Personal mobility and climate change

Abstract

Changing personal mobility behavior in response to climate change represents a major challenge for social scientists and practitioners, given the embedded nature of mobility in daily life. Attempts to understand, govern, and promote more sustainable mobility have tended to focus on individual decision making and incremental shifts in behavior, such as reduced car use and increased walking, cycling, and public transport use. Indeed, these are progressively being woven into narratives of “smart” travel and the use of technology to enhance individual decision making. In this review, I respond to these developments by arguing that researchers and practitioners need to reframe their understanding of personal mobility to consider how travel can also be understood as an embedded form of practice, intimately connected to historic, economic, and cultural influences. In so doing, I propose that researchers need to focus their attention on two major challenges that constitute underpinning obstacles for promoting long‐term shifts in personal mobility: the ways in which cities are governed, designed, and regulated to promote hypermobility rather than dwelling; and the formidable problem of reducing personal carbon emissions from a growing international tourism industry. In addressing these two challenges, I argue for a new intellectual agenda that places personal well‐being at the center of efforts to promote shifts toward low carbon mobility practices. Such (radical) shifts include reducing the demand for travel, an emphasis on dwelling, and the promotion of “active” travel and “slow tourism.” In short, I ask why we travel so much, and why we don't travel well. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses

User decision-making in transitions to electrified, autonomous, shared or reduced mobility

“…The literature highlights that individuals have various motivations for travel choices, and that these include autonomy, 36 economy (financial and time), hedonic, health, social and environmental (Whitmarsh, 2009; see Figure 1). While some individuals may be motivated to adopt low-carbon mobility choices for environmental reasons (e.g., 'car-less crusaders'; Anable, 2005) most will do so because they represent more convenient, cheaper or healthier options (Barr, 2018). As discussed, social norms and identities will also shape mobility decisions.…”

“…As such, we aim to include in this paper key factors that shape mobility decision-making, both internal and external, some of which may be within the scope of other disciplines (e.g., economics, sociology, planning) as well as psychology. At the same time, we acknowledge critiques of psychological perspectives as methodologically individualistic and traditionally incremental in focus (Barr, 2018) and seek to draw selectively on insights from other disciplines to address the need for more systemic and radical innovation in mobility. As such, our review is not intended to be aligned with a particular theory, but instead to draw on predominantly psychological insights on user behaviour and decision-making in relation to low-carbon mobility innovations (cf.…”

“…Offering free trials of CAVs or new forms of shared mobility, particularly at times when habits are disrupted (Verplanken & Roy, 2016;Bamberg, 2006), may increase familiarity and help address misperceptions about the viability or quality of alternatives compared to current choices. Segmenting users may help ensure that messages are targeted to the different motivations and needs of different groups; for example, promoting the health benefits of active travel or the cost savings from car sharing (Barr, 2018). Intervening to make regime mobility choices less attractive and viable (e.g., road user charging) in tandem with making niche options more attractive and viable (e.g., subsidising shared modes; providing kerb-separated cycle lanes) could both avoid public backlash and create sustainable low-carbon habits (Anable et al, 2004).…”

“…After decades of the internal combustion engine and personal mobility dominating road transport, this dominance is no longer a certainty. Mobility affords a range of societal and economic benefits, but problems with current transport systems include greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, social inequality, congestion, collisions (often caused by human error), and obesity (e.g., Barr, 2018). Indeed, in the UK, greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster in the transport domain than in any other sector (BEIS, 2017).…”

“…Innovations to address these issues include novel technologies (e.g., electric and autonomous vehicles), and new business models and social practices (e.g., shared mobility). Yet, far more attention by policy-makers and researchers has been paid to the technical aspects of a low-carbon mobility transition than to social or psychological aspects or indeed to the role of the user (Barr, 2018). The innovation literature highlights the critical role of users as potential drivers of, or barriers to, successful change (Geels, 2002); users may play active or passive roles in such change, and shape transition outcomes in profound ways (Nye et al, 2010).…”