| Literature DB >> 36011698 |
Nima Dadashzadeh1, Taimaz Larimian2, Ulysse Levifve3, Rok Marsetič4.
Abstract
Since the emergence of COVID-19, travel restrictions due to the pandemic have influenced several activities, in particular the mobility patterns of individuals. Our main goal is to draw the attention of scholars and policy makers to a specific segment of the population, namely (1) older people, (2) persons with disabilities (PwDs), (3) females, and (4) low-income population that are more vulnerable for travel behaviour change due to crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This article systematically reviews the studies that have explored the implications of COVID-19 for the mobility and activities of individuals pre-, during, and post-pandemic using the PRISMA method. It is found that there are a few studies regarding the travel and mobility needs and challenges of older people and PwDs, and there is no direct study concerning female and low-income individuals while such crisis exist. Questions such as "What are the adverse impacts of restrictions on their travel behaviour?", "How can they travel safely to work, shopping, and medical centres?", "Which transportation modes can be more effective for them?", and "What are the government and policy makers' role in providing accessible and affordable mobility services in the presence of such crisis?" are without relevant answers in the literature.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; mobility; pandemic; transport; travel behaviour; vulnerable social groups
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011698 PMCID: PMC9407727 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The four stages of the PRISMA protocol and the number of papers identified per stage.
The profile of the studies selected for the literature review.
| # | Thematic Focus | Authors | Study Area | Year | People on | Females | Older | People with |
| 1 | Public transit; carpooling; ride-hailing and taxi; car- haling; micro mobility sharing; bike; walk; private car | Bert et al. | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 2 | Commuting behaviour | Tirachini et al. | Chile | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 3 | Distance | Ruiz-Euler et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 4 | Travel satisfaction | Khaddar & Fatmi | Canada | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 5 | Transportation policies in low- and middle-income countries | Koehl | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 6 | Vehicle ownership, mode share, willingness to buy a new vehicle | Ramit et al. | India | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 7 | Mode share, trip motives | Shamshiripour et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 8 | Mode share | Meena | India | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 9 | Mean radius of gyration | Hernando et al. | Spain | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 10 | Impacts on trip purposes | Lou et al. | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 11 | Travel demand | Circella | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 12 | Travel demand | Jay et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 13 | Radii of gyration; travel distance; frequency of travel | Iio et al. | US | 2021 | - | - | - | |
| 14 | Travel behaviour: distance travelled; work and non-work-related travel frequency | Kar et al. | US | 2021 | - | - | - | |
| 15 | Ride-hailing | Matson et al. | US | 2021 | - | - | - | |
| 16 | Trip motives | Assoumou Ella, | Belgium | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 17 | Trip purpose; mode choice; distance travelled; and frequency of trips before and during COVID-19. | Abdullah et al. | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 18 | Changes in the share of travel modes | Shakibaei et al. | Turkey | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 19 | Walking distance, daily time spent in common areas | Yamada et al. | Japan | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 20 | Activity time | Rantanen et al. | Finland | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 21 | Modal share changes during COVID | Ragland et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 22 | Social isolation | Pant & Subedi | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 23 | Travel motives | Oliver et al. | Spain | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 24 | Behavioural changes: mask wearing, PT avoidance, guest avoidance | Daoust | Worldwide | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 25 | Ridership, distances travelled | Kabiri et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 26 | Ridership, distances travelled | Pullano et al. | France | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 27 | Car; driving behaviour | Stavrinos et al. | US | 2020 | - | |||
| 28 | Outdoor activities; working from home; home education; share of travel mode; share of trip motives | de Haas et al. | Netherland | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 29 | Private car; public transport; ride hailing/sharing; ferry; train; walk; bicycle; trip motives | Beck & Hensher | Australia | 2020 | - | |||
| 30 | life-space mobility; active aging; walk | Rantanen et al. | Finland | 2021 | - | - | - | |
| 31 | Well-being and travel behaviour | Ainslie | UK | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 32 | Street time occupancy | Eskytė et al. | UK | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 33 | COVID and access on transportation | Cochran | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 34 | Daily home time and daily distance travelled | Beukenhorst et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 35 | Commuting for PwDs | Schur et al. | US | 2020 | - | - | - | |
| 36 | PT, Private car, walk, bicycle | Thombre & Agarwal | India | 2020 | - | - | ||
| 37 | Changes in travel characteristics, perceived risk of different modes, mode preference after the pandemic | Dandapat et al. | India | 2020 | - | - | ||
| 38 | Trip length and motives: | Bhaduri et al. | India | 2020 | - | - | ||
| 39 | Private car; public transit; paratransit, transportation network companies; non- emergency medical transportation; walk and bicycle | Chen et al. | US | 2020 | - | |||
| 40 | Telecommuting Rates During the Pandemic | Matson et al. | US | 2021 | - | - | ||
| 41 | Mobile phone data | Heiler et al. | Austria | 2020 | - | |||
| 42 | Distance; active days; modal share; trip motives | Molloy | Switzerland | 2020 | - | |||
| 43 | Public transport; car ownership | Eisenmann et al. | Germany | 2021 | - | |||
| 44 | Activity and travel patterns | Lee et al. | South Korea | 2021 | - | |||
| 45 | Traits and regulatory compliance during COVID lockdown; mobility behaviour; willingness to reduce outdoor mobility | Chan et al. | Worldwide | 2021 | - | |||
| 46 | Life-space mobility; Autonomy in participation outdoor physical activities; walk | Leppä et al. | Finland | 2021 | ||||
| 47 | Shared mobility services | Rahimi et al. | US | 2021 | ||||
| 48 | Work-and non-work-based trip patterns | Pawar et al. | India | 2021 | - | |||
| 49 | Social vulnerability and stay-at-home behaviour | Fu & Zhai | US | 2021 | ||||
| 50 | Travel behaviour patterns | Politis et al. | Greece | 2021 | - |
Reviewed studies related to COVID-19 impacts on the mobility and activities of older people.
| Study | Country | Mode | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beck & Hensher, 2020 [ | Australia | Car | Older households made significantly less trips than younger households before and during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, older people were less concerned about the hygiene on public transit, but during the pandemic became as concerned as the other age groups. Older people were more likely to decrease the use of a car during the pandemic. |
| Daoust, 2020 | Worldwide (27 countries) | - | Older people were more likely to avoid crowded places (e.g., public transport, gatherings), but were less compliant to wear a mask (degree of compliance for 20 year-old person is 0.6, whereas degree of compliance for 80 year-old person is only 0.3) and were not significantly more likely to self-isolate than other age groups despite their vulnerability to the virus. |
| de Haas et al., 2020 [ | Netherlands | PT, car, bicycle and walk | The majority of older people (χ2 = 95.2 (1, |
| Heiler et al., 2020 [ | Austria | - | Older people were less compliant to mobility restriction than the other age groups despite their vulnerability to COVID-19. |
| Kabiri et al., | US | - | Older people were quick in accepting the stay-at-home measure, changing their behavior and practicing social distancing compared to other generations. |
| Oliver et al., 2020 [ | Spain | - | Older people were more likely to stay at home (14.9%) compared to younger generations (7.6%). |
| Pant & Subedi, 2020 [ | US | - | COVID precaution measures such as the stay-at-home measure increased the social isolation for all age groups, in particular older people. As a result, they could not meet their relatives and friends. |
| Pullano et al., 2020 [ | France | - | Older people almost stopped taking trips longer than 100 km and were likely to avoid leisure activities and family trips. |
| Ragland et al., 2020 [ | US | PT, car, ridesharing, special transportation service | In California between 2018 and 2020, for the age group 55 years and older, PT use decreased by 28.3%, special transportation services use increased by 2.9%, and ridesharing (only +65 years old) increased by slightly more than 10%. A small percentage of older people (3.7%) had a person to drive them to work before COVID-19 and this practice was no longer used in 2020. Older people changed home-to-work transport mode; a shift was mainly toward private cars (87.1% to 93.7%). |
| Yamada et al., 2020 [ | Japan | Walk | In Japan due to COVID restrictions from 1 January to 25 May 2020, daily time spent in common areas and walking distance in care retirement communities decreased from 94 min/day to less than 80 min/day and 1300 m/day to approximately 900 m/day, respectively. |
| Stavrinos et al., 2020 [ | US | Car | Post-COVID, both vehicle miles driven and driving days per week decreased by 35% and 37%, respectively. However, older adolescents, employed adolescents, and ethnic minorities were less likely to decrease their driving during the COVID-19 restriction period. |
| Leppä et al., 2021 [ | Finland | Walk | During social distancing, older respondents with no walking difficulties were able to partly compensate for their decreased social life activities and interactions by increasing their physical activities (5.5 min/day, SD 25.1). They also faced less steep decline in their life-space mobility compared to those older respondents with walking difficulties. |
| Rantanen et al., 2021 [ | Finland | Walk | During the COVID-19 outbreak, older people’s active aging scores (age and sex adjusted within subject B −24.1, SE 0.88, |
| Eisenmann et al., 2021 [ | Germany | Car ownership | Younger people had higher tendency to miss having a car of their own compared to older respondents. These respondents were mainly women between the age of 18 and 44 who used public transport as their main means of transport during the lockdown restrictions and perceived inconvenience with the use of public transport. |
| Chan et al., 2021 [ | Worldwide (31 countries) | - | The age of respondents was found to be influential in their compliance to reduce their mobility and stay at home. Both older and younger respondents (compared to middle-aged [30–60 years old]) were more likely to stay at home during lockdown restrictions. |
| Rahimi et | US | shared mobility | Concerning age, older respondents perceived a higher risk than younger respondents regarding using shared mobility services. |
| Pawar et al., 2021 [ | India | - | Age was found to be a critical factor affecting the travel frequency of work-based trips, where younger commuters were found to be more likely to shift to no travel during the transition to lockdown restrictions. The analysis indicated that for each year increase in the age of travelers, their probability of no travel during the travel restriction would decrease by 2 percent. |
| Fu and | US | - | Due to their dependence on the assistance of others, older respondents (aged 65 and older) generally had less compliance with social distancing and stay-at-home behaviors. |
| Lee et al., 2021 [ | South Korea | - | The average non-home trips and activities for the older people was higher compared to non-older people, whereas the average non-home activity time per person for the older people was about 2 h and 10 min shorter. Furthermore, on average, the older people had slightly higher number of trips compared to non-older people (4.90 trips/person and 4.74 trips/person, respectively). People aged over 80 spent the longest time at home (average of 16.74 h) compared to people in their 30s that stayed at home for the shortest amount of time (average of 13.24 h). |
Reviewed studies related to COVID-19 impacts on the mobility and activities of disabled persons.
| Study | Country | Mode | Disability Type | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ainslie, 2020 [ | UK | - | Mental impairments, hearing impairments, mobility impairments. | PwDs were more likely to leave their home for medical purposes and to provide help to a vulnerable person than the rest of the population (19% against 7%). However, they were less likely to leave their home for leisure, to commute, to take the children to school, to grocery shop, to exercise, or to meet up with people. |
| Beukenhorst et al., 2020 [ | US | - | Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, | During the COVID-19 pandemic, the median time spent at home for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) people increased from 19.4 h to almost 23.7 h, and the median daily distance travelled dropped from 42 km to 3.7 km. For general population in the US, daily time spent home increased from 10 to 14 h. |
| Chen et al., 2020 [ | US | Paratransit | - | Many PwDs rely on paratransit, such as a minibus (or van) equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps to facilitate access. Paratransit use dropped during the beginning of the pandemic by around 80% but recovered to 50% of the normal service in late July 2020. |
| Cochran, 2020 [ | US | PT and ride hailing (Uber, etc.) | Visual impairments: blind or low visibility, hearing | The pandemic aggravated the difficulties of PwDs to access PT and created more reluctance to use them. |
| Eskytė et al., 2020 [ | UK | Walk | All forms of | Stay-at-home measure: Physical distancing and use of face mask: |
| RIDC, 2020a, | UK | PT | - | Travel by PT was dropped significantly for most PWDs (64% of respondents) due to safety concern, a lack of trust with the information provided by the government, and a heightened feeling of vulnerability to COVID-19. In addition, 50% of respondents were no receiving health, personal care, as well as shopping assistant during the pandemic. |
| Schur et al., 2020 [ | US | - | - | Tele-working due to the COVID-19 pandemic positively influenced the employment opportunities for people with disabilities, but there is still a wage gap between non-disabled and disabled people. Increased availability of home-based work in the future can create more employment opportunities for people with disabilities. |
| Leppä et al., 2021 [ | Finland | Walk | - | Life-space mobility for older respondents with impaired walking decreased significantly, putting them at risk of being housebound ( |
| Rahimi et al., 2021 [ | U.S. | shared mobility | - | Respondents’ health background, such as their pre-existing health conditions and disability status, significantly influenced their risk perception associated with the usage of public transport. |
| Fu and Zhai, 2021 [ | U.S. | - | - | At the beginning of lockdown restrictions, people with disability were mainly staying at home due to their special needs and reliance on assistance of others. However, throughout the lockdown period and with the growth of the pandemic situation, disabled people generally decreased their social distancing and stay-at-home behaviors as they needed to take care of themselves or were dependent on support from other community members. |
Reviewed studies related to COVID-19 impacts on the mobility and activities of different genders.
| Study | Country | Mode | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdullah et al., 2020 [ | Worldwide | - | Pre-COVID pandemic, mode choice for primary trips purposes were similar for females and males. Males used private transport modes at a higher rate and undertook more and longer trips during COVID-19 (+3.9% and +1%) compared to females (−9% and −2%), whereas females were not likely to change their mode choice. |
| Assoum ou et al., 2020 [ | Belgium | PT | Considering jobs (caregiving, primary and pre-primary education, housework, and domestic work) held by females among the working-age (20–59 years old) population in Belgium, females were more vulnerable to be infected during lockdown as they had frontline jobs and their main transport mode was PT. The female/male COVID cases index confirmed this vulnerability. |
| Bhaduri et al., 2020 [ | India | - | Females’ work and discretionary activities decreased more than males during the COVID-19 pandemic (a decrease of 17% of work activities compared to 9% for males and decrease of 34% of females’ discretionary activities against 28% for males). |
| Beck & Hensher, 2020 [ | Australia | Car and PT | Females’ concern about levels of hygiene on PT was similar before and after COVID-19. |
| Chen et al., 2020 [ | US | - | During the pandemic, pregnant females were less willing to travel outside their home for prenatal care (usually not amenable to telemedicine). Females had disproportionately more childcare obligation and were more impacted than males by school closures. |
| Matson et al., 2021 [ | US | - | The attitude toward tele-working is different between females depending on the presence of children in the household. Working mothers stated there are unwanted distractions while tele-working. |
| Dandap at et al., 2020 [ | India | - | Males had less tendency to work from home than females. |
| Heiler et al., 2020 [ | Austria | - | Mobility behaviour of the male worker population changed more significantly than females, possibly explained by the obligation of home office work. |
| Molloy, 2020 [ | Switzerland | - | During lockdown, males travelled longer distances. Average daily distances travelled had a more consequent drop for females (from 38 km prior COVID-19 to 12.5 km at the beginning of the |
| Shakibaei et al., 2020 [ | Turkey | Rail transit and Car | Females were used to rail transit more than males pre-, during, and post-lockdown. However, females’ travel behaviour changed during the outbreak. This shows rail transit was more reliable and secure for females compared to road transportation. |
| Thombre & Agarwal, 2020 [ | India | - | In India pre-lockdown, PT and walking were the most preferred modes among females. |
| Eisenma nn et al., 2021 [ | Germany | Bicycle/car ownership/PT | Bicycle usage decreased more sharply for males (minus 10 percentage points) than for females (minus 5 percentage points). |
| Chan et al., 2021 [ | Worldwide | - | Concerning gender, women (compared to men) were more compliant and cooperative to stay at home previously (b ¼ 0.037, SE ¼ 0.015) and continue to stay at home in the future (OR ¼ 0.79, SE |
| Rahimi et al., 2021 [ | US | shared mobility | Gender of respondents had a significant role on their perceived risk of using shared mobility services during the pandemic. Females perceived higher risks of using shared mobility modes. |
| Lee et al., 2021 [ | South | - | In terms of activity behaviors by gender, women, regardless of their age group, had longer duration of home activity time than men. For instance, the average home activity time for both non-older and older women (14.51 h and 16.76 h, respectively) is longer than those of non-older and older men (12.68 h and 14.83 h, respectively). |
| Politis et al., 2021 [ | Greece | - | In terms of both travel duration and trip frequencies, men tended to make longer and more trips during lockdown restrictions compared to their women counterparts. Men had a hazard ratio of 0.90, which indicated that the duration of travel for male travelers was somewhat longer compared to female travelers. |
Reviewed studies related to COVID-19 impacts on the mobility and activities of low-income peoples.
| Study | Country | Mode | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bert et al., 2020 [ | Worldwide (China, EU, US) | Privat e car, | In post-lockdown, MIP (middle-income population) were slightly more willing to buy a car compared to LIP in the U.S., while in the EU, all income groups had similar likelihood to buy a new car post-lockdown. In China, LIP were less likely to buy a new car post-lockdown compared to MIP and HIP. |
| Beck & Hensher, 2020 [ | Australia | Car and PT | Pre-COVID, LIP made significantly less trips per week compared to other income groups, while post COVID, there was no difference between income groups in terms of the number of trips. |
| Bhaduri et al., 2020 [ | India | - | In terms of working habits during the pandemic, LIP reduced working much more than HIP (−29% compared to −1%), possibly due to their lower tendency to telecommute and their lower rate of car ownership. HIP were more likely to shift to work from home than LIP (+20% |
| Dandapat | India | PT | Mostly being from low-income groups, captive riders to PT are more likely to use PT during the |
| Hernando et al., 2020 [ | Spain | - | Means of the daily radius of gyration collected using mobile phone data has been used as a measure to evaluate the mobility inequality across the Spanish population: LIP: pre-lockdown (former lockdown): 8.1 km, 3.3 km in lockdown, 6.9 km after lockdown (new normal). HIP: pre-lockdown (former lockdown): 6.9 km, 0.9 km during lockdown, 4.7 km after lockdown (new normal). |
| Koehl, 2020 [ | UK | - | Increasing the share of active transportation (cycling and walking), as also suggested by the |
| Ramit et al., 2020 [ | India | All modes | Only a 23% shift was expected for the intra-city urban rail used in Mumbai and Chennai post-lockdown as LIP (income < 25,000 INR) who do not own a vehicle were the highest portion among PT users. |
| Ruiz-euler et al., 2020 [ | US | - | Lockdown policies increased the mobility gap (differences in mobility across income levels) and inequality in urban centres of American cities. LIP were unable to reduce mobility (distance |
| Thombre & Agarwal, 2020 [ | India | All modes | Before the lockdown, the preferred modes of LIP for primary activities in megacities were PT, walking, and motorized two-wheeler, respectively. |
| Tirachini et al., 2020 [ | Chile | - | Low-income workers were less (1 out of 4 workers) able to work from home. |
| Lou et al., 2020 [ | Worldwide | - | The “stay-at-home” measure has less effect on LIP’s mobility than higher income groups’ mobility. Work and non-work-related trips were less reduced for LIP as more essential jobs were held by LIP as they could not afford online shopping or do tele-working. This difference in |
| Pawar et al., 2021 [ | India | - | Higher income groups were less likely (approximately 14–25% reduction in chances of having reduced travel) to switch to no travel compared to LIP. |
| Iio et al., 2021 [ | US | - | Before COVID restrictions, the distance travelled by income groups were similar. During the pandemic (in April 2020), the median monthly distance travelled by high-income groups had a large decrease compared to LIP. |
| Matson et al., 2021a [ | US | - | LIP are less likely to work from home and benefit from the ensuing travel time savings; therefore, a long-term shift toward tele-working may increase the current mobility inequities. |
| Matson et al., 2021b [ | US | Ride-hailing | The use of ride hailing services for LIP does not change pre- and during the COVID outbreak but the change for HIP and MIP was obvious. |
| DfT, 2021 [ | UK | - | LIP travelled less than high-and middle-income respondents, while high-income groups had similar travel pattern such as before the pandemic. |
| Rahimi et al., 2021 [ | US | shared mobility | People’s income was found to play a critical role on their risk-perception behavior associated with shared mobility services. According to the result, those respondents from extremely low-income background (with less than $20 K income per year) perceived higher risks of exposure to |
| Pawar et al., 2021 [ | India | - | In terms of the effect of travelers’ income on their work-and non-work-related travel frequency, travelers from higher-income brackets (3 to 6 lakh rupees or 6 to 12 lakh rupees) were significantly less likely to opt to no travel during the transition to lockdown period compared to lower income travelers (up to 3 lakh rupees). |