Abstract
The chapter introduces two processes that endow mobility with centrality as a cognitive key for understanding socio-spatial transformations in the contemporary city. The first process is part of broader critical reflection on the role of spatial mobility in describing and assessing socio-urban changes. The second process interprets the contemporary city as a “site of sociability” (Amin and Thrift 2002), which can be understood by tracking the routinization of site practices that follow their own rhythms of appearance and disappearance. This leads us toward the heuristic value of interpretation of the rhythms of usage of the contemporary city, well provided by mobility practices. Working along these two lines, in this chapter we try to reconstruct how we can consider mobility as both a knowledge and a policy tool for understanding and regulating the process of transformation of the contemporary city. Through study of mobility practices, we argue that it is possible to recognise temporary populations generating new claims, but also new common goods. In the conclusion we will briefly consider two paradoxes raised by the excessive rhetoric on mobility: the link between mobility and rootedness, and the link between mobility and speed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Interview with John Urry by Adey and Bussel (2010, p. 2).
- 3.
- 4.
Moving away from the classical approach of social ecology, Martinotti (1993, pp. 137–139) suggests we “conceptualize metropolitan development and emerging social morphology as the progressive differentiation of four populations (inhabitants, commuters, city users, Metropolitan businessmen) that characterise the metropolis”. The four urban populations proposed by Martinotti (1993) are nonetheless static entities that do not afford an understanding of the variable roles that may be played by an individual during the course of a day.
- 5.
The term communities of practice is employed to focus attention on the fact that urban populations cannot be reduced to predefined and fixed categories. Urban populations are not as static categories (inhabitants, commuters, city users, etc.), but they are “groups of subjects that, temporarily and intermittently, share practices of daily life” (Pasqui 2008, p. 148). Hence they can be considered “communities of practice” that generate particular space-time geographies.
- 6.
See, in this book, the essay by Colleoni (Chapter “A Social Science Approach to the Study of Mobility: An Introduction”).
- 7.
My translation from “la mobilité constitue aussi une technique incontestable de “urbanogenèse” et non un problème externe aux pratiques urbaines les plus fondamentales, c’est à dire à ce qui fait d’une ville une ville, à son urbanité” (Lévy 1999, p. 157).
- 8.
“Groupes sociaux définis à partir de leurs inscriptions territoriales, de leurs pratiques de mobilité, des dispositifs techniques qu’ils mettent en oeuvre” (Le Breton 2006, p. 26).
- 9.
The “Mobile methods” proposed by Sheller and Urry (2006) include: interactional and conversational analysis of people as they move; mobile ethnography involving itinerant movement with people, following objects and co-present immersion in various modes of movement; after-the-fact interviews and focus groups on mobility; keeping textual, pictorial, or digital time–space diaries; various methods of cyber-research, cyber-ethnography and computer simulations; imaginative travel using multimedia methods attentive to the affective and atmospheric feeling of place; tracking affective objects that attach memories to places; and finally methods that measure the spatial structuring and temporal pulse of transfer points and places of in-between-ness in which the circulation of people and objects is slowed down or stopped, or facilitated and speeded up (Sheller 2011, p. 7).
- 10.
Daily commuters, city users, businessmen, tourists, but also long-distance commuting and multiple residences.
- 11.
The EU research “Job mobilities and Family Lives in Europe” (http://www.jobmob-and-famlives.eu/) identifies among the new forms of daily mobility: Long-Distance Commuters (LDC); Overnighters spending at least 60 overnights away from home during the last 12 months for occupational reasons; Recent Relocators over a distance of at least 50 km; Long-Distance Relationships (LDR). See also Viry and Kaufmann (2015).
- 12.
- 13.
While these studies remain exploratory in that they have not yet come up with a recognised standard of measurement, they have revealed many kinds of aptitude for movement.
- 14.
Three are the main outcomes:
-
Showing the relationships between location coordinates of mobile phones and the social identification of the people carrying them (as Social Positioning Method and its possible applications in the organisation and planning of public life proposed by Ahas and Mark 2005);
-
Describing the relationships between mobile phone measures (the volume of call activity in mobile network cells as Erlang) and population distribution in cities (Sevtsuk and Ratti 2010);
-
Classifying urban spaces, according to mobile phone uses (Reades et al. 2007; Soto and Frías-Martínez 2011), in which different “basic” profiles of city usages can concur to identify different profiles of use and consumption.
-
- 15.
- 16.
Our translation from “Les effets profondément structurants (ou déstructurants) de la mobilité des personnes sur les territoires politiques” (Estèbe 2008, p. 6).
References
Adey, P., & Bussel, D. (2010). Mobilities, meetings, and futures: An interview with John Urry. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 1–16.
Ahas, R., & Mark, U. (2005). Location based services: New challenges for planning and public administrations? Futures, 37, 547–561.
Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities. Reimagining the urban. Cambridge: Polity.
Ascher, F. (2002), La société hypermoderne. Paris: L'Aube.
Ascher, F. (2004). Les sens du mouvement: modernité et mobilités dans les sociétés urbaines contemporaines. In S. Allemand, F. Ascher, & J. Lévy (Eds.), Les sens du mouvement (pp. 21–34). Paris: Belin.
Aubenas, F. (2010). Le quai de Oustreham. Paris: L’Olivier.
Bassand, M. (1986). La mobilité spatiale, une phénomène macroscopique. Sociologie pluraliste et pluralisme sociologique. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, EdES.
Bauman, Z. (1999). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity press.
Borja, S., Courty, G., & Ramadier, T. (2012). La mobilité serait un capital: doutes et interrogations. Forum Vies Mobiles. URL: http://en.forumviesmobiles.org/arguing/2012/12/11/mobility-capital-sketching-arguments-533. Accessed in March 16, 2015.
Borja, S., Courty, G., & Ramadier, T. (Eds.). (2013). Approches critiques de la mobilité. Regards sociologiques (pp. 45–46). Strasbourg: Association Regards Sociologiques. ISSN: 1164-0871.
Bourdin, A. (2005). Les mobilités et le programme de la sociologie. Cahiers internationaux de Sociologie, CXVIII, 5–21.
Büscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99–116.
Canzler, W., Kaufmann, V., & Kesselring, S. (Eds.). (2008). Tracing mobilities. Towards a cosmopolitan perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Cass, N., Shove, E., & Urry, J. (2005). Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociological Review, 53(3), 539–555.
Castaigne, M., et al. (2003). Droit et mobilité. Namur: Presses Universitaire de Namur.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Mass.
Cresswell, T. (2004). Justice sociale et droit à la mobilité. In S. Allemand, F. Ascher, & J. Lévy (Eds.), Les sens du mouvement (pp. 145–153). Paris: Belin.
Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern western world. London: Routledge.
Cresswell, T. (2011). Mobilities I: Catching up. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 550–558.
Cresswell, T. (2013). Citizenship in worlds of mobility. In O. Söderström, et al. (Eds.), Critical mobilities (pp. 81–100). Lausanne: EPFL Press.
Crosta, P. L. (2010). Pratiche. Franco Angeli, Milano: Il Territorio è l’Uso che Se ne Fa.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Traité de nomadologie. La machine de guerre. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Minuit.
Dewey, J. (1921). Habits and Will. Excerpt from Human Nature and Conduct In Collected works of John Dewey. Middle works (Vol. 14, pp. 21–32). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Available in http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/johndeweyhabits.html.
Diana, M. (2010). From mode choice to modal diversion: A new behavioural paradigm and an application to the study of the demand for innovative transport services. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 429–441.
Diana, M., & Pronello, C. (2010). Traveler segmentation strategy with nominal variables through correspondence analysis. Transport Policy, 17, 183–190.
Donolo, C. (2005). Dalle politiche pubbliche alle pratiche sociali nella produzione di beni pubblici? Osservazione su una nuova generazione di policies. Stato e mercato, 73, 33–65.
Ehrenberg, A. (1995). L’individu incertain. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
Elliott, A., & Urry, J. (2010). Mobile lives. London, New York: Routledge.
Estèbe, P. (2008). Gouverner la ville mobile: la ville en débat. Paris: Puf.
Flamm, M., & Kaufmann, V. (2006). Operationalising the concept of motility: A qualitative study. Mobilities, 1(2), 167–189.
Gallez, C., & Kaufmann, V. (2009). Aux racines de la mobilité en sciences sociales. In M. Flonneau & V. Guigueno (Eds.), De l’histoire des transports à l’histoire de la mobilité? (pp. 41–55). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Haughton, G., & Allmendinger, P. (2008). The soft space of local economic development. Local Economy, 23(2), 138–148.
Haughton, G., et al. (2010). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft space and fuzzy boundaries. London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environmental and Planning A, 30(9), 1531–1546.
Jarv, O., Ahas, R., & Witlox, F. (2014). Understanding monthly variability in human activity spaces: A twelve-month study using mobile phone call detail records. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 38(1), 122–135.
Jensen, O. B. (2009). Flows of meaning, cultures of movements—Urban mobility as meaningful everyday life practice. Mobilities, 4(1), 139–158.
Jensen, O. B. (2013). Staging mobilities. London, New York: Routledge.
Jensen, O. B. (2015). The will to connection: A research agenda for the “programmable city” and an ICT “toolbox” for urban planning. In: A. de Souza e Silva & M. Sheller (Eds.), Mobility and locative media: Mobile communication in hybrid spaces (pp. 224–237). London: Routledge.
Jones, P., & Lucas, K. (2012). The social consequences of transport decision-making: Clarifying concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 4–16.
Kaufmann, V. (2002). Re-thinking mobility. Contemporary sociology. Burlington: Ashgate.
Kaufmann, V. (2005). Mobilités et réversibilités: vers des sociétés plus fluides? Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 8(118), 119–135.
Kaufmann, V. (2008). Les paradoxes de la mobilité. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
Kaufmann, V. (2012). Mobility as capital. Sketching the arguments, Mobile Lives Forum. Connnexion on 17th of September 2015, http://en.forumviesmobiles.org/arguing/2012/12/11/mobility-capital-sketching-arguments-533.
Kaufmann, V. (2014). Mobility as a tool for sociology. Sociologica 1: doi: 10.2383/77046.
Kaufmann, V., Max Bergman, M., & Joye, D. (2007). Motility: Mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban Regional Research, 28(4), 745–756.
Kesselring, S. (2006). Pioneering mobilities: New patterns of movement and motility in a mobile world. Environment and Planning A, 38, 269–279.
Kwan, M. P., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2007). The interaction between ICT and human activity-travel behaviour. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(2), 121–124. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0965856406000255. Accessed in May 9, 2012.
Lanzendorf, M. (2010). Key events and their effect on mobility biographies: The case of childbirth. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4, 272–292.
Le Breton, E. (2005). Bouger pour s’en sortir. Paris: Arman Colin.
Le Breton, E. (2006). Homo mobilis. In M. Bonnet & P. Aubertel (Eds.), La ville aux limites de la mobilité (pp. 23–32). Paris: Puf.
Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanaysis. Space, time and everyday life. Continuum, London and New York (or. pub. 1992).
Lévy, J. (1999). Le tournant géographique. Paris: Editions Belin.
Lévy, J. (2011). Modèles de mobilité, enjeu de société/Mobility Models: Society and Stake. In C. Gay, V. Kaufmann, S. Landriève, & S. Vincent-Geslin (Eds.), Mobile immobile (Vol. 2, pp. 27–39). Paris: Editions de l’Aube, Forum Vie Mobile.
Limtanakool, N., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2006). The influence of socioeconomic characteristics, land use and travel time considerations on mode choice for medium and longer-distance trips. Journal of Transport Geography, 14, 327–341.
Martinotti, G. (1993). Metropoli: la nuova morfologia sociale della città. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Mincke, C., Montulet, B. (2010). L’idéologie mobilitaire. Politique, revue de débats. La nouvelle obsession de la mobilité. 64. www.politique.eu.org.
Nuvolati, G. (2003). Resident and non-resident populations: Quality of life, mobility and time policies. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 33(2), 67–83.
Orfeuil, J. P. (2011). Le “droit à la mobilité” aujourd’hui et demain/The « Right to Mobility » In: C. Gay, V. Kaufmann, S. Landriève, & S. Vincent-Geslin (Eds.), Mobile immobile (Vol. 1, pp. 48–59). Paris: Editions de l’Aube, Forum Vie Mobile.
Orfueil, J. P. (2004). Transports, pauvretés, exclusions: pouvoir bouger pour s’en sortir. Paris: L’Aube.
Pasqui, G. (2008). Città, popolazioni, politiche. Milano: Jaca Book.
Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74, 279–297.
Pucci, P. (2013a). Dati di traffico telefonico e politiche per la mobilità. Tema, 6(3), 325–340.
Pucci, P. (2013b). Fuzzy boundaries per comunità mobili: Disegnare territori contingenti nella Regione Urbana Milanese. Planum, 27(2), 139–149.
Pucci, P. (2014). Identifying communities of practice through mobile phone data. Urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana_Brazilian. Journal of Urban Management, 6(1), 75–97.
Pucci, P., Manfredini, F., & Tagliolato, P. (2015). Mapping urban practices through mobile phone data. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: SpringerBriefs in Applied Science and Technology, Springer.
Raffestin, C. (1980). Pour une géographie du pouvoir. Paris: LITEC.
Ratti, C., et al. (2006). Mobile landscapes: Using location data from cell phones for urban analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 727–748.
Reades, J., Calabrese, F., Sevtsuk, A., & Ratti, C. (2007). Cellular census: Explorations in urban data collection. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 6(3), 30–38.
Rémy, J. (1996). Mobilité et ancrages: vers une autre définition de la ville. In: M. Hirschorn & J. M. Berthelot (Eds.), Mobilités et ancrages. Vers un nouveau mode de spatialisation? (pp. 135–153). L’Harmattan, Paris.
Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération, une critique sociale du temps. Paris: La Découverte.
Sevtsuk, A., & Ratti, C. (2010). Does urban mobility have a daily routine? Learning from the aggregate data of mobile networks. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(1), 41–60.
Shane, D. G. (2005). Recombinant urbanism. Conceptual Modelling in Architecture, Urban Design, and City Theory. Wiley: Chichester.
Sheller, M. (2011). Mobility. Sociopedia.isa. Available at: http://www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/Mobility.pdf. Accessed in August 8, 2013.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207–226.
Shields, R. (1991). Places on the margin. Alternative geographies of modernity. London: Routledge.
Soja, E. (2004). Le temps des nodalités post-métropolitaines. In S. Allemand, F. Ascher, & J. Lévy (Eds.), Les sens du mouvement (pp. 175–181). Paris: Belin.
Song, C., et al. (2010). Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science, 327, 1018.
Soto, V., & Frías-Martínez, E. (2011). Automated land use identification using cell-phone records. In Proceedings of the Third ACM international workshop on MobiArch (pp. 17–22).
Tarrius, A. (2000). Les nouveaux cosmopolitismes: mobilités, identité, territoires. Paris: La tour d’Aigues, l’Aube.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
Urry, J. (2012). Social networks, mobile lives and social inequalities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 24–30.
Vannini, P., Budd, L., Jensen, O. B., Fisker, C., & Jirón, P. (Eds.). (2012). Technologies of mobility in the Americas. New York: Peter Lang.
Vecchio, G. (2015). Mobilitarsi per muoversi. Pratiche periurbane e capitali di mobilità nell’area metropolitana di Milano, In Conferenza SIU, Venezia, 11–12 Giugno.
Vincent Geslin, S., & Kaufmann, V. (Eds.). (2012). Mobilité sans racines: Plus loin, plus vite… plus mobile?. Paris: Descartses & Cie.
Virilio, P. (1977). Speed and politics: An essay on Dromology. New York: Semiotext(e).
Virilio, P. (1990). L’inertie polaire. Paris: C. Bourgois.
Viry, G., Kaufmann, V., & Widmer, E. (2009). Social integration faced with commuting. In T. Ohnmacht, et al. (Eds.), Mobilities and inequalities (pp. 121–143). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Viry, G., & Kaufmann, V. (Eds). (2015). High mobility in Europe. Work and personal life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wagner, A.C. (2010). Le jeu de la mobilité et de l’autochtonie au sein des classes supérieures. Regards Sociologiques, 40, 89–98.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pucci, P. (2016). Mobility Practices as a Knowledge and Design Tool for Urban Policy. In: Pucci, P., Colleoni, M. (eds) Understanding Mobilities for Designing Contemporary Cities. Research for Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22578-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22578-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22577-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22578-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)