. Miller, 'Spatial and Transportation Mismatch in Los Angeles', *Journal of Planning Education and Research*, Vol. 25, No. 1, September 2005, pp. 43–56.
- Páez, A., R. Gertes Mercado, S. Farber, C. Morency, and M. Roorda, 'Relative Accessibility Deprivation Indicators for Urban Settings: Definitions and Application to Food Deserts in Montreal', *Urban Studies*, Vol. 47, No. 7, June 2010, pp. 1415–1438.
- Paramati, S.R., and E. Roca, 'Does Tourism Drive House Prices in the OECD Economies? Evidence from Augmented Mean Group Estimator', *Tourism Management*, Vol. 74, October 2019, pp. 392–395.
- Park, C.C., *A Dictionary of Environment and Conservation*, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
- Pereira, R.H.M., T. Schwanen, and D. Banister, 'Distributive Justice and Equity in Transportation', *Transport Reviews*, Vol. 37, No. 2, March 4, 2017, pp. 170–191.
- PIM mobility, 'Système et Environnement MaaS Clef en Main', *Pim Mobility*, 2022. https://pim-mobility.com/.
- Pucher, J., and R. Buehler, *City Cycling*, MIT press, 2012.
- RACC, 'Transport Poverty', 2012. https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/transport-poverty.
- Republic of Estonia, 'IT Skills and Knowledge | Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications', *Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications*, August 31, 2020. https://www.mkm.ee/en/objectivesactivities/information-society/it-skills-and-knowledge.
- Rodrigue, J.P. and Notteboom, T., '3.1–Transportation and Economic Development', *The Geography of transport systems*, 2013.
- Rodríguez-Rata, A., 'Las Ciudades Acumulan Grandes Zonas 'Prohibidas' Para Las Mujeres', *La Vanguardia*, Barcelona, February 1, 2022.
- Sánchez de Madariaga, I., 'From Women in Transport to Gender in Transport: Challenging Conceptual Frameworks for Improved Policymaking', *Journal of International Affairs*, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2013, pp. 43– 65.

- Schade, W., L. Mejia Dorantes, W. Rothengatter, O. Meyer-Rühle, M. Drewitz, and A. Auf der Maur, *The Orientations and Policies of Interurban Transport in the Outermost Regions*, Publications Office European Parliament, LU, 2013.
- Schäfer, P., and J. Hirsch, 'Do Urban Tourism Hotspots Affect Berlin Housing Rents?', *International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis*, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 3, 2017, pp. 231–255.
- Schlosberg, D., and L.B. Collins, 'From Environmental to Climate Justice: Climate Change and the Discourse of Environmental Justice', *WIREs Climate Change*, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 2014, pp. 359–374.
- SMARTA Project, 'SMARTA-Smart Rural Transport Areas', EU Project, 2022. https://ruralsharedmobility.eu.
- Soto Villagrán, P., and L. Mejía Dorantes, 'Urban Projects and Public Space in Latin America: Walking Towards a Paradigm of Gender Equality (Chapter 23)', *The Routledge Handbook of Urban Studies In Latin America And The Caribbean*, Routledge, 2022.
- Sustrans, 'Transport Poverty in England', *Sustrans*, 2012. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/research/allthemes/all/transport-poverty-in-england/.
- ———, *Transport Poverty in Scotland*, Scotland, August 2016.
- TEA Cost Action, 'About TEA Teacost', 2017. https://teacost.eu/tea-details/about-tea/.
- TInnGO Project, 'TInnGO-Transport Innovation Gender Observatory', EU Project, 2022. https://www.tinngo.eu/.
- Titheridge, H., N. Christie, R. Mackett, D. Oviedo Hernandez, and R. Ye, *Transport and Poverty. A Review of the Evidence.*, UCL, UK, 2014.
- TRB Standing Committee AME20, 'Women and Gender in Transportation Transportation Research Board (TRB) Standing Committee (AME20)', Committee, September 17, 2021. https://womenandgender.wixsite.com/ame20.
- Trujillo Sáenz, Fernando, *The School Year 2020-2021 in Spain during the Pandemic: Country Report.*, European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Publications Office, LU, 2021.
- UN Climate Change Conference, 'Adaptation', *UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) at the SEC – Glasgow 2021*, 2021. https://ukcop26.org/cop26-goals/adaptation/.
- UN Women, *Gender Mainstreaming: A Global Strategy for Achieving Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls*, UN Women Headquarters, N.Y., 2020.
- UN-HABITAT, 'Austria | Best Practices', 2010. https://mirror.unhabitat.org/list.asp?typeid=2&catid=75.
- United Nations, 'THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development', *Sustainable Development*, 2022. https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
- United Nations Statistics Division, 'Time Use Data Portal', 2018. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/timeuse/index.html.
- Urban Development Vienna, *Manual for Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development*, Werkstattbericht, City of Vienna, Vienna, 2013.
- Vacchelli, E., and E. Kofman, 'Towards an Inclusive and Gendered Right to the City', *Cities*, Vol. 76, June 2018, pp. 1–3.
- Villani, D. and Vidal Lorda, G., Whom does inflation hurt most, European Commission, 2022, JRC129558.
- Ville de Paris, 'Récupéré Sur Paris Ville Du Quart d'heure, Ou Le Pari de La Proximité', *Ville de Paris*, December 10, 2020. https://www.paris.fr/dossiers/paris-ville-du-quart-d-heure-ou-le-pari-de-la-proximite-37.
- Walker, J., 'Time Poverty, Gender and Well-Being: Lessons from the Kyrgyz Swiss Swedish Health Programme', *Development in Practice*, Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2013, pp. 57–68.
- Walker, J., Thornton, B. and Marcela Quinones, L., 'Supporting and Encouraging Walking in Sustainbale Urban Mobility Planning', Brussels: European Commission, 2019. https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/supporting\_and\_encouraging\_walking\_in\_sumps.pdf.
- Weintrob, A., L. Hansell, M. Zebracki, Y. Barnard, and K. Lucas, 'Queer Mobilities: Critical LGBTQ Perspectives of Public Transport Spaces', *Mobilities*, Vol. 16, No. 5, September 3, 2021, pp. 775–791.

- WIiT, 'Women's Issues in Transportation (WIiT) Bridging the Gap', Conference Paris, *Women's Issues in Transportation*, 2014. https://wiit-paris2014.sciencesconf.org/resource/page/id/9.html.
- World Bank, *Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020 : Reversals of Fortune*, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020.
- Zhang, M.L., and G. Pryce, 'The Dynamics of Poverty, Employment and Access to Amenities in Polycentric Cities: Measuring the Decentralisation of Poverty and Its Impacts in England and Wales', *Urban Studies*, Vol. 57, No. 10, August 2020, pp. 2015–2030.

<span id="page-46-0"></span>

| Box 1. Just Transition 12 |  |
|---------------------------|--|
|                           |  |

# <span id="page-47-0"></span>**List of figures**

| Figure 1. Simplified diagram of review question8                                                                                                  |  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
| Figure 2. Diagram of review process regarding transport poverty9                                                                                  |  |
| Figure 3. Distribution of households that would like to but cannot afford to have a car for private use by<br>income group across EU countries 18 |  |
| Figure 4. Distribution of households that would like to but cannot afford to have a car for private use by<br>gender across EU countries 19       |  |

<span id="page-48-0"></span>

| Table 1. Transport poverty direct metrics 15 |  |
|----------------------------------------------|--|
|                                              |  |

# <span id="page-49-0"></span>**Annex 1. Search terms**

To examine the literature available in this topic of research, the following terms were used to prepare strings. These strings were needed for the literature search. They were useful to fine-tune the search and to compare relevant information sources.

Transport poverty Transport-oriented urban planning

Mobility poverty Car-oriented urban planning

Mobility Justice Polycentricity

Time poverty Transport justice Monocentric urban planning Polycentric urban planning

Inclusive mobility Urban planning

Mobility disadvantage Remote areas transport

Transport disadvantage Mobility deprivation Rural transport Gentrification

Transport deprivation Housing affordability

Transport availability Transport deprivation Transport disadvantage Spatial mismatch House affordability & mobility House affordability & transport Household mobility expenditure Household transport expenditure

Transport mismatch sustainable urban growth

Just transition Transport mobility housing policy

Transport Inequalit\* Mobility of care

Social exclusion Social inclusion Social justice Just transition digital literacy digital illiteracy digital mobility smart mobility

Sustainable transport connected transport systems

Sustainable transport policies digital divide

sustainable mobility solution

sustainable mobility transition Climate justice Accessibility barrier Mobility accessibility Mobility affordability Well-being Health Unhoused Redlining Food desert

Mobility availability Transport discrimination

mobility barrier

Transport accessibility Gendered mobilit\*

Transport affordability Gender

Immobilit\*

Migrants' mobility Transportation infrastructure

Mobility vulnerable population Public Transport

Elderly mobility Disadvantaged communities Walking Cycling

Disadvantaged households Low-income mobility Public transport Sustainable mobility

Low-income transport

Low-income households Active mobility Automobile dependenc\* Bus Transportation Car dependency Car dependen\* Car ownership Transport cost\* Forced car ownership Transport expenditure\* Transport fuel spending Transport planning Transport spending Mobility costs

Forced car ownership Active transportation Mobility polic\* Transport and energy poverty Mobility energy poverty Mobility fuel spending

Transport system

Query string examples:

- 1. TITLE-ABS-KEY(transport poverty definition) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"EART" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"PSYC" ) )
- 2. TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "transport poverty" ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "EART" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "PSYC" ) )
- 3. transport AND poverty transport AND exclusion transport AND equity social AND exclusion time AND poverty well-being spatial AND mismatch new AND mobilit gendered AND mobilit digital inclusive AND mobility accessibility AND barrier car AND dependency car AND iented AND urban AND planning gentrification transport AND affdability house AND affdability AND ( EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "China" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "India" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iran" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Singape" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Russian Federation" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ghana" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uganda" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Viet Nam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tanzania" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Egypt" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Philippines" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ethiopia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Qatar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Nepal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malawi" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mocco" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mozambique" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ukraine" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iraq" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Namibia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Oman" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Zimbabwe" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Algeria" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bahrain" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Burkina Faso" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kazakhstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kuwait" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Madagascar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Myanmar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sierra Leone" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tunisia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Anguilla" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Armenia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Barbados" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Belarus" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY ,

```
"Benin" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Federated States of Micronesia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY 
, "Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kyrgyzstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Liberia" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Macao" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Panama" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY , "Papua New Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Syrian Arab Republic" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Togo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Trinidad and Tobago" ) EXCLUDE 
( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Venezuela" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Yemen" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY 
, "Afghanistan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Andra" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Azerbaijan" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bolivia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Brunei Darussalam" ) EXCLUDE 
( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Cambodia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Costa Rica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY 
, "Cuba" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Democratic Republic Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , 
"Fiji" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Gabon" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Guinea-Bissau" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Jamaica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Laos" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY , "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malta" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mauritius" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Moldova" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , 
"Montenegro" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Puerto Rico" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Saint Lucia" 
) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Samoa" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Senegal" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sudan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uzbekistan" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA 
, "SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA 
, "MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA 
, "ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA 
, "PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MULT" ) ) 
4. transport poverty transport disadvantage deprivation exclusion equity justice social 
exclusion time poverty well-being spatial mismatch new mobility gendered mobility digital inclusive 
mobility accessibility barrier car dependency car iented urban planning gentrification transport 
affdability house affdability AND ( EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"China" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"India" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Iran" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Singape" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Russian Federation" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Ghana" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Uganda" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Viet Nam" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Tanzania" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Egypt" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Philippines" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Ethiopia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Qatar" 
) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Nepal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Malawi" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Mocco" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Mozambique" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Ukraine" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Iraq" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Namibia" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Oman" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Zimbabwe" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Algeria" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Bahrain" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Burkina 
Faso" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Kazakhstan" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Kuwait" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Madagascar" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Myanmar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Sierra Leone" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Tunisia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Anguilla" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Armenia" 
) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Barbados" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Belarus" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Benin" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Federated States of Micronesia" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Kyrgyzstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Liberia" 
) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Macao" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Panama" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Papua New Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Syrian Arab Republic" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Togo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Trinidad and Tobago" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Venezuela" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Yemen" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Afghanistan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Andra" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Azerbaijan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Bolivia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Brunei 
Darussalam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Cambodia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Costa Rica" ) 
EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Cuba" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Democratic Republic Congo" ) EXCLUDE 
( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Fiji" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Gabon" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Guinea-Bissau" 
) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Jamaica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Laos" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Malta" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Mauritius" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Moldova" ) EXCLUDE (
```

AFFILCOUNTRY,"Montenegro" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Puerto Rico" ) EXCLUDE (

```
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Saint Lucia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Samoa" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Senegal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY,"Sudan" ) EXCLUDE ( 
AFFILCOUNTRY,"Uzbekistan" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENVI" ) 
LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO 
( SUBJAREA,"ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( 
SUBJAREA,"DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"MULT" ) )
```

- 5. transport AND poverty transport AND disadvantage transport AND deprivation mobility AND deprivation AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MULT" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "MEDI" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "AGRI" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "BIOC" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "NEUR" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "EART" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "CENG" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "PHAR" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "MATE" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "IMMU" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "PHYS" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "CHEM" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "NURS" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "VETE" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "DENT" ) ) AND ( EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE , "Chinese" ) EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE , "Russian" ) EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE , "Persian" ) ) AND ( EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA , "HEAL" ) )
- 6. transport poverty mobility poverty disadvantage transport policy social justice equality inequality social transport exclusion inclusion intergenerational justice intragenerational climate justice just transition sustainability AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,"MULT" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"MEDI" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"AGRI" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"BIOC" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"NEUR" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"EART" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"CENG" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"PHAR" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"MATE" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"IMMU" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"PHYS" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"CHEM" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"NURS" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"VETE" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"DENT" ) EXCLUDE ( SUBJAREA,"HEAL" ) ) AND ( EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE,"Chinese" ) EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE,"Russian" ) EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE,"Persian" ) )
- 7. String 7: transport AND poverty transport AND exclusion transport AND equity social AND exclusion time AND poverty well-being spatial AND mismatch new AND mobilit gendered AND mobilit digital inclusive AND mobility accessibility AND barrier car AND dependency car AND iented AND urban AND planning gentrification transport AND affdability house AND affdability deprivation AND ( EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "China" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "India" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iran" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Singape" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Russian Federation" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ghana" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uganda" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Viet Nam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tanzania" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Egypt" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Philippines" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ethiopia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Qatar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Nepal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malawi" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mocco" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mozambique" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ukraine" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iraq" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Namibia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Oman" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Zimbabwe" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Algeria" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bahrain" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Burkina Faso" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kazakhstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kuwait" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Madagascar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Myanmar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sierra Leone" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tunisia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Anguilla" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Armenia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Barbados" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Belarus" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Benin" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Federated States of Micronesia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kyrgyzstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Liberia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Macao" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Panama" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Papua New Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Syrian Arab Republic" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Togo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Trinidad and Tobago" ) EXCLUDE

( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Venezuela" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Yemen" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Afghanistan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Andra" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Azerbaijan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bolivia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Brunei Darussalam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Cambodia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Costa Rica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Cuba" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Democratic Republic Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Fiji" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Gabon" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Guinea-Bissau" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Jamaica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Laos" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malta" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mauritius" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Moldova" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Montenegro" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Puerto Rico" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Saint Lucia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Samoa" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Senegal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sudan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uzbekistan" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MULT" ) )

8. Other issues: mobility gentrification unhoused redlining food desert time AND poverty transport discrimination AND ( EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "China" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "India" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iran" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Singape" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Russian Federation" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ghana" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uganda" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Viet Nam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tanzania" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Egypt" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Philippines" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ethiopia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Qatar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Nepal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malawi" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mocco" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mozambique" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Ukraine" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Iraq" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Namibia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Oman" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Zimbabwe" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Algeria" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bahrain" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Burkina Faso" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kazakhstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kuwait" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Madagascar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Myanmar" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sierra Leone" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Tunisia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Anguilla" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Armenia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Barbados" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Belarus" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Benin" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Federated States of Micronesia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Kyrgyzstan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Liberia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Macao" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Panama" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Papua New Guinea" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Syrian Arab Republic" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Togo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Trinidad and Tobago" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Venezuela" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Yemen" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Afghanistan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Andra" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Azerbaijan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Bolivia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Brunei Darussalam" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Cambodia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Costa Rica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Cuba" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Democratic Republic Congo" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Fiji" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Gabon" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Guinea-Bissau" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Jamaica" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Laos" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Malta" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Mauritius" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Moldova" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Montenegro" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Puerto Rico" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Saint Lucia" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Samoa" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Senegal" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Sudan" ) EXCLUDE ( AFFILCOUNTRY , "Uzbekistan" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENGI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MEDI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "PSYC" ) LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "MULT" ) )

#### **GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU**

## **In person**

you at[: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact\\_en](https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en) **On the phone or by email**

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest

- Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

# - by electronic mail via[: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact\\_en](https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

**FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU**

# **Online**

**EU publications**

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: [https://europa.eu/european-union/index\\_en](https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en)

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: [https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.](https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications) 

#### Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see [https://europa.eu/european-union/contact\\_en\).](https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)

**EU law and related documents**

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex

[\(eur-lex.europa.eu\)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/).

**Open data from the EU** The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.

![](_page_55_Picture_2.jpeg)

![](_page_55_Picture_4.jpeg)

![](_page_55_Picture_6.jpeg)

![](_page_55_Picture_8.jpeg)

![](_page_55_Picture_10.jpeg)

![](_page_55_Picture_12.jpeg)