# Car dependency and precariousness in Brussels

## Brussels Studies fact sheet

*Dépendance à la voiture et précarité à Bruxelles*

*Autoafhankelijkheid en kansarmoede in Brussel*

Mathias De Meyer and Jessica Gilsoul

Translator: Jane Corrigan

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/8577

DOI: 10.4000/14975

ISSN: 2031-0293

**This article is a translation of:**

Dépendance à la voiture et précarité à Bruxelles - URL : https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/8541 [fr]

**Other translation(s):**

Autoafhankelijkheid en kansarmoede in Brussel - URL : https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/8574 [nl]

**Publisher**

Université libre de Bruxelles - ULB

**Electronic reference**

Mathias De Meyer and Jessica Gilsoul, "Car dependency and precariousness in Brussels", *Brussels Studies* [Online], Fact Sheets, no 204, Online since 02 July 2025, connection on 13 January 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/8577 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/14975

This text was automatically generated on January 13, 2026.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Car dependency and precariousness in Brussels

## Brussels Studies fact sheet

*Dépendance à la voiture et précarité à Bruxelles*
*Autoafhankelijkheid en kansarmoede in Brussel*

Mathias De Meyer and Jessica Gilsoul

Translation : Jane Corrigan

## EDITOR'S NOTE

In order to see the figures in a better resolution, go to the article online and click on "Original" below them.

## AUTHOR'S NOTE

This fact sheet presents the main results of the study with the same name conducted by Brussels Mobility. The recommendations resulting from the study, which are outlined briefly at the end of the article, are the sole responsibility of the authors. The full study report is available (in French) on data.mobility.brussels (PDF).

<footnote n="1">1. How many households with cars struggle to make ends meet? What are their socioeconomic characteristics? What are the reasons for their dependency on cars? The answers to these questions are important in order to understand the social impact of mobility policies and, in particular, of measures which affect the cost of car ownership more or less directly (taxation, parking prices, low emission zones, transition to electric cars, etc.). In this study, we address these issues by analysing the car ownership of households through the prism of their level of deprivation.</footnote>
# 1. The deprivation approach

2. The "Survey on Income and Living Conditions" (SILC) is a key reference for studying the different aspects of precariousness. However, it has been used rarely in the field of mobility, as it does not include any travel-related questions. Giulio Mattioli [2017] has highlighted the value of this survey for studying the relationship between household car ownership and levels of deprivation. On this basis, we are able to assess the car dependency of households and the economic stress caused by car ownership. Mattioli's work focused on Germany and Great Britain. We have applied the main lines of his analytical framework to the context of Belgium and Brussels in particular.

## 1.1. Material and social deprivation indicator

3. The SILC enables us to construct a material and social deprivation indicator which reflects people's quality of life, based on their financial ability to access a set of 13 goods and activities commonly considered to be important or even essential (heating one's home, going on a holiday for one week a year, meeting an unexpected expense, etc.). A person is deemed to be in deprivation if - due to lack of financial resources - they are unable to pay for or achieve at least 5 of these items [European Commission, 2017].

4. The deprivation indicator refers to individuals. However, the decision to own a car takes place mainly at household level. We have therefore transposed the deprivation indicator to households. We consider a household to be in deprivation when at least one of its members is in this situation.

<table><caption>Table 1. Households living in material and social deprivation according to region</caption><thead><tr><td>Brussels-Capital Region</td><td>Flemish Region</td><td>Walloon Region</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>20,4 %</td><td>8,0 %</td><td>18,1 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

## 1.2. Household typology at the crossroads of car ownership and deprivation

5. We distinguish four types of household according to car ownership, deprivation indicator and financial capacity to own a car (Figure 1).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Diagram showing the construction of the four types of household based on car ownership, the material and social deprivation indicator and the ability of households to own a car</figcaption></figure>

6

This framework enables us to understand the trade-offs which households have made between the benefits and costs of a car in their particular situation, according to their travel needs and constraints (related to their family composition, the employment or loss of mobility of a household member, etc.), the resources in their environment (proximity of goods and services, quality of public transport, quality of cycling infrastructures, etc.), and the proportion of their income which they are willing to devote to a car.

7

In Brussels, 5,7 % of households own a car but are in a situation of deprivation (FCO), and 21,8 % of households do not own a car due to a lack of financial resources (CD). The differences compared with the Walloon and Flemish Regions are considerable.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. The 4 types of household defined according to car ownership, broken down by Region</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

8

Both FCO and CD households are at the crossroads of socioeconomic difficulties and car dependency. However, two reasons have led us to focus on FCO households:

9

Firstly, they are particularly sensitive to any increase – however small – in the cost of car ownership: they are forced either to deal with it by further depriving themselves of other aspects of their well-being, or by giving up their vehicle. In either case, the repercussions are significant. For CD households, an identical rise in the cost of car ownership has no immediate impact, as it is already inaccessible to them.

10

Secondly, FCO households are a more uniform group and, when considered as a whole, are more car-dependent than CD households. They have opted for car ownership to the detriment of other aspects of their well-being. For their part, CD households said they
would buy a car if they could afford it. However, this desire for car ownership is related to a wide variety of situations: it can involve a deprivation with far-reaching consequences (restricting access to the job market, for example), or something more trivial (for pleasure or social status).

11 In this respect, it is revealing that the proportion of CD households is much higher in the Brussels Region (21,8 %) than in the Walloon Region (7,1 %), even though levels of deprivation are comparable (see Table 1). In a highly urbanised environment such as Brussels, the need for a car is limited. Therefore, while many people in Brussels would like to own a car and state that they do not have one for lack of financial resources, they are not inclined to become car owners if it means giving up other possessions. In Wallonia, on the other hand, where housing is scattered and alternative mobility is limited, it is easy to understand why households own cars, even if it means making significant sacrifices.

12 In the rest of this summary, we shall concentrate on the Brussels Region. For a detailed analysis of inter-regional differences, please refer to the report.

## 1.3. Deprivation profiles

13 FCO households have the highest rates of deprivation (Figure 3): 51,7 % are unable to heat their homes sufficiently; 95,5 % have difficulty coping with an unexpected expense; 80,2 % are unable to go on a holiday for at least one week a year; 87,4 % have difficulty replacing damaged or worn-out furniture; etc.

14 In concrete terms, this shows the extent to which these households deprive themselves more or less consciously of crucial aspects of their well-being in order to have a car. We can assume that the budget devoted by FCO households to car ownership limits their ability to heat their homes, go on a holiday, replace damaged furniture, etc. We can speculate that, if they gave up their car ownership, they would be able to cover these costs and thus bring down their levels of deprivation. Conversely, we can also assume that these households are highly car-dependent due to professional constraints or special family arrangements. This explains the major sacrifices they are willing to make in order to own a car.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. The deprivation profiles of the four household types defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations
## 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of households with cars in situations of deprivation

In this section, we present the socio-demographic characteristics of the four household types and, in particular, of FCO households, and suggest some possible explanations for their situation of deprivation and car dependency.

### 2.1. Income

Unsurprisingly, OCO households are by far the most affluent (Figure 4): 61,1 % of them belong to the fourth and fifth quintiles of disposable income. At first glance, it is more surprising that 42,7 % of FCO households belong to these quintiles. The incomes of these households are much higher than those of the two types of household which do not own cars (CD and ONCO).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Disposable income quintiles of the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

Behind the quintiles of disposable income lie various family situations. In order to compare the living standards of households of different sizes and compositions, it is useful to consider equivalent incomes, i.e. incomes weighted according to the number of people in the household. Household expenses vary greatly according to size (need for a bigger home, higher heating and hot water costs, etc.). We have used the “modified consumption units” equivalence scale (known as the modified OECD scale¹).

The distribution of FCO households changes greatly when equivalent incomes are considered (Figure 5). In fact, just 2 % of FCO households belong to the fifth quintile of equivalent income (versus 13,2 % when considering disposable income) and 16,1 % to the fourth quintile (versus 29,5 % when considering disposable income).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Equivalent income quintiles of the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

## 2.2. Household size and composition

19 Households with cars are much more likely to be large. This is particularly true of FCO households, 52 % of which are made up of 3 or more people (Figure 6).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Size of the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

20 Households with cars are also much more likely to include children. Furthermore, 18,4 % of FCO households have three or more children, compared with just 6,9 % of OCO households (Figure 7).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. Number of children under 18 in the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

21 The composition of FCO households explains the significant gap between their disposable and equivalent incomes. It can also be argued that the mobility constraints associated with travelling with children (high number of trips, their complexity, loads
to be transported, etc.) help explain why these households are highly dependent on cars.

## 2.3. Socio-professional status

22 FCO households have a high proportion of employed people (62,6 %), which is higher than CD (47 %) and ONCO (51,7 %) households, but lower than OCO households (79,5 %)².

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8. Activity status of the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

23 FCO households are clearly distinguished from other types of household by the presence of a person with a “manual” job (42,5 %, Figure 9)³. These jobs are generally less well-paid than non-manual work, which explains why they are more common in this type of household. Furthermore, manual jobs are highly car-dependent, as they involve significant time constraints (less “floating” hours, more on staggered hours, etc.) and frequent travel to locations which vary from day to day or week to week, often with poor service by public transport (outbound commute).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9. Types of employment for the 4 types of household defined according to car ownership in BCR</figcaption></figure>

Source: SILC 2023, Brussels Mobility calculations

24 In the full report, we take a closer look at the four types of household, considering not only the variables described above, but also the presence of a person who is limited in their daily activities due to health reasons, the level of urbanisation and accessibility of the home by public transport, etc. We also develop a logistic regression analysis which allows us to determine which factors best “explain” why a household is FCO, all else being equal.
## 3. Discussion and outlook

25

In conclusion, we propose a few recommendations for the mobility policy of the Brussels Region.

26

The first set of recommendations is to reduce car dependency for households in a situation of deprivation (FCO) by making it easier to travel with children other than by car, and by improving alternative mobility for manual jobs. In particular via:

* the continuation of pedestrian safety projects around schools and, more generally, the improvement of safety, accessibility and quality of pedestrian crossings, pavements and public transport stops;

* the facilitation of bicycle use for families, especially in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (safer bicycle infrastructures, secure parking solutions, etc.);

* the improvement of car-sharing services and the introduction of options which meet the needs of families (vehicle size, child seats, car hire formulas for longer holiday trips, etc.);

* the improvement of public transport services (as well as carpooling and company shuttles) to working-class employment areas on the outskirts of Brussels;

* the promotion and reinforcement of incentives for bicycle use among certain categories of professionals.

27

This type of measure has the advantage of benefiting the entire population, particularly households without cars due to financial reasons (CD).

28

The second set of recommendations involves limiting the rising cost of car ownership for certain groups, namely households which are highly dependent on cars and face significant financial constraints. In order to achieve this, specific arrangements should be made within the framework of public policies which have an impact on the cost of car ownership: appropriate car tax rates, parking passes for local residents, etc. From this point of view, it does not seem appropriate to target households in the lower deciles of disposable income, or to rely on the status of increased allowance beneficiaries (BIM). In so doing, we would be off target. As we have seen, a significant proportion of households with cars in situations of deprivation (FCO) have relatively sufficient disposable incomes. In order to target the right audiences, it would be best to consider a weighted income scale based on household composition, or to use other criteria - possibly combined - such as the number of children and type of employment.

29

In conclusion, let us consider the size of our target group. As seen above, in the Brussels Region, 5,7 % of households own a car but are in a situation of deprivation. In absolute numbers, this concerns approximately 32 000 households. It is essential to support them in order to ensure that certain mobility measures do not have too brutal an impact. Nevertheless, the precariousness and high level of car dependency of a fraction of households with cars in Brussels should not be used as a pretext to hinder the implementation of an ambitious mobility policy aimed at promoting modal shift and rationalising car use in the city. This type of policy benefits the entire population, in particular the many households which do not or no longer own cars. It is also advantageous for households with cars in situations of deprivation. In fact, by reducing the overall dependency of the population on cars, this type of policy should eventually enable at least part of those households too to do without. In so doing, they could reallocate their “car” budget to other aspects of their well-being and thus reduce their
levels of deprivation. Seen in this light, if properly gauged, mobility policy can be a
powerful lever for social action.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2017. *The new EU indicator of material and social deprivation*. Technical note, annexe 1. SPC/ISG/2017/5/4. Available from: https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/social-protection-social-inclusion/social-protection-committee/indicators-sub-group/eu-social-indicators/eu-social-indicators-dataset_en

MATTIOLI, Giolio, 2017. "Forced Car Ownership" in the UK and Germany: Socio-Spatial Patterns and Potential Economic Stress Impacts. In: *Social Inclusion*. 28/12/2017. Vol. 5, no 4, pp. 147-60.

NOTES

1. For a definition, see p. 13 of the document https://ibsa.brussels/sites/default/files/2024-08/RevenusMeth_fr.pdf

2. Employment status is an attribute which is linked to individuals rather than households. In order to be consistent with our other analyses, we have kept the focus on households. In order to do this, we assigned the status of “employed” to a household if at least one person was employed. In the event of a conflict such as, for example, if a working person and a retired person live in the same household, we have assigned the status of “employed” to the household in question. The order of precedence between activity status categories is as shown in the graph: employed, retired, not working due to health problems, etc.

3. The “mainly manual” category is based on the following types of job: service workers or shopkeepers; farmers or agricultural workers; skilled workers or assembly workers; labourers and housekeepers. The “mainly non-manual” category covers the following types of job: managers, non-manual professions, intermediate professions and administrative employees. Furthermore, like employment status, employment is an attribute linked to individuals rather than households. In order to transpose this individual characteristic to household level, we proceeded as in the previous case. When households are made up of more than one person, in the event of conflict we have assigned the type of employment in the following order: mainly non-manual jobs, mainly manual jobs and unemployed.
ABSTRACTS

In this article, we address the intersecting issues of deprivation and car dependency in the Brussels Region by analysing the car ownership of households through the prism of their level of deprivation. In order to do this, we have used the “Survey on Income and Living Conditions” (SILC). We have thus constructed a typology of households defined according to the trade-offs they have made between the costs and benefits of car ownership. We focus in particular on the socioeconomic characteristics of households with cars in situations of deprivation. On this basis, we are able to assess the economic stress on household budgets caused by car ownership and put forward hypotheses regarding the professional and household configurations which imply a high level of car dependency, even in an urbanised setting such as that of the Brussels Region.

Dans cet article, nous abordons les enjeux croisés de précarité et de dépendance à la voiture en Région bruxelloise en analysant la possession automobile des ménages au prisme de leur niveau de privation. Nous mobilisons pour ce faire l'« Enquête sur les revenus et les conditions de vie » (SILC). Nous construisons ainsi une typologie des ménages définie selon les arbitrages qu'ils ont effectués entre les coûts et les bénéfices de la possession d'une voiture. Nous nous intéressons, en particulier, aux caractéristiques socio-économiques des ménages motorisés qui se trouvent en situation de privation. Sur cette base, nous pouvons évaluer le stress économique que la voiture induit sur le budget des ménages et poser des hypothèses quant aux configurations familiales et professionnelles qui impliquent une forte dépendance automobile, même dans un contexte urbanisé comme celui de la Région bruxelloise.

In dit artikel gaan we dieper in op de verweven problematieken van armoede en autoafhankelijkheid in het Brussels Gewest via een analyse van het autobezit bij huishoudens door de lens van hun deprivatieniveau. Aan de hand van de gegevens van de SILC-enquête, een Europese enquête naar het inkomen en de levensomstandigheden, hebben we een typologie van de huishoudens gemaakt volgens de afwegingen die zij maken tussen de kosten en de baten van het bezitten van een eigen auto. We onderzoeken in het bijzonder de sociaal-economische kenmerken van gedepriveerde huishoudens met een auto. Op basis daarvan beoordelen we welke economische druk het autobezit uitoefent op het budget van huishoudens en formuleren we hypothesen over de beroepsactiviteit of gezinssamenstelling waardoor mensen afhankelijker zijn van de auto, zelfs in een stedelijke omgeving zoals het Brussels Gewest.

INDEX

**Mots-clés:** automobile, inégalités sociales, mobilité, pauvreté, politique régionale

**Subjects:** 4. santé – qualité de vie – inégalités sociales

**Trefwoorden** auto, sociale ongelijkheden, mobiliteit, armoede, gewestelijk beleid

**Keywords:** car, social inequalities, mobility, poverty, regional policy
## AUTHORS

**MATHIAS DE MEYER**

Mathias De Meyer works for the planning department at Brussels Mobility.
mobilite[at]sprb.brussels

**JESSICA GILSOUL**

Jessica Gilsoul works for the planning department at Brussels Mobility.
mobilite[at]sprb.brussels

## TRANSLATORS

**JANE CORRIGAN**