Social participation
for sustainable
mobility
MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Informatics NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Information Architecture and Innovation AUTHOR: Marc Guerreiro Augusto
JÖNKÖPING May 2020
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Andrea Resmini who allowed me to make sense of things I am curious about. Further, my gratitude goes to Alexander Dürnagel, representative of the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, who granted me extraordinary support throughout this work’s elaboration phase. Additional thanks go to the interviewees participating in my study.
Jakob, Julian, and Lukas: your feedback helped greatly improving this work. Also, without any doubt, my family’s support was fundamental to this achievement.
Thank you!
Master Thesis in Informatics
Title: Social participation for sustainable mobility – the effects of digital transformation on mobility behavior
Author: Marc Guerreiro Augusto Tutor: Dr. Andrea Resmini Date: 2020-05-19
Key terms: Digital transformation, Mobility behavior, Social participation, Sustainable mobility, Systems thinking
Abstract
Overall traffic in Germany is constantly increasing. Automobiles account for 57 percent of all trips in the country (BMVI, 2018). Steady population growth, urban agglomeration, and sprawl of cities contribute significantly to this trend. Simultaneously, the rise of digital services is progressively complementing travel by route planning, navigation, and ticketing. Therefore, a redesign and reinterpretation of the traditional understanding of the mobility landscape is required.
The purpose of this work is twofold. First, to investigate the effects of digital transformation on people’s mobility behavior in public space, arguing for ecosystems in blended space being a consequence of the digital transformation at large. Second, to explore how social participation can lead to societal change for sustainable travel in the context of digital transformation. Digital technology has blurred the boundaries between physical and digital. Although physical and digital spaces are treated as separate parts, the former relates to the success of the latter. Qualitative interviewing was applied to systematically create an understanding about key actors’ roles and interdependencies as well as their perspective on how digital technologies modify today’s mobility landscape. This work concludes that the digital transformation allows individuals to influence travel demand purposefully. The system’s underlying structure reveals travel as purposive demand, a pattern extending the understanding of travel as a derived demand and valued activity. The Multi-Layered Participatory Process (MLPP), developed on the basis of the study’s findings, provides means to enable large scale social acceptance for sustainable mobility behavior.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ... vi
List of Tables... vii
List of Abbreviations ... vii
1
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Problem ... 3 1.2 Purpose ... 5 1.3 Delimitations ... 7 1.4 Definitions ... 82
Theoretical framework ... 9
2.1 Approach ... 9 2.2 Literature review ... 11 2.2.1 Information architecture ... 11 2.2.2 Systems thinking ... 15 2.2.3 Spatiality ... 212.2.4 Mobility and ICT ... 28
2.3 Conclusion ... 39
3
Methodology ... 40
3.1 Philosophical stance ... 40
3.2 Framework of inquiry ... 40
3.3 Method ... 41
3.4 Credibility and generalizability ... 45
3.5 Ethical considerations ... 46
4
Findings ... 47
4.1 Digital transformation ... 48 4.2 Spatiality ... 50 4.3 Mobility ... 53 4.4 Social participation ... 575
Analysis ... 61
5.1 Layers in the mobility landscape ... 61
5.2 Effects of digital transformation on mobility behavior ... 64
5.3 Displaced relations counteract sustainable mobility ... 66
5.3.1 Limits to growth ... 67
5.3.2 Fixes that fail ... 68
5.3.3 Shifting the burden ... 69
5.3.4 Attractiveness principle ... 71
5.4 Mobilization of information ... 73
5.5 Participation for renewal ... 76
6
Conclusions ... 83
7
Discussion ... 84
7.1 Implications for design practices ... 84
7.2 Implications for practice ... 85
7.3 Limitations ... 86
7.4 Future research ... 87
References ... 89
Appendix ... i
Appendix A Theoretical framework: concept-matrix ... i
Appendix B Relationships between accessibility and components ... iv
Appendix C Interview guide ... v
Appendix D Questionnaire: comprehensive ... vii
Appendix E Template: participant consent form ... xii
Appendix F Category-tree: digital transformation ... xiii
Appendix G Category-tree: spatiality ... xiv
Appendix H Additional findings: spatiality ... xv
Appendix I Category-tree: mobility ... xviii
Appendix J Additional findings on mobility ... xix
Appendix K Category-tree: social participation ... xxiv
List of Figures
Figure 1 Problem map ... 4
Figure 2 How Buildings Learn (Brand, 1994) ... 12
Figure 3 The Clock of the Long Now (Brand, 1999) ... 12
Figure 4 Design-driven innovation (Verganti, 2009) ... 13
Figure 5 Styles of thinking (Armson, 2011) ... 17
Figure 6 Limits to growth, adapted from Braun (2002) ... 19
Figure 7 Fixes that fail, adapted from Braun (2002) ... 19
Figure 8 Shifting the burden, adapted from Braun (2002) ... 20
Figure 9 Attractiveness principle, adapted from Braun (2002) ... 20
Figure 10 Scales of place, adapted from McCullough (2004) ... 24
Figure 11 Conceptual blending, see Benyon (2012, 2014; 2015) ... 25
Figure 12 ICT and accessibility, adapted from van Wee et al. (2013) ... 31
Figure 13 Examples of behavior against a norm (see Weiser et al., 2016) ... 36
Figure 14 Hypothetical model for citizens (Gärling et al., 2014) ... 39
Figure 15 M3, adapted from Lacerda et al. (2019) ... 41
Figure 16 Actors map: mobility ... 42
Figure 17 Categorization of data findings, adapted from Easterby-Smith (2015) ... 45
Figure 18 Category tree: Main- and sub categories ... 47
Figure 19 Actors map in the field of mobility ... 63
Figure 20 Decision tree for systems archetypes, adapted from (Braun, 2002) ... 66
Figure 21 Limits to growth: the automobile and the public space ... 67
Figure 22 Fixes that fail: traffic and infrastructure ... 68
Figure 23 Shifting the burden: travel demand ... 70
Figure 24 Attractiveness principle: travel as derived demand ... 71
Figure 25 The purposive activity ... 73
Figure 26 Ecosystem of activity spaces ... 74
Figure 27 A classification of travel as purposive demand ... 75
List of Tables
Table 1 Scientific fields considered ... 7
Table 2 Key terms ... 8
Table 3 Interviewees key and respective field of expertise ... 43
Table 4 Information levels in the mobility landscape ... 62
Table 5 Information layers in the mobility landscape ... 62
Table 6 Attributes of mobility behavior ... 65
Table 7 MLPP P1: main layers ... 78
Table 8 MLPP P2: core components ... 78
Table 9 MLPP P2: core components and identified aspects ... 80
Table 10 MLPP P4: execution ... 82
List of Abbreviations
AI Artificial Intelligence
AR Augmented Reality
BMVI Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure
CO2 Carbon dioxide
EU European Union
IA Information Architecture
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IoT Internet of Things
M3 Metamodel Methodology
MaaS Mobility as a Service
MLPP Multi-Layered Participatory Process
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturers
1 Introduction
Mobility is about purposefully moving from one place to another and generally associated with how people or any movable object travel from one physical place to another. Mobility is pervasive. In Germany alone, on average 85 percent of all people leave their homes every day (BMVI, 2018). The reasons why people leave their homes are manifold, albeit the same in urban and rural areas. In most cases, travel acts as a derived demand with a shift towards valued activity (Banister, 2008; Schönfelder & Axhausen, 2010). The aim often is to travel to places and then pursue activities such as working, shopping, or meeting other people. Sometimes, the journey becomes the activity, such as leisurely walking, jogging, or cycling (BMVI, 2018).
Recent social and economic transformations have shaped the environment we live in and have altered the way we move in and between places. These transformations have caused reciprocal effects between urban development and transport planning, which led to an imbalance in spatial planning and caused displaced relations among traffic and public space design (Degros & Bendiks, 2019). Industrialization has been characterized by the dissemination of large-scale production and made available novel means of individual motorized transport. Since then, the automobile has become the prevalent mean of everyday transportation, both in urban and rural environments. In Germany, the automobile’s birthplace, 43 million cars across all households account for 57 percent of journeys in the country. This translates to 1.1 passenger cars per household (BMVI, 2018). Globalization is based on industrial patterns and is characterized by the interaction of people and organizations. This transformation has kick-started cross-border production, delivery, and consumption of goods worldwide. In turn, digitalization is shifting the boundaries between physical and digital: 42 percent of people over the age of 14 shop online at least once a month. While this trend mainly applies to metropolitan areas, at the same time, people who frequently make use of online shopping still go shopping in stores as often as people who do not (BMVI, 2018).
Against the backdrop of digital transformation, the formation of future mobility landscapes is deeply intertwined with novel stances of thoughts and technical means. Nowadays, digital services complement travel by route planning, navigation, and
ticketing (see Barreto et al., 2018). A new hybrid space for interaction, a place for experience evolved: the blended space (Benyon, 2014; Lindenfalk & Resmini, 2016; Resmini, 2016), existing in experience ecosystems. Even today, travel in physical space is closely intertwined with digital mobility services. On-demand or delay information, ticketing, and dynamic route planning are just a few examples of common applications. Urban agglomeration and sprawl of cities, air pollution, and steady population growth are among the most actively observed effects of past developments (Sharma, 2019), particularly in light of the industrial revolution. An increase in land use, travel, and transport times, as well as high air pollutant emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
noise pollution, and the risk of accidents, have become significant challenges of the 21st
century’s mobility landscape (Fromhold-Eisebith et al., 2019). Past problem-solving mechanisms are encountering new dynamics, as mobility services of the digital information age dissolve the boundaries of the physical space of interaction.
“Problems can never be solved by the way of thinking that first created them.” A. Einstein, (1879 – 1955)1
The digital information age has not simply permeated every area of life (Lyons et al., 2018): rather, unlike previous transformations, it emphasizes the role of the individual, its stories and personal preferences (Kirby, 2009), something reflected in the personalization of products and services across all domains. This aspiration does not exclude shaping the mobility landscape of the future. The problem space can only be understood if both technology and people’s roles are well understood. Interdependencies between actors create complexity. From cultural paradigm shifts and technology innovation, the new emerges; hence problem-solving is linked to socio-technical developments in the transforming mobility landscape. People’s involvement becomes a significant cornerstone in fostering sustainable mobility.
1 translated from original text: „Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise lösen, durch die sie entstanden sind.“, by Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
1.1 Problem
Every past revolution can be interpreted to be a mobility revolution (Standage, 1998). Since the 1960s, the automobile has been at the center of public space and has thus led to an imbalance in the understanding of shared public spaces in which means of transport are given equal attention (Degros & Bendiks, 2019). In Germany alone, the average traffic volume of 257 million trips translates to 3.2 billion kilometers of traffic per day, and the automobile accounts for the majority of all trips in the country (BMVI, 2018). Travel is associated with both derived demand, valued activity (Banister, 2008; Camacho et al., 2016; Schönfelder & Axhausen, 2010), and the attendant consequences such as congestion, time use, or environmental impact.
Increased use of bicycles and public transport could not outweigh car use in Germany, though the country’s inhabitants own 77 million bicycles (BMVI, 2018). Travel serves a purpose: available transport modes, space topologies as well as individual habits impact travel planning and choices. The broad set of interrelationships and dependencies in the mobility landscape require to create an understanding of how actors behave in light of social and technological paradigm shifts from the digital information era.
The problem of mobility is complex, not obvious, and not easy to trace. The 11th sustainable development goal (SDG) presented by the 2030 agenda for sustainable development stresses the importance of urgent action for sustainable cities and communities (Johnston, 2016). Faced with steady population growth, urban agglomeration, sprawl of cities, and air pollution in urban and rural areas, a more sustainable design of the mobility landscape is needed (Andersson et al., 2018). Systems thinking is one instrument to map out the challenge of driving social change for sustainable travel. It provides means to build understanding and to find entry points to problem solving activities.
In the context of the digital transformation paradigm, people have been placed at the center of problem-solving activities. Social participation then becomes key in pushing change by considering the blend between physical and digital environments. Although physical and digital spaces are treated as separate parts, the one firmly relates to the success of the other.
Literature concerned with the design of public spaces disregards the mutual effects between the physical space as well as the intertwined digital space. People increasingly exist in both physical and digital spheres (Usher, 2018). This space is not to be confused with mixed relations of the physical and the digital (Benyon, 2012). Rather it is a hybrid space with the purpose of providing a new space for interaction, thus a place for experience (Benyon, 2012, 2014; Benyon & Mival, 2015). This blended space presents a deliberately integrated wedded way between physical and digital (Benyon, 2012, 2014). Physical, digital, and blended space are subject to systemic relationships and interdependencies. The cross-sectional interaction with these spaces applies to travel. Thus, travel as a derived demand and transport choices are influenced by space design (Schönfelder & Axhausen, 2010). Well understood, it becomes a significant driver in nudging sustainable mobility, thereby increasing people’s quality of life. Figure 1 shows and maps relations of the discussed aspects:
1.2 Purpose
It is aimed at creating a systemic understanding of actors’ roles and interrelationships as well as their perspective on how digital technologies modify today’s mobility landscape. Alongside the investigation, an understanding of today’s roles of any such actor supplying products, services, information, or policies to people needs to be emphasized. Based on the data found, this work aims to propose means for social change to enhance sustainable travel.
Travel widely concerns space use and the provision of adequate infrastructure, transport modes, and means of transport. Sustainable mobility therfore is concerned with substitution and avoidance of travel, enabling modal shifts through transport policy measures, reducing the length of travels by means of land-use policies, and, last but not least, increasing efficiency (Banister, 2008). Suggestions towards sustainable mobility involve the development of new means of transport, economic incentives towards sustainable transport modes, or regulatory actions such as the establishment of traffic-calmed zones, to name just a few. The sum of these actions aims to influence people’s travel behavior.
However, two aspects are often left out: spatiality and the changing zeitgeist of the times. The design of space lays the foundation for people’s transport mode choice, and therefore, impacts travel behavior (Banister, 2008; Degros & Bendiks, 2019; Sharma, 2019). Urban and rural environments are continually changing (Degros & Bendiks, 2019). The pace of change depends on the respective space topology, space type, and social layer (see pace layering in chapter 2.2.1). Redistributing space means to address the meaning and purpose of place, often concerned with the quality of life (Degros & Bendiks, 2019).
Modern and postmodern cultural paradigms belong to the past. Today, a metamodern or digimodern paradigm reveals modified communication mechanisms in society (Kirby, 2009). Once, the media held the single-point of authorship for mass-storytelling. Today it is the individual. Communicating one on one, one to many, many to one and many to many have become ubiquitous in our world. While past technology would not have allowed people to communicate with organizations, today, social media enables bidirectional conversation. People now seem to be central to every activity, and that is
what successful change needs to consider in any domain, including mobility. On this basis, besides investigating how digital transformation effects mobility behavior, the second cornerstone of this work is exploring participatory mechanisms for social change. The central concern of this work is twofold. First, to investigate the effects of digital transformation on people’s mobility behavior in public space with ecosystems in blended space being a consequence of the digital transformation at large. Second, to explore how social participation can lead to social change towards sustainable travel in the context of digital transformation.
To be identified upfront are groups of actors in the mobility landscape, space topologies as well as types of spaces they operate in. This leads to the question of how physical and digital spaces influence and progressively change the behavior of people. To this end, the roles of the actors in the changing mobility landscape must be assessed under the premises of the socio-technical paradigm shift triggered by digital transformation. The following two research questions are to be answered:
How does digital transformation affect mobility behavior in public spaces?
and
How could digital transformation foster social change to support sustainable travel?
Answering these questions enables 1) creating an understanding about travel as derived demand against digital transformation, and 2) understanding the role of the conceptional hybrid, blended space in experience ecosystems, as well as 3) understanding the role of social participation within mobility.
1.3 Delimitations
To investigate the effects of digital transformation on people’s travel behavior in public space means looking at the digital and the sustainable mobility paradigm as well as the modification of space types. Social participation for social change towards sustainable mobility requires then to understand evolving patterns of behavior in the context of digital transformation.
This work does not investigate specific means of transportation, novel technology such as artificial intelligence, mobile communication standards, or digital platforms. Also, it does not investigate the user’s perspective specifically, rather take a systemic viewpoint on user’s roles in mobility.
Furthermore, concepts such as individual marketing, which suggests means to promote acceptability, the Technology-Acceptance Model (TAM), or the Activity-Based Analysis (ABA) are not considered. Instead, this work takes a systemic approach to investigate current effects on mobility behaviors in public space. Proceeding from this reasoning, the focus is on information science, encompassing both information architecture and informatics. Concepts from the fields of spatiality, systems theory, embodiment, and mobility take center stage in this work. Table 1 lists these subfields to their respective main fields.
Table 1 Scientific fields considered
Scientific field Subfields
Information Science Information Architecture, Informatics and ICT, Innovation Sociology Sociology of Space, Qualitative research method, Social
movement (major subfields) Philosophy Spatiality, Space and place
Systems Theory Systems Thinking and Systems Archetypes Behavioral Sciences Cognitive Science and Embodiment
1.4 Definitions
This work’s main terms are mobility, sustainable mobility, space and place, mobility behavior, digital transformation, hybrid, blended space, experience ecosystem, social change, and systems thinking. It is essential to introduce some basic concepts and their meaning. The following key terms are given special attention in this work:
Table 2 Key terms
Mobility Mobility is about purposefully moving from one place to another and generally associated with how people or any movable object travel from one physical place to another.
Sustainable mobility Sustainable mobility is concerned with substitution and avoidance of travel, enabling modal shifts through transport policy measures, reducing the length of travels by means of land-use policies, and last but not least, increasing efficiency.
Space and place Space is concerned with interaction and is where people move in. In turn, places are where people stop and create experiences. Space embodies mobility.
Mobility behavior Derives from the interaction of people in spaces and concerns decisions that are made to travel to places (mobility).
Digital transformation Represents effects from various (digital) innovations and is primarily concerned with technology-driven change and renewal in social environments; thus, human-centered problem-solving.
Hybrid, blended space Describes a new space for interaction, expressed by blurred boundaries between physical and digital spaces.
Experience ecosystem Presents a superset in a volatile, non-contiguous environment of actor-based blended spaces.
Social change Bases on a continuous process of change in society and inherently dependent on technological advancements.
Information architecture IA is “the discipline of deciding how to arrange the parts of something to be understandable for the whole” (IAI, n.d.).
Systems thinking Approach to complex problem solving and specifically looking at the parts of the system as interrelating and constituent elements to understand the system’s mechanisms over time.
2 Theoretical framework
The frame of reference provides tools and thoughts both to create an understanding of what has already been explored and to provide methods to generate understanding for the development of knowledge.
2.1 Approach
As introduced in chapter 1.3, the fields of investigation for this work concern information science. More specifically, it addresses information architecture, information and communication technology, as well as systems thinking. Further, sociology of space, philosophy of spatiality, social movement, and embodied cognition (cognitive sciences) base this work’s understanding towards human perception of space. In order to clarify mechanisms in mobility and effects evolving by digital transformation, literature concerned with human geography, urban and rural environments, travel behavior and mobility have been highlighted for building a theoretical frame for this examination. A concept-centric approach has been selected to file literature concerned with mobility and digital transformation on one hand, and information architecture, systems, and spaces on the other. The purpose is to create an understanding of concepts that may contribute to the goals of this work (see chapter 1.2). The methodology applies the approach given by Webster & Watson. They introduce the concept-matrix, which provides a tabular structure in one single place by the use of keywords (Webster & Watson, 2002). The theoretical framework for this work is then assembled by the subsequent procedure: The first step is to capture an overview about existing research of the respective fields. This activity included both web search and retrieval of references alongside the master’s studies. Web searches mainly comprised search engines, such as Google Inc., Primo Search, the citation database Scopus or Research Gate. Sources found are then collected in spreadsheets. The large quantity of literature found led to split findings in two tables: one concerned with mobility and digital transformation, and the other with systems and spaces. Each respective table has been assigned an additional spreadsheet to file quick notes to each examined source.
Synonyms and keywords from the sources are retrieved and categorized for further analysis. This procedure helped to gather an understanding of interrelationships within the literature found.
The proof of trustworthiness of sources is made by evaluating the following criteria: - Peer-reviewed journal article
- Reference provided by experts in the field (scholars, industry, organizations) - Keywords matching the overall field of investigation
- Number of cites
- Journal Guide by Chartered ABS as to verify the popularity of journals
First, keywords and abstracts were evaluated. Sources passing this test were included in the concept-matrix. Also, references of multiple articles chosen were further considered and, if suitable, filed into the spreadsheets. Due to a high number of sources found, and in order to create a better overview, keywords were assigned sub categories. Sources whose keys fall aside the spectrum of relevant topics were removed.
The result of this procedure is a literature map comprising a total of 107 literature sources on topics of systems, problems, behavior, complexity. Moreover, a literature map of 140 sources on the topic of mobility and its elements result. Sources cited in this work are structured in this concept matrix and attached to this work (see Appendix A).
2.2 Literature review
2.2.1 Information architecture
Information has become a pervasive artifact in space. People architect information: every
thing is complex, every thing is architected, and every thing has information (Covert,
2014). The architect, TED creator, and information architecture (IA) pioneer Richard Saul Wurman claims that there are only five ways to organize information: LATCH location,
alphabet, time, category, and hierarchy (1989). Peter Morville, a pioneer of the fields of
IA and User Experience (UX), however, argues there are infinitely many ways to organize information (2014). Both Wurman’s and Morville’s constructions present individual perspectives. IA helps to make sense of environments, saturated with information artifacts, each deeply interconnected with one another. Rosenfeld et al. state that IA is about the structural design of shared information spaces (2015). The Information Architecture Institute (IAI) defines IA as “the discipline of deciding how to arrange the parts of something to be understandable for the whole” (IAI, n.d.). Disregarding parts distorts the understanding of system mechanics as a whole. For the purposes of this thesis IA is intended to follow the definition shared by the IAI.
Digital technology has evolved paradigm shifts in the architecture of spaces. The internet has become considerably more than just a knowledge library. It is the place where we produce, deliver, and consume information across multiple contexts and devices (Resmini, 2014). Following this shift, Resmini argues for a post-digital world in which a blend between digital and physical create a new place for experience (2014).
“like air and drinking water, being digital will be noticed only by its absence, not its presence.”
(Negroponte, 1998)
The arrangement of the parts (taxonomy), its rules for interaction (choreography), and evolving meaning (ontology) are key to develop an understanding of mechanisms in systems. Dan Klyn explains IA as “the interplay of meaning, arrangement, and rules for interaction” (TUG, n.d.), which then relays back to ontology, taxonomy, and choreography.
PACE LAYERING
Manufacturers' supply means of transport and service providers help people to satisfy derived demand for travel. Both may disrupt the market by innovating their products and services. Infrastructure providers then ensure construction, accessibility, and maintenance of transport modes such as roads, air space, or waterways. Authorities regulate and provide space for innovation to unfold. Nature constitutes the all-encompassing framework for all these activities. Climate change, technology innovation, and pandemics are few examples of the disruptive impact nature may have on mobility.
The pace layering model by Stewart Brand helps to describe how layers in complex systems learn (Brand, 1994; Brand, 1999), including the above introduced. Dynamics evolving of the digital transformation, and the fast pace of change in some layers evoke new mechanisms in understanding complex environments. Fast layers innovate, and slow layers stabilize.
Figure 2 How Buildings Learn (Brand, 1994) Figure 3 The Clock of the Long Now (Brand, 1999)
Figure 2 illustrates a building consisting of six layers. Each layer has different attributes and represents different paces of change. Figure 3 captures another perspective but expresses the same understanding of the model. While fast layers learn and receive the attention, slow layers remember, and hold power. The system as a whole creates resilience (Brand, 1994; Brand 1999). Morville, however, argues that everything is deeply intertwined as software and hardware were once separate parts and now have become deeply integrated. Therefore, he claims that looking for layers creates the importance to also look for levers. (2014). Lever as an aspect will be elaborated on in chapter 2.2.2.
stuff space plan services skin structure site
ICT: INNOVATION AND DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
Only after the 1960s, scientific publications on innovation increased (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009). Edwards-Schachter describes innovation as “a sense of purpose to the evolution of humanity, explained in terms of creative capacity of invention as a source of technological, social, and cultural change” (2018). Innovation is part of change and therefore, both the tangible and the intangible elements present sources for innovation, while the purpose of innovation can be seen as to drive a transition from economic growth towards sustainability (Edwards-Schachter, 2018). Innovation may be clustered in several types such as technological, product, process, service, business model, disruptive, radical, design-driven, social, and responsible innovation (Edwards-Schachter, 2018).
Technology push signifies that technology initiates radical changes without changing the meaning of the product or service. Design addresses meaning-driven innovation and results in novel languages and messages, hence affecting the meaning of products and services (Edwards-Schachter, 2018; Verganti, 2009). In turn, market pull innovation is derived from user analysis (Edwards-Schachter, 2018). Verganti then describes the interplay between technology push and design-driven innovation, straddled by two-dimensions: incremental and radical change concerning technology and meaning:
Figure 4 Design-driven innovation (Verganti, 2009)
While disruptive innovation concerns the displacement of products and services in the mainstream market and sustaining innovation (incremental innovation) continuous developments to maintain the existing (Edwards-Schachter, 2018), radical innovation is exploratory and involves higher uncertainty levels.
Social innovation deals with innovation purpose, socio-technical systems, and non-technical innovations, and is about changing patterns in moving from production and consumption towards sustainable development (Schachter, 2018). Edwards-Schachter and Wallace define that social innovation is
“a collective process of learning” that involves “the distinctive participation of civil society actors aimed to solve a societal need through change in social practices that produce change in social relationships, systems, and structures, contributing to large socio-technical change” (Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017, p. 73).
Lundvall states that institutional change, strengthening the competence and the power of final users, might be one of the social innovations that can give national systems of innovation a stronger position in the world economy (2016).
Floridi describes a globe-spanning infosphere of changing mechanisms in which information and communication technology (ICT) is altering how people perceive the world (Floridi, 2014). The fourth industrial revolution, also referred to as industry 4.0, evolved the new and concerns mobility, cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) as well as virtual (VR) and augmented reality (AR) (Edwards-Schachter, 2018). These technological innovations lay the digital ground for designing future landscapes. First, digitization translates physical artifacts to digital. Second, digitalization then is the process of availing these digital artifacts. Third, the digital transformation describes a process of a technology-driven change with digital disruption being part of this process (Ebert & Duarte, 2018).
The digital transformation can be divided into several sub-stages. The first stage, characterized by computers, started in the 1980s and is followed by the internet in the 1990s. The third stage represent the mobile internet and the fourth stage enables devices to communicate for the execution of tasks (Davidsson et al., 2016). This refers to the IoT, a system of interconnected elements engrained within human beings or technology such as the smartphone or automobile (Davidsson et al., 2016). The digital transformation is primarily concerned with granularity, meaning to consider every individual. This involves both top-down (organizational view) and bottom-up (people’s perspective included) approaches (Verganti, 2009) to problem solving.
Several authors stress that this transformation influences production, delivery and consumption of products and services (Hinings et al., 2018; Ramilo & Rashid Bin Embi, 2014; Skog et al., 2018). Skog et al. argues that digital disruption refers to specific innovation processes while digital transformation comprises effects from various innovations (2018). The digital transformation leads to technological change and drives renewal in the environments within which we live (Berghaus & Back, 2016; von Leipzig et al., 2016). However, past transformations usually permeated routines but rarely replaced them at all (Verganti, 2009).
2.2.2 Systems thinking
Senge defines systems thinking as “a discipline for seeing wholes and a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots” (Arnold & Wade, 2015; Senge, 1990, p. 53). Richmond states that “Systems thinking is the art and science of making reliable inferences about behavior by developing an increasingly deep understanding of underlying structure” (Richmond, 1994, p. 139). According to Ackoff, “systems thinking looks at relationships (rather than unrelated objects), connectedness, process (rather than structure), the whole (rather than just its parts), the patterns (rather than the contents) of a system and context. Thinking systemically also requires several shifts in perception, which lead in turn to different ways to teach and different ways to organize society” (see Hancock, 2012, p. 204).
Morville notes the shift from just breaking down things by analysis (conventional thinking) towards synthesis (systems thinking) where it is the interaction of the whole to be considered (2014). He stresses the importance that tools of communication can be used to lever change. Hereby, he refers to Meadows who states that “some interconnections in systems are actual physical flows, such as the water in tree’s trunk or the students progressing through a university” (Meadows, 2008, p. 14). Stroh refines Meadows’ definition of systems as “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Stroh, 2015, p. 16). He then defines systems thinking “as the ability to understand these interconnections in such a way as to achieve a desired purpose” (Stroh, 2015, p. 16).
Systems thinking in this work acknowledges that problems and their causes are not obvious to trace. The understanding of behavior in systems involves not just parts and quick fixes may cause unintended consequences as well as even few changes of parts and their relationships may produce system change over time (see Stroh, 2015).
General systems theory, complexity theory, system dynamics, human system dynamics, and living systems theory are distinct schools of systems thinking. Systems thinking involves several problem solving tools such as brainstorming, dynamic thinking, graphical function diagram, computer-based tools, as well as system archetypes (Kim, 1992; Kim & Anderson, 1998). This work focuses on causal feedback loops, populated by Senge’s work on systems thinking in The 5th discipline (Senge, 1990), with systems archetypes being the focus of elaboration.
COMPLEX PROBLEMS
In 1967, Churchman adopted the term “wicked problems”, which was initially used by Rittel and refers to a “class of social system problems which are all ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman, 1967, p. B-141). Six years later, Rittel and Webber formally named the contrasting concept to “wicked problems” as “tame problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Tame problems relate to solvable problems. Wicked problems on the other hand embody fundamental indeterminacy (Buchanan, 1992).
Wicked problems have 1) no definitive formulation, 2) no stopping rule, 3) solutions that are good or bad but not true or false, 4) no method to test if a solution is suitable and, 5) more than one possible explanation which refers to Weltanschauung2 of the respective problem solver. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another problem (6), is unique (7). There is no list of admissible operations to solve wicked problems (8) and lastly, solving a wicked problem is a “one shot” operation (9) (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973).
2 The German term Weltanschauung refers to the intellectual perspective a designer takes in the design process. The designer becomes an integral part of this process.
Armson classifies tame problems as difficulties and wicked problems as messes (2011). She characterizes difficulties by certainty, boundedness, clarity, and stability. In turn, messes involve uncertainty, instability and evolution, ambiguity, unboundedness, and interconnectedness. Armson classifies four styles of thinking along two dimensions: single- towards multiple perspectives and reductionist- towards holistic thinking (2011).
Figure 5 Styles of thinking (Armson, 2011)
“The stories we tell about technology reflect and can also affect our understanding of the place of technology in our lives and our society.” (Bijker, 1995, p. 1). Bijker emphasizes looking at relations between society and technology, then fostering socio-technical change (Bijker, 1995). There is a difference in what people say they do, and what people do. Changing how a system behaves deeply relies on people’s insight which then allows them to actually drive change (Stroh, 2015).
LANGUAGE OF SYSTEMS THINKING
Systems-as-cause and closed-loop thinking are two stances of thinking when considering systems (Richmond, 1994). With regard to systemic behavior, it is crucial to use a language for systems thinking as a basis:
A → B
A and B are non-static variables. Arrows indicate dependencies between variables.
Change in A causes B to change. Part of this mechanism is explained by time delays, meaning how long it takes for a change in one variable to cause change in another. The time delay then helps to model short and long term consequences (Stroh, 2015). These mechanisms, also referred to as reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, as well as the
time delay are important pieces of the systems thinking language (Senge, 1990; Stroh, 2015). The reinforcing feedback loops, also referred to as virtuous or vicious cycles, are unstable in the sense that an increase or decrease in one variable causes change for another. Growth then cannot be considered linear (Stroh, 2015). While reinforcing feedback loops are about amplification, balancing feedback loops are the basis in driving social change and face the story of correction (Stroh, 2015). Balancing feedback loops are goal seeking, regulating system behavior, and opposing system change from target or goal. In turn, reinforcing feedback loops express growth or decline of the system state (see Continuous Improvement Associates, 2003). Senge argues that reality is seen as straight lines rather than circles. This influences people’s language, thus people’s perception.
The systems building blocks (Senge, 1990), referred to as reinforcing and balancing feedback and time delays are the nouns and verbs of the systems thinking language (Senge, 1990; Stroh, 2015). Feedback loops are circles of causality (Senge, 1990). Hence, understanding patterns of behavior (systems archetypes) in systems is about understanding stories (Stroh, 2015), analogous expressed by sentences, the system archetypes (Senge, 1990). Thinking in terms of the systems archetypes is central to creating a reality which reveals the purpose which is strived for (Senge, 1990). He states that “once a systems archetype is identified, it will always suggest areas of high- and low-leverage change” (Senge, 1990, p. 82). Braun describes systems archetypes as a tool helping to answer the question: “Why do we keep seeing the same problems recur over time?” (Braun, 2002, p. 1).
Out of the list of standard systems archetypes presented by Senge, Richmond, Meadows, Stroh, Lynch, Kim, Anderson and Braun, this work applies the following four: Limits to Growth/ Limits to Success, Fixes that Fail, Shifting the Burden, and Attractiveness Principle (Braun, 2002; Kim, 1992; Kim & Anderson, 1998; Meadows, 2008; Richmond, 1994; Senge, 1990; Stroh, 2015).
Limits to growth points on two processes: a reinforcing process of accelerating expansion and a balancing process limiting the former. It assumes that continuing efforts produces diminishing returns as the systems limits are approached (Braun, 2002). ‘R’ equals reinforcing loops and ‘B’ equals balancing loops. The ‘(+)’ and ‘(-)’ indicate positive and negative reinforcing effects, respectively.
Figure 6 Limits to growth, adapted from Braun (2002)
Fixes that Fail emphasizes that unintended consequences may evolve from quick fixes. Problem-solving may diminish in the short-term but return to its initial state (Braun, 2002). Consequently, the symptoms of the problem are addressed rather than its root causes.
Therefore, looking for unintended consequences, root causes, awareness of negative impacts evolving from actions taken become instrumental to soften unwanted consequences.
Nonetheless, actions taken must address both short-term and long-term in order to relieve immediate pain in the system (Braun, 2002).
Shifting the burden states that either symptomatic or fundamental solutions can resolve symptoms of problems. It reduces pressure to allow the implementation of a fundamental long-term solution. The side effect may undermine the fundamental solution given to the problem symptom (Braun, 2002).
Braun defines seven action steps: 1) Problem symptom identification, 2) map quick fixes that help keeping the problem under control, 3) evaluate impact of symptomatic solution on the system, 4) find fundamental solutions to the problem, 5) map side effects of quick fixes, 6) identify interconnections, and 7) find high-leverage actions (2002).
Figure 8 Shifting the burden, adapted from Braun (2002)
Attractiveness principle points out that slowing actions affect efforts for growth. These limits put pressure on actions taken. When addressing one limit, more pressure is shifted to other limits. Consequently, the provision of everything to everyone appears to be a wicked problem.
Changing policies may nudge strategic unattractiveness, leading to a more balanced system by involving products and services that are necessary and most desirable by actors in the system.
2.2.3 Spatiality
As space is the underlying entity for being mobile, this chapter first highlights philosophical stances on space as a construction. Further, embodied cognition as an intertwined concept to human perception in space is incorporated in this study. Hereafter, space types and properties as well as topologies towards living environments are classified in accordance to the systemic contemplation of mobility behavior. This chapter then elaborates on the hybrid, blended space for interaction.
SPACE AND EMBODIED COGNITION IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Scientific advances are the cornerstones of modern philosophy, contemplating the world through the lens of geometry (Tally, 2012). René Descartes’s (1596 - 1650) phrase “I think, therefore, I am” (Descartes, 1641, 1644, 1960)3 can be understood as a reflection
on the mathematical and spatial nature within his philosophical system (Tally, 2012). Hence, thinking about existence proves existence. As a consequence, Descartes understands space as an indivisible extension of the body (Tally, 2012). He pleads for bodies-in space rather than the conception that space can be viewed separate from bodies (Tally, 2012). Mind and body becomes disconnected (McNerney, 2011) leading to the contrasting notion of Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) who argues for an absolute, independent, infinite and three-dimensional space, which presents a container consisting of materials, ‘God’ placed inside at the moment of creation (Tally, 2012). Gottfried Leibniz (1646 - 1716) poses the idea that space appears fundamentally relational, and only exists as a relation between bodies, thereby dismissing space as an absolute container of materials (Tally, 2012).
“Space is not something objective and real, nor is it a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; it is, rather, subjective and ideal; it issues from the nature of the mind in accordance with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for co-ordinating everything sensed externally.”
I. Kant (Kant, 1992; Tally, 2012)4
The quote on space by Kant supports Leibniz’ idea that space is not ubiquitous or just existing by default, but reliant on relations. This translates to the mind as a coexisting and
3 Descartes work Discourse on the Method from 1637 he formulates the phrase in French; in 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, he introduced the phrase in Latin, and in 1644, his work Principles of Philosophy (principia philosophiae) includes an explanation to the phrase
inextricably linked element with the body. Leibniz deduced that this notion posits time as a construct and as a dependent element that exists only by the presence of relations between bodies, thus events in space (Tally, 2012).
Our initial perception of space is not concerned with geometry (Resmini & Rosati, 2011), rather spatiality evolves as a philosophical position (Benyon, 2014) and addresses the unity of mind and body in shaping people’s perception in space. This leads to the concept of embodied cognition, the theory that, contrary to previous understanding, the body does not act as a passive perceiver to serve the mind, but that the body is constitutive for the mind (Leitan & Chaffey, 2014; McNerney, 2011). The entire organism shapes the human as an embodied and cognitive being, thus epitomize its relational space. This stance is supported by Kant and Leibniz who argue that space is composed of relations between events, thus dismiss Newton’s theory of the absolute container of materials as a representation of space.
Lakoff and Núñez claim that the mind not only is constituent to its embodied cognition but in fact its reasoning builds on bodily experiences (see McNerney, 2011). The unity of the human sensory-motor system and the mind indicate that human experience results of an inherently embodied mind. This idea of space and embodiment forms the foundation for how humans perceive reality, and it stresses that the abstract is understood by means of the concrete: metaphors (Resmini & Rosati, 2011). Resmini and Rosati examine language patterns in the context of the web and outline that expressions such as ‘he or she goes online’, ‘we meet online’ or ‘go up the page’ build on deep embedded conceptional models. Hereby, they wonder if people really move to places in digital space or if these places, come to the people (Resmini & Rosati, 2011).
Bollnow, a German philosopher poses his vision of the anthropological space with the human at its center rather a physical concept, and poses three points: 1) the space is not of homogenous expanse but heterogeneous, 2) it is hodological, hence human space is distinct from mathematical space, and 3) the space has evolved, meaning it has not been always there (Bollnow, 1963; Resmini & Rosati, 2011).
INTERACTION, MEANING AND EXPERIENCE: SPACE AND PLACE
The relationship between space and place is one of the most debated distinction in the history of human knowledge and sits at the crossroads of a large number of disciplines, including philosophy, geography, biology, urban planning, architecture, and design. In line with contemporary advances in information architecture and user experience, and with more recent discoveries in physiology and neurophysiology (Benn et al., 2015), the thesis approaches these issues from the point of view of embodied cognition (Dourish, 2004). Dourish defines embodiment as the “embodied phenomena are those that by their very nature occur in real time and real space” (2004, p. 101).
McCullough argues that embodiment “is an emergent quality of interaction” and that it is a necessary element in any tentative definition of the idea of place: “(p)lace begins with embodiment. Body is place, and it shapes your perceptions.” (McCullough, 2004, p. 27). Tuan argues that while “(s)patial dimensions such as vertical and horizontal, mass and volume are experiences known intimately to the body (...) they are also felt” (Tuan, 1977, p. 108) and connects the idea of place to that of human experience. In this sense, there can be no experience without a place in which it happens, and no place without embodiment, as “place is where we pause” (Tuan, 1977) and allow ourselves to feel like we belong.
It is then possible to draw a phenomenological distinction between the idea of space as abstract indifferentiation, best represented through the idea of measurability and geometry, and the idea of place, which is primarily concerned with those qualities of a locale that are exquisitely human, social, and personal, such as memories, emotions, feelings of safety and belonging (Resmini & Rosati, 2011).
If “being present” is largely a function of our embodiment, the mechanisms of this embodiment do not differentiate between digital and physical space, and place concerns “being present” in a locale, implying that memories, experiences, and behavioral patterns are meaningful parts of the picture in addition to any perceptible space, it is possible to extend the notion of place to all types of digital / physical experiences and assign it a rather relevant role in social change strategies. Space provides the foundation for
interaction, but only place allows people to build experiences and thus the possibility to nudge behavior (Benyon, 2014).
This concept of place works at different scales (see Figure 10) and is a fundamental structural construct of human understanding (McCullough, 2004): from this premise, Benyon and Resmini (2017) conceptualize the place where experiences unfold as a digital/ physical, information-based ecosystem and a superset of the idea of blended space introduced by (Benyon, 2014).
Figure 10 Scales of place, adapted from McCullough (2004)
TYPES OF SPACES
The discrete, digital space evolves a volatile space composed of digital technologies within which people can interact (Benyon, 2014). This space comprises artifacts such as graphical, functional and social representations in media which in turn are documents, spreadsheets or databases (Benyon, 2012). Digital space is intangible but distinct from the information space (Benyon, 2012), since information is not a presentation of a sequence of discrete values. Benyon further distinguishes between information, conceptual, social and navigating space. The information space is the space of signs helping people to decode information and to guide their activities (Benyon, 2014). The conceptual space describes both how people understand things and the medium they exist in used to conceptualize objects in space. (Benyon, 2014).
The social space admits that space is not only organized physically but culturally (Benyon, 2014). The navigating space is concerned with how people perceive the environments within which they are moving (Benyon, 2014). Navigation relates to the activity of wayfinding (Benyon, 2001) which Passini defines as a “person’s ability, both
Body
Wearables and portables
Home Neighborhoods
cognitive and behavioral, to reach spatial destinations” (Passini, 1984, p. 154). Benyon distinguishes between activity space, a space within which physical activities and experiences are made and information space, an explicitly created space to facilitate functions concerning information (Benyon, 2001).
People increasingly exist in both physical and digital spheres (Usher, 2018). Benyon’s proposition of a blended space is based on the blending [inheritance] theory, also referred to as conceptual integration, and the work by Hoshi et al. who suggest to apply blending theory to the concept of the blended space (Benyon, 2012; Hoshi & Waterworth, 2009). Conceptual integration is based on the idea that people think and reason through a network of mental maps (domains), a conceptualized information space, used to project from one map to another in space (Benyon, 2012). This idea goes back to cognitive semantics and the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) who argue that thinking starts from the use of metaphors. These are embedded as bodily-based and spatial views on embodied cognition (Benyon, 2012). Imaz and Benyon stress that metaphors and blends need to correspond for them to function. Therefore, they suggest a more generic space and refer to the following example: “the ship ploughs through the waves” and “the ship ran through the forest”. The second metaphor does not provide enough correspondence between the two concepts of the chosen domain (Imaz & Benyon, 2007).
Adding blended theory to the introduced understanding of physical and digital space leads to a conceptualization towards the hybrid, blended space (Benyon, 2012).
Figure 11 Conceptual blending, see Benyon (2012, 2014; 2015)
Generic Space Blended Space Digital Space Physical Space Ontology Topology Volatility Agency Correspondence
There are linkages between physical and digital spaces. These touchpoints such as a tablet computer or smartphone bring physical and digital together temporarily, but dissolve once the connection is lost (Benyon, 2012). Consequently, linkages are volatile, meaning people constantly move between physical, digital and blended spaces (Benyon, 2012). Benyon states that “People need to be aware of the structure of the physical and the digital, so that there is a harmony; the correspondences between the objects in the spaces” (Benyon, 2012, p. 223). He claims that the presence and place in blended space becomes multi-dimensional and distributed (Benyon, 2012). This means that proximity between people is perceived differently although they are physically located in different areas. The blended space presents a deliberately integrated wedded way between physical and digital (Benyon, 2012, 2014). This space is not to be confused with mixed relations of the physical and the digital (Benyon, 2012). Rather it is a hybrid space with the purpose of providing a new space for interaction, thus a place for experience (Benyon, 2012, 2014; Benyon & Mival, 2015).
A new sense of presence evolves from the combination of physical and digital space into a blend of new properties in the blended space (Benyon, 2012; Benyon & Mival, 2015). Benyon based the concept of the blended space by recognizing that both the physical and the digital space are composed by agents who live in the space, relations between objects in the space previously referred to as the topology of the space, and dynamics that occur in the space expressed by volatility (Benyon, 2012). Correspondence between physical and digital space supports an effective blended space which in turn evolves a new understanding towards presence in space (see Figure 11). Benyon states: “Presence is considered as interaction between the self and the content of the medium within which the self exists, and place is this medium” (Benyon, 2012, p. 219). Interaction then involves the agent, the physical and the digital space. The content of the medium comes from the conceptual space within which the agent moves. The place becomes the medium.
Involving the digital space, McCullough differentiates between the so called universal-, also referred to as ubiquitous- and situated computing. While universal computing addresses ideas such as anytime-anyplace, portable, context as location and an architecture itself, situated computing is about responsive places, embedded or enclosed in physical sites with the context as activity and inside architecture (McCullough, 2004).
Situated computing, on the other side refers to context-dependent mechanisms in serving people’s needs at a specific time in place. Further, it does acknowledge the intertwine of information from both physical and digital places. This refers to a new form of locality, moving from personal computers (1980s) and network-centered computing (1990s) towards things-centered computing for the 2000s (McCullough, 2004). Changes in technology impact people’s activities and therefore, the places in which they live. Placemaking often is referred to spaces people share and describe a collaborative process in facilitating better use of space with the particular focus on places, defined by physical, cultural and social identities (Project for Public Space, 2016)5. Resmini and Rosati define
placemaking as “the capability of a pervasive information architecture model to help users reduce disorientation, build a sense of place, and increase legibility and way-finding across digital, physical, and cross channel environments.” (Resmini & Rosati, 2011). In accordance with previous explanations of how space and place relate, and how physical and digital blend, Kevin Lynch’s work ‘The Image of the City’ discovers that people perceive their surroundings from memory, creating individual mental maps of how they see the city (Lynch, 1964). This draws consequences on the understanding of spaces and connect to the paradigm of the digital transformation in which every individual’s story counts to the big picture of perception. The digital transformation enables to serve the needs of people’s individual embodied perception in space.
5 The Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is a non-profit organization concerned with supporting people to build and sustain public spaces; more see https://www.pps.org/, accessed on March 03, 2020
2.2.4 Mobility and ICT
Mobility describes “the quality or state of being mobile or movable” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b) whereas mobile is referred to the “capability of moving or being moved” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a). In turn, travel presents the activity “to go on or as if on a trip or tour”, also defined as to go “to different places instead of staying in one place.” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-d) Transport is “to transfer or convey from one place to another” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c).
Lyons et al. emphasize the complex nature of urban environments, enunciated by transformative dynamics, which includes forms of participation in understanding flows and consumption of resources (2018). They describe urban metabolism as “the flows of material and non-material resources and wastes that characterize the functioning and sustainability of a city and which are fundamentally associated with human behavior” (Lyons et al., 2018, p. 246). Moreover, they argue that social, spatial, cultural and demographic settings are components in driving lasting change (Lyons et al., 2018). Taking ICT into account, a pervasive aspect is mobility as a service (MaaS), an innovative mobility concept (Peraphan et al., 2017), which points to the opportunities offered by transport modes (see Barreto et al., 2018). Several principles are followed in MaaS: 1) integration of transport modes, 2) demand orientation, 3) personalization and customization, 4) tariff option and subscription as well as 5) technology use (Barreto et al., 2018; Peraphan et al., 2017).
ACTIVITY, DEMAND, TIME, AND ACCESSIBILITY
The growth in faster and longer distance travel has pushed the predominance of specific transport solutions, made cycling and walking less alluring to its users and created an increased dependence on the automobile (Banister, 2008; Lyons, 2009) which consequently became core in modern western societies (Manderscheid, 2018). Decentralization of urban and rural environments in terms of where people undertake activities amplified these effects (Banister, 2008). Creutzig et al. stress that over the course of digital transformation, sharing services, automation and electrification have become core components for sustainable transport (2019).
Travel demand and valued activity
Urban and transport planning are facing challenges in mapping the two fundamental principles of travel as a derived demand and minimizing the cost of travel by means of sustainable travel paradigms (Banister, 2008). A shift towards leisure-based travel is observed (Banister, 2008), also referred to as undirected travel (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001), and perceived as a valued activity. Excess travel is a superset of undirected travel and of leisure activities of undirected travel (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001). Mokhtarian and Salomon identify three elements in the context of travel: 1) activities conducted at the destination, 2) activities conducted while traveling, and 3) activities of travelling (2001). Travel is grounded in accessing activity destinations such as for employment, shopping, education, to name just a few examples (Metz, 2008). Against the backdrop of travel demand analysis, both travel time and activity time are often treated as separate parts, however, its interdependencies are generally acknowledged (Lyons & Urry, 2005). Banister argues that with increasing incomes and perceived value of leisure time, travel as a derived demand may become debilitated (2008; see Camacho et al., 2016). Considering sustainable travel, these dilemmas present implications for transport planning (Banister, 2008).
Travel time use and ICT
Sleeping, reading, working, talking, playing, listening, eating, messaging, are all activities one can undertake while travelling, i.e. by train, airplane, or bus – outlining Lyons’ and Urry’s argument that travel time may not always be time wasted (2005). It stresses that activities while travelling existed before the emergence of ICT. With regard to the impact of the digital transformation on travel and travel time use, Lyons and Urry mention the mobilization of information, as knowledge once manifested itself in artifacts such as books or maps, which have now been digitized (2005), and are therefore accessible anywhere and at any time. These enhancements notably require distinct actions such as a charged battery of the used device (see Lyons & Urry, 2005).
With ICT, the predominance of individual motorized transportation is challenged by driverless cars and addresses road safety, fuel consumption, urban space use and congestion as well as pollution (Lyons, 2009) making the car driver dispensable (Manderscheid, 2018). It allows other activities to take place while traveling (Kolarova
et al., 2019). Working, sleeping, and playing games are those examples of non-driving activities while traveling. Pudāne et al. claim that automated vehicles influence travel experiences concerning the feasibility of on-board activities and pleasure (2019). In addition, they found that interdependencies between people’s daily activity schedule and on-board activities may appear, which in turn effect people’s schedule (Pudāne et al., 2019).
Time minimization and reasonable travel time present a contradiction of both the desire of increased speed of travel and slowing down traffic in order to serve environmental and safety aspects (Banister, 2008). Aspects identified are 1) substitution as to reduce the amount of travel, 2) complementarity as one mode of communication increases the use of others, 3) modification as one communication mode changes the use of another and last but not least, 4) neutrality as the use of one mode does not affect the other (Lyons & Urry, 2005).
Accessibility and ICT
Hansen defines accessibility as “potential of opportunities for interaction” (Hansen, 1959, p. 2). The fields of transport planning, urban planning, and geography are concerned with accessibility impacts, and oftentimes expressed by easy interpretable measures such as congestion levels or travel speed on the road (Geurs & van Wee, 2004). Geurs and van Wee identify four types of accessibility: land use component, transportation component, temporal component, and individual component. Accessibility may influence these components through feedback mechanisms (2004). They introduce a model displaying relationships between accessibility and components (see Appendix B) (Geurs & van Wee, 2004). Further, Geurs and van Wee identify four perspectives on accessibility measures: infrastructure-based, location-based, person-based and utility-based measures which traverse the beforementioned accessibility components (2004). While traveling in physical space, additional information from digital may become accessible to support travel activities (Banister, 2008).
Taking the role of ICT into consideration, van Wee et al. argue that ICT potentially impacts all of the above introduced components (2013) and emphasize the challenge in developing accessibility measures and indicators which consider the use of ICT. A categorization of ICT’s impact on mobility behavior is challenged by the identification
