Search results

With the plethora of smart mobility innovations, their applications, and their pace of change, it is easy to get distracted by what these innovations can (potentially) do, rather than what we want or need them to do, if we are to meet our societal goals. The focus of this chapter is therefore on the extent to which smart mobility can help create policy change towards the goal of low carbon mobility. The concept of policy is broken down into its component parts, to outline the relationship between policy goals and policy instruments, and identifies the key tools underpinning policy instruments. In turn, the chapter situates policy instruments within an understanding of policy change and triggers for policy change, arguing there are two key ways in which transformative change can occur; exogenously and endogenously. The chapter argues that the onset of smart mobility does not suggest an exogenous shock to the current policy system, in which smart mobility disrupts the authority and beliefs inherent within the current policy approach to mobility. Smart mobility therefore in and of itself is unlikely to lead to a radical policy shift towards low carbon. However, in understanding smart mobility innovations as policy instruments, it is possible to envisage smart mobility incrementally changing policy towards low carbon mobility, if opportunities for reflexivity and learning are embedded within local policy contexts.

Electric vehicles are often positioned as a politically easy option for low-carbon mobility, compared to other options, such as cycling, public transit, and walkable communities. This is difficult to assess confidently, however. The rate of adoption for electric vehicles that will be necessary over the next few decades to avoid the worst consequences of climate change will bring about new political struggles. This chapter uses a political-economic analysis to discuss what these struggles might look like. Using literature on the structure of automobility, along with evidence on the ways which electric vehicles disrupt the existing systems built around private car use, it discusses how a rapid transition to electric mobility will affect the material interests of various groups. One big impact will be on production, where the radical changes necessary to re-tool the auto industry to build electric vehicles will create major risks for car companies and their workers. A second impact will be on infrastructure, where the conversion of parking space into electric vehicle charging stations could arouse local political opposition, particularly in cities. Finally, electric vehicles might conflict with the cultural and symbolic lock-in of conventional vehicles, resulting not only in slower adoption but also the potential for active resistance against electric vehicle policies and infrastructure. Taken together, this implies that electric vehicles will not be a form of low-carbon mobility that is free of political struggle. Widespread electrification of private automobility could be aggressively opposed by powerful groups who have strong economic incentives to do so.

The nexus of transport and tourism is critical to the 2021 Glasgow Declaration which sets out the net zero by 2050 goal for global tourism in the context of the Paris Agreement. Numerous small and medium-sized urban destinations (SMUDs) populated under one million are constrained by a limited capacity to manage visitor flows and increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper aims to develop an analytical approach for urban practitioners, based on a case study in Taiwan, to identify the low-emission pathway and strategies for tourism passenger transport.

A GHG emissions assessment and scenario analysis were enabled by historical activity data from official sources and projected scenario data from the International Energy Agency. The scenarios were established based on the avoid-shift-improve framework for low-carbon transport.

To drive tourism passenger transport to a low-emission pathway compatible with the Paris Agreement goal, three low-carbon transport strategies, i.e. “Avoid,” “Shift” and “Improve,” shall be applied all together, with a focus on “improving” the efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles and rail transport. Meanwhile, alternative tourism and integrated transport policy packages could enhance demand-side management of visitors’ mobility, enabling the “avoid” and “shift” strategies.

Unlike most studies that have focused on large cities or small tourist areas, this paper addressed our knowledge gap regarding the low-emission pathway for tourism transport in numerous SMUDs compatible with a 1.5°C world. The proposed analytical approach can help policymakers assess effective strategies toward the targeted pathway.

As the tourism industry recovers from the devastating effects of the global pandemic, meeting the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains to be a global “deadline” where tourism is seen as a major contributor. While disruptions to business-as-usual practices such as COVID-19 present unprecedented challenges, they can also provide opportunities for strategic innovation to change behavior toward sustainable tourism experiences. Active transport for low-carbon tourism such as walking or cycling tours have risen in popularity in recent years, and especially postpandemic, as they provide opportunities for a more personalized experience while health and safety protocols can still be implemented. They also present health benefits for the individuals while contributing to environmental sustainability and climate mitigation strategies of the tourism industry. This book chapter presents cases of various forms of tourism activities that use active transport, focusing on walking tours and cycling tours. Various companies offering tours under these modes are discussed and presented. These two modes promote authentic cultural and heritage tourism experiences through the local experts that provide the services.

This chapter explains how electric driving has been transforming car mobility in The Netherlands since 1990, highlighting the role of a specific Dutch policy mix as direct factor, and the conditions through which this policy mix came about as indirect factors. The analysis is based on triangulation of findings from three methods: (1) discourse analysis of national newspapers and online blogs to understand the changing meanings of car mobility as well as changing stakeholder competences; (2) interview analysis with Dutch stakeholders to understand policy effects as well as their changing competences; and (3) analysis of relevant documents that provide the numbers of vehicles sold, implemented infrastructures and policy instruments. The study describes market changes in terms of ‘reconfiguring’ (entangled) practices of Dutch motorists, vehicle manufacturers and policy-makers, constituted by the (changing) relations between meanings, materialities, competences and policy incentives. The analysis finds a gradual reconfiguration of car mobility in three stages: The hegemony of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) mobility (1990–2008), Surge in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) mobility (2009–2015), and Surge in full-electric mobility (2016–2020). The analysis shows that the specific Dutch policy incentives were critical to orchestrating the co-evolution of ICE-based and electric mobility towards low-carbon alternatives, that is, towards more electrification. The policy mix was adapted in three successive steps, in which inconsistencies towards electric mobility (e-mobility) were solved, entailing three distinct reconfiguration pathways in each period. The relatively strong policy incentives for e-mobility in The Netherlands can be explained by the absence of an established car industry as well as particular air quality challenges in cities (triggering local support for the provision of charging infrastructure). The conclusion includes policy recommendations for countries that seek to promote e-mobility, although further research should clarify how contextual differences require specific elements in the policy mix.

The purpose of this paper is to examine spatiality of transitions by combining aspects of urban form to policy analysis. It aims to increase understanding of how urban form relates to potential effects of transport policies on urban mobility transitions.

Novel analytical framework combines concepts of path dependence, path creation and path destabilisation to three urban fabrics (walking, transit and car cities), to study the transition potential of recent transport policy measures influencing the Helsinki region in Finland.

Analysis showed that the potential effects of single policy measures often reach over all three urban fabrics. A policy measure may simultaneously contain elements of both path dependence, i.e. support for fossil-fuel based private motoring in the car city and path creation, i.e. stimulation of innovations in transit or walking cities. Policy outcomes are often conditional on implementation of other policy measures. For transition governance, this indicates that policy mixes should both destabilise car cities and enforce path creation in walking and transit cities.

Findings are based on potential rather than evaluated impacts and a limited sample of policies.

Findings support previous research on the importance of policy coherence: multiple policies and coherence across domains are important. They demonstrate the usefulness of analysing recent or planned policies from the transition perspective.

The paper provides novel insights by combining policy analysis to the spatial model of overlapping urban fabrics. In addition, it applies the concepts of path dependence, path creation and path destabilisation in a new way.

This chapter focuses on strategies to initiate a shift in mobility behaviour away from private cars towards a combination of more environmentally friendly transport modes including public transport, ride- and car sharing or even completely carbon-free modes like walking and cycling. The requirement for such a shift is that people must be able to actually choose between different travelling options and combine them within an intermodal mobility network. Here, shared mobility has a considerable potential to fill the gap between public and individual transport options.

This chapter summarises results from different studies on shared mobility from the providers’, the users’ and the political perspective. The user’s perspective is based on an empirical study comparing car sharers’, car drivers’ and public transport users’ attitudes and mobility patterns.

The empirical findings from the case study have shown that shuttle trips by car in general, and to the train station in particular, are an important field of action for improving the environmental impact of intermodal trips. The study has also shown that car sharing enables people to live without a private car by using different transport modes for different purposes. As the majority of car sharers report needing a car only one to three times a month, they have a very small carbon footprint compared to the average car owner.

Mobility patterns are determined by local transport options as well as by personal routines. Hence, current changes due to new shared mobility options seem to have a considerable direct impact on how people organise their daily lives on the one hand and an indirect impact on their living costs on the other hand, since private cars have an important share of private household costs.

From an environmental perspective, any incentives to encourage people to choose alternative forms of transport over their private cars would seem to be particularly effective. Thus, understanding the behaviour and needs of multi- and intermodal travellers is an important step towards sustainable mobility. Acknowledging that most travellers still need a car every now and then, car sharing is an essential addition to public transport systems, supporting both public transport use and carbon-free mobility like walking and cycling.

There are different narratives surrounding smart mobility, which can sometimes even appear as opposing (Lyons, 2018). Its fiercest proponents are promising versions of a revolutionised future, where users have on-demand access to multiple mobility options and are freed from car ownership, while transport systems become carbon neutral and congestion is a problem of a bygone age (Sherman, 2019). At the same time, the plausibility of such visions of the future has been questioned, with critics warning against the potentially negative impacts of the widespread adoption of privately provided services and stressing the need for state intervention to avoid exacerbating ‘classic’ transport issues such as congestion and unequal access to services, as well as creating new challenges such as uncontrolled market monopolies (Docherty, Marsden, & Anable, 2018). Drawing from these narratives, this chapter explores how officials from English transport authorities see state intervention evolve in the future, and what accountability arrangements are necessary to achieve the level of steering they envisage. Based on interviews with local authority officials, this chapter shows that the officials’ views generally align more closely with the narrative of providers than with that of critics. Although different local authorities envisage varying levels of control and steering of smart mobility, they all expect new services to improve the local transport provision. This chapter also discusses the barriers local authorities face in shaping local accountability arrangements.