Abstract
This paper operationalizes the Sen-Nussbaum Capabilities Approach (CA) towards measuring household well-being shifts that occur in response to resettlement of urban households. In this chapter, household welfare (we often use the term ‘household well-being’ interchangeably) refers to the quality of people’s lives; urban resettlement is defined as the relocation of residence and/or jobs. With a particular focus on the accessibility and mobility outcomes of urban resettlement, this chapter provides a critical survey of the current quantitative modeling approaches to modelling the impacts of urban resettlement on household well-being. We identify major methodological limitations in the current quantitative approaches, including: (1) structural dependence on instrumental rationality as the guiding framework for representing people’s behavior and welfare after resettlement; and (2) neglect of agency and choice in evaluating the welfare outcomes of resettlement. We then argue that these methodological limitations can be ameliorated based on applying the CA. Our proposed CA-based quantitative models improve upon existing models by incorporating representation of: (1) the presence of a wider range of rationalities in people’s location and travel choices after resettlement, e.g., possible “suboptimal” choices that people may make due to constrains in their decision-making processes; (2) the plurality in agency, i.e., interpersonal diversity in viewing and pursuing well-being after resettlement; and (3) the critical role of real choice, i.e., having real opportunities to choose where to live and how to travel. Such modeling practices could better represent people’s reasons for making location and travel decisions after resettlement, thus generating a more reflective representation of resettlement-welfare outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alexander, E.R.: Rationality revisited: planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 19(3), 242–256 (2000)
Alonso, W.: Location and Land Use: Toward A General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1964)
Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B.: Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. Int. J. of Res. Mark. 12(1), 9–24 (1995)
Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2012)
Cascetta, E., Papola, A.: Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand. Transp. Res. C 9, 249–263 (2001)
Cervero, R., Golub, A., Nee, B.: City CarShare: longer-term travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1992(1), 70–80 (2007)
Cherry, C., Cervero, R.: Use characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike users in China. Transp. Policy 14(3), 247–257 (2007)
Day, J.: Effects of involuntary residential relocation on household satisfaction in Shanghai, China. Urban Policy Res. 31(1), 93–117 (2013)
Day, J., Cervero, R.: Effects of residential relocation on household and commuting expenditures in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34(4), 762–788 (2010)
Deding, M., Filges, T.: Geographical mobility of Danish dual-earner couples: the relationship between change of job and change of residence. J. Reg. Sci. 50(2), 615–634 (2010)
Faludi, A.: A Decision-Centred View of Environmental Planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1987)
Friedmann, J.: Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1987)
Friedmann, J. (2012). The good city: in defense of Utopian thinking. In: Fainstein, S.S., Campbell, S. (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory (3rd edn). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, West Sussex
Golub, A., Balassiano, R., Araújo, A., Ferreira, E.: Regulation of the informal transport sector in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: welfare impacts and policy analysis. Transp. 36(5), 601–616 (2009)
Gordon, P., Richardson, H.W., Jun, M.: The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 57, 416–420 (1991)
Haas, A., Osland, L.: Commuting, migration, housing and labour markets: complex interactions. Urban Stud. 51(3), 463–476 (2014)
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
Hutabarat Lo, R.S.: Walkability planning in Jakarta. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California Transportation Center. University of California Transportation Center, UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05p5r596 (2011)
Kuklys, W., Robeyns, I.: Sen’s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics. In: Kuklys, W. (ed.) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical insights and empirical applications, pp. 9–30. Springer, Berlin, New York (2005)
Li, S., Song, Y.: Redevelopment, displacement, housing conditions, and residential satisfaction: a study of Shanghai. Environ. Plann. A 41(5), 1090–1108 (2009)
Manski, C.: The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis. 8(3), 229–254 (1977)
Nussbaum, M.C.: Creating capabilities: the human development approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2011)
Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(2), 155–169 (1973)
Robeyns, I.: The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J. Hum. Dev. 6(1), 93–117 (2005)
Sen, A.: Capability and well-being. In: Sen, A., Nussbaum, M.C. (eds.) The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)
Sen, A.: Rationality and Freedom. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2002)
Sen, A.: Inequality Reexamined. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1992)
Simon, H.A.: Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 129–138 (1956)
Swait, J., Ben-Akiva, M.: Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: Mode choice in São Paulo, Brazil. Transp. Res. B: Meth. 21(2), 103–115 (1987)
Swait, J.: Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models. Transp. Res. B: Meth. 35(7), 643–666 (2001)
Talvitie, A.: Things planners believe in, and things they deny. Transp. 24, 1–31 (1997)
van Ommeren, J., Rietveld, P., Nijkamp, P.: Job moving, residential moving, and commuting: a search perspective. J. Urban Econ. 46(2), 230–253 (1999)
Willson, R.: Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transp. 28(1), 1–31 (2001)
Yang, X., Day, J.: Operationalizing the Capabilities Approach for Urban Policy Evaluation: The Travel Welfare Impacts of Government Job Resettlement. Geographical Research 35, 113–137 Forum (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yang, X., Day, J. (2016). Operationalizing the Capabilities Approach for Modeling Household Welfare Shifts in Urban Systems: A Special Focus on the Transportation Outcomes of Urban Resettlement. In: Walloth, C., Gebetsroither-Geringer, E., Atun, F., Werner, L. (eds) Understanding Complex Urban Systems. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30178-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30178-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30176-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30178-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)