Social Sustainability and Smart Mobility : Exploring the ... · to IT- related mobility options and...

Social sustainability and smart mobility : exploring therelationshipCitation for published version (APA):Jeekel, J. F. (2017). Social sustainability and smart mobility : exploring the relationship. In F. Ulengin, K. Li, & M.Boltze (Eds.), World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016 (pp. 4296-4310). (Transportation Research Procedia; Vol. 25). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

Document license:CC BY-NC-ND

DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

Document status and date:Published: 01/01/2017

Document Version:Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can beimportant differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. Peopleinterested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit theDOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and pagenumbers.Link to publication

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:

www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:

[email protected]

providing details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 19. Feb. 2020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/social-sustainability-and-smart-mobility--exploring-the-relationship(76acd3df-4976-472c-8243-00fbd21673a0).html

ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4296–4310

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.254

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

2352-1465


ScienceDirectTransportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000


2214-241X © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016

Social Sustainability and Smart Mobility : Exploring the relationship

Hans Jeekel*

Prof. Dr.J.F.Jeekel

Chair Societal Aspects of Smart Mobility School of Innovation Sciences Eindhoven University of Technology P.O.Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven Netherlands

Abstract

Inthisarticletherelationshipbetweentwobroadconceptswillbeexplored.Thefirstconceptissocialsustainability,aconceptstillindiscussion.Thesecondconceptissmartmobility,anewconcept,relatedtoIT-relatedmobilityoptionsandsolutions. Howsocialsustainableissmartmobility?Thisarticleoffersa clarificationofbothconceptsandof the relationshipsbetween theconcepts.Theconclusion is thatwhethersmartmobilitywillbesocialsustainabledependsontheroutesmartmobilitywill take ;onlyrelatedtocars,andtohighersegmentsofthefleet,orbroader inscopeandmorerelatedtomobilityservices. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

Keywords: socialsustainability,smartmobility,mobilityservices,equity,accessibility,socialcohesion

* Corresponding author. Tel.:0031651551561.

E-mail address: [email protected]







Hans Jeekel*

Prof. Dr.J.F.Jeekel


Abstract





2 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

1. IntroductionThispaperisexplorativebynature.Thefocusisontherelationshipbetweentwobroaderconcepts.Thefirstconcept issocialsustainability. IntheBrundtlandReport(1987)social issueswereconsideredimportant in reaching sustainable development. However, 1987 onwards attention for these socialissues lagged intheprofessionaland intheacademicworldbehindenvironmentalorecological issuesandbehindeconomicissues.Inrecentyears,moreattentionisgiventosocialsustainability.The second concept, smartmobility, is newer. Smartmobility, often used in conjunction with smartcities, is still a rather undefined concept. The concept presents the connotation of a more activeorientation to mobility problems and solutions than its “elder brother”, sustainable mobility, thusyieldingenthusiasminbusinesscirclesandwithgovernments.

2. MethodologyHowsocialsustainableissmartmobility?Theaimofthispaperistoexploresomefirstanswersonthisquestion. Theexistingliteratureonsocialsustainabilitywillbeassessedin3.Thefocusisonconceptsbeingused.In4.Iwillelaborateonthewayssocialsustainabilityisoperationalisedinstudyingthebuiltenvironmentandmobility.Part5presents thedomainsof smartmobility,a concept still inneedofascope. A first scope will be presented related to an article of Papa and Lauwers (2015), but mostlyrelated to the study of websites of 14 organisations active in the field of smart mobility. In 6. therelationshipsbetweenthe themesofsocial sustainablemobilityandthedimensionsof smartmobilitywill be explored. This exploration is a first exercise in this field, and can be considered intuitive incharacter.

3. SocialSustainability3.1 TheBrundtlandReportFourmaindimensionsofsustainabledevelopmentcanbederivedfromtheBrundtlandReport (1987).Sustainable development as explained in this report is about safeguarding long-term ecologicalsustainability, is about satisfying basic human needs, and is about promoting intra-generational andintergenerational equity [3]. In these four dimensions the social element is clearly represented, viasatisfyingbasichumanneeds,andviapromotingintra-generationalequity.ThecoreofargumentintheBrundtland report is thatwithout satisfying the basic human needs there can be no sustainability ofearthresources.Thisargumenthasaratherstronghumandevelopmentanddevelopingcountries-bias,as in most developed countries most basic human needs (e.g. food, housing, employment, humanrights)aregenerallymet.Notallbasicneedsaremet forallhouseholds inwesternsocieties,and theBrundtlandReportof theWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopmentWCEDalsopresentsanequityperspective.Intra-generational equity should be promoted, at aworld level, but also at lower geographical scales. TheBrundtland report offers a social agenda, with good communities, human rights, and equity ascornerstones.

Hans Jeekel / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4296–4310 4297







Hans Jeekel*

Prof. Dr.J.F.Jeekel


Abstract











Hans Jeekel*

Prof. Dr.J.F.Jeekel


Abstract






1. IntroductionThispaperisexplorativebynature.Thefocusisontherelationshipbetweentwobroaderconcepts.Thefirstconcept issocialsustainability. IntheBrundtlandReport(1987)social issueswereconsideredimportant in reaching sustainable development. However, 1987 onwards attention for these socialissues lagged intheprofessionaland intheacademicworldbehindenvironmentalorecological issuesandbehindeconomicissues.Inrecentyears,moreattentionisgiventosocialsustainability.The second concept, smartmobility, is newer. Smartmobility, often used in conjunction with smartcities, is still a rather undefined concept. The concept presents the connotation of a more activeorientation to mobility problems and solutions than its “elder brother”, sustainable mobility, thusyieldingenthusiasminbusinesscirclesandwithgovernments.

2. MethodologyHowsocialsustainableissmartmobility?Theaimofthispaperistoexploresomefirstanswersonthisquestion. Theexistingliteratureonsocialsustainabilitywillbeassessedin3.Thefocusisonconceptsbeingused.In4.Iwillelaborateonthewayssocialsustainabilityisoperationalisedinstudyingthebuiltenvironmentandmobility.Part5presents thedomainsof smartmobility,a concept still inneedofascope. A first scope will be presented related to an article of Papa and Lauwers (2015), but mostlyrelated to the study of websites of 14 organisations active in the field of smart mobility. In 6. therelationshipsbetweenthe themesofsocial sustainablemobilityandthedimensionsofsmartmobilitywill be explored. This exploration is a first exercise in this field, and can be considered intuitive incharacter.

3. SocialSustainability3.1 TheBrundtlandReportFourmaindimensionsofsustainabledevelopmentcanbederivedfromtheBrundtlandReport (1987).Sustainable development as explained in this report is about safeguarding long-term ecologicalsustainability, is about satisfying basic human needs, and is about promoting intra-generational andintergenerational equity [3]. In these four dimensions the social element is clearly represented, viasatisfyingbasichumanneeds,andviapromotingintra-generationalequity.ThecoreofargumentintheBrundtland report is thatwithout satisfying the basic human needs there can be no sustainability ofearthresources.Thisargumenthasaratherstronghumandevelopmentanddevelopingcountries-bias,as in most developed countries most basic human needs (e.g. food, housing, employment, humanrights)aregenerallymet.Notallbasicneedsaremet forallhouseholds inwesternsocieties,and theBrundtlandReportof theWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopmentWCEDalsopresentsanequityperspective.Intra-generational equity should be promoted, at aworld level, but also at lower geographical scales. TheBrundtland report offers a social agenda, with good communities, human rights, and equity ascornerstones.

4298 Hans Jeekel / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4296–4310 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

AsMagisandShinn(2009)write,withinthesustainabilitycommunityisnowcommonlyacceptedthatinequityisamaincauseofenvironmentaldamage[4].Sustainabilityrequiresaconcertedfocusontheeradicationofinequalities.ToquotetheBrundtlandReport:“Physicalsustainabilitycannotbesecuredunlessdevelopmentpoliciespayattentiontosuchconsiderationsaschangesinaccesstoresourcesandinthedistributionofcostsandbenefits.”[5]Thisleadstoafurthernotion;democracy,astheformofgovernmentdeliveringthesecircumstances,isneeded,andeveninvaluabletosustainabledevelopment.Thisbroadensthesocialagendatogovernanceandparticipation.3.2 Threepillarsoronepillar?Operationalising the social agenda from the Brundtland Report has proven to be difficult. In acomprehensivestudyLittigandGiessler(2005)trytoclarifythisdifficulty.Theyintroducetheconcepts“onepillarmodel”and“threepillarmodel”.[6]The “ one pillarmodel” gives priority to the ecological dimension. Social aspects, but also economicaspectsarehelpful, inso faras theyhelp reachingsustainableecologicalcircumstancesworldwide. Inthesocialdomain,toreachthisobjective,moreequityworldwideisneeded,provisionofhumanrightsis neededover the globe, and amore environmentally friendlyway of life should be supported. This“onepillar–model”,with importanttasksforthesocial(andalsofortheeconomic) domain,seemeddominantintheearlieryearsofsustainabledevelopment.However,since2000,atan international level thesustainabilitydiscoursestartedtoconcentrateona“three pillar model”. In this model sustainable development should equally try to reach ecological,economic and social goals. As Littig andGiesslerwrite ; “…although themetaphor of the three pillarmodel iscertainlyawelcomecontributiontoapurelyecologicaldefinitionofsustainability, itcanalsobecriticisedinsomepoints”[7].Thefirstcriticismtothis“threepillarmodel”,alsonotedbyotherauthors[8]couldbethatacompletesocial agenda isbeing introducedwith thispillarization,withabroad focusoncreatinghuman rights,goodgovernanceworldwide,employment,health,equitywithinandbetweengenerations,anagendano longer related to ecological objectives. As an example, Mc Kenzie (2004) presents such a broaddefinitionofsocialsustainability:“socialsustainabilityoccurswhentheformalandinformalprocessesand structures support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy, liveablecommunities” [9] that it becomes difficult to understand where the relation with ecology andenvironmentshouldbesituated,andwhethertheconceptofsocialsustainabilityisnotmovingintothefieldofdesirabilityinsteadofthefieldofsustainability[10].Thesecondcriticismextendsthis.ToquoteLittigandGiesslerwhentheyaddresstheissueofprioritiesintheequilibriumbetweenthepillars;“infact,themuchhailed“win-win”constellationsofsustainabledevelopmentoftenjustprovideforecologicalandeconomicobjectives,buthardlyeverforsocialgains.Themainreasonsforthisunequaltreatmentofthethreepillarsare…thefactthatsuchequalitydoesnotexist in the realworld, thateconomicargumentsoften tend tobemore convincing, and that theequalrankingofprioritiesisrarelyanissueinthepoliticalcontext.”[11]


The third criticism is that in conceptualising social sustainability the difference between an analyticalconceptandanormativeconceptshouldbetakenintoaccount.Arewestilltalkingaboutananalyticalconcept,relatedtoreachingsustainability,orarewemovingintotheworldsofethicsandpolitics?Bostrom brings in another perspective [12]. He notes that the social sector and the environmentalsectorhaveverydistinctandseparatetraditionsandareonlyinrecentyearsstartingtolearntoknoweachother.Asthesedifferentsectorsexist,withdifferenttraditionsanddifferentpolicystyles,bringingthesocialaspectsintotheenvironmentalsectorandtheenvironmentalaspectsintothesocialsectorisnotveryeasy.3.3 Issustainabilityausefulvehicleforresearchingsocialaspectsrelatedtoenvironment?Is sustainable development a useful concept for social scientists, a useful concept for betterunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweensocietyandnature? Bostrom (2012)bringsthisquestionupandconcludesthatsocialsustainabilityisnotthebestconceptforstudyingallthecomplexitiesinthesocial–environmentrelationship,butacceptsthattheconcepthasapotentialasaframetoassistandtoimprovesustainabilityprojects[13].Theotherwayaround,muchof theworkdone in thesocialpillardoesnotplaceverymuch focusonenvironmental links (Murphy 2012,20) Rather broad definitions are used, for example by McKenzie(2004).Most important issues fromsuch broaddefinitionsseemtobepoverty,capacitybuildingandequitablewealthgeneration.All three themes couldbe related toecologyandenvironmentbutalso,andprobablymoreappropriate,tosocialwelfare,healthandeducationpolicies.3.4 FourorientationsonsocialsustainabilityVallance, Perkins and Dixon presented in 2011 a broader perspective under the titleWhat is socialsustainability ? A clarification of concepts. Three different social sustainability orientations werepresented.Iwouldliketoaddafourthone.Thefirstorientationis“developmentsocialsustainability”.ThisformofsustainabilityrelatesdirectlytotheBrundtlandReport.Thedefinitionmostquotedfromthisreportwas:“sustainabledevelopmentisdevelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations tomeet their own needs ”[14] . Behind this definition, as we have seen in 3.1, a socialagenda was sketched, related to emancipating households and families especially in the developingcountries. TheWCEDwas in this respect a frontrunner for themodern development paradigm, thatreached formandshape in theMillenniumobjectives. Social sustainability is in thisorientationaboutsocial development, better distribution of power, better housing, better education, more freedom,more equityworldwide. As Vallance et.al state (2011,343), however, “this raises questions about theextenttowhichsustainabilitymightbeconsideredrelevanttothoselivingintheso-called“FirstWorld”.Thesecondorientationis“bridgesocialsustainability”.Inthisformofsocialsustainabilitythefocusisoncreatinglifestylesandcircumstancesthatmakeitpossibleforsustainabilitytoflourishandtoblossom.The focus is on eco- friendly behaviour, on environmental ethics, on transforming the relations of

Hans Jeekel / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 4296–4310 4299 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

AsMagisandShinn(2009)write,withinthesustainabilitycommunityisnowcommonlyacceptedthatinequityisamaincauseofenvironmentaldamage[4].Sustainabilityrequiresaconcertedfocusontheeradicationofinequalities.ToquotetheBrundtlandReport:“Physicalsustainabilitycannotbesecuredunlessdevelopmentpoliciespayattentiontosuchconsiderationsaschangesinaccesstoresourcesandinthedistributionofcostsandbenefits.”[5]Thisleadstoafurthernotion;democracy,astheformofgovernmentdeliveringthesecircumstances,isneeded,andeveninvaluabletosustainabledevelopment.Thisbroadensthesocialagendatogovernanceandparticipation.3.2 Threepillarsoronepillar?Operationalising the social agenda from the Brundtland Report has proven to be difficult. In acomprehensivestudyLittigandGiessler(2005)trytoclarifythisdifficulty.Theyintroducetheconcepts“onepillarmodel”and“threepillarmodel”.[6]The “ one pillarmodel” gives priority to the ecological dimension. Social aspects, but also economicaspectsarehelpful, inso faras theyhelp reachingsustainableecologicalcircumstancesworldwide. Inthesocialdomain,toreachthisobjective,moreequityworldwideisneeded,provisionofhumanrightsis neededover the globe, and amore environmentally friendlyway of life should be supported. This“onepillar–model”,with importanttasksforthesocial(andalsofortheeconomic) domain,seemeddominantintheearlieryearsofsustainabledevelopment.However,since2000,atan international level thesustainabilitydiscoursestartedtoconcentrateona“three pillar model”. In this model sustainable development should equally try to reach ecological,economic and social goals. As Littig andGiesslerwrite ; “…although themetaphor of the three pillarmodel iscertainlyawelcomecontributiontoapurelyecologicaldefinitionofsustainability, itcanalsobecriticisedinsomepoints”[7].Thefirstcriticismtothis“threepillarmodel”,alsonotedbyotherauthors[8]couldbethatacompletesocial agenda isbeing introducedwith thispillarization,withabroad focusoncreatinghuman rights,goodgovernanceworldwide,employment,health,equitywithinandbetweengenerations,anagendano longer related to ecological objectives. As an example, Mc Kenzie (2004) presents such a broaddefinitionofsocialsustainability:“socialsustainabilityoccurswhentheformalandinformalprocessesand structures support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy, liveablecommunities” [9] that it becomes difficult to understand where the relation with ecology andenvironmentshouldbesituated,andwhethertheconceptofsocialsustainabilityisnotmovingintothefieldofdesirabilityinsteadofthefieldofsustainability[10].Thesecondcriticismextendsthis.ToquoteLittigandGiesslerwhentheyaddresstheissueofprioritiesintheequilibriumbetweenthepillars;“infact,themuchhailed“win-win”constellationsofsustainabledevelopmentoftenjustprovideforecologicalandeconomicobjectives,buthardlyeverforsocialgains.Themainreasonsforthisunequaltreatmentofthethreepillarsare…thefactthatsuchequalitydoesnotexist in the realworld, thateconomicargumentsoften tend tobemore convincing, and that theequalrankingofprioritiesisrarelyanissueinthepoliticalcontext.”[11]


The third criticism is that in conceptualising social sustainability the difference between an analyticalconceptandanormativeconceptshouldbetakenintoaccount.Arewestilltalkingaboutananalyticalconcept,relatedtoreachingsustainability,orarewemovingintotheworldsofethicsandpolitics?Bostrom brings in another perspective [12]. He notes that the social sector and the environmentalsectorhaveverydistinctandseparatetraditionsandareonlyinrecentyearsstartingtolearntoknoweachother.Asthesedifferentsectorsexist,withdifferenttraditionsanddifferentpolicystyles,bringingthesocialaspectsintotheenvironmentalsectorandtheenvironmentalaspectsintothesocialsectorisnotveryeasy.3.3 Issustainabilityausefulvehicleforresearchingsocialaspectsrelatedtoenvironment?Is sustainable development a useful concept for social scientists, a useful concept for betterunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweensocietyandnature? Bostrom (2012)bringsthisquestionupandconcludesthatsocialsustainabilityisnotthebestconceptforstudyingallthecomplexitiesinthesocial–environmentrelationship,butacceptsthattheconcepthasapotentialasaframetoassistandtoimprovesustainabilityprojects[13].Theotherwayaround,muchof theworkdone in thesocialpillardoesnotplaceverymuch focusonenvironmental links (Murphy 2012,20) Rather broad definitions are used, for example by McKenzie(2004).Most important issues fromsuch broaddefinitionsseemtobepoverty,capacitybuildingandequitablewealthgeneration.All three themes couldbe related toecologyandenvironmentbutalso,andprobablymoreappropriate,tosocialwelfare,healthandeducationpolicies.3.4 FourorientationsonsocialsustainabilityVallance, Perkins and Dixon presented in 2011 a broader perspective under the titleWhat is socialsustainability ? A clarification of concepts. Three different social sustainability orientations werepresented.Iwouldliketoaddafourthone.Thefirstorientationis“developmentsocialsustainability”.ThisformofsustainabilityrelatesdirectlytotheBrundtlandReport.Thedefinitionmostquotedfromthisreportwas:“sustainabledevelopmentisdevelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations tomeet their own needs ”[14] . Behind this definition, as we have seen in 3.1, a socialagenda was sketched, related to emancipating households and families especially in the developingcountries. TheWCEDwas in this respect a frontrunner for themodern development paradigm, thatreached formandshape in theMillenniumobjectives. Social sustainability is in thisorientationaboutsocial development, better distribution of power, better housing, better education, more freedom,more equityworldwide. As Vallance et.al state (2011,343), however, “this raises questions about theextenttowhichsustainabilitymightbeconsideredrelevanttothoselivingintheso-called“FirstWorld”.Thesecondorientationis“bridgesocialsustainability”.Inthisformofsocialsustainabilitythefocusisoncreatinglifestylesandcircumstancesthatmakeitpossibleforsustainabilitytoflourishandtoblossom.The focus is on eco- friendly behaviour, on environmental ethics, on transforming the relations of


modernhouseholdswiththeenvironment.Thereisanon-transformativepartinthisorientation,withafocusontechnologyandIT-solutions,aswellasamoretransformativepart,focussingonlow-energylifestyles,withoutacar–lifestyles,orzero–emissionneighbourhoods.Thethirdorientation is“maintenancesocial sustainability”.Here the focus isonpractices thatpeoplewouldliketoseemaintained.Itgoesfromindigenousrightsfortheaboriginals,tomaintainingexistinglifestyles that most households in the developed world would like to continue. Remaining andmaintaining existing experienced high qualities of life is the orientation. A central concept in thisorientation is“socialacceptance”; lotsofnewvisionsand insightscanbeproposed,butacceptance isneeded. In this orientation also fits the idea to bring environmental objectives, social objectives andeconomicobjectivesonthesamelevel,inbalanceinthreepillars,thusrestructuringtheoriginaldebateonsustainabledevelopmentfromtheBrundlandtreport.Looking at the literature, I note a fourth orientation: the “social sustainability sensu stricto”. In thisorientationtheemancipationofthesocialdomainisthecoreissue,withoutmuchconnectiontootherformsofsustainability.Socialsustainabilityinthisorientationisseenascreatingcircumstancesofsocialjustice,fairness,equityandcohesion,facilitatingthatworkingandthrivingcommunitiescanbecreatedandsustained.AsCuthill (2009)claims ;“socialsustainability isaboutsocial justiceandequity (ontheethicallevel),onsocialinfrastructure(ontheoperationallevel)andonsocialcapital(onthetheoreticallevel)‘[15].Withsuchadescriptionthewholesocialdomainofmodernpoliciesinthedevelopedworldisincluded,butwemovedratherfarawayfromenvironmentandecology.3.5 Stateoftheartonsocialsustainability.Wheredoesthisleaveus?Socialsustainabilityisstillacontestedconcept,atleastatthegenericlevelasdiscussedhere.AsVallanceet.alwrite;“themanyandvariedcontributionshaveledtoadegreeofconceptual chaos” [16] which, in their eyes , did compromise the utility of the concept. Colantonio(2007)on this theme ; “anoverviewof themain interpretationsof social sustainability illustratehowdifferentworldviewsamongstsocialscientistshavethusfarpreventedanunequivocalandwidespreadacceptanceofthethemesattheheartofthisnotion.”[17].AndLittigandGiesslerconcludethatacleartheoreticalconceptofsocialsustainabilityisstillmissing[18].Probablyaplatformfordialoguewouldhelp,atleastonthisgenericlevel.Themostimportantissuestosolveinsuchadialogue,and,hence,mostimportantthemestoraiseseemtobe;- Should the concept of social sustainability be supportive to the core objective of reaching

environmentalorecologicalsustainability,orissocialsustainabilitysomethingtostriveforinitsownright?

- Should the concept of social sustainability primarily be used in the original developmentalcontext, eventually broadened to the bridge orientation, or is a further moving towards themaintenanceorientationacceptable?

My orientation would be ; social sustainability should be supportive to reaching environmental andecologicalsustainability,andthetermshouldprimarilybeusedinthedevelopmentalcontext,andinthebridgeorientation.ThismeansthatIwouldnotframetheconceptinthemaintenanceorientation,andthat Idonotsupportthe ideaoffullbalanceofthethreepillars,andthusnotthesocialsustainability


sensustricto–orientation.Organisinganopendialogueontheconceptseemsratherurgent,otherwisetheconceptofsocialsustainabilityremainsblurredandambivalentonagenericlevel.

4. SocialsustainabilityinbuiltenvironmentandmobilityOnagenericleveltheconceptofsocialsustainabilityseemsdifficulttodefine,letalonetoquantify.But,as Bostrom assessed : “the concept has potential as a frame to assist and to improve sustainabilityprojects.” [19]Onamoresectoral level theconceptcaneasierbeoperationalizedthanat thegenericlevel.Inthisparagraphtheuseofsocialsustainabilityintwosectorswillbeexplored.Thefirstistheuseofsocialsustainabilityinthebuiltenvironment,andmorespecific,incitiesandurbanareas(4.1).Usingsocial sustainability here creates an appropriate bridge for the use of social sustainability related tomobilityandtransport(4.2).4.1 Socialsustainabilityandthebuiltenvironment.In the years after the Brundtland Report (1987) the role of cities and urban areas in sustainabledevelopment has become more prominent. Megacities did develop, and now the majority of thesecities,containingmorethan10million inhabitants,canbefoundinthedevelopingworld. In2008,forthe first time,more than 50% of theworld populationwere urban dwellers, and this will lead to aprojectionofalmost70%urbandwellers in2030.Especially in thedevelopingworld, there isagreatchallenge to reach sustainability in cities. However, Dempsey et. Al (2009) note that “despite theanthropocentric focus of the definition of sustainability (Hopwood et.al, 2005) surprisingly littleattentionhasbeengiventothedefinitionofsustainabilityinbuiltenvironmentdisciplines”[20]Dempseyet.al (2009) tried in twoarticles (alsoBramleyet.al, 2006) todefinewhat constitutesurbansocial sustainability.Their focuswasmoreonthedevelopedworld, thanonadevelopmentalcontext.However, with their somewhat smaller focus, not looking at reaching sustainable development in itsbroadestsense,butmoresectoral,theirresearchcreatesanimportantbridgetowardsoperationalisingsocialsustainabilityintransportandmobility.Theauthorsstartwithalistof“factors”tobeconsideredinunderstandingurbansocialsustainability,builtopfromaliteratureresearch[21].Table1Listoffactorstobeconsideredinurbansocialsustainability


This listoffactors isstillratherbroad,buttheauthorsseetwounderlyingconcepts,socialequity,andsustainabilityofcommunity.SocialequitygoesbacktotheBrundtlandReport,andrelatestointra-generationalequity,andpartlytobasic needs. Bringing the geographical dimension in, social inequity leads to areas of deprivation incities,withpoorerlivingenvironmentsandreducedaccesstoarangeofservices(ofwhichtheauthorsdefinekeylocalservices[22].Sustainabilityofcommunityisaconceptbasedonsocialinclusionandonsocialcapital.Thisconceptisintheirviewtheumbrellaforfivedimensions;socialinteraction,participation,communitystability,prideandsenseofplace,andsafetyandsecurity.Sustainabilityofcommunity isbasicallyabout functioningcitynetworksonallgeographicallevels.With these two concepts; “social equity” and “sustainability of communities” the relation with theoverallobjectiveofsustainabledevelopmentcanbemade,andindicatorscouldbefound.Weseemtoleavetherathernebulousworldofsocialsustainabilityatthegenericlevel!4.2 SocialsustainabilityinmobilityandtransportIn the academicworld sustainablemobility is a core concept among transport researchers.However,thereis,asHolden,LinnerudandBanister(2013)write:“…asofyetnopoliticalorscientificagreementon the definition of sustainable passenger transport “ [23]. Holden, Linnerud and Banister seesustainable transport “to include every aspect of transport, which is socially desirable, but it alsotherefore risksbecomingmeaningless” [24].Theypropose to return to theBrundtlandReport,and tostart by using the Brundtland - objectives. Out of these objectives they develop the concept of the“sustainabletransportspace”.Thatspacecanbedefinedinfourdimensions;- Impactsoftransportactivitiesmustnotthreatenlong-termecologicalsustainability


- Basictransportneedsshouldbesatisfied- Intra-generationaltransportequityshouldbepromoted- Intergenerationaltransportequityshouldbepromoted

Social sustainability is mostly related to the second and third dimension. In the second dimensionaffordability ofmobility is a core issue. In the third dimension transport equitymeans that access totransport should not vary systematically across population groups. Accessibility is here the essentialissue.WhereasHolden, LinnerudandBanister (2013) focusonsustainablemobilityonaworld scale,Bergeret.al(2014)focusinSustainableMobility–ChallengesforaComplexTransitiononasomewhatsmallerscale. They note that the now existing mobility system in the developed world is unsustainable, asmobility leads to pollution, creates safety problems and takes a big share of the world’s energyresources.ThecurrentmobilitysysteminWesterncountriesisdominatedbythecarandbythesocio-technological “regime of automobility ” [25]. This system now expands over the globe. It will bedifficulttochangethemobilitysystemas(Bergeret.al,2014):“thetechnicalaspectsofthetransportsystem(vehicles,infrastructures,etc.),theorganizationalmodels(e.g.individualcarownership,carandbikesharing,andticketingschemes),theregulatoryframework,theuserhabits,etc.areallco-evolving.These interactive dynamics create path dependencies which make it difficult to alter the overalldirection of the development. Making the mobility system sustainable would require a long-termtransition where technical and non-technical developments align in mutually reinforcing processes.”[26]The transition they propose contains three lines ; people can travelmore efficiently, they can traveldifferently,andtheycantravelless[27].Allthreelinescouldpresentinnovations,however;“travel, inparticular everyday travel, is embedded inbroader routines and thathelppeopleorganise their dailylives“[28].Thismeansthatreachingsocialsustainabilityinmobilityneedstobreakwiththeseroutinesandhabits.Smith, Axon and Darton (2013) developed a methodology for measuring the sustainability of carsystems.Using the “ threepillar – scheme” theypresent sixmain themes [29] provisionofmobility,accesstomobility,mobilityservicequality,health,safety,andworkforceconditions.Astheformerthreearealreadyfamiliar,thelatterthreeaskforsomeclarification.Healthandsafetycanbeseenasthemesrelatedtobasicneeds,andfit inthesocialdomain.Specificattentiontotheworkforceinthemobilitysector can also be related (with some distance) to these basic needs, in terms of realising andmaintainingemploymentandappropriateworkingconditions.The European Commission commissioned the SUMMA (SUstainable Mobility, policy Measures andAssessment) -project, as part of its Programme on Competitive and Sustainable Growth. One of theobjectivesofthisprojectwastooperationalizetheconceptofsustainablemobility.Walkeret.al(2006)presentedtheresultsofthisSUMMAproject[30].Workingfromthethreepillars–scheme,forsocialoutcomes seven outcomes of interest are defined ; accessibility and affordability (here seen as oneoutcome), safety and security, health, liveability and amenity, equity, social cohesion and workingconditions.


Fromthesecorearticlesonstructuringsustainabilitymobilityagreaterconvergenceonrelevantthemesof social sustainability arises than from the generic perspective. Also a convergence with the builtenvironmentsectorcanbenoticed.Toconcludeseventhemestooperationalizesocialsustainabilityinmobilityarise;- affordabilityofmobility(shareofhouseholdnetincome),- accessibilityofkeyservices,- socialequity,meaningequalentrancetomobility,- healthconditionsforhouseholds(airquality,noise,amenities),- safetyandsecurity,- socialcohesion(relatedtothe“sustainabilityofcommunities”-themeinthebuiltenvironment

sector)- workingconditionsinthemobilitysector

Theseseventhemes†willbecentralinparagraph5,whereafirstassessmentonthesocialsustainabilityofsmartmobilitywillbepresented.

5. SmartMobilitySmartmobility is a newer concept inmobility that did attract attention in the last decade, especiallyfrom enterprises and governments. However, as yet this concept has not completely reached theacademic world, as there are only very few hits on Scopus and Google Scholar‡relating to smartmobility.Theacademicworldstillconcentrates itsresearchundertheheadingofsustainablemobility,whereas at the Internet the former focuson sustainablemobility is being replaced rather fastby themoreactivelookingconceptofsmartmobility.Butwhatcanbeconsideredthescopeofsmartmobility?Awebsearchvisiting14sites§givesabasicorientationon the contentof this concept. From thewebsitesof the TechnicalUniversity Eindhoven,

† I left “liveability and amenity” out of this list. This concept is not focussed enough. The concept is for itssocialaspectsincludedinsocialcohesion,andisfurtheramorespatialorientedconcept.

‡ In the academic search engines Scopus and Google Scholar (accessed 5-8-2015) I searched for “SmartMobility”,resultinginonlyafewhitsinGoogleScholar(mostlyrelatedtoITSthemes)andsomewhatmoreinScopus(mostlyrelatedtoSmartCities).

§ I searched on Internet for the ways different organisations and platforms introduced smart mobility. Iaccessedallwebsiteson5-8-2015.Thereferences;EindhovenUniversityofTechnology;,InterTrafficAmsterdam,http://www.intertraffic.com/intertraffic-amsterdam/smart-mobility/pages/default.aspx,TheAutomotivePlatformoftheNetherlands,http://www.automotivenl.com/nl/topics/smart-mobility,CityofAmsterdam,http://amsterdamsmartcity.com/projects/theme/label/smart-mobility?lang=nlFord,https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/06/ford-at-ces-announces-smart-mobility-plan.html,Toyotahttp://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/intelligent_transport_systems/mobility/,TASSInternationalhttps://www.tassinternational.com/safe-green-smart,theWorldBankhttp://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/smart-mobility-it-time-re-think-urban-mobility


Inter Traffic Amsterdam, The Automotive Platform of the Netherlands, the City of Amsterdam, Ford,Toyota,TASSInternational,theWorldBank,Civitas,FrauenhoferInstitute,DAS,KTHUniversitySweden,andTRB(TransportResearchBoardUSA)thefollowingcontentforsmartmobilityarises.- Smart mobility is about vehicle technology. Work is being done on new types of vehicles

poweredbyalternativefuels,onelectricmobility,onoptimisingpowertrains,onreachingnewlevels in car safety, on vehicle fuel efficiency, on autonomous driving, on vehicle dynamicscontrol,andbroaderonincarsystemshelpingdrivers.

- Smartmobility is about ITS, Intelligent Transport Systems.Work is being done on connected

cars,oncooperativeadaptivecruisecontrol,onintelligenttrafficmanagement,onplatooningoftrucks.

- Smart mobility is about data. Work is being done on real – time passengers and travellers

information, on personalized travel assistance, on logistics planning, on IT- systemsmatchingsupply and demand for mobility, on big data solutions, often in relation to smart citydevelopments,onsecurityarchitecturesforgeneratedtrafficdata.

- Smart mobility is about new mobility services. Work is being done on optimal utilisation of

existing vehicle and truck capacity, on ridesharing, on car sharing, onnewbiking systems, onintegration of mobility modes, on using smartphones for facilitating mobility demand andticketing, on on- demand ride services, on the use of individual cars as public transport andbroader;onindividualsolutionsintegratedindynamictransportcontrolsystems.

Thesefourdimensions–vehicletechnology,ITS,data,newmobilityservices–definethescopeofsmartmobility. Smart mobility is user- oriented, technology oriented, mostly car- oriented, IT- oriented,developedworld-oriented.And,quiteimportant,smartmobilityisaction-oriented.Probablyheretheattractionofsmartmobility forgovernmentsandenterprisesshouldbesituated.Whereassustainablemobility is relatedtotransitionmanagement, toresearch, toreachingprogress incoordinatingeffortsbetween three pillars, all with a connotation of long term strategies, with not easy to reach results,smartmobilitycomes inwithsmaller,trialanderrorrelated,newactivities.Sustainablemobility looksfundamental,smartmobilitylookspragmatic.Smartmobilitycouldbeconsideredthecleverandactivesmallbrotherofsustainablemobility.Inoneof the fewacademicarticlesdirectly relatedtosmartmobility ;SmartMobility:OpportunityorThreattoInnovatePlacesandCities(2015),PapaandLauwersalsotrytopositionsmartmobility.Theirperspective is that ; “smart mobility is sometimes used as an evocative slogan, lacking some

Civitashttp://www.civitas-initiative.eu/content/smart-mobility-city-awardFrauenhoferInstitutehttps://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/en/fokus/smart_mobility,DAShttps://das.fbk.eu/smart-mobilityKTHUniversitySwedenhttps://www.kth.se/en/ees/forskning/strategiska-forskningsomraden/intelligenta-transportsystem/smart-mobility-lab-1.415239TRB(TransportResearchBoardUSA)http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1324148


fundamental connectionwithother central aspectsofmobilityplanningandgovernance. “Theynotethe other forms of mobility planning ; conventional mobility, with essentially a focus on speed,convenienceandaffordability,andwitha“predictandprovide”-attitude,sustainablemobility,withabroad andmultimodal system , and the “city as a place”- approachwheremobility should fit in thecreationofattractive,liveableandefficientcommunities.Inascheme:Scheme 1 Connections between different mobility approaches [31]

PapaandLauwersaresearchingfortherelationsbetweensmartmobilityandthesethreeotherformsofmobilityplanning,andhavetoconcludethatsmartmobilityisinmanycasesnotrelatedtothemorecomprehensiveobjectivesofsustainablemobilityandqualityofcitylife.Theyalsonoteasplitinsmartmobility,withatechno-centricpart,relatedtothesupplyofmobility,withitscoreinvehicletechnologyandITS,andconsumer-centricpart,relatedtothedemandformobility,withitsincoreindataandnewmobility services. The state of art, my conclusion, is that smart mobility, needs to broaden itsapproaches towards sustainablemobility and towards smart city and city as a place- approaches, tobecomeanactiveandcomprehensivestrategyhelpingtoreachsustainabledevelopment.

6. ExploringtherelationshipbetweensocialsustainabilityandsmartmobilityIn this paragraph a first answer on the question “is smart mobility socially sustainable ? “ will bepresented.We will confront the four dimensions of smart mobility, introduced in 5. with the seventhemesofsociallysustainabilityrelatedtomobilityintroducedin4.Thisisdoneinaratherintuitiveway,basedonexperienceandprofessionaljudgments.Vehicle technology in smartmobility is helpful in reaching greater fuel efficiency, in reaching greatersafety in cars, and thus can be considered positive on health and safety.With a strong focus of thisvehicletechnologyonIT,thereisapotentialproblemwithsecurity;carsworkingas“Ipadsonwheels”canbehacked.Mostworkinvehicletechnologyisdirectedtocarsbelongingtothehighestsegments,as


new technologies are still rather expensive. Poorer households cannot afford these newesttechnologies, so a temporary split can arise between smart cars and non- smart cars, along incomedividinglines.Poorerhouseholdswillnotreachanearlyentrancetothemostadvancedcars.Advancing on ITS brings other issues. Connected cars and truck platoons create a possibility tomaketrafficmorecohesiveandmorecoordinated. Itwillno longerbeacomplete“freeforall”..Connectedcars are supposed tobe safer. Security is probably a greaterproblem than in theVehicle Technologydimension. First complaints on working conditions for truck drivers in platoons can be heard (lessalertness,noappropriatetasksanymore).Alsohereproblemswithaffordabilityandsocialequitycouldbe noted, as the actual situation with driving assistance systems, with adaptive cruise control, andcertainlywithcooperativecruisecontrolisthatonlythehighestcarsegmentshavethesetechnologies,witharatherslow“tricklingdown”-effect(Planing,2014][32]The data dimension is on real – time passengers and travellers information, on personalized travelassistance,onlogisticsplanning,onIT-systemsmatchingsupplyanddemandformobility,onbigdata-solutions,often in relation to smart citydevelopments,on securityarchitectures forgenerated trafficdata.Fromaviewpointofsocialsustainabilitythecentralquestioniswhetherthisworkwillremaincar-basedorwillbebroadenedtootherformsofmobility.When itremainscar-based,cardriversgetanadvantage with respect to accessibility of key services. They know how to travel, they know whencapacitiesareavailable.Potentiallyrealtimeinformationandpersonalizedtravelassistancecouldbeofgreathelpforeverybodythatneedstobemobiletogetaccesstoservices.At thismoment the focusof the research ison car- related information; how toutilise capacitiesonroadsmoreoptimal? This could lead tohigher cardensities, and thus to thepossibilityofmore cartraffic. Certainly in urban areas this could create health and safety problems. However; real – timeinformationcouldalsoleadtobetterutilizationofexistingcapacitiesincars,butcertainlyalsointrucks.Social cohesion couldwinwith real-time information.Onaffordability and social equity thepricingofinformationservicesisimportant;cantheseservicesbeboughtalsowithlowerincomes.Whendifficult,personalizedtravelinformationisanextrahelpforthericherpartofthe(cardriving?)population.Newmobilityserviceslikeridesharing,carsharing,newbikingsystems,integrationofmobilitymodes,usingsmartphonesforfacilitatingmobilitydemandandticketing,andon-demandrideservices(foranoverview,Deloitte(2015))arepotentiallydisruptivefornowexistingarrangementsinthetaxiworld,orforrentalandleasecompanies.Workingconditionsintheseorganisationscoulddiminish,debateshavestartedonthisissue.However;thereisalsotheperspectiveoffarlessindividualcartraffic,offarbetteruseofexistingcarcapacities,ofanimpetustosocialcohesion.Accessibilityofkeyservicesfornon–cardriverscouldgrow,however,thisseemsdependentontheprocessofridesharingandon-demandrideservices.Andontheattractivenessforcardriverstoopenuptheirvehicles.Lesscartraffic,andbetterusedcars,couldleadtobetterscoresonhealthandsafety.


Table2Relationshipbetweensocialsustainabilityandsmartmobility,firstinsightsSmart mobilitydimensionsSocialsustainabilitythemes

Vehicletechnology

IntelligentTransportSystems

Data and travelinformation

New mobilityservices

Affordability ofmobility

negative negative unclear Dependsonprice

Accessibility ofkeyservices

positive

Socialequity negative negative unclear positiveHealthconditions positive positiveSafety,security Positive on

safety, negativeonsecurity

Positive onsafety, negativeonsecurity

positive

Socialcohesion positive positive positiveWorkingconditions

Negative for partoftruckdrivers

Negative forexistingarrangements

Fromthis firstassessmentamixedpictureontherelationshipbetweensocialsustainabilityandsmartmobility arises. The smart mobility options could be used for optimising the actual regime on carmobility–morecomfortablecars,bettercoordinated traffic, greaterdensitiespossibleonour roads.Butthesmartmobilitysolutionscouldalso leadtoasubstantialcontributiontosustainablemobility–environmentalcleanerandsafercars,moredrive-sharingviarealtimetravelinformationandapps.Inthisrespect,themostimportantquestionsseemtobe;- 1.Willthefocusoncreatingtechnologyforbasicallythehighestcarsegmentsremain?When

yes,smartmobilitywillbe-certainlytemporarily-“toysforthericherboys”,andthedivideinthecarfleetwillbebroadened,withdisadvantagesonsocialequity

- 2. Will personalized travel information be offered and made available for all types of“mobilists”,orwillitremainaserviceforcardriversonly?Inthislastsituationthebuyersofthispersonalizedinformationwillgetan“accessibilityprofit”,withdisadvantagesonsocialequity

- 3. On newmobility services ; will the possibility to reach far greatermobility capacity in

existing trucks and cars, via ridesharing, via on demand ride services, be picked up, or evenmadeobligatory?Whennot,thisremainsanicenarrativetosellnewcartechnologies.Whenyes;wewillreachanewparadigm,withcarsaspublictransport,withlesstrucksontheroad,andwithadvantagesonsafety,healthandsocialcohesion.


Especiallythis lastquestionopensaninterestingdebate ;whensocietydoesgetthepossibility,via ITapplications, to use trucks and cars to their full capacities, with great advantages on health, safety,spaceinurbanareasandsocialcohesion,shouldthispossibilityjustbelefttoindividualdecisionsofcardriversandtruckcompanies,orshoulditbemadeobligatory?

7. SomepreliminaryconclusionsFromaperspectiveofsocial sustainability, smartmobilitycoulddevelopalong twobasicallydifferentscenario’s.Thefirstscenarioisthatcarswillbecomesoattractive,witheasieruse,andwithmoreadvantagesforcar drivers via personalized information, that more cars will be bought, and that sprawl will beencouraged. This scenario scores negative on social cohesion, on equity, and on accessibility of keyservices.Noncardriverswillgetdisadvantages,andproblemswithscarcitiesinspace(parking,drivinginurbanareas)willgrow.Thesecondscenarioisthatwithnewtechnologies,itwillbecomeeasiertosharecars,toutilisetheirfullcapacitywithridesharingandondemandrides,meaningthatcarscanbecomepartofthefullspectrumofmobility options,with far less cars needed. This scenario scores negative on thoseworking in thetransportsector,butpositiveonsocialcohesion,equityandaccessibility.Itcouldbeexpectedthathealthandsafetyconditionswillbebetterthannowadaysinbothscenarios,whileaffordabilitywillbeat leastatemporarilyproblemforthenextdecade,withpoorerhouseholdsinitiallynotbeingabletobuythesmartercars.References;[1] McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Magill: Hawke ResearchInstitute,UniversityofSouthAustralia,6.[2]Cuthill,M(2010);Strenghteningthe“Social”inSustainableDevelopment:DevelopingaConceptualFramework for Social Sustainability in a Rapid Urban Growth Region in Australia, SustainableDevelopment,18,366[3] BrundtlandReport/WCED(1987) ;OurCommonFuture.WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, and Holden, E, Linnerud, K , Banister, D (2013) ;Sustainablepassengertransport:BacktoBrundtland,TransportationResearchPartA54,67-77[4]Magus,K,Shinn,C(2009);Emergentthemesofsocialsustainability,in;Dillard,J,Dujon,V,King,M(eds),UnderstandingSocialAspectsofSustainability,NewYork,Routledge,7[5]BrundtlandReport,1987,43[6] Littig, B,Griessler, E (2005) ; Social sustainability: a catchwordbetweenpolitical pragmatismandsocialtheory,InternationalJournalSusustainableDevelopment,8(1/2),66[7]Littig,B.,GriesslerE(2005),67[8] Bostrom, B (2012) ; Amissing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability:introductiontothespecialissue,Sustainability,Practice&Policy,8(1),3-14andMurphy,K(2012);The


social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis,Sustainability:science,Practice&Policy,8(1),15-28[9]McKenzie,S.(2004),14.[10]Biart,M (2002) ; Social sustainability aspartof the social agendaof theEuropeanCommunity, inRitt, T (ed) : SozialeNachhaltigkeit: VonderUmweltpolitik zurNachhaltigkeit ?ArbeitskammerWien,InformationenzurUmweltpolitik149,5-10[11]Littig,B.,GriesslerE(2005),67[12]Bostrom,B(2012),8[13]Bostrom,B(2012),11-12[14]BrundtlandReport,1987,40[15]Cuthill,M(2010),366[16]Vallance,S,Perkins,H,Dixon,J;Whatissocialsustainability?Aclarificationofconcepts,Geoforum,42,344[17] Colantonio, A (2009) ; Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emergingthemes and assessment methods, in: Horner, M et.al (ed) ; SUE-Mot Conference 2009: SecondInternational Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment: conferenceproceedings,Loughborough;LoughboroughUniversity,2009,865[18]Littig,B.,GriesslerE(2005),68[19]Bostrom,B(2012),12[20] Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainabledevelopment:Definingurbansocialsustainability.Sustainabledevelopment,19(5),289.[21]Dempseyet.al(2011),291[22]Dempseyet.al(2011),294[23]Holden,E,Linnerud,K ,Banister,D (2013) ;Sustainablepassengertransport:BacktoBrundtland,TransportationResearchPartA54,67[24]Holden,E,Linnerud,K,Banister,D(2013),68[25]SeeGeels,F.W.,&Kemp,R.(2012).Themulti-levelperspectiveasanewperspectiveforstudyingsociotechnical transitions. In F.W. Geels, R. Kemp, G. Dudley, & G. Lyons (Eds.), Automobility intransition?Asocio-technicalanalysisofsustainabletransport(pp.49–79).NewYork:Routledge.[26]Berger,G,Feindt,P,Holden,E,Rubik,F (2014) ;SustainableMobility–Challenges foraComplexTransition,JournalofEnvironmentalPlanning&Policy,16;3,306[27]Berger,G,Feindt,P,Holden,E,Rubik,F(2014),308[28]Berger,G,Feindt,P,Holden,E,Rubik,F(2014),310[29] Smith,T, Axon, C, Darton, R ; A methodology for measuring the sustainability of car transportsystems,TransportPolicy,30,314,table5,slightlyamended[30]Walker,W,Rahman,A,vanGrol,R,Klautzer,L(2006);OperationalizingtheConceptofSustainableTransportabndMobility,EnvironmentalPractice,8(1),24-48[31]Pape,E,Lauwers,D(2015);SmartMobility:OpportunityorThreattoInnovatePlacesandCities?,paper,ProceedingsREALCORP,Tagungsverband,5-7May,544[32]Planing, P (2014) ; InnovationAcceptance. The caseof theAdvancedDriver-Assistance Systems,SpringerGabler,FachmedienWiesbaden,64[33]Baker,S(2007);Sustainabledevelopmentassymboliccommitment;DeclaratorypoliticsandtheseductiveappealofecologicalmodernisationintheEuropeanUnion,EnvironmentalPolitics,16:2,297-317,302

Social Sustainability and Smart Mobility : Exploring the ... · to IT- related mobility options and...

Documents

Transcript of Social Sustainability and Smart Mobility : Exploring the ... · to IT- related mobility options and...