Session 2: Becoming mobile

First part

Session led by Yves Crozet (Economist, LET, University of Lyon, IEP)

Speakers:

• Iragaël Joly (economist, GAEL, Grenoble-INP, INRA)

• Detlev Lück (sociologist, Federal Institute for Population Research)

• Sven Kesselring (sociologist, Technical University of Munich)

Overview

This session, which specifically explored highly mobile individuals, was organized around the presentation of three studies that looked at the increases in the travel times of these individuals, the interrelationship between professional mobility and family life and the new forms of mobility brought about by ICTs (information and communication technologies) respectively.

The first study looked at the temporal dimension of mobility. Iragaël Joly presented the findings of his research, which focuses primarily on travel time and their evolution, and reminded us that Zahavi's hypothesis is at the heart of this field of research.

The Zahavi hypothesis is derived from the hypothesis that the average length of daily travel times in different cities and countries around the world can be plotted at narrow intervals: regardless of the country or city studied, the average daily travel time of residents is approximately one hour (50-90 minutes depending on the case). The Zahavi hypothesis, established in the early 70s, states that there is a constancy of travel time budgets at the city scale.

And yet we have seen an increase in travel times in Europe in the past decades. This increase is largely underpinned by the increase in the proportion of persons whose daily travel time exceeds 100 minutes.

This change is important because it undermines Zahavi's hypothesis. Up until now, it was possible to explain urban sprawl by an increase in travel speeds which, given the constancy of travel time budgets, led to an increase in distances traveled. The question that now arises is that of the appropriateness of policies whose goal is to allow individuals to increase their speed travel in order to reduce their travel time budgets. If it is merely a question of saving time for people who are going to use it for other recreational activities and use travel time as an opportunity to do these activities, we are far from the original goal.

The study presented the different means individuals have for managing their mobility (i.e. transportation modes, itineraries, schedules and residential locations [with a trade-off between transportation budget and housing budget]) and, what is even more unusual, their activities. Within people’s activities schedules, the time spent on non-mandatory activities and the travel time required to do them are subject to trade-offs and adjustments. The travel time devoted to shopping and leisure activities increases with the duration of the activity, but differs according to the activity. This activity-based approach assumes that transportation is a derived demand, meaning that travel itself is not a goal, but a necessity in order to do a particular activity at a given point in space. This interlocking complicates mobilities modeling. Moreover, the interactions between activities at home and travel and “embedded” activities and travel, while still poorly measured, provide interesting opportunities for future research.

Detlev Lück then presented his study Professional mobility and family life in Europe. Conducted in six European countries, this study looks at professional mobility, especially that of highly-mobile individuals, and how it affects their personal lives.

The study found that, across the six countries studied, 16% of people on average are mobile (according to the criteria used). Some differences were observed between the different countries, with notably less mobility in the smallest countries. Europeans tend to be both sedentary and commuters. They are strongly attached to the place where they grew up. France was the country with the greatest reluctance regarding mobility. In Germany, work-related mobility is more accepted. Mobility is likewise valued in Switzerland because it is associated with professional advancement.

The least mobile groups were 25-43 year olds, university graduates, workers with permanent contracts and, to a lesser extent, men. In fact, women’s mobility varies considerably depending on their professional and family situations. Women without children who work full-time were almost as mobile as men.

Reconciling work and family life is difficult, especially for women. The most mobile are less likely to have a spouse and children. Meanwhile, people with children, particularly those between 25 and 34, were much less willing to move than others.

The mobility of both spouses had an impact on the division of domestic tasks and childcare. In general, women spend much more time on these activities than do men. When the male partner is mobile, the difference tended to be even greater, while the division is more balanced when the woman is mobile.

Detlev Lück feels that employers should be sensitive to this problem, to facilitate greater harmony between employees’ professional mobility and family life.

Meanwhile, Sven Kesselring presented his research on the relationship between mobility and ICT. He found that these new technologies are increasingly used by individuals to be mobile—the very definition of mobility that has been transformed by ICT. Thus, there are different forms of mobility, as demonstrated by John Urry:

• The physical movement of persons;

• The physical movement of objects;

• Imaginary movement through images, memories, books and, more recently, new technology;

• Movement through messages and communication;

• Virtual movement via the Internet.

Nowadays, virtual travel can also take place during physical travel thanks to Smartphones and laptops. Thus do different forms of mobility combine and interlock.

The Internet is often seen as an obstacle to social integration and interaction. In truth, new virtual mobilities allow individuals to stay in touch no matter where they are. In this new form of mobility management, geographical location becomes less important.

One participant, however, noted that given that electronic means of communication strongly encourage endogamy, one can question whether they are really mobility tools.

Iragaël Joly stresses that it is now up to researchers to predict how individuals will use new technologies and the impact it is going to have on physical travel. Today it appears that new communications technologies are not a substitute for travel, but rather provide an incentive. We can therefore assume that mobility in all forms will increase.

Some points for discussion following the exchanges

• Should we continue to work toward increasing the speed of travel if the free time gained simply allows individuals to try and move even more?

• Is aggregating the different forms of mobility (physical movement, residential mobility, social mobility, etc.) – which today are not valued in the same manner today – really operational? Does it really make sense?

• Should we consider specific measures that will enable women with children to be professionally mobile?

• Can virtual space truly replace geographical space?

• If ICTs facilitate and stimulate physical mobility, then are those who are excluded from the digital revolution condemned to immobility?