︎ MobilityByDensity
A density based approach to mobility through the lens of both physical and digital infrastructure.
By Will Deutsch ︎
The number of elderly people is continuing to grow worldwide- and increased age is associated with lower levels of mobility. The impact of losing mobility can be significant in terms of rate of disease, quality of life, general health, and social isolation.3 Through interventions targeting physical and digital infrastructure at varying urban density levels, there are opportunities to improve mobility in aging populations as they continue to increase. In urban areas characterized by high density, I propose small scale physical interventions to promote walkability such as redesigning or renovating existing bus stops. In a rural context, where mobility is based around personal vehicular transportation, I propose a focus on digital mobility aimed at helping provide access and education to those that do not already have it.
The discussion of optimal mobility typically focuses on physical movement, but I argue there is a missing piece in the definition. While looking at movement in the digital era, we must consider digital factors in peoples ability to have “relative ease and freedom of movement in all of its forms”.1 With this factor included, the definition is expanded to include three main areas relative to improving optimal mobility in aging populations:
- Physical ability
- Physical infrastructure
- Digital infrastructure
While all three factors are critical, physical ability is extremely hard to impact, especially in a short time period. Taking this into account, I focus mainly on improving physical and digital infrastructure to impact an expanded definition of optimal mobility.
In addition to looking at both physical and digital infrastructure, interventions aimed at improving mobility for again populations should be tailored to take into account density levels. In the United States, aging populations live in contexts ranging from extremely dense urban areas to isolated rural ones. For the purpose of this project, I am focusing on building density, but it should be noted that this typically corresponds with population density as well. These variations in density dictate what type of mobility has the largest impact on an individual obtaining or retaining optimal mobility. For example, walkability plays a larger role in denser urban contexts than in more rural ones where access to motor vehicles is more critical. By breaking down interventions relative to both physical and digital mobility, and based on the density level of residency, we can more accurately target the types of changes that can have more influential impacts on different portions of the aging population. Below is a critical approach to which factors have the most potential in varying density levels.
Interventions aimed at increasing the use of digital infrastructure to impact mobility can be broken the three categories:
- Access
- Education
- Affordability
Of the three, focus has been put on education and affordability. Existing government programs such as the Lifeline Program subsidize internet services for low-income individuals and households.14 Of the current elderly population, 40% are eligible for the service. Expanded eligibility and integration of education could increase digital use by aging populations, helping them connect with others, and improving their overall physical mobility. While this type of government-sponsored program might be unprecedented, we are living in unprecedented times as the government attempts to redefine how they support our health and well-being. Digital services are becoming an increasingly larger part of this discussion.
Density Level Differences / 2020
Mobility has shifted as we are more stationary, and weary of modes of mobility such as public transportation and ride sharing. Density has come under fire by some for being a large factor in the spread of infection. Social disparities have been highlighted by the virus as well. While this project does not begin to attempt to take all of these factors into account, it does argue that mobility will continue to be a pressing issue as we return to (a new) normal. Marginalized portions of the population such as the elderly should be a major factor in how we think about reimagining mobility and our communities at large.
︎
Works Cited
1. Satariano, William A, Jack M Guralnik, Richard J Jackson, Richard A Marottoli, Elizabeth A Phelan, and Thomas R Prohaska. “Mobility and Aging: New Directions for Public Health Action.” American journal of public health. American Public Health Association, August 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464831/.
2. “Mobility Is Most Common Disability Among Older Americans.” The United States Census Bureau, December 8, 2014. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- releases/2014/cb14-218.html.
3. Manini, Todd M. “Mobility Decline in Old Age: a Time to Intervene.” Exercise and sport sciences reviews. U.S. National Library of Medicine, January 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530168/.
4. Iezzoni, Lisa I. When Walking Fails: Mobility Problems of Adults with Chronic Conditions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. “Preventing Chronic Disease.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0244.htm.
5. Collia, Demetra V., Joy Sharp, and Lee Giesbrecht. “The 2001 National Household Travel Survey: A Look into the Travel Patterns of Older Americans.” Journal of Safety Research. Pergamon, November 18, 2003. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437503000574?via=ihub.
6. “URBAN-RURAL DIFFERENCES IN MOBILITY AND ... - Vtc.rutgers.edu.” VCT. Rutgers, April 2004. http://vtc.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Articles.Urban- Rural_differences.pdf.
7. Simonsick, Eleanor, Jack Guralnik, Stefano Volpato, Jennifer Balfour, and Linda Fried. American Geriatrics Society, 2005. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/65601/j.1532- 5415.2005.53103.x.pdf?sequence=1.
8. Van Hoof, Joost, Jan K Kazak, Jolanta M Perek-Białas, and Sebastiaan T M Peek. “The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe.” International journal of environmental research and public health. MDPI, November 5, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6266083/.
9. Scharlach, Andrew, and Amanda Lehning. “Ageing-Friendly Communities and Social Inclusion in the ...” Cambridge University Press, 2012. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge- core/content/view/2338845DD53D67AD4C2544CEBD1194F1/S0144686X12000578a. pdf/ageingfriendly_communities_and_social_inclusion_in_the_united_states_of_amer ica.pdf.
10. “A Profile of Older Americans: 2017.” ACL. Administration for Community Living, 2017. https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging and Disability in America/2017OlderAmericansProfile.pdf.
11. “Demographic Changes and Aging Population – RHIhub Aging in Place Toolkit.” Demographic Changes and Aging Population – RHIhub Aging in Place Toolkit. Rural Health Information Hub. Accessed March 2020. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/aging/1/demographics.
12. Anderson, Monica, and Andrew Perrin. “Technology Use among Seniors.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Pew Research Center, December 31, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/17/technology-use-among- seniors/.
13. “Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers.” Federal Communications Commission, April 2020. https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income- consumers.