Drivers of Car Ownership in a Car-Oriented City: A Mixed-Method Study

Abstract

This paper presents a mixed-method analysis of car ownership in Reykjavik, Iceland, a location with a high motorization level and deeply rooted car culture. We utilize qualitative interviews to understand vehicle possession reasons and elaborate the study with statistical analysis using a softGIS survey dataset with characteristics of the respondents and their residential location. We focus on adults aged 25 to 40, who are suggested to be less car-oriented than older generations. We also describe the historic development of Reykjavik’s car culture to give a perspective for the findings. We show that even among the studied age group, car ownership is still seen as a social norm, with few even seeing it possible to live without a car, and the public transport system is seen as giving a poverty stigma. However, we still find an increasing share of car-free households towards the city center. Still, the built environment impact is limited to the city center, which has a higher proportion of small adult-only households residing in shared apartments than other areas. Moreover, there seems to be a three-fold connection between having a child, acquiring a car (if not already possessed), and choosing a suburban residential location. Some indications of residential self-selection related to car ownership were found, but pro-car attitudes and residential location independently influenced car ownership. This study helps to understand the reasons for high car dominance and supports designing policies to reduce car-dependency, not just in Reykjavik but also elsewhere.

Long-Distance Travel and the Urban Environment: Results from a Qualitative Study in Reykjavik

“…A more direct connection between residential location and the need to escape the city points to the stress associated with long commutes and driving (Figure 2C). This effect is similar to the typical compensation hypothesis but has an inverted meaning for urban planning policies: it is not only densification or compact city policies that would induce escape travel, but also car dependence, which in Reykjavik is particularly high and deeply rooted in its mobility culture (Heinonen et al, 2021). Similarly, as in other cities (Cao, Naess, & Wolday, 2019;Ewing & Cervero, 2010), car ownership rates in Reykjavik are lower in centrally located and densely built areas than elsewhere (Heinonen et al, 2021).…”

“…This effect is similar to the typical compensation hypothesis but has an inverted meaning for urban planning policies: it is not only densification or compact city policies that would induce escape travel, but also car dependence, which in Reykjavik is particularly high and deeply rooted in its mobility culture (Heinonen et al, 2021). Similarly, as in other cities (Cao, Naess, & Wolday, 2019;Ewing & Cervero, 2010), car ownership rates in Reykjavik are lower in centrally located and densely built areas than elsewhere (Heinonen et al, 2021). Our findings thus suggest that the compensation hypothesis should be re-thought and expanded if indeed it is true that long commutes by car induce escape trips rather than, or similarly as, negative side-effects of density.…”

“…It is still possible that in higher-density cities the negative impacts would be more prominent. A different kind of causal connection between living in a central and dense location and longdistance travel was detected, in which central living encourages car-free lifestyles (see Heinonen et al, 2021, for an in-depth analysis) which in turn hinders domestic travel and encourages international travel instead (Figure 2A). The pattern is also visible in quantitative analyses, in which car ownership was connected to a higher frequency of domestic leisure trips (Czepkiewicz et al, 2020b).…”

“…No statistical support for the compensation hypothesis has been found in the case of domestic travel (Czepkiewicz et al, 2020a(Czepkiewicz et al, , 2020b. Car ownership levels in Reykjavik are very high, with only the immediate downtown area having a higher rate of car-free households (Heinonen, Czepkiewicz, Árnadóttir, & Ottelin, 2021).…”

“…Population density of the central pedestrian zone is higher than most other areas but similar to some of the less central areas (Czepkiewicz et al, 2018c). However, due to workplace proximity and good walking access to services, the zone allows for a higher share of car-less households than do other zones (Heinonen et al, 2021). In this article, we refer to the central pedestrian zone and its fringe as 'downtown,' 'the city center,' or 'central and dense areas,' and to the remaining zones as 'suburban areas.…”