MOBILITY AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
OF THE ELDERLY IN SUBURBIA:
A GENDER-RELATED ANALYSIS IN BERLIN AND ITS HINTERLAND
Flemming Giesel and Cornelia Rahn
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Transport Research
1. INTRODUCTION
Demographic change is one important trend in western societies. Many
countries are characterized by an ageing population, low birth rates and
changing family structures. Furthermore, demographic change will increase in
the future, because the baby boomer generation has started to retire.
Because of these circumstances, many countries have to face the major
challenges of an ageing society in the next years (Leveille et al. 2008, Weber
et al. 2010).
Against this background, mobility issues become very important. Mobility
plays an important role in the life of the elderly because it enables older
people “to preserve those attributes of personal choice and independence that
will permit maintenance of a high quality of life” (Schaie 2003:19). Especially
for the elderly, daily activities are very important not only to maintain physical
competence but also for participation in social and cultural life (Simonsick et
al. 2005). With rising age, the number of physical impaired persons increases.
This leads to action spaces only extending over short distances from the
residential area, in particular due to low income (Bendixen et al. 2005). Thus,
especially in monofunctional and peripheral areas, social participation of the
elderly could be at risk (Grieco 2007; Preston & Rajé 2007).
In this context, gender differences have to be considered. Compared to men,
older women often have to live under conditions of poverty and physical
constraints (Verbrugge 1982; Ahacic et al. 2000). Gender differences must
also be considered in terms of travel behaviour. Less old women have a
driver's license and many women in single-households do not have a car
(Clifton & Lucas 2004). From this it follows that older women have more
difficulties with independent living. So they are dependent on public transport
or on local services in their home environment to satisfy their daily needs.
That means, they are more prone to so-called “socio-spatial exclusion”
(Ortoleva & Brenman 2004).
The discussion about transport and social exclusion has become a major
research field in the UK as well as in the US (Lucas et al. 2009). Various
Anglo-American researches dealing with issues of social participation focuses
most of all on rural regions where, due restricted car availability, the access to
basic facilities is obviously restricted (e.g. Farrington & Farrington 2005).
Besides this, suburbia is not the subject of research. Only a few German
researchers have investigated, if life in suburbia will be adversely affected by
conditions of demographic change in the future (e.g. Pohl 2010 et al.).
Against this background the following question arises: To which extent are
older people, especially older women, threatened by limited social
participation in suburban areas? In order to answer this question, it is
1 important to investigate the differences in travel behaviour, classified by age
and gender, between the population of the city of Berlin and the suburban
area. Furthermore, it is important to know how suburban residents perceive
their home environment in terms of physical as well as social “resources”.
These issues will be investigated for the case of Berlin and its suburban
region.
In the beginning of this paper, the processes of demographic change and also
an overview of suburbanisation in Berlin will be explained. After the
description of the study area and the data background, the empirical results
will be illustrated. The paper concludes with a discussion of whether social
participation of the elderly is at risk in Berlin's suburbia.
2. SUBURBANISATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN BERLIN AND
ITS HINTERLAND
In contrast to the Anglo-American “old” or “first” suburbs (Harris & Larkham
1999), many suburban areas in Germany are not characterized by a high
functionality of facilities. Compared to German cities, suburbs are mainly
purely residential areas with only small provision of social infrastructure
(Hesse & Scheiner 2007). The suburbanisation within the agglomeration of
Berlin was quite unique in Germany. Since reunification, Berlin and its
surrounding metropolitan area have experienced a profound change of spatial
organization. The area outside the city borders was predominantly rural
because of the preserved landscape during Germany’s division due to the fact
that neither from East nor from West Berlin was suburbanisation possible.
Therefore, the communities were in the position to offer plenty of space to
investors. Prices were favourable because the real estate market was not yet
developed (Beyer & Schulz 2001:123). Contrary to other metropolitan areas in
Western Europe, the suburbanisation process was not as managed or
restricted by planning institutions. In total, only residential suburbanisation
emerged on a larger scale. Considering retail suburbanisation and the
relocation of jobs, developments have lagged behind in comparison to
suburban areas in Western Germany. These specific circumstances of
suburbanisation have strengthened the development of an extraordinary
monofunctional agglomeration with Berlin as the unchallenged centre of the
region. In terms of mobility, car use is the predominant means of transport
because of the lack of many facilities and therefore the resulting enormous
distances suburban residents have to travel (Rahn 2011). Against the
background of demographic change, one can imagine that this isn’t an
environment for people facing mobility constraints, as mostly elderly people
do.
All western societies are facing the demographic change but to varying
degrees. Within Europe, the demographic change in Germany is the most
advanced. In no other country do more people live over 65 as a percentage.
At the beginning of 2010, nearly 21% of the German population were at the
age of 65 or older (Federal Statistical Office 2011:13). But it must be
considered that the demographic change varied enormously at the smallscale. In total, the population of Berlin will grow slightly in the future. In spite of
rising death rates, the population will increase to 3.476M in the year 2030
2 (3.416M in 2007). Also for the hinterland of Berlin an increase of around
36,000 people is expected (Senate Department for Urban Development and
the Environment 2009). By contrast, ageing takes place more intensively. By
year 2030, the average age will have increased from 42.5 to 45.3 years. The
reasons for this development are on the one hand declining birth rates and on
the other an increasing life expectancy. The following figure compares the
demographic development of different age groups in Berlin and in Berlin's
suburbia up to 2020. It can be seen that in both areas, younger age groups
get smaller. The processes of ageing differ in their dynamics between these
two territories. The 65-74 age group will increase by up to 20% and very old
people (75+) by over 50% in the city of Berlin. Based on the recent forecast,
the ageing is far more dramatic in the hinterland of Berlin. The young elderly
(65-74) rise by over 40% but the elderly over 75 years even by nearly 140%.
Following from that, especially the hinterland of Berlin has to face the
consequences of demographic change.
Figure 1: Demographic development (in %) of age groups in Berlin and
its suburbia
Source: Senate Department for Urban Development 2004.
3. STUDY AREA AND DATA BACKGROUND
The analysis is divided into two sections. First, the differences in travel
behaviour between the population of the city of Berlin and the outlying districts
classified by age and gender will be pointed out. This analysis is based on the
representative Germany-wide mobility survey “Mobility in Germany 2008”
(funded by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs). This
is a large sample of 25,000 households, including regional add-ons of just
under 50,000 participating households (BMVBS 2010a). Within this dataset it
is possible to distinguish the city of Berlin (n=2,582) and the suburban area
(n=745).1
In addition, a small-scale dataset was analysed, which was carried out in 2007
and 2008 through questionnaires (n=1,136) and travel diaries (n=2,572). This
survey was conducted in the course of the research project “Post-suburban
daily mobility in the Berlin region”, at the Geographical Institute of Humboldt
University Berlin (funded by the Research Funding Organization of Germany).
Here, a deeper understanding of motives and the evaluation of the home
3 environment by the elderly in selected suburban areas of Berlin (figure 2) is
possible.
Figure 2: Study area
Source: Rahn 2011:80 (modified).
4. RESULTS
First, the differences in travel behaviour between the population of the city of
Berlin and the outlying districts in the suburban area will be pointed out by the
analysis of some central travel parameters. Figure 3 illustrates the number of
trips per day, the distance and the mobility rate for the younger elderly (65-69)
and the older elderly (70+) for the city of Berlin and for suburbia.
Figure 3: Travel behaviour parameters
Berlin
Berlin´s Suburbia
65-69
70+
65-69
70+
Men
(n=159)
Women
(n=163)
Men
(n=205)
Women
(n=206)
Men
(n=48)
Women
(n=38)
Men
(n=46)
Women
(n=52)
Mobility rate (%)
84
82
87
85
92
91
78
75
Number of trips
per day
3,8
3,7
3,4
3,0
4,0
3,6
3,4
3,1
Distance* (km)
23
17
16
13
21
23
18
17
* Includes cases of less than 100km distance only.
Source: Own analysis based on the dataset “Mobility in Germany 2008” (BMVBS 2010a).
The mobility
outside their
mobility rate
decreases in
rate states what percentage of the specific age group was
homes on the reference date. Within the city of Berlin, the
is relatively constant. In Berlin's suburbia the mobility rate
old age but gender differences cannot be identified. However,
4 the numbers of trips differ within the age groups and the sexes. With higher
age, the frequency of going outside home decreases. One can also notice
that women make less trips than men. Also, the distance declines between
the age groups in both spatial contexts. For example, at the age of 65-69,
women in suburbia travel 23km in total but at the age of 70+ only 17km. Older
women within the city of Berlin travel the smallest distance (13km).
Figure 4: Modal split of older men and women (70+)
Source: Own analysis based on the dataset “Mobility in Germany 2008” (BMVBS 2010a).
Figure 4 illustrates the modal split within the older residents (70+) in the city of
Berlin and in Berlin's suburbia. As expected, residents in the suburban area
drive more by car than residents in the city of Berlin. Older men at the age of
70+ drive over 40% of their trips by car. The dominance of the car in suburbia
is remarkable. While men drive by car the women are predominantly car
passengers. Only a small proportion of women drive cars by themselves.
Older women (70+) in suburbia make over 50% of their journeys on foot. Men
travel less frequently on foot but they cycle more. Beyond that, the public
transport does not matter in suburbia at all. These facts clarify that many older
women have to organize their everyday life often on their own without any car
availability. For men, the situation is quite different. In old age, they can still
drive by car. So this analysis demonstrates on the one hand the importance of
cars in the suburban area and on the other the significance of walking within
the older women aged 70+. This suggests that older women depend on the
nearby living environment more than men.
Using the data from the University research project, we have had a closer look
at the travel behaviour of the elderly in the suburbs and at their motives and
evaluations. The respondents had to state if the public transport is clearly
inferior to the car in place (Figure 5). It´s remarkable that over 40% of the
older men and even over 50% of the older women agree with this statement.
5 This example shows the tremendous meaning of car and at the same time the
lack of public transport within the suburban area of Berlin.
Figure 5: Evaluation of public transport in Berlin´s suburbia
Source: Own analysis based on the dataset “Post-suburban daily mobility in the Berlin
region”.
Keeping this in mind, the nearby living environment becomes so much more
important to ensure social participation even without a car. Therefore, the
perception and evaluation of the home environment was also in the focus of
this research. If older people can find all the necessary facilities in spatial
proximity, this could prevent them from becoming lonely.
Figure 6: Satisfaction of older suburban residents (70+) within the home
environment
Source: Own analysis based on the dataset “Post-suburban daily mobility in the Berlin
region”.
6 Figure 6 shows the evaluation of some attributes concerning the home
environment. Again, it becomes obvious that older women feel a lot more
restricted because in total they lack things more than men do. For evaluating
the importance of the missing facilities in terms of the provision of basic
supplies, the “places of entertainment” could be disregarded, while “public
transport”, “service facilities” and “shopping facilities” are very relevant in
terms of ensuring access to age-related facilities. All categories are rated
more negatively by women than by men which show that they are more
dependent on services provided in spatial proximity. While the gap between
men’s and women’s answers is not that remarkable regarding service and
shopping facilities, the satisfaction with public transport seems to be more
influenced by gender for the known reasons: While 63% of 70+ men are
satisfied with public transport, only 43% of 70+ women are. Overall, one can
state that older women’s dissatisfaction with their suburban home
environment mainly relies on their negative evaluation of public transport.
5. CONCLUSION
The empirical results illustrate that older women travel the shortest distances
and make the least number of trips in total. Additionally, the majority of their
trips are made on foot. Their activities are thus concentrated to a large extent
on the local residential area, in particular when there is no car available.
Analysis of motives in travel behaviour and the evaluation of the home
environment within the suburban area demonstrate the importance of the car
in suburbia. Most of older women stated the limitations of public transport in
suburbia and the significance of the car in organizing their everyday life.
Because of this mismatch, almost half of older women are not satisfied with
their home environment. The dissatisfaction is first of all based on missing
public transport, leisure, service and shopping opportunities. All in all, one can
determine that older women are dependent on their residential area but their
needs could not be satisfied overall. In this way, older women especially are
disadvantaged in these environments. So their social participation could be at
risk.
There is no easy solution for spatial planning and policy. In terms of
transportation, it is important to increase the mobility of elderly people. One
solution could insist to transfer innovative transport concepts like “ride-ondemand” or civil bus services to suburban areas. In this context, the promotion
of civic commitment is very important. But spatial planning as well as policy
must keep the gender differences within the group of the elderly in mind.
Further research has to prove to what extent the social participation of older
women is at risk, whether the findings can be found in other spatial contexts
and in which way the practical suggestions can be implemented.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahacic, K., Parker, M. G., Thorslund, M. (2007) Aging in disguise: age, period
and cohort effects in mobility and edentulousness over three decades,
European Journal of Ageing 4, 83-91.
7 Bendixen, R. M., Mann, W. C., Tomita, M. (2005) The Relationship of Home
Range to Functional Status and Cognitive Status of Frail Elders, In: Mann, W.
C. (ed.) Community Mobility: Driving and Transportation Alternatives for Older
Persons, Haworth Press, New York, 43-62.
Beyer, W., Schulz, M. (2001) Berlin – Suburbanisierung auf Sparflamme?! In:
Brake, K., Dangschat, J., Herfert, G. (ed.) Suburbanisierung in Deutschland.
Aktuelle Tendenzen, Leske + Budrich, Opladen, 123-150.
BMVBS, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (ed.)
(2010a) Mobility in Germany 2008 [Data set]. from http://www.clearingstelleverkehr.de
BMVBS, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (ed.)
(2010b) Dokumentation der Raumvariablen des BBSR im Regionalfile, Bonn,
Berlin.
Clifton, K., Lucas, K. (2004) Examining the empirical evidence of transport
inequality in the US and UK, In: Lucas, K. (ed.) Running on empty. Transport,
social exclusion and environmental justice, Policy, Bristol, 15-38.
Farrington, J., Farrington, C. (2005) Rural accessibility, social inclusion and
social justice: towards conceptualization. Journal of Transport Geography 13,
1-12.
Federal Statistical Office (ed.) (2011) Ältere Menschen in Deutschland und
der EU, Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Grieco, M. S. (2007) Transport and social exclusion: New policy grounds, new
policy options. Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference on
Travel Behaviour Research, 9-32.
Harris, R., Larkham, P. (1999) Suburban Foundation, Form and Function. In:
Harris, R., Larkham, P. (ed.) Changing Suburbs: Foundation, Form and
Function, F & FN Spon, London, 1-31.
Hesse, M., Scheiner, J. (2007) Suburbane Räume – Problemquartiere der
Zukunft? In: Beckmann, K. J., Bracher, T., Hesse, M. (ed.) Städtische
Mobilität
und
soziale
Ungleichheit,
Deutsche
Zeitschrift
für
Kommunalwissenschaften (DfK), 2, 35-48.
Leveille, S. G., Wee, C. C., Iezzoni, L. I. (2008) Are Baby Boomers Aging
Better Than Their Predecessors? Trends in Overweight. Arthritis, and Mobility
Difficulty, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lucas, K., Tyler, S., Christodoulou, G. (2009) Assessing the 'value' of new
transport initiatives in deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, Transport Policy
16, 115-122.
8 Ortoleva, S., Brenman, M. (2004) Women's issues in transportation. In: Lucas,
K. (ed.) Running on empty. Transport, social exclusion and environmental
justice, Policy, Bristol, 257-279.
Pohl, T., Giesel, F., Oßenbrügge, J. (2010) Suburbia als „räumliche Falle“? –
Folgen der demographischen und sozialräumlichen Entwicklung von
Großstädten am Beispiel Hamburgs, Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde,
Bd. 84, H. 4, 329-348.
Preston, J., Rajé, F. (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social
exclusion, Journal of Transport Geography 15, 151-160.
Rahn, C. (2011) Restriktionen und Optionen in Suburbia – Genderspezifika
von Arbeit, Mobilität und Sozialkapital im Berliner Umland. Humboldt
University Berlin.
Schaie, K. W. (2003) Mobility for what? In: Schaie, K. W., Wahl, H.-W.,
Mollenkopf, H., Oswald F. (ed.) Aging Independently. Living Arrangements
and Mobility, Springer, New York, 18-27.
Senate Department for Urban Development (2004) Bevölkerungsentwicklung
in der Metropolregion Berlin 2002-2020, Berlin.
Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment (2009)
Demografiekonzept für Berlin, Berlin.
Simonsick, E. M., Guralnik, J. M., Volpato, S., Balfour, J., Fried, L. P. (2005)
Just Get Out the Door! Importance of Walking Outside the Home for
Maintaining Mobility: Findings from the Women's Health and Aging Study,
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53(2), 198-203.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1982) Sex differentials in health, Public Health Rep 97 (5),
417-437.
Weber, S., Salzmann F., Suchanecki, J. (2010) Demographic Change in the
Developed World. An Analysis of the Attractiveness of Industries and Services
in a Time of Aging Populations, Project Papers 2010 on Demographic
Challenges WDA Forum, Topic No. 5, University of St. Gallen.
Note
1
With the help of the variable „Raumstrukturtyp nach Raumordnungsbericht
2005“ the communities could be differentiated as a function of the centre's
accessibility and population density. In this way the agglomeration area can
be divided into the following three types of space: “central area”, “intermediate
space” and “peripheral space”. In this context the suburban area is
represented by the “intermediate space”. This space type can be
characterized as the area around the central area with lower population
density (BMVBS 2010b).
9