What moves us? Drivers of mobility and transport behaviour from the perspective of sustainability and social justice

Timetable

Module aim (aims)

1. To provide an understanding of the theories that explain how people travel over short and long distances and the factors that influence this behaviour.
2. To present concepts of sustainability and sustainable mobility and social-ecological approaches to mobility and transport.
3. To provide an understanding of methods for studying mobility practices and transport behaviour.
4. To develop the ability to critically analyse texts and policies related to transport and mobility.

Pre-requisites in terms of knowledge, skills and social competences (where relevant)

1. Interest in the subject
2. Knowledge of English at least at B2 level

Syllabus

1. Introduction: present and past of everyday human travel; key concepts
2. Travel behaviour or mobility practices? Basic paradigms of commuting and travel studies
3. Shift, improve, reduce: the idea of sustainable mobility and its current developments
4. Mobility is Silver, Accessibility is Gold? The concept of accessibility and its study
5. Exclusion and transport poverty: concepts and research
6. Between a social floor and an ecological ceiling: concepts and research on well-being mobility without harming the planet
7. What don't attitudes and values say about travel? The gap between values and behaviour in mobility
   Is the human traveller rational?
8. Key theories of transport behaviour and mobility practices. From Theory of Planned Behaviour and Norm Activation Model to Theories of Social Practices and System Theories.
9. Who is ashamed of flying and who of cycling? Symbolic and affective meanings of transport modes
10. Is habit the commuter's second nature?
11. Do you have to have a car when you have a child? Mobility biographies and their study
12. Lifestyle? Mobility style! Ways of distinguishing social segments and styles in mobility research
13. The individual is not enough: the household and the social network as key relationships shaping mobility
14. The built environment and mobility, or what shapes what?
15. Who doesn't like clean transport zones and how loves electric cars? Contemporary Urban Mobility Policies and how they get contested

Reading list

• Anable J (2005), Complacent Car Addicts or Aspiring Environmentalists? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy 12(1): 65–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2004.11.004
• Anable J and Gatersleben B (2005) All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39(2–3): 163–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.008.
• Czepkiewicz M, Heinonen J, Næss P, et al. (2020), Who travels more, and why? A mixed-method study of urban dwellers’ leisure travel. Travel Behaviour and Society 19: 67–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.tbs.2019.12.001.
• Dant T, Groncow J and Warde A (2001) By Car: Carrying Modern Society. In: Ordinary Consumption. Routledge, pp. 151–166. DOI: 10.4324/9780203381502-13.
• Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, et al. (2017) Sociotechnical transitions for deep de-carbonization. Science 357(6357): 1242–1244. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao3760.
• Henderson J (2020) EVs Are Not the Answer: A Mobility Justice Critique of Electric Ve-hicle Transitions. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(6): 1993–2010. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1744422.
• Jensen OB, Lassen C, Kaufmann V, et al. (eds.) (2021), Handbook of Urban Mobilities. Routledge.
• Jones P and Lucas K (2012) The social consequences of transport decision-making: clarify- ing concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications. Journal of Transport Geo- graphy 21: 4–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.012.
• Kaufmann V, Bergman MM and Joye D (2004) Motility: mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(4): 745–756. DOI: 10.1111/j.0309- 1317.2004.00549.x.
• Klinger T and Lanzendorf M (2016) Moving between mobility cultures: what affects the travel behavior of new residents? Transportation 43(2): 243–271. DOI: 10.1007/s11116- 014-9574-x.
• Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behav- iour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1028–1038. DOI: 10.1016/j.glo- envcha.2013.05.014.
• Kollmuss A and Agyeman J (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3). Routledge: 239–260. DOI: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
• Kroesen M (2015) Do partners influence each other’s travel patterns? A new approach to study the role of social norms. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 78: 489– 505. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.015.
• Kroesen M, Handy S and Chorus C (2017) Do attitudes cause behavior or vice versa? An al- ternative conceptualization of the attitude-behavior relationship in travel behavior model- ing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 101. Pergamon: 190–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.013.
• Marsden G, Jillian Anable, Chatterton T, et al. (2020) Studying disruptive events: Innova- tions in behaviour, opportunities for lower carbon transport policy? Transport Policy 94. El- sevier Ltd: 89–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.04.008.
• Mattioli G, Anable J and Vrotsou K (2016) Car dependent practices: Findings from a se- quence pattern mining study of UK time use data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 89: 56–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.04.010.
• Morton, C., Mattioli, G., & Anable, J. (2021). Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 150, 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.007
• O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4
• Preston J and Rajé F (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Jo- urnal of Transport Geography 15(3): 151–160. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002.
• Sattlegger L and Rau H (2016) Carlessness in a car-centric world: A reconstructive approach to qualitative mobility biographies research. Journal of Transport Geography 53: 22–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.04.003.