Mobility practices of non- motorized households, the cases of Quebec City and Strasbourg
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
By the simple fact of not owning a private automobile, some households are already living a sustainable mobility lifestyle. They rely on public transportation, walking, cycling and car sharing and generally travel less than car-owning households. According to Tabbone (forthcoming) non-motorized households in France consume on average 5850 kWh less per year than motorized households, representing 34% less energy consumption than the average for motorized urban and periurban households1. Even when we look only at the energy consumption footprint inside the residence, excluding mobility, non-motorized households still consume on average 9% less than their motorized counterparts. The good news is that in many European cities, in Geneva and Lausanne for example, the number of non-motorized households is rapidly increasing (Fabbo et al., 2014, p. 311). Although non-motorized households is a group showing sustainable practices in their daily mobility, current sustainable mobility policies often do not take into account these kinds of households, focussing instead on convincing car owners to shift modal behaviours (Grengs, 2005, p. 52; Kaufmann, Jemelin, Pflieger, & Pattaroni, 2008, p. 18). Sometimes non-motorized feel socially excluded, because their mobility is limited for a lack of private car (Schönfelder & Axhausen, 2003, p. 273). The situation of people deprived of motorized vehicles in a car- dependent context appears as an exemplary case to study the complex intertwining of justice issues in contemporary cities. In order to explore this phenomenon and shed light on the mobility practices of non-motorized households living in car-dependent Western cities we met with 57 non-motorized households in Quebec City, Canada and Strasbourg, France as part of our PhD dissertation. We use discourse analysis software (IRaMuTeQ) to analyze and compare the verbatim transcript of our interviews between the two cities. We would like to present our findings at the Swiss Mobility Conference in the discussions related to mobility “actors and their logics of action (residential choice, modal practices, multilocal living, etc)”. Through our lexocimetric analysis we have exposed the different discourse that non-motorized households have when reflecting on which activities or area 1 Based on a sample representative of the entire population of France in 2013 that cannot partake in due to their lack of private vehicles. Based on different variables: gender, feeling excluded or not, living in Quebec City or Strasbourg, being a member or not of the car-sharing system and revenue level, we can show that their discourse varies and discuss these differences. We generate these results by performing a specificity analysis and generate a word cloud for each variable’s modality. For example, we show that non-motorized households in Quebec City have particular problems going to a cinema, the hardware store or visiting relatives and face a lot of waiting while the households of Strasbourg have difficulty with grocery and weekend getaways to popular destinations like the Vosges mountain range or villages. During our interviews, we have also discussed the daily mobility of these households for various reasons: work, shopping, visiting family and friends and leisure. Through similar analysis, we show the difference in discourse based on our variables. For example, while women seem to rely on carpooling and discuss specific bus routes, men seem to rely on car sharing and car rentals as well as the bicycle.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».