Benjamin Motte-Baumvol

Escaping Car Dependence in the Outer Suburbs of Paris

The outer suburbs of Paris are home to a large number of low-income households driven from the centre by the workings of the property market. This shift could give rise to a new form of socio-spatial segregation insofar as the elevated costs of mobility in such highly car-dependent areas restrict and change these households’ mobility patterns. These effects were observed in data on three groups of working people from the 2001 global transport survey. However, the socio-spatial impact of this outward movement is significantly reduced by the residential mobility of low-income households, which move from the most car-dependent areas to denser areas with better public transport provision. The presence of social housing in these areas only partially explains these migrations. These results obtained from 1999 census micro-data cast doubt upon the emergence of a new form of segregation in the outer suburbs described by Dodson and Sipe.

Barriers and (im)mobility in Rio de Janeiro

In Rio de Janeiro, immobility or the share of people with no journeys on any given day is very high (46%). Immobility has a marked geographical dimension in what is a segregated city. But income has only limited explanatory power. The population structure, with high proportions of people who are not in the labour force and who are unemployed, accounts for the high levels of immobility in the poor districts. Although population structure effects prevail, spatial factors such as the severance effect also account for differences between districts. Indeed, Rio de Janeiro features many different types of barriers that affect immobility in several districts and for several population groups. These barriers may be physical or symbolic and perceptive. This study proposes therefore to identify the scope of those barriers as they affect immobility. Our findings from the latest household travel survey available for the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro (2003) illustrate the effects of the two types of barrier, physical or symbolic and perceptive, on immobility that more specifically mark out certain categories of individuals such as housewives, the elderly, the unemployed or poor workers. Conversely, the wealthier active population seems to be little affected by the two types of barriers under study. Lastly, our results show that social fragmentation does not lead to greater immobility of favela populations in the heart of rich districts, but on the contrary to increased mobility, especially for the working age population in employment or looking for employment.