Thematic Dossier: Mobility, Accessibility, and Social Participation

Menschen auf Fahrrädern mir Bewegungsunschärfe

The opportunity to participate in activities outside the home is of utmost importance for the social, economic, and cultural functioning of societies. This became especially evident during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 crisis. Virtual activities in work, education, consumption, leisure, family life, and other sectors can only partially substitute for physical co-presence. Social participation is therefore closely tied to mobility and spatiotemporal accessibility. Social participation refers to the ability to engage in social interactions, decision-making processes, and activities outside the home.

Conversely, restrictions on accessibility and mobility can lead to social exclusion and a diminished quality of life. This particularly affects various socially and/or spatially defined groups, such as households without cars, older or physically impaired individuals, low-income households, and populations in rural areas.

Mobility and Social Participation in Planning Practice

In planning practice, the safeguarding of the spatial dimensions of social participation has long been pursued through various spatial planning principles, guidelines, and instruments (e.g., ensuring public services of general interest, achieving equivalent living conditions, the central-place principle, ABC planning in the Netherlands, gender planning, accessibility planning in the United Kingdom, participatory approaches, etc.).

Research into these interrelations has, over the past two decades, developed into a broad field within transport and spatial studies, closely linked to the principles of equality and justice in access to activities.

The dimensions of equality and justice are also highly relevant in the context of the necessary mobility transition, which must take social aspects into account alongside ecological ones.

Mobility and Social Participation in Academia

In academic discourse, this topic is discussed under an extremely wide range of terms, which are more or less closely related and are sometimes even used partially synonymously.

From a theoretical perspective, participation can be visualized as a model of interlocking levels. The top level represents hegemonic cultural ideas, legal frameworks, as well as political and economic power. These frameworks give rise to spatially dependent local accessibilities, which in turn shape individual (objective) opportunities for participation. The bottom level consists of subjective opportunities for participation, from which actions in the form of mobility and engagement are derived. These actions, in turn, feed back into the upper levels.

Participation is thus a circular process—it is shaped by existing frameworks while also being subject to targeted change.

Position Paper

A key outcome of the ARL working group “Mobility, Accessibility, and Social Participation” is the position paper Positionspapier „Mobilität, Erreichbarkeit und soziale Teilhabe – für eine gerechtere Raum- und Verkehrsentwicklung“, which sets out its central theses. According to the paper, a socially just transition in transport and mobility requires decisive political governance and effective instruments to ensure ecological and social sustainability. The following objectives are particularly relevant:

Avoiding and overcoming mobility poverty;
Local accessibility as a central guiding principle in urban and regional planning, transport policy, and transport planning;
Nationwide minimum quality standards and sufficient funding for public transport;
Phasing out unsustainable subsidies and privileges for private car use and high-income households (company car privileges, diesel subsidies, commuter allowances, etc.);
Greater scope for municipalities to redesign public spaces and implement speed limits, as well as incentives for regional cooperation;
Extensive participation of vulnerable groups in planning processes.

Other

* Den FRU Preis 2023 haben Caroline Rozynek (Platz 1) und Christoph Aberle (Platz 3) gewonnen.

The following “building blocks” were discussed in the working group as central elements in the context of mobility, accessibility, and social participation, and are illustrated in greater detail in various publications referenced here.

In addition, further literature and relevant projects on each topic are provided. Contributions by an ARL working group member are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Themendossier Mobilität Übersicht - verschiedenfarbige Kacheln die die folgenden Kapitelüberschriften illustrieren

Counteracting Mobilit y Pov e r t y
Integrating So c ial Part i cip a tion i nto th e T r anspo r t a nd Mobilit y Tran sit ion
Maki ng Public Loc al Tra ns port A c c e ssible for Ev er yone
Part i cip a tion R e qui re s Loc al A c c e ss ibi li t y of E s s en tial Se r vic e s
D e sig n in g St ree t s Equi ta b l y
So c ial Integration Requi r es Opport u ni t ies for I n t e raction
Designing Virtu a l Mobilit y a nd Digitali zat i o n with S o c ial A wa r en ess
Facilitating A c tive Mobilit y
Designing Inclusive Participation Processes
Eq u ippi ng Pa r ticipation P la nning w it h Q u ali t y Data

Counteracting Mobility Poverty

Orange Kachel mit dem Text "Mobilitätsarmut entgegenwirken" und dem Icon einer Absperrung/Barriere

People generally need to leave their homes to, for example, get to work or school, buy groceries, pursue hobbies, or meet acquaintances. Being mobile is therefore a key prerequisite for social and societal participation today. The extent to which people can engage in these out-of-home activities depends on whether and how they can reach the locations where these activities take place. The multifaceted problems of accessibility can be categorized under the concepts of transport and mobility poverty.

Transport poverty refers to situations in which people are unable to reach destinations due to insufficient or inadequate transport infrastructure and services, for instance, because of barriers or the absence of bike paths or public transport connections. Transport poverty thus results in a restriction of the ability to move from one place to another.

Mobility poverty encompasses transport poverty but goes beyond it, as it additionally includes the restricted range of potential opportunities for movement. Financial, temporal, cognitive, physical, or cultural limitations, the absence of desired destinations, fears, or limited knowledge and skills can all restrict, complicate, or even entirely prevent mobility, even when transport infrastructure and services are available.

Integrating Social Participation into the Transport and Mobility Transition

Himmelblaue Kachel mit Text "Soziale Teilhabe mitdenken" mit Icon von drei stilisierten Figuren, die Teilhabe illustrieren sollen

Arguments for a transport and mobility transition tend to focus primarily on ecological goals, while aspects of social participation play a subordinate role. Social participation means, on the one hand, that vulnerable social groups—particularly those living in disadvantaged spatial contexts—must be more strongly involved in decisions regarding the transformation of the transport system.

However, existing transport policy and planning have, due to prevailing power and interest constellations (logistics, housing market, business taxes, etc.), generated increasing spatial disparities and, consequently, differences in accessibility (the accessibility divide). This has also resulted in restricted or even impossible access to everyday essential facilities (access) for certain social groups.

The upcoming transport and mobility transition will further affect the relationship between the accessibility of locations (spatial inequality) and the accessibility of social groups (social inequality). Current debates and resulting strategies largely emphasize the shift in propulsion technologies. In the context of the transport transition, the need to strengthen public transport and cycling is largely undisputed. The measures envisaged here are likely to influence the quality of locations (new centrality and altered accessibility) and the possibilities for people to move closer to locations with higher accessibility.

Traditional supply-oriented planning must therefore be at least complemented—and in some cases even replaced—by socially and spatially differentiated, demand-oriented transport and mobility planning.

Making Public Local Transport Accessible for Everyone

Gelbe Kachel mit Text "ÖPNV-Nutzung für alle ermöglichen" mit Icons die einen Bus und verschiedene mögliche ÖPNV-Nutzende (Menschen aller Art) zeigt

The backbone of essential mobility services is public local transport (ÖPNV). It should therefore, at least in principle, be planned and implemented as a service for everyone.

However, public local transport only represents a viable mobility option if two fundamental conditions are met: (1) sufficient public local transport infrastructure must be available across the entire area, and (2) all population groups must be able to use it—i.e., there must be no barriers to use, such as lack of accessibility or unaffordable costs.

(1) Public Local Transport Infrastructure

Despite existing guidelines and recommendations (FGSV – Research Association for Roads and Transport, VDV – Association of German Transport Companies), there is no consensus on what “sufficient” precisely means. In particular, considering the diverse life circumstances within identical spatial structures highlights how critically minimum standards must be evaluated—for example, adolescents have different mobility needs than working-age adults, who in turn have different needs than retirees.

This raises questions such as: Is a 30-minute frequency on public local transport truly sufficient for all population groups? Are 10 or 20 minutes to the nearest stop adequate, and what level of physical ability is assumed in these figures? Should the calculation be based on the time children need, or the additional time older people require due to age-related limitations?

Despite these open questions, it is undisputed that there are significant differences in the quality of public local transport depending on spatial location (see the analysis by Agora Verkehrswende). This concerns not only the urban–rural divide but also differences arising from the investments of individual municipalities or variations between federal states.

(2) Barriers to Using Public Local Transport – Quality and Affordability

Even if public local transport infrastructure exists—whether sufficient or not—various barriers can still prevent its use, such as lack of accessibility (physical and cognitive obstacles) or unreliability in adhering to schedules.

Affordability is a particular barrier for people with low incomes. Despite partial discounts for certain groups (individual support), such as reduced-price social tickets for welfare recipients, financing public local transport tickets remains challenging for people below the poverty line and so-called “threshold households.”

How much public local transport should cost to be socially equitable and affordable for everyone is still an open question, as is whether the necessary investments and subsidies would be politically supported.

An additional barrier arises from the fact that (especially “new”) mobility services are increasingly offered only online (e.g., the Deutschlandticket). Just as the “two-sense system” for public local transport information is recommended, a multi-channel system should be standard here as well, to avoid excluding the most vulnerable groups (see also the section below on Designing Virtual Mobility and Digitalization with Social Awareness ).

Participation Requires Local Accessibility of Essential Services

Spatial planning and regional development are mandated by §2 (2) No. 3 of the Federal Spatial Planning Act (ROG) to ensure equivalent living conditions for all population groups, thereby safeguarding fairness of opportunity in an appropriate manner. This obligation entails, on the one hand, the provision of essential services that guarantee an adequate level of service quality. On the other hand, the local spatial distribution of everyday services plays a central role in ensuring their accessibility without reliance on cars. However, a thinning out of spatial services has been observed (e.g., bank branches, post offices, grocery stores…).

A particular challenge lies in securing participation in sparsely populated rural areas, especially in smaller settlements. Due to the increasing concentration of services in car-oriented locations, accessibility is also becoming problematic in urban areas, particularly for less mobile population groups (e.g., those without cars or with physical limitations). The preservation and promotion of local, non-motorized accessibility to essential services is therefore a central task of urban and regional planning. Its integration with transport planning is highly important, so that the latter does not continue to favor accessibility to car-oriented locations ( see the ARL research report „Wechselwirkungen von Mobilität und Raumentwicklung im Kontext gesellschaftlichen Wandels“).

In spatial planning aimed at securing essential services, basic service functions are certainly the focus; however, they do not always adequately reflect individual needs, since social participation is always also linked to access within a social context. Reflections on this topic can be found in the section below: Social Integration Requires Opportunities for Interaction.

Designing Streets Equitably

Kachel "Straßenraum gerecht gestalten" mit Icons von Menschen vor einem Auto, einer Stadtbahn und Bäumen auf grünem Hintergrund

The majority of public space in cities consists of street space. This includes roadways and adjacent areas (so-called “side areas”: spaces for parking, cycling infrastructure, sidewalks). Street space is not only used for access and connection but also for staying and lingering. Contrary to common understanding, street space is therefore not primarily intended for movement.

Street space in settlements is limited, while simultaneously being subject to a wide range of demands (competing uses). It must function as traffic space for private, public, and commercial transport, provide comfort for its users, and ideally also be attractive and appealing. Specifically, this means that street space must be suitable for movement on foot and with various modes of transport (bicycle, public local transport, car, truck…), as it also includes areas for delivery operations, staying and resting, urban greenery, and other uses.

The design of street space, including the allocation of areas, is significant for many issues of mobility and accessibility. The relationship between street design and enabling social participation is particularly a matter of distributional justice: Do areas primarily serve modes of transport or purposes accessible only to a portion of the population, or does the street space invite use by everyone?

This question of spatial equity can be assessed using different criteria and must be evaluated and discussed in the context of the specific local situation. At present, the majority of street space is often reserved for motorized traffic, parking, and stopping, which significantly limits other modes of transport and uses. Considering that private motorized individual transport is accessible only to a segment of society, this allocation impairs social participation.

A variety of local initiatives engage in the permanent or at least temporary appropriation of spaces that were previously excessively dedicated to cars (tactical urbanism). Many cities are also pursuing similar measures, such as superblocks, bike lane construction, and the repurposing of parking spaces. At the same time, these activities often encounter strong resistance.

Ultimately, the appropriation of public street spaces for purposes other than motorized traffic is a matter of distributional justice and of enhancing participation, particularly for those population groups that rely most heavily on public space. Competing demands for space must therefore be managed in a way that prevents marginalized groups from being pushed to the periphery (see also the section below on Designing Inclusive Participation Processes).

Social Integration Requires Opportunities for Interaction

Kachel "Soziale Integration braucht Begegnungen" mit einem Menschen-Icon, das mit etwas Abstand zu einer Gruppe von drei Menschen-Icons steht, auf pinkem Untergrund

Social participation is a prerequisite for social integration, which primarily requires personal contacts and interactions (see also the section on Designing Virtual Mobility and Digitalization with Social Awareness).

Public space provides an ideal stage for this. However, today it is heavily shaped by moving and parked motorized traffic. The dominance of private cars must therefore be rebalanced in a way that ensures high-quality spaces for lingering and social interaction Designing Streets Equitably above). In a high-quality public space, encounters with “the other” can be experienced and learned, which, in the best case, contributes to social cohesion. Access to semi-public spaces and their affordable use—such as restaurants, cultural facilities, and sports venues—is also essential for social interaction.

This also applies to rural village centers, many of which have completely lost their functions as spaces for lingering and social interaction due to the centralization of essential services (“bedroom villages,” “transit villages”).

Within cities, green spaces and plazas in neighborhoods of lower-income populations are often insufficient in quantity and poorly equipped in terms of quality. In addition, the residential areas of lower-income households are disproportionately affected by noise and pollutant emissions. For these reasons, it is particularly important that such areas are provided with high-quality open spaces. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that these improvements do not excessively increase housing market pressures (“green gentrification”).

Designing Virtual Mobility and Digitalization with Social Awareness

Kachel "Virtuelle Mobilität sozial gestalten" mit einem Bildschirm-Icon auf dem ein Online-Meeting läuft auf hellgrünem Hintergrund

Virtual mobility offers many people the opportunity to access nearly all products, services, information, and networks without needing to be physically mobile.

For users, virtual mobility provides significant time savings, a much wider range of options, and access to spheres that are difficult or even impossible to reach physically. Virtual communication also allows for the compensation of limited face-to-face contacts, the reorganization of collaborative work and learning processes, the provision of almost all goods for daily and medium-term needs, and the maintenance of social contacts.

However, alongside all these expanded opportunities, virtual mobility also entails serious consequences that have so far received too little attention—even from spatial planning and administration—not least because their full extent and future development remain uncertain. Among these consequences are, for example, increased delivery traffic due to the rise in online orders and returns (the ecological footprint of information and communication technology use) and the accelerated decline of many city centers, sub-centers, and peripheral locations.

While virtual communication can counteract experiences of social isolation and strengthen social cohesion, it also gives rise to networks of individuals who feel overlooked or excluded, particularly in light of growing and diverse societal challenges. These forms of social participation often create “echo chambers” of like-minded individuals, which reinforce internal cohesion while simultaneously emphasizing boundaries toward those outside the network.

The prerequisites for virtual mobility are also unevenly distributed. This concerns both technical aspects (such as network coverage or access to high-performance devices) and the necessary skills (in terms of use, maintenance, and repair) as well as willingness to engage. Compensatory planning is required here, as there is a lack of binding, area-wide minimum standards for virtual mobility that would ensure equivalent living conditions. Education and guidance are also necessary—on the one hand to increase competencies, and on the other to support at-risk groups facing social isolation or addiction problems.

Facilitating Active Mobility

Kachel "Aktive Mobilität erleichtern" mit einem Icon von einem Rollstuhl sowie einem Icon von einer Person die einen Rollator benutzt auf lila Hintergrund

Active mobility essentially includes walking, cycling, and the use of various non-motorized mobility aids (e.g., walkers, strollers, wheelchairs).

These forms of mobility are primarily methods of travel for shorter distances and therefore need to be well integrated with public local transport for longer journeys. On short trips, active mobility can also replace car use, as the time advantages of cars are particularly small over these distances. Important factors include local destinations, dense networks of pathways, and speed limits for motorized traffic. Active mobility entails user participation but also represents a relatively low-cost option for municipalities, especially compared with car use.

The practicality and intensity of use of active mobility, however, are closely linked to the local availability of essential services (see also the section Participation Requires Local Accessibility of Essential Services above). Active mobility is further limited by physical abilities, culturally different perceptions, individual feelings of safety, and the quality and suitability of infrastructure (e.g., bike and pedestrian paths, bicycle parking, lighting, accessibility). Active mobility can enable independent, self-determined movement from youth to old age—but it is not automatically a solution for all people or all spatially relevant needs. Nevertheless, active mobility makes an important contribution to the quality of neighborhoods and is essential for strengthening public space and urban life.

There is still considerable potential to facilitate active mobility—especially in comparison with countries like the Netherlands. In Germany, it has only been taken seriously and financially supported at federal and state levels in recent years. This includes expanding cycling infrastructure as well as establishing pedestrian and bicycle officers in many cities.

Designing Inclusive Participation Processes

Kachel "Beteiligungsverfahren inklusiv gestalten", eine Gruppe von Icons von Personen die verschiedene Merkmale (Frisur, Bart, Kopfbedeckung, Brille) aufweisen vor altrosa Hintergrund

Procedural justice means the equal inclusion of even hard-to-reach population groups in political and administrative decision-making processes, including agenda-setting and problem definition. This is both a normative goal to strengthen democracy as a complement to the representative system and is associated with numerous expected benefits, such as greater acceptance, improved conflict management, and better solutions for the transport transition.

Civil society is increasingly involved through consultation processes. To genuinely contribute to procedural justice, participation beyond legally mandated groups and formats is important. Specific measures for marginalized groups are essential, as they are often underrepresented in decision-making processes—particularly people with low socio-economic status, language barriers, as well as children and adolescents. In mobility planning processes, the perspectives of people with mobility impairments must also be considered.

It is important both to motivate these groups to participate through targeted offers or incentives and to enable them to express their interests and needs. At present, this is still rarely achieved (see Mark, Holec, and Escher, forthcoming 2024).

The transparent inclusion of locally active initiatives and interest groups in planning processes is also part of procedural justice.

Considering different groups first requires awareness within the planning process of their relevance, characteristics, and potential specific needs, followed by identifying appropriate ways to involve them in planning processes. A persona-based approach can be helpful in this regard (see Mark et al., 2023).

The concerns that have been identified and submitted should then be given equal consideration in the further planning process and weighed transparently and meaningfully against other considerations.

Equipping Participation Planning with Quality Data

Kachel "Planung mit guten Daten austatten" ein Icon von einen Blatt Papier mit stilisierter Schrift, eine Lupe hebt ein Warndreieck mit Ausrufezeichen hervor, auf blauem Hintergrund

The scientific study of mobility, accessibility, and social participation is methodologically very diverse. It includes, for example, spatial analysis and visualization using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), statistical evaluation of spatio-temporal accessibility, assessment of settlement structures and transport services based on accessibility, analysis of standardized surveys, and modeling of traffic flows between transport zones.

Concepts and measures can be evaluated using scientific impact analyses. However, a review of the literature reveals a low degree of systematization, a wide variety of methods and objectives, and limited comparability. Data foundations for planning measures primarily include spatial structural data as well as quantitative and qualitative survey data. All data require interpretation and are inherently incomplete in relation to reality.

In everyday practice, working with mobility data in administrations, offices, and research institutions necessarily requires repeated focus on specific aspects—for example, when designing and analyzing travel surveys or applying traffic models (pragmatic delineation of spatial units and simplified sociodemographic descriptions of the population). However, this pragmatic focus can unintentionally create limited perspectives that obscure other issues and group-specific needs (e.g., financial poverty, children’s perspectives, physical impairments).

Similarly, the explanatory power of traffic models is constrained by the need to define their input parameters using a limited set of variables and characteristics. Under these conditions, analyses that appear “objective” no longer adequately reflect reality, yet they are still used to inform decision-making in politics, administration, and business.

In other words, planning methods and decisions are based on imperfect methods and data. With regard to social participation, this challenge must be acknowledged and addressed as effectively as possible.

What Shapes Participation and How It Can Be Changed: A Circular Model

Melanie Herget und Gesa Matthes, Stand: 23.04.2024
https://doi.org/10.60683/5kb5-ky81

Melanie Herget und Gesa Matthes

How Can People’s Capabilities and Actual Behavior Be Represented and Explained in Models?

Many researchers have reflected on this question—after all, models are a widely used foundation for discussion in science. However, scientific models are often developed within a specific research discipline, and broader recognition or even awareness of a model can take a long time—or may never be achieved.

In this context, the inter- and transdisciplinary ARL working group “Mobility, Accessibility, and Social Participation” sought a shared explanatory model of participation that accounts for the influence of individual and spatial structural options while also incorporating the perspectives of all group members.

Read m o re

Contributors to the Dossier

This dossier was developed and compiled by the members of the wo rki ng group Mobilit y , Acc e ss ibi li t y, a nd S o c ial Part i cip a tion:

Christoph Aberle (Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg)
Dr. Annika Busch-Geertsema (Hessisches Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Energie, Verkehr und Wohnen, Wiesbaden)
Prof. Dr. Jens Dangschat (Technische Universität Wien, em.)
Dr.-Ing. Melanie Herget (Universität Kassel)
David Hölzel (Technische Universität Dortmund)
Dr. Martina Hülz (ARL)
Dr. Jessica Le Bris (Green City Experience GmbH, München)
Laura Mark (Universität Düsseldorf)
Dr.-Ing. Gesa Matthes (HafenCity Hamburg GmbH)
Dr. Giulio Mattioli (Technische Universität Dortmund)
Caroline Rozynek (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt)
Prof. Dr. Joachim Scheiner (Technische Universität Dortmund)
Dr. Wladimir Sgibnev (Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, Leipzig)
Dr. Kerstin Stark (Changing Cities, Berlin)

Compilation and Current Version

This dossier was compiled and updated by Annika Mayer, Carolin Pleines and Martina Hülz. Status: 10.06.2024

Academic Contact

Dr. Martina Hülz
martina.huelz@arl-net.de

Thematic Dossier: Mobility, Accessibility, and Social Participation

Mobility and Social Participation in Planning Practice

Mobility and Social Participation in Academia

Further Reading

* Scheiner, Joachim; Hölzel, David; Hülz, Martina; Mattioli, Giulio (2023): Von der Erreichbarkeitsexplosion zur Mobilitätsarmut. Gedanken zum Nexus zwischen Mobilität, Erreichbarkeit und sozialer Teilhabe

* Sommer, C.; Lanzendorf, M.; Engbers, M; Wermuth, T. (2024): Soziale Teilhabe und Mobilität. Grundlagen, Instrumente und Maßnahmen einer integrierten Verkehrs- und Sozialplanung. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42536-4 (mit vier Beiträgen von Caroline Rozynek)

Position Paper

Other

Counteracting Mobility Poverty

Further Reading

* Agora Verkehrswende (2023): Mobilitätsarmut in Deutschland. Diskussionspapier. Berlin. https://www.agora-verkehrswende.de/

Peiseler, Florian; Runkel, Matthias; Kwasniok, Ronja (2022): Mobilitätsarmut: Die soziale Frage der Verkehrspolitik. Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft Policy Brief 8/22. Berlin. https://foes.de/publikationen/2022/2022-08_FOES_Policy-Brief_Mobilitaetsarmut.pdf

* Rozynek, C. (2024): Mobilitätsbezogene Barrieren der sozialen Teilhabe im Kontext finanzieller Armut. Eine empirische Untersuchung von Mobilitätspraktiken am Beispiel von Haushalten mit Kindern und älteren Menschen. Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main. https://doi.org/10.21248/gups.86131

*Stark, K. und Kehlbacher, A. und Mattioli, G. (2023): Mobilitätsarmut und soziale Teilhabe in Deutschland. Projektbericht. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23455.94888 agora-verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2023/Mobilitaetsarmut_Hintergrund/DLR-Agora_Studie_Mobilitaetsarmut.pdf

Integrating Social Participation into the Transport and Mobility Transition

Further Reading

* Dangschat, Jens S. (2019): Gesellschaftlicher Wandel und Mobilitätsverhalten. Die Verkehrswende tut Not! In: Nachrichten der ARL – Mobilität, 49 (1): 8–11. https://www.arl-net.de/system/files/media-shop/pdf/nachrichten/2019-1/nr_1-19_dangschat.pdf.

* Dangschat, Jens S. (2022): Verkehrswende – sozial und räumlich ausgewogen. In: Journal für Mobilität und Verkehr – Soziale Aspekte der Mobilität 14: 2–10. https://journals.qucosa.de/jmv/article/view/87.

* Mark, Laura; Busch-Geertsema, Annika; LeBris, Jessica; Matthes, Gesa; Stark, Kerstin (2023): Ist das gerecht? Eine Bewertungshilfe für lokale Mobilitätsmaßnahmen. In: Internationales Verkehrswesen 75 (4), S. 28–31.

Making Public Local Transport Accessible for Everyone

(1) Public Local Transport Infrastructure

(2) Barriers to Using Public Local Transport – Quality and Affordability

Further Reading

Agora Verkehrswende (2023): Mobilitätsgarantie für Deutschland – Teil I. Ausgangslage und Praxisbeispiele für eine bundesweit garantierte Grundversorgung mit Bus und Bahn. https://www.agora-verkehrswende.de/

Canzler, Weert; Karl, Astrid (2010): Mit der Subjektförderung zur Mobilitätssicherung? In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 7/2010, S. 505-515. https://www.bbsr.bund.de (Langfassung: https://publish.fid-move.qucosa.de)

Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen (FGSV) (2010): Empfehlungen für Planung und Betrieb des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs. https://www.fgsv-verlag.de/

Kębłowski, Wojciech (2020): Why (not) abolish fares? Exploring the global geography of fare-free public transport. In: Transportation 47, S. 2807-2835. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-019-09986-6

* Rozynek, Caroline; Mattioli, Giulio; Aberle, Christoph (2023): Was darf die ÖPNV-Nutzung im Kontext sozialer Teilhabe kosten? Ideen für Indikatoren der ÖPNV-Erschwinglichkeit. Arbeitspapiere zur Mobilitätsforschung Nr. 35. Frankfurt a.M. https://doi.org/10.21248/gups.69034

* Rozynek, C. (2024): Imagine the financial barrier to public transport use disappears. The impact of the 9-Euro-Ticket on the mobility and social participation of low-income households with children. Transport Policy 149, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.02.003

Verband deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV) (2019): Verkehrserschließung, Verkehrsangebot und Netzqualität im ÖPNV, VDV Schrift 4, 01/2019. https://www.beka-verlag.info

Participation Requires Local Accessibility of Essential Services

Further Reading

ARL (2016): Daseinsvorsorge und gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse neu denken. Perspektiven und Handlungsfelder. Positionspapier aus der ARL 108. Hannover. https://www.arl-net.de/system/files/media-shop/pdf/pospaper_108.pdf

* Dangschat, Jens S. (2018): Disparitäten, räumliche. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt‐ und Raumentwicklung. Hannover. S. 425 bis 438. https://www.arl-net.de/system/files/media-shop/pdf/2023-01/Disparit%C3%A4ten%2C%20r%C3%A4umliche.pdf

Designing Streets Equitably

Further Reading

Agora Verkehrswende (2018): Umparken – den öffentlichen Raum gerechter verteilen. Zahlen und Fakten zum Parkraummanagement. Berlin. www.agora-verkehrswende.de/veroeffentlichungen/umparken-den-oeffentlichen-raum-gerechter-verteilen-1-1/

ARL (2023): Just spaces? Fotografische Dokumentationen räumlicher (Un)Gerechtigkeiten. www.arl-net.de/de/justspaces

Horn, Burkhard (2022): Vom Wissen zum Tun. Experimentierräume und Handlungsempfehlungen. Handreichung des Deutschen Städtetags. www.staedtetag.de/publikationen/weitere-publikationen/2022/vom-wissen-zum-tun

Kommunale Initiativen zu Tempo 20 (u.a. Hannover): www.spiegel.de/auto/tempolimit-in-staedten-ist-20-das-neue-30-a-d9bc0829-8935-4910-8522-33dc54bc129f

Stevens, Quentin; Dovey, Kim (2022): Temporary and Tactial Urbanism. (Re-)Assembling Urban Spaces. New York: Routledge.

Tempo 20 in Hannover: www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Politik/B%C3%BCrgerbeteiligung-Engagement/Innenstadtdialog-Hannover/Mobilit%C3%A4tskonzept-Innenstadt/Aktuelle-Meldungen/Stadt-Hannover-legt-Plan-f%C3%BCr-Mobilit%C3%A4tswende-in-der-Innenstadt-vor

Transformation öffentlicher Räume in Österreich – Pilotprojekte: www.transformatorin.at/

Verkehrsberuhigung durch "Superblocks" – Barcelona: www.barcelona.de/de/barcelona-superblocks.html

Zhang, Chen; Du, Bo; Zheng, Zuduo; Shen, Jun (2023): Space sharing between pedestrians and micro-mobility vehicles: A systematic review. In: Transportation Research Part D 116, 103629.

Social Integration Requires Opportunities for Interaction

Further Reading:

Anguelovski, Isabelle; Connolly, James J.T.; Cole, Helen; Garcia-Lamarca, Melissa et al. (2022): Green gentrification in European and North American cities. In: Nature Communications 13, 3816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1.

Gould, Kenneth; Lewis, Tammy (2016): Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. Routledge.

* Hölzel, David J.; Scheiner, Joachim (2022): Mobilität und Segregation in Raum und Zeit: Implikationen für soziale Teilhabe und aktuelle Forschungsfragen. In: Journal für Mobilität und Verkehr (14), 11-17. https://journals.qucosa.de/jmv/issue/view/14

* Rozynek, Caroline; Hölzel, David J. (2022): Mobilität als Voraussetzung für Begegnungen. Ein Beitrag zum Thema soziale Teilhabe. In: Nachrichten der ARL 52 (02-03), 80-82. https://www.arl-net.de/de/shop/nachrichten-der-arl-02-03-2022

Designing Virtual Mobility and Digitalization with Social Awareness

Further Reading

ARL-Nachrichten 2/2018 – Themenheft zur Digitalisierung. https://www.arl-net.de/de/shop/nachrichten-arl-2-2018.html

Duranda, Anne; Zijlstraa, Toon; van Oort, Niels; Hoogendoorn-Lanserban, Sascha; Hoogendoorn, Serge (2022): Access denied? Digital inequality in transport services. In: Transport Reviews 42(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1923584

Knies, Gundi (2013): Neighbourhood social ties: how much do residential, physical and virtual mobility matter? In: The British Journal of Sociology 64(3), 425-452. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.12026

Krasilnikova, Nadezda; Levin-Keitel, Meike (2021): Mobile Arbeit aus sozioräumlicher Perspektive: Co-Working Spaces als Chance für suburbane und ländliche Räume? In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 80(3), 360-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.115

Facilitating Active Mobility

Further Reading

Schmitz, Julian; Fina, Stefan; Gerten, Christian (2023): Wie fußgängerfreundlich sind deutsche Großstädte? Neue Ergebnisse aus der Walkability-Forschung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung im Druck, https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/1664

Designing Inclusive Participation Processes

Further Reading:

* Forschungsprojekt Citizen Involvement in Mobility Transitions: https://www.cimt-hhu.de/

* Mark, Laura; Holec, Katharina; Escher, Tobias: Die Konsultation von Bürger*innen bei Mobilitätsprojekten: Ein Überblick über die kommunale Beteiligungslandschaft in Deutschland. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung. (eingereicht)

* Mark, Laura; Busch-Geertsema, Annika; LeBris, Jessica; Matthes, Gesa; Stark, Kerstin (2023): Ist das gerecht? Eine Bewertungshilfe für lokale Mobilitätsmaßnahmen. In: Internationales Verkehrswesen 75 (4), S. 28–31.

Stein, Thomas; Bauer, Uta (Hrsg.) (2020): Bürgerinnen und Bürger an der Verkehrswende beteiligen. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, https://difu.de/publikationen/2020/buergerinnen-und-buerger-an-der-verkehrswende-beteiligen, zuletzt geprüft am 03.08.2022.

Schneidemesser, Dirk von; Herberg, Jeremias; Stasiak, Dorota (2020): Re-claiming the responsivity gap: The co-creation of cycling policies in Berlin’s mobility law. In: Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 8, S. 100270. DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100270.

Equipping Participation Planning with Quality Data

Further Reading

FGSV (Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen) (2015): Hinweise zu Mobilität und sozialer Exklusion. Köln. Dort Kapitel 3.4 (entspricht nicht mehr vollständig dem aktuellen Stand), https://www.fgsv-verlag.de/h-mobilitat-und-soziale-exklusion

Stanley John; Stanley Janet (2023): Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion. In: Sustainability (Switzerland) 15, 11902. DOI: 10.3390/su151511902, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11902

What Shapes Participation and How It Can Be Changed: A Circular Model

Contributors to the Dossier