Older people’s travel and mobility needs: a reflection of a hierarchical model 10 years on

Abstract

In 2010 we published a model of older people's travel and mobility needs in the Quality of Ageing and Older Adults journal (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2010). The model comprises three levels, practical (the need to get from A to B as quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible), psychosocial (the need for independence, control and status) and aesthetic needs (the need for travel for its own sake), all which need to be fulfilled to achieve wellbeing and quality of life. Since then, the model has been translated into different languages and been cited 119 times across different formats. • Design/methodology/approach (mandatory) Using 10 years of analysing feedback that includes articles that cited the model, discussions with academics, policymakers and practitioners as well as from older people themselves, this paper reflects on the original model. • Findings (mandatory) Five key themes are generated from the re-examination: (1) the validity of the model; (2) the utility and usefulness of needs in understanding travel behaviour and turning them into policy or practice; (3) application of the model to different contexts; (4) understanding the relationship between travel needs and health and wellbeing; and (5) fitting the model to future changes in transport and social policy. • Originality/value (mandatory) This reflection on this well cited and well used model allows a readjustment of the model, updating it to be used in conjunction with policy and practice, especially highlighting the need to further distinguish mobility for aesthetic needs.

Developing A Model of Mobility Capital for An Ageing Population

“…Also, drawing on both these levels of resource can be supported by cultural capital by having norms surrounding use of public transport and of walking, often which were missing, according to the older people in this research. Previous research [5,6,8] noted that the car dominates norms in society, with older people particular excluded, who give up driving. There was also a feeling that outside of major cities, especially outside of London in the UK, having cultural capital in the form of support from age-friendly policies and transport policies in general were lacking.…”

“…The norms of a society geared around the car, in line with previous research [8], mean not using a car in later life leaves a big gap in cultural resource. It is a particular concern to older people in that mobility through driving a car represents a feeling of youthfulness and belonging and being part of society [5,6]. In terms of social capital, it cannot always be drawn upon in full due to feelings of being a burden and difficulties or challenges in reciprocation, which has been documented in previous research [4,25].…”

“…Musselwhite and Haddad [5,6] place older people’s mobility needs in a three-level hierarchical model. The three levels are equally important, but they are based in the order of how explicitly the need was discussed by older people.…”

Mobility impact and well-being in later life: A multidisciplinary systematic review

“…The present systematic review gives two important contributions to the literature on this issue: first, it summarizes and classifies the main results of the studies belonging to different disciplines; second, it outlines the strengths and weaknesses of research efforts in health and social sciences, stimulating inter-disciplinary discussion and suggesting further research patterns and transport policy implications. Although mobility-related effects were provided within health and social sciences by using specific terminology and tailored tests ( Musselwhite & Haddad, 2010 ; 2018 ), related findings rarely spilled over ( Murray, 2015 ).…”

GPs’ awareness of car driving among oldest patients: exploratory results from a primary care cohort

“…In 2018, travel by car reached 83% of all passenger transport in EU27 member states. For 3 older people, driving is essential for maintaining their individual mobility und autonomy, especially when access to social participation and infrastructure in rural or suburban areas is restricted (2,3,4).…”