Background Situation and Problem

Changing rural–urban accessibility linkages: long-distance travel behavior over two decades in the Philippines and its implications on urban transport systems

Background situation and problem Basic research on urban and intra-city mobility and the linkages between transport and social exclusion are rudimentary in developing countries. At the same time, an overriding problem in the future of urban transport systems concerns how well rural-urban flows of people can be managed; that is, the composition of short-term commuting and long-term migration. In order to do so, there is a need to recognize geographical space not as a bounded set of fixed locations, but as a set of interconnected relationships (McGee, 1987; Tacoli, 2006). In addition, there is a need to understand how increasingly dispersed zones of opportunities within cities influence people’s access to resources and thus their need for transportation. This is more evident in developing and transition countries, where urbanization, motorization and city growth take place at an unprecedented pace. In these cities, and their hinterlands, people’s well-being depend on efficient transport systems that not only considers cost, time and environmental constraints, but also social equity and inclusion.

While the deep-seated demand for increased everyday mobility is foremost related to highly car mobile societies, characterized by urban sprawl and spatial separation of activities, similar patterns are repeated in the developing countries (Metz, 2002; Olvera et al., 2003; Lee, 2006a; Rigg, 2007). As this trend is difficult to alter, opportunities to provide and utilize existing and future urban transport resources efficient and equitable are a challenging necessity. By 2030 it is projected that an additional 2 billion people will live in cities and urban areas (and an increasingly larger share of them will be poor), mainly in developing countries, East and Southeast Asia in particular (UN, 2007). Meanwhile the transport systems are put under pressure as urbanization and intra-city transport is largely unplanned and rural-urban commuting and migration increase enormously (Chow, 2002; WBCSD, 2004; IOM, 2005). Furthermore, as transportation improves, cities tend to be more land-consuming and average urban densities decline (UNFPA, 2007). Finally, as urban spaces constitute critical parcels of land, the expansion, and where and how additional land is incorporated, utilized and organized, has significant social implications for populations.

Following on from these developments, more people need to travel over longer distances (in motor vehicles) in everyday life. Then as the transport system capacity fall short, congestion is aggravated while accessibility declines in general, in particular among users of public transport and non-motorized modes in the large cities of the developing countries (Gakenheimer, 1999; Lee, 2006b). Access to transport resources is inequitable and diverging mobility opportunities constitute a challenge, especially for the transport excluded, that also often suffer from social exclusion (Gwilliam, 2003; WBCSD, 2004; Hine, 2008). They experience poor access to opportunities (they often live in inaccessible and transport deprived areas), are exposed to congestion and health hazards, have very high travel budgets etc. Thereby it is difficult to be available on the labour market, get access to services etc. In the developing cities the rapid urbanization and spatial dispersion is accompanied by a split between residential zones and access to opportunities (Olvera et al., 2003). Then as a larger share of the future urban population will be poor and not have the means to buy or operate motor vehicles, other transport system solutions should be considered.

Given the social inequity associated with high level of everyday urban mobility and the increases in rural migration, the future well-being of billions of people is dependent on a transport system that is managed more efficient and equitable. While the nature of the

1 problem has not changed, its scale and intensity have increased during recent years (Levinson & Krizek, 2008). So far, measures in order to restrict city expansion have had little impact, decongestion is questioned, and there is an emerging consensus that technical solutions are insufficient (Lee, 2006a; Tacoli, 2006; Stradling & Anable, 2008; WB, 2008). The provision of higher mobility standards through additional road capacity has led to even higher car traffic and congestion. It is then legitimate to question whether the experienced process of public transport in developed countries, where the market was undermined by car-ownership, is repeated in developing countries, and further aggravated by two-wheeled motor vehicles, not least in East and Southeast Asia (Gwilliam, 2003).

In the brief, the outlined and conventional “predict and provide approach” to transportation planning is no more an option. Instead the highly mobile society should be rethought (see Frändberg et al., 2005; Banister, 2005; Lee, 2006a; EC, 2007) to focus on optimizing existing transport systems, to change travel behaviours and habits (e.g., fewer trips, less often and closer with slower modes) and to address issues of social inequity and sustainability. One way offered in this direction is through improved geographical access to opportunities, where the needs and desires for spatial mobility are mitigated at an early stage. It is to re-orient urban structure by focusing development to places with high accessibility. Accessibility improvements enable more efficient land use by making more opportunities available within a given area. It could also promote more equitable and energy efficient (less damaging) modes of travel; flexible and rapid public transport solutions, and non-motorized modes as well.

Rural-urban interactions: challenges and opportunities for analyzing urban transport

Driving forces behind rural-urban interaction and its outcomes The increase of rural–urban interactions at various levels is due to many reasons. It spans from increased concentration of economic activities to major cities to the lack of access to basic facilities and livelihoods in rural areas via the inability of governments to fund rural and agricultural reforms (ADB, 2005; Rigg, 2007). Also, regional transport infrastructure investments enable more efficient transports to/from cities and enhance the flow of people. Some 900 million people in developing countries still lack access to the formal transport system (WBCSD, 2004). While research on how urban-rural biases and linkages influences diversification and livelihood strategies is extensive, data on travel behavior in general, urban mobility, and research on linkages between transport and social exclusion are lacking in developing countries (intra-city transport is documented in some Asian countries, Hayashi et al., 2004) (Gakenheimer, 1999; Olvera et al., 2003; Srinivasan & Rogers, 2005; Rigg, 2007; Jones & Corbridge, 2009).

Arguably then, there is an increased interest among researchers, government officials, and policy makers to understand the opportunities and the constraints that the rural-urban interactions (and their varieties) offer for the analysis of urban transport systems and equity issues (WBCSD, 2004; Tacoli, 2006; EC, 2007; WB, 2008; UN-HABITAT, 2008; Jones & Corbridge, 2009). First, at the micro-level, there is a profound need to understand how people make a living, and of the non-income dimensions of poverty. Here rural-urban interactions play a decisive role in the complexities of people’s livelihoods and strategies, often including some form of mobility and income diversification. Residence stability may also be maintained when accessibility allows commuting to work. According to Leinbach (2000), there is still too little information on the role of transport and accessibility in the labour process.

2 Second, at the macro-level, focus on market-based economic growth has led to the realization that, for rural producers, urban markets are important as they concentrate demand. Improved transport conditions also enable more frequent deliveries as a lower amount of goods can be transported to markets profitable. Further, as incomes from farming are declining, producers are increasingly engaged in and dependent on incomes from non-farm activities. Occupational diversification within households is closely linked with the increase of spatial mobility and migration. Changing nature of employment has increasingly important consequences for transport (McQuaid, 2003). As to labour demand: the shift from an agricultural economy to one increasingly dependent on employment in industry and service sectors, have been accompanied by a concentration of population and economic activity, together with changing travel-to-work and hence travel demands and patterns.

Finally, parallel to the urban sprawl is the growth of peri-urban areas that combine urban and rural characteristics, presenting new challenges to urban growth management. The metropolitan regions are changing, with multiple centers within a region becoming common (Deakin, 2008). Employment is increasingly locating outside of traditional centres and urban mega-regions emerge as edges and previously distinct metro areas begin to overlap. The high costs of development in traditional centres, together with low transport costs in relative terms, have pushed growth outward, while lower costs of land at the edge have attracted it. Developments also occur along highways, where low density urbanization emerges. It comes as costs for the transportation system as transit and non-motorized modes are of little use here.

Opportunities and advantages in cities of the developing world Cities in developing countries have, for the most part, different transportation and land use contexts and patterns (TRB, 1996: Gakenheimer, 1999; Gwilliam, 2003; WBCSD, 2004; Tracey-White, 2005; Lee, 2006a). While vehicle ownership rises rapidly and mobility rates increase, the level of ownership is still relatively low. Consequently, as non-motorized and public transport account for a large majority of trips, public transport should have high priority. Full-cost pricing can potentially be used to guide usage and investments as the infrastructure structures and cultural norms are not yet cemented and the legal constraints and regulations on implementing new technology are fewer. Further, many cities are dense and land use is mixed, complicating the provision of roads, but also public transport services (land is expensive). Street space make up a much smaller share of the city surface in comparison with cities in West Europe and North America, and is not suitable for motorization. As a result, changes in the road system in developing countries have much more impact on urban development because there are fewer highways. Thus the potential increased accessibility is, in many ways, already present as the potential is often built into the societal fabric.

Mobility needs, accessibility opportunities and transport-social exclusion In today’s contemporary societies, the availability of fast and cheap transport resources and the ability to choose from activities within a huge geographical area, together with residential and work place adjustments to a car-based society, has led to that the demand for high mobility has been built into the societal fabric (Frändberg et al., 2005; Vilhelmson, 2007). This development has, partly, de-coupled access from geographical proximity. Instead time- budgets, and access to cars are stronger constraints to participation in activities. Everyday spatial mobility is the result of a complex interplay of human needs (wishes, values), individual resources/constraints (age, gender, income, car access etc.), social context, activitycharacteristics, land use, and the potential for interaction, accessibility (Frändberg et al., 2005; Straatemeier, 2008). Thus accessibility and mobility is inter-linked and must be addressed simultaneously. Accessibility in itself is influenced by the qualities of the transport

3 system (reflecting the travel time or the costs of reaching a destination, and service frequency), and the qualities of the land-use system and its spatial distribution (reflecting qualities of potential destinations and activities able to reach).

Access to transport resources and differences in spatial mobility As accessibility constitute one base for mobility, access to and supply and distribution of transport resources influences disparities in revealed and latent demand for mobility; between groups and between different spatial scales. Hägerstrand (1987), point out how technological improvements have created differences in spatial mobility. For example, people living close by or at a railway station can embark on the train more easily. But, once all passengers have embarked they arrive at the final destination at the same time. In this sense, the train and public transportation has an equalizing effect that is contrasted by the high entrance and user costs associated with the car. As the public market is increasingly undermined, the differences in spatial mobility increase. So the same geographical factors that make public transport so difficult, low-density settlements make car ownership so necessary and attractive. Reduction of network length or service levels and fare increase may follow, reducing the market further. Negative feedback effects reinforce this process.

While the provision of and proximity to transport resources does not necessarily generate a demand for mobility, the reverse does not hold; the absence of adequate transport resources does not necessarily represent low demand, demand may still be present but suppressed. Low mobility may indicate difficulties related to other aspects that, either themselves or in conjunction with poor transport opportunities, influences mobility. Thereby, conventional estimations of future trip-rates based on relationships between actual transport use and, mainly, economic attributes is unrealistic. Instead the understanding of different patterns of mobility (and as such, equity issues), lies in the realization of its place in the fabric of social and economic life (Banister, 2005; Frändberg et al., 2005). Transport is no longer just an issue about technical systems, but also incorporates people that make decisions, with various changing motivations and conditions. Conceived of this way, it is possible to analyze interdependencies between needs and desires, transport resources, accessibility and land use; how it affects mobility and social equity, and in the prolongation urban transport systems.

Aim, research and empirical questions In order to understand the conditions for improved urban transport and welfare in cities, there is an urgent need to analyze rural-urban linkages and intra-city spatial interaction in different societies and at different spatial scales. These linkages and interactions should be understood as relational processes which connect society, economy and environment that sustain them. Using the concepts and theoretical approach outlined above, this study empirically explores such rural-urban linkages and interactions in the Philippines (represented by Manila) and in South Korea (represented by Seoul). The focus of the study is the crucial role of transport and everyday mobility for social exclusion/inclusion, where the former is defined as; the process by which people are restricted from participating in the economic, political and social life of the community because of low accessibility to opportunities, services and social networks.

Research question 1: Against this background, the aim of this project is to investigate the implications of enhanced rural-urban linkages and interactions on social-spatial patterns of intra-city mobility and exclusion. To fulfill the aim, two research questions have been formulated. The first research question examines how changes in access and actual mobility influence rural-urban linkages, and interact with the urban and hinterland transport systems from a planning perspective.

4 Empirical questions are: i) What transportation planning strategies are followed (e.g., to what extent access and mobility are used as conceptual tools), have planning been coordinated and integrated with planning that of other sectors, ii) What are the planned outcomes in terms of actual levels of mobility, modal shares, travel budgets etc. among the population? iii) What planning measures, if any, have been taken to mitigate the demand for mobility and to improve geographical access?

Research question 2: The second research question analyzes issues of social-spatial equity and exclusion among different groups of rural commuters and migrant from a population perspective. It is about where and with what mode(s) individuals enter/leave the city, where they reside in the city, and how, where and for what reasons they move around in the city.

Empirical questions are; i) How do changes in accessibility influence people’s actual, as well as their latent demand for mobility? ii) What characterizes affected groups in terms of socio-economic conditions (e.g., income, livelihood, age, gender), iii) What characterizes their mobility to and within cities in terms of modal choice, frequencies, activity space, travel budgets (time and monetary) etc. iv) How have in-/exclusionary planning strategies and measures impacted on them? v) Which accessibility conditions are crucial to different types of opportunities, and how does this differ between groups of individuals?

The two research questions and its accompanying empirical questions are all related to the Philippine and Korean context. Here two rural areas interactions with their respective capitol city area; Metro Manila and Seoul metropolitan area, are investigated. Korea has experienced a rapid industrialization and urbanization processes, high motorization growth, while agricultural lands have remained relatively intact and land use density is very high. In the Philippines, urbanization and de-agrarianization continues. Road transport dominates in both countries, but car densities are still very low (especially in the Philippines). Both countries have taken measures to address their transport problems, historically and present, such as capital city relocation, metros, high-speed trains in Korea. In Korea, land use planning is also used as a mobility tool by imposing development restrictions (partly enabled by a high level of public authority) that have clustered demand around Seoul (but also through multinucleous centres). The Philippines has focused on road provision to both increase efficiency within Manila and to decongest the city (also through relocation of departments), but also mass rapid transit investments, planned rail projects. A weak planning context, where land use plans have only recently been updated (or are in the process) is a major problem in urban Philippines.

The importance of the research project Theoretically the project adds to our understanding of how far the spatial differentiation should be allowed to go; is it possible to design integrated land use and transport strategies to mitigate it? Policy tools for shaping more inclusive and long-term sustainable societies can be developed. As a larger share of the urban population will be poor in the future, a transport system that takes equity issues into consideration should be a policy priority. Empirically, as research on issues addressed in this project are rudimentary in developing countries it helps to fill this gap. By comparing a city in a recently developed country with a developing one, valuable knowledge (also reaching beyond the two cities themselves) is gained.

5 References Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2005) Connecting East Asia. New framework for infrastructure. ADB, Manila. Banister D (2005) Unsustainable transport. City transport in the new century. Routledge, London. Chow EN (2002) Transforming gender and development in East Asia. Routledge, London. Deakin E (2008) California futures. Accommodating growth in an era of climate change and rising fuel prices. Access 32, 4–9. European Commission (EC) (2007) Green paper – Towards a new culture for urban mobility. KOM (2007) 551. European Commission, Brussels. Frändberg L, Thulin E, Vilhelmson B (2005) Rörlighetens omvandling. Om resor och virtuell kommunikatioin – mönster, drivkrafter, gränser. Studentlitteratur, Lund. Gakenheimer R (1999) Urban mobility in the developing world. Transportation Research A 33, 671–689. Gwilliam K (1993) Urban transport in developing countries. Transport Review 23, 197–216. Hayashi Y, Doi K, Yagishita M, Kuwata M (2004) Urban transport sustainability: Asian trends, problems and policy practices. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 4 , 27–45. Hine J (2008) Transport and social justice. In Knowles R, Shaw J, Docherty I (Eds.) Transport geographies. Mobilities, flows and spaces. Blackwell, Oxford. Hägerstrand T (1987) Human interaction and spatial mobility: retrospect and prospect. In Nijkamp P, Reichman S (Eds.) Transport planning in a changing world. Grower, London. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2005) Internal migration and development: a global perspective. IOM Migration Research Series No. 19. IOM, Geneva. Jones GA, Corbridge S (2009) The continuing debate about urban bias: the thesis, its critics, its influence, and implications for poverty reduction strategies. Progress in Development Studies 9, In press. Lee YF (2006a) Motorization in rapidly developing countries. In Marcotullio PJ, McGranahan G (Eds.) Scaling urban environmental challenges. From local to global and back. Earthscan, London. Lee Y (2006b) On the wrong track: China’s transportation revolution and urban air pollution. Harvard International Review http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1435/1/ Assessed 14 January 2009. Leinbach TR (2000) Mobility in development context: changing perspectives, new interpretations, and the real issues. Journal of Transport Geography 8, 1–9. Levinson D, Krizek KJ (2008) Planning for place and plexus: metropolitan land use and transport. Routledge, London. McGee TG (1987) Urbanization or Kotadesai – the emergence of new regions of economic interaction in Asia. Environment and Policy Institute, East West Center, Honolulu. McQuaid RW (2003) The changing nature of work and transport. In Hine J, Preston J Integrated futures and transport choices. UK transport policy beyond the 1998 White Paper and Transport Acts. Ashgate, Aldershot. Metz D (2002) Limitations of transport policy. Transport Reviews 22, 134–145. Olvera LD, Plat D, Pochet P (2003) Transportation conditions and access to services in a context of urban sprawl and deregulation. The case of Dar es Salaam. Transport Policy 10, 287–298. Rigg J (2007) An everyday geography of the global south. Routledge, London. Srinivasan S, Rogers P (2005) Travel behaviour of low-income residents: studying two contrasting locations in the city of Chennai, India. Journal of Transport Geography 13,

6 265–274. Straatemeier T (2008) How to plan for regional accessibility? Transport Policy 15, 127–137. Stradling S, Anable J (2008) Individual transport patterns. In Knowles R, Shaw J, Docherty I (Eds.) Transport geographies. Mobilities, flows and spaces. Blackwell, Oxford. Tracey-White J (2005) Rural-urban marketing linkages. An infrastructure identification and survey guide. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 161, FAO, Rome. Transportation Research Board (TRB) (1996) Transportation options for megacities in the developing world. In Meeting the challenges of megacities in the developing world: a collection of working papers. The National Academies Press, Washington DC. UN-HABITAT (2008) State of the world’s cities 2008/2009 – Harmonious cities. UN, New York. United Nations (UN) (2007) World Urbanization Prospects: 2007 Revision. UN, New York. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2007). UNFPA state of world population 2007. Unleashing the potential of urban growth. UNPF, New York. Vilhelmson B (2007) The use of the car – mobility dependencies of urban everyday life. In Gärling T, Steg L (Eds.) Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life: problems, causes, and solutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam. World Bank (WB) (2008) World development report 2009. Reshaping economic geography. The World Bank, Washington D.C. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2004) Mobility 2030: Meeting the challenges to sustainability.