Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Estimating social travel demand of senior citizens in the Netherlands

Pauline van den Berg, Theo Arentze, Harry Timmermans *
Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Like many other countries, the Netherlands is experiencing a sharp rise in the ageing population. As age
Travel demand increases, people’s mobility may decrease. However, older people have more leisure time compared to
Social trips their younger (working) counterparts, and potentially spend more time on social activities. Therefore,
Senior citizens this group can possibly increase social travel demand. However, to date, the travel demand for social
activities of senior citizens has received only little attention. This paper studies trip-making for social
purposes, with a special focus on the demographic ageing factors. Using social activity diary data, models
are estimated to predict the number of social trips, the travel distance and mode of transport for social
trips. The results indicate that the elderly of today seem to be as mobile as their younger counterparts
with respect to the number of social trips. High education and involvement in clubs on average result
in more social trips and full time work is found to result in fewer social trips. With regard to trip distance
the results show that the average travel distance does not decrease as people get older. Full time work is
found to result in longer social trips. Shorter trips were found for people in urban as well as rural areas.
Trips for the purpose of visiting or joint activities tend to be longer than average. With regard to transport
mode choice the results indicate that older seniors (75+) are less likely to choose the bicycle, relative to
driving. No other significant age effects were found. Significant effects were found for gender, household
structure, education level, car ownership, having a disability, urban density, distance and the purpose of
the social activity.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sources (Silvis and Niemeier, 2009), such as instrumental support

The population of the Netherlands (and all industrialized coun-
tries) is getting older. Currently, 15% of the Dutch population is 65
or over and it is expected that by 2030 this will be approximately
25% (Statistics Netherlands, 2009). Therefore the quality of life of
this growing group of senior citizens deserves attention.
Social activities and mobility are important aspects of quality of
life for the elderly (Tacken, 1998; Banister and Bowling, 2004).
Increasing age is found to be associated with decreasing mobility:
older people are found to travel less than younger people in terms
of trips per day and distance traveled (Tacken, 1998; Silvis and Nie-
meier, 2009). Senior citizens also tend to have a lower propensity
to perform social activities than their younger counterparts (Aoki
et al., 1996; Páez et al., 2006; Kemperman et al., 2006; Carrasco
and Miller, 2006; Farber and Paéz, 2009). This might be due to
the fact that senior citizens have smaller than average social net-
works (van den Berg et al., 2009). Having a smaller social network
might mean that senior citizens have less access to a variety of re-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 40 247 2861; fax: +31 40 243 8488.
E-mail addresses: p.e.w.v.d.berg@tue.nl (P. van den Berg), t.a.arentze@tue.nl
(T. Arentze), h.j.p.timmermans@tue.nl (H. Timmermans).
(caring if they are sick, help with chores), emotional support or
companionship, while they in particular rely on their social net-
work to obtain these resources (Agneessens et al., 2006). This dif-
ficulty is reinforced by the fact that social networks are
becoming more spatially dispersed. Therefore people currently rely
more on fast means of transport and remote means of communica-
tion to cover the distance to their social network members. In a
survey of the quality of life of the elderly, Banister and Bowling
(2004) found that people with access to a vehicle (and people with
access to good local transport) were likely to undertake more social
activities.
Although older people are still found to travel less than younger
people in terms of trips per day and distance traveled, this is not
the case for all trip purposes. Moreover, the rapidly growing group
of senior citizens in our society on average is wealthier (but with
substantial within-cohort variability), healthier and more mobile
than earlier generations (Newbold et al., 2005; Mercado and
Páez, 2009). Senior citizens nowadays have extended periods of
free time and a desire to travel. Their travel demand and mobility
needs are changing. Their number of trips and kilometers travelled
are increasing (Rosenbloom, 2001; Collia et al., 2003) as well as
their levels of car ownership (Schmöcker et al., 2005; Banister

0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.018
324 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331
and Bowling, 2004; Newbold et al., 2005). Therefore, this growing
group of elderly people can potentially increase the travel demand
for social activities.
Although the studies into the travel behavior of senior citizens
in the population have started to increase over the last decade
(Collia et al., 2003; Newbold et al., 2005; Páez et al., 2006), the tra-
vel demand for social activities of seniors has received only little
attention in academic research. In order to plan future transporta-
tion needs for social activities of the ageing population, we need to
understand the nature of their social activities and the travel in-
volved in these activities. In this paper we focus on age in relation
to activity-travel behavior for social purposes.
Analyzing data from a social interaction diary, we examine how
age is related to a range of social activity-travel behavior measures,
such as social trip-making propensity, the travel distance for social
activities and the transport mode choice for traveling to the loca-
tion of the social activity. Our unique data-set allows us to examine
the social activity-travel behavior of senior citizens in much detail.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next
section reviews the existing literature on travel behavior and social
activities in relation to age. Section 3 describes the data and meth-
ods of analysis used in this study. In Section 4 three models are
presented that are estimated to predict the effect of age on the
number of trips: (1) the travel distance (2) and the transport mode
choice (3) for social trips. Finally, Section 5 contains the Conclu-
sions and discussion.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the existing literature on the effects of an
ageing population on travel behavior. It focuses on the differences
between younger and older generations, the trip-making frequency
of the elderly, their travel distance and their transport mode
choice. This section concludes with a literature review of social
activities and ageing.
2.1. Trip-making among senior citizens
Over the last years, the number of studies on different aspects of
trip-making of the elderly has increased rapidly. Many studies on
the travel behavior of seniors are limited to presenting descriptive
statistics comparing younger and older people (e.g. Rosenbloom,
2001; Collia et al., 2003; Newbold et al., 2005). However, studies
presenting models to estimate trip frequency, travel distance and
transport mode choice of the elderly are currently appearing (e.g.
Schmöcker et al., 2005, 2008; Páez et al., 2006; Arentze et al.,
2008; Mercado and Páez, 2009), as well as models of trip chaining
(e.g. Golob and Hensher, 2007).
Rosenbloom (2001) used data from the US, Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom to study the envi-
ronmental implications of an ageing population and its increased
automobility. The results indicate that senior citizens around the
world, compared to earlier generations, are more likely to have a
license and to make more trips by car and less by public transport,
which is likely to cause increased environmental pollution.
Collia et al. (2003) compared the basic travel characteristics of
older American adults (65 and over) with those of younger adults
(19–64). They show that although older Americans travel exten-
sively, they are less mobile than younger generations in that they
make fewer trips, travel shorter distances, and have shorter travel
times. This pattern is more pronounced among older women and
those with walking disabilities. Older Americans rely on personal
vehicles as heavily as younger generations. 89% of all trips are
made by car, 9% on foot and 2% by other means. Newbold et al.
(2005), who used the 1986, 1992 and 1998 General Social Surveys
to compare travel behavior among Canadians in different age co-
horts, also found that older people make fewer trips and travel
for different reasons than younger generations, but their reliance
upon the private car stays equally high.
When studying the travel behavior of senior citizens, one
should keep in mind that seniors are not a homogenous group. This
is pointed out by Alsnih and Hensher (2003) who state that a dis-
tinction between younger seniors (65–75) and older seniors (75+)
is useful, as the health of people often starts to decline at an age of
75. Hildebrand (2003) developed a simplified activity-based travel
model, in which six different lifestyle groups, based on socio-
demographic variables, were used. He found diverse mobility and
travel characteristics among the groups.
Schmöcker et al. (2005) and Páez et al. (2006) used ordered pro-
bit models to estimate the trip-making frequency of the elderly.
Schmöcker et al. (2005) estimated a model for the total number
of trips of elderly and disabled people, as well as different models
for different trip purposes (working, shopping, business, and recre-
ation). They found that increasing age and walking difficulties re-
sult in fewer trips. Household structure, ethnic background,
income, access to a car and taxi or public transport card ownership
were found to have an effect on trip-making frequency as well.
Páez et al. (2006) also found that trip-making propensity decreases
with age. Females were found to be more likely to make more trips
than males. License, car ownership, and transport pass ownership
were positively related to the number of trips as well.
Stern (1993) used a Poisson regression model to estimate the
number of trips for different purposes by elderly and disabled peo-
ple in rural Virginia. The number of trips was found to be smaller
for females, older seniors and people with walking difficulties.
High education and being married resulted in more trips.
In order to examine the travel distances of senior citizens,
(log-)linear regression models are usually used. Schmöcker et al.
(2005) found that average trip distances decrease with age, how-
ever, recreational trip distances increased at least until the age of
80. Positive effects were found for income, driver’s license and
car ownership. Higher urban density, walking difficulties and a
higher number of trips result in shorter distances.
Mercado and Páez (2009) used multilevel models to study the
effect of age on travel distance by different transport modes (car
as driver, car as passenger and bus). They found a decline in dis-
tance traveled as car driver as age increased. They also found sig-
nificant effects of gender, work status, household size, license
and car ownership, income and land use.
Several studies focus on senior citizens’ transport mode choice,
using multinomial logit (MNL) models (e.g. Stern, 1993; Kim and
Ulfarsson, 2004; Su et al., 2008; Schmöcker et al., 2008). Stern
(1993) used an MNL model to estimate the mode choice by elderly
and disabled people in rural Virginia. The different categories in-
cluded driving, being driven, bus, taxi, walking, and different local
(van) transit systems. Driving was found to be the preferred mode.
Females were more likely than males to choose one of the other
transport modes. People with walking problems were more likely
to use a taxi.
Examined the modal choice of senior citizens for leisure trips,
based on data collected in 1996 in the Netherlands. Their results
indicate that seniors prefer to take the car for leisure trips, espe-
cially if they own a vehicle. The authors also found significant ef-
fects for education and the residential environment.
Kim and Ulfarsson (2004) presented an MNL model for the
choice of senior citizens (65 and over) between private car, car
pool, public transport and walking. Their results indicate that
the car is the preferred mode choice of senior citizens. The choice
for a car is negatively influenced by age (younger seniors are
more likely to choose the car) and positively influenced by vehicle
ownership, high income and living alone. Walking was preferred
 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331
over public transport. For personal and recreational trips walking
was the principal mode. The proportions of trips by public trans-
port increased during the morning and midday, if the distance to
a bus stop was shorter, and if the travel distance was longer.
The same data-set was used by Su et al. (2008) to estimate MNL
models and nested logit (NL) models to estimate the mode choice
of elderly people for shopping trips. They also categorized trans-
port mode into car as driver, car as passenger, public transport
and walk. They found none of the socio-economic variables to be
significant in the MNL models. Access to different modes, such as
car ownership and bus stop density, as well as travel time and cost
were found to have a significant effect on mode choice. The results
of the NL models were similar, but with more significant variables,
such as income, urban density, having a disability, and age. Driving
was found to be the preferred mode.
Schmöcker et al. (2008) also analyzed mode choice decisions of
elderly and disabled people in London, based on personal and
home location attributes. They included six mode choices, namely
car as driver, car as passenger, bus/tram, train/tube, taxi and walk-
ing. They found a high preference for car use; public transport was
not preferred in most cases.
If the transport mode choice of senior citizens is estimated in
the Dutch situation, the model should include the bicycle as a
transport mode. This is pointed out by Tacken (1998) and Kemper-
man and Timmermans (2009). Tacken (1998) analyzed data of the
1994 Dutch National Travel Survey. He found that in the Nether-
lands 19% of all trips by people aged 75 or over are made by bicy-
cle. Kemperman and Timmermans (2009) analyzed the 2006
Mobility Research Netherlands (MON) data to study the participa-
tion in physical activities of the elderly and found that almost 23%
of trips by elderly people were biking trips and over 25% were
walking trips. The car, however, remains the most important mode
among Dutch senior citizens.
Arentze et al. (2008) used a comprehensive activity-based mod-
el combined with a trend analysis to predict mobility effects of an
ageing population taking into account cohort effects and activity
scheduling effects in choice behavior of the elderly. Their results
indicate that cohort change leads to a total growth of the mobility
of senior citizens in terms of passenger kilometers (especially by
car), travel time and trips.
Overall, the findings of the reviewed studies suggest that, in
spite of cultural differences, older people around the world are
found to travel less frequently and shorter distances than younger
generations. However, their number of trips and travel distances
are increasing. Many senior citizens nowadays have access to a
car and the car is their preferred mode of transport. The use of
alternative transportation, including public transport, is found to
be limited.
2.2. Social activities in an ageing population
Older people have different patterns of activities during the day
compared to younger generations. For the younger age group work
is an important share of the daily activities. For most senior citi-
zens, work is no longer part of their activities. This change that
comes with retirement can affect the social activities of senior
citizens.
Social activities have gained only little attention in activity-
based analysis. They have been viewed as a single category or have
even been combined with other leisure activities. However, within
the wide range of social activities, different types of activities can
be distinguished, such as visiting, performing a (club or union)
activity together, or just chatting. The number of studies on the
variety and choice of social activities is limited. Some examples
are the studies by Kemperman et al. (2006), Carrasco and Miller
(2006) and Farber and Paéz (2009). However, the focus of these
325
studies is not specifically on senior citizens. These studies indicate
that older people undertake fewer social activities compared to
younger generations.
Aoki et al. (1996) developed a social activity measure, consisting
of a score on job engagement, social participation or socially-re-
lated activities, activities for learning and personal activities. They
found that social activities of Japanese seniors decreased as age in-
creased. They found the social activity levels among the Japanese
elderly to be higher for males, higher educated people and senior
citizens who had hobbies and were physically active at middle age.
On the other hand, older (retired) people have more free time
compared to younger people. Time spent on work is replaced by
activities at home, visiting, shopping and recreational activities.
Tacken (1998) shows that visits and leisure time activities are
the most important activities for senior citizens, and that they
spend much more time on these activities than on others. The time
spent on visiting other people increases substantially with age Tac-
ken (1998).
As social activities often involve travel, the growing group of el-
derly people can potentially increase the travel demand for social
activities. So far, little is known about the social travel demand
of senior citizens. This study will therefore aim at increasing our
understanding of social trip generation of different age cohorts,
using a unique data-set showing their performance of social activ-
ities and trips for different social purposes.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Data collection
For this study we use data that were collected between January
and June 2008 in a number of neighborhoods in and around Eind-
hoven. The data-set includes 732 respondents aged 18–89. The
data collection instrument consisted of a paper and pencil social
interaction diary, in which the respondents were asked to record
all their social interactions during two days. Social interactions
were defined as all forms of social contact, for instance visiting,
performing a joint activity, having a conversation (face-to-face as
well as over the phone or online), sending or receiving an e-mail,
an SMS, a letter or a fax. Interactions at work or school about work
or school matters were not recorded; nor were interactions at
home with household members. Interactions that had a more busi-
nesslike nature than a social nature, like interactions with un-
known shop assistants when paying for merchandise were not
recorded either.
In the social interaction diary, information was gathered about
the communication mode used for the interaction, the day of the
week and the time of the day, the purpose of the interaction, with
whom and where the interaction took place. If travel was involved,
the travel distance and transport mode were recorded as well. In
addition to the social interactions, a number of personal character-
istics were collected, as well as a number of characteristics of the
respondents’ residential area. For further details about the data
collection procedure, see van den Berg et al. (2008).
3.2. Methods
Using the data from the social interaction diaries and the ques-
tionnaires, the relationship between travel demand for the purpose
of social activities will be estimated. We consider the travel de-
mand for social activities to be the result of three decisions:
1. The number of social trips made in 2 days.
2. The distance traveled for social activities.
326 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331
3. The transport mode used to travel to the location of the social
activity.
We use a set of regression models to analyze these variables in a
sequential procedure, as a result of a number of personal and
household characteristics. In addition to the personal and house-
hold characteristics, in the second model the dependent variable
of the first model (number of social trips) is included as an explan-
atory variable. In the third model both the number of social trips
and social travel distance are included as an explanatory variable
in the third model. This way, information overlap between the
models is avoided, while the travel demand for social activities of
senior citizens is analyzed exhaustively (Molin et al., 2007). We
use Nlogit (Greene, 2002a) to estimate models 1 and 3, and the
plm package (Croissant and Millo, 2008) in R for model 2. We
use a negative binomial model, random effects model and a mixed
logit model, respectively.
3.2.1. Negative binomial model
As the number of social trips a respondent made in 2 days is a
count variable, Poisson regression or negative binomial regression
can be used. We use a negative binomial regression model as this
allows the variance to differ from the mean. Negative binomial
regression can be considered a generalization of Poisson regression
and assumes that the conditional mean ki of yi is not only deter-
mined by xi but also a heterogeneity component ei unrelated to
xi. The formulation can be expressed as:
y
ProbðY  yi Þ ¼ eki ki i =yi !; y ¼ 0; 1; . . . ;
where lnki = b’xi + ei.
In this model exp(ei) has a gamma distribution with mean 1.0
and variance a. The formulation of the negative binomial distribu-
tion which can be used to model count data with overdispersion is
then derived as:
Prob½Y ¼ yi  ¼ Cðh þ yi Þ=½CðhÞyi !uhi ð1  ui Þyi
where C is the gamma distribution, ui = h/(h + ki), h = 1/a, a is a dis-
persion parameter, such that
Var½yi  ¼ E½yi f1 þ aE½yi g
3.2.2. Random effects model
To analyze the effect of the explanatory variables on the social
trip distance, a linear regression model can be used. However,
the data on this level has repeated measures (multiple trips per
respondent). The unexplained variation across groups (trips per
individual) can be captured in simple shifts of the regression func-
tion (i.e., changes in the intercepts) by using an effects model. Let
yit be the distance of trip t of individual i. The structure is (Greene,
2002b):
yit ¼ li þ b0 xit þ eit
where eit is a random disturbance term with E[eit] = 0 and Var[eit] =
r2e .
The effects may be fixed or random. In the case of a fixed effects
model li is a separate constant term for each unit (individual). In a
random effects model li is an individual specific disturbance,
which is assumed to be independent from the regressors. As our
model contains regressors with no within group variation (per-
sonal characteristics are constant for the trips of a person), we esti-
mated a random effects model of the following form (Greene,
2002b):
yit ¼ a þ b0 xit þ eit þ ui
where E[ui] = 0, Var[ui] = r2u .
3.2.3. Mixed logit model
Finally, in the third model, the transport mode choice of senior
citizens for social trip-making is analyzed using a mixed logit mod-
el. In the standard logit model, the alternative specific constants
and coefficient parameters (b’s), are fixed, which means they are
the same for everyone. Moreover, standard logit does not take into
account any unobserved factors that persist over time for a given
decision maker (with repeated choices). In mixed logit models,
both random taste variation and correlation in unobserved factors
over time, can be accounted for. For the mixed logit model, that
takes into account heterogeneity and repeated measures, the util-
ity for individual i for alternative j on choice occasion t would be:
U ijt ¼ b0 xijt þ eijt
where eijt is an unobserved random term that is distributed iid
extreme value, independent of bi and Xijt. Each random parameter
bi is defined as the average preference in the population, b, and an
individual deviation, gi which represents the individuals’ prefer-
ence relative to the average preference for a particular transport
mode. The utility is:
0
U ijt ¼ b xijt þ g0i xijt þ eijt
If bi were known, the probability that individual i chooses alter-
native j at choice occasion t would be standard logit:
0
Lij ðbi Þ ¼ ebi xijt =Rj ebi xijt
However, since bi is random and not known, the (unconditional)
choice probability is the integral of this logit formula over the den-
sity of bi. Assuming that the preferences vary in the population
with density f(b|h), where h are the parameters of this distribution,
the actual probability is (Greene, 2002a):
Z
Pij ðhÞ ¼ Li ðbÞf ðbjhÞdb
3.3. Explanatory variables
The choice of the explanatory variables for these models is
based on a review of the existing studies on trip-making in relation
to ageing. These studies agree that the explanatory variables
should include personal or household characteristics (age, gender,
ethnicity, number of people in the household, income, work status,
level of education) to explain the individual’s propensity to travel.
Others also include characteristics of the neighborhood (popula-
tion density, distance to bus stop), different forms of disability
and mobility characteristics (car ownership, license, public trans-
port pass possession, walking difficulties). To explain the propen-
sity to perform social activities personal and household
characteristics are usually used, as well as mobility characteristics
and social indicators such as social network size or involvement in
clubs.
The increasing income and increasing car possession among el-
derly will probably increase future travel demand for social pur-
poses. More and more senior citizens in the Netherlands
nowadays tend to move from urban to rural areas (Jorritsma and
Olde Kalter, 2008). Against this background it is interesting to
examine the effect of urban density on social trip variables (after
correcting for socio-economic and socio-demographic variables).
The data-set used in this paper was not collected with a special
focus on senior citizens (or people with disabilities). As a result, the
sample of elderly people and their social trips is rather small.
Therefore, the number of explanatory variables in the models is re-
stricted. We therefore included only one variable for residential
location (namely urban density) and one social indicator (namely
involvement in clubs). Disability was measured with the question:
‘‘Do you have a protracted illness or disability which restricts your
 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331 327

Table 1 trips. This is in line with results from other studies that indicate
Sample characteristics (N = 735). that the oldest age group makes fewer trips for all purposes (e.g.
N % Stern, 1993; Schmöcker et al., 2005) and that the proportion of so-
Age 18–34 168 23 cially active senior citizens decreases rapidly after the age of 75
35–54 322 43 (Aoki et al., 1996). Although the number of social interactions de-
55–64 137 19 creases with age, the average number of trips made for the purpose
65–69 54 7 of the social interactions does not differ significantly. This means
70–74 29 4
75+ 22 3
that with respect to the number of social trips, senior citizens are
as mobile as their younger counterparts.
Gender Male 283 39
Female 447 61
The social activities (that involve a trip) can be divided by dif-
ferent purposes. We distinguish a joint activity, visiting, talking
Household With partner 579 79
Single 150 21
or chatting and other purposes. The distribution of social trips by
these purposes across the different age groups can be seen in Table
Education Low 162 22
Middle 228 31
3. This Table shows that as people get older, they have smaller
High 342 47 shares of social trips for the purpose of just talking or chatting
Income Low (<€1000 per month) 44 7
and more for ‘other’ purposes. The purpose of the social activity
Medium (€1000–3000 per month) 377 57 will be included in models 2 and 3 as an explanatory variable.
High (>€3000 per month) 245 37 With regard to the travel distance for social activities we found
Work status Full time (>35 h per week) 230 31 significant differences between the age groups. However, the aver-
Part time 267 36 age travel distance does not seem to decrease as people get older.
No work 235 32 This can be seen in Table 4.
# Cars in household Mean 1.29 With respect to transport mode choice we distinguish between
Disability Yes 74 10 driving a car, traveling as a car passenger, cycling and walking.
No 642 90 Other forms of transport, such as public transport were hardly used
Involvement in clubs or 0 Clubs or unions 218 30 (despite the fact that in the Netherlands full time students and
unions 1 Club or union 207 28 people of 65 and over pay reduced fares for public transport) and
2 or more clubs or unions 307 42 therefore not considered in our analyses. Table 5 shows that differ-
Urban density Urban (>1500 addresses per km2) 284 39 ent age groups have somewhat different transport mode prefer-
Suburban (1000–1500 addresses 310 42 ences. For all age groups driving is the most important transport
per km2)
Rural (<1000 addresses per km2) 138 19

Table 3
Social trips by purpose.
ability to travel?” Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample
Age Joint activity Visit Talk/chat Other
on the explanatory variables that are included in our models.
Using these variables, we can examine the effect of age on social 18–34 115 32% 76 21% 56 15% 116 32%
35–54 236 27% 144 17% 108 13% 376 44%
travel behavior. All the categorical explanatory variables are dum-
55–64 100 30% 69 21% 33 10% 134 40%
my coded, with the second category as the reference category. 65–69 31 22% 19 14% 16 11% 75 53%
Although there is some correlation between the explanatory vari- 70–74 18 20% 18 20% 10 11% 46 50%
ables (e.g. older people are less likely to work full time), this is 75+ 12 31% 6 15% 2 5% 19 49%
not too high to cause a problem of multicollinearity. Total 512 28% 332 18% 225 12% 766 42%

4. Estimating social travel demand of senior citizens

This section presents three models to estimate the social travel Table 4
Mean social trip distance per age group.
demand characteristics of senior citizens: (1) the number of social
trips, and for each social trip (2) the travel distance and (3) the Age N Mean
transport mode choice. Before the estimation results are presented, Social trip distance (km) 18–34 357 16.32
we first compare the different age groups with respect to social 35–54 845 9.01
activities and travel. 55–64 332 12.75
65–69 137 11.05
We find that as people get older, they (on average) have signif- 70–74 89 13.74
icantly fewer social interactions. This goes for face-to-face as well 75+ 37 6.68
as ICT-mediated social interactions. This is shown in Table 2. The Total 1797 11.49
oldest age group (75+) is found to have the lowest number of social

Table 2 Table 5
Mean number of social activities in 2 days per age group. Transport mode choice per age group.

Age N ICT interactions Face-to-face interactions Social trips Age Car driver Car passenger Bicycle Walk
18–34 168 6.85 6.11 2.17 18–34 149 44% 53 16% 92 27% 43 13%
35–54 322 5.10 6.54 2.69 35–54 376 45% 80 10% 225 27% 147 18%
55–64 137 4.44 5.25 2.46 55–64 167 51% 41 13% 82 25% 38 12%
65–69 54 4.02 5.09 2.63 65–69 76 55% 17 12% 25 18% 20 15%
70–74 29 3.62 5.17 3.17 70–74 43 48% 3 3% 26 29% 17 19%
75+ 22 3.59 4.14 1.77 75+ 23 62% 3 8% 3 8% 8 22%
Total 732 5.19 5.97 2.51 Total 834 48% 197 11% 453 26% 273 16%
328 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331

mode for social trips. Senior citizens do not seem to become depen- nior citizens increases in the future, social trip-making might
dent on others to drive them to a social activity location; the share increase as well. The results further indicate that involvement
of trips as car passenger is lowest for the oldest cohorts. The share in clubs or unions is positively related to the number of social
of bicycle trips remains relatively stable with increasing age, but trips. This is a plausible finding, as clubs or unions often imply
drops quickly after the age of 75. The share of walking trips seems (social) meetings and activities. Finally, people who work full
to increase a little with age. time are found to make fewer social trips. This may be ex-
plained by the fact that they have less time to socialize with
4.1. Model 1: number of social trips others.
Gender, household structure, income and car ownership are not
In order to examine the effect of the explanatory variables on found to have a significant effect on the number of trips for social
the number of social trips a negative binomial model is estimated. activities. Strikingly, we did not find a negative effect of having a
The estimation results of model 1 are shown in Table 6. disability either, whereas others (e.g. Schmöcker et al., 2005) found
The results indicate that, when controlling for the other charac- that walking difficulties led to fewer trips. We do acknowledge
teristics, the number of social trips is not significantly influenced though that our data collection did not focus specifically on elderly
by age. This confirms our earlier notion that with respect to the and disabled people, which may cause the data to be less suitable.
number of social trips, senior citizens are as mobile as their youn-
ger counterparts.
Only three variables have a significant effect at the 95% con-
Table 7
fidence level. Higher educated people are found to make more
Estimation results for model 2: social travel distance (N = 1610).
social trips and a negative effect is found for lower educated
people. This finding suggests that if the education level of se- B Sig.
Constant 1.386 0.000
Age 18–34 0.289 0.005
Table 6 35–54 (reference)
Estimation results for model 1: number of social trips in 2 days. 55–64 0.347 0.005
65–69 0.438 0.018
B Sig. 70–74 0.306 0.151
Constant 0.988 0.000 75+ 0.238 0.441

Age 18–34 0.108 0.252 Gender Male 0.117 0.205

35–54 (reference) Female
55–64 0.035 0.700 Household With partner 0.061 0.579
65–69 0.030 0.792 Single
70–74 0.249 0.141
Education Low 0.092 0.445
75+ 0.135 0.447
Middle
Gender Male 0.001 0.700 High 0.052 0.564
Female
Income Low (<1000/month) 0.028 0.862
Household With partner 0.000 0.997 Medium
Single High (>3000/month) 0.046 0.608
Education Low 0.142 0.006 Work status Full time (>35 h per week) 0.315 0.003
Middle Part time
High 0.142 0.006 No work 0.012 0.924
Income Low (<1000/month) 0.082 0.241 # Cars in household 0.095 0.130
Medium
Disability Yes 0.012 0.929
High (>3000/month) 0.082 0.241
No
Work status Full time (>35 h per week) 0.168 0.063
Involvement in clubs or 0 Clubs or unions 0.081 0.444
Part time
unions
No work 0.043 0.613
1 Club or union
# Cars in household 0.000 0.803 2 or more clubs or unions 0.014 0.883
Disability Yes 0.000 0.758 Urban density Urban (>1500 addresses per 0.265 0.002
No km2)
Involvement in clubs or 0 Clubs or unions 0.249 0.008 Suburban (1000–1500 addr.
unions per km2)
1 Club or union Rural (<1000 addresses per 0.289 0.007
2 or more clubs or unions 0.140 0.114 km2)

Urban density Urban (>1500 addresses per 0.068 0.402 Purpose Joint activity 0.203 0.001
km2) Visit 0.406 0.000
Suburban (1000–1500 Talk 0.001 1.000
addresses per km2) Other (reference)
Rural (<1000 addresses per km2) 0.139 0.166 Number of trips 0.005 0.740
Dispersion parameter a 0.419 0.000
Number of observations 735 Number of observations (trips) 1610

Log likelihood function 1487.390 Number of groups (individuals) 522

Restricted log 1598.709 Effects: Idiosyncratic Var [e] 0.765 Std. dev. 0.875 Share 0.65
likelihood Individual Var [u] 0.414 Std. dev. 0.644 Share 0.35

Chi squared 222.637 Total sum of squares 1381.4

McFadden Pseudo R- 0.070 Residual sum of squares 1210.2

squared R-squared 0.124
 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331 329

4.2. Model 2: social travel distance
The second model that is estimated, analyses the travel distance
for social activities. As the data has repeated measures (multiple
trips per respondent), a random effects model is estimated to ac-
count for heterogeneity within and between respondents. For a
better-fitting model the dependent variable distance (in kilome-
ters) was transformed into the logarithm of the distance +1. All
explanatory variables are entered in the model. The number of so-
cial trips and the purpose of the social activity are included in this
model as explanatory variables as well.
The results are shown in Table 7. They show that age has a sig-
nificant effect on the traveled distance for social activities, when
controlling for the other characteristics. Positive coefficients are
found for the youngest age group and the 55–64 and 65–69 co-
horts. This means that these groups are likely to travel longer dis-
tances for social activities. Our findings show that, when
controlling for other personal characteristics, the average travel
distance does not decrease as people get older.
Beside age, three other variables are found to be significant. The
first one indicates that people who work full time are likely to tra-
vel longer distances for social activities. The results further suggest
that people who live in urban areas are likely to travel shorter dis-
tances for social activities. This can be explained by the fact that in
urban areas more social activity locations are concentrated. At the
same time we find that social travel distances tend to be shorter

Table 8
Estimation results for model 3: travel mode choice.

Passenger Bicycle Walk

B Sig. B Sig. B Sig.
Random parameters
Constant 4.414 0.000 3.044 0.000 0.000 1.000
Age 18–34 0.132 0.840 0.260 0.563 0.004 1.000
35–54
55–64 1.033 0.166 0.259 0.552 0.569 0.504
65–69 0.528 0.519 1.142 0.271 1.283 0.206
70–74 3.627 0.694 0.437 0.638 1.420 0.191
75+ 0.106 0.964 4.503 0.033 0.907 0.844

Non-random parameters
Gender Male 1.552 0.001 0.138 0.687 0.248 0.561
Female
Household With partner 1.539 0.025 0.707 0.109 0.282 0.655
Single
Education Low 1.322 0.030 0.533 0.302 0.536 0.418
Middle
High 0.202 0.648 0.006 0.987 0.489 0.287
Income High 0.338 0.448 0.352 0.376 0.210 0.648
Middle
Low 0.434 0.622 0.474 0.486 0.916 0.263
Cars # 0.739 0.027 1.787 0.000 1.027 0.005
Disability Yes 1.700 0.006 0.384 0.446 1.401 0.113
No
Number of clubs 0 0.315 0.523 0.580 0.187 0.140 0.790
1
2 or more 0.067 0.886 0.267 0.493 0.145 0.771
Urban density Urban 0.332 0.429 0.997 0.008 0.638 0.149
Suburban
Rural 0.826 0.156 1.049 0.026 0.679 0.248
# Social trips 0.020 0.803 0.039 0.562 0.046 0.555
Ln distance 0.647 0.000 1.303 0.000 4.945 0.000
Purpose Joint activity 0.965 0.007 0.549 0.037 0.736 0.043
Visit 0.966 0.012 0.327 0.325 0.094 0.833
Talk/discuss 1.029 0.056 0.640 0.110 0.363 0.464
Other

Standard deviations
Constant 1.359 0.000 2.206 0.000 1.124 0.102
Age 18–34 3.060 0.001 0.461 0.698 0.001 0.143
55–64 2.005 0.008 0.042 0.972 2.326 0.005
65–69 1.857 0.120 1.428 0.483 0.175 0.951
70–74 3.394 0.717 0.767 0.817 0.530 0.900
75+ 0.328 0.981 0.251 0.996 0.052 0.999
Number of observations 1563
Number of groups 592
Log-likelihood (no coefficients) 2166.748
Log-likelihood 1252.261
R-squared 0.422
R-squared adjusted 0.411
330 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331
than average in rural areas. This finding is in line with Föbker and
Grotz’ (2003) findings of extremely high quota of short leisure trips
of elderly people in rural areas and it confirms our earlier notion
that in rural areas stronger local networks exist in which close so-
cial contacts are kept.
Finally, the results indicate that the purpose of the social activ-
ity affects the travel distance as well. Trips for the purpose of vis-
iting tend to be longer than average. The same goes for trips for the
purpose of a joint activity.
The model has an R-squared of 0.124, which means that 12.4%
of the variance can be explained by the independent variables. Ta-
ble 7 shows that 35% of the unexplained variation is associated
with individuals.
4.3. Model 3: travel mode choice
The last model is used to analyze the travel mode choice for so-
cial trips. A mixed logit model is estimated because each respon-
dent has several choice situations and we expect preference
heterogeneity between the respondents. The choice between car
as driver, car as passenger, bicycle and walking is considered.
The first category, driver, is the largest category and serves as the
reference category in the model. Thus, the coefficients estimated
for passenger, bicycle and walk are interpreted relative to choosing
to drive a car for the social trip.
Again, all explanatory variables are included in the model,
including the purpose of the social activity and the variables that
were predicted in the previous models (the number of social trips
and the trip distance). Table 8 shows the estimation results of the
mixed logit model (model 3). For each respondent, 100 Halton ran-
dom draws were used.
The alternative specific constants and the age cohorts were
introduced as random parameters. The random parameters in this
study are estimated as normally distributed parameters in order to
allow parameters to get both negative and positive values.
The constants in the model represent the estimates for passen-
ger, bicycle and walking relative to car as driver when all explana-
tory variables in the model are evaluated at zero. The constants
indicate that, if all explanatory variables are evaluated at zero, peo-
ple are less likely to travel as a car passenger and more likely to
choose bicycle to go to the location of the social activity, compared
to driving. The latter may seem unlikely, but we should realize that
this holds after having corrected for travel distance. In other words,
this result indicates that a base preference for cycling exists that is
offset by distance. If the distance increases, the likelihood of choos-
ing bicycle decreases.
With regard to age the results indicate that older seniors (75+)
are less likely to choose the bicycle, relative to driving. No other
significant age effects were found.
Males are found to be less likely to be car passenger than fe-
males. This finding is in line with Golob and Hensher (2007) and
Schmöcker et al. (2008) who also found that males, compared to
females, were more likely to drive and less likely to be passengers.
People who live with a partner are found to be more likely to be a
car passenger. This is a plausible finding, as we can assume that
partners often travel together by car to a social activity location.
Lower educated people are found to be more likely to travel to a
social activity location as a car passenger. Car ownership is found
to result in a larger likelihood of choosing to travel as a car passen-
ger, relative to driving. The same goes for people with a disability.
This is a plausible finding that is in line with other studies.
With respect to urban density, the results indicate that people
who live in urban or in rural areas (as opposed to suburban areas)
are more likely to cycle. Kemperman and Timmermans (2009),
who studied the relation between environmental characteristics
and walking and bicycling patterns of the ageing population, also
found that in rural areas the bicycle is more preferred. Their results
further indicate that senior citizens in higher urbanized areas make
more walking trips.
Regarding distance the results show that if the travel distance
increases, people are more likely to travel as a car passenger and
less likely to cycle, and especially walk. The purpose of the social
activity is also found to significantly affect travel mode choice.
For a joint activity people are more likely to choose to travel as a
passenger, by bike or on foot, relative to driving. For visiting and
talking or discussing people are also more likely to ride along with
someone.
There is evidence of heterogeneity in the transport mode choice.
The unobserved preference heterogeneity terms for passenger and
bicycle are highly significant. This indicates substantial variation
across individuals in the overall preference for riding along and
bicycling relative to driving. We also found preference heterogene-
ity across decision makers within the age cohorts 18–34 and 55–
64. An R-square of 0.411 indicates a high goodness of fit of the
model.
5. Conclusions and discussion
As the population of the Netherlands is getting older, more in-
sight into the effect of ageing on travel demand is needed. Older
people’s travel demand is changing: car ownership and reliance
are increasing, as well as trip distance and trip frequency. Social
travel is especially important for older people, as their proportion
of travel for social purposes is higher than average. Whereas for
other activities, especially work activities, older people make fewer
trips and travel shorter distances than younger people, we have
shown that for social activities senior citizens are as mobile as their
younger counterparts.
Using a unique data-set based on social interaction diary data
that was collected in 2008 in the Eindhoven region in the Nether-
lands, three models were estimated to analyze the relationship be-
tween age and characteristics of trip-making for social activities.
First, in order to estimate the number of social trips in 2 days a
negative binomial model was estimated. We found that high edu-
cation and involvement in clubs on average result in more social
trips, whereas full time work is found to result in fewer social trips.
Even though the focus of other studies is rarely on social trips,
these findings seem to be in line with results from other studies.
However, in contrast with other studies, we did not find significant
effects for gender and having a disability. No significant age effects
were found, which shows that senior citizens make as many social
trips as younger age groups.
The second model is a random effects model which was esti-
mated to analyze the travel distance for social activities. Longer
trip distances were found for people who work full time. Shorter
trips were found for people in urban as well as rural areas. Visits
and joint activities were found to be associated with longer dis-
tances. With regard to trip distance the results showed that the
average travel distance for social activities does not decrease as
people get older. This again underlines our finding that for social
activities senior citizens are as mobile as younger age groups.
The third model is a random parameters logit model to predict
the travel mode choice for social trips. The choice between the four
main transport modes (car as driver, car as passenger, bicycle and
walking) was considered. The results indicated a base preference
for cycling. However, the tendency to cycle decreases rapidly as
the trip distance increases. Significant effects were found for gen-
der: males are less likely to be car passenger. Larger likelihoods
of choosing to ride along were found for people who live with a
partner and people with a disability. Significant effects were also
found for education level, car ownership, urban density, distance
 P. van den Berg et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 323–331
and the purpose of the social activity. The model had a relatively
high R-square.
The data-set used in this paper was not collected with a special
focus on senior citizens. As a result, the sample of elderly people
and their social trips was rather small, which restricted the num-
ber of explanatory variables in the models.
Nevertheless, the results provide new information on the effect
of age on travel behavior for social purposes in the Dutch context.
Specific to the Dutch context is the preference for cycling. As in
other countries, the car is the preferred transport mode of the
Dutch elderly. However, in the Dutch situation, cycling is the sec-
ond most important transport mode, even for the oldest group.
Therefore, future transportation policy in the Netherlands should
give special attention to the safety of senior citizens traveling by
bicycle.
Moreover, using data with a specific focus on social activities,
this study adds to the understanding of the travel demand of the
elderly for social purposes, which has received very little attention
in (international) academic research. The unique data-set allowed
us to study the travel (of senior citizens) for different types of so-
cial activities in more detail compared to the regular travel sur-
veys. With regard to the travel behavior for social activities, we
found that senior citizens are as mobile as their younger counter-
parts. The increasing income level of senior citizens and their
increasing car ownership will probably lead to increasing future
travel demand for social purposes.
References
Agneessens, F., Waege, H., Lievens, J., 2006. Diversity in social support by role
relations: a typology. Social Networks 28 (4), 427–441.
Alsnih, R., Hensher, D., 2003. The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors
in an ageing population. Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003), 903–916.
Aoki, R., Ohno, Y., Tamakoshi, A., Kawakami, N., Nagai, M., Hashimoto, S., Ikari, A.,
Shimizu, H., Sakata, K., Kawamura, T., Wakai, K., Senda, M., 1996. Lifestyle
determinants for social activity levels among the Japanese elderly. Archives of
Gerontology and Geriatrics 22 (1996), 271–286.
Arentze, T.A., Timmermans, H.J.P., Jorritsma, P., Olde Kalter, M.-J., 2008. More gray
hair–but for whom? Scenario-based simulations of elderly activity travel
patterns in 2020. Transportation 35, 613–627.
Banister, D., Bowling, A., 2004. Quality of life for the elderly: the transport
dimension. Transport Policy 11, 105–115.
Carrasco, J., Miller, E., 2006. Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a
social networks approach. Transportation 33, 463–480.
Collia, D., Sharp, J., Giesbrecht, L., 2003. The 2001 national household travel survey:
a look into the travel patterns of older Americans. Journal of Safety Research 34
(2003), 461–470.
Croissant, Y., Millo, G., 2008. Panel data econometrics in R: the plm package. Journal
of Statistical Software 27 (2).
Farber, S., Páez, A., 2009. My car, my friends, and me: an exploratory analysis of
automobility and social activities. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (3), 216–
225.
Föbker, S., Grotz, R., 2003. Leisure-related mobility of elderly people: ways to
sustainability. Paper Presented at the 43rd Congress of the European Regional
Science Association (ERSA). Jyväskylä, Finland.
331
Golob, T., Hensher, D., 2007. The trip chaining activity of Sydney residents: a cross-
section assessment by age group with a focus on seniors. Journal of Transport
Geography 15, 298–312.
Greene, W.H., 2002a. Nlogit Version 3.0 Reference Guide. Econometric Software,
Inc., Plainview, NY.
Greene, W.H., 2002b. Nlogit Version 3.0 User’s Manual. Econometric Software, Inc.,
Plainview, NY.
Hildebrand, E., 2003. Dimensions in elderly travel behavior: a simplified activity-
based model using lifestyle clusters. Transportation 30, 285–306.
Jorritsma, P., Olde Kalter, M., 2008. Grijs op reis. Over de mobiliteit van ouderen.
Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, Den Haag.
Kemperman, A., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2006. Social commitments and
activity-travel scheduling decisions. In: Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Kemperman, A., Timmermans, H., 2009. Influences of the built environment on
walking and cycling of latent segments of the ageing population. In:
Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Kim, S., Ulfarsson, G., 2004. The travel mode choice of the elderly: effects of
personal, household, neighborhood and trip characteristics. In: Proceedings of
the 83th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Mercado, R., Páez, A., 2009. Determinants of distance traveled with a focus on the
elderly: a multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Journal of Transport
Geography 17, 65–76.
Molin E., Arentze T., Timmermans H., 2007. Social activities and travel demands: a
model-based analysis of social-network data. Paper Presented at Frontiers in
Transportation 2007, Amsterdam.
Newbold, K., Scott, D., Spinney, J., Kanaroglou, P., Páez, A., 2005. Travel behavior
within Canada’s older population: a cohort analysis. Journal of Transport
Geography 13, 340–351.
Páez, A., Scott, D., Potoglou, D., Kanaroglou, P., Newbold, K., 2006. A mixed ordered
probit analysis of elderly trip generation in the Hamilton CMA. In: 11th
International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto.
Rosenbloom, S., 2001. Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: and
international assessment. Transportation 28, 375–408.
Schmöcker, J., Quddus, M., Noland, R., Bell, M., 2005. Estimating trip generation of
elderly and disabled people: an analysis of London data. In: Proceedings of the
84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Schmöcker, J., Quddus, M., Noland, R., Bell, M., 2008. Mode choice of older and
disabled people: a case study of shopping trips in London. Journal of Transport
Geography 16 (2008), 257–267.
Silvis, J., Niemeier, D., 2009. Social network and dwelling characteristics that
influence ridesharing behavior of seniors. In: Proceedings of the 88th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Statistics Netherlands, January 2009. <www.cbs.nl>.
Stern, S., 1993. A disaggregate discrete choice model of transportation demand by
elderly and disabled people in rural Virginia. Transportation Research Part A 27
(4), 315–327.
Su, F., Schmöcker, J., Bell, M., 2008. Mode choice of older people before and after
shopping – a study with London data. In: Proceedings of the 87th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Tacken, M., 1998. Mobility of the elderly in time and space in the Netherlands: an
analysis of the Dutch national travel survey. Transportation 25, 379–393.
van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2008. Social networks, ICT use and
activity-travel patterns. Data collection and first analyses. In: Paper presented
at the 9th International Conference on Design & Decision Support Systems in
Architecture and Urban Planning, 7–10 July, 2008, The Netherlands.
van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2009. Size and composition of ego-
centered social networks and their effect on geographical distance and contact
frequency. In: Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.