Introduction
Both the ability and the opportunity to move around are essential prerequisites for older adults' independent living and societal participation. Mobility – the fundamental physical capacity to move – is a basic human need and essential to personal health (e.g. Heikkinen et al. Reference Heikkinen, Era, Jokela, Jylhä, Lyra, Pohjolainen and Schroots1992; US Department of Transportation 2003; Wahl et al. Reference Wahl, Mollenkopf, Oswald, Claus, Mollenkopf and Walker2007). In gerontology, mobility in the later years of life has been predominantly understood in functional terms; that is, as a physical health or geriatric problem. For decades, a wide range of research has sought to understand, among other things, the decline in mobility performance with age, such as decrements in sensory abilities and sensorimotor integration; the loss of motor control and voluntary strength; slowing motor action and speed of processing; the shrinking range of motion and flexibility; and the decreasing ability to stabilise posture (e.g. Ketcham and Stelmach Reference Ketcham, Stelmach, Birren and Schaie2001; O'Neill and Dobbs Reference O'Neill and Dobbs2004).
In addition, transport research concerned with older people has strongly emphasised the description and explanation of change and stability in objective mobility patterns with increasing age. A multitude of studies have provided rich statistical data on older adults' actual travel behaviour, usually defined as movement in time and space, measured in terms of trips or journeys and reported in standard ways on diary forms (e.g. Centre d'études sur les réseaux, les transports, l'urbanisme et les constructions publiques (CERTU) 2001; European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 2000; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2001; Rosenbloom Reference Rosenbloom2001; Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2004). It is true that findings depend on national particulars, but general tendencies and structures correspond in important respects. One classic finding, for example, is that older people tend to make less use of most modes of travel but not walking, largely because of increasing health decrements and sensory impairments (e.g. Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman, Tacken, Kaspar and Wahl2002). Also, older individuals with a driver's licence and access to a private automobile travel more than those who do not have access to a car (e.g. Banister and Bowling Reference Banister and Bowling2004; ECMT 2000; Marottoli et al. Reference Marottoli, Mendes de Leon, Glass, Williams, Cooney, Berkman and Tinetti1997; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman, Tacken, Kaspar and Wahl2002; Rosenbloom Reference Rosenbloom2004).
Very often, however, the functional and objective approach to mobility neglects the key concerns of older adults' mobility (Alsnih and Hensher Reference Alsnih and Hensher2003; Banister and Bowling Reference Banister and Bowling2004; Gabriel and Bowling Reference Gabriel and Bowling2004; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tacken2004b; Ziegler and Schwanen Reference Ziegler and Schwanen2011). That is, the meaning that individuals attribute to mobility and their experiences when venturing out are assessed only rarely. It has been argued that mobility can be performed for its own sake and not for what is commonly described as a ‘derived demand’ (Mokhtarian Reference Mokhtarian2005). In this context, the attraction or deterrence of the natural, social and built environment can play a crucial role (Banister and Bowling Reference Banister and Bowling2004; Holland et al. Reference Holland, Kellaher, Peace, Scharf, Breeze, Gow, Gilhooly and Walker2005). Motivational, cognitive or personality aspects are also important in older people's decisions about going out (Schaie Reference Schaie, Schaie, Wahl, Mollenkopf and Oswald2003). Moreover, in modern society, mobility is associated with highly appreciated goals like freedom, autonomy and flexibility (Cobb and Coughlin Reference Cobb and Coughlin2004; Handy, Weston and Mokhtarian Reference Handy, Weston and Mokhtarian2005; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman and Tacken2005). One can even argue that experiencing reduced mobility is an important component of the awareness of getting older, and that it puts pressure on the ageing self and on identity management in later life (Biggs Reference Biggs2005; Diehl and Wahl Reference Diehl and Wahl2010).
Only in recent years has the focus of empirical mobility and transport research considered the more subjective and motivational aspects of travel and driving behaviour. Case studies in four European cities have made clear, for example, that mobility means much more to older adults than traversing distance (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman, Tacken and Wahl2004a, Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tackenb). Satisfaction with one's abilities to get about, to pursue leisure activities and to travel have been shown to be more significant components of overall wellbeing than objective predictors such as functional impairments (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Baas, Kaspar, Oswald, Wahl, Wahl, Brenner, Mollenkopf, Rothenbacher and Rott2006). In a study of older people's own definitions of quality of life, Farquhar (Reference Farquhar1995) found that the ability to go out more was specified as a condition for a better quality of their life, while being housebound reduced the quality of life. Similar findings were reported by Coughlin (Reference Coughlin2001) with respect to the meaning of transport, albeit mostly related to being able to drive a car. Banister and Bowling (Reference Banister and Bowling2004) found that a sense of optimism and positive expectations of life are critical for the transport dimension of older adults' perceptions of quality of life. Although these studies have contributed much to a better understanding of the importance of perceived mobility in old age, no work has been published that addresses the long-term stability and change of such perceptions. In particular, given the pronounced accumulation of loss experiences from late-middle adulthood and early old age to very old age in the health and social realm (e.g. Baltes Reference Baltes2006), it is important to learn whether and how such change is reflected in subjective experiences of mobility.
Against this background, the goal of this research was to understand better the long-term stability and change in major perceptions of out-of-home mobility using data gathered over ten years. This paper first addresses the trajectories over time of the subjective meaning attached to mobility, of perceived changes in mobility and of the perceived reasons for change. Second, we analyse temporal change in satisfaction with various mobility domains – mobility in general and that using public transport, and with out-of-home leisure activities and travel. Third, we present a case-oriented exploration of inter-individual variation in such mobility-related satisfaction. This was driven by the assumption that the subjective experience of out-of-home mobility over long periods is highly individual, and that information about this variability will add substantially to our understanding of the diversity of personal ageing (Daatland and Biggs Reference Daatland and Biggs2006). We have used both qualitative and quantitative methods to address these goals.
Methods
Study design and sample
The paper draws from a study that began with research on older adults' out-of-home mobility in four European cities in 1995 (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tacken2004b). The German component on which this paper is based was carried out in the cities of Mannheim (western Germany) and Chemnitz (eastern Germany); both are medium-sized industrial cities with diverse settlement structures and public transport (tram and bus lines) as well as inter-city rail connections and autobahnen [motorways, freeways]. The quantitative element of the study draws on data collected from 804 people aged 55 or more years at baseline in 1995 (T1) who were randomly sampled from the population registers maintained by the cities' Municipality Registration Offices and stratified by age and sex. With weighting, the samples were representative of the two communities and did not differ significantly from the major socio-demographic characteristics of the general German population aged 55 or more years in 1995 (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tacken2004b). Thirty-five participants were selected for additional in-depth interviews in 1996. At the second wave, five years later in 2000 (T2), 271 respondents from the original sample were assessed again for the first follow-up of the European project ‘Mobilate: Enhancing Outdoor Mobility in Later Life’ (seeMollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Baas, Ciarrocchi, Hirsiaho, Kohan and Principi2003, Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman and Tacken2005, Reference Mollenkopf, Baas, Kaspar, Oswald, Wahl, Wahl, Brenner, Mollenkopf, Rothenbacher and Rott2006). A third-wave assessment (T3) was undertaken in Chemnitz and Mannheim in 2005 of 82 participants (about 30% of the first follow-up and 11% of the original sample). Taken together, the data analysed in this paper refer to ten years of the participants' lives.
The reasons for dropout were recorded using standard protocols. Given the extended duration of the study, the most frequent reasons were deaths or worsened health (almost 20% for each), and others were refusals to continue participation or failure to locate or access participants. Logistic regression analysis based on data from the 2000 wave indicated that age (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, p<0.05), education (OR 1.59, p<0.05) and the number of transport modes used in 2000 (OR 1.27, p<0.05) influenced participation in 2005, and that the probability of participating in 2005 increased with younger age, higher education and the greater number of transport modes used.
As can be seen in Table 1, the average age at T3 of the 82 individuals who were assessed over the ten years was 75.2 years (50% aged 65–74 years, 50% aged 75 or more years). The proportions of women and men were almost the same (48% and 52%). Most of the participants were married (66%) and living in multi-person households (68%). About every fourth respondent (24%) was widowed. The participants' level of education was relatively high: almost one-half had a higher level of education (high school or university degree). The participants' satisfaction with their financial situation decreased over time, from a mean score of 7.7 in 1995 to 7.0 in 2005. Similarly, albeit a less marked trend, the rating of subjective health decreased over time, from 7.3 in 1995 to 6.9 and 6.7 five and ten years later.
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample
Notes: The sample size was 82. 1. The analyses included also the characteristics ‘married, living separately’ (N=1), ‘divorced’ (N=3) and ‘never married’ (N=4), which amounted to 10 per cent at each assessment. 2. Satisfaction was assessed on an 11-point scale from 0=lowest satisfaction to 10=highest satisfaction.
The assessment instruments
To assure the comparability of the answers at all assessments, each follow-up retained the main aspects of the instruments used at the first wave of data collection; that is, the standardised questionnaire and the standardised elements of the semi-structured, in-depth, follow-up interviews in 1996 (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Baas, Ciarrocchi, Hirsiaho, Kohan and Principi2003, Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tacken2004b). The questionnaire was partly based on assessments of proven value in previous studies, such as the Finnish Evergreen project (Heikkinen Reference Heikkinen1998), the Nordic Research on Ageing study (NORA; Avlund, Kreiner and Schultz-Larsen Reference Avlund, Kreiner and Schultz-Larsen1993; Heikkinen et al. Reference Heikkinen, Berg, Schroll, Steen and Viidik1997), the German Welfare Survey (Zapf and Habich Reference Zapf and Habich1996) and the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP; e.g. Zapf and Habich Reference Zapf and Habich1996), the last being a representative survey of people aged 17 or more years that was established in 1984 and continues.
Levels of satisfaction with mobility opportunities, with public transport, with opportunities to pursue leisure activities, and with opportunities to travel were assessed using one item from the German Welfare Survey and the multi-wave SOEP, which is scored with a Likert scale from ‘0’ (lowest satisfaction) to ‘10’ (highest satisfaction). The wording of the satisfaction with mobility options question was: ‘How satisfied are you with your out-of-home mobility?’ This question aimed to cover all options about getting where one wants to go, whether on foot, by bicycle, as a car driver or passenger, or on public transport. Three follow-up questions had the same wording: ‘How satisfied are you with … public transport/ your out-of-home leisure activities/ your travel?’ A decided advantage of these assessments is the 11-point scale, which counters the common tendency for respondents to nominate positive scores in such ratings. Single-item ratings are quite common in the international satisfaction literature, including those that use multiple measurement designs and have been found to perform no worse in terms of reliability and validity when compared to multi-item questionnaires (Easterlin Reference Easterlin2003; Veenhoven Reference Veenhoven1996). In terms of perceived change, the participants were requested to rate at T2 (2000) and T3 (2005) whether their out-of-home mobility had changed with the question: ‘Do you think your out-of-home mobility has become better, worsened or remained the same during the last five years?’
Much of the semi-structured interview at T3 (i.e. the qualitative element of the assessment) focused on the respondent's personal experiences and the subjective meanings they attributed to their out-of-home mobility options. Questions such as, ‘What does being out-of-home mean to you?’ and ‘How important is travelling for you?’ were used to elicit the meaning attached to various facets of out-of-home mobility. A similar exploration of the meanings of mobility was conducted at T1, so the participants' understanding of mobility at T1 and T3 could be directly compared. Furthermore, an open-ended question asked them to explain why their mobility had changed since 2000, and encouraged them to relate all relevant events and experiences over the previous five years. All T3 interviews were tape recorded and all the qualitative responses were transcribed. Well-trained interviewers from the Markt-, Meinungs- und Sozialforschung (USUMA) research institute in Berlin conducted the German interviews in 1995 and 2000. In 2005, the Chemnitz interviews were also carried out by USUMA interviewers, while the Mannheim interviews were conducted by project staff trained in quantitative as well as qualitative assessment.
Data analyses
Analysis of the quantitative data records was performed using the SAS statistical package and, because of the rather low sample size, was kept simple. Statistical testing used t-tests and the conventional decision level of 5 per cent (p<0.05). For the analysis of the open-ended responses, we applied the principles of content analysis (e.g. Mayring Reference Mayring2003). First, the project team undertook several readings of the elicited material to extract the main themes mentioned by the participants, which were then grouped and re-grouped into conceptually meaningful categories as consensually agreed by the project team. Then statements that exemplified well the categories were selected – some are quoted in the results section. We gave special attention to the translation of the quotations into English, by engaging a translator who is highly competent in both German and English and who used a back-and-forth procedure. All names were changed to comply with data protection regulations. An important and distinctive ambition was to combine the quantitative and qualitative data with the intention that each data-analytic element supplemented the understanding of the other about how out-of-home mobility was perceived by older adults over time.
Results
Perceived changes of out-of-home mobility over time and reasons for change
The meaning in the participants' statements of what out-of-home mobility meant to them was almost the same in 2005 as ten years earlier (see Table 2). As in our earlier reports (Mollenkopf and Flaschenträger Reference Mollenkopf and Flaschenträger2001; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila and Tacken2004b), we were able to categorise the elicited semantic material into seven categories, although they should not be seen as completely distinct but to an extent interwoven and overlapping: (1) out-of-home mobility as a basic emotional experience; (2) physical movement as a basic human need; (3) mobility as movement and participation in the natural environment; (4) mobility as a social need; (5) mobility as an expression of personal autonomy and freedom; (6) mobility as a source of stimulation and diversion; and finally (7) the ability to move about as a reflective expression of the person's remaining life force. For most of the participants, mobility included more than one aspect and some of the facets were tightly interwoven, reflecting mobility's multi-dimensional meanings. Taken together, it seems that out-of-home mobility maintained more or less the same range and richness of meaning elements over the ten years of observations.
Table 2. The meaning of out-of-home mobility: main categories extracted from verbal material with exemplary citations
Comparing the older adults' subjectively perceived changes in their out-of-home mobility over the ten years gave a clear picture of continuity and change in this domain (Table 3). About two-thirds of the participants said at both follow-up assessments (in 2000 and 2005) that their mobility had not changed, and about one-third (27% in 2000 and 34% in 2005) reported a decline. While 4 per cent reported improved mobility in 2000, none did in 2005. It is clear that a perceived worsening of mobility was linked with chronological age. Almost 30 per cent of the older age group stated a decline in 2000 compared to just 24.4 per cent of the younger participants. Five years later, the differential was greater (50% and 20%, respectively). Men and women showed only minor differences in this regard.
Table 3. Perceived changes in out-of-home mobility in 2000 compared to 1995 and in 2005 compared to 2000
The perceived reasons for a change in mobility reflected both personal and environmental circumstances and most centred on the themes of loss and deterioration. Declining health was mentioned most frequently, but it is important to note that many health changes were set in a wider context of day-to-day life, as in the following quotation from Mr Walter (aged 86 years): ‘Despite the prosthesis I feel pain and because of this my walking is restricted, and when I come home – not in winter, but in spring, in summer, I have to undress and my wife gives me a shower’. In addition to health-related reasons, many others were mentioned as impacting on out-of-home mobility, such as caring for a family member. As Mrs Hansen (aged 75 years) said: ‘Of course, my whole situation has changed because of this task [to care for the husband who suffers from dementia]. I myself, if I were independent, if I would not have to care for someone, I could walk, I could travel and I could do anything I want’.
The challenges imposed by specific environmental circumstances were also mentioned frequently, as by Mr Nolte (88 years) who said: ‘I can no longer move about in the open countryside as I did in the past. Five years ago I still went fishing, but this is not possible any more. When I go to the river I risk being alone and if I passed out there – maybe I wouldn't fall into the water, but I'd stay lying a long time’. Furthermore, financial, health and aspects of the family situation were frequently intricately interwoven, as Mr Ober (77 years) explained: ‘I don't have a car any more, have to go everywhere on foot – or [use] only public modes of transport like the tram, but I have no other options. I would have to ask my son to take me somewhere’. In sum, many reasons for change in mobility were perceived and they went far beyond health and function-related issues. Moreover, the latter were typically embedded with other issues related to the family or the environment; in other words, attributions of perceived mobility changes simply to health and disease were seldom perceived in the everyday world of the participants.
Satisfaction with key areas of mobility over time
Taking first satisfaction with out-of-home mobility, in general the participants' reported a high level of satisfaction with their mobility opportunities over the ten years, but there was a decrease from the second to the third wave (Table 4). The mean satisfaction scores were 8.4 at T1, 8.3 at T2 and 7.8 at T3. This trend applied particularly for men, and those aged 75 or more years expressed lower satisfaction with their mobility opportunities than those aged 65–74 years. As expected, older adults who reported a decrease in their mobility opportunities at the second and third assessments were significantly less satisfied with their mobility in general than people whose mobility did not change. Turning to satisfaction with public transport, average satisfaction with public transport increased over the ten years among the people who used it, from a mean score of 7.2 in 1995 through 8.1 in 2000 to 8.2 in 2005 (Table 4). Women were less satisfied than men at all assessments. When distinguishing between people with mobility impairments and those without, the former's satisfaction decreased only slightly between the second and third assessment (from 7.9 to 7.2). Older adults who did not report mobility restrictions showed a remarkable rise in their satisfaction with public transport.
Table 4. Mean scores for satisfaction with mobility opportunities and satisfaction with public transport
Notes: The satisfaction score is scaled from 0 to 10. The sample for public transport is of users only. 1. Significant differences between 1995 and 2000. 2. Significant differences between 2000 and 2005. 3. Significant differences between 1995 and 2005.
As everyday activities require at least a minimum of physical mobility, it is no surprise that over time changes in leisure activities and travel occurred predominantly among those who reported mobility restrictions. Among the mobility impaired, 61 per cent experienced a decline in both domains, 33 per cent only in leisure activities, and 49 per cent in just travel. The main reasons for decreasing activities were the same as for decreasing mobility: declining health, lack of money, having to care for a family member or having no companion, difficulties using transport modes as well as environmental barriers. About a quarter of all the respondents and about one-half of those with mobility impairments did not travel at all. This means, however, that every other older adult with impairments went on journeys, albeit to less distant destinations and of shorter duration than previously. With regard to satisfaction with one's opportunities for leisure activities and travel, a similar trend was observed as that for satisfaction with mobility opportunities (Table 5). On average, there was a significant decrease over the ten years for the entire sample and for various subgroups. Satisfaction with leisure activities decreased from a mean score of 8.1 in 1995 through 7.9 in 2000 to 7.5 in 2005, and the equivalent scores for satisfaction with travel were 8.5, 7.9 and 7.0. Significant decreases occurred both in leisure activities and travel among people who reported mobility impairments. However, a significant decrease was also observed in those without mobility impairment regarding travel, which may indicate that reducing travel in very old age is driven not only by mobility restrictions but also by safety issues and concerns about using specific means of transport, particularly cars, trains and planes.
Table 5. Mean scores for satisfaction with out-of-home leisure activities and satisfaction with opportunities to travel
Notes: The satisfaction score is scaled from 0 to 10. 1. Significant differences between 1995 and 2000. 2. Significant differences between 2000 and 2005. 3. Significant differences between 1995 and 2005.
Case-oriented exploration of individual differences in satisfaction with mobility
In the following section, we return to the key areas of out-of-home mobility as itemised above, examine and contrast selected extreme cases of divergent trajectories, and concentrate on the overall rating of satisfaction with mobility opportunities and with public transport (users only). We use the total sample as a basis for the overall comparison and provide background material and quotations to explicate the diversity. In addition, Figure 1 illustrates individual differences in mobility as people age. When compared with the entire sample, the change in Mr Lechner's (aged 80 years) and Mrs Dahlmann's (87 years) satisfaction with their mobility opportunities over the ten years mirrored a characteristic pattern (Figure 1a). Mr Lechner's satisfaction with out-of-home mobility opportunities decreased between 1995 (mean score 10.0) and 2000 (mean 9.0) as a result of a severe illness. He recovered from this illness between the second and the third assessment and was happy about his new freedom. He said: ‘Thanks to my recovery it is possible to put more strain on my body and I make the most of it for journeys, for hiking and for long-distance trips’. Together with his wife, he walked at least five to six kilometres every day and did all his shopping and errands on foot or by public transport – they had no car. He was still able to pursue his hobbies actively – cooking, painting, working with wood and other material – and felt no impairments. He said, ‘So I can be quite satisfied’ (mean score 9.0).
Figure 1. Change over time in mobility satisfaction scores for the sample and two individuals. (a) Satisfaction with mobility opportunities; (b) satisfaction with public transport (users only).
Mrs Dahlmann's satisfaction with her mobility opportunities changed quite differently. Her mobility-related satisfaction increased between 1995 (mean 7.0) and 2000 (9.00), but she suffered from late effects of cancer surgery and had operations on her veins and hip between the second and third assessment. As the last was not completely successful, her mobility was heavily restricted. She could still reach shops and services in the neighbourhood by foot, but longer trips were no longer possible because she had given up driving and had not become accustomed to public transport. Her satisfaction with her opportunities to move about decreased sharply at the third measurement (mean 3.0). As she explained:
My activities in the dwelling are only a little restricted – of course, I can't do many things and this matters a lot. As to moving about outdoors, out-of-home activities are restricted. … Actually, because of the pain I walk with the aid of a stick anyway, and that makes me feel very uncertain. … In the past I loved hiking, even in high mountain areas – but this is no longer possible. My activities are limited to what I have to do: shopping and what is necessary for daily living.
The variability in individual circumstances and experiences and the resulting evaluations regarding satisfaction with public transport are illustrated well by two examples (Figure 1b). Mrs Faust's (aged 77 years) husband had moved into a nursing home during the last months of his life, but she had visited and provided care everyday. Her limited mobility options were reflected by a rather low satisfaction score for public transport (mean 5.0 in 1995). After her husband passed away between the second and third interviews, she re-engaged in out-of-home activities, but because she did not have a driver's licence, she made most trips on foot or by public transport, and because of a severe visual impairment she had difficulties orientating herself when moving about on foot. For some years, her reliance on public transport had grown, and her satisfaction with the services increased from a mean score of 8.0 in 2000 to 9.0 in 2005. She said, ‘everything [I do is] by bus or tram … just [going] to the baker's, I walk, but because of my visual impairment and … well, indeed, you are no longer entirely agile with advancing age’. In contrast, Mr Nolte (88 years) had seriously impaired physical mobility but nonetheless at the first and second assessments was quite satisfied with public transport (mean scores 9.0 and 8.0, respectively). Between the second and third assessment, however, his health worsened to the extent that he needed help to leave the house and consequently public transport was irrelevant and his satisfaction with it was zero. He complained: ‘I have the problem that I don't have the strength any more to walk to the tram stop by myself … because I am physically handicapped. I am no longer satisfied with the tram because I cannot use it any more!’
Discussion
The reported longitudinal investigation of older adults' out-of-home mobility in two German cities over ten years has provided the opportunity to analyse how older men's and women's perceptions of moving about alter or remain stable over time. We have considered the meaning attached to out-of-home mobility in 1995 and in 2005 as well as the perceived changes in out-of-home mobility, the subjectively reported reasons for such changes, and people's satisfaction with various mobility domains across the three measurement points (1995, 2000 and 2005). One key finding is that out-of-home mobility – the opportunity and ability to move about outside one's home and get to places one wants or needs to go – remains of great significance through the course of growing older. This is remarkable given that by 2005 many of the participants had major health problems, but these seem to have had little affect on the fundamental meaning attached to out-of-home mobility. The participants' individual accounts indicate both the manifold meanings people attach to out-of-home mobility and its positive quality. The meanings included such basic aspects as zest for life, autonomy and freedom, the sense of belonging, and the pleasure of just moving about.
The results are consistent with findings from previous research (Banister and Bowling Reference Banister and Bowling2004; Coughlin Reference Coughlin2001; Fernández-Ballesteros, Zamarrón and Ruíz Reference Fernández-Ballesteros, Zamarrón and Ruíz2001; Holland et al. Reference Holland, Kellaher, Peace, Scharf, Breeze, Gow, Gilhooly and Walker2005; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Baas, Kaspar, Oswald, Wahl, Wahl, Brenner, Mollenkopf, Rothenbacher and Rott2006), and demonstrate that being able to go out, to be active and to meet other people associate with positive affect. We therefore agree with Banister and Bowling's (Reference Banister and Bowling2004) advocacy of taking a wider view of older people's travel and quality of life issues than has been customary in transport research (cf. Farquhar Reference Farquhar1995). Going further, one may infer from our findings that many in later life experience a pronounced decline in the ability to move about but at the same time continue to attach rich meanings to their remaining out-of-home mobility, and that the adjustment is for many a major issue in identity management (Biggs Reference Biggs2005; Diehl and Wahl Reference Diehl and Wahl2010), which involves the regulation and modification of personal goals and life preferences (Brandtstädter and Rothermund Reference Brandtstädter and Rothermund2002).
The results from the follow-up assessments reflect the well-documented risk of declining health and decreasing out-of-home mobility with advancing age (CERTU 2001; Heikkinen et al. Reference Heikkinen, Berg, Schroll, Steen and Viidik1997; Ketcham and Stelmach Reference Ketcham, Stelmach, Birren and Schaie2001; Marottoli et al. Reference Marottoli, Mendes de Leon, Glass, Williams, Cooney and Berkman2000; OECD 2001; O'Neill and Dobbs Reference O'Neill and Dobbs2004). The participants expected worsening mobility because of the well-known correlation between increasing age and health decline, especially beyond age 75 years, but the subjective explanations of such worsening went well beyond health factors and included family circumstances as well as environmental issues. Satisfaction with general mobility options and with their opportunities to pursue leisure activities and to travel on average remained high across the 10 years, albeit with substantial individual differences, but nevertheless the subjective evaluations decreased in the total sample and were lower among those aged 75 or more years, particularly among those with mobility impairments at the third assessment. Women reported slightly lower satisfaction scores than men for most of the domain-specific aspects of mobility, which corresponds well with the general finding in the epidemiological literature that women experience more functional losses than men (Wolinsky et al. Reference Wolinsky, Stump, Callahan and Johnson1996). In addition, it may well be that among the present generations of older people, the basic preconditions of mobility are generally more favourable for the ‘young old’ and for men (e.g. Banister and Bowling Reference Banister and Bowling2004; ECMT 2000; Rosenbloom Reference Rosenbloom2004). The general decline of out-of-home mobility over the ten years was similar, however, for both genders.
The temporal change in satisfaction with public transport differed from this general pattern, for it increased among all subgroups except for the users whose mobility worsened between the second and third assessments. This positive appraisal may be explained by improvements in the local transport systems of the cities under study. In particular, in Chemnitz after the re-unification of East and West Germany in 1989, there was major investment in the improvement of public transport, as in many cities of the former German Democratic Republic. Besides, at the individual level, public transport can be used as an alternative when previous modes such as driving a car are no longer possible, which may have led to the more positive subjective preferences and satisfaction scores.
We conclude that it is important to consider not only the objective indicators of mobility that are commonly examined in the epidemiological literature (Guralnik et al. Reference Guralnik, Ferruccia, Pieper, Leveillea, Markides, Ostird, Studenskie, Berkman and Wallace2000), but also the subjective evaluation of mobility that older people find significant. Going further, it has been shown that the subjective indicators are more effective predictors of wellbeing, as was found by analyses from the Berlin Ageing Study (Smith and Baltes Reference Smith, Baltes, Baltes and Mayer1999; see alsoHolland et al. Reference Holland, Kellaher, Peace, Scharf, Breeze, Gow, Gilhooly and Walker2005). This supposition is backed up by the results of our previous European studies (Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman and Tacken2005, Reference Mollenkopf, Baas, Kaspar, Oswald, Wahl, Wahl, Brenner, Mollenkopf, Rothenbacher and Rott2006). The experience of being able to move about was revealed to be among the important variables in satisfaction with life in general.
In addition, our findings partly qualify the so-called ‘satisfaction paradox’, that the high adaptability of older people enables them to maintain a high level of satisfaction with life despite unfavourable or aggravating living conditions (Staudinger Reference Staudinger2000). Obviously this is no longer the case if fundamental needs such as the need to be mobile and active are concerned. The mean values that we have reported may conceal marked individual variations and changes. Only a differentiated view, which considers the variability of older adults' living circumstances, leads to valid statements about their out-of-home mobility. In this respect, the longitudinal perspective of our study and its combination of qualitative and quantitative methods proved particularly useful. Also in this vein, our case-related analyses underscore what a highly individualised process the perceptions of out-of-home mobility in old age over time are. In this sense, our findings also support the view that out-of-home mobility is an important facet for the better understanding of the diversity of personal ageing (Daatland and Biggs Reference Daatland and Biggs2006).
Turning to the limitations of this study, it should be stressed that the individuals who were still able and willing to participate in this research after ten years were selective survivors, and noted that we cannot distinguish the extent to which the findings are attributable to regional factors. Studies that have compared regions (e.g. Holland et al. Reference Holland, Kellaher, Peace, Scharf, Breeze, Gow, Gilhooly and Walker2005; Mollenkopf et al. Reference Mollenkopf, Marcellini, Ruoppila, Széman and Tacken2005, Reference Mollenkopf, Baas, Kaspar, Oswald, Wahl, Wahl, Brenner, Mollenkopf, Rothenbacher and Rott2006) suggest that different mobility factors play an equally important role in older adults' lives under various national and regional conditions. Furthermore, this paper presents only a small selection of the qualitative material and has exemplified only some of the variations in satisfaction with mobility. Keeping such limitations in mind, we believe that our findings are relevant for both policy debates and further research. Improved knowledge of perceived mobility could be a helpful addition to objective data on mobility, because it will enable policy makers to understand the various meanings and motivations related to mobility in older people's views. This may raise the priority given to enhancing the mobility of older adults at the community level even higher than is currently the case. In terms of research, there remains a need to better link geriatric, objective transport and subjective mobility research to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of mobility in old age.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Eugen-Otto-Butz Foundation, Germany (www.butz-stiftung.de), which kindly provided the funding for the second follow-up in 2005 and hence, the long-term perspective of this study.
