Mobility and Accessibility of the Ageing Society. Defining Profiles of the Elderly Population and Neighbourhood

  • Mina Akhavan Politecnico di Milano
  • Giovanni Vecchio Politecnico di Milano
Keywords: Ageing population, Mobility and Accessibility, Profiles of the Older Adults, Well-Being and Quality of Life


A large body of literature already explores how mobility is associate with the well-being and quality of life of the elderly population. However, many studies so far have been widely discipline specific. This paper, thus, aims to critically review relevant mobility- and accessibility-related studies that, from varied disciplines, focus on the well-being of the older adults. To do so, the Capabilities Approach is assumed as a theoretical perspective able to convey how individual well-being is differently shaped and experienced by each person. More specifically, this study intends to consider how to define profiles of ageing mobilities, discussing a methodology for detecting different elderly populations and neighbourhoods. The relationship between urban mobility and quality of life in fact differs according to the examined populations and settings, involving features that are peculiar of the elderly. The possibility to define profiles contributes to develop different “narratives of ageing” that, according to the subjects and their territorial context, allows a more precise understanding of how varied forms of mobility contribute to a differently defined well-being and quality of life. The expected outcomes of this study are twofold: (i) to provide a theoretical framework with the complexity of factors in mobility, in order to be applied in future empirical research studies, in other words as the basis for further analyses with quantitative and qualitative methods.; (ii) a methodology for defining profiles of aging mobilities, considering elements that may be differently inflected according to the setting taken into exam.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Mina Akhavan, Politecnico di Milano

Mina Akhavan is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor at Politecnico di Milano- Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, where she received a PhD degree in Spatial Planning and Urban Development (2015); a doctoral thesis on port infrastructure development dynamics and their impact on urban development. Her research interests also concern the impact of globalization and logistics network; transnational urbanism; new working spaces; and more recently she has been involved in a research on the mobility of the ageing society.

Giovanni Vecchio, Politecnico di Milano
Giovanni Vecchio is an urban planner and policy designer, currently research fellow at Politecnico di Milano. He received his PhD in Urban Planning, Design and Policy at Politecnico, and he has been visiting scholar in Colombia (Observatorio Urbano, Universidad de La Salle, Bogotá) and the Netherlands (Wageningen University). His research interests focus on urban mobility, individual capabilities, technologies, and community initiatives, working at the crossroad between human and territorial development.


Alkire, S. (2005). Why the Capability Approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–135. doi:

Alkire, S. (2008). Using the capability approach: prospective and evaluative analyses. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, & S. Alkire (Eds.), The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:

Bamberg, S., Fujii, S., Friman, M. and Gärling, T. (2011). Behaviour theory and soft transport policy measures, Transport Policy, 18(1), pp. 228–235. doi:

Banister, D., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: The transport dimension. Transport Policy, 11(2), 105–115. doi:

Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez‐Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place‐based versus place‐neutral approaches. Journal of regional science, 52(1), 134-152. doi:

Beyazit, E. (2011). Evaluating Social Justice in Transport: Lessons to be Learned from the Capability Approach. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 117–134. doi:

Bifulco, L., Bricocoli, M., & Monteleone, R. (2008). Activation and Local Welfare in Italy: Trends and Issues. Social Policy & Administration, 42(2), 143–159. doi

Bolton, R. (1992). Place Prosperity vs People Prosperity” Revisited: An Old Issue with a New Angle. Urban Studies, 29(2), 185–203. doi:

Boschmann, E. E., & Brady, S. A. (2013). Travel behaviors, sustainable mobility, and transit-oriented developments: a travel counts analysis of older adults in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 1-11. doi:

Bruner, J. (1999). Narratives of aging. Journal of Aging Studies, 13(1), 7–9. doi:

Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 597-617. doi:

Carp, F. M. (1971). Walking as a means of transportation for retired people. The Gerontologist, 11(2_Part_1), 104-111. doi:

Cass, N., Shove, E., & Urry, J. (2005). Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociological Review, 53(3), 539–555. doi:

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1780, 87–114. doi:

Ferreira, A., Bertolini, L., & Næss, P. (2017). Immotility as resilience? A key consideration for transport policy and research. Applied Mobilities, 2(1), 16–31. doi:

Flamm, M., & Kaufmann, V. (2006). Operationalising the Concept of Motility: A Qualitative Study. Mobilities, 1(2), 167–189. doi:

Gasper, D. (2007). What is the capability approach? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 335–359. doi:

Gayman, M. D., Turner, R. J., & Cui, M. (2008). Physical limitations and depressive symptoms: exploring the nature of the association. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(4), S219-S228. doi:

Giuliano, G., Hu, H., & Lee, K. (2003). Travel patterns of the elderly: The role of land use. (Metrans Project 00-8). California, US: School of Policy, Planning and Development, University of Southern California. Retrieved from

Goins, R. T., Jones, J., Schure, M., Rosenberg, D. E., Phelan, E. A., Dodson, S., & Jones, D. L. (2015). Older Adults’ Perceptions of Mobility: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies. The Gerontologist, 55(6), 929–942. doi:

Goodman, A., Jones, A., Roberts, H., Steinbach, R., & Green, J. (2014). ‘We can all just get on a bus and go’: Rethinking independent mobility in the context of the universal provision of free bus travel to young Londoners. Mobilities, 9(2), 275-293. doi:

Guzman, L.A., & Oviedo, D. (2018). Accessibility, affordability and equity: Assessing ‘pro-poor’ public transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transport Policy, 68, 37–51. doi:

Hananel, R., & Berechman, J. (2016). Justice and transportation decision-making: The capabilities approach. Transport Policy, 49, 78–85. doi:

Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. American journal of preventive medicine, 22(3), 188-199. doi:

Kaufmann, V. (2002). Re-Thinking Mobility. London, UK: Routledge. doi:

Kaufmann, V., Bergmann, M. M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: Mobility as Capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 745–756. doi:

Kellerman, A. (2012). Potential Mobilities. Mobilities, 7(1), 171–183. doi:

Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(3), 207–219. doi:

Larsen, J., Axhausen, K. W., & Urry, J. (2006). Geographies of social networks: meetings, travel and communications. Mobilities, 1(2), 261–283. doi:

Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. doi:

Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age‐friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian journal on ageing, 28(3), 116-121. doi:

Martens, K. (2018). Ageing, impairments and travel: Priority setting for an inclusive transport system. Transport Policy, 63, 122–130. doi:

Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 30(3), 479-493. doi:

Meşhur, H., F., A. (2016). Evaluation of Urban Spaces from the Perspective of Universal Design Principles: The Case of Konya/Turkey. TeMA. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 9(2), 191-208. doi:http://10.6092/1970-9870/3786

Musselwhite, C., & Haddad, H. (2010). Mobility, accessibility and quality of later life. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 11(1), 25-37. doi:

Nordbakke, S. (2013). Capabilities for mobility among urban older women: barriers, strategies and options. Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 166-174. doi:

Nordbakke, S., & Schwanen, T. (2014). Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People. Mobilities, 9(1), 104–119. doi:

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:

Paaswell, R. E., & Edelstein, P. (1976). A study of travel behaviour of the elderly. Transportation Planning and Technology, 3(3), 143-154. doi:

Pereira, R. H. M., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews, 37(2), 170–191. doi:

Plouffe, L., & Kalache, A. (2010). Towards global age-friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of urban health, 87(5), 733-739. doi:

Population Reference Bureau. (2006). Europe’s Population Aging Will Accelerate – Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from

Preston, J., & Rajé, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(3), 151–160. doi:

Rashid, K., Yigitcanlar, T., & Bunker, J. M. (2010). (2010). Minimising transport disadvantage to support knowledge city formation : applying the capability approach to select indicators. In Yigitcanlar, T. (Ed.), Melbourne 2010 Knowledge Cities World Summit : 3rd Knowledge Cities World Summit., Melbourne Convention & Exibition Centre. Retrieved from

Robeyns, I. (2016). Capabilitarianism. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 397–414. doi:

Ryan, J., Wretstrand, A., & Schmidt, S. M. (2015). Exploring public transport as an element of older persons’ mobility: A Capability Approach perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 48, 105–114. doi:

Schmöcker, J. D., Quddus, M. A., Noland, R. B., & Bell, M. G. (2008). Mode choice of older and disabled people: a case study of shopping trips in London. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(4), 257-267. doi:

Schwanen, T., Hardill, I., & Lucas, S. (2012). Spatialities of ageing: The co-construction and co-evolution of old age and space. Geoforum, 43(6), 1291-1295. doi:

Sen, A. K. (1985). Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221. doi:

Sen, A. (1990). Individual freedom as social commitment. India International Centre Quarterly, 17(1), 101-115. Retrieved from:

Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press doi:

Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.

Smith, N., Hirsch, D., & Davis, A. (2012). Accessibility and capability: the minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 93–101. doi:

Stanley, J., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). The usefulness of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport. Transport Policy, 16(3), 90–96. doi:

Stjernborg, V., Wretstrand, A., & Tesfahuney, M. (2015). Everyday life mobilities of older persons–a case study of ageing in a suburban landscape in Sweden. Mobilities, 10(3), 383-401. doi:

Suen, S. L., & Sen, L. (2004). Mobility options for seniors. Transportation in an ageing society: A Decade of Experience, Proceedings, 27, 97-113. Retrieved from:

Sundling, C. (2015). Travel behavior change in older travelers: Understanding critical reactions to incidents encountered in public transport. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(11), 14741-14763. doi:

Tiboni, M., & Rossetti, S. (2014). Achieving People Friendly Accessibility. Key Concepts and a Case Study Overview. TeMA. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Special Issue June 2014, 941-951. doi:

Umstattd Meyer, M. R., Janke, M. C., & Beaujean, A. A. (2013). Predictors of older adults’ personal and community mobility: Using a comprehensive theoretical mobility framework. The Gerontologist, 54(3), 398-408. doi:

Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Vale, D. S., Saraiva, M., & Pereira, M. (2016). Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of transport and land use, 9(1), 209-235. doi:

Vecchio, G. (2018). Urban mobility as human capability. Bridging the gap between transport planning and individual opportunities. Polytechnic University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Retrieved from:

Webber, S. C., Porter, M. M., & Menec, V. H. (2010). Mobility in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Framework. The Gerontologist, 50(4), 443–450. doi:

Zali, N., Rahimpoor, M., Saed Benab, S., Molavi, M., Mohammadpour, S. (2016). The distribution of public services from the perspective of spatial equality. TeMA. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 9(3), 287-304. doi:

How to Cite
Akhavan, M., & Vecchio, G. (2018). Mobility and Accessibility of the Ageing Society. Defining Profiles of the Elderly Population and Neighbourhood. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 9-22.
Special Issue 2018. SIET Elderly mobility