Speaker
Description
Car dependence, a prevalent barrier to sustainable and inclusive mobility, emerges from complex interactions between spatial and individual determinants (Mattioli et al., 2016). While the process that relates both has always been challenging, reducing car pervasive impacts is a key aim for achieving a smarter, safer and fairer transport system. This makes the assessment of car dependence a critical issue, which is being addressed by this research as a part of a broader PhD project. This larger study develops a comprehensive framework for car dependence by systematically reviewing literature and constructing a large dataset of related indicator, enabling further numerical analysis. Within this context, the present study integrates spatial and individual insights, which are not often combined inacademic approaches. It examinesthe results of an attitudes-and-perceptions survey categorized according to territorial car dependence levels emerging from spatial metrics. By means of a case study, this research focuses in Lombardy , Italy’s most populated and richest region, characterized by a heterogeneous territorial structure.
The spatial analysis represents the first stage of the study and builds over literature-established metrics (Sierra Muñoz et al., 2024) to depict the phenomenon: from cause-and-effect indicators associations, bivariate classifications provide clusters of different car dependence levels across a regional context. These are aligned with different spatial settlement characteristics, with increasing car dependence from dense urban areas towards suburban and rural contexts. These spatial categories form the foundation for integrating individual-level insights in a second stage, which additionally categorize survey respondents based on their car dependence self-perception. Together, these spatial and subjective dimensions offer a comprehensive framework to examine attitudes and perceptions of car dependence across diverse territorial clusters.
The results highlight significant heterogeneity within and across different car dependence spatial clusters: around a quarter of respondents’ self-perceived car dependence does not align with the spatial category of their residential area. The findings underscore the role of personal activities, particularly access to work in urban areas, as well as built environment perceptions and different attitudes towards use and impacts of the car. Surprisingly, respondents in suburban areas who do not feel dependent on cars often declare attachment to cars and less concern on their impacts. Conversely, their peers on rural clusters report higher car use together to dissatisfaction on its reliance. These findings illustrate how car dependence may enclose different meanings relating to space: from a practical necessity in some contexts to a deeper reliance on habitual or convenience-based car use, going further than simply feeling dependent.
The research challenges deterministic assumptions about car dependence based solely on socio-spatial factors. The nuanced interplay between spatial and personal dimensions of car dependence highlights the need for place-based approaches to studying the phenomenon. By recognizing the diverse drivers of car dependence in each context, tailored interventions can be developed to address the unique needs and rationales of each territory. For example, strategies for suburban areas might focus on reducing attachment to cars and overcoming its car-centered designs, while rural interventions might prioritize enhancing alternatives to reduce reliance.
This study contributes to broader discussions on reimagining mobility systems, providing deeper understanding of car dependence functioning across different territorial contexts. While car dependence sustains in a far-reaching and resilient automobility system (Urry, 2004), context-sensitive strategies represent an actionable way to mitigate it in a scalable manner. Integrating car dependence spatial and individual perspectives, as this research proposes, provides a way to bridge gaps and develop more accessible and fairer transport systems in the context of current mobility transitions.
References
Mattioli, G., Anable, J., & Vrotsou, K. (2016). Car dependent practices: Findings from a sequence pattern mining study of UK time use data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89, 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.04.010
Sierra Muñoz, J., Duboz, L., Pucci, P., & Ciuffo, B. (2024). Why do we rely on cars? Car dependence assessment and dimensions from a systematic literature review. European Transport Research Review, 16(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00639-z
Urry, J. (2004). The ‘System’ of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(5), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059
| Keywords | car dependence; spatial assessment; attitudes; perceptions; |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
