Everyday mobility and citizenship: a living lab approach

ABSTRACT

In the context of a living lab that aimed to reduce everyday car use, citizens in a newly established semi-urban residential area in Sweden were asked to travel less by car, try mobility and accessibility services, and to reason about travelling and their own role in a future sustainable transport system. By analysing the participants’ written reports about mobility practices and mobility citizenship, collected through a living lab app, the paper explores links between everyday mobility and mobility citizenship. The analysis, which is based on theories on citizenship and mobility and social practice theory, shows that the participants’ reports provided context-specific knowledge regarding everyday mobility and citizenship. The participants expressed both knowledge about and engagement in their local environment. This opens new ways to understand, explore and make use of mobility citizenship, in research and in practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Everyday mobility
• living lab
• mobility citizenship
• social practice theory

Introduction

This is a residential area located far out in the forest – close to beautiful nature, but far from everything else.

When Helen, who lives in a newly built residential area in Sweden, describes her neighbourhood, she pinpoints a dilemma between finding a good place to live and traveling sustainably. Is it possible to challenge car dependency in neighbourhoods that are built at a distance to ‘everything’? It has proved difficult to establish new areas or new policies that reduces car use and promote more sustainable travel, while meeting the accessibility needs that citizens today manage by car. Indeed, the car is pivotal for many citizens when managing everyday life. However, there are also those who question car dependency and wish to be engaged in transformation processes (Hesselgren et al., 2015). This paper is based on a research-led living lab where participants were challenged to try mobility and accessibility services. The study focuses on how the living lab evoked mobility citizenship among the living lab participants.

Within transport and mobility studies, scholars have criticized transport research and planning for reinforcing an image of the users in the transport system as passive consumers of services that allow smooth and efficient mobility (Hansson et al., 2023; Kębłowski & Bassens, 2018). In broader energy transition research, it is pointed out that individuals often are described as consumers that passively generate energy demands and lack information, motivation and interest to support sustainable transformations (Lennon et al., 2020; Wahlund & Palm, 2022). There is a need to find practical and theoretical approaches that move beyond the image of the travelling citizen as a consumer and acknowledge citizenship as a starting point for discussions concerning transformation processes. The method applied in this paper has potential to encourage reasoning about citizenship and mobility and can be helpful for public actors or others to identify measures supporting sustainable mobility that citizens will find meaningful and legitimate.

In recent years, experimental settings such as living labs, where for example future mobility prototypes are tested, have grown in popularity (Bulkeley et al., 2019)). Living labs, or related experimental settings, are seen as a fruitful approach to address sustainability problems (Evans & Karvonen, 2014), new modes of governance (Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren, 2018) and to design, test and learn from socio-technical configurations (Von Wirth et al., 2019). One of the strengths of living labs is that they present an opportunity to involve citizens in, for example, transport related transformations (Kesselring et al., 2023). This paper uses a living lab setting as a forum to explore notions of mobility citizenship. It link previous research that understands mobility in terms of social practices (understood as successful configurations of societal and individual norms, competences and materialities) on the one hand (see e.g. Shove et al., 2012), and what has been theorized as ‘energy citizenship’ (Wahlund & Palm, 2022), ‘cycling citizenship’ (Aldred, 2010) or the ‘geography of citizenship and everyday (im)mobility’ (Spinney et al., 2015) on the other hand. In line with Spinney et al. (2015), we view citizenship not as mere membership in a national state, but rather as processual and embedded in social and material relations: ‘citizenship is conceived of as a set of processual, performative and everyday relations between spaces, objects, citizens and non-citizens’ (2015, p. 325). We argue that mobility citizenship is intimately linked to everyday mobility practices and are expressed through the entitlement to make political claims in local spaces.

Aim and research questions

The aim of the paper is to explore how mobility practices relates to the notion of citizenship in a living lab setting. The analysis is guided by two research questions:

1. How do living lab participants experience and describe everyday mobility from a local perspective?

2. In what ways can participation in a living lab challenge mobility practices?

3. In what ways can participation in a living lab encourage reflections on citizenship?

We apply a qualitative approach, where written reports from the living lab challenges are analysed and thematized in line with the aim and research questions.

Citizenship and mobility practices: theoretical approach

The notion of ‘energy citizenship’ has been suggested to counter the image of citizens as passive consumers of energy (e.g. Ryghaug et al., 2018; Wahlund & Palm, 2022), Ryghaug et al. (2018) describe energy citizenship as building on a view of people as active participants who can and should be democratically engaged in sustainable energy transitions. Energy citizenship involves individual energy consciousness and literacy, as well as sustainable energy practices. Individuals are considered to be able to engage in the energy system, both at a household level (through recycling, installing solar panels, giving up the car in favour of cycling etc.) and in terms of broader collective actions (organizing campaigns, participating in demonstrations, involvement in local politics etc.

Within the mobility literature, it has been pointed out that notions of mobility practices are at the core of citizenship and everyday practices. Scholars like John Urry (2012) and Tim Cresswell (2013) have argued that since flows, movements and transport play a pivotal role in society, theorization of citizenship needs to take mobility and immobility seriously (Spinney et al., 2015, p. 327). Cresswell (2013) argues that it is at a local level citizens meet and interact with urban space. He uses the term ‘barely citizens’ to emphasize how individuals can be legal citizens but are denied access to different spaces through cultural or political configurations of mobility. This can for example be related to how much space is available for different groups such as children or cyclists. Urry (2000) argues that the system of automobility excludes those who do not travel by car, making them ‘barely citizens’ in Cresswell’s terminology (Spinney et al., 2015, p. 328). Through everyday mobility practices, the individual becomes related to broader institutions such as the state or local bodies. Depending on the responses and experiences, different groups or individuals will feel entitled to political claims. This way of understanding citizenship also emphasizes the need to understand what practices are and how they are carried out, which is the focus of social practice theory (SPT).

Within SPT the object of study and analysis is ‘the practice’, and how it emerges, spreads, and evolves (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 2001; Shove et al., 2012). Individual action (practice-as-performances) is fundamental (Reckwitz, 2002). Practices are performed by many people in similar ways, under similar material conditions, and are linked to similar types of knowledge, understanding and meaning (Schatzki, 2001). Altogether, such patterns of everyday actions constitute the practice (the practice-as-entity, Reckwitz, 2002). The practice ‘grows or shrinks’, which primarily depends on new practitioners joining or leaving the practice (Shove et al., 2012). But practices can also increase or decrease in scope depending on whether the practitioners who ‘remain’ in it perform more or fewer actions of the kind that define the practice. When it comes to mobility practices, two clear examples are daily commuting by public transport or by car. These are social practices because they are performed by many people under similar conditions, linked to specific types of practical knowledge, social understanding, and cultural meanings. Geography and infrastructure are decisive parts of the material conditions for such mobility practices. According to a literature review by Kent (2022), some strains of the SPT literature specifically focus on how to challenge everyday travel and measures aiming to trigger sustainability transitions that might adjust practices and knowledge among affected inhabitants.

According to practice theory, social practices co-evolve with technical systems and material conditions (Shove & Pantzar, 2005). People connect to each other and can access different resources and activities through transportation and communication systems, which are particularly conditioning for everyday life and commitments (Maxwell, 2001). When practices evolve in social, family and work life (Watson, 2012), this therefore affects travel in such a way that different travel patterns and modes of transport can arise even in cities with similar economic development and geography. Any trip could represent a ‘highly complex series of interrelationships of various trips, in-home, out-of-home and household activities’ (Fox, 1995). SPT views these complex relationships as everyday practices that are dependent on each other, by being either parallel (bundled) or intertwined (complexed). Without this linking of practices, travel-related patterns of actions in urban, everyday life would not be stable.

Relying on a SPT ontology, we will focus on how everyday mobility practices are part of shaping notions of mobility citizenship. This is close to how Ryghaug et al. (2018) describe energy citizenship. They stress that when people engage with technology, such as mobility and accessibility services, this might produce distinct forms of energy citizenship that are rooted in material participation. In the following, we will use the notion of mobility citizenship to describe how the participants of our study engage with the transport system, both in terms of reasoning concerning how the system is shaped, with certain implications for the shift towards sustainable mobility, and in terms of travel practices on an individual level. We are aware that the focus on mobility can delimit the importance of broader concepts such as accessibility or energy consumption but have chosen to keep the term mobility since it resonates with how the study is designed and communicated with the participants.

Previous research

In order to put the study in a broader context of current knowledge, we conducted a literature search in Scopus, within two areas; 1) research on interventions, pilot projects and experiments aiming towards influencing mobility practices and modal choice, and; 2) research on different forms and expressions of citizenship in relation to mobility and transport modes. The review should not be regarded as comprehensive but as an overview of relevant research and its results and conclusions.

Changing mobility practices

Several studies point to the importance of understanding mobility as more than the value of travel time and the instrumental need of getting between A and B (Cass & Faulconbridge, 2017; Salonen et al., 2014). Rather, how practices arise, change, and consolidate can be explained through the affections, meanings and emotions that are related to mobility practices (Chen & Lee, 2023; Jensen et al., 2015). For example, Chen and Lee (2023) investigated the perceived quality and value among shared e-scooter users. They argue that focusing mainly on functional attributes and neglecting affective characteristics in creating a positive experience, will likely fail in attracting new customers and engaging customers in developing a better service quality. Social networks, relationships and negotiations among family members are also highlighted as of great significance for individuals’ mobility practices and preconditions for their choice of means of transport (Manderscheid, 2014; Rau & Sattlegger, 2018).An example from Jensen et al. (2015), is that safe streets become more of an important determinant of route choice when biking with children, compared to when travelling by car. When it comes to understanding how practices might change, several studies investigated the potential for change when people are given the opportunity to use mobility services and participate in research programmes aimed at studying how mobility practices are affected. Schäfer et al. (2018) distinguishes between two types of initiatives: intentional communities and low carbon municipalities. Intentional communities, which are run by the residents themselves, for example ecovillages or collective households, have greater potential to change practices than initiatives that have a greater degree of top-down control and led by a political and/or administrative organization. An integrative strategy is suggested to have the potential of facilitating low-carbon social practices by linking collective visions with binding standards (meaning) and rules, but also by providing supportive infrastructure (material), and furthermore connecting this with the acquisition of practical knowledge.

Freudendal-Pedersen et al. (2020) considers that giving people the opportunity to test new mobility services for a certain time is regarded as a powerful way to create permanent change and to stimulate new mobility cultures. Three studies in the literature review present how mobility practices are affected when people take part of mobility sharing systems in their neighbourhood. Kesselring et al. (2023) present insights from living lab experiences in three different settings in Germany. They argue that living lab as a method can provide important contextual knowledge on conditions, limitations and, together with citizens, design of mobility solutions (Kesselring et al., 2023). They show that socio-demographic, spatio-structural, infrastructural and cultural frameworks affect the possibility for the living lab to succeed. Johansson et al. (2019) followed new residents in a residential area with few parking spaces but with mobility services offered, including car clubs and electric cargo bikes. They found that the use of private cars decreased among the new residents compared to where they lived before. The authors argue that changing mobility practices takes time, and it is important that the functionalities, such as the infrastructure of the booking and paying functions, are stable in order for changes to grow and spread, otherwise, insecurity about the functionalities of the services is a hindrance to fully embrace the services. They suggest that mobility services should benefit from changes in several different policy areas, for example through congestion taxes, improved public transport provision and infrastructure related to cycling. Mock (2023) studied different forms of sharing systems and, in line with the studies presented above, argues that it is difficult for mobility services to compete with the private car due to shortcomings in the ability to interact smoothly with other activities in everyday life. Car sharing users also depend on cycling and public transport, and thereby, they become dependent on a well-functioning infrastructure for several transport modes. To support the use of sharing services, the time required for planning or using the services must be reduced; sharing services could, for example, be offered in residential areas. People could be encouraged to share the use of their own car with their neighbours, or they might be supported in adjusting the time structure in their everyday life to adapt to sustainable practices, such as working from home. Sopjani et al. (2020) studied changes in users’ everyday life practices when car commuting was replaced with shared small-size lightweight electric vehicles. A major change was identified in relation to the meaning of the private car, but it was difficult to integrate the services in everyday life. The authors suggest an integrated design to compete with the private car that takes the practice, the product, and the service into account in various domains: household, workplaces and shopping centres. Decreasing distance is another way of affecting mobility practices, which has been explored by Vaddadi et al. (2022), in a study of how a local telecommuting centre influence modal choice and everyday transport activities. Although the motivation for working from the centre was to save time and mitigate stress by not having to commute, the short trip with less congestion on the way to the centre made it easy to travel by car, which had an opposite and unwanted effect on mobility practices.

In order for a practice to occur, or for a policy to be successful, all three elements of a practice must be considered or influenced, which is highlighted in several studies (Camilleri et al., 2022; Cass & Faulconbridge, 2017; Guell et al., 2023). Having both materials and skills required for shifting from car to bike transport is not enough if the material elements (e.g. infrastructure) are lacking (Camilleri et al., 2022). Through a qualitative study in two UK cities, Cass and Faulconbridge (2017) present how a modal shift depends on access to, and active incorporation of, meanings, materials and competences, but also commute-specific integration such as productive time-use on vehicles and weather equipment for cycling. When sequenced practices create a need to move between spatially distanced places, or impose inflexible time constraints, people are more likely to use a car for commuting. Guell et al. (2023), using a Bourdieuan terminology, mean that practices result from habitus, and are embedded in different fields, including fields beyond transport. Cycling is one example of a field where people identify themselves as cyclists, and to which particular symbolic meanings are attributed. Practices change because of changes within the fields (e.g. new bus routes) or when actors change fields (e.g. change jobs or place of residence), and/or acquire or lose capital. Thus, social and material infrastructures are important but are not the only determinants in change.

In sum, the reviewed literature shows that changing practices takes time and that people need to be given the opportunity to test new solutions in order to build up skills around how the new practices can be integrated into their everyday life. What is needed are relatively simple solutions and resources for a new practise to be adopted, such as having the right weather equipment and bike lanes that are safe for different cyclists, provided that all elements of a practise are incorporated.

Citizenship as expressed in im/mobility practices

Several studies focus on mobility as a citizenship practice, or as expressions of citizenship or social exclusion. In a study by Aldred (2010), the concept of the ‘cycling citizen’ was discussed. Four roles of cycling citizens were identified: The environmental citizen attempted to lead a green and healthy lifestyle but is also concerned about the vulnerability among cyclists in traffic environments. For the self-caring citizen, the bike is superior in providing independence. The locally rooted citizen cycles as a way of feeling part of the local environment while the citizen in the community is encouraged by being part of a greater community, together with others who bike. While Aldred’s study (2010) is based on interviews with cyclists in Cambridge, UK, Anantharaman (2017) studied how the middle class in India legitimizes and adopts practices usually associated with the working class, such as cycling. Through their creation of environmental discourses and materials, images and skills related to cycling, middle-class cyclists claim to be ethical actors and ecological citizens concerned about global environments. However, the author emphasizes that it is ethically problematic to promote eco-friendly practices of bicycling through the creation of distinctions, since this depends on the othering of the poor and deepens the stigma associated with poor cycling identities. At the same time, they are also cyclists who simply enjoy the practice of cycling, although if the middle class is able to influence urban planning to turn away from a car-centric development, they need to expand their constituencies to also include pedestrians, public transport users and the working-class cyclists. A different view upon mobility citizenship can be found in a study of Liu and Browne (2023), who explored lifestyle mobilities, which can be defined as ongoing voluntary physical mobilities in the performance of lifestyle choices. They stress that multiple moorings, flexible location choices and changes to return home(s) can be an alternative way of how people, based on their awareness of physical and mental health and preferred way of living, respond to climate change and pollution risks. Two studies concern cycling among migrants. Law and Karnilowicz (2015) explain that high prices for living in Australia makes it difficult for migrants to find central accommodations, and therefore they cannot bike as much as they did in their home country. This has negative impact on mobility, social engagement, psychosocial well-being, and health and contributes to a sense of displacement in the new country. The authors draw the conclusions that communication cycling as healthy, environmentally friendly, accessible, and functional is true only for privileged groups of citizens. Similar reasoning is done by Reid-Musson (2018) who claims that cycling is entangled in racial economical inequalities and is not a proper solution in societies characterized by car traffic. She has studied how migrant farmworkers in Canada have to cycle on roads that are not designed for cycling. They cannot choose where to live and are tied to their workplaces on farms outside the cities. ‘As non-citizens they are excluded from legal entitlements to freedom of mobility, but they also inhabit shadow geographies of citizenship where their ability to move is considerably limited and often dangerous’ (Reid-Musson, 2018, p. 320).

The CurieuzeNeuzen project came about due to citizens’ concerns about the air quality in Antwerpen (Van Brussel & Huyse, 2019). This constituted a window of opportunity to implement a project with the purpose of measuring air quality. Citizens were actively involved in collecting data about average nitrogen dioxide throughout the city by placing diffusion tubes on houses and buildings. The project was successful in that it reached and engaged a diversity of citizens, who were encouraged to participate in a number of events and give suggestions about how to improve the air quality. Another example of citizen participation is presented in Ryghaug et al. (2018) who have studied the introduction and use of emergent energy technologies (electric vehicles, domestic smart energy technologies and rooftop solar cells), and how these have become part of everyday life. The authors emphasize that the introduction of energy systems does not create energy citizenship in itself, this is the result of three conditions in particular. Firstly, the technologies are located close to the users and the places where the technologies are used. Secondly, the technologies can be integrated with each other (e.g. solar cells are used for charging the private car), which creates commitment and active participation. Thirdly, it involves dealing with non-standard technologies that require commitment, knowledge and engagement in order to function. A different perspective on citizen engagement is presented by Chen and Lee (2023), who show how a customer can take on a role as a citizen customer. In their study of shared e-scooter users, it was found that customer citizenship behaviour is affected merely by hedonic values (affective) and not by utilitarian values (instrumental), which indicates that the utilitarian values alone are not enough for customers to want to contribute by developing and improving services for others.

In the literature on mobility citizenship, especially cycling has been understood as an expression of citizenship which connects to individual statements related to concerns for the environment, the self and the health and/or as an expression of being part of a community. Other studies show an opposite side, namely cyclists who are practically forced to bike to be able to live and work as migrants in a new country, while putting themselves to risk in hazardous traffic environments. Other studies show examples of how citizens are involved in testing or initiating new energy technologies. These studies highlight the importance of engaging and encourage citizens to be part of a change and that integration of systems and ease of access near the home are vital for new energy practices to persist. Through the living-lab approach in the present study, we have taken note of the importance of encouraging citizens to be part of a change for a more sustainable local environment. We also stress the importance of acknowledge everyday mobility practices and how they are bundled with other practices, to fully understand how citizenship and mobility practices are interrelated.

Methodological approach

The study area

Riksten is a newly established residential area in Botkyrka Municipality. It is described as one of the municipality’s most expansive areas, and will continue to grow the upcoming years. Today, the area houses approx. 3000 inhabitants and the plan is to house 8–1000 more inhabitants before 2032 (Botkyrka Municipality, 2020a). The area is characterized by single-family housing and apartment buildings with a relatively even distribution of tenure types. Most Riksten residents, in contrast to the municipality as a whole, are born in Sweden. They have a higher level of education, lower unemployment, and a significantly higher electoral participation than the national average (SCB, 2022). Riksten is a car-dependent district, where a lack of public transport, and routes suitable for walking and cycling, is considered a challenge for sustainable travel (Botkyrka Municipality, 2020b). Riksten was chosen as the location for the living lab since it illustrates issues of accessibility and mobility typical for many suburbs in metropolitan regions.

The living lab

The overall objective of the living lab was to learn more about how individuals and households can travel less with cars when offered easy access to mobility and accessibility services on a digital platform (a smartphone app). In 2022, participants were recruited to the living lab through advertisements in the local area and on social media. They were informed that the goal of their participation was to cut their number of monthly car trips by half. In the app, they could set a target for how many car trips they wanted to reduce and change it monthly. They were offered to keep track of their car trips through a device placed in their cars. The tracking device was connected to the app and visualized the number of car trips the participants undertook. Prior to the launch of the living lab, they were interviewed, and they filled in travel diaries for two weeks. When the living lab was launched in November 2022, they were offered shared e-bikes and e-cargo bikes. During the first months the participants also had access to a ‘work hub’ (a local shared office space) and privately leased e-bikes, but these services were removed due to lack of interest. During spring 2023 the participants were given access to e-scooters and to a taxi service covering hours when the local bus was less frequent. The services were provided by market actors to a reduced price. The prices were set to reflect a future where mobility and accessibility services are subsidized in a similar way as Swedish public transportation is subsidized today. Approx. half of the cost of public transport is covered by taxes in the Stockholm region. The living lab can be described as a design driven ‘designerly living lab’, where participants are engaged to explore and co-create future prototypes with the aim to learn about transformation processes (Sjöman & Hesselgren, 2022). The process of framing, concretizing, running and closing the living lab is described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The living lab process.

In total, 14 individuals from 12 households agreed to participate (see Table 1 for overview). They were between 33 and 61 years old. A majority lived in privately-owned housing. Two of the participants lived in rental apartments and one in a private housing cooperative. All had one or more cars in the household but were mixed mode users. A majority had children under the age of 12, some had older children and one participant had no children. Their occupations varied, for example engineer, nurse, teacher, psychologist, data programming, police. Some worked extensively from home, while others did not have that possibility. In line with ethical guidelines, the participants were informed about the study, potential risks to participate and how their data would be used and stored. All provided written consent.

Table 1. Living Lab participants.

Name	Age	Persons in household	Children in household	Car/s in household	Main transport mode
Lars	57	1	0	1	Bicycle + car + running
Hanna	38	5	3	1	PT, bicycle + car
Terese	47	5	3	1	PT + car
Jon	47	4	2	1	Bicycle
Sara	39	4	2	1	Car + PT
Jonna	44	3	1	1	Car + PT
Mikail	41	4	2	2	Electric car + bicycle + PT
Johan	50	4	2	2	Bicycle + PT (commuting), car (other errands)
David	33	3	1	1	Bicycle
Erik & Helen	36, 37	5	3	1	Car (Erik), bicycle + car (Helen)
Martin & Emma	37, 37	4	2	1	E-scooter, bicycle + PT (Martin), e-scooter + car (Emma)
Carina	61	2	0	1	Bicycle + PT

Reflecting on possible selection bias, research in which the behaviour of individuals is to be studied requires participants that are motivated to offer their time and effort, even when individual gains are seemingly low. This means that the participants are often interested in sustainability issues, are future-oriented or ‘tech-savvy’ (Brohmer et al., 2023). In this study, the participants mainly stated two types of motives for participating: as a challenge or to try something new and exciting, for example trying to travel less by car and try out new vehicle sharing services; or to contribute to sustainable development, for the city district of Riksten and society at large, as well as for the sake of one’s children (see Hesselgren and Ihlström, forthcoming). The study was carried out in the aftermath of the Covid 19-pandemic, which could have affected practices and views among the inhabitants in certain ways, especially when it comes to working from home.

Mobility and citizenship challenges

To engage the participants in the living lab we asked them to take on and report ‘mobility and citizenship challenges’ throughout the living lab period. 1–2 challenges per month were published in the living lab app where the participants were prompted to answer them in written text (for an overview, see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Mobility- and citizen challenges, overview.

The design of the challenges was based on our theoretical assumptions (theories of energy/mobility citizenship and social practice theory). The mobility challenges were formulated so that the participants would be encouraged to decrease car travel, and to try the specific mobility and accessibility services that the living lab introduced in the neighbourhood. The citizenship challenges were designed to tease out reflections on their mobility and travel practices, but also concerning the local environment that might allow or discourage sustainable mobility. The challenges aimed to reflect seasonal changes. In Sweden, both autumn and winter are cold and dark, and can be rainy and snowy, which makes it less attractive to bicycle for some. Unfortunately, due to the challenges guiding the design and the setting up of the living lab (c.f. Van Waes et al., 2021), it could not be launched in late summer as intended, but in November. Spanning over nine months, the participants had the opportunity to try travelling sustainably over the course of different seasons. When introducing the challenges to the participants, we invited them to participate and engage in a specific kind of socio-material configuration consisting of the app, the local area which they live in, their own vehicles and the services we offered (Ryghaug et al., 2018).

Results

We have distinguished two positions that the participants take when they respond to the challenges. One position concerns their engagement with local sustainability and transport planning and describes how conditions for mobility and accessibility could improve. It is often reflective and relates to issues beyond individual experiences and can for example emphasize needs for different groups. We refer to this position as the citizen self.

The traveller self, on the other hand, refers to statements that describe habitual or new experiences of travelling when carrying out activities and errands during the living lab as a consequence of the challenges, or independent of them. These statements are descriptive rather than reflective. Following social practice theory, we regard the two positions as constituted by three elements (Shove et al., 2012): the participants’ norms and values concerning travel (meaning), the built environment and infrastructure they have access to when travelling (material), and individual ability to take on different travel modes (competences). Our interpretation is that both the travelling self and the citizen self are related to these three elements. The approaches are overlapping and mutually reinforcing. We argue that it is meaningful to distinguish between them since the citizen self is seldom taken into consideration in research or planning practices that focus on travel or mobility. Below, we will give examples of how the participants express travelling self and the citizen self.

The citizen self

Through the challenges, the participants provided proposals for how Riksten can develop regarding transport and mobility issues. The suggestions revolved around making it easier to bicycle (cycle paths, parking, snow removal, etc.), travel by public transport (frequency of trips, reliability in connections to the two nearby commuter train stations) and car travel (reduced speed, measures that discourage/disable car use). In the case of e-scooters, opinions differed and related to carelessness among young users; safety and independence were also mentioned. The participants’ willingness to reason, make suggestions and tap into issues that are part of the everyday local environment relates to the citizen self.

As citizens in Riksten, the participants’ responses describing their local area in general, including travel opportunities, tend to focus on the proximity to nature on the one hand and remoteness to amenities on the other. Jonna stated:

[Riksten is] surrounded by nature, and within walking distance of the beautiful Lida nature reserve. It is about a 40-minute walk to Tullinge C and the commuter train, but there are buses that run regularly. It is a well-planned neighbourhood that is pleasant.

The quote represents many of the participants’ experiences of living in Riksten, namely positive experiences of living close to nature. When specifically asked about services that are available or missing in the city district, the participants reported availability of the most basic services. A few also reported missing specific amenities:

Today I lack an indoor swimming pool./- - -/I also miss a larger grocery store, since ours is limited in its selection, which means that one must take longer [shopping] trips. (Johan)

[I miss] restaurants, a Systembolag [state monopoly alcohol retailer], a bakery, and a direct [bus] connection to Flemingsberg. (Martin)

Thus, the challenge that concerned what Riksten would look like if everything one needed was in place, made the participants report about (the lack of) services and leisure activities, both basic services and some that can be regarded as adding extra value, such as a gym, cinema or restaurants. The absence of these kinds of services generate travel, often by car. Their statements also include thoughts on how to enable citizens in Riksten to live in a more sustainable way. David highlighted urban planning as an explanation of the unsatisfying proximity to sustainable transport options:

Riksten is, after all, a district in a suburb of Stockholm that was built where there was access to cheap (less expensive) land rather than access to good communications./- - -/

Statements connected to the citizen self also concerned overall views upon responsibility for the local environment and the possibility to live sustainably. Their own responsibility was highlighted, along with what others should do or are able to do, as well as what politics should do. One participant stated that they, in the family, ‘ought to be better at letting people know when we are going somewhere and asking if anyone wants a ride with us’ (Hanna). Another participant reported in a way that could be interpreted as a bad conscience, since he used the car a lot for going skiing; on the other hand, he had decreased short trips with the car in connection with joining the project.

Some participants suggest that more children should walk and bicycle to school and pre-school since school services are to be found in the near proximity. One person states that she is able to bicycle to work but that ‘many people in our district’ have made themselves dependent on the car because Riksten is situated far from commuter trains, and it is thus too far to bicycle to many workplaces. This is a statement which refers to citizens’ choice (of living in the area) and the responsibility of both citizens and policy makers. Statements also concern specific views on the use of different transport modes, both regarding themselves and others. The use of electric scooters, and the associated travel behaviour, engaged many of the participants. Some, like Johan, are negative towards e-scooters:

I don’t like the e-scooters. They are dangerous and unsustainable. Nothing wrong with one’s own legs or a regular pedal-bike.

One co-researcher state that she is not interested in using e-scooters, and that she will not carry out the challenge related to trying e-scooters. Some mention how others should use electric scooters, for example, that e-scooters will give ‘people’ more freedom to get to and from the train station, or that they hope people can use e-scooters instead of the car to the train station. In addition to statements about their own and others’ responsibilities and opportunities to travel sustainably, the co-researchers’ answers to the challenges show their engagement in what the authorities should do to enable residents to live sustainably. David expresses his views related to this as follows:

Raise the tax on carbon dioxide emissions, it’s insanely cheap to pollute. Never introduce short-term petrol and diesel tax cuts to ‘protect the work-life balance of ordinary families’.

The participants’ statements revolve around making it easy, fast, cheap, and smooth to use public transport, or to cycle and walk, as well as making restrictions on car use. It is viewed as important that people can rely on public transport and that the traffic environments are safe for children to travel independently in.

The traveller self

Statements that we interpret as reflecting the traveller self are descriptions of everyday travel in Riksten and beyond, and concern experiences of cycling, commuting by public transport or going by car at different times of day, week and season. In answer to the mobility challenges, co-researchers reported both positive experiences and mixed feelings concerning accessibility and feeder traffic to the commuter trains. Visiting a nearby nature reserve (Lida), was regarded as positive. Johan used the living lab bicycles and described that:

We/ … /cycled to Lida on the holiday on the last day of April [using] three bikes and with our two children in a bike trailer. No parking worries, fresh air, adventurous for the kids.

Mikhail referred to the commute situation when describing the problems to reduce car use in Riksten:

At the moment, the only option is to take the car from Riksten. [—] The buses do not run often enough. At the times when you need the buses, they are packed. They don’t fit with the commuter train. You have to wait a very long time in Tullinge, for example.

Responses to the mobility challenges concerned experiences of using public transport and using the bike-routes to and from commuter trains and larger work-place areas (i.e. other districts), but also for leisure trips. Many of the participants pointed out that feeder traffic between Riksten and commuter train stations was unsatisfactory outside office hours and at weekends. They asked for faster connections with direct buses. For instance, Helen says:

The possibilities to get back and forth to Stockholm C and Södertälje at normal times are quite [good]. But if you must travel outside office hours or beyond the commuter train stations, it entails several changes and takes a very long time.

The topic of unsatisfactory bus connections was often related to the limited options of cycling due to insufficient biking paths. The statements reflect relatively concurrent knowledge among the co-researchers of conditions for multimodality when it comes to transport by bike and public transport. While appreciating the proximity to nature and the Lida nature reserve, commuting would have been easier if denser settlement had been planned between the new Riksten and the old Tullinge town.

Conditions for cycling tend to engage many of the participants. They had diverging perceptions regarding the possibilities of cycling when living in Riksten. What is regarded as a reasonable distance or as a road possible to cycle on, is different for different individuals which reflect both norms and comptences. The following emerged from the mobility challenge (no. 7 in table in Methods section):

With our location, access to workplaces within cycling distance (i.e., in Tumba, Tullinge, Flemingsberg and Huddinge) is relatively limited. (David)

Erik reported on the capacity of the cargo-bikes that are available for rent through the living lab:

Nowadays, you can also rent electric cargo bikes here, but they only work with one person on it, because the motors are so small. Therefore, you must get off (both children and adults) and push the bike uphill.

Some regard cycling as easy and doable since the infrastructure is decent. Johan was distinctly enthusiastic about several aspects of cycling:

The solution, which cuts time and improves health (and life) is to cycle. It is faster, the heart rate rises [and I] get fresh air, lovely! It is best to have a cheap/old bike that can be parked anywhere. If you have an expensive one, there is the bicycle garage. This is the best option for many people. [- - -] Electric bike? Why? It is less than 4 km down [to Tullinge]. Most people are healthy enough to ride their own bike. If you switch to a bicycle, you don’t have to go to the gym or run in the evenings. [- - -]. At the [final] destination you may need a second bike.

This report represents a full spectrum of cycling views. Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking aspects is the idea of owning two bicycles, one placed at the local commuter station, and one at the commuter station where Johan works, which facilitates the practice of bicycle commuting (combined with public transport).

To change and to challenge oneself

The participants made statements that connect to the overall theme of challenging car-based mobility practices. These often connect to the challenges that were designed to encourage the participants to try on new accessibility or mobility services in Riksten or to reduce their overall car use. The statements reflect both the citizen self and the traveller self.

As noted above, four of the mobility challenges consisted of replacing a car journey, with another means of transport and clocking the difference in duration. Other challenges involved carpooling (i.e. two or more people travel together in the same car) and trying out the cargo bikes (as substitutes for driving), and yet another to avoid travelling. A broad spectrum of initiatives to take on the challenges were reported, from changing the place for the yearly gingerbread bake, to taking the waste to be recycled by bike, and carrying fewer golf clubs in the golf bag to be able to bike. Reports regarding replacing a car trip with another mode (and clocking it) can be exemplified by the following:

[I went] to the dance class at Rikstenshallen by bicycle. It took about five minutes. It would have taken maybe three minutes by car. (Sara)

From home to Brantbrink sports ground for the son’s orienteering training and back. Took 20 minutes instead of 4 minutes per direction (Martin)

By giving the participants challenges to test the time it takes to bicycle and drive, respectively, to the same place, some discovered that cycling does not take that much longer, while others discovered that it would double the time, depending on the distance and the route for cars and bicycle paths. Several challenges were designed for the participants to try travelling without a car, and that encouraged them to cycle for transport. Several positive experiences emerged in relation to walking and bicycling for grocery shopping and for excursion trips, alone or with family members. Grocery shopping without a car was possible for many because of the nearby grocery store. Some took the shopping trip as an opportunity for physical activity or as an activity with the children. The following reports illustrate the two challenges of trying out the cargo bikes (as substitutes for driving).

Cycled to Skyttbrink to recycle trash, it took about 30 minutes, i.e., twice as much as by car. However, I managed to bring almost everything I wanted to throw away with me, and also got a nice (albeit somewhat wobbly) ride with a box bike. (Carina)

Trying to travel as little as possible seemed too difficult for many. Statements revolved around the fact that they had to get to work, for example when working as a teacher, a policeman or in healthcare. Avoiding travel requires more time and planning in advance. One solution was carpooling to avoid two car trips to the same place. Even though it was found difficult to decrease travel, Lars stated that:

Having a goal set to reduce car journeys is a good help and during the period I have had the opportunity to reduce travel it has been an important motivational factor. The feeling of getting closer to the goal motivates me to keep going.

Overall, the responses indicate that increased cycling represents an opportunity to reduce car dependence in Riksten to some extent. Carpooling can also be an option in some cases. The participants acknowledged benefits and advantages of vehicle sharing for a few types of trips. However, they perceived the private car as the most convenient alternative for most activities and needs. Overall, the participants seemed inclined and curious to try out alternative options, which is why we believe that they were challenged in the intended way by living lab challenges. However, these challenges also made them stress that it is often difficult to switch to slower and more sustainable modes of travel.

Discussion

The results provide a basis for discussing how mobility practices relate to notions of citizenship in a living lab setting.

Mobility practices

Daily commuting constitutes a crucial part of everyday social practices. Through written reports we have been able to access the participants’ reflections on these practices. In their reports, their local environment, Riksten, is described as located in the outskirts of Stockholm which enables certain mobility practices and disables others. Transport to the two closest commuter train stations seems decisive. Most of the participants use public transport and bicycles for their daily commute, but not to a larger extent. We interpret this in terms of the participants having the norms and competence to commute by public transport or by bicycle, while the specific local conditions, the materialities, do not fully align with these elements. This analysis matches the participants’ narratives about the potential contribution of public transport to their everyday mobility, although only if the connections to the commuter train stations improve.

The participants’ statements about public transport are thus in line with well-established images about transport options, and who can choose to utilize them. Such images partly stem from, or are reflected in, transport research. One example is the claim that travel by public transport in the outskirts of large cities would benefit from supplements that make public transport more ‘seamless and easily accessible’ (see e.g. Hine & Scott, 2000). It seems likely that public transport can be made more attractive by e.g. more direct and frequent feeder traffic to the commuter train stations, not least out of consideration for the time-space contingencies that an individual has to deal with in everyday life (Cass & Faulconbridge, 2016). We can also see that some of the participants have found ways to solve the problem of inadequate public transport provision by e.g. biking to the commuter train station. In line with social practice theory, the participants possess skills needed to find different solutions in the local environment and have access to material resources needed, not least bicycles.

When the participants reported on the cycling challenges and assignments, they showed skills and knowledge about different aspects of cycling, i.e. accessibility, health and safety. As travellers, they expressed themselves along the entire scale ranging from answering that reaching activities in other locations works perfectly well with the help of a bicycle, to mentioning obstacles in the form of inadequate infrastructure and traffic safety, and risk of theft, which made it difficult to bike.

There is consensus among the participants that the Riksten location means that access to workplaces or other destination points within cycling distance is relatively limited. This is one of the reasons that car dependency is relatively high in Riksten. There are many suggestions for improvements of public transport and bicycling. This indicates a shared local competence, which in social practice theory is seen as a component of any practice, and can also be interpreted as an expression of mobility citizenship. More examples of shared citizen competence concerned the assessments of the shared electric cargo bikes provided by the living lab. The participants thought these bikes were probably not of the right design for the district’s inhabitants. Finally, they all have a positive attitude to children and young people being able to move independently in the area, on foot and by bicycle, without worrying about car traffic, which is another example of civic values, connected to mobility citizenship.

The infrastructure, preferences towards different transport modes, skills to find one’s way around in the local environment and to choose among different modes of transport, depending on the needs of the day, are all important elements for a practice to occur, change and consolidate – one of these elements is usually not enough – as several previous studies show (c.f. Cass & Faulconbridge, 2017).

Citizenship

We understand mobility citizenship as reflected in practices that take place in a local environment, and where some mobile subjects have access and feel entitled to urban space while access and entitlement is hindered for other subjects. The analysis showed that the participants view the local space as configured to support motorists. The living lab participants’ reports reflect that Riksten is seen as a district where car use is considered convenient for everyday mobility, while public transport is regarded as insufficient, time consuming and unsafe. One interpretation is that cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users in Riksten are what Cresswell (2013) refers to as ‘barely citizens’; they do not have access to the same space as motorists. The participants seemed fully able to choose between all modes rather than being excluded from using any of them. Still, their experiences of cycling and using public transport compared to their experiences of car travel highlights the tension of barely citizenship and full citizenship. Despite a lean towards car-based mobility, the participants supplied ideas for increased accessibility and sustainable mobility which we interpret in line with active citizenship.

The way the participants relate to the living lab challenges can be understood in accordance with what literature on energy citizenship describes as ‘sustainable literacy’ (Ryghaug et al., 2018). Their reasoning reflects knowledge about everyday travel and the challenges involved in the necessity of travelling in a more sustainable way. This is reflected in the way they describe the neighbourhood they live in, what is needed from them as individuals, as well as what is required of society, in terms of better infrastructure for sustainable mobility and proximity to amenities. This ‘literacy’ does not, as we have implied, reflect sustainable practices. Altogether, engaging participants in challenges, asking about both practical experiences of travelling and their reasonings related to the local environment, and how to move towards more sustainable travelling, allows the participants to build and express ‘sustainable literacy’. It also allows the researchers to build a fuller picture of how practices and ideas about travelling sometimes can be aligned, but sometimes reflect shifting standpoints. There seems to be an interest among citizens to discuss where society at different levels should be heading in terms of planning and transport. This gives rise to questions around arenas for (more transparent and fruitful) political debate to create legitimacy, but also to enable citizens to raise their voices and provide policymakers and civil servants with new perspectives.

Methodological reflection

The way we applied the method raises two certain concerns. The first one regards whether it might have been an advantage if the participants had communicated more with each other during the living lab, in order to stimulate civic commitment to a higher extent. The second one concerns if a larger number of living lab participants could have resulted in wider spectrum of reported mobility practices and citizen experiences, as well as permitted wider claims regarding generalization. However, when designing the living lab, the research group did not strive for a representative sample, nor to be able to generalize the results. In line with the ‘designerly living lab’ approach (Sjöman & Hesselgren, 2022), the main idea was to engage a smaller group of participants that are willing to try new solutions and spend time and effort on the living lab in order to generate detailed learning about a subject, in this case the possibility to reduce car use. In relation to the aim of learning, we have learned plenty, for instance that it is possible to recruit citizens as active participants like we did. Finally, it is relevant to assess how useful the living lab method and related research techniques were in terms of understanding the participants both as travellers and as citizens. Since we see this as a main learning from the study, we discuss it under conclusions below.

Conclusions

In this paper we have used theories of citizenship and social practices to explore how participants in a living lab reason about local preconditions for sustainable travel and everyday mobility. According to Kesselring et al. (2023), a main argument for setting up living labs is the possibility to engage citizens as local experts in transformation processes. Our study supports this argument, since the participating citizens were active, reflective and creative in tackling challenges and answering them in writing. We argue that the participation in the lab activated both a citizen and a traveller perspective, roles that are closely intertwined. It was made clear that the participants possessed local knowledge and competence regarding everyday travel, accessibility and sustainability. We read this as an expression of mobility citizenship that are built upon experiences related to everyday mobile practices.

The study showed that it is possible to appeal to people both as travellers and as citizens and get informative reports from them in both respects. By applying the challenge method, we were able to discern civic spirit and commitment, ‘for the group’, as well as for individuals. There is need for such citizen commitment when tackling sustainability problems as car dependency. We argue that the results can be useful as inspiration for sustainability policy, and primarily to traffic-related municipal planning as well as regional planning of public transport. To involve citizens like we have, in a living lab setting or as part of ordinary planning practices, could be a way to avoid pitfalls regarding the legitimacy of policies that support sustainable mobility and may involve measures that moderate car use. For such purposes it could be more useful than e.g. traditional surveys used by public transport providers, or ’satisfied customer indexes’ used by the public sector for evaluating welfare services in general.

The citizen position is seemingly unremedied in transport research and policy which highlights a need to debate and deliberate where transport planning should be aiming, together with citizens. Altogether, the participants’ responses to the mobility and citizen challenges can be viewed as a potential resource to be used in transformation processes, initiated at a local level. One of the many challenges that policy-makers need to tackle is how to find local support for policies aiming at reducing car travel. Asking local citizens to share their experiences of living and travelling locally, and their reflections on how to reduce car use, can be a way to explore how their everyday experiences can be met by policies. This is a resource that can be used in different ways, to be explored in research and practice in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the everyone in the Mistra Sams research team that have been involved in different steps in the research process. Thank you also to the reviewers for valuable and constructive comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Mistra för Miljöstrategisk Forskning [2014/25].