Mobility biographies research since the 2000s has generated an impressive range of insights into both structural and individual influences on people's modal choice, including life events and 'mobility milestones' (Rau and Manton 2016) that either reinforce or reconfigure people's mobility needs and options. In contrast, people's (in)voluntary non-engagement in specific mobility practices such as cycling and related dynamics across the life course remain seriously under-researched, calling for mixed-methods inquiries that can address 'what' and 'why' questions.Drawing on RadAktiv, a mixed methods study of non-cyclists in Germany that investigates the impact of critical and incisive life events on people's cycling practices, this chapter attends specifically to chances and challenges that arise when combining qualitative and quantitative modes of enquiry in mobility biographies research. Focusing on conceptual and methodological issues surrounding the identification and social-scientific investigation of life events, it advocates for a technical approach to mixing methods. It argues that such an approach, while problematic in some respects, is ideally suited to accommodate the existing diversity of ontological and epistemological viewpoints within the mobility biographies research community. Importantly, it would serve to expand the methodological strengths of this important research field by sparking fruitful epistemological and methodological debates across disciplinary boundaries.
Der Nationale Radverkehrsplan 2020 des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI) hält eine Erhöhung des Fahrrads am modal split (bezogen auf die zurückgelegten Wege) von 11 % im Jahr 2017 auf 15 % bis 2020 für möglich. Trotz diverser Maßnahmen der Radverkehrsförderung besonders in Städten scheint das Ziel nicht mehr erreichbar. Interessanterweise haben jedoch im Rahmen der staatlichen Radverkehrsförderung die Nicht-Radfahrenden als sehr große Gruppe mit beträchtlichem Aktivierungspotenzial bisher wenig Beachtung erfahren. Der Artikel geht deshalb folgenden Fragen auf den Grund: Wer sind die Nicht-Radfahrenden, welche unterschiedlichen Typen können identifiziert werden und was unterscheidet sie von den Rad-Fahrenden? Und was genau hindert diese Menschen daran, das Fahrrad zu nutzen? Schlüsselwörter
<p>The energy efficiency of residential buildings is a central issue in the widely discussed energy transition. This study investigates which factors influence homeowners´ decisions regarding the energy efficiency standard of their houses. Homeowners who built or renovated their houses between 2008 and 2013 participated in a questionnaire survey in two Austrian “energy regions” within the federal states of Styria and Burgenland. In the majority (66%) of cases, homeowners chose the low-energy house standard B (≤ 50kWh/m<sup>2</sup>a) for their building or renovation projects, followed by the conventional standard C (≤ 100kWh/m<sup>2</sup>a) (21%). Only 13% realized ultra-low-energy, passive or plus-energy houses with a higher energy efficiency standard (A (≤ 25kWh/m<sup>2</sup>a), A+ (≤ 15kWh/m<sup>2</sup>a), or A++ (≤ 10kWh/m<sup>2</sup>a)). Expert recommendations on energy standards showed the highest correlation with the selected standards, and on average, new building projects realized better energy efficiency standards than did renovations. Further variables that were significantly related to the realized standards included homeowners’ attitudes and knowledge about building energy efficiency standards and the age of the respondents. Although the homeowners who were surveyed were initially satisfied with the selected energy efficiency standard, many now indicate a preference to implement significantly higher energy efficiency standards than those achieved in their project. Further, they would recommend even significantly higher energy efficiency standards to friends than the standards preferred for their own house. These findings suggest that current preferences and communication in social networks promote higher future energy efficiency standards.</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.