‘Ecological concerns weren’t the main reason why I took the bus, that association only came afterwards’: on shifts in meanings of everyday mobility

Figures & data

Table 1. Non-exhaustive overview of typologies of everyday mobilities

Typologies of mobile populations based on how they ascribe meaning to everyday mobility
Population	Categories	Reference
Commuter cyclists in Switzerland	Active cyclists, civic cyclists, individualist cyclists, enthusiast cyclists	Rérat (2019)
Population of six cities in Switzerland and France	Exclusive motorists, civic ecologists, motorists constrained into using public transport, open to all possibilities	Kaufmann (2000)
Population of Europe	Convenience drivers, busy green drivers, price-oriented public transportation users, green public transportation users, practical cyclists, green cyclists, price-oriented pedestrians, green pedestrians	Haustein and Nielsen (2016)
Active population of Greater Geneva	Exclusive motorists, predisposed motorists, comparing efficiency, comparing comfort, predisposed for individual means of transportation, predisposed for sustainable means of transportation, predisposed for active means of transportation, ecologists	Kaufmann et al. (2020)
Population of England	Addicted car users, aspiring green travellers, reluctant public transport users, committed green travellers	Prillwitz and Barr (2011)
Typologies of elements that are used in ascribing meaning to everyday mobility
Terminology used in article	Elements	Reference
Motivations	Well-being (pleasure, to take one’s mind off things), civic engagement (social activism, positive image of the bike in social circle, respect for the environment), independence (time-saving, flexibility, freedom)	Rérat (2019)
Rationales	Comparison of journey times, cultural predisposition to the use of different modes of transport (values such as speed, individualism, privatisation), rooting of different modal habits in people’s lifestyles	Kaufmann (2000)
Experiences	Physical exercise, stress relief, facilitating transition from work to home, to be outdoors or getting fresh air	Hansen and Nielsen (2014)
Registers of underlying logics	Functional, sensitive, social, environmental	Kaufmann et al. (2020)

Table 2. Summarised description of the sample cities. Sources: (Basel Stadt et al. 2017; BfS 2015; OCSTAT 2019). All data is from 2015

City	Inhabitants	Inhabitants per km^2	Modal share of the car in trips performed by city residents
Geneva	349’305	756	38%
Basel	338’285	740	22%

Table 3. Description of the interview sample (N = 18)

ID	Gender	Age	Commuting distance [km]	N^o of children at custody	Main everyday means of transportation	Language
Basel
BAS1	m	60–70	10–14	2	Bicycle	Swiss German
BAS2	m	50–60	10–14	1	Bicycle	German
BAS3	f	50–60	10–14	0	Bicycle/public transport	German
BAS4	f	50–60	10–14	2	Bicycle	German
BAS5	m	50–60	<5	0	Public transport	German
BAS6	f	40–50	≥15	2	Car	Swiss German
BAS7	f	40–50	10–14	2	Car	Swiss German
BAS8	m	40–50	≥15	2	Car	Swiss German
BAS9	f	40–50	10–14	2	Car	Swiss German
BAS10	m	40–50	≥15	2	Public transport	Swiss German
Geneva
GEN1	m	50–60	≥15	0	Bicycle/bicycle + public transport	French
GEN2	f	50–60	10–14	0	Public transport	French
GEN3	m	50–60	≥15	0	Public transport	French
GEN4	f	40–50	<5	2	Bicycle	French
GEN5	f	40–50	10–14	3	Car	French
GEN6	f	40–50	variable	2	Electric bicycle/car	French
GEN7	f	50–60	≥15	0	Electric bicycle/car + public transport	French
GEN8	m	50–60	10–14	0	Bicycle	French

Figure 1. Overview of the four-step qualitative content analysis. Figure created by the authors inspired by Bengtsson (2016)

Table 4. Registers capturing ways in which everyday mobility can be meaningful

Register	Description	Example
Functional	This register refers to mobility needs and the perceived possibilities for satisfying them. Everyday mobility is meaningful as a practice necessary to accomplish other ends. This register captures problematisations and idealisations of ways of performing everyday mobility based on it being perceived as (dys)functional.	‘I commute by car, and that’s only because I have two children […] it’s a lot of organising, with the children, with work […] so I’ve got my own car, because I’m more flexible that way.’ (BAS7)
Hedonic	This register refers to how everyday mobility is experienced and intrinsically valued. Everyday mobility is meaningful as an end itself, as a pleasurable and valuable activity. This register captures problematisations and idealisations of ways of performing everyday mobility based on how it is affectively experienced.	‘In the evening I’m all happy to pedal a bit, to get home, I pass by a forest, that frees my mind after a day at work […] I take pleasure in commuting with my normal bicycle, with the other means of transportation I take no pleasure at all!’ (GEN1)
Representative	This register refers to representations of movement, mobility and means of transportation, and/or to everyday mobility as a way of constructing one’s identity.	‘I really prefer cycling. […] [It] defines me as a person, I also like being seen that way.’ (BAS4)
Habitual	This register refers to the routinised aspect of everyday mobility. It captures how commuters ascribe meaning to everyday mobility by referring to accumulated experience or habit.	‘To me, that’s just routine […] it just became common practice, I’ve never really thought much about it [laughs]’ (BAS7)

Figure 2. Summary of findings: sets of dynamics identified and how they affect meanings of everyday mobility

Rérat, P. 2019. “Cycling to Work: Meanings and Experiences of a Sustainable Practice.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 123: 91–104.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaufmann, V. 2000. “Modal Practices: From the Rationales behind Car & Public Transport Use to Coherent Transport Policies. Case Studies in France & Switzerland.” World Transport Policy & Practice 6 (4): 8–17.

 Google Scholar

Haustein, S., and T. A. S. Nielsen. 2016. “European Mobility Cultures: A Survey-Based Cluster Analysis Across 28 European Countries.” Journal of Transport Geography 54: 173–180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaufmann, V., J. Gonzalez, E. Bernier, G. Drevon, and M.-A. Messer. 2020. Analyse Prospective Des Logiques De Choix Modal Auprès De La Population Active Urbaine. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

 Google Scholar

Prillwitz, J., and S. Barr. 2011. “Moving Towards Sustainability? Mobility Styles, Attitudes and Individual Travel Behaviour.” Journal of Transport Geography 19 (6): 1590–1600. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.06.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hansen, K. B., and T. A. S. Nielsen. 2014. “Exploring Characteristics and Motives of Long Distance Commuter Cyclists.” Transport Policy 35: 57–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Basel Stadt, B., S. Bern, S. Luzern, S. G. Stadt, S. Winterthur, and Z. Stadt. 2017. Städtevergleich Mobilität. Vergleichende Betrachtung der Städte Basel, Bern, Luzern, St. Gallen, Winterthur Und Zürich im Jahr 2015. Basel Stadt: Mobilität, Stadt Bern: Verkehrsplanung, Stadt Luzern: Tiefbauamt, Stadt St. Gallen: Tiefbauamt, Stadt Winterthur: Tiefbauamt, Stadt Zürich: Tiefbauamt.

 Google Scholar

BfS. 2015. Statistischer Atlas Der Städte (Pooled 3-Year Data 2013–2015). Neuchâtel: Bundesamt für Statistik.

 Google Scholar

OCSTAT. 2019. La mobilité des habitants du Canton de Genève: Récensements des microrecensements mobilité et transports (MRMT) 2000 à 2015. Genève: Office cantonal de la statistique.

 Google Scholar

Bengtsson, M. 2016. “How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis.” NursingPlus Open 2: 8–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001.

 Google Scholar