SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, MOBILITY AND
ACCESS NEEDS
by Deborah Bryceson, John Howe, David Maunder
and Tatenda Mbara
Unpublished Project Report
PR/INT/218/01
PROJECT REPORT PR/INT/218/01
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, MOBILITY AND
ACCESS NEEDS
by Deborah Bryceson, John Howe, David Maunder
and Tatenda Mbara
Copyright TRL Limited, January 2001.
Subsector:
Transport
Theme:
T3 - Improve the mobility of rural and urban poor for meeting their
livelihood needs
Project Title:
Project Reference:
Sustainable Livelihoods, Mobility and Access Needs
R7784
APPROVALS
Project Manager
Quality reviewed
This document is an output from an DFID-funded knowledge and research project, carried out for
the benefit of developing countries. It is an unpublished report and must not be referred to in any
publication without the permission of the DFID. The views expressed are those of the author(s)
and not necessarily those of the DFID.
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project purpose
1.2 Structure of the paper
2. TRANSPORT, MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN A LIVELIHOODS
FRAMEWORK
2.1 Nature and function of transport
2.2 Transport within the LA and related literature
2.3 Distinguishing mobility and accessibility
2.4 Relating mobility and accessibility to livelihoods and
rural-urban linkages
2.5 Poverty, livelihoods and mobility
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Contextual background
3.2 Key conceptual parameters and methodological tools
3.2.1 Discerning rural-urban linkages between nodes within a transect
corridor
3.2.2 Defining the poor in relation to mobility
3.2.3 Activity-based model of travel demand
3.3 Study locations
3.3.1 Zimbabwe
3.3.2 Uganda
3.3.3 Comparative aspects of the two case studies
3.4 Research methodology and study phases
3.4.1 Phase 1: Identification of transect corridors and general mobility
patterns
3.4.2 Phase 2: research on relationship between transport modal
choice and daily life by economic strata
3.4.3 Phase 3: Survey of transport-livelihood inter-relationships
3.5 Research dissemination
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
15
17
20
22
22
23
24
25
REFERENCES
26
ANNEX A: RESEARCH PROPOSAL LOGFRAME
32
ANNEX B: MOBILITY AND WELFARE
34
1. INTRODUCTION
The ‘livelihoods’, or ‘sustainable livelihoods’, concept has been developed in the
context of poverty alleviation, and developmental agencies and governments are
increasingly using it in the design of policies, projects and programmes. Its
adoption has been accompanied by a lively debate as to exactly what the term
sustainable livelihoods means [Ashley and Carney 1999]. Is it an approach, an
objective or a framework? The notion of sustainability as applied to the concept
of livelihoods has also been called into question [Ellis 2000].
The Department of International Development (DFID/UK) sees the concept of
sustainable livelihoods as an analytical tool comprising a set of core principles
embedded within an overall theoretical framework [Ashley and Carney 1999].
There are other contending views but increasing numbers of academics and
development practitioners are open to the use of the term to enhance
understanding of individual, household or community efforts to achieve day-today survival and long-term betterment in a developing country context. For
brevity and convenience this shared perspective will be referred to simply as the
Livelihoods Approach [LA].
To date experience with the LA is strongly biased towards rural areas, but
interest in urban applications is increasing.1 There has been a similar sectoral
bias in the LA with application of the term especially prevalent in the realm of
natural resource utilisation. Until recently, applications in the transport sector
have been comparatively rare, and an aim of this research is to explore the
term’s pertinence to sectoral policy intervention. To date, the concept and
interpretation of transport as a livelihood asset is not well developed within the LA
literature. Consequently the usefulness of the LA as a means of improving the
focus and design of interventions in the transport sector aimed at meeting the
mobility needs of the poor, remains uncertain.
1.1 Project purpose
The main purpose of this research project is an ‘investigation of the utility of the
sustainable livelihoods approach in identifying the mobility and accessibility
needs of the poor, with specific reference to rural-urban linkages’.2 Our aim is to
establish whether or not the use of the LA offers a more discriminating means for
designing and targeting interventions in the transport sector such that they will
better meet the mobility needs of the poor. It proposes to do this by focusing on
and analysing the transport patterns and livelihood portfolios of an economically
stratified sample of households, with emphasis on the nature of conditions
pertaining to poor communities. Annex A illustrates the log frame used in the
1
UNDP among others are working on the use of the livelihoods approach in urban areas.
The provision of mobility and accessibility are the main outputs of a transport system. The two are related
but often confused concepts that can have distinct meanings in policy terms. The nature and implications of
these meanings are central concerns of this research and will be elaborated subsequently.
2
1
research proposal and states our study assumptions, purpose, goals and
outputs.
1.2 Structure of the paper
A clear definition of transport, mobility and accessibility is a necessary precondition to any attempt to assess the utility of the LA for investigating possible
pro-poor interventions in the sector. The next section of this paper maps the
conceptual framework in which the study is situated, sketching the nature and
function of transport systems, concepts of mobility and accessibility, and
theoretical links between the existing transport literature and LA. This is followed
by a summary of the study’s research methodology, prefaced by a brief review of
the continental, national and regional economic background and some
conceptual clarifications. The final sub-section outlines the study’s research
design, immediate research outputs and dissemination strategy.
2. TRANSPORT, MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN A LIVELIHOODS
FRAMEWORK
2.1 Nature and function of transport
All communities require accessibility to supplies, services, facilities and work
opportunities. The accessibility of such things can be measured in different ways
[Jones 1981]. Accessibility depends on infrastructure and available and
affordable modes of transport for the movement of people and their loads.
Accessibility therefore depends on physical proximity and mobility. It may be
improved by greater mobility and/or improved proximity.
In the broadest sense, transport infrastructure includes: paths, roads, bridges,
tram and train tracks and stations, waterways, airports and air lanes. A variety of
transport modes are used to carry passengers and/or freight, namely: trucks,
pickups, buses, mini-buses, cars, motorcycles, boats, trains, trams, animal
transport, bicycles, handcarts and self-propelled walking. These modes are
utilised for private or commercial use. Commercial transport services involve the
users paying fares or hire charges.
Transport infrastructure and transport modes form operational ‘transport
systems’. Mobility for men, women, children and goods depends on the
availability, affordability and efficiency of such transport systems. It must be
emphasised that it is the combination of these components that comprise a
system of transport. Proximity to a road system without vehicle usage that raises
the efficiency of movement above walking and human carriage of loads, conveys
little or no benefit. Similarly, some vehicles, but not necessarily the less
sophisticated, cannot function without a road in reasonable condition.
2
Thus transport infrastructure in and of itself is largely devoid of mobility
enhancement in the absence of efficient modes of transport. Individual utility is
derived from infrastructure when modal choice is exercised within the transport
system to gain access to required goods and services. Hence the accessibility
provided by a transport system has long been seen as its most fundamental
function or attribute. The importance of this characteristic has overshadowed
analytical distinctions, such that road and other infrastructure has been
incorrectly treated as synonymous with accessibility in most developing
countries. Indeed it has long been a de facto article of faith that the correct role of
government and aid agencies lies in the provision of road infrastructure and not
the vehicles without which the infrastructure within poor areas is in reality
dysfunctional. Road accessibility per se does not necessarily lead to increased
accessibility or enhanced mobility.
2.2 Transport within the LA and related literature
The theoretical literature on the LA categorises transport in a rather different way.
Scoones [1998] used the category economic and financial capital to describe
basic infrastructure and production equipment and technologies. Subsequently
this was split into two categories physical and financial capital, with transport
assigned to the first in the form of the basic infrastructure and producer goods
needed to support livelihoods [DFID 1999].
Important here, and related to the above distinction between transport
infrastructure and modal operations, is the notion that transport comprises two
capital components over which the individual normally has different degrees of
control: [i] infrastructure [e.g. a road] that is commonly a public good and is
usually used without direct payment; and [ii] ‘equipment’, i.e. transport modes
that tend to be more directly controllable by the individual [e.g. self-propelled
walking, self-driven bicycles and cars, or bus usage with which the individual
chooses timing and direction of movement] with modal choice dependant
primarily on affordability and movement efficiency. In contradistinction to modal
choice, an individual usually has little influence over the provision, or even
condition, of infrastructure. Either a road is proximate in a condition that can be
used or it is not. Transport modes on the other hand may be owned on an
individual or group basis, or accessed through ‘fee for service payments’, the
latter being more common with the most technologically-based modes [e.g.
buses]. Of course transport modes may be available but not affordable by a given
[poor] individual. The distinction in the control that an individual has over of the
use of transport infrastructure and ‘equipment’ [transport mode] capital can be
crucial to livelihood pursuits.
The description of transport as physical capital tends to mask its separate roles
as a construction industry in its building and maintenance, and as a service
industry in its operation [Howe 1999]. Each can be a direct source of livelihood
(employment) or acting together can support the conduct of livelihood activities.
3
Published research on transport incorporating a livelihoods approach is very
recent [e.g. Davis 2000, Sohail 2000]. Both cited examples did not adopt a
household-based approach to explore the interconnections between LA and
more conventional transport research approaches. Davis’ rural research was
based on a participatory cross-sectional study of six districts in the Northern and
Copperbelt provinces of Zambia. Village-level surveys were used to determine
accessibility to services and people’s opinions and attitudes to the problems they
faced. Accessibility and mobility issues, and their relation to livelihood prospects,
were described in qualitative terms. Sohail’s [2000] urban research focused on
the provision of transport services for commuters in a major Asian city, Karachi.
Their impact on livelihoods was investigated mainly by considering accessibility
and quality aspects as determined from user interviews complemented by a
detailed analysis of the conditions under which the industry has evolved and
currently operates. Monthly expenditure on transport and the time spent travelling
were quantified.
2.3 Distinguishing mobility and accessibility
The notion of access is central to theoretical models of the livelihoods approach,
but its use is much wider and more general than has been conventional in
discussions of transport attributes [Ellis 2000]. For the latter the term accessibility
is preferred as being more in keeping with discussions in transport studies and to
distinguish it from the wider concept of access in the livelihoods literature
[Anderson et al. 1988]. However, our usage of the term accessibility will be
largely informed by a social science perspective which distinguishes mobility as
human agency from accessibility as physical proximity, i.e. fixed, inanimate
locations. Transport modes provide the physical means to facilitate movement.
Their presence or absence influence human decision-making, enhancing or
reducing the accessibility of specific fixed locations.
Mobility is simply a measure of the agency with which people choose to move
themselves or their goods around. This involves two components. The first of
these depends on the performance of the transport system, which is affected by
where the person is, the time of day and the direction in which they wish to travel.
The second component depends on the characteristics of the individual such as
whether s/he has a bicycle or car available, can afford taxi, bus, or rail fares, is
able to walk or use public transport, or has knowledge of the options available
[Porter 1988 and 1997]. In other words, the first element is concerned with the
effectiveness of the transport system in connecting spatially separated locations,
and the second element is concerned with the extent to which a particular
individual or type of person is able to make use of the transport system.
An inherent difficulty in assessing mobility is the problem of measuring an ability
or 'potential' to travel. Due to the difficulty of measuring movement that could take
4
place but does not - for reasons of cost, time or effort - studies of mobility have
tended to use data on actual movements or output measures.3
There are, however, some problems in equating mobility with the observed level
of travel. Care in interpretation of travel statistics is particularly needed in
connection with assessments of economic or social welfare. A community in
which little movement is undertaken may represent an efficiently planned
settlement with few external needs. On the other hand, a community showing low
levels of travel and low travel costs may through lack of time or money or both
have unmet travel requirements for meeting basic survival needs in the form of
water, firewood or food. Such a community faces a lack of mobility options that
imposes a real restriction on people's desired activities.
In general, these contrary interpretations can be distinguished by defining the
travel mode and purpose of travel in more detail. Frequent motorized vehicle trips
are more likely to represent a highly mobile affluent community than frequent foot
journeys. Similarly trips to fetch water are likely to be a high proportion of travel in
poor communities. The units in which movement is measured will also affect the
interpretation of travel statistics. Time spent travelling to collect water daily, for
example, may be ambiguous. The time required for one trip will decrease as
mobility increases, but the demand for water is likely to rise as travel becomes
easier. Thus the same time could be spent as previously, but a greater water
supply would be obtained.4
Accessibility, or the perceived proximity of desired locational destinations, is
heavily influenced by the transport mode being used. Accessibility is concerned
not with behaviour but with the opportunity, or potential, provided by the transport
and land-use system for different types of people to engage in activities.
The two concepts of mobility and accessibility are clearly related but can be
easily confused when they are not distinguished from the intervening facilitation
of different modes of transport. In the transport literature accessibility is often
defined as the ease with which one reaches a desired location. In fact taking a
more social science perspective which traces agency and process, ‘ease of
movement’ and ‘ease of access’ are attributes of the transport modality rather
than a feature of the mobile agent or the locational destination per se. Table 1
endeavours to distinguish the three separate but inter-related concepts of
mobility, modal facilitation of movement and accessibility.
3
The then UK Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) now TRL Ltd. initiated a programme of studies in the
late 1970s that established this as the main research approach [Heraty 1980, Jacobs et al. 1980, Maunder
1984].
4 In this case, mobility could be measured more effectively by defining units in terms of volumes carried, viz,
hours per litre per day, not hours per day.
5
Table
1:
Relationship
accessibility
MOBILITY
Agency
Human agent’s decisionmaking over destination
and mode of transport
and the resultant
movement
between
mobility,
transport
TRANSPORT MODALITY
Means
Ease of movement/
accessibility derived from
means of transport at the
disposal of the decisionmaker
modality
and
ACCESSIBILITY
Ends
The proximity of
inanimate locational
destination that serves as
the objective of
movement
In current transport literature, the meaning of mobility and accessibility in
developed and developing societies does not always take cognizance of their
differing contexts [Ross 2000]. Developed societies often exhibit a number of
different modal options for reaching a desired destination. Mobility is then simply
a wide range of travel options. In developing societies mobility is often interpreted
as having more than one efficient and affordable travel options as opposed to
having none other than walking.
It is sometimes claimed that accessibility not movement is the true aim of
transport [Mitchell and Town 1977, Tolley and Turton 1995]. This has led to the
identification of accessibility constraints as the methodological basis for deciding
transport deficiencies, especially among impoverished rural communities [DixonFyle 1998, Dennis 1998]. It has also led to the realisation that some accessibility
problems can be addressed by non-transport means. For example, by provision
of the facilities to which communities need accessibility, e.g. a more convenient
health center, or supply of water.
To define accessibility in practice, the intended destinations must be specified. In
general, the destinations will be places offering opportunities for a desired
activity.5 Accessibility is then measurable in terms of the number of opportunities
or destinations reachable in a given time or distance, or as the inverse of travel
costs to the desired activity/destination.
For the poor, accessibility to, or standard of, a social or physical service depends
in some cases on movement by visitors from outside the community. For
example, standards of health and education services are obtained to a significant
extent by visits from central staff and deliveries of supplies. This inward access of
services or goods can be embraced in the concept of accessibility by specifying
5
This may be problematic for some informal sector employment activities, such as hawking, which are by
nature itinerant.
6
proximity to an activity rather than to a place, for example, proximity to
functioning health facilities rather than a specific clinic.
In the more developed countries mobility has come to be seen in negative terms
because of the perceived excessive reliance on private car use and the
associated congestion and pollution. In contrast, accessibility is generally always
seen as making a positive contribution to a community. However, in developing
societies it is widely accepted that accessibility to destinations can be enhanced
by improving mobility. This is true because: modal choices are restricted,
prevailing levels of mobility are low, and/or modes of transport upon which
mobility are based are non-polluting.
There is now a substantial literature on the concept of accessibility, especially as
it affects rural developing communities, and how it is influenced by location,
transport and a host of other factors [Barwell 1996, Dennis 1998, Edmonds
1998].6 To some extent the emphasis on accessibility, and the negative
connotation resulting from studies in more developed societies, seems to have
distracted attention from mobility and how it might influence livelihoods. 7 Yet in
the circumstances prevailing in many developing countries, and in both urban
and rural environments, targeted interventions that improve personal mobility
may have a more positive effect on the livelihoods of the poor than is likely from
accessibility improvements.8 This conclusion results from considering a number
of factors, including:
[i] Diversification of individual and household income sources which require
movement flexibility in space and time that it is difficult to promote by
changing whole transport systems. It may be easier and quicker to
address the mobility needs of the individuals concerned by carefully
targeted measures.
[ii] Most rural and urban areas have immense backlogs of maintenance or
remedial work to restore the main categories of the existing roads to
working order. The pragmatic necessity to maintain road hierarchies
means that the infrastructural needs of remote poor communities are
unlikely to be a priority for many years.
[iii] Small clusters of poor users, or generally low population densities, are
especially problematic since they cannot support either the cost of
6
The special problems that inaccessibility have on remote communities, women, and various sectoral
interests - health, education, water supply, etc. - have also been extensively researched. While little of this
work has been directly linked to the debate on livelihoods it can often be inferred.
7 This aspect is starting to be addressed [see Kwakye et al. 1997, Airey and Cundill 1998, Hine and Rutter
2000, Roberts et al. 2000].
8 This contention is not a rejection of the fundamental importance of accessibility. Rather it is an
acknowledgement of the practical difficulty of improving levels under present circumstances. In these
circumstances it seems only sensible to examine more carefully the case for improving mobility instead and
the possible cost-effective trade-offs between this option and that of putting the same resources into
improving accessibilty.
7
infrastructure or conventional transport services. In such circumstances,
simple mobility enhancements that do not need expensive infrastructure
facilities, may be a more practical proposition for enhancing livelihoods
[Hine and Rutter 2000, Howe and Bryceson 2000].
In this research an emphasis on mobility is preferred because it is concerned
directly with behaviour. This is more in keeping with the decisions that must be
made to ensure, enhance and sustain livelihoods. Moreover, mobility, activity
systems, and welfare can be conceptually related [see Annex B].
To isolate the influence of mobility levels and changes on livelihoods it seems
sensible to hold accessibility constraints reasonably constant. This can be
achieved by excluding the sampling of remote communities. These are often
dominated either by severe road access problems or major [long-distance]
mobility constraints that preclude individual initiatives. They have, in any case,
already been extensively studied [Barwell 1996, Dennis 1998, Hine and Rutter
2000].
2.4 Relating mobility and accessibility to livelihoods and rural-urban
linkages
Andrew Pearse [1980] first employed a ‘livelihoods approach’ to study the impact
of green revolution innovation on rural farming. In his study, he attempted to
provide a holistic way of evaluating the introduction of new technology on rural
people’s welfare. Chambers [1987] made reference to livelihoods, but it was only
in the 1990s that the term began to be used more generally, usually in the
context of ‘coping’ with new production constraints and welfare shortfalls. At first,
this tended to be in the context of drought or natural disaster, but later it was
applied to the duress of structural adjustment, subsidy removals and cutbacks as
well as increased market competition associated with economic liberalisation.
Stress was translated into a process of occupational re-ordering. A livelihoods
approach is thus fundamentally about occupational activity.
Recent studies of rural-urban linkages have highlighted the influence of
accessibility on livelihood potential in Tanzania, stressing the relationship
between remote locations and poverty [Tacoli 2000]. Poor transport conditions
are found to reduce access to employment opportunities and services to the
population generally, and especially to the poor. Accessibility to livelihood assets,
as viewed within the LA, may be influenced by rural-to-urban locational
positioning [see Table 2].
8
Table 2: Accessibility of Livelihood Assets in relation to a Rural-Urban
Spectrum
RURAL
URBAN
Natural
Resources
Social
Relations
Human
Capability
Financial
Assets
Physical
Infrastructure
residential land
farmland
water
energy supplies
wildlife
forest products
minerals
other resources
kin
networks
purposeful groups
health
skills
knowledge
formal education
markets
credit
banks
pensions
remittances
savings
transport
piped water
social services
However, rural-urban spectrum differences can be overstated. Much of the
comparative rural-urban literature of the past was embedded in the notion that
rural areas were primarily agrarian in nature whereas urban areas were
characterised by industrial production and a complex service sector. In many
developing countries, these sharp occupational differences have undoubtedly
blurred over the past two decades. With this blurring, differences in population
density become the main distinguishing feature of rural and urban areas.
The UN classifies urban settlements as population concentrations of 20,000
people or more. However, the notion of an urban area varies from country to
country. In some countries a population of 20,000 may be considered a large
village whereas elsewhere it is seen as an urban metropole, reinforcing the fact
that rural-urban contrasts are not only relative, but ambiguous and imprecise.
2.5 Poverty, livelihoods, and mobility
Classifying the poor on the basis of income-earning criteria has always been
problematic, especially with respect to the valuation of the large subsistence
sector found particularly in rural farming areas. In its place ‘standard food basket’
measures have been devised which represent an improvement, but nonetheless
pose various technical difficulties with respect to data gathering [Hanmer, Pyatt
and White 1997]. Most recently, more qualitative indicators of poverty have
arisen, supported by the World Bank’s recent efforts to listen to the ‘voices of the
poor’ and their definitions of poverty. In this context, a lack of physical mobility
emerges as a significant aspect of the poor’s deprivation.
Until recently there were few comparative studies linking mobility measures to
poverty, modal choice and trip behaviour. A broad set of typologies linking these
9
parameters has now been suggested based mainly on studies of rural trip making
by motorised transport in Ghana and Malawi, with secondary data from Kenya
and Zambia [Hine and Rutter 2000]. The typology is broadly based on income
and distinguishes five groups:
• the extremely poor;
• the very poor;
• the poor;
• the better off; and
• the rich.
Interestingly, the study showed that at current service and fare levels the poorest
people only made use of motor vehicle transport for long distance transportion of
crops. In contrast, better off rural populations made extensive use of transport
services for a wide variety of social and economic purposes. A tentative incomebased model of mobility was presented. This suggested that road investments
per se might have little impact on the poorest who require other complementary
measures to increase their mobility.
Another literature-based study noted several gaps in current understanding of the
role of mobility in the lives of poor people [Roberts et al. 2000]. Specifically, lack
of understanding concerning: (i) the activity patterns of the urban poor, and the
relation of these to household attributes and mobility needs; and (ii) the
importance of urban-rural linkages and the role of transport in supporting them.
The study of (i) is likely to be particularly challenging because of the complex
structure of families and extended households [with or without rural-urban
linkages]; diverse cultural and religious attitudes; the informal nature of much
employment; and the gainful employment of both the young and old [Fouracre et
al. 1999].
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
This study has been designed in the light of the above cited livelihoods literature
as well as the existing conventional transport and poverty debates. The
methodology endeavours to discern patterns of movement on the basis of
economic strata, highlighting to what degree the poor’s mobility, in contrast to
other groups, is directed at livelihood pursuits and how they combine their
mobility options with livelihood pursuits. We explore the seemingly contradictory
premises of the poverty and livelihoods literature, namely, that the poor’s mobility
is relatively restricted at the same time as their diversified livelihood strategies
are requiring them to be more mobile.
The projected research aims of this study are four-fold:
[i] establishment of mobility and accessibility concepts and a viable
research methodology for the study of mobility and accessibility
within the sustainable livelihoods framework;
10
[ii] documentation of the relative importance and nature of mobility
patterns in relation to livelihood pursuits of stratified economic
strata;
[iii] exploration of the influence of rural-urban linkages on mobility
patterns and how rural-urban differences affect mobililty and
livelihood options, especially of the poor; and
[iv] identification of measures to ensure mobility and accessibility
policies to enhance the poor’s livelihood prospects.
The next sub-section provides some background about continental economic
trends, before outlining some key analytical concepts that will be employed for
observation and measurement in the study. This is followed by a short review of
the two selected study areas in Uganda and Zimbabwe. The study’s methodology
and research schedule are outlined thereafter.
3.1 Contextual background
Over the last decade under the influence of structural adjustment and
liberalisation policies, the continent’s national economies have undergone radical
change and structural transformation, which has impacted on the welfare of the
population [Bryceson 1999 and 2000]. Schematically, the major occupational
tendencies are: first, drastic reductions in the proportion of the population that are
employed in the urban formal sector. Second, rural smallholder commodity
production has declined in terms of labour-time and income with retention of
agricultural subsistence production. Third, there has been a proliferation of rural
and urban informal sector work in trade and services.
In the process of these economic transformations, both rural and urban
households have been actively restructuring their livelihoods. Individual and
household income sources have been actively sought with emphasis on
diversification to reduce risk of loss of income from any one source. African
survey evidence suggests that there has been a reduction in household
members’ sole or main reliance on male head of household income at the same
time as there has been increasing labour force participation of women and
children. In some instances household size and composition has been altered to
accommodate livelihood restructuring.
Despite households’ strenuous efforts to retain their living standards, signs of
growing impoverishment are surfacing within the restructuring process as
indicated by: widening income differentiation and growing proportions of
population classified as poor related to cutbacks on social and physical public
services, and/or declining amounts and regularity of income.
Locationally, with respect to rural and urban areas, the picture is far less clear.
Prior to the implementation of economic structural adjustment programmes the
prevailing view was that rural areas were populated by farmers producing both
subsistence and cashcrops. Conversely urban areas were populated by both
11
formal and informal sector workers who tended on average to earn relatively
higher incomes and enjoy better infrastructure than rural farmers, hence the
tendency for a drift of population from rural to urban areas.
Now Sub-Saharan Africa livelihoods literature [Berkvens 1997, Iliya and Swindell
1997, Gaidzanwa 1997, Bryceson 1997 and 1999], suggests that:
[i] agrarian activities are not delimited to rural areas nor are informal
sector activities to urban areas;
[ii] people are more mobile in connection with their livelihood
diversification strategies in terms of rural-urban movement as well
as inter-urban and inter-rural movement; and
[iii] there are new types of, and perhaps more, movement of people
between rural and urban areas due to livelihood diversification.
On the other hand, the literature on the poor continues to view them as lacking
mobility and accessibility to goods, services and information. The removal of
such impediments is thus said to be a key aspect of poverty-alleviation. In the
search for viable livelihoods, a lack of mobility can undermine poor people’s
access to:
[i] necessary production inputs - raw materials, spare parts;
[ii] market information - relative prices, market opportunities, innovative
products;
[iii] credit and training; and
[iv] employment per se.
While lack of information undoubtedly remains a factor, the advent of the cellular
phone is making inroads in both urban and rural areas.9
3.2 Key conceptual parameters and methodological tools
The rate and extent of economic change in Sub-Saharan Africa has altered
conditions to the point that many longstanding concepts have lost their clarity,
while others have taken on new meanings without due recognition of their
analytical implications. Clarification of the concepts of mobility and accessibility
was undertaken in the preceding section. This sub-section explores the meaning
of other key concepts and outlines some proposed methodological tools related
to the new livelihoods literature.
3.2.1 Discerning rural-urban linkages between nodes within a transect
corridor
This study will be observing access to formal and informal employment
opportunities, natural resources and markets that are influenced by population
density and settlement location through a comparison of primate cities, their periurban areas, secondary cities and rural settlements.
Rapid changes have been observed in Soweto with the setting up of cellular “phone shops”, that are
transforming the lives of the poor as well as the rich [The Economist 1999]. Even more dramatic has been
Grameen Telecom’s experience with its ‘village pay phone’ programme in Bangladesh. Between March
1997 and January 2000 it has provided access to nearly 3 million poor villagers [in 1100 villages] out of
reach of the main network [Lawson and Mevenn 2000].
9
12
In the two selected case study countries, nodes will be selected from within a
single transect corridor. The designation of a single transect corridor for the
selection of study sites has four aims: first, it limits the degree of climatic and
natural resource variation for comparison of study site mobility patterns. Second,
because the corridor is selected to embrace all four settlement types and is
situated in a relatively densely populated part of the country, it offers a diverse
sample of livelihood, transport and economically stratified household patterns,
with anticipated marked contrasts between rural, urban and peri-urban poverty.
Third, it provides a coherent geographical unit for tracing the degree of
connectivity between adjacent rural and urban study sites. Fourth, it
demonstrates differences between rural and urban livelihood pursuits and
accessibility to capital assets.
We use the terms ‘rural-urban linkages’ to refer not only to the physical
movement of goods, people and information between rural and urban locations.
Transport conditions, mobility patterns and types and degrees of ‘rural-urban
connectivity’ are traced within and beyond the transect corridor to facilitate the
determination of relative ease of movement and proximity to resources for the
development of individual and household livelihood portfolios. It is important to
stress that the study of the sampled population’s mobility will not be
geographically restricted to the transect corridor. Their daily and extraordinary
mobility will be recorded regardless of destination.
Differences and similarities in urban, peri-urban and rural transport conditions
and mobility patterns will be highlighted. The use of a rural-urban transect
corridor may help to discern the relative importance of personal mobility per se
versus proximity [accessibility] to assets for livelihood pursuits. We term the latter
‘accessibility to livelihood assets’ [ALA] that can be delineated as proximity to:
natural, social, human, physical and financial resources. The rural-urban transect
may reveal biases in the availability of livelihood assets along the rural-urban
continuum [see Table 2].
It is possible that increased mobility may be offsetting worsening or higher
demand for accessibility to productive assets. This study will endeavour to shed
light on this potential trade-off. Furthermore it will attempt to document the
possible tradeoffs that may be occurring between transport and the use of
improved communication, notably cellular phone usage.
3.2.2 Defining the poor in relation to mobility
Three main methods will be employed to identify the poor and contrast their
livelihood and mobility patterns with other higher and middle-income groups.
Categorisations of economic strata will be done on the basis of:
[i] rural and urban participatory poverty assessments elicited during
focus group interviews;
13
[ii]
urban
income groupings associated
with
residential
neighbourhoods and house ownership or rental status; and
[iii] use of poverty indicators assessed by degrees of transport mobility
referred to as ‘transpov’ indicators.
A concept of transport mobility based on modal choice will be elaborated to
discern the extent to which variation in mobility may impinge on livelihood
pursuits. Tentatively, the ‘transport rich’ will be designated as those who have an
operative motorised vehicle directly at their disposal [although clearly within a
household degrees of accessibility are likely to vary]. The ‘transport poor’ are
identified as those without modal choice and restricted primarily to walking,
whereas the ‘transport median’ are those with ownership of non-motorized
vehicle transport and/or purchasing power for hired public transport. The validity
of these distinctions will be examined in the field.
This study’s point of entry will be two-pronged. First, with an examination of the
influence of mobility and accessibility variables in Zimbabwe and Uganda. By
sampling different locations along the rural-peri-urban-urban transect,
accessibility will be considered. Second, special attention will be given to the
mobility of informants in an effort to discern gender, age and wealth-differentiated
patterns, which will then be linked to employment patterns and incomegenerating prospects.
The mobility variables which will be recorded and analysed will include: number
of trips and purpose of travel; mode of transport; and cost, distance, time and,
where possible, speed travelled. Measurement of these variables will assist in
arriving at an understanding of the ease of movement to formal and informal
employment activities, i.e. the ‘work mobility’ possessed by the transport poor
relative to medium and high-income groups.
3.2.3 Activity-based model of travel demand
While emphasis in this study will be placed on tracing the interaction between
mobility and economic livelihood, we will endeavour to capture a full picture of the
functional nature of mobility on the part of the rich, poor and median populations
sampled. In this way, the relative importance that ‘work mobility’ plays in the
mobility patterns of the poor will become apparent. To this end, we will employ an
activity-based model of travel demand that entails data collection about the full
range of people’s daily activities that involve movement outside the confines of
their houses. Activity-based models can fall victim to bewildering detail, in the
absence of some attempt to analytically streamline the meaning of ‘activity’
[Benwell 1981, Jones et al. 1987]. We therefore delineate mobility associated
with five broad categories of functional activity, namely:
[i] livelihood activities - any output of services or goods that results in
income or material sustenance in the short and medium-term;
14
[ii] maintenance activities – necessary expenditure of effort to renew one’s
daily living requirements which includes firewood and water collection,
and shopping;
[iii] improvement activities – attendance at health, education and other
personal-enhancing services [human capital];
[iv] social networking – visits to kin and associational ties be they friends or
business contacts [social capital]; and
[v] leisure and recreational activities – sports, dancing, and cultural events
that are pursued for individual or group enjoyment rather than for
instrumental associational ties.
A degree of overlap is readily apparent from these categories, necessitating
consistency in categorisations during data collection and analysis. Our focus will
specifically be on the first category of livelihood activity, and while recording the
incidence of mobility associated with the four other spheres of activity, we will
nonetheless, not seek to measure their associated mobility with the same degree
of detail as that of livelihood-directed mobility. However, we will explore the
relative distribution of transport-related activities vis-à-vis economic strata to test
if the poor’s mobility is heavily weighted, as is believed, to livelihood and
maintenance activities.
The mobility patterns connected with livelihood will be examined with respect to
the parameters defined previously. We intend to collect retrospective data about
past travel connected with livelihood in order to reveal the role that transport
plays in occupational change over time, and to seek a better understanding of the
dynamics of mobility in African local economies. Furthermore, mobility patterns
will be analysed in terms of gender, occupation, income and residence/workplace
location.
3.3 Study Locations
The transect corridors proposed for the study are in Zimbabwe: Harare-Bindura
and Uganda: Kampala-Jinja. Both corridors comprise distances of about 80 kms
between the respective capitals and nearby secondary cities. Choice of study
locations was based on a number of criteria: nature of recent occupational
change, degree of urbanisation, nature of rural-urban linkages, and changing
prevalence of poverty.
3.3.1 Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe is a medium-sized African country [391,000 km2] with a population of
approximately 12.5 million [32.0 persons/km 2], an average GNP of US$662 and
life expectancy at birth of 53 years [1995-96 statistics]. Roughly three-quarters of
the population live in rural areas.
The national economy has been fairly diversified with a significant industrial base
in addition to agriculture, mining and tourism sectors. However, the country has
been facing declining terms of trade during the 1990s at the rate of minus 2.0 per
15
cent per annum [African Development Bank 1998]. Most recently, it has
experienced a protracted economic and political crisis leading to substantial
foreign disinvestment, devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar and declining
agricultural productivity and exports. Inflation and interest rates for the last 12
months have hovered between 55-65 per cent. The country’s foreign currency
reserves have been depleted making the importation of fuel, and necessary raw
materials and equipment extremely difficult.
Although there are no official records, unemployment, most acutely felt in the
urban areas, is currently estimated at approximately 50 per cent. Most of those
retrenched [related to the implementation of structural adjustment] are believed to
be returning to their home areas to settle [Potts 1995, 1999, 2000]. Income
diversification activities are becoming widespread in rural areas [Pedersen 1997,
Kinsey 2000]. In spite of social restrictions and public censure of women’s
involvement in various avenues of income-earning, women are increasingly
seeking a livelihood from trade in towns and cross-border trade in South Africa
(Gaidzanwa 1997, Muzvidziwa 2001). In Tafara, a suburb of Harare housing
mainly low-income unskilled labourers, a 1996 household survey recorded over
90 per cent of households had resorted to ‘vending’ as an urban survival strategy
[Matshalaga 1997]. A nation-wide Poverty Assessment Study Survey conducted
in 1995 [Zimbabwe 1997] revealed that 62 per cent of the population was living
below the modest poverty lines established for the survey with an urban/rural
differential of 46 and 72 per cent. It is likely that this has deteriorated further in
more recent years.
Table 3: Basic Social Indicators in Uganda and Zimbabwe
Indicator
Uganda
2
country area [km ]
236,000
population [1997]
20,800,000
population density [persons/ km2]
88.1
urban population [% of total] [1996]
12.8
urban population annual growth [5]
5.5
population in largest city as % of total urban
40
life expectancy at birth
44
access to sanitation [% population] [1995]
60
access to safe water [% population] [1995]
42
access to health services [% population]
49
[1995]
Adult HIV-1 seroprevalent per 100 adults
9.5
[1997]
Sources: 1 African Development Bank [1998]
2 World Bank [2000], Statistical Annex, Table D.1
3 World Bank [1997/98]
16
Data
Zimbabwe source:
391,000
1
11,700,000
1
22.9
1
32.5
2
4.7
2
40
2
53
1
n.a.
1
74
1
85
1
25.8
3
Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe is situated in an area of good farmland, most
of which is being cultivated by large-scale commercial farmers using large wage
labour forces. The transect corridor heading northwards from Harare to Bindura,
however, while initially passing through this zone, does cross the Chinamora
communal area [CA] of smallholder farming. It includes a peri-urban squatter
settlement within Hatcliffe located about 15 kilometres from Harare as well as
Domboshawa settlement in Chinamora CA which is characterised by small-scale
agriculture, market gardening and livestock keeping primarily for the Harare
market. Between Domboshawa and Bindura the area is relatively non-productive
bush/scrubland mainly farmed by smallholders generating small incomesurpluses over subsistence needs. There are two additional small roadside
residential settlements situated between Domboshawa and Bindura, namely
Showground and Super Service Centre. Bindura is a secondary town with a
population of approximately 32,000, surrounded by mines and commercial farms.
As a higher-income African country, Zimbabwe enjoys a relatively good road
network, with car ownership strikingly higher than Uganda [Table 4]. However,
motorized vehicle ownership is entirely out of the reach of the poor and the urban
population has to contend with the dispersed black settlement patterns inherited
from Zimbabwe’s former racially-based planning.
3.3.2 Uganda
Uganda is a relatively densely populated, small-to-medium sized African country
[236,000 km2] with a population of 20.8 million [88.1 persons km 2]. Its average
annual GNP is less than half that of Zimbabwe at US$300 per person. Life
expectancy at birth is also lower at 44 years. Its economic base has been
primarily reliant on the efforts of smallholder peasant farmers. The Ugandan
economy’s heavy reliance on agriculture has meant that it has had to contend
with even greater declining terms of trade at the annual rate of minus 2.9 per cent
during the 1990s with disincentive effects on Uganda’s smallholder farmers
[Bigsten and Kayizzi-Mugerula 1995, African Development Bank 1998].
Morrissey [2000] notes the burden of Uganda’s land-locked transport system in
terms of raising the volume and value of the country’s agricultural exports. The
country has a substantial trade deficit [DANIDA 1998]. Nonetheless, since the
Musuveni government’s implementation of the Economic Recovery Programme
in 1987, the World Bank has considered Uganda to be a model of economic
reform for emulation by other African countries.
17
Table 4: Transport Indicators in Uganda and Zimbabwe
Indicator
Uganda
commercial energy consumption/capita [giga joules]
[1992]
1
density of railway [km/1000 km2] [1991]
4.7
density of road network [km/1000 km2] [1991]
122
road/population ratio [road1000 km/ 1 million
persons] [‘92]
1.7
% paved roads [1991]
15
motor cars [per 1000 population] [1991]
2.0
Source: 1 UN Habitat [1996], Statistical Annex Table 20
2 World Bank [1997/98]
Data
Zimbabwe source
21
8.7
202
1
1
1
8.9
17
37.8
2
1
1
The Kampala-Jinja corridor, spanning Kampala, Mukono and Jinja districts, is the
country’s most populous and wealthy region, and the site of Uganda’s two
biggest cities. The corridor represents a concentration of rich agricultural land
with high rainfall and a multitude of service sector activities connected with urban
life. The major export crops are coffee, tea, cotton and sugarcane. There is also
a wide array of food crops grown for subsistence and the urban market, namely:
beans, cassava, maize, finger millet, sorghum, bananas, pineapples, sweet
potatoes, yams, soya beans, cowpeas, pigeon and field peas, and groundnuts. In
addition commercial and subsistence fishing is widespread along the shoreline of
Lake Victoria.
Before Idi Amin’s rule in the 1980s, Jinja was a centre of considerable industrial
development, most of the businesses being in Asian hands. Industrial production
collapsed under Amin and Jinja continues to struggle to reinstate its industries.
At present, Jinja’s and Kampala’s industries are directed at processing
agricultural products, notably: tea, coffee, sugar cane [manufacture of jaggery],
cotton [textile and blanket production], wheat and maize [bread, animal feeds], oil
milling, leather tanning [footware], as well as consumer goods directed at import
substitution: soft drink and alcohol production, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals,
paraffin wax, foam mattresses, printworks, steel and metal fabrication, bicycle
manufacture, motor vehicle bodies and trailers, tyres and tubes, knives and
household utensils, hoes, charcoal stoves, baby diapers and soap production.
Finally, this region has a considerable expatriate population connected with
Uganda’s numerous aid programmes, as well as some degree of tourism related
to its international airport and tourist sites like the source of the Nile. The area
has clearly benefited from being less affected by Uganda’s on-going civil war
over the past 25 years than other more war-ravaged regions in the north and
west [Rwabwoogo 1998].
Poverty lines in Uganda are highly differentiated by rural and urban
categorisations. Kampala had a poverty line of Ug.Sh 17,310, Jinja Ug.Sh
18
16,550, and the intermediate rural areas Ug.Sh 15,950. Food poverty lines and
their proportion of total poverty lines were Ug.Sh 14,840 (86%), 11,300 (68%)
and 13,970 (88%) respectively, indicating that food costs in the peri-urban and
rural areas close to the capital are high. Between 1992 and 1997, there was a
reported declining trend in poverty nationally, with consumption estimated to
have risen by 10%. In our study area the decline was more prominent. In
1992/93, 22, 41 and 53 percent of, primate city [Kampala], secondary city and
rural populations in the area respectively were estimated to be below the ‘total
poverty line’ of the Ugandan government. By 1997 this had decreased to 12, 25,
and 34 per cent [Uganda, Bureau of Statistics 2000]. However, these official
Ugandan government statistics optimistically contrast with the World Bank’s
estimate of 55 per cent of the entire population being below the national poverty
line [World Bank 1998/99]. Both Kampala and Jinja experienced inflation rates
below 9 percent throughout the period.
Considerable attention has been devoted to the nature of rural transport in
Uganda [Barwell 1996, Akidi et al. 1997, Baza Tanzarn 1999, COWI 1999, Kleih
et al. 1999, Leyland 1999]. It is characterised by seasonally impassable roads,
bicycle ownership limited to only wealthy segments of the rural community, and
some degree of disapproval of female bicycle riding. 10 The Kampala-Jinja
transect corridor by contrast is more advantaged in terms of road and transport
infrastructure and has special interest in terms of transport innovation. Despite its
hilliness, the commercial use of bicycles for commodity transport, particularly
agricultural crop transport to market, is very pronounced [Malmberg-Calvo 1992,
Grisley 1995, Heyen-Perschon 2000]. Grisley [1995] estimated that roughly 18
per cent of agricultural tonnage into the Bombo market in Kampala was by
bicycle. Most of the drivers are small businessmen who earn their livelihood by
trading small quantities of agricultural products. They either own or rent the
bicycle on a daily basis. Interestingly, bicycles are extensively used for
passenger transport as well [Malmberg-Calvo 1992]. Boda boda services in
which bicycles are used to taxi individuals around the area began with the illicit
‘border-border’ trade between Uganda and Kenya during the 1980s and has
blossomed into a flourishing trade since then transporting people up to 20 km,
with an average travel distance of 2.5 km. In Jinja there are more than 1000
registered boda boda [Heyen-Perschon 2000]. FABIO [First African Bicycle
Information Office], a Ugandan-German NGO has been established in Uganda
during the last ten years and has distributed more than 6500 bicycles to low
income households.
More recently motorised boda boda services have appeared in the main urban
areas based on mopeds and low-engine powered motorcycles. These have
10
Leyland [1999] noted that between 1-12 per cent of cyclists surveyed at different rural sites in western
Uganda were female. Disapproval of women and girls cycling is largely restricted to Bugandan people
(Tobias Onweng, Makerere University, 2000 personal communication). The Bugandan ethnic heartland is
found in our transect corridor, however the transect is the site of a rich ethnic mix now and women of other
ethnic groups are far less constrained from riding bicycles. It is anticipated that female cyclists will be
encountered in our survey.
19
created a bifurcated market with faster and more extensive services, albeit at an
increased cost. It is likely that both forms have also extended services into lowdensity demand areas that more conventional motorised vehicles cannot service.
Uganda thus provides an interesting example of mobility enhancement whose
effect on livelihoods will be investigated in this study.
3.3.3 Comparative aspects of the two case studies
Uganda and Zimbabwe provide interesting economic contrasts for this study.
Both are land-locked countries which influences transport facilities. Until relatively
recently Zimbabwe enjoyed considerably greater economic success, higher
levels of GNP albeit with significant income inequality, and a more diversified and
complex economy. However, both countries have been facing severe livelihood
challenges. Both have been subject to rapidly fluctuating levels of welfare as well
as enormous economic restructuring. In Zimbabwe’s case, retrenchments in the
formal sector have been pronounced during the 1990s. Industry has decreased
over the past 25 years with services making up the difference [Table 5]. In
Uganda, agriculture has been shrinking in value terms and as an absorber of
labour. A de-agrarianisation process, already documented for other countries in
Africa, has gained momentum [Bryceson 1999]. In Zimbabwe, smallholder
farming has been constrained by land availability, an issue that now threatens the
stability of the country. All of these features of economic restructuring are likely to
have spurred occupational experimentation and possibly geographical movement
on the part of economically displaced individuals.
20
Table 5: Economic Indicators in Uganda and Zimbabwe
Indicator
Uganda
GNP per capita [US$]
300
% of population below national poverty line
55
1997 terms of trade [1995=100]
65
terms of trade [annual growth rate 1991-97]
-2.9
total debt/GDP [1996]
60.1
agriculture / industry / services as % of GDP:
A
I
S
1976 73
8
19
1986 57
10 33
1996 46
16 39
1997 average annual growth in:
agriculture
1.3
industry
14.5
services
5.9
economically active population by sector [%]
M
F
agriculture (1980 / 1990) 63 /58 85 /81
industry (1980 / 1990) 19 /13 4 / 2
services (1980 / 1990) 18 /29 12 /17
income distribution [% of population] [1986-95]
richest 20%
48.1
middle 60%
54.9
poorest 20%
6.8
Sources: 1 African Development Bank [1998]
2 World Bank [1998/99]
Zimbabwe
610
26
106
-2.0
51.4
A
I
S
17 38 45
18 31 51
22 25 53
Data
source
1
2
2
1
2
-1.8
1.8
3.3
2
2
2
M
F
84 / 81 91 / 88
7/ 2 2/ 2
10 / 12 8 / 10
2
2
2
62.3
33.7
4.0
2
2
2
Naturally, informants’ economic and social history will influence the pattern of
occupational experimentation. Given the well-entrenched pattern of circular
migration in Zimbabwe it is expected that there will be a high rate of rural-urban
movement and connectivity in the flow of goods and services. In Uganda, circular
migration associated with a formal labour force dominated by men has long
disappeared. Sex ratios in both Kampala and Jinja are balanced [Table 6]. The
rural-urban interactions and mobility patterns more generally are not so readily
conjectured. To some extent the legacy of civil war may have dissolved many
people’s roots with their home areas. The country’s longer experience of the
AIDS epidemic may have caused further disruptions to people’s identification and
interaction with rural home areas.
21
2
2
2
Table 6: Population of Primate and Secondary Cities [2000 estimated]
Sex
Cities
Population
Ratio
1
Harare
1,500,000
1.09
Kampala
902,9002
1.05
Secondary
Bindura
32,000
1.05
Jinja
80,893
1.00
Sources: 1 Zimbabwe, Central Statistical Office
2 Uganda, Bureau of Statistics 2000
3 Rwabwoogo 1998
Type of City
Primate
% below
poverty line
1992/93 1997
21.5
11.5
40.6
24.8
Data
Source
1
2&3
1
2&3
Population at the time of Zimbabwe’s 1992 census was 1,184,169 [Zimbabwe,
Central Statistical Office 1992].
2 Population at the time of Uganda’s 1991 census was 774,241 [Uganda, Bureau
of Statistics 2000].
1
3.4 Research methodology and study phases
3.4.1 Phase I: Identification of transect corridors and general mobility
patterns [projected October 2000-March 2001]
Phase I is designed to broadly map out mobility and the role of transport in
households’ everyday lives. Four sites are chosen to compare and contrast the
transport modality choices and mobility patterns of household members vis-à-vis
the five major activity categorisations listed above.
• Identification of transect corridors in the study area
[Ccc]_[SScc]___[PUcc]___________________[V]______________________[SC]
• Capital city [CC]
- Capital City centre [C] – high and middle income populations
- Squatter settlement within city [SS] – low income populations
• Peri-urban area [PUcc] [approximately 5-15 km away from capital city] –
high, middle and low income populations
• Village [V] [approximately 40-50 km away from capital city]– high, middle
and low income populations
• Secondary city [SC] - high, middle and low income populations
• Collection of background data and statistics on the politics and economics of
Uganda and Zimbabwe as well as published material on the localities within the
transect corridors
22
This is directed at understanding the policies, institutions and processes (referred
to in the livelihoods approach as ‘PIP’).
• Key informant interviews
These interviews will be conducted by the senior national researcher of each
study with the intention of providing a picture of general mobility patterns by
locality and economic strata and identification of mobility constraints and
transport problems. The people to be interviewed should include:
• Local government officials (including those of the Rural District Councils
and Transport Commission)
• Local teachers
• Market traders, bus drivers and transporters
• Police and driving license authorities.
• Focus group interviews about transport, livelihoods and self-assessed poverty
indicators
[urban squatter settlement, secondary city, village] [Senior and Assistant
Researchers]
• Age/Gender groups: youthful [15-25 years], married [25-50] M/F
• Primary school focus group discussion amongst final year students
• Inventory of local transport services [Assistant Researcher]
• Mapping location
• Frequency of services
• Traffic periodicity: peaks and lulls
3.4.2 Phase 2: Research on relationship between transport modal choice
and daily life by economic strata [projected April-July 2001]
This phase is primarily directed at a large household survey that will collect basic
occupational information and data on trip patterns, purpose and timing of all
members on the previous weekday.
• Survey of transport modes, trip purpose and economic livelihoods along the
study area transect corridor
[total sample survey = 360 households
• Capital city centre[Ccc] = 90 households
- high-income neighbourhood [30 households]
- middle-income neighbourhood [30 households]
- squatter settlement [SScc] – low-income [30 households]
• Peri-urban area [PUcc] = 90 households
- high-income [30 households],
- middle-income [30 households]
- low-income [30 households]
• Village [V] = 90 households
- high-income [30 households]
- middle-income [30 households]
23
- low-income [30 households]
• Secondary city [SC] = 90 households
- high-income neighbourhood [30 households],
- middle-income [30 households]
- low-income [30 households]
Data collection at household level from senior male or female:
• Age/Sex head count
• Currently ‘absent’ members of household – Where are they
• Major means of transport used by household
• Means of transport owned by household
• Location and distance to medical centre, school, work
• Would this household be willing to participate in a further study of travel
and economic activities?
Each household member present over 12 years of age [or in their absence
reported by the head of household] asked:
- How long have you lived in this house? Where did you live before?
- Where is your home – how often visited per year?
- Places visited outside city in last year/mode/time away
- Most distant place ever visited – Why? When? How often?
- Do you travel to or from city more/less/same than 10 years ago? Why?
- Listing of modes of transport and trip purpose on previous weekday
- Listing of livelihood activities previous day – what form of asset availability
is critical to each activity?
- Present occupational identification
- List of ancillary economic activities over the past year
- Occupational identification 10 years ago
- What is your most important material possession?
- What do you feel you should own but can’t afford to buy?
- Do you consider yourself a high, average or low-income earner?
- Over the past 10 years has your life improved, stayed the same, or
worsened economically? Why?
3.4.3 Phase 3: Survey of Transport-Livelihood Inter-relationships
[projected August-October 2001]
During this phase, a smaller select sample of households will be surveyed in
order to ascertain the inter-connections between mobility patterns and livelihood
pursuits.
• Detailed survey of intra-household transport/livelihood patterns and transport
diaries of key informants by economic strata and occupation
[10 households lower income, 10 households middle and 10 households upper
income group in each location = 120 households]
24
• transport activities of senior male and female and one younger male and
younger female (under 20 years) over the past week
• origin/destinations, duration, mode of transport, cost
• household ownership of vehicles/means of transport
• most distant location travelled analysis
• attitudes: transport problems, most important accessible service, how
transport needs have changed over last 10 years
• income/expenditure for one week.
3.5 Research dissemination
Dissemination will involve distributing the study’s research findings to a varied
readership of policy makers, development practitioners, academics and the
general public in the immediate study area and country-wide. Target audiences
will be designated by DFID and the research team.
In the early stages, this will entail the physical availability of our six-monthly
progress reports11 and provisional findings to local stakeholders. Interim working
papers and a project website will provide provisional findings emanating from the
pilot studies and the full-scale survey.
Over the course of 2001/02 team members will endeavour to make presentations
and write conference papers for various transport studies fora including SSATP,
SATC, RTTP, ITDP, IFRTD, TRB, UNHABITAT and CODATU.
Following data analysis and report drafting, local workshops will be held in
Uganda and Zimbabwe with stakeholders and interested parties. Feedback from
the workshops will then be used for the final output which will be published as a
TRL report and summarised for various journals and professional institutional
publications. This output will then form the focus of a workshop to be held at
DFID in May or June 2002 where the project’s final report will be presented.
Using the above strategy, we believe we will succeed in achieving wide
dissemination of our research findings.
11
As stipulated by DFID’s KAR funding.
25
4. REFERENCES
African Development Bank [1998] African Development Report 1998. Oxford
University Press.
Akidi, P., C. Kaira, P. Kwamusi, M. Okure and L. Seruwo [1997] ‘Agricultural rural
transport and development – Uganda’. Country paper presented at an East Africa
regional project planning workshop as part of the Agricultural rural transport
research project sponsored by DFID. Thika, Kenya, 2-8 November 1997.
Anderson, M., I. Barwell and J. Howe [1988] Position paper on rural mobility in
developing countries. I.T. Transport Ltd. for Transportation Division,
Infrastructure Department, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Ashley, C. and D. Carney [1999] Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early
experiences. London, Department for International Development.
Barwell, I. [1996] Transport and the village - findings from African village-level
travel and transport surveys and related studies. World Bank Discussion Paper
No. 344, Africa Region Series, Washington, DC.
Baza Tazarn, N. [1999] ‘Mubende-Fort Portal trunk road socio-economic subcomponent: Report on socio-economic development action planning workshop’,
Mubende, Kampala. COWI Uganda.
Benwell, M. [1981] ‘Access to activity, need and welfare: Towards a fuller view of
transport demand’, in Bannister. D. and P. Hall (eds). Transport and Public Policy
Planning. Mansell.
Berkvens, R.J.A. 1997. Backing two horses: Interaction of agricultural and nonagricultural household activities in a Zimbabwean communal area. Leiden.
African Studies Centre Working Paper vol. 24.
Bigsten, A. and S. Kayizzi-Mugerula [1995] ‘Rural sector responses to economic
crisis in Uganda’. Journal of International Development 7 (2). pp.181-209.
Bryceson, D.F. [1997] ‘De-agrarianisation: Blessing or blight?’. in Bryceson, D.F.
and V. Jamal [eds], Farewell to farms: De-agrarianisation and employment in
Africa. Aldershot UK. Ashgate.
Bryceson, D.F. [1999] Sub-Saharan Africa Betwixt and Between: Rural Livelihood
Practices and Policies, Leiden. Africa Studiecentrum, De-agrarianization and
Rural Employment Programme [DARE] Working Paper vol. 43.
26
Bryceson, D.F., C. Kay, and J. Mooij [eds] [2000] Disappearing Peasantries?
Rural Labour in Latin America, Asia and Africa, London, Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Chambers, R. [1987] Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development:
Putting poor rural people first, IDS Discussion Paper 240, Brighton, Institute of
Development Studies.
COWI, ‘Institutional/Financial management study of the maintenance of district
roads in Western and Southern Uganda: Inception report and summary of
conclusions’. Kampala. COWI Uganda.
DANIDA [1998] Road Sector Programme Support Document, Uganda.
Copenhagen
Davis, A. [2000] ‘Transport and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Zambia: A Case
Study’, UK Transport Research Laboratory, Paper presented at the ILO 8 th
Regional seminar for labour-based practitioners, October 13-16, Cairo, Egypt.
Dennis, R. [1998] Rural transport and accessibility – a synthesis paper. RATP
No.1, Development Policies Department, International Labour Office, Geneva.
DFID [1999] Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, April, 1999.
DFID/TRL [1999] Livelihoods of poor people – what contribution can transport
make? Workshop report, 29 March 1999, London, DFID.
Dixon-Fyle, K. [1998] Accessibility planning and local development – the
application possibilities of the IRAP methodology. RATP No.2, Development
Policies Department, International Labour Office, Geneva.
The Economist [1999] ‘At the back of beyond’. Survey Telecommunications,
October 9th.
Edmonds, G. A. [1998] Wasted time – the price of poor access. RATP No.3,
Development Policies Department, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Ellis, F. [2000] Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries, Oxford
University Press.
Fouracre, P.R., A. Astrop and D.A.C. Maunder [1999] Accessibility for the urban
poor. Crowthorne. Transport Research Laboratory Project Report
PR/OSC/153/99V2. July.
27
Gaidzanwa, R.B. [1997] ‘Non-farm activities and gender in Zimbabwe’. in
Bryceson, D.F. and V. Jamal (eds) Farewell to farms: De-agrarianisation and
employment in Africa. Aldershot UK. Ashgate. pp. 157-66.
Grisley, W. [1995] ‘Transport of agricultural commodities by bicycle: Survey on
Bombo Road in Uganda’, Transportation Research Record 1487, 99-105.
Hanmer, L., G. Pyatt and H. White [1997] Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: what
can we learn from the World Bank’s poverty assessments? The Hague. Institute
of Social Studies Advisory Service.
Heraty, M. [1980] Public transport in Kingston, Jamaica and its relation to low
income households, Department of the Environment, Department of Transport
TRRL Report SR546, Crowthorne, UK.
Heyen-Perschon, J. [2000] ‘Bicycle use in urban-rural regions of Uganda: Results
of a socio-economic study in Jinja, Kasese, Mbale and Bushenyi 1996 and 1999’,
FABIO/University of Hamburg, research summary.
Hine, J, and J. Rutter [2000] ‘Roads, personal mobility and poverty - the
challenge’, Transport and Poverty Alleviation Workshop, World Bank 13 th June
2000, UK, Transport Research Laboratory.
Howe, J. [1999] ‘Poverty alleviation: transport policy and socially sustainable
development’, World Bank Transport-Expo ’99: Transport for People in the New
Millennium. Washington DC. April 12-16.
Howe. J. and D.F. Bryceson 2000. Poverty and urban transport in East African
Review of research and Dutch donor experience, Institute of Infrastructural
Hydraulics and Environmental Engineering, Delft. Consultancy report submitted
to the World Bank.
Iliya, M. and K. Swindell 1997. ‘Winners and loser: Household fortunes in the
urban peripheries of Northern Nigeria’. in Bryceson, D.F. and V. Jamal [eds],
Farewell to farms: De-agrarianisation and employment in Africa. Aldershot UK.
Ashgate.
Jacobs, G.D., D.A.C. Maunder and P.R. Fouracre [1980] ‘Transport problems of
the urban poor in developing countries’. Transport Research for Social and
Economic Progress. vol 3. pp.1644-56.
Jones, P.M., M.C. Dix, M.I. Clarke and I.G. Heggie [1987] Understanding travel
behaviour. Aldershot UK. Gower. second reprint.
Jones, S.R. [1981] Accessibility measures: A literature review. Department of
Transport. Crowthorne. Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report 967.
28
Kinsey, B. [2000] Mainstays and sidelines: Temporal dimensions of rural
livelihoods with enhanced opportunities provided by land reform. Manchester.
Institute of Development Policy and Management. Working Paper 21.
Kleih, U., W. Odwongo, C. Ndyashangaki [1999] ‘Community access to
marketing opportunities: Uganda case study’. Chatham Maritime UK. Natural
Resources Institute.
Kwakye, E. A. ,P. R. Fouracre and D. Ofosu-Dorte [1997] Developing strategies
to meet the transport needs of the urban poor in Ghana. World Transport Policy
& Practice. 3/1, 8-14.
Lawson, C. and N. Mevenn [2000] 'Bringing cellular phone service to rural areas Grameen Telecom and village pay phones in Bangladesh', Viewpoint Note No.
205. March [The World Bank].
Leyland, J. [1999] Rural travel and transport in Western Uganda. DFID/Uganda
consultancy report.
Malmberg-Calvo, C. [1992] Intermediate means of transport: Women and rural
transport in Eastern Uganda. Working paper 3, Case studies on intermediate
means of transport and the role of women in rural transport. Geneva.
International Labor Organization.
Matshalaga, N.R. [1997] The Gender Dimensions of Urban Poverty: The Case of
Tafara. Institute of Development Studies. University of Zimbabwe.
Maunder, D.A.C. [1984] Trip rates and travel patterns in Delhi, India. Crowthorne,
UK. Transport Research Laboratory. RR1.
Mitchell, C.G.B. and S.W. Town [1977] Accessibility of various social groups to
different activities. Crowthorne. Transport and Road Research Laboratory
Supplementary Report 258.
Morrissey, O. [2000] ‘Uganda: The burden of being landlocked’, Insights Id21
[DFID/IDS]. June 2000.
Muzvidziwa, V. [2001] ‘Zimbabwe’s cross-border women traders: Multiple
identities and responses to new challenges’. in Bank, L. and D.F. Bryceson (eds).
Livelihoods, linkages and policy paradoxes. Special Issue of the Journal of
Contemporary African Studies 19 (1).
Pearse, A. 1980, Seeds of plenty, seeds of want: Social and economic
implications of the Green Revolution, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
29
Pedersen, P.O. [1997] ‘Rural diversification in Zimbabwe’. in Bryceson, D.F. and
V. Jamal (eds) Farewell to farms: De-agrarianisation and employment in Africa.
Aldershot UK. Ashgate. pp. 166-84.
Porter, G. [1988] ‘Trade, mobility and gender in a rural market system’. Tijdschrift
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie.
Porter, G. [1997] ‘Mobility and inequality in rural Nigeria’. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie
Potts, D. [1995] ‘Shall we go home? Increasing urban poverty in African cities
and migration processes’, The Geographical Journal 161 (3). pp.245-64.
Potts, D. [1999] ‘Worker-peasants and farmer-housewives in Africa: The debate
about ‘committed’ farmers, access to land and agricultural production’. Paper
presented at the African Environments: Past and Present Conference, St.
Antony’s, Oxford, 5-8 July.
Potts, D. 2000. ‘Urban unemployment and migrants in Africa: Evidence from
Harare, 1985-94’. Development and Change 31 (40). pp. 879-910.
Roberts, P.W.D.H., P.R. Fouracre and D.A.C. Maunder [2000] Mobility in the
livelihoods of poor people. CODATU IX Conference, Mexico city, 11-14 April.
Ross, W. [2000] 'Mobility and accessibility - the ying and yang of planning', World
Transport Policy & Practice, Volume 6, Number 2, pp.13-19.
Rwabwoogo, M.O. [1998] Uganda Districts Information Handbook. Kampala.
Fountain Publishers.
Scoones, 1. [I998] Sustainable rural livelihoods - a framework for analysis, IDS
Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, June.
Sohail, M. [2000] Urban public transport and sustainable livelihoods for the poor:
A case study of Karachi, Pakistan, Loughborough University, Water, Engineering
and Development Centre.
Tacoli, C. [1998] 'Rural-urban interactions: A guide to the literature', in C. Tacoli
[ad.] Beyond the rural-urban divide, Special issue of Environment and
Urbanization 10 [1], pp.147-66.
Tacoli, C. [ed.] [2000] Draft typescripts of International Institute for Environment
and Development [IIED]-sponsored rural-urban linkages studies in Tanzania.
London. IIED.
30
Tolley, R.S. and B.J. Turton [1995] Transport systems, policy and planning: a
geographical approach. London. Longman.
Uganda, Bureau of Statistics [2000] 2000 Statistical Abstract. Kampala. June
2000.
World Bank [1998/99] World Bank Africa database 1998/99, CD-ROM.
Zimbabwe, Central Statistical Office [1992]. Census 1992, Census preliminary
Report. Harare.
Zimbabwe, Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare [1997]. 1995
poverty assessment study survey, Main Report. Harare.
31
ANNEX A: RESEARCH PROPOSAL LOGFRAME
Narrative summary
Goal
(F1):
As defined in 1.c)
Improve the mobility of the
rural and urban poor for
meeting their livelihood
needs
Measurable indicators
F1):
Means of verification
(F1):
1. Mobility and access
needs quantified.
2. Indicators
established for
comparative
assessment of mobility
and access needs
International comparison
with alternative
assessment procedures
Purpose: As defined in 1.b)
Investigate the utility of the
sustainable livelihoods
approach in identifying the
mobility and access needs
of the poor with specific
reference to rural-urban
linkages.
Outputs:
1. Establishment of
logically consistent mobility
and access concepts within
the sustainable livelihoods
framework, supported by
empirical evidence.
2. Successful
dissemination of
authoritative and practical
knowledge and guidelines
which demonstrate:
a. How the sustainable
livelihoods approach can
be used to identify the
mobility and access needs
of the poor necessary to
sustain livelihoods.
b. The nature of ruralurban linkages, the activity
patterns they generate,
and the role that transport
plays in supporting the
livelihoods of the poor.
c. Measures that can be
adopted to ensure pro-poor
mobility and access
policies.
Important assumptions
No input required
(Purpose to goal)
Donor agencies in
collaborating (and
other) countries adopt
guidelines within two
years of project
completion.
Verify their existence and
quality
1. A final report ,
published by TRL/IHE
which records the
findings and
recommendations from
the work.
2. Associated papers
for journals and/or
conferences.
3. Web-site page
indicating progress and
findings.
4. Local workshops to
disseminate findings.
5. Increased research
capabilities of the
Ugandan and
Zimbabwean
collaborators
1. The number of reports
requested through
TRL/IHE library records
and web-site hits.
2. Conference
proceedings.
3. Web-site hits and
follow-up.
4. Number of participants
attending workshops,
and evaluation of their
content and presentation.
5. Local collaborators coauthor and present
papers
32
F1):
That the sustainable
livelihoods approach
provides a viable means
of identifying the mobility
and access needs of the
poor
(Output to purpose)
1. That the sustainable
livelihoods approach
provides a viable means
of identifying the mobility
and access needs of the
poor.
2. That the findings are
robust, rigorous and
relevant.
Activities:
Narrative summary
1.Confirm research
approach and case-study
locations.
2.Establish web-page to
be up-dated periodically
over project life
3.Prepare survey
procedures and
instruments.
4.Undertake pilot work
with overseas
collaborators
5.Revise survey
procedures and materials
as appropriate
6.Implement full-scale
surveys in case-study
areas.
7.Analysis of results and
preparation of working
reports.
8.Undertake local
workshops with DFID
made aware of
participants.
9.Preparation and
dissemination of final
documentation.
Measurable indicators
1. Quarterly progress
reports will monitor the
status of activities.
2. Functioning web-site.
3. Working Paper
detailing survey
instruments and
procedures.
4. A Working Paper will
be produced for each
case-study area.
5. Proceedings of
workshops produced.
6. Draft final report
produced.
7. Final report produced
and published by
TRL/IHE.
Means of verification
Management information
sources, and the normal
reporting procedures
required by DFID.
33
(Activity to output)
Important assumptions
1. Opportunities for case
study work can be
effected.
2. Staffing is stable.
3. Overseas collaborators
can meet their
assignments in an
effective manner.
4. Stakeholders take a
positive interest in the
work.
ANNEX B: MOBILITY AND WELFARE12
Since, fundamentally, we are concerned with the role of transport policy as welfare
policies in the broadest sense, it is useful to relate what is known of the operation of
transport demand (D) to welfare theory. This can be done at a simplistic level by taking
the simple welfare model:
Utility = f(I,P,S) / D
and expressing it in the following form:
Figure 1 The relationship of transport demand to welfare theory
Income
Preferences
Supply Constraints
Consumption
Welfare level
From such a model it becomes possible to show how welfare is determined in terms
which relate to the activity system and to transport (Figure 2).
12
Based on the work of Benwell 1981.
34
Figure 2 Welfare levels as determined by the activity and transport systems
(A) Mobility Characteristics
(B) Preferences
(C) Supply
income, personal mode
availability, personal
physical characteristics,
etc.
activity, preferences, the
extent to which they are
discretionary, their
substitutability and relative
value.
spatial and temporal
distribution of facilities,
transport supply, timing of
availability, etc.
Activity system
Welfare level
Of the three components cited, the spatial interaction component (C), suggested under
the term 'supply characteristics', is undoubtedly, the best developed and the most
familiar. Knowledge about personal mobility or potential mobility (component (A) in the
framework) can be derived from movement-focused studies of transport. However, the
actual relationship between movement levels and personal characteristics has often
been inferential with the consequent absence of a conceptual link. Nevertheless, there is
a reasonable base suggested here within which this explanation can be developed.
Component (B) (figure 2) forms the set of factors about which the present state of
understanding is limited. The reason for this is that this group, expressing preferences
and motivations, constitutes the most distinctive component of a welfare perspective on
transport as opposed to one based in revealed demand. This requires an understanding
of both the contents of the activity budgets of individuals and sub-groups, and of the
ordering of their priorities and their trade-offs among these activities. In particular, an
examination of any systematic patterns of association between preference patterns and
more visible indicators is essential.
The general model presented here might tend to imply that we can examine the factorsets independently. This is not so. One of the problems that we have to face is the
complex interactions which exist between the separate components in figure 2 (for
example, the lowering of expectation which occurs among populations with low levels of
fixed facilities provision, a variable developed by feedback between components (B) and
(C)).
A number of important functions can be claimed for this framework, given the current
state of knowledge:
35
[i] By disaggregating the components of welfare in transport-relevant terms,
the formulation is highly suggestive both of general research areas and of
particular research designs. It highlights the need for control of potentially
intervening variables, both within one factor set and in their across-set
interactions.
[ii] It provides an integrative framework (albeit at present at far too general a
level) against which to appraise existing areas of knowledge, and to
specify future research needs in relation to that knowledge.
[iii] In relation to policy design, it enables us to take account of the fact that
transport-relevant policies may operate at the level of the individual, the
household, or the transport-land use system. Indeed, it may not
necessarily fall within a 'transport' remit in terms of relevant policy
instruments.
[iv] The framework can also constitute a common conceptual base for both
researchers and practitioners in policy-making, and allow a dialogue to
take place.
36