The Importance of Transportation and Prioritization of Environmental Needs to Sustain Well-Being among Older Adults

Abstract

This study examines the influence of transportation dependence and fulfillment of transportation needs on well-being based on a community sample ( N = 174). The majority (54.4%) of transportation-dependent participants had unfulfilled transportation needs, whereas this was the case for very few (7.1%) of those independent of transportation support. Regression analyses revealed that the transportation needs variable was statistically significant, whereas the transportation dependence factor was not. In terms of the prioritization of environmental components, elderly dependent on transportation support placed higher importance on housing than on neighborhood or community elements compared to more mobile seniors. Participants with unmet transportation needs were more likely to depend solely on family to provide transportation, whereas participants with fulfilled transportation needs were more likely to include friends or neighbors for providing transportation support. Results suggest that prioritization of needs enables seniors to maintain positive wellbeing despite experiencing functional limitations or being dependent on transportation services.

Evaluation of Urban Travel Training for Older Adults

“…Public transportation is a vital source of mobility for older adults who cannot or choose not to drive (3,4). For many older adults, public transit helps them meet their medical/health and social needs (5).…”

Ageing in rural areas of East and West Germany: increasing similarities and remaining differences

“…Mobility options seem to be another crucial component in older rural people's subjective quality of life-an aspect which has often been emphasised in research on mobility in old age (e.g. Carp 1988;Marottoli et al 1997;Coughlin 2001;Cvitkovich and Wister 2001;Owsley 2002) but has largely been neglected in satisfaction research. An exception is Farquhar's (1995) study of older people's definitions of quality of life, in which the ability to go out was associated with a better quality of life whereas immobility and being housebound were found to decrease quality of life (Farquhar 1995).…”

“…In our prediction model, we included socio-demographic, health-related, social, environmental, mobility and leisure-related predictor variables from those described above which had proven to contribute substantially to older people's well-being in past studies (e.g. Barresi et al 1983Barresi et al -1984Baldassare et al 1984;Golant 1986Golant , 2004Farquhar 1995;Lamb 1996;Veenhoven 1996;Wenger 1997;Smith et al 1999;Cvitkovich and Wister 2001;Ferna´ndez-Ballesteros et al 2001;Evans et al 2002;Diener et al 2003;Oswald et al 2003) as well as in our previous research (e.g. Mollenkopf et al 2002Mollenkopf et al , 2004.…”

More gray hair—but for whom? Scenario-based simulations of elderly activity travel patterns in 2020

“…Reduction of transportation resources in rural and suburban areas as a result of commercialisation of public transport may imply that the elderly as a vulnerable segment of the population may be hit the hardest (Stern 1993;Franklin and Niemeier 1998;Smith and Sylvestre 2001). Elderly may forego needed services leading to increased isolation and perhaps to social exclusion (e.g., Cvitkovich and Wister 2001;Harrison and Ragland 2003). Public transport may be infrequently used by the elderly as they grow older, often due to problems in boarding and disembarking from buses or to concerns about personal safety.…”