lable at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics 29 (2010) 275e279

Contents lists avai

Research in Transportation Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /retrec

Workshop report e Social inclusion

Janet Stanley a,*, Corinne Mulley b

aMonash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australiab Institute of Transport and Logistic Studies, The University of Sydney, Australia

Keywords:TransportSocial inclusionPolicyResearchCostebenefitMobility

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: Janet.Stanley@msi.monash.edu.au

0739-8859/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.034

a b s t r a c t

The topic of social inclusion is now maturing in the Thredbo conference series, being viewed as animportant consideration in many aspects of land transport, the benefits extending beyond the sociallyexcluded targeted population. The social inclusion workshop included presentations on new empiricalevidence on the value of providing those at risk of social exclusion with mobility options, and how thislinks to improvements in personal wellbeing, often through mediating influences such as social capital.Work was presented on the role of transport services specifically targeted to those at risk of exclusion,particularly taxi services and school bus services, as well as how to modify fare structures to maximiseinclusion in an efficient, mature transport system. The value of Universal Design principles to groups bothat risk of being excluded as well as the current travelling public, was shown. The workshop affirmed theimportance of including these wider benefits of inclusion in costebenefit evaluations of transport. Theissue of how best to move knowledge into strategic and operational policy, and the transferability of bothknowledge and policy between different countries and settings, was discussed. This paper concludeswith suggestions arising from the workshop in relation to policy and research, as well as recommen-dations for Thredbo 12.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Thredbo conference series held its second workshop onland transport and social inclusion at Thredbo 11. There was a widerange of issues articulated in the workshop which demonstratedthat social inclusion, like sustainability, is a framework or contextthrough which many of the strategic, tactical and operationalresponses can be approached. This suggests that the issue of socialinclusion and its relationship with land transport has maturedsince Thredbo 10 with the concept of social exclusion itself and itsimportance in transport provision being well understood.

This paper overviews some of the underlying themes discussedin the workshop. The dominant theme to emerge was the way inwhich social inclusion was viewed by workshop participants asbeing far from marginal, both from the perspective of many publictransport patrons or potential patrons and operators. The work-shop reported on theory building within the transport/socialinclusion space, as well as linking this new knowledge with thebroader field of social inclusion and an increasing recognition of theimportance of mobility to wellbeing.

(J. Stanley).

All rights reserved.

Understanding the issues of social inclusion across differenteconomies and cultural environments and the viability of gen-eralising learnings was an important context for many of thediscussions. Can or should a particular transport system and policycontext which is effective in one environment be generalised toanother? Transport policy development to facilitate inclusion andaddress disadvantage was another underlying theme, as wasoperational and practical ways to overcome barriers in policydevelopment. Finally, the issue of where financial resources shouldbe best spent to achieve inclusion was discussed. This includedissues around the assessment of the benefits and costs of optionsand how these should be integrated into the wider evaluationframework in the development of policy, how the costs of socialinclusion measures should be met given the benefits of inclusionextend well beyond the targeted population to society as a whole.

These issues are now presented in greater detail. Many othersubjects were raised including some concern about the lack ofintegration of transport and social inclusion issues within otherconference topics. Other subjects included the place of sustainabletransport and social inclusion in the context of climate change andthe role of transport to achieving intermediate inclusionary stepssuch as building social capital or networks of contacts as an aid toinclusion. This paper then reflects on developments in the fieldsince the previous Thredbo conference, and gives recommenda-tions in relation to policy and research and content for Thredbo 12.

J. Stanley, C. Mulley / Research in Transportation Economics 29 (2010) 275e279276

2. Social inclusion is not a marginal issue in transport

With the exceptions of transport safety and travel time, andthese largely in developed economies, the integration of socialpolicy within the transport policy context is a relatively underde-veloped area. While the value of the provision of transport optionsfor those who are experiencing disadvantage is increasingly beingrecognised (Currie & Stanley, 2008), how best to meet this needthrough policy generally and through the framework of socialexclusion, has had little examination. Yet a significant minority ofthe population in developed economies and a majority of people indeveloping countries (anecdotally said to be 70% in Brazil), doexperience social exclusion, including elements which are trans-port related. Indeed, the large size of the informal transport systemin developing countries and the growing size of communitytransport in many developed economies are testimonies to thefailure of conventional transport systems to meet the mobilityneeds of socially excluded people.

Discussions in the workshop also raised the problem of anincrease in the size of the population of people at risk of socialexclusion, necessitating an increasing access public mobilityoptions. As the traditionally classified developing economies moveto a more Western life-style, the need to be able to travel becomesincreasingly recognised as mobility becomes increasingly viewedas an expression of wellbeing. The growth in absolute numbers ofolder people in some countries, increases the number of potentiallytransport disadvantaged individuals as does increasing inter-country migration where research has found a high incidence ofsocial exclusion and low mobility characteristics. In addition, thereare events on the horizon, such as the increasing vulnerabilitybrought about by climate change itself and policy around climatechange, suggesting an upward trajectory for the numbers of peoplewith transport vulnerabilities.

The argument for far stronger links between transport policy andunderstanding the social and environmental contexts, in addition tothe economic context, was made by a number of the workshopcontributions. Good inclusive transport policy demonstrates thatunmet demand for transport as well as the inclusion of a potentiallysizeable untapped market can be economically met in those areaswhere transport services are currently poor or non-existent, espe-cially in the urban fringe and rural areas (Mulley 2009).

Tailoring public transport mainly for the mass market, andparticularly the travel to work segment, has led to many transportissues being overlooked, a point well make in the workshop paperby Odeck, Hagen, and Fearnely (2009). Investigation of improve-ments in vehicle and system design to accommodate special needgroups has led to the development of a concept labelled ‘UniversalDesign’which features improvements for all of the public transportusers. Universal Design is a concept covering the design of infra-structure, transportation systems or their surroundings to accom-modate the widest range of potential users, regardless of theirimpairments or special needs. Features normally introduced andtargeted at improving access for specific groups were shown toimprove the travel experience for all. This includes measures suchas lower floors on vehicles, elevated bus stops with good lighting,wider passages in vehicles and automatic doors. The authors notethat these improvements are not commonly evaluated becausethey are felt to be of value only to the subset of the travelling publicwho have a disability. However, incorporating such features into allinfrastructure and vehicles not only provides economies of scale insupply but also provides a signal to those with particular accessi-bility needs that their travel needs will be met and allows theirtravel to be confidently met without the need for alternative andless cost effective travel options being available, such as a commu-nity bus and special purpose taxi.

3. New research knowledge

Workshop members reported new research on the linksbetween mobility, social inclusion and wellbeing, on mobilityoptions for rural locations in developed and developing countries,including school buses, as well as the benefits of UniversalDesign.

Large scale Australian research based in a major urban cityenvironment (Melbourne) reported an inverse relationshipbetween propensity to be socially excluded and the amount oftravel undertaken. More specifically, the greater the number offactors which place a person at risk of social exclusion, the less tripsthat person makes, the less distance they travel and the less likelythey are to own a car (Currie et al. 2009). However, the picture iscomplex as those experiencing exclusion are also less likely to usepublic transport than those who are included. Perhaps moreimportantly their transport disadvantage may be difficult touncover as there is no statistical difference in reporting of transportdifficulties between the excluded and included. This may in part bedue to the fact that those at risk of social exclusion engage in feweractivities and that they are more likely to see the barriers tomobility in personal socio-economic terms, rather than due toinfrastructure problems or lack of provision issues. Such people atrisk of social exclusion also hold the belief that they have littlecontrol over their external environment (Stanley et al., in press).

In terms of relating wellbeing and social exclusion, the work-shop discussed the result from the Melbourne study where it wasfound that those people at risk of exclusion rate their wellbeing asgood when they are able to maintain bonding social networks, thatis, if they have a certain level of contact with their close family andnear neighbours (Stanley et al. 2009). However, these studyparticipants may well be excluded from the broader society(community contacts and employment) as they typically tookfewer trips and thus had lower levels of bridging networks(contacts with wider society).

The workshop also considered the strategies of those at risk ofsocial exclusionwhowere transport disadvantaged. Lower mobilitychoices were ‘coped’ with by either struggling to pay vehicleexpenses or they adjusted to life without a car (Currie et al. 2009).Those on low income with high car ownership tended to be youngfamilies with children. Those who gave up car ownership tended tobe older people, living alone on a pension and often in rentedaccommodation. Interestingly, those forgoing a car often locatedthemselves where they could walk to services with about one-thirdof these respondents saying they were better off not owning a car.Groups with the lowest wellbeing and highest social exclusionwere more likely to have low income, poor health and a disability,be older, and often female.

The Australian study also examined the value of an additionaltrip to the individual. On average, an additional trip was priced as$A19.30 but this value is strongly influenced by income with theamount rising rapidly as incomes fall. This compares with muchlower values currently used in Australia suggesting thatincreasing transport provisions may provide a good outcome inthe use of public funds when evaluated alongside other policyinitiatives.

The need for a holistic view of how to best meet travel needswas reinforced in work done by Mulley (2009). Mulley reported onthe value of taxi-based services for people at risk of social exclusionin rural locations, making a comparison of the economics betweenthose operating in mainland Europe and the UK. The resultsshowed that the greatest cost effectiveness occurredwhen schemesare dedicated services, covering a large spatial area to generateeconomies of scale and have the certainty of permanence to allowfamiliarity and patronage to grow.

J. Stanley, C. Mulley / Research in Transportation Economics 29 (2010) 275e279 277

4. Synergies across varying social structures and economies

Planning for social needs in transport raises many questions inrelation to our present knowledge base. What are the broad prin-ciples which can be generalised across countries, such as the valueof transport to those at risk of social exclusion? For example, canknowledge gained in one country be transferred to another or canthe same transport planning principles be applied to the UK,Australia, Singapore, Norway and Brazil? If not, at what point doestheir universality cease and local knowledge and conditionsbecome more important?

The issue is well illustrated by the use of buses to take studentsto school where the nature of the service differs enormously acrossthe world. In Australia, school buses are owned by operators, butsubsidized and regulated by government with different specificsubsidies/regulations in different states. There is a movement tobroaden the use of school buses to include fare paying passengersso as to enablemuch higher utilization of the highly comprehensivebus network which exists in rural areas. It could be argued that theschool bus system offers the most inclusive public transport systemin Australia, a right not extended to people attending healthservices, accessing employment, social networking or emergencyevacuation. In Singapore, school children access public transport ina system organised by individual schools. In Brazil, many childrentravel long distances over difficult terrain to reach schools andwhere there appears to be a strong need to introduce standards interms of safety and travel time. Thus a universal need is recognisedproviding synergies across states but differences in policy approachare very evident.

5. Socially inclusive transport policy

While research is beginning to demonstrate the important roleof travel options for wellbeing and inclusion, this knowledge isyet to permeate through to comprehensive policy developmentwhich is integrated with strategic transport planning. Indeed, asnoted above, the failure of transport planning to provide wide-spread integrated services has often led to a patchwork responsewith programs being rolled out that are geographically restricted,often expensive and short lived as with many of the UK schemesfor isolated people (Mulley 2009) or which leave large servicegaps for people on a low income who have chosen their livinglocation largely on the basis of housing affordability (Currie et al.,2009).

The issue of how to provide adequate transport to mitigatetransport disadvantage and enhance wellbeing also needs to beaddressed at the operational level of policy implementation toensure that transport operator rewards are tailored to achieve thebest outcome. For example, a requirement for a minimum numberof passengers or the adherence to strict timetables in all circum-stances does not take account of different needs and value oftransport for different people, as demonstrated by Currie et al.(2009) in the different valuations on an additional trip.

The huge task of policy development and service provision forsocial inclusion was well illustrated in two Brazilian papers.Moreira da Cruz, Camara and Guilherme de Aragao (2009) reportedon the difficulties of establishing contracts, regulations and stan-dards for a school bus program in rural areas of Brazil, especiallywhere the current system is often inadequate, poorly funded andcommonly operating on poor road infrastructure. While theschooling and transport to school is a free service, school transportfailures has led to some children being unable to participate ineducation, others may be excluded through being unable to engagewith education due to fatigue from many hours of travel. Safetyissues were also a priority concern.

Related to this was the paper by Menezes et al. (2009) whichexamined the direct and indirect costs of the provision of schooltransport in Brazil and how best tomeasure this in a context of highvariability in conditions. It was proposed that to ensure safety,a standardization of vehicle design should take place but whetherthis is the best option must be debated when there is such widevariation in costs per kilometre (ranging from R$1.40 to R$4.70 inreported case studies of 34 municipalities) and varying abilityto fund services. With a high priority to achieve a safe passage toeducation in a situation of low financial resources, it is important tohave a policy which enshrines flexibility and to tailor this to localcircumstances as shown by the example of providing a life-jacketfor each child, for school children travelling by boat to school.

To many, public transport in Singapore is a success story with itsnon reliance on subsidy accompanied by high patronage and goodservices. However, in Singapore the concern is for those potentiallyexcluded by the level of fares. Looi and Tan (2009) report thedevelopment of a long-term approach to fare structure in Singa-pore’s public transport system, which takes into account fairness interms of operator commercial interests and the maintenance ofservice quality for passengers. Public transport is privately oper-ated, with 62% of the mode share in peak times and 58% over thewhole day. The approach to pricing has been maintained throughthe implementation of other transport improvements, such asa contactless smart card ticketing system and reform whichremoves transport transfer penalities and the encouragement ofa distance-based through-fare structure. Over time the cost of a triphas been capped, taking into account changes in the CPI and wagesand a sharing of productivity gains between transport operatorsand passengers. This has resulted in a small increase in faresaccompanied by regulatory oversight on service quality.

Fare affordability has been tracked in Singapore and this has ledto concern for the affordability of public transport for the 20% ofhouseholds with the lowest income. In order to reduce the risk ofsocial exclusion for this group, a public transport fund was estab-lished in 2006, with funds from the government and operators,which is disbursed through community organisations. Issues ofexclusion remain as the provision of concession fares is theresponsibility and at the discretion of transport operators.

Whilst the Singapore system has the objective of maximisingequity for both operators and the majority of the travelling public,the process for monitoring ‘affordability’ excludes the lowestquintile from the calculation. Planned reconsideration of theconcessionary fare system should go some way to addressing thispolicy conundrum to achieve clear social objectives. However, asreported above, research in Australia has shown that thosewith thehighest risks of social exclusion do undertake less trips. In somecases, travel for highly disadvantaged people in Australia is alsosubsidized by charitable organisations which provide money forfares or petrol, a service often limited to health needs, exceptionalneeds or emergencies. As with Singapore, there is the risk that anad hoc approach to resolving transport disadvantage can lead toindividuals missing out and the imposition of value judgmentsabout the worthiness of people and trips.

Mulley (2009) examined how smaller vehicles which are cen-trally co-ordinated and flexibly delivered could provide transportservices for people who are not able to access public transportservices, largely due to rural isolation. Nine case-studies frommainland Europe and the UK clarified that certain conditions wereneeded to increase the viability of the schemes, especially aroundsize and permeability, as noted above. Mulley (2009) showed howthe cost of a national scheme in the UK which provided a collectivetaxi service to those most in need (taking account of the level ofrurality, the level of deprivation and the level of access to services)could be met out of the existing subsidies paid in public transport

J. Stanley, C. Mulley / Research in Transportation Economics 29 (2010) 275e279278

support, and special need subsidies without requiring additionalsubsidy to be put into the system. The collective taxi-based servicecould be part of public transport provision, replacing someconventional services where there was not sufficient demand.Incorporating smaller collectively used vehicles into the publictransport supply was an effective public transport policy in manyparts of mainland Europe. However, there is no user based researchto report on how such systems are perceived by those currentlyusing conventional services when they are replaced by these moreflexible services.

6. The benefits and costs of inclusive policy

An important underlying themewhich incorporatesmany of theissues raised above is the way in which changes to the transportsystem are evaluated. In particular, as policy makers begin tointroduce more inclusive transport policy so must the evaluationprocess reflect the benefits of social inclusion. Odeck et al. (2009)show that the use of Universal Design can provide high benefitcost ratios. For example, improvements to lighting at bus stopsprovided a benefit cost ratio which exceeded 25, a level virtuallyunheard of in conventional transport evaluation. This high benefitcost ratio was not dependent on high levels of patronage, as theimprovements had a break-even point at 5000 passengers per year,or 10 to 20 per day. Other aspects of Universal Design, such as low-floor buses and the implementation of high kerbstones at bus stops,provided lower but still good value for money. This demonstratesthat a better understanding of especially the benefits of inclusionwould lead to much more viability of inclusion projects over othermore capital intensive projects.

The high benefit cost ratios referred to above were achievedwithout consideration of all possible benefits, for example factorssuch as greater efficiencies to the bus company through timesavings because of faster passenger load times, as well as, the costsavings by passengers being able to obtain health care, educationand employment. The proper evaluation of benefits from inclusivepolicies and projects was an issue raised at Thredbo 10 and it isa task where it is hoped therewill be some progress for Thredbo 12.

The evaluation of benefits applies over the whole scale ofactivities. For example in Brazil, where the critical issue is the sizeof the task and resources needed to establish a comprehensiveschool bus system, a review of broader benefits and opportunitieswould be of great value. Menezes et al. (2009) refer to the addedvalue to the community of the provision of a school bus system butnot to quantifying or assessing this benefit. Other policies notedabove, such as the move to a lessening of the boundaries betweena public bus system and school bus services presently beingconsidered in Australia, will have benefits that could be quantifiedand used to justify the more inclusive policy. Such a practice ofusing public transport to serve the needs of different passengers islikely to bring much wider benefits to the community and perhapssome opportunities for some cost recovery from a fare payingpublic. Similar policy suggestions were made in the work oncollective taxis by Mulley (2009), where the use of a taxi service forschool children in rurally isolated areas would increase the costeffectiveness of the service.

7. Conclusions

Thredbo 11 made a clear step forward in moving the discussionon social inclusion from definitional issues to more substantialissues. Discussion centred on how to best meet demand needs,these issues being developed on a small but growing empiricalknowledge base. The question is now around how this newknowledge is being translated into policy, whether and where

evidence in one country is transferable to others and where policyshould be tailored to specific political and economic conditions, aswell as particular need.

The major learnings or broad principles for transport planningfrom the papers and discussion can be outlined as follows:

� The ability to bemobile for inclusion in contemporary society isincreasingly being recognised, with a growing evidence base ofthe links between mobility, social inclusion and wellbeing.

� The benefits of mobility need to be viewedmore broadly than itis conventionally undertaken, in terms of the value to bothindividuals and society generally in terms of improved well-being, health and everything that is subsumed under this, suchas reduced payment of welfare benefits. Services with lowerpatronage or high subsidies which offer inclusion benefitsbecome better value for money when these benefits areincluded in assessments.

� Adjusting the transport system to cater for the particular needsof those at risk of exclusion carries benefits for many passen-gers, with the evidence that Universal Design principles arecost effective.

� While the shaping of particular policy needs to account forspecific country conditions, evidence between countries isoften broadly transferable. This could be seen in the changes inschool bus and alternative transport systems being consideredin Brazil, Australia and the UK.

� The challenges of climate change will place additionalrequirements to meet the transport needs of those at risk ofsocial exclusion. However, there are clear synergies betweenimproving transport options for those at risk of exclusion andmoving the land transport systems towards environmentallysustainable options. Improving public transport (frequency andcoverage), providing for options which have low or no green-house gas by products (walking and cycling) and improvedurban design which reduces the need for travel, will achieveboth inclusive and sustainable outcomes.

The importance of maintaining a social exclusion workshopstream should not serve to promulgate social inclusion as a sepa-rate issue to the other Thredbo agendas. The principles of makinginclusive policies need to be an integral part of discussions onissues such as service contracts, efficient and effective transportsystems, network planning and growing patronage.

8. Policy recommendations

The following policy recommendations have arisen from theworkshop:

� While there are common broad principles that hold acrossdifferent countries, specific policy needs to be tailored forspecific situations and particular vulnerabilities. Solutionsneed to be ground in flexible responses, with an infrastructureresponse (such as new buses) being appropriate in some casesand targeted subsidy in others.

� The development of good policy can learn from the experiencegained elsewhere. For example, much can be learned from theinformal or community transport sector on how best to meetneed for specific user groups.

� New infrastructure should include the idea of Universal Design.This may be easier to achieve when infrastructure costs areseparated from commercial operations. However subsidies toachieve Universal Design should not be ruled out, and otherapproaches such as an extension of the length of an operator’s

J. Stanley, C. Mulley / Research in Transportation Economics 29 (2010) 275e279 279

contract to allow greater return on investments might beanother alternative.

� Better use of existing infrastructure is the first option toconsider. This could include changes to provide mixedpassenger purpose e for example using school buses to givetrips to the general public as well as school children, wherethere is available space. This could also include better utiliza-tion of the vehicle stock so that downtime on a special purposebus (such as a school bus or a community transport bus) couldbe used for other transport needs. Better use of existinginfrastructure means finding the way to break down thetraditional barriers of mode, purpose and passenger type.

� Transport policy needs to give much more weight to the linkswith land-use planning and location as a way of minimisingrisk of exclusion to vulnerable groups. Such an approachminimizes the need for transport and provides better access toactivities.

� Especially in the sphere of evaluation, transport policy needs totake into account present knowledge on the benefits ofmobility to those at risk of social exclusion, as well as the longerterm benefits to society of a large independent populationwithhigh levels of wellbeing. The short run costs of providinggreater mobility options may be far outweighed by the higherlonger term costs associated with issues like poor health andwelfare dependency.

� Coordination of the different areas of policy between govern-ment departments is essential to get a holistic overview. Theoperation of silos means that the incentive to ameliorateexclusion may not exist as the costs fall on the transportdepartment but the benefits may accrue to a differentdepartment such as that responsible for health or education.

9. Research recommendations

The following recommendations for research were made in theworkshop:

� There is a need for continuous building of empirical knowledgeon the role of mobility for those who are at risk of socialexclusion and how best to meet this need.

� The wider benefits of inclusion need to be quantified to facili-tate more accurate project evaluation. This should includefactors such as:B Health impacts (the value of regular contact, the costs of

missed appointments)B Employment impacts (costs to communities of economic

exclusion)B Psychological impacts (alienation from society and mental

health, lack of societal cohesion, impact of higher crime,impact on suicide rates)

B Educational impact (effect on literacy rates)B Time poverty (easier mobility allows more time to be spent

productively on other areas of life)� There is a need for a better understanding on the preferences ofthe potentially excludedB in respect of needs for travelB in respect of preferred solutions to travel needs

� Research is needed on the implications of growth in socialexclusion and the transport response to meet this need,

particularly focusing on the effects of an ageing population andthe adverse impact of climate change which will place a largerproportion of populations in poverty, in both developed anddeveloping countries.

10. Recommendations for Thredbo 12

The following recommendations arose from the workshop inrelation to Thredbo 12:

� There is a need to include a plenary session on day one onsocial inclusion which should be a world overview of the topicrather than country based.

� The Social Inclusion workshop should be retained with newtitle that reflects the relevance of the topic for competition andownership of land passenger transport.

� Social inclusion needs to be better integrated into discussionson transport policy. Papers for Thredbo 12 should be selected tobe presented in other workshops as a way of highlighting theimportance and relevance of social inclusion to the whole ofthe policy debate. Possible discussion topics could include:B Evidence in success in reducing social exclusion through the

better provision of transport.B Policy links between social exclusion, climate change and

sustainable growth of patronage.B Innovative ways of marketing and service provision to target

socially excluded peopleB Standards and specifications for achieving an inclusive

transport provision and minimum service levelsB Measuring the wider benefits of public transport services.B The impact for operating contracts on mainstreaming public

transport options originally designed to meet the need ofsocially excluded people

B Evidence of corporate social responsibility.B The role of informal transport in the public transport mix in

developing and developed countriesB Further discussion on the role of school transport

References

Workshop Presentations

Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., et al.(2009). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusionand well-being in Melbourne e an update on results.

Looi, T., & Tan, K. (2009). Singapore’s case for institutional arrangements for fareaffordability.

Moreira da Cruz, R., Camara, M., & Guilherme de Aragao, J. (2009). Contracting outrural school transport: A Brazilian handbook for municipal practice.

Mulley, C. (2009). Promoting social inclusion in a deregulated environment:extending accessibility using collective taxi-based services.

Odeck, J., Hagen, T., & Fearnely, N. (2009). Economic appraisal of universal design intransport: experiences from Norway.

Stanley, J., Stanley, J., Currie, G., & Vella-Brodrick, D. The place of transport infacilitating social inclusion via the mediating influence of social capital, in press

Other references

Currie, G., & Stanley, J. (2008). Investigating links between social capital and publictransport. Transport Reviews, 28(4), 529e547.