Determinant Factors and Elderly Perspectives of Users’ Friendly Transportation
Irtiqa Imini Pishgiri Masdumiyat (Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention),
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2017),
1 July 2017
,
Page 14 - 9
https://doi.org/10.22037/meipm.v5i1.17661
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Determination of transport status among elderly could help to identify the existing vacancy. The current study aimed to determine the optimal transport characteristics of elder’s perspectives.
Materials and Methods: Perspective of 200 elders 60 years and older about Friendly Transportation characteristics: (availability, acceptability, accessibility, compatibility, affordability) were studied in a descriptive cross-sectional study. All the elderly population attending the cultural centers and parks’ at North, South, West, East and Central areas of Tehran, were selected at randomly. Data were collected using a designed questionnaire. Validity and reliability of the instrument were determined using content validity and test-retest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 89%).
Results: Forty percent of samples had incomes below a million Tomans (equal to 10,000,000 IRR). And %75, 4 of elders did not have any satisfaction from the availability characteristic of public transport. Acceptability characteristic of friendly transportation was good in %45, 5 of elders’ opinion. Also, 60 percent of studied elders reported poor accessibility to public transport. Compatibility characteristic of friendly transportation was good in %76, 4 of elders’ opinion. Elder men opinions about affordability characteristic of friendly transportation were good and women opinions were reported weak.
Conclusion: Results confirmed that elderly transportation was inappropriate. To attain friendly transportation, planning, need to address infrastructure alteration and traffic improvements for availability and accessibility characteristics among both men and women and affordability characteristic among women are felt more essential.
How to cite this article: Mahfoozpour S, Iranfar M, Ainy E. Determinant Factors and Elderly Perspectives of Users’ Friendly Transportation.Irtiqa Imini Pishgiri Masdumiyat (Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention). 2017; 5(1):9-14 .
- Transportation, Accidents, Traffic, aging
How to Cite
References
Phillips DR. Ageing in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, policies and future trends: Routledge; 2002.
World Health Organization. Pedestrian safety: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners: World Health Organization; 2013.
Etehad H, Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, Davoudi-Kiakalaye A, Moghadam DA, Hemati H, Mohtasham-Amiri Z. Impact of road traffic accidents on the elderly. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. 2015; 61(3):489-93. [pubmed]
Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013.
Global status report on road safety: time for action. Geneva. World Health Organization. 2009.
Sundling C. Travel behavior change in older travelers: Understanding critical reactions to incidents encountered in public transport. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015;12(11):14741-63. [pubmed]
Shiau TA, Huang WK. User perspective of age-friendly transportation: A case study of Taipei City. Transport policy. 2014;36:184-91. [Scopus]
http://beverlyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-5-the-5-as.pdf
Job R, editor. Overcoming barriers to pedestrian safety. Proceedings of the Australasian College of Road Safety National Conference: A Safe Systems Approach: Expanding the Reach, Sydney; 2012.
Böcker L, van Amen P, Helbich M. Elderly travel frequencies and transport mode choices in Greater Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Transportation. 2016:1-22. . [Scopus]
Basbas S, Konstantinidou C, Gogou N. Pedestrians’ needs in the urban environment: the case of the city of Trikala, Greece. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment. 2010;111:15-22. [Scopus]
Reslock DS. Senior-friendly transportation options. Planning. 2015;81(6):36-7. [Scopus]
Shiau TA, Huang WK. User perspective of age-friendly transportation: A case study of Taipei City. Transport policy. 2014;36:184-91. [Scopus]
Hanson TR, Hildebrand ED. Are age-based licensing restrictions a meaningful way to enhance rural older driver safety? The need for exposure considerations in policy development. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2011;12(1):24-30. [Pubmed]
Basbas S, Konstantinidou C, Gogou N. Pedestrians’ needs in the urban environment: the case of the city of Trikala, Greece. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment. 2010;111:15-22. . [Scopus]
Cai DC, editor. A Wheelchair Design for the Elderly with Small Strength. Applied Mechanics and Materials; 2014: Trans Tech Publ.
Ceccato V. Ensuring safe mobility in Stockholm, Sweden. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer. 2015;168(1):74-82. [Scopus]
Fiedler M. Older people and public transport. Challenges and changes of an ageing society. EMTA. 2007.
Foreman CC, Tucker LE, Flynn J, West M. Senior Transportation Alternatives: Why Are They Important and What Makes Them Work? 2003.
- Abstract Viewed: 871 times
- PDF (فارسی) Downloaded: 943 times