Wellbeing Obility Theo Framwk

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/271270635
Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Focusing on Older People
Article in Mobilities · January 2014

DOI: 10.1080/17450101.2013.784542
CITATIONS READS
129 1,091
2 authors:
Susanne Nordbakke Tim Schwanen

Transportøkonomisk institutt, TØI University of Oxford
24 PUBLICATIONS 381 CITATIONS 215 PUBLICATIONS 6,747 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Distributive justice and equity in transportation View project
Park and Charge View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Susanne Nordbakke on 19 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Oslo]
On: 07 May 2013, At: 00:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Mobilities
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmob20
Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical

Framework and Literature Review
Focusing on Older People
a b
Susanne Nordbakke & Tim Schwanen
a
Institute of Transport Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway
b
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
Published online: 12 Apr 2013.
To cite this article: Susanne Nordbakke & Tim Schwanen (2013): Well-being and Mobility:
A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People, Mobilities,
DOI:10.1080/17450101.2013.784542
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.784542
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Mobilities, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.784542
Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical

Framework and Literature Review Focusing
on Older People
SUSANNE NORDBAKKE* & TIM SCHWANEN**

* **
Institute of Transport Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; School of Geography and the
Downloaded by [University of Oslo] at 00:54 07 May 2013
Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
ABSTRACT There is an increasing attention for how mobility is associated with well-being
amongst people in general and older adults in particular. Comparisons across research pro-
jects and articles are, however, hampered by the different understandings and conceptualisa-
tions of well-being that are employed. We, firstly, develop a heuristic framework for
understanding the concept of well-being, and secondly, use this to explore possible linkages
between well-being and mobility and to critically examine the various conceptualisations of
well-being in research on mobility in later life. It is argued that future work on well-being
and mobility should consider both the objective and the subjective and the hedonic and
eudaimonic dimensions of well-being, and should pay detailed attention to the multiple ways
in which well-being and its linkages to mobility are context-dependent and shaped by the
particularities of time and place.
KEY WORDS: Well-being, Quality of life, Mobility, Motility, Ageing, Literature review
1. Introduction
Increased attention is paid to the connections of mobility in everyday life with
well-being and quality of life, both in mobilities research (Kronlid 2008; Freuden-
dal-Pedersen 2009; Ziegler and Schwanen 2011; see also Urry 2007, 185–210)
and in transport studies (Duarte et al. 2010; Ettema et al. 2010; Abou-Zeid and
Ben-Akiva 2011; Delbosc and Currie 2011). Some of this work highlights issues of
social justice (Urry 2007; Kronlid 2008), and other studies focus on specific social
groups rather than the population in general, such as immigrant women (Shin 2011)
or older people (Banister and Bowling 2004; Schwanen and Ziegler 2011; Spinney,
Scott, and Newbold 2009). It is, however, difficult to compare and synthesise across
studies and research traditions. This is in part due to differences in research design
and geographical context, but in particular because well-being is a complex and
Correspondence Address: Susanne Nordbakke, Institute of Transport Economics, University of Oslo,

Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway. Email: sno@toi.no
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
2 S. Nordbakke & T. Schwanen
fuzzy concept. Not only is the term easily used without being defined robustly, dif-
ferent theoretical and disciplinary traditions are also mobilised, when well-being is
grounded theoretically. Economists, psychologists, sociologists, public health
researchers, geographers, gerontologists – all draw on (slightly) different and some-
times contradictory understandings of well-being. This can make it difficult to tell
what researchers are talking about and whether they are talking about the same object.
It is our contention that researchers seeking to understand the links between
mobility and well-being would benefit from adopting a radical interdisciplinary per-
spective and taking stock of the rich and diversified thinking on well-being, most of
which is outside what is usually considered the remit of geographies and sociolo-
gies of mobility or transport studies. The first aim of this paper, therefore, is to pro-
vide an interdisciplinary overview of the most important and relevant (for mobility
research) conceptualisations of well-being in the academic literature. As this litera-
ture is extensive, the bulk of the paper will focus on the concept of well-being per
se. We will develop a heuristic framework in which different conceptualisations of

well-being can be positioned, and this is used to clarify key differences between
understandings of well-being across economics, psychology, sociology, health
research, human geography and gerontology.
Our second aim is to critically review conceptualisations of well-being in research
about the mobility of older people. In some definitions, the concept of mobility
does not only pertain to corporeal mobility, but also virtual mobility enabled by
information and communication technologies (Urry 2007; Ziegler and Schwanen
2011). Although there are important interactions between virtual and corporeal
mobility (Urry 2007; Ziegler and Schwanen 2011) and it is increasingly appreciated
that ICT use might enhance well-being in old age (Gilhooly, Gilhooly, and Jones
2009), this study is limited to the study of corporeal mobility. This is, amongst
other things, because the number of empirical studies on the links between well-
being and virtual mobility in later life is too low for a meaningful review analysis.
In this paper we define mobility as both actual embodied movement through physi-
cal space and as motility – the potential for corporeal movement, which is a func-
tion of access to means as diverse as cars and public transport passes, the skills to
use those means and their cognitive appropriation (Kaufmann 2002) – because both
are likely relevant to the good life (Freudendal-Pedersen 2009).
We focus on older adults – community-dwelling individuals people above retire-
ment age – for a number of reasons. The academic literature about links between
mobility and well-being is relatively extensive; in most Western countries, older
adults also constitute a growing population segment and are richer and more mobile
than ever (Rosenbloom 2001, Hjorthol, Levin, and Sirén 2010). Further, the vast
majority of elders in the (near) future will ‘age in place’, meaning that a life worth
living will usually demand at least some motility and movement from ageing indi-
viduals. In this regard, older adults occupy a specific position. Whilst relatively free
from the effects of employment and childcare commitments on their mobility, many
of them also have to cope with limitations on physical and sometimes cognitive
functioning, as well as ageism by institutions and in interactions with other people
in transport settings and more generally. Such barriers may (unnecessarily) reduce
older adults’ mobility, and hence, their participation in civil society, health and their
well-being. In short, from ethical, social and economical perspectives, it is crucial
to understand why and how mobility is linked with well-being in later life so that
Well-being and Mobility 3
effective interventions to secure (safe) mobility and well-being in old age can be
proposed and implemented.
Three clarifications are in order at this point. Firstly, whilst authors sometimes
differentiate between well-being and quality of life, we use these terms interchange-
ably. After all, both concern the ‘good life’ and many facets of quality of life and
well-being are the same. Further, both have been studied and conceptualised differ-
ently across and within disciplines. Secondly, we limit ourselves to theoretical
approaches to well-being that consider people as individuals; conceptions of well-
being at the level of communities, regions and countries are not explored. This is
partly to keep the analysis tractable but also because the latter approaches fail to
engage in detail with differences between individuals and the role of mobility
therein. This means, for instance, that the field of social indicator research is not
considered. The limitation to individuals also implies that we do not consider well-
being at the level of the household of which an older adult is part or his/her social
network, as this goes beyond our primary focus of interest in this paper – older
people. At the same time, we readily concede the importance of further analysing
how care-giving to older adults – and the (corporeal) mobility this triggers – can at
times compromise the well-being of next of kin, friends and neighbours.
Thirdly, we do not consider the concepts of poverty and social exclusion. This is
because definitions of poverty and social exclusion are usually based on – typically
implicit – preconceptions of what living well is. In that sense, definitions and
understandings of well-being are primordial to those of poverty and social exclu-
sion. Additionally, whilst social exclusion and poverty often mean lower levels of
well-being, this is not necessarily so: being poor in terms of income or accessibility
to opportunities does not necessarily mean that a person perceives s/he is not living
well. The relationships of well-being with social exclusion and poverty – them-
selves highly debated constructs (Phillips 2006, 104–131; Gough and McGregor
2007, 3) – is very complex, and heeding this complexity whilst exploring the by no
means straightforward relations between well-being and mobility is beyond the
scope of the current article; this task is left for subsequent work.
2. Understanding Different Conceptualisations of Well-being

To clarify ontological differences regarding well-being, we have identified three
dimensions along which the approaches to well-being can be positioned. Together
these dimensions constitute a heuristic framework within which well-being and its
linkages to mobility can be understood. The three dimensions were identified by
reading general introductions to the field of well-being and quality of life, and the
literature on these topics within various disciplines. We believe the three dimensions
to suffice for describing key differences in conceptualisations of well-being.
2.1. Subjective or Objective?

A crucial distinction is whether well-being is taken to be a subjective or an
objective phenomenon (Ringen 1995; Rapley 2003; Phillips 2006). The objective
perspective originates from the Scandinavian welfare research tradition, whereas the
subjective perspective derives from, and prevails in, the American quality of life
research tradition (Veenhoven 2002; Rapley 2003).
The objective and subjective positions represent radically different answers to
questions about the nature of well-being, how it should be understood and how it can
be maximised. The subjective stance holds that an individual’s perceptions and expe-
riences are the foundation for evaluations of how well s/he lives. In contrast, in the
objective perspective, well-being is established from the evaluation of the ‘objective’
circumstances in which people live, given (inherently normative) criteria based on
values, goals or objectives (Phillips 2006). One implication of the use of such criteria
is that the constituents of well-being are often defined a priori by experts. Proponents
of the subjective position hold that their perspective is theoretically sounder, as it
respects individual perceptions and experiences of well-being (Ringen 1995). Yet
defenders of the objective position hold that subjective understandings of well-being
are incomparable and/or unstable, because they are not directly observable and indi-
vidual perceptions and experiences are influenced amongst others by people’s aspira-
tions, degree of adaptation to external conditions, stable dispositional characteristics
(e.g. personality traits), social events and ‘whims of the day’ (Veenhoven 2002).
Importantly, objective and subjective perspectives do not equate to the use of
objective and subjective measures of well-being (Gasper 2004). Objective measures

might be used to explore individual experiences, as with the monitoring of brain
function and use of physiological indicators to express Subjective well-being
(SWB). Similarly, subjective evaluations might be used to obtain information about
individuals’ objective circumstances (e.g. ‘I can walk 100 meters’). It is now widely
recognised that the objective and subjective positions complement each other with
both contributing to a broader understanding of well-being (Kahneman 1999;
Diener 2009). Over the past two decades, the academic debate about the nature of
well-being has shifted away from the objective/subjective difference towards that
between ‘hedonic’ and ‘eudaimonic’ approaches.
2.2. Hedonic or Eudaimonic?

The hedonic stance follows the philosophical school of utilitarianism (Ryan and Deci
2001; Phillips 2006). It is based upon the ideas that a person’s ‘utility’ is a measure
of the happiness or pleasure that s/he experiences through the satisfaction of prefer-
ences, and that this happiness is the basis of her/his well-being (Diener 2009). On this
view, humans calculate their utilities and try to maximise their rewards in terms of
happiness (as opposed to pain and suffering). The hedonic perspective has been
criticised because the pleasure producing outcomes of preference satisfaction do not
necessarily promote well-being (Ryan and Deci 2001). For instance, whilst eating
large amount of cakes and chocolates on a regular basis can produce moments of
happiness, it may also lead to bad health and unhappiness with appearances in the
longer term. This example suggests the importance of taking the time scale at which
well-being manifests itself into consideration. Hedonic approaches, such as the SWB
perspective, have taken such temporal differences into consideration by distinguish-
ing (long-term) life satisfaction from (short-term) affect, but the relations between the
short-term and long-term dimensions are often not adequately conceptualised.
According to the eudaimonic stance, well-being is more than simple preference
satisfaction. This position is based on the philosophy of Aristotle, for whom the
notion of happiness is a vulgar ideal (Aristotle 1980[n.d.]; Ryff and Singer 2008).
He instead emphasised purposeful or goal-directed activities and considered the
realisation of the best thing in a person, or one’s true potential, as the highest goal
and route towards well-being. Aristotle thus explicitly stated the importance of indi-
vidual action for reaching those goals, which contrasts with the more passive state
of how one feels in the hedonic approach. Following Aristotle, the eudaimonic
stance foregrounds the elements of one’s flourishing, such as ‘meaning’ and ‘pur-
pose’ and activity. It is also wider in scope than the hedonic position and considers
‘happiness’ one of many potentially valuable constituents of well-being rather than
the overriding goal (Phillips 2006).
The hedonic stance has often been equated to the subjective position. However,
with the emergence of the eudaimonic approach in psychology and lay view
approaches, it has become increasingly important for scholars to separate the
utilitarian from subjective stances.
2.3. Universalist or Contextualist?

How well-being is understood and measured is also related to the broader world-
view to which researchers subscribe. Two relevant key positions can be identified
in this respect, which we label the ‘universalist’ and the ‘contextualist’ stance.
According to a strongly universalist stance, well-being is a singular and stable
‘thing’ that is independent of the particulars of time and place and of the actions of
the researcher (Rapley 2003). This view is founded on an essentialist view of reality
(in which a phenomenon encompasses a limited set of characteristics or properties
that can be precisely defined). A variant of the universalist position is the assump-
tion that there always is a minimum of common conditions that are valuable to all
humans, independent of time and place.
Alternatives to a strongly universalist position differ in terms of the extent to
which they can be labelled contextualist. A much weaker version of universalism,
which amounts to very mild contextualism, is expressed by Rapley (2003). For
him, the meaning of well-being may change from one point in time to another for a
given person: the relative importance of various aspects of the good life changes
over the life-course. This view is contextualist insofar as it acknowledges temporal
variability in notions of well-being; however, well-being is still considered some-
thing that is independent of the actions of the researcher. Relative understandings of
well-being – sometimes labelled gap perspectives – are also mildly contextualist.
These hold that understandings of well-being need to be understood in the context
of people’s past experiences and aspirations for the future, as well as comparisons
with others or a certain reference group in society (Bowling 1995a).
A clear contextualist stance is to say that well-being cannot be understood as
independent of geographical context and culture. It has been argued that adherents
to universalist perspectives export views and understandings of well-being that are
specific to European and US history across the world as human universals (Christo-
pher 1999; Carlisle, Henderson, and Hanlon 2009). Those views and understand-
ings, the argument goes, are characterised by a narrow individualised focus with
little regard for the social and cultural context to which they are tied. They may not
be compatible with views and understandings in other cultures (or to sub-cultures in
Western countries) where, for instance, the value of social relationships is favoured
over individual happiness.
The most radical contextualism is offered in scholarship inspired by Michel
Foucault (Gubrium 2000; Sointu 2005). Here it is suggested that well-being is not
one or several variables that represent particular parts of one’s experience. Rather it
is a social process and category through which realities are enacted: well-being is a
‘tool’ that is shaped and used in social interactions between people – a researcher
and study participants, the media (including advertising) and individuals, individuals
amongst themselves in a conversation, and so forth – and through which
experiences are organised (Gubrium 2000). This implies that research into well-
being co-constructs and performs the very object it seeks to portray and that well-
being is not a stable object to be transferred readily across contexts. It is not simply
‘there’ for our perusal and assessment with identical meanings in different places
and times. Rather, what constitutes well-being changes and is redefined continu-
ously in social interactions. Approaches to well-being are seldom fully universal or
fully contextual, and it is often more adequate to position them on a continuum.
3. Approaches Within Disciplines

The literature reveals multiple approaches to the study of human well-being and
quality of life. Here we discuss 10 of these, and Table 1 shows how they relate to
the previously discussed dimensions. The list of approaches is not comprehensive,

but the selected approaches are in our view the most directly relevant to mobilities
research and transport studies. It has to be emphasised that in reality the approaches
are not as separate as a linear listing suggests; there are cross-references and partial
overlaps, and in empirical research elements of approaches are often combined. We
nonetheless present them as stylised, idealised and separately identifiable fields to
sensitise readers to their defining characteristics and assumptions.
3.1. Utility Approach Within Economics

This approach is hedonic and defines well-being as the maximisation of preference
satisfaction or desire fulfilment. A basic notion is that people do what makes them
happy. In mainstream economics, preferences or desires are usually not measured
Table 1. Summary of approaches to well-being.

Subjective Hedonicc Universalist
Objective Eudaimonic Contextualist
Utility approach, Subjective Hedonic Strongly to moderately
economics universalist
Hedonic approach, Subjective Hedonic Strongly to moderately
psychology universalist
Eudaimonic approach, Subjective Eudaimonic From strongly universalist
psychology to moderately contextualist
Basic needs approach Objective Eudaimonic Strongly to moderately
(implicitly) universalist
The SLL approach Objective Eudaimonic Moderately universalist
Integral needs approach Both Eudaimonic Moderately universalist
Capabilities approach Objective Eudaimonic From moderately
contextualist to strongly
universalist
HRQoL approach Both More hedonic Moderately universalist
than eudaimonic
Lay views Subjective Can be both Moderately contextualist
Ecological Person- Both Both Strongly to moderately
perspectives environment universalist
fit
Place-based Both Both Strongly to moderately
contextualist
directly but imputed from observed choices (revealed preferences). A person’s

utility is usually measured in terms of the resources s/he holds (typically income) or
her/his consumption (Gasper 2004). It is assumed that the experienced freedom of
choice (and thus the degree of preference satisfaction or desire fulfilment) is
reflected in the amount of personal resources and the degree of consumption.
Preference satisfaction and desire fulfilment thus tend to be evaluated via objective
measures, and one advantage of this approach over others is that income and
consumption are easily measureable (Phillips 2006, 63). An additional advantage
relates to policy intervention and the possibility to set a threshold limit for what
can be considered as an unacceptable low income (or lack of well-being). However,
as the content of well-being is related to individual experiences, this approach
belongs to the subjective tradition.
This approach is tilted towards moderate-to-strong universalism, as it assumes
that preference satisfaction or desire fulfilment is the essence of the good life for
every human being across time and space. It can be criticised for being overly
individualistic, exporting Western ideas as human universals across the globe, and
narrowly understanding happiness via ‘utility’ as the ultimate goal behind human
actions. The notion of ‘utility’ as the ultimate goal is perhaps better seen as a
simplification and (taken-for-granted) assumption amongst researchers than a
universal and undisputable fact.
It has to be noted that the recent proliferation of interest in well-being amongst
economists (Kahneman and Krueger 2006) is fuelled primarily by the import of
ideas from hedonic psychology into economics. This process is related to the matur-
ing of behavioural economics and Kahneman’s collaboration with Ed Diener and
other hedonic psychologists.
3.2. SWB Approach Within Psychology

This approach applies a broad conception of hedonism that includes pleasures and
preferences of both mind and body; well-being is often defined in terms of pleasure
versus pain (Ryan and Deci 2001). Focusing on individual experiences, the
approach is subjective in nature. The focus tends to be on satisfaction (in life in
general or in a domain), as well as the presence of a positive mood and absence of
a negative mood (Diener 2009). The former refers to cognitive judgements of
people’s experience of life, whilst the two latter refer to their affective reactions.
Together these components are often summarised as ‘happiness’ (Ryan and Deci
2001). Positive and negative mood are analysed separately as people not only seek
positive sentiments but also try to avoid misery. In contrast to the utility approach
within economics, subjective assessments are used to measure well-being.
The SWB approach is also tilted towards universalism. It is therefore subject to
the same criticisms as the aforementioned utility approach. On the other hand, the
approach is widely known and has found its way into many other disciplines
(including transport studies). This is in part because the measurement scales it has
produced, such as the Satisfaction of Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985) and the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988),
are easy to understand for respondents and results are communicated easily to
professionals and practitioners.
3.3. Eudaimonic Approach Within Psychology

This subjective approach consists of several lineages (Ryff 1989; Waterman 1993;
Steger et al. 2006; Ryan and Deci 2011) but arguably its most widely known
protagonist is Carol Ryff who has formulated a theoretical model of self-realisation
comprising six substantive dimensions (Ryff 1989; Ryff and Singer 2008):
• Personal growth: this aspect of well-being comes closest to Aristotle’s

eudaimonia as it explicitly concerns an individual’s self-realisation;
• Autonomy concerns qualities such as self-determination, independence, and
regulation of behaviour from within;
• Self-acceptance concerns long-term self-evaluation and acceptance of both
personal strengths and weaknesses;
• Purpose in life: this dimension draws heavily on existential perspectives and
involves creating meaning and direction in life;

• Environmental mastery: finding and creating a surrounding context that suits
one’s personal needs and capacities; and
• Positive relationships with others: this dimension reflects that the relational
realm is a key feature of a well-lived life.
Empirical studies in different population segments and a range of geographical

contexts have supported this conceptualisation of psychological well-being (Ryff
and Keyes 1995; Cheng and Chan 2005) but others suggest that the identification
of fewer, hierarchically organised dimensions may suffice (e.g. Burns and Machin
2009). Additionally, cross-cultural psychologists have questioned the universality of
Ryff’s model, arguing it is deeply embedded in Western/American individualism
and ideals (Christopher 1999). For instance, Ingersoll-Dayton et al. (2004)
established that amongst Thai elders well-being is a function of both interpersonal
(the first three below) and intrapersonal components:
• Harmony: experiencing peaceful and happy interactions with others;

• Interdependence: providing assistance to and receiving assistance from family
members and others;
• Respect: feeling one’s advice is heeded and one’s wisdom appreciated; and
• Acceptance: relinquishing upsetting thoughts and accepting life’s circumstances;
• Enjoyment: appreciating simple pleasures that involve others and solitary pursuits.
This work suggests that Ryff’s model cannot be generalised to all of humanity.
We classify her work as universalist but also believe that the wider approach can
accommodate moderately contextualist understandings of well-being.
Over the past decade there has been some rapprochement between the SWB and
eudaimonic psychology traditions. Keyes, Shmotkin, and Ryff (2002) have exam-
ined how these approaches relate to each other, concluding that they are comple-
mentary and measure different phenomena. And various measurement scales have
been proposed that capture aspects of both happiness and eudaimonic psychological
well-being (Diener et al. 2010; McMahan and Estes 2011).
3.4. The Basic Needs Approach

In this tradition, well-being derives from the extent to which human needs are
satisfied (Bowling 2005; Phillips 2006). Much work in this field draws on Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1968) and the argument that, once basic biological and
survival needs are met, emotional and social needs become more prominent.
Basic needs approaches focus on those biological and survival needs and do not
strive to understand all human aspirations; they define well-being as the entitlement
to lead a minimally decent life and in terms of minimum thresholds for a decent life
(Phillips 2006). Therefore, the emphasis is on access to food, water, shelter, and
some medical services and education, but also on externalities that might adversely
affect these needs (such as pollution which might affect health and life expectancy).
The approach is objective and universal. It is also largely focused on developing
countries where minimum thresholds are often not guaranteed for large sectors of
the population. It may, however, be relevant to particularly vulnerable minorities in

western countries.
3.5. The Scandinavian Level of Living Approach (The Resource Approach)

In the Scandinavian languages welfare is often considered as synonymous with
well-being and as relating to both material and non-material aspects of life. In the
Scandinavian level of living (SLL) approach, welfare is understood as the individ-
ual’s command of resources with which s/he can control and consciously direct
living conditions (Erikson and Uusitalo 1987) or lead her/his life (Esping-Andersen
2000). Resources are defined in terms of money, possessions, health, knowledge,
social relations, social and civic rights and so on. Welfare is also understood to
encompass multiple dimensions, which typically include the following: health, nutri-
tion, housing, education and knowledge, family and social relations, working condi-
tions, economic resources, leisure/recreation and political resources (Erikson and
Uusitalo 1987; Johansson 2002). The approach does not stipulate what constitutes a
good life or what the ends should be; it departs from the view that societies should
avoid ‘evil conditions’ that make humans suffer. This focus reflects that it is usually
easier for humans to agree upon what are evil conditions than on the nature of ideal
conditions. A leading idea of the SLL approach is that individuals choose actions
according to their needs. The resources are regarded as inputs and needs satisfaction
as the outcome. Furthermore, the utilisation of resources and the individual’s scope
of action are dependent on the external circumstances – labelled arenas – of the
individual’s life, which are considered essential components of welfare (Erikson and
Uusitalo 1987). It is the interaction of resources and arenas that define the individ-
ual’s scope of action.
To many commentators, the SLL tradition is the objective approach per se
(Diener and Suh 1997; Rapley 2003; Bowling 2005). It has clear eudaimonic
features, at least in theory, as it focuses on individuals’ ability to take control of
their life and actively define and pursue their ends by mobilising resources. The
approach is also moderately universal. Notwithstanding individual variations in
preferences and desires, the degree of similarity in social concerns across cultures,
countries and history is such that a generic set of components for evaluation can be
identified (Johansson 2002).
3.6. The Integral Needs Approach

This tradition is closely affiliated to the SLL approach but there are also differences.
Firstly, the integral needs approach defines welfare primarily in terms of needs satis-
faction, whereas the SLL approach emphasises command over resources (Johansson
2002). Secondly, in the integral needs approach, the conceptualisation and measure-
ment of welfare include both subjective and objective elements and indicators
(Allardt 1993). Thirdly, the integral needs approach is more academically oriented,
whilst the other concentrates on policy support (Allardt 1981).
The integral needs approach was developed in the 1970s and 1980s by Finnish
sociologist Allardt in response to mainstream Scandinavian welfare research. On his
view, well-being is not just an aggregate of objective resources and more emphasis
should be given to the non-material aspects of life (Allardt 1981, 1993). For him
well-being pertains to need satisfaction along three dimensions:
• To have: the material level of living (welfare) and the need for material
resources (i.e. work, education, money);
• To love: the non-material aspects of life and more specifically the need for
social relations, such as friendship and family ties; and
• To be: the need for self-realisation and positive judgment of oneself (which
might be fulfilled through e.g. education, work and friendships).
Evidently, the integral needs approach is both objective and subjective. It is also
eudaimonic in character. Not only does Allardt see satisfaction as one constituent of
well-being; he also understands it in terms of how individuals actively behave towards
others (loving) and by what they are (being) in relation to society, not only in terms of
what they have (having). Contrary to the basic needs approach but consistent with the
SLL approach, individuals are not considered receptacles for resource inputs but
active beings controlling and directing their lives. The approach is moderately univer-
salist. For Allardt (1981, 1993), needs are socially defined and can change, and no
generic list of needs can be formulated for all times and places. However, he also
argues that in at least certain societies and groups there exists a modicum of
agreement of what the most important needs are in at least some groups and societies.
3.7. Capability Approaches

We use the label capability approaches to denote the work of Amartya Sen, Martha
Nussbaum and likeminded thinkers, which is affiliated with the SLL and basic
needs approaches. Sen developed his original version as an alternative to conven-
tional welfare economics and out of dissatisfaction with understandings of well-
being as subjective states and command over resources (Sen 1993). A focus solely
on resources (including material goods and mobility) is inadequate for Sen. He
considers them means towards ends rather than ends in themselves, arguing that the
ability to use resources varies between persons and social contexts; his capability
approach ‘makes room for a variety of human acts and states as important in
themselves’ (Sen 1993, 3).
For Sen, the quintessence of well-being is the freedom to choose to live one kind
of life or another, or in his words ‘to achieve various valuable functionings’
(Sen 1993, 30). ‘Functionings’ are the various states of being and doing and include
the actions and conditions people have reason to value. A person’s capability in the
singular – also known as her/his capability set – is the set of potential functionings
s/he could attain and thus all alternative lives open to him/her, whilst capabilities in
the plural are the concrete functionings attainable to a person (Gasper 2007).
Functionings, then, are not only the achievements of a person but also become part
of her/his capabilities, which s/he can then draw upon to realise new functionings.
By emphasising people’s ability to make choices, Sen foregrounds agency, position-
ing ‘people as diverse, thinking, adaptive agents’ (Gasper 2007, 356) who have
their own values and goals and are entitled to make their own reasoned choices.
By emphasising freedom and potentialities, Sen bridges the gap between
objective and subjective approaches to well-being (Gasper 2007). His perspective is
clearly eudaimonic in outlook, as well as moderately contextualist: since what
amounts to well-being varies across social contexts, he purposely does not specify a
formal list of capabilities as objectively correct or universally valuable like Nuss-
baum, for instance, has done (Nussbaum 2011). Yet, in practice, Sen tends to work
with basic capabilities, such as being healthy, well nourished and educated and
accepts that there might be further fundamental capacities that need to be derived
by democratic decision-making in specific times and places. Nussbaum’s approach,
which defines a set of minimum capabilities that should be satisfied irrespective of
time and place, should be classified as objective and moderately to strongly
universalist. It is, however, clearly eudaimonic and – even stronger than Sen’s work
– rooted in Aristotelianism.
3.8. Health-Related Quality of Life

‘Health’ has long been understood in functionalistic terms and defined as the
absence of illness or disease. However, over time and following the WHO’s defini-
tion of health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being (WHO
1948), health has become understood increasingly as wide-ranging quality of life. A
narrow focus on the ability to perform socially allocated roles free from physical or
mental health-related limitations has thus been traded for an emphasis on more
positive elements, such as activities and participation (Bowling 2005).
In the wake of this process of redefinition, a varied research tradition has come
into existence that evaluates health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on the basis of
people’s own judgements. In this personal or experiential approach (Phillips 2006),
HRQoL has been defined as ‘[t]he optimum levels of mental, physical, role (e.g.
work, parent, carer, etc.) and social functioning, including relationships, and percep-
tions of health, fitness, life satisfaction and well-being’ (Bowling 1995a, 6). None-
theless, interest in the contribution of physical and mental health to quality of life
has overshadowed attention for other constituents of the latter (Phillips 2006). This
is also borne out in Bowling’s (1995a, 6) definition as she emphasises that
evaluations of HRQoL ‘should also include some assessment of the patient’s level
of satisfaction with treatment, outcome and health status and with future prospects’.
The weight accorded to health reflects that most HRQoL studies have been
undertaken by medical or public health researchers.
The personal HRQoL approach is both subjective and objective, as it consists of
evaluations of perceptions and satisfaction and of achievements in non-feelings
dimensions such as mental and physical functioning. However, it does not consider
such dimensions of well-being as the adequacy of housing, income and people’s

perceptions of immediate environment (Bowling 1995b). According to Phillips
(2006), this approach goes much further than the hedonic (SWB) approach in
psychology but does not incorporate the normative standards of eudaimonic quality
of life. We therefore consider it as primarily hedonic in character. It can also be
classified as moderately universalist.
3.9. Lay Views

This tradition relies on people’s own views of what contributes most to their
well-being (Phillips 2006). To some extent work in this area derives from HRQoL
studies that define well-being through the eyes of the people who experience it them-
selves. It is evident that the lay views approach entertains a subjective position on
well-being. Yet, it contrasts with previously discussed subjective approaches, which
evaluate a person’s perceptions and feelings, in that it seeks to elucidate which aspects
of life contribute to quality of life and how they do so (Bowling and Gabriel 2007).
The lay views approach is neither hedonic nor eudaimonic; this depends on study
participants’ responses to questions about what contributes to their well-being. It is
moderately contextualist. By putting people’s own views in centre stage, empirical
studies in particular locales automatically take account of how place, time and cul-
ture shape the constituents of well-being. At the same time, the approach takes it
for granted that understandings of well-being and the factors that shape it both
precede the research encounter and are stable enough to be measured reliably and
generalised to the level of the population.
3.10. Ecological Approaches

Ecological approaches to well-being are diverse and advocated by gerontologists
and geographers amongst others. What holds these approaches together is a focus
on how human–environment interactions are central to well-being. One stream con-
sists of environmental gerontologists’ work on person-environment fit, which
focuses on the balance between an ageing person’s changing competencies and the
environment in which s/he lives her/his everyday life (Lawton and Nahemow 1973;
Peace, Holland, and Kellaher 2011). As part of the person-environment fit research
program, Lawton (1983) developed a rather influential conceptualisation of the good
life that is both subjective and objective. It comprises four sectors:
• Behavioural competence: an individual’s capacity to function in terms of

biological health, sensation, perception, motor behaviour and cognition;
• Psychological well-being: a largely hedonic phenomenon consisting in posi-
tive and negative affect; happiness – a cognitive evaluation of positive affects
over a longer, unspecified time interval; and congruence of desired and
attained goals;
• Perceived quality of life (PQoL): the level of satisfaction with major life
domains; and
• Objective environment: the physical, social, institutional and cultural environ-
ment outside the person whose well-being is evaluated. This excludes the
experienced environment (which is part of the PQoL for Lawton) and pertains
to phenomena that can be rated by external observers.
Lawton’s approach is as hedonic and universalist as the hedonic SWB approach

yet differs in its tapping into both subjective and objective understandings of
well-being. It also transcends typical SWB studies by explicitly incorporating
behavioural dimensions and foregrounding the objective environment. Lawton offers
an interesting perspective on the characteristically low correlations of subjective and
objective well-being measures. Rather than viewing these as problematic, he sug-
gests that the relative autonomy of the various sectors of well-being is useful and
makes normal human existence possible.
The second strand is the nascent scholarship on place-based approaches to well-
being undertaken mostly by health geographers. Well-being is an ‘individually
judged, yet socially experienced, state of happiness, freedom, safety and capability,
shaped by interrelations with social, cultural (and natural) environments’ (Hall
2010, 277). Health geographers thus build on and expand earlier conceptualisations
in other disciplines, foregrounding how social relations and atmospheres in particu-
lar sites – produced by assemblages of people, buildings, artefacts and other tangi-
ble entities, as well as social norms, shared understandings, affects and other
immaterial elements – shape people’s experiences, resources and capabilities. The
emphasis is very much on interconnections and reciprocity between selves and
wider social, cultural, biophysical and spiritual elements (Conradson 2005; Panelli
and Tipa 2007; Hall 2010).
For health geographers, place and space are key to well-being. Both are not
passive backdrops for a good life or locations where well-being occurs, but continu-
ously created out of human-environment interactions. Following this logic, Fleuret
and Atkinson (2007) suggest that ‘spaces of well-being’ emerge out of the interac-
tions between individuals with material and immaterial elements. These spaces can
enable mobility, self-fulfilment and positive social constructions of particular social
groups, including the elderly (spaces of capability). They can also contribute to
self-esteem and mutual valuing (integrative spaces); offer protection from social and
environmental risks (spaces of security); or physical, mental and emotional healing
(therapeutic spaces).
Understandings of well-being are both subjective and objective in place-based
approaches. They are also both hedonic and eudaimonic, although perhaps tilted
towards the latter. They are best considered a response to individualistic and
biomedical understandings of well-being, and thus to the approaches from hedonic
and eudaimonic psychology and the HRQoL tradition discussed previously.
Obviously, place-based approaches are contextualist, but they do recognise wider,
generic tendencies. For Panelli and Tipa (2007), a place lens on well-being is
useful, because it sensitises researchers to how general processes are mediated by,
and work out differently in, local contexts.
4. Well-being and Mobility

4.1. Conceptual Links
The introduced approaches can be used as lenses for studying the relationships
between mobility and well-being. Table 2 summarises how each approach aids our
understanding of those links through hypotheses that might guide empirical
research. Overlaps between rows of the table notwithstanding, the table shows that
different perspectives highlight different mechanisms through which well-being and
Table 2. Conceptual links between well-being and mobility.

14
Actual movement (accessing Actual movement (during travel)

Potential movement (motility) destinations)
Utility approach, Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities If all travel is assumed to be a derived
economics opportunities to fulfil desires and elsewhere that can fulfil desires and demand and utility, it cannot
preferences preferences contribute directly to desire fulfilment.
If travel can have inherent positive
value, it can fulfil certain desires (up
to a degree)
Hedonic approach, Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities Experiences during movement can
psychology opportunities to be happy or happier elsewhere, the experience of which influence happiness
can influence happiness
Eudaimonic approach, Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities Experiences during trips can influence
S. Nordbakke & T. Schwanen
psychology opportunities to actively pursue one’s elsewhere, the experience of which one’s sense of autonomy,
self-realisation can influence one’s sense of all of environmental mastery and positive
Ryff’s (1995) dimensions of self- relations with others, and possibly
realisation personal growth and purpose in life
Basic needs approach Enhances one’s ability and Allows basic needs to be satisfied at Unclear
opportunities to satisfy basic needs a concrete place
The SLL approach Enhances one’s ability and As a resource it allows needs to be Unclear
(resource approach) opportunities to (better) satisfy needs satisfied at a concrete place
in a variety of domains
Integral needs approach Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities Movement is a time-space that can
opportunities to (more fully) satisfy (a elsewhere through which concrete directly satisfy (certain) needs
wider range of) needs regarding needs regarding having, loving and regarding loving and being
having, loving and being being can be satisfied
Capabilities approach Enhances one’s capability set and the Provides access to valuable Movement can itself be a valuable
freedom to make reasoned choices functionings at destinations functioning
HRQoL approach Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities Movement itself can be an expression
opportunities to achieve higher levels elsewhere that can contribute to of functioning and directly produce
of mental, physical, role and social higher levels of functioning and satisfaction
functioning and of satisfaction satisfaction
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued)
Actual movement (accessing Actual movement (during travel)
Potential movement (motility) destinations)
Lay views Car and public transport access, Provides access to activities that can Movement can directly contribute to
approach proximity to facilities, etc. are contribute to feeling well feeling well (independence, social role
constituents of what counts as a good (independence, social role and and relations, self-identity, health)
life relations, self-identity, health)
Ecological Person- Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to activities Experiences during trips can influence
perspectives environment opportunities to enhance elsewhere, which can influence psychological well-being, perceived
fit psychological well-being and psychological well-being, perceived quality of life. Movement can also
perceived quality of life quality of life and behavioural affect/enhance behavioural competence
competence
Place-based Enhances one’s ability and Provides access to spaces of Movement is itself a place emerging
opportunities to escape (undesired) capability, integrative spaces, spaces out of human-environment interactions
human-environment interactions in of security and therapeutic spaces and that affect one’s happiness,
certain places and to access places (cf. Fleuret and Atkinson 2007) freedom, safety and capability
where human-environment interactions
contribute more positively to
happiness, freedom, safety and
capability
Well-being and Mobility
15
mobility are interrelated. This means that different approaches have to be considered
as complementary to each other and need to be combined for a deep understanding
of the links between mobility and well-being. Additionally, mobility is a facilitator
of being well: both motility and actual trips allow people to access activities at spe-
cific locations through which desires can be fulfilled, needs satisfied, and people
can experience happiness or realise their true potential. Movement can, however,
promote well-being directly in various ways too. Thirdly, a distinction needs to be
made between mobility as resource or capability and mobility as experience. As a
resource, more motility and – within bounds – actual trips tend to be beneficial
from a well-being perspective. Yet, as an experience actual movements are not nec-
essarily beneficial. This depends very much on the experience of events during trips
and/or during activities at accessed destinations. To us, this means that deep under-
standings of how actual travel contributes to well-being can only ensue from
research that probes the contexts of those movements – who/what is encountered
during and/or following trips, the nature of the interactions with the encountered
persons, the means of transport and infrastructures used, a person’s past
experiences, embodied skills and capacities, goals, needs and values, and so forth.
4.2. Older Persons

Whilst empirical studies of the links between travel behaviour and well-being are
now burgeoning, it is still fair to say that most research to date about how potential
and actual movement through physical space affects well-being has centred on older
people. The significance of mobility for well-being in later life has been studied
within gerontology, transport research, and health studies. In total, 27 empirical
studies (Table 3) have been identified using the authors’ prior knowledge, references
in identified articles, and Google Scholar (using combinations of the following
search terms: mobility, transport, well-being, quality of life, old age, elderly, driving
cessation). Attention is restricted to empirical studies; conceptual explorations and
the literature reviews are not considered. The emphasis is on community-dwelling
older people; studies focusing only on elderly with dementia or living in institutions
are not included.
Two key conclusions can be drawn from the literature review regarding conceptu-
alisations of well-being. Firstly, whilst all studies show that potential and/or actual
movement contributes to well-being in later life, what well-being is and means is
often not problematised. Discussions of well-being qua concept are often short (if
present at all) and frequently lack theoretical depth. Indeed, the reviewed literature
as a whole is rather thin on theory. This also means that for us it was not always
easy to allocate studies to a theoretical tradition (and readers may disagree with
some of the choices we made). Secondly, the distribution of studies across the vari-
ous conceptualisations of well-being is rather uneven. Most studies are – sometimes
loosely – associated with the hedonic and eudaimonic traditions from psychology
and the HRQoL and lay views approaches. To the best of our knowledge, the util-
ity, capabilities and place-based ecological perspectives have not been employed as
the primary theoretical framework to date. As a result, the literature provides a very
sketchy evidence base regarding to what extent, for whom, under what conditions
and in which contexts the hypothesised linkages between well-being and mobility
outlined in Table 2 hold. It is not our intention, however, to describe which of those
linkages have been verified and for whom. Instead, we review the conceptualisa-
Table 3. The academic literature on well-being and mobility in later life.

Study Empirical focus Geographical context
Utility approach, economics – – –
Hedonic approach, Cutler (1975) Availability of a car in old age and life satisfaction Ohio, USA
psychology Ieda and Muraki (1999) Trip frequency, going-out preference (like/dislike leaving Three urban areas of different
the home) and sense of fulfilment in old age sizes, Japan
Mollenkopf et al. Mobility and subjective well-being in old age Urban and rural areas in five
(2005, chapter 12) European countries
Spinney, Scott, and Idem Canada
Newbold (2009)
Mollenkopf, Hieber, Changes in elders’ mobility experience over time Mannheim and Chemnitz,
and Wahl (2011) Germany
Eudaimonic approach, Yassuda, Wilson, and Effects (meaning) of driving reduction/cessation Florida, USA
psychology Von Mering (1997)
Burkhardt, Berger, and Idem Florida, Maine and Maryland,
McGavock (1998) USA
Kostyniuk and Shope Idem Michigan, USA
(1998)
Bonnel (1999) Idem Midwestern community, USA
Coughlin (2001) Idem Suburban and urban areas,
Massachusetts, USA
Bauer, Rottunda, and Idem Suburban and urban area,
Adler (2003) Midwest, USA
Davey (2007) Idem New Zealand
Basic needs approach – – –
SLL approach (the resource Marottoli et al. (2000) Effect of driving cessation on out-of-home activity levels Connecticut, USA
approach) Hjorthol, Levin, and Changes in travel and activity patterns in the last 20 years Denmark, Sweden and
Sirén (2010) Norway
Integral needs approach Siren and Hakamies- Demographic characteristics and mobility Urban, suburban and rural
Blomqvist (2004) areas, Finland
Scheiner (2006) Life situation, way of life and leisure mobility Germany
Well-being and Mobility
(Continued)
17
Table 3. (Continued)
18
Study Empirical focus Geographical context

Capabilities approach – – –
HRQoL approach Marottoli et al. (1997) Driving cessation and depressive symptoms Connecticut, USA
Fonda, Wallace, and Idem USA
Herzog (2001)
Ragland, Satariano, and Idem Sonoma County, California,
MacLeod (2005) USA
Windsor et al. (2007) Idem Australia
Banister and Bowling Effects of transport on quality of life UK
(2004)
Lay views Gabriel and Bowling Identification of constituents of quality of life UK
(2004)
S. Nordbakke & T. Schwanen
Pellerito (2009) Effects (meaning) of driving cessation Urban and suburban

communities, Detroit, MI,
USA
Siren and Hakamies- Understanding the mobility and well-being link Helsinki area, Finland
Blomqvist (2009)
Musselwhite and Idem Southwest England
Haddad (2010)
Ziegler and Schwanen Idem Rural areas, County Durham,
(2011) UK
Ecological Person-En- Cvitkovich and Wister Transportation dependence, transportation needs and well- Vancouver area, Canada
perspectives vironment fit (2001) being
Place-based – – –
tions of well-being that populate the existing literature in the remainder of this sub-
section in greater depth as the basis for an agenda for further research.
In Table 3, the greatest number of studies has been allocated to the eudaimonic
approach in psychology. These focus on the lived experience and meanings of driving
reduction and cessation, showing that these processes are often associated with loss of
independence, self-determination and spontaneity (Yassuda, Wilson, and Von Mering
1997; Burkhardt, Berger, and McGavock 1998; Kostyniuk and Shope 1998; Bonnel
1999; Coughlin 2001; Bauer, Rottunda, and Adler 2003; Davey 2007); negative
effects on self-esteem and identity have also been identified (Burkhardt, Berger, and
McGavock 1998; Bonnel 1999). Eudaimonic dimensions of well-being are thus well
recognised. It should be noted, however, that none of the studies draws on Ryff’s
model of psychological well-being (or equivalents as developed by others).
The relative importance of hedonic (SWB) psychology and the HRQoL approach
is not surprising. The former provides relatively straightforward measures and has
received much attention in economics and psychology more generally in recent

years; the latter foregrounds how health, which often changes in later life, mediates
the linkages between mobility and well-being. The researchers employing the
HRQoL approach also have a background in health/medical research. The reviewed
studies that have adopted the hedonic SWB approach focus primarily on life satis-
faction and thus on long-term, cognitive assessments of how good one’s life is. The
studies by Spinney, Scott, and Newbold (2009) and Mollenkopf and colleagues
(2005) provide the most comprehensive assessment of well-being. In addition to life
satisfaction, the former consider self-reported happiness and an indicator of belong-
ing to the local community; the latter also analyse positive and negative effect. With
the exception of Banister and Bowling (2004), studies employing the HRQoL
approach concentrate on the effects of driving cessation on well-being and more
specifically on mental health. Of those studies, that by Windsor et al. (2007) has
the most comprehensive quantitative evaluation of driving cessation on well-being.
These authors assess not only the level of depression but also changes in older
people’s sense of control. As this is related to Ryff’s (1989) dimension of
‘autonomy’, their study is more eudaimonic than the others.
Several studies varying in approach and focus have adopted the lay view
approach (Table 3). The study by Gabriel and Bowling (2004) stands out in that it
considers potential and actual movement as one constituent of well-being amongst
others, such as having good social relations, engaging in hobbies and leisure activi-
ties, having a positive outlook, having good health and physical functioning and
having enough financial resources. This study is obviously eudaimonic in outlook.
Musselwhite and Haddad (2010) examine the role of mobility in older people’s
self-reported quality of life and interpret these perceptions as different needs:
utilitarian (the need for accessibility), affective (the need for independence, control,
status, role) and aesthetic needs (the need for travel for its own sake and view life
and nature). As such their study also bears traces of the integral needs perspectives.
The studies by Siren and Hakamies-Blomqvist (2009) and Ziegler and Schwanen
(2011) stand out by showing how well-being and its links with mobility are pro-
cesses: they are constantly defined and redefined by older people over time as
resources and capacities change. These studies not only propose clear contextualist
understandings of well-being but also suggest that changes in mobility can trigger
redefinitions of what well-being is and means in later life.
Despite the prevalence of needs and resource based perspectives on well-being

beyond transport-related research, we have identified only four studies of mobility
in later life (beyond the Musselwhite and Heddad (2010) study discussed above)
that understand well-being primarily in terms of need satisfaction (Table 3). These
studies consider out-of-home activities as important sources or indicators of well-
being and potential and actual movement as critical to need satisfaction. Both Mar-
ottoli et al. (2000) and Hjorthol, Levin, and Sirén (2010) evaluate need satisfaction
in terms of overt travel/activity behaviour, thereby effectively employing an objec-
tive needs approach (even though Hjorthol, Levin, and Sirén draw on Allardt’s inte-
gral needs approach as their key theoretical resource). Note, however, that all kinds
of out-of-home activities are considered by Marottoli et al. (2000) and Hjorthol,
Levin, and Sirén (2010). Hence, not only basic but also social and emotional needs
are taken into account. Siren and Hakamies-Blomqvist (2004) and Scheiner (2006)
derive need satisfaction from both the objective circumstances of overt travel behav-
iour and people’s subjective assessment the degree of unfulfilled travel needs. The
rationale behind these authors’ approach is that overt travel behaviour does not nec-
essary reflect a subjective satisfaction with travel behaviour. This reasoning resem-
bles Allardt’s criticism of objective needs perspectives, such as the SSL approach.
Finally, there is at least one study that takes an ecological perspective (Table 3).
The study by Cvitkovich and Wister (2001) is explicitly grounded in the person-
environment fit tradition. It differs from Lawton’s understanding of well-being in
that it only considers subjective dimensions of well-being. Yet, their measure of
subjectively experienced well-being is rather comprehensive. It includes indicators
of hope, purpose of life, a sense of futurity, persistence and self-efficacy and thus is
closer to eudaimonic than hedonic understandings of well-being.
5. Conclusion and Discussion: Towards a Research Agenda

Our review of studies of the links between well-being and mobility in later life
shows that the understandings of well-being in this literature are insightful and
diverse. Overall the emphasis is on well-being as a subjective phenomenon, and
more on experiences of happiness, autonomy and (positive) relations with others
rather than on capabilities and resources [as in the work of Urry (2007), Kronlid
(2008) or Shin (2011)]. Despite its insightfulness and richness, we believe that
research on the linkages between well-being and mobility can be enriched in a vari-
ety of ways, and we draw this paper to a close by outlining what we consider to be
promising avenues for further research.
Our overarching conclusion is that future work focusing on mobility in later life
(and in other life-course stages) would benefit from deeper engagement with the
various theoretical traditions summarised in Section 3. Cross-cutting research, in
which insights from different traditions are combined and integrated, is particularly
imperative. This means, however, that differences in ontological, epistemological
and methodological predispositions between the outlined approaches to well-being
have to be considered and somehow negotiated. One way to overcome those differ-
ences would be to follow a multi-method strategy, whereby relatively open-ended
qualitative methods (in-depth interviews, focus groups, ethnography) are used first
to identify salient dimensions and constituents of well-being and the role of
mobility therein. These can then be combined with theoretical insights derived from
relevant literatures and developed into numerical measures that can be tested and
refined using questionnaires and statistical analysis (which can, and perhaps need
to, be complemented with further use of qualitative methods – see also below).
At least three recommendations at a more detailed level can be made. Firstly,
whilst foregrounding subjective experiences of well-being is important, understand-
ing the links between well-being and mobility in later life also requires more
research that combines elements of subjective and objective approaches to well-
being. Given the malleability of perceptions, preferences and aspirations in light of
‘objective’ conditions (material resources, physical health, etcetera), socialisation
processes and research encounters, approaches that mix subjective and objective
understandings of well-being are particularly helpful for identifying on the basis of
explicitly normative criteria groups of older adults for whom interventions through
public policy is warranted.
Secondly, research on older adults’ mobility that is explicitly grounded in the
eudaimonic tradition of understanding well-being is clearly warranted. Even if some
of the studies reviewed in the previous studies have touched upon eudaimonic ele-
ments, none has explicitly adopted the two approaches to well-being with the deep-
est Aristotelian roots – the psychological approach elaborated by Ryff and
colleagues and the capabilities approaches. Eudaimonic research into the link
between well-being and mobility is desirable for at least two reasons. Eudaimonic
studies of subjective experience capture multiple elements constitutive of human
flourishing and move beyond the SWB’s focus on satisfaction, affect and mood.
Since they do not consider happiness the ultimate goal of human life, eudaimonic
studies afford a richer set of hypotheses about how potential and actual movement
can contribute to well-being in later life and more generally than do SWB inflected
studies. Additionally, drawing on capability approaches (CAs) allows researchers to
explore the questions of how and why mobility is essential for individual well-being
(cf. Kronlid 2008). More explicitly than needs approaches do CAs posit that having
access to material resources, such as a private car, is no guarantee for well-being.
Whether and how flourishing ensues, depends on individuals’ abilities and the
social contexts in which they are embedded. And more than Allardt’s integral needs
and the SLL approaches does Sen’s CA highlights agency and choice. It thus offers
a stronger theoretical basis for understanding how individuals’ own actions mediate
and shape the links between their mobility and well-being. Moreover, Sen’s CA can
in principle address any aspect of well-being, whereas the integral needs and SLL
approaches are limited to specific sets of components of well-being.
Thirdly, a stronger eudaimonic focus should be complemented with a stronger
contextualist orientation. Whilst Sen appreciates the importance of context as
evidenced by his emphasis on the role of individual abilities and social contexts,
Ryff’s approach is more universalist. Too universalist, we believe, given cross-cul-
tural studies showing how understandings of what constitutes a desirable self and
well-being are culture and place specific (Christopher 1999; Ingersoll-Dayton et al.
2004; Panelli and Tipa 2007). Ecological perspectives from environmental gerontol-
ogy and especially geography can help researchers seeking to better understand the
links between well-being and mobility in later life in various ways. Work in those
fields can sensitise scholars to the multiple ways in which the physical and social
environments older people inhabit in everyday life affect their mobility and hence
well-being. Geographical scholarship can also be instrumental in highlighting
cultural complexity. It could help researchers to avoid the all-too-easy generalisation
of thoroughly western values and ideals, such as autonomy and control, to elders in
other parts of the world or even to certain (ethnic) groups of older adults in Western
countries. It also sensitises researchers to the potential contributions that harmony,
reciprocity and connectedness with the humans and non-human agents constituting
the places older people inhabit may make to their well-being, and to how mobility
shapes and reconfigures place-based understandings of well-being.
Radical contextualist perspectives on well-being can also contribute to our
understanding of the links between well-being and mobility. By highlighting how
well-being is not (only) something that precedes social interactions, they draw atten-
tion to the extent to which research instruments, media representations and talking
about well-being shape and organise people’s understandings and experiences of
well-being. This obviously makes examining well-being as an already elusive phe-
nomenon more challenging than when more universalist perspectives are adopted.
But, contra Gubrium (2000), we suggest that adopting a radical contextualist
perspective does not invalidate quantitative measurement techniques. These are of
particular value in allowing societies to ascertain whether levels of well-being and

mobility’s role therein exceed thresholds of acceptability for groups within the pop-
ulation. Adopting a radically contextualist perspective does mean, however, that
research instruments need to be tailored to the specifics of time, place, culture,
social position, bodily capacities, and so forth of the groups and individuals consid-
ered. It also means that mixed-method strategies are important; research with quali-
tative methods can complement quantitative measurement and highlight facets of
well-being that elude quantitative methods. Those facets include, but are not limited
to, well-being’s shifting and unstable character, subtle differences between individu-
als and situations, and the performative effects of methods used to examine and
evaluate well-being and its linkages to mobility.
In short, more theoretically informed empirical research on the links between
well-being and mobility in later life is needed. This work should embrace the com-
plexity of well-being and myriad different ways in which mobility and well-being
are related for different individuals. It is important to undertake empirical research
in more diverse geographical contexts – and in particular in non-Western countries
– than has hitherto been done, as such work allows us to better grasp to what extent
understandings of well-being and the role of mobility therein are generic or
mediated by the particulars of place, time and culture. It can only be hoped that this
paper provides a valuable resource for scholars undertaking such research.
References
Abou-Zeid, M., and M. Ben-Akiva. 2011. “The Effect of Social Comparisons on Commute
Well-Being.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45: 345–361.
Allardt, E. 1981. “Experiences from the Comparative Scandinavian Welfare Study, with a Bibliography
of the Project.” European Journal of Political Research 9: 101–111.
Allardt, E. 1993. “Having, Loving and Being: An Alternative to the Swedish Model of Welfare
Research.” In The Quality of Life, edited by M. C. Nussbaum and A. Sen, 88–94. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Aristotle. 1980 [n.d.]. The Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Banister, D., and A. Bowling. 2004. “Quality of Life for the Elderly: The Transport Dimension.”
Transport Policy 11: 105–115.
Bauer, M. J., S. Rottunda, and G. Adler. 2003. “Older Women and Driving Cessation.” Qualitative
Social Work 2: 309–325.
Bonnel, W. B. 1999. “Giving up the Car: Older Women’s Losses and Experiences.” Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 37: 10–15.
Bowling, A. 1995a. Measuring Disease: A Review of Disease Specific Quality of Life Measurement
Scales. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bowling, A. 1995b. “What Things are Important in People’s Lives? A Survey of the Public’s
Judgements to Inform Scales of Health Related Quality of Life.” Social Science and Medicine 41:
1447–1462.
Bowling, A. 2005. Ageing Well: Quality of Life in Old Age. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bowling, A., and Z. Gabriel. 2007. “Lay Theories of Quality of Life in Older Age.” Ageing and
Society 27: 827–848.
Burkhardt, J., A. Berger, and A. McGavock. 1998. “The Mobility Consequences of the Reduction or
Cessation of Driving by Older Women.” Paper presented at The Second National Conference on
Women's Travel Issues, Baltimore, MA, October 23–26.
Burns, R., and M. Machin. 2009. “Investigating the Structural Validity of Ryff’s Psychological
Well-Being Scales Across Two Samples.” Social Indicators Research 93: 359–375.
Carlisle, S., G. Henderson, and P. W. Hanlon. 2009. “‘Wellbeing’: A Collateral Casualty of
Modernity?” Social Science and Medicine 69: 1556–1560.

Cheng, S.-T., and A. C. M. Chan. 2005. “Measuring Psychological Well-Being in the Chinese.”
Personality and Individual Differences 38: 1307–1316.
Christopher, J. C. 1999. “Situating Psychological Well-Being: Exploring the Cultural Roots of its
Theory and Research.” Journal of Counseling and Development 77: 141–152.
Conradson, D. 2005. “Landscape, Care and the Relational Self: Therapeutic Encounters in Rural
England.” Health & Place 11: 337–348.
Coughlin, J. 2001. Transportation and Older Persons: Perceptions and Preferences – A Report on
Focus Groups. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.
Cutler, S. J. 1975. “Transportation and Changes in Life Satisfaction.” The Gerontologist 15: 155–159.
Cvitkovich, Y., and A. Wister. 2001. “The Importance of Transportation and Prioritization of
Environmental Needs to Sustain Well-Being Among Older Adults.” Environment and Behavior 33:
809–829.
Davey, J. A. 2007. “Older People and Transport: Coping Without a Car.” Ageing & Society 27 (1):
49–65.
Delbosc, A., and G. Currie. 2011. “Exploring the Relative Influences of Transport Disadvantage and
Social Exclusion on Well-Being.” Transport Policy 18: 555–562.
Diener, E. 2009. “Subjective Well-being.” In The Science of Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed
Diener, edited by E. Diener, 11–58. Dordrecht: Springer.
Diener, E., R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen, and S. Griffin. 1985. “The Satisfaction with Life Scale.”
Journal of Personality Assessment 49 (1): 71–75.
Diener, E., and E. Suh. 1997. “Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, Social, and Subjective
Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 40: 189–216.
Diener, E., D. Wirtz, W. Tov, C. Kim-Prieto, D.-W. Choi, S. Oishi, and R. Diener-Biswar. 2010. “New
Well-Being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings.”
Social Indicators Research 97 (2): 143–156.
Duarte, A., C. Garcia, G. Giannarakis, S. Limão, A. Polydoropoulou, and N. Litinas. 2010. “New
Approaches in Transportation Planning: Happiness and Transport Economics.” Netnomics 11:
5–32.
Erikson, R., and H. Uusitalo. 1987. “The Scandinavian Approach to Welfare Research.” In The Scandi-
navian Model: Welfare States and Welfare Research, edited by R. Erikson, E. J. Hansen, S.
Ringen, and H. Uusitalo, 177–193. New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Esping-Andersen, G. 2000. Social Indicators and Welfare Monitoring. Geneva: United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development.
Ettema, D., T. Gärling, L. E. Olsson, and M. Friman. 2010. “Out-of-Home Activities, Daily Travel, and
Subjective Well-Being.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44: 723–732.
Fleuret, S., and S. Atkinson. 2007. “Wellbeing, Health and Geography: A Critical Review and Research
Agenda.” New Zealand Geographer 63: 106–118.
Fonda, S. J., R. B. Wallace, and A. R. Herzog. 2001. “Changes in Driving Patterns and Worsening
Depressive Symptoms Among Older Adults.” The Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences 56: S343–S351.
Freudendal-Pedersen, M. 2009. Mobility in Daily Life. Between Freedom and Unfreedom. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Gabriel, Z., and A. Bowling. 2004. “Quality of Life from the Perspectives of Older People.” Ageing
and Society 24: 675–691.
Gasper, D. 2004. “Human Well-being: Concepts and Conceptualizations.” Discussion Paper No. 2004/
06, World Institute for Development Economics Research, United Nations University.
Gasper, D. 2007. “What is the Capability Approach? Its Core, Rationale, Partners and Dangers.” The
Journal of Socio-Economics 36: 335–359.
Gilhooly, M. L. M., K. J. Gilhooly, and R. B. Jones. 2009. “Quality of Life: Conceptual Challenges in
Exploring the Role of ICT on Active Ageing.” In Information and Communication Technologies
for Active Ageing, edited by M. Cabrera and N. Malanowski, 49–76. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Gough, I., and J. A. McGregor, eds. 2007. Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From Theory to
Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gubrium, J. F. 2000. “Deconstructing Self and Well-being in Later Life.” In The Evolution of the Aging
Self: The Societal Impact on the Aging Process, edited by K. W. Schaie and J. Hendricks, 47–61.
New York, NY: Springer.
Hall, E. 2010. “Spaces of Wellbeing for People with Learning Disabilities.” Scottish Geographical
Journal 126: 275–284.

Hjorthol, R., L. Levin, and A. Sirén. 2010. “Mobility in Different Generations of Older Persons. The
development of daily travel in different cohorts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.” Journal of
Transport Geography 18 (5): 624–633.
Ieda, H., and Y. Muraki. 1999. “Can Improved Mobility Raise the Elderly’s Sense of Fulfillment?”
Japan Railway Transport Review 20: 14–21.
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., C. Saengtienchai, J. Kespichayawattana, and Y. Aungsuroch. 2004. “Measuring
Psychological Well-being: Insights From Thai Elders.” The Gerontologist 44: 596–604.
Johansson, S. 2002. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Quality of Life for National Policy.” Social Indi-
cators Research 58: 13–32.
Kahneman, D. 1999. “Objective Happiness.” In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, edi-
ted by D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwarz, 3–25. Washington, DC: Russel Sage Foundation.
Kahneman, D., and B. Krueger. 2006. “Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-being.”
The Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (3): 3–24.
Kaufmann, V. 2002. Re-Thinking Mobility. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Keyes, C. L. M., D. Shmotkin, and D. Ryff. 2002. “Optimizing Well-being: The Empirical Encounter
of Two Traditions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 1007–1022.
Kostyniuk, L. P., and J. T. Shope. 1998. Reduction and Cessation of Driving among Older Drivers:
Focus groups. Ann Arbor, MI: Transportation Research Center, University of Michigan.
Kronlid, D. 2008. “Mobility as Capability.” In Gendered Mobility, edited by T. Priya Uteng and
T. Cresswell, 15–34. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lawton, M. P. 1983. “Environment and other Determinants of Well-being in Older People.” The
Gerontologist 23: 349–357.
Lawton, M. P., and L. Nahemow. 1973. “Ecology and the Aging Process.” In The Psychology of Adult
Development and Aging, edited by C. Eisdorfer and M. P. Lawton, 619–674. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Marottoli, R. A., C. F. Mendes de Leon, T. A. Glass, and C. S. Williams. 1997. “Driving Cessation
and Increased Depressive Symptoms: Prospective Evidence From the New Haven EPESE.” Jour-
nal of the American Geriatrics Society 45: 202–206.
Marottoli, R. A., C. F. Mendes de Leon, T. A. Glass, C. S. Williams, L. M. Cooney Jr., and L. F.
Berkman. 2000. “Consequences of Driving Cessation: Decreased Out-of-Home Activity Levels.”
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 55: 334–340.
Maslow, A. H. 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McMahan, E. A., and D. Estes. 2011. “Measuring Lay Conceptions of Well-being: The Beliefs About
Well-being Scale.” Journal of Happiness Studies 12: 267–287.
Mollenkopf, H., A. Hieber, and H.-W. Wahl. 2011. “Continuity and Change in Older Adults’
Perceptions of Out-of-Home Mobility Over Ten Years: A Qualitative–Quantitative Approach.”
Ageing and Society 31: 782–802.
Mollenkopf, H., F. Marcellini, I. Ruoppila, Z. Széman, and M. Tacken. 2005. Enhancing Mobility in
Later Life: Personal Coping, Environmental Resources and Technical Support. The Out-of-home
Mobility of Older Adults in Urban and Rural Regions of Five European Countries. Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Musselwhite, C., and H. Haddad. 2010. “Mobility, Accessibility and Quality of Later Life.” Quality in
Ageing and Older Adults 11: 25–37.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Panelli, R., and G. Tipa. 2007. “Placing Well-being: A Maori Case Study of Cultural and
Environmental Specificity.” EcoHealth 4: 445–460.
Peace, S., C. Holland, and S. Kellaher. 2011. “‘Option Recognition’ in Later Life: Variations in Ageing
in Place.” Ageing & Society 31: 734–757.
Pellerito, J. M., Jr. 2009. “The Effects of Driving Retirement on Elderly Men and Women Living in
Metropolitan Detroit.” Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 25: 135–153.
Phillips, D. 2006. Quality of Life: Concept, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.
Ragland, D. R., W. A. Satariano, and K. E. MacLeod. 2005. “Driving Cessation and Increased
Depressive Symptoms.” The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical
Sciences 60: 399–403.
Rapley, M. 2003. Quality of Life Research: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Ringen, S. 1995. “Well-being, Measurement, and Preferences.” Acta Sociologica 38: 3–15.
Rosenbloom, S. 2001. “Sustainability and Automobility Among Elderly: An International Assessment.”
Transportation 28: 375–408.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2001. “On Happiness and Human Potentionals: A Review of Research on
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-being.” Annual Review of Psychology 52: 141–166.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2011. “A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Social, Institutional,
Cultural, and Economic Supports for Autonomy and Their Importance for Well-being.” In Human
Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context: Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom and
Well-Being, edited by V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, and K.M. Sheldon, 45–64. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ryff, C. D. 1989. “Happiness is Everything, or is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological
Well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., and C. L. M. Keyes. 1995. “The Structure of Psychological Well-being Revisited.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 719–727.
Ryff, C., and B. Singer. 2008. “Know Thyself and Become What You are: A Eudaimonic Approach to
Psychological Well-being.” Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 13–39.
Scheiner, J. 2006. “Does the Car Make Elderly People Happy and Mobile? Settlement Structures, Car
Availability and Leisure Mobility of the Elderly.” European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research 6: 151–172.
Schwanen, T., and F. Ziegler. 2011. “Wellbeing, Independence and Mobility.” Ageing and Society 31:
719–733.
Sen, A. 1993. “Capability and Well-being.” In The Quality of Life, edited by M. C. Nussbaum and
A. Sen, 30–53. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shin, H. 2011. “Spatial Capability for Understanding Gendered Mobility for Korean Christian
Immigrant Women in Los Angeles.” Urban Studies 48 (11): 2355–2373.
Siren, A., and L. Hakamies-Blomqvist. 2004. “Private Car as the Grand Equaliser? Demographic
Factors and Mobility in Finnish Men and Women Aged 65+.” Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 7: 107–118.
Siren, A., and L. Hakamies-Blomqvist. 2009. “Mobility and Well-being in Old Age.” Topics in
Geriatric Rehabilitation 25: 3–11.
Sointu, E. 2005. “The Rise of An Ideal: Tracing Changing Discourses of Wellbeing.” The Sociological
Review 53: 255–274.
Spinney, J. E. L., D. M. Scott, and K. B. Newbold. 2009. “Transport Mobility Benefits and Quality of
Life: A Time-Use Perspective of Elderly Canadians.” Transport Policy 16: 1–16.
Steger, M. F., P. Frazier, S. Oishi, and M. Kaler. 2006. “The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing
the Presence of and Search for Meaning in Life.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 53: 80–93.
Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Veenhoven, R. 2002. “Why Social Policy Needs Subjective Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 58:
33–46.
Waterman, A. S. 1993. “Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudai-

monia) and Hedonic Enjoyment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 678–691.
Watson, D., L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of
Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scale.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
54: 1063–1070.
WHO. 1948. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organisation as Adopted by the
International Health Conference, New York 19–22 June 1946.
Windsor, T. D., K. J. Anstey, P. Butterworth, M. A. Luszcz, and G. R. Andrews. 2007. “The Role of
Perceived Control in Explaining Depressive Symptoms Associated with Driving Cessation in a
Longitudinal Study.” The Gerontologist 47: 215–223.
Yassuda, M. S., J. J. Wilson, and O. Von Mering. 1997. “Driving Cessation: The Perspective of Senior
Drivers.” Educational Gerontology 23: 525–538.
Ziegler, F., and T. Schwanen. 2011. “I Like to Go Out to be Energised by Different People: An
Exploratory Analysis of Mobility and Wellbeing in Later Life.” Ageing & Society 31: 758–781.
View publication stats

Wellbeing Obility Theo Framwk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellbeing Obility Theo Framwk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Article in Mobilities · January 2014

Susanne Nordbakke Tim Schwanen

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Distributive justice and equity in transportation View project

Park and Charge View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.784542

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical

SUSANNE NORDBAKKE* & TIM SCHWANEN**

Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Correspondence Address: Susanne Nordbakke, Institute of Transport Economics, University of Oslo,

se. We will develop a heuristic framework in which different conceptualisations of

2. Understanding Different Conceptualisations of Well-being

2.1. Subjective or Objective?

objective and subjective measures of well-being (Gasper 2004). Objective measures

2.2. Hedonic or Eudaimonic?

2.3. Universalist or Contextualist?

3. Approaches Within Disciplines

the previously discussed dimensions. The list of approaches is not comprehensive,

3.1. Utility Approach Within Economics

Table 1. Summary of approaches to well-being.

directly but imputed from observed choices (revealed preferences). A person’s

3.2. SWB Approach Within Psychology

3.3. Eudaimonic Approach Within Psychology

• Personal growth: this aspect of well-being comes closest to Aristotle’s

involves creating meaning and direction in life;

Empirical studies in different population segments and a range of geographical

• Harmony: experiencing peaceful and happy interactions with others;

3.4. The Basic Needs Approach

the population. It may, however, be relevant to particularly vulnerable minorities in

3.5. The Scandinavian Level of Living Approach (The Resource Approach)

3.6. The Integral Needs Approach

3.7. Capability Approaches

3.8. Health-Related Quality of Life

such dimensions of well-being as the adequacy of housing, income and people’s

3.9. Lay Views

3.10. Ecological Approaches

• Behavioural competence: an individual’s capacity to function in terms of

Lawton’s approach is as hedonic and universalist as the hedonic SWB approach

4. Well-being and Mobility

Table 2. Conceptual links between well-being and mobility.

Actual movement (accessing Actual movement (during travel)

4.2. Older Persons

Table 3. The academic literature on well-being and mobility in later life.

Study Empirical focus Geographical context

Pellerito (2009) Effects (meaning) of driving cessation Urban and suburban

received much attention in economics and psychology more generally in recent

Despite the prevalence of needs and resource based perspectives on well-being

5. Conclusion and Discussion: Towards a Research Agenda

particular value in allowing societies to ascertain whether levels of well-being and

Modernity?” Social Science and Medicine 69: 1556–1560.

Journal 126: 275–284.

Waterman, A. S. 1993. “Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudai-

View publication stats

You might also like