Resolución de Problemas Matemáticos

In this section the specific mobility practices will be described and selected. This is a matter which deserves special attention because these practices will be used as the unit of analysis and for the formulation of a citizen-consumer oriented environmental policy in the domain of mobility. However, as the paragraphs on practice-theory in chapter three showed, practices are not a clearly defined unit of analysis. To circumvent this problem Spaargaren et al. (2002) have formulated two general requirements for selecting sets of social practices which can be said to be relevant for environment and climate policies. The first criterion is that social practices should be environmentally relevant. That is, the formulated social practice should be policy-relevant because of the environmental impact that is implicated in the social practice. While every social practice to a more or lesser extent has an environmental impact, it is more worthwhile to focus on the ‘larger fishes in the pond’ than on the smaller ones. The relevance for environmental policy is also related to the question whether or not the social practice can be targeted with (existing) environmental policy instruments. The second criterion, formulated by Spaargaren et al. (2002), is that social practices should be relevant for and recognizable by citizen-consumers. The practices have an everyday character in the sense that they constitute familiar repetitive activities of day-to-day social life. Furthermore, citizen-consumers recognize and acknowledge that the social practice generates environmental pressure, that this pressure is related to their own consumption behaviour and that there are means and methods available to help reduce the environmental pressure.

While there has been very limited research conducted on mobility from the specific viewpoint of practices, the majority of practice approaches to mobility are based on transport modalities and the networks surrounding these modalities. Deriving their analysis predominantly from science and technology studies, especially actor-network theory, many of these practice approaches focus on the interaction between mobility behaviour and mobility technologies. For example, Peters (1999) illustrates this aspect by looking at the travel practice of cycling in different contextual settings. He explains that although the bicycle itself and its (physical) way of being used have not gone through major changes, the historical changes in the networks surrounding the bicycle have significantly altered the practice of cycling and the meaning associated with cycling. Simultaneously, Peters describes that specific cycling policies, including the design of cycling infrastructures, provide a contextual setting which highly influences the practice of cycling69_.

Similar to Peters, Urry (2007) describes the multiple kinds of movement (such as the different modes of ‘doing walking’, car driving, etc.) and the systems that move human actors. In sum, the majority of practice approaches to mobility focus on the systems of mobility and the way that a specific modality and its user interact.

69 _{A famous example is ‘bicycle-city’ Houten which was constructed (literally) with a spatial and infrastructural}

design in which precedence is explicitly given to slower modes of transport. The bicycle infrastructure forms the frame for major facilities such as schools and shops while the connections by car are largely restricted to a central ring around the town. Peters indicates that the construction of Houten as a bicycle city is a clear product of the 1970s during which the modal shift from car use to other means of transport was highly promoted (see Peters, 1999, p. 37). More recent examples of innovative biking infrastructures are to be found in the many city-biking-projects which have been developed to deal with urban pollution and congestion problems while making the city accessible to bikers and biking tourists in particular.

Quite a different practice-based approach is provided by Stock & Duhamel (2005) who have developed a typology based on the ‘geographical code of practice’. This code takes into account the conditions in which the movement occurs and the qualities of the geographical place involved. In focusing on the geographical code Stock and Duhamel emphasize the influence of the character of places on the experience and conduct of different mobility practices (Table 5.1).

For example, tourism mobility is always based on the first two elements of the code in the sense that it always involves a non-daily activity and a personal choice of movement, while all the other elements may vary (familiar/unfamiliar, far-away/near, non-exotic/exotic). The fundamental difference between tourism mobility and business trips to these authors is the distinction between obligation and choice to go on the journey. The five elements of which the geographical code is constructed leads to 64 possible combinations of the conditions of practices in relation to qualities of a place (ibid.).

Distinguishing practices on these journey types is interesting because it corresponds with the social bases of travelling which we have discussed in Paragraph 5.2.1. Meeting relatives and friends, travelling from home to work, visiting places and events during leisure time, bringing kids to school, going on business trips to meet clients; these are just a few cases of social practices in daily life which involve mobility. These everyday journeys, as Pooley et al. (2005) argue, form an important part of the social fabric that constructs our daily life.

Therefore, based on the considerations mentioned above we suggest the following set of mobility practices to be considered in the context of environment and climate policies: commuting, business travel, home-school travel, shopping, leisure travel en visiting family/friends (Figure 5.1). In addition to this, the practices of shopping and leisure travel can further be divided into a set of less commonly recognized sub-practices. Leisure travel, for instance, is made up of event travel, day trips, etc. It is clear that these practices are not necessarily mutually exclusive, neither is mobility Table 5.1. Examples of a geographical code of practices (Stock & Duhamel, 2005).

Example of practice Geographical code1 _{Type of practice}

A Londoner going on holiday in Morocco non-daily/choice/unfamiliar/

far-away/exotic

tourist practice A Londoner going to Marrakech for a conference non-daily/obligation/

unfamiliar/far-away/exotic

business trip

A Brightonian going to work in London daily/obligation/ familiar/near/

non-exotic

commuting A Londoner going on to Brighton to stroll on the beach daily/choice/ familiar/near/

non-exotic

leisure

1 _{The distinction of daily/non-daily refers to habitual and non-habitual mobility; choice/obligation refers}

to the autonomy in the decision-making; familiar/unfamiliar refers to whether or not the place is regularly visited; far-away/near refers to the accessibility to the place; and non-exotic/exotic refers to differences in language, habits, food, etc. (Stock & Duhamel, 2005, pp. 64-65).

limited to these practices. However, these six practices are the most commonly distinguished journeys in research, and are recognized by travellers all over.

Furthermore, this conceptualisation of mobility practices is interesting because it relates closely to the specific target group approach developed under the heading of mobility management. The European Platform on Mobility Management distinguishes a multitude of trip purposes which all have certain characteristics and provide specific opportunities and problems for the implementation of mobility management strategies: ‘depending on their trip purpose, people visit different places, and origin/destination patterns may vary from “close” to “dispersed”. The degree of freedom may differ from “limited” (e.g. in the case of commuting) to “high” (e.g. in case of leisure trips), and people are more or less flexible in their time management. Additionally, people will have different demands or preferences according to the properties of the chosen mode of transport for example if they need to carry goods or if they “only” want to enjoy the landscape’ (www.epomm.org). This quote illustrates two relevant aspects. First, conceptualising mobility practices on the social bases of travel gives clear opportunities for mobility policies such as mobility management. Second, mobility practices are made up of a variety of dimensions. These dimensions will be further discussed in the next section.