Sustainable Livelihoods, Mobility and Access Needs

THE RESEARCH ON which this report is based looked at the connections between the “sustainable livelihoods” framework and issues of transport, mobility and accessibility in Zimbabwe and Uganda – in part to determine the utility of the livelihoods approach in identifying the mobility needs of the poor and in contributing to the design and targeting of interventions.

The research measured and compared mobility and accessibility in each country, by sampling locations along roughly equal urban/peri-urban/rural transects, and looking at the livelihoods and mobility of informants in each location. Four locations were selected on each of these transects: a primate city (Kampala and Harare), a peri-urban area of each of these cities, a village and a secondary city. Twelve samples of 30 households each, stratified by income, were selected in each country and surveyed in order to compare livelihoods and mobility among low-, medium- and high-income groups. A smaller sample of 12 households in each country reported all their travel for a week in 2001.

Findings indicated large discrepancies between the incomes of high- and low-income households in both countries (100:1 in Uganda; 100:3 in Zimbabwe). The majority of adult Zimbabweans and Ugandans who were sampled had been born in rural areas – only around 20 per cent had always lived in the place where they were surveyed.

The primary reason for short-distance travel among both Ugandans and Zimbabweans was found to be work-related – followed by travel for school attendance. Total short-trip distances tended to increase with wealth. Most short trips (over 60 per cent for both countries) were undertaken on foot, and this percentage increased in village areas. Most other short-distance travel was fare-paying – and public transport was more of a factor in the primate cities and their peri-urban surroundings. In Uganda, bicycle and motorcycle boda boda transport was especially prevalent. This from of public transport is commonly considered to serve the poor; but this study found that, in reality, it serves primarily middle- and higher-income households. In Zimbabwe, on average, far more households owned their own transport – a function largely of the far higher level of car ownership among middle-income Zimbabweans. In Uganda, where informal sector work dominates, most respondents worked either at home or in their own neighbourhoods. In Zimbabwe, far more people worked further from home, especially those with medium incomes. On average, Zimbabwe’s commuting times were twice those in Uganda.

In both countries, longer-distance travel was undertaken primarily for the purposes of visiting relations, and for funerals and weddings; business travel over long distances was fairly limited. Although most of these trips were an expression of rural–urban linkages, among primate city residents in Uganda, most long-distance trips were to other urban areas. Overall, however, the mobility patterns of both rural and urban dwellers in both countries indicated a commitment to retaining links with extended family. This study highlights the importance of mobility to income generation and to the maintenance of social capital, and generated the following policy recommendations:
· ensure access through effective zoning and planning, especially in secondary cities where current good mobility is likely to be undermined by future growth;
· promote interventions to curtail private car use; increase the use of public transport and non-motorized transport, with special attention to the needs of the poor; and
· regulate transport services in order to impose checks on costs and improve safety.