From urban mobility practices, strategies and logics of actions to future mobility solutions - an user-centered mixed-methods approach

Kurzfassung

When examining and discussing future development paths of urban mobility we have to deal with complex transformation processes that do not only involve technical and organizational challenges but also include questions regarding the people who are the traffic participants in the urban mobility system. Recent studies have shown that evaluation and acceptance of users towards technological innovations (such as autonomous driving) are bound to their current behavior and how people ascribe meaning to their travel behavior (Fraedrich and Lenz 2014; Watson 201; Zmud and Sener 2017). If we assume that it is not only a technology that is responsible for a transformation in society but rather how a technology is linked and embedded to specific daily life practices, we should target a comprehensive knowledge about daily life practices of the users to better understand sociotechnical transformation processes in relation to technical innovations (e.g. autonomous driving). Hence, it is meaningful to approach users’ perspectives and to understand their mobility practices, underlying reasons for travel behavior and user requirements. Against this background and based on empirical findings we want to answer the following questions: • What kind of mobility practices, strategies and logics of action do people representing different mobility user types pursue when being mobile in the city? • What requirements do different mobility types have concerning urban mobility? In our contribution, mobility is not only understood as an act of physical movement, but as a social phenomenon, rooted in the reality of the people (Eberle 2000; Miebach 2006). For this reason, mobility research is committed to an action-theoretical approach, regarding spatial mobility as a social activity, understanding mobility from the user perspective and knowing how important constructions of mobility are. This is connected to the assumption of action-oriented mobility research that actors produce and reproduce mobility under the conditions of their everyday reality (Hannam et al. 2006). That is the reason why everyday reality is the starting point for our exploration of the practices of people in cities and the related underlying logics of action of different mobility types. This demands for inter- and transdisciplinary approaches as well as the application of adjusted research methods (Fraedrich and Lenz 2014), which allow to capture and understand mobility as a socio-technical phenomenon and to develop – taking that into account – appropriate mobility services and innovative technical solutions for urban mobility. User group segmentations represent the possibility of reducing the complexity of heterogeneous populations by identifying homogeneous subgroups (Hunecke 2015). They are an established methodological means in social sciences for analyzing daily travel determinants (Bartz 2015; Prillwitz and Barr 2011) and are used by different disciplines, also increasingly in transport sciences (e.g. Haustein and Nielson 2016; Wittwer 2014; Vij et al. 2011). One advantage of segmentation approaches relates to improvingthe possibilities for communication between scientists of different disciplines and practitioners in reducing the complexity of heterogeneous populations (Hunecke 2015; Hunecke and Haustein 2007). To answer the above-mentioned questions a mixed-methods approach has been chosen with a focus on qualitative methods. Research in these ‘softer’ or more ‘intangible’ topics often demands survey methods and approaches that are either completely new in their design or introducing methods that are mostly unfamiliar within mainstream travel survey methods (Carrasco and Lucas 2015). In our case we identified, developed and sketched different mobility types in a multistage process: On one side the typology is the result of a factor and cluster analysis made with empirical data from a survey conducted in Berlin, Germany. (n= 1.098). It is based on the frequency and trip purposes of used modes and mode combinations and thereby reflects the users’ travel behavior. The identified mobility types can further be characterized by their socio-demographic characteristics and available mobility resources. On the other side the picture of the mobility types was drawn in more detail by qualitative methods to get information on the underlying motives, preferences and requirements leading to the observed travel behavior. More precisely: we conducted narrative interviews and group discussions with representatives of different mobility types where we addressed the underlying motives and requirements of the users for their urban travel behavior. We complemented the group discussions with creative methods and visual elements (Christiansen 2005; Cooper et al. 2007; Degele et al. 2009; Haper 2003; Rhinow et al. 2012) to develop and discuss new ideas and prototypes of vehicles for potential future development paths of urban mobility together with the participants. Although qualitative methods are increasingly used within transportation research, as a complement to more established quantitative surveys, their potential is often still underrated or poorly promoted (Carrasco and Lucas 2015; Grosvenor 2000). Qualitative methods are particularly suitable to cover aspects that allow determining subjective acknowledgements to a specific topic but they also make it possible studying the role of psychological and social factors to determine people’s travel behaviors and choices (Carrasco and Lucas 2015). And, in our particular case they help to find out in detail about the mobility strategies, logics of action and requirements that define and structure the individuals’ practices. The paper brings together results from the quantitative survey with the findings of the qualitative co-creation workshops and narrative interviews with different mobility types. Through the chosen mixed-methods approach the variety of practices, strategies and requirements for being mobile in the city of different mobility types are highlighted. For example, several mobility types drive a car, but in different ways and due to different motivations: The “all-purpose car user” is acting according to his personal preferences whereas the “multimodal user” acts much more purposefully and pragmatically. In his everyday life, the all-purpose car user never weighs different means of transport against each other, but has basically opted for his car while the “multimodal user” makes his choice of transport spontaneously and according to his purposes. The mobility types also differ by their socio-demographic characteristics and available mobility resources. For example, the “all-purpose car user” is more likely male, older than average, has a car always available but no public transport pass. By contrast, the “multimodal user” is more likely female, younger than average, has a car and also a public transport pass. It is not surprising that also the prototypes of vehicles that were developed within the workshops differ between the mobility types. The group of “all-purpose car users” developed an individual vehicle with various options for the personal comfort (such as voice control or interior depending on the personal mood), whereas the group of “multimodal users” design a modular-vehicle with a minimal of functions and no comfort, which is shared and thus improves the situation of the transport system in the city. The presented mixed-methods analyses provide insights in the variety of users and their practices, strategies, logics of action and related requirements. The chosen methods contribute to the understanding of the fundamental elements of travel behavior in cities. Furthermore, the chosen approach allows the development of future mobility solutions on the basis from user’s mobility practices and requirements for moving in the city. Due to the dominance of quantitative methods in transport research, findings of qualitative studies are often not presented and discussed in traditional transport journals and conferences until now. With our presentation we want to encourage an intensified debate and knowledge sharing between quantitative and qualitative transport researchers with mutual interests in understanding the influence of social and psychological factors on people’s travel choices. Bartz, F. M. (2015): Mobilitätsbedürfnisse und ihre Satisfaktoren. Die Analyse von Mobilitätstypen im Rahmen eines internationalen Segmentierungsmodells. Dissertation. Humanwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. Carrasco, J.-A. and Lucas, K. (2015): Workshop synthesis: Measuring attitudes; quantitative and qualitative methods. In: Transportation Research Procedia, 11, pp. 165-171. Christiansen, E. (2005): Boundary objects, please rise! On the role of boundary objects in distributed collaboration and how to design for them. Paper presented at Workshop 10‚ ‘Cognition and Collaboration‘ on Conference for Human Computer Interaction (CHI 2005), April 2-7, 2005, Portland, Oregon. Cooper, A.; Reimann, R. and Cronin, D. (2007): About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. New York: Wiley Publishing. Degele, N. ; Kesselhut, K. and Schneickert, C. (2009): Sehen und Sprechen: zum Einsatz von Bildern bei Gruppendiskussionen. In: Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung, 10 (2), pp. 363-379. Eberle, T. S. (2000): Lebensweltanalyse und Handlungstheorie: Beiträge zur verstehenden Soziologie. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag. Fraedrich, E. and Lenz, B. (2014): Automated Driving – Individual and Societal Aspects. In: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2416 (2), pp. 64-72. Grosvenor, T. (2000): Qualitative Research in the Transport Sector. Resource paper for the Workshop on Qualitative/Quantitative Methods. In: Transportation Research Board, Transport Surveys: Raising the Standard. Proceedings of an International Conference on Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, May 24-30, 1997, Grainau, Germany. Transportation Research Circular E-C008, Washington, DC, USA, II-K/1-18. Hannam, K.; Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2006): Editorial: Mobilities, lmmobilities and Moorings. In: Mobilities, 1 (1), pp. 1-22. Haper, D. (2003): Fotografien als sozialwissenschaftliche Daten. In: Flick, U.; Kardorff, E.; von Steinke, I. (Hrsg.): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, pp. 402-415. Haustein, S. and Nielson, S. T. (2016): European mobility cultures: A survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries. In: Journal of Transport Geography, 54, pp. 173-180. Hunecke, M. (2015): Ansätze zur Segmentierung von NutzerInnengruppen. In: Mobilitätsverhalten verstehen und verändern. Studien zur Mobilitäts- und Verkehrsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 47-74. Hunecke, M. and Haustein, S. (2007): Einstellungsbasierte Mobilitätstypen: Eine integrierte Anwendung von multivariaten und inhaltsanalytischen Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung zur Identifikation von Zielgruppen für eine nachhaltige Mobilität. In: Umweltpsychologie, 11 (2), pp. 38-68. Miebach, B. (2006): Soziologische Handlungstheorie: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Prillwitz, J. and Barr, S. (2011): Moving towards sustainibility? Mobility styles, attitudes and individual travel behaviour. In: Journal of Transport Geography, 19, pp. 1590-1600. Rhinow, H.; Köppen, E. and Meinel, C. (2012): Prototypes as Boundary Objects in Innovation Processes. Conference Paper in the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Design Research Society (DRS 2012), Bangkok, Thailand. Vij, A.; Carrel, A. and Walker, J., L. (2011): Capturing modality styles using behavioral mixture models and longitudinal data. Paper presented at 2nd international choice modelling conference, Leeds. Watson, M. (2012): How theories of practice inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. In: Journal of Transport Geography, 24, pp. 488-496. Wittwer, R. (2014): Zwangsmobilität und Verkehrsmittelorientierung junger Erwachsener: eine Typologisierung. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Verkehrsplanung und Straßenverkehr der Technischen Universität Dresden, Heft 16/2014. Zmud, J. P. and Sener, I. N. (2017): Towards an understanding of the travel behavior impact of autonomous vehicle. In: Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 25, pp. 2500-2519.