UNIVERSITY
OF
AMSTERDAM
GSSS
GRADUATE
SCHOOL
OF
SOCIAL
SCIENCES
MASTER
URBAN
AND
REGIONAL
PLANNING
Finding Common Ground –
The Role of Bridging Social Capital in Public Transport
Master’s Thesis in Urban and Regional Planning (MSc.)
June 11
th, 2018
Student & Author:
Lea Sophie Hümbs
N° 11268581
Email: lea@huembs.de
Academic Supervision:
Dr. Marco te Brömmelstroet (Supervisor & First Reader)
M.c.g.tebrommelstroet@uva.nl
Dr. Federico Savini (Second Reader)
F.savini@uva.nl
Abstract
Today’s cities and urban regions are continuously growing and attracting a wide and diverse range of people living and working in them. Public transport plays a crucial role in connecting people and bringing them from A to B. However, the notion that mobility is more than merely moving from one point to another is only slowly getting attention in the world of urban
planning.
This thesis focusses on understanding and examining the lived and experienced world of social interactions and diversity in public transport. By using Jensen’s (2013) model of ‘Staging Mobilities’, the relation between diversity, social interactions and indicators of bridging social capital is examined in urban and inter-urban public transport. An online questionnaire and several semi-structured interviews give insight into how diverse these environments are perceived to be, how often people interact with other passengers, and how these instances of interactions are experienced. Additionally, two public transport companies in the Netherlands and two industrial designers give insight into how these processes are ‘staged’ from above by planning, design and institutions.
The findings of this research suggest that, first, urban transport is in general more diverse than inter-urban transport, and shows higher frequencies of social interactions between passengers. Second, these instances of social interactions are almost always perceived as positive, refreshing and heart-warming, even though most passengers appear to be
preoccupied with their mobile phones and laptops and do not prioritize interacting with other people in public transport. Third, these processes taking place in mobility are ‘staged from above’ by elaborate customer-centred design principles applied to stations and trains, political willpower and technology acting as a mediator in both sustaining virtual social interactions and stimulating ‘real-time’ social interactions in public transport.
While the research concludes that there are indeed possibilities to create bridging social capital in public transport, the definition and measurement of it should be revised to include the acknowledgment of small, even superficial, similarities, which can drastically lower the threshold to converse with diverse others.
Keywords: bridging social capital, public transport, diversity, social interactions, staging mobilities
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor for this thesis, Dr. Marco te Brömmelstroet. For being excited about my first ideas on what to write about, for thinking broadly about how to do research and for motivating me and the rest of our thesis group. I would also like to thank my 6 Murpee’s, who drank enough coffee during the day and beer during the evenings with me and for enduring rants, sharing occasional hopelessness and joy. Together we started a pre-master programme in Urban Planning two years ago and I’m happy we all made it!
I am especially grateful to my parents, who gave me the opportunity to go to school here, and to my sister. All of them were utterly positive at all times, even though they had no idea what exactly I was doing.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends, for doing the same and for accepting that I was never really in the mood to talk about my thesis. And Wietze, for being you and for always being there.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Introduction to Mobility 6
1.2. The New Mobilities Paradigm 7
2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 8
2.1. Setting the Stage: Staging Mobilities 8
2.2. Spaces for Interaction 9
2.3. Moving through Space 10
2.3.1. Interactions in Mobility 11
2.4. Bridging Social Capital 12
2.4.1. (Lack of) Definitions 13
2.4.2. Measurement 14
2.5. Diversity 14
2.5.1. Different Kinds of Diversity 14
2.5.2. Effects of Diversity 15
2.6. Conceptual Framework 16
3. Research Design 19
3.1. Research Questions 19
3.2. Diversity and Social Interactions in Public Transport 20
3.2.1. Aims and Objectives 20
3.2.2. Methods 20
3.3. Experiences of Social Interactions 22
3.3.1. Aims and Objectives 22
3.3.2. Methods 22
3.4. Staging from Above 23
3.4.1. Aims and Objectives 23
3.4.2. Methods 24
4. Diversity and Social Interactions in Public Transport 25
4.1. What are Social Interactions? 26
4.2. Perceived Diversity in Public Transport 27
4.2.1. Definitions of Diversity 29
4.3. Confounding Variables 32
5. Experienced Social Interactions 34
5.2. Emerging Patterns 38
5.3. Indicators of Bridging Social Capital 41
6. Mobilities Staged from Above 43
6.1. Diversity, Social Interactions & Bridging Social Capital in Public Transport 43
6.1.1. NS 43
6.1.2. GVB 46
6.1.3. Waarmakers 47
6.2. Staging from Above 49
7. Conclusion 51
8. Discussion & Reflection 53
8.1. Discussion 53
8.2. Reflection & Future Research 54
8.3. Implications for Planning Practice 57
References 59
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to Mobility
Mobility has become so central to our sociology and so engrained in Western culture, that we tend not to think too much about it. In many developed countries, travelling by e.g. train, car, or bike is central to everyday life and a construct that both shapes our society as well as being shaped by it at the same time. The mobility planner today finds him- or herself in a dilemma between the negative environmental effects of increased human movement across the globe and the essential role of mobility to enhance welfare and well-being. Being able to benefit from the great variety of places to live, work, shop and spend leisure time is undoubtedly linked to performing mobility – it is a practice that enables us to spread our activities spatially and take advantage of the difference between locations to meet the requirements we set for ourselves. While this increasing freedom of choice due to mobility might be a positive thing, it becomes coercive at the same time: we need to be mobile in order to take part in social and economic life and to access basic services and facilities (Bertolini, 2012).
Besides the obvious negative effects of increased motorized mobility on the environment, transport planning still seems to ignore the broad long-term effects on the quality of urban life, like congestion or exclusion (Bertolini, 2012). In times of cities
developing at large scales, mobility used to be purely seen as a means to an end, for getting from A to B the quickest and most efficient way possible. This hypermobility, as Urry (2002) calls our excessively mobile behaviour, has sparked discussions about the true nature of mobility, and whether it is essentially positive or negative. Simmel (1950) looked at urban mobility as pure utility and a means to an end, making individuals feel isolated and alone during the trip. Later, Urry (2002) stated that mobility as a phenomenon was something that was neglected at its peril by sociology. Still today, in contemporary transport planning, mobility is seen as mainly instrumental, and the models attempting to map mobility systems and measure their performance simplify it into generalized cost functions (Te Brömmelstroet, Nikolaeva, Glaser, Nicolaisen, & Chan, 2017). However, since the New Mobilities Paradigm, characterized by Sheller and Urry (Sheller & Urry, 2006), sociology has been paying more attention towards mobile spatializations and the relational space that mobility can create (Sheller, 2017).
1.2. The New Mobilities Paradigm
The New Mobilities Paradigm was established by manifesting transport and mobility in the fields of urban planning, sociology, cultural geography and design, and thereby
bringing to the forefront the cities’ social relationships, connections and flows (Sheller, 2017). Additionally, more attention has been paid to the possible positive effects the exposure to people outside one’s own social circle can have on our social capital.
Moving away from the notion that mobility is a pure utility, and that travel time is time that people actively try to minimise, the New Mobilities Paradigm increasingly pays attention to the activities that occur while being on the move (Jensen, 2013). Travelling has the power to alter our understanding of who we are, and more importantly, of where we are in this world (Montgomery, 2014). The commute to work can act as a ritual transition between our home and our workplace (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001), for example, where most people wish for a one-way commuting time about 16 minutes (Montgomery, 2014). The super commutes performed in many regions in the United States are the other side of the extreme. In addition to enabling ritual changes between different parts of the day, some part of travel is also exercised as recreational travelling, like taking the car out for a spin, recreational boating, cycling or flying (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001). Urban mobility is an important practice in everyday life, which produces meaning and culture (Jensen, 2009b), and should therefore be regarded and treated as such.
However, until now, the literature on mobilities has not sufficiently picked up on the dynamic and complex interactions between people on the move, which are “mediated by material sites and networked technologies” (Jensen, 2013). According to Jensen (2013), these mobilities are carefully staged and designed from above, and acted out, lived, and performed from below. Mobilities do not just happen; they are more than a movement from A to B. The model of ‘Staging Mobilities’ by Jensen (2013) explores how the movements of goods, people and information influences our understanding of ourselves, others, and the built environment. More specifically, the material preconditions of performing lived mobility practices are the central themes in staging mobilities (Jensen, 2013). The model offers an interesting viewpoint on the created and experienced aspects of mobility by combining literatures from urban design and architecture with research about the new mobilities turn. We must understand regions, cities, places, terminals, and buildings in their complex relationship to the fluid and fixed, because the way mobilities materialize is essential to how they work and feel (Jensen, 2013). Doing this enables us to look at how mobilities are lived and experienced, in relation to physical settings, social interactions, and embodied
performances (Jensen, 2013), instead of trying to assess mobility experiences by means of simple cost-utility functions.
2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
2.1. Setting the Stage: Staging Mobilities
The process of ‘staging’ mobilities is derived from the works of Ervin Goffman, who depicted social interactions and behaviour in public spaces in relation to a theatre stage. For example, by appropriating space in the train compartment by mobile objects such as
newspapers or mobile phones, we occupy this front stage, as all of this is utterly visible to the public. Mobilities in cities must thus be understood as a process of mobile territorialisation, and the social interactions occurring in it must be understood in the framework of the staging process (Jensen, 2013). Coming back to mobilities and how they are created and
experienced, Jensen sees them as being staged from above by planning, design, architecture and governance; creating mobile lifescapes. This includes material spaces, physical settings, design and networked infrastructures and technologies mediating the mobility experience. Simultaneously, these mobilities are lived, experienced and embodied from below by passengers. Together, these dynamic processes are creating mobilities in situ (Jensen, 2013). The analytical perspective emerging from Jensen’s framework of staging mobilities is thus to study this complexity in everyday practices and situations, from below, as well as from above by inquiring how, why, and where this staging takes place.
2.2. Spaces for Interaction
The staging of mobilities essentially takes place in public. Public transport, especially, is by definition communal and shared. Public spaces are spaces which are accessible physically and visually to all members of the community. Lofland (1998) introduced the term public realm, which is defined as areas of urban settlements where other present individuals tend to be personally unknown or only categorically known to one another. In some places people know each other in terms of occupation, e.g. as customer and bus driver in public transport (Lofland, 1998). Taking this into account, public transport can be considered public space and realm: both are high in terms of how diverse people are, they offer the chance to relax, be entertained and make social contacts (Peters & De Haan, 2011; Te Brömmelstroet et al., 2017).
Looking more closely at these social contacts in public space, Goffman is one of the principal theorists to consult, as he studied the face-to-face interactions we engage in in everyday situations (Goffman, 2003). His theatre-based metaphors on social interactions and communication between individuals in public spaces, including the front and back stage, where individuals express their behaviour in public and private settings respectively, have shaped the way sociologists look at social interactions today. Examples of such social interactions in public characterised by Lofland (1998, p. 39) are a quick chat, sharing an unexpected experience or “basking in the momentary glow of ‘fellow feeling’”.
Focussing on interactions in an urban environment while moving through it, Goffman distinguished between focussed and unfocussed social interactions (Goffman, 1971): being mobile together on a journey constitutes a focussed social interaction, whereas interaction with strangers in public would constitute an unfocussed social interaction. Both of these interactions are equally relevant to the study of mobilities (Jensen, 2013). Additionally, street encounters and streets themselves can be seen as expressions of cultural normativity and can act to facilitate engagements among unacquainted people (Jensen, 2006).
However, what defines all of these social situations and interactions is the dynamic between physical meetings and departures of people, which essentially translates to: mobility (Jensen, 2009). We are “linked-in-motion” (Jensen, 2009, p.149), and thus not passively transported across the city. According to Jensen (2009b), the potential of urban mobility is often
underestimated, both as an environment which can facilitate interactions between
individuals, and as a public means to creating cultures of movement. The notion of a ‘public means’ entails that exchange between different groups of people is possible in urban mobility, and that it is something that actually occurs as well (Jensen, 2009).
2.3. Moving through Space
The individual is often seen in relation to the other people he or she is travelling with. “To become a passenger always involves a ‘being with’ ” (Bissell,2010), and one of the central topics of research on mobilities is the relational practices between people who are mobile together. Research on pedestrians moving through the city and interacting with the environment has focussed on the skilful tactics people develop to successfully navigate the urban environment and its physical obstacles (Goffman, 1971). Elsewhere, complete transit spaces are studied and the diverse and dynamic negotiations and interactions between car and bus drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are mapped (Jensen, 2010). Bissell (2010) acknowledged the diversity of possible relations between people who happen to be on the move together, may it be a driver and a passenger on a car journey together or morning commuters in a train. The relations between mobile groups and their acquaintance with each other is partly prescribing the type of communication occurring between them (Bissell, 2010). In his research, Bissell (2010) focussed on the affective atmosphere in public transport. Rather than investigating direct, verbal interactions between passengers, he focusses on the “frustrations and irritations, the delights and excitements which are so often a part of
travelling with other unacquainted travellers” (Bissell, 2010, p.272). They begin to mediate our understanding of the affective atmosphere of public transport. According to Bissell, thinking through affect helps us to understand the diversity of experiences one can have in public transport. An example of such an affective atmosphere that can emerge in the train carriage is the one of an effective working environment. Bissell’s (2010) interviews with passengers revealed that the activity of other proximate passengers, e.g. working on a laptop, and the resulting quietness in the train carriage, create an affective atmosphere that makes other passengers more likely to work as well, and less tempted to engage in another activity. Bissell (2010, p. 274) continued to explain that this is not ‘conscious, reflective emulation of what others are doing’, but that the activities of other passengers close-by, together with the resulting quiet atmosphere, can prime other passengers to act in particular ways that are conforming to this emerging atmosphere. The events taking place in a railway carriage can thus have a contagious effect. The sociality of a train carriage can be affected both by direct communication as well as by the above mentioned emerging affective atmospheres (Bissell, 2010).
Not only does the sociality of the railway carriage affect us and our behaviour and propose the idea that mobility is definitely more than moving from A to B, but is also seen as a means for identity construction of mobile individuals (Jensen, 2009). Engaging in mobility includes aesthetic experiences and emotive attachments. In short, movement can also be a pleasure, but it is less often seen and portrayed as such. “Mobility as pleasure” (Jensen, 2009, p.152) is less often discussed when we are talking about everyday life mobility. When
urban mobility works at its best, travel can emerge as a positive experience, but only if we pay attention to the human experience, the visual stimuli and the opportunities to learn about and meet other people (Jensen, 2009, Lynch, 1981).
2.3.1. Interactions in Mobility
How does this learning about and meeting other people take place? In his book ‘Interaction Ritual’, Goffman (1967) stated that for people to interact with each other, they must be physically co-present. Such situations are defined by physical boundaries (Goffman, 1963), but both of these prerequisites for social interactions do not apply to all mobility situations. Goffman ignored the role of communication technology in his definition of social interactions (Jensen, 2009a), even though it has to be said that he could have not foreseen the massive developments concerning mobility and communication technology as we know them today. The fact that today, many mobile situations are dominated by people engaged with their mobile phones, is the reason that virtual interactions play an important role in Jensen’s (2013) model of staging mobilities. A mobile situation can be characterised by face-to-face interactions, but two people moving in two separate infrastructures, who are in contact via media, also constitute a mobile situation (Jensen, 2013). Much in that sense, the digital layer, which has been added to the contemporary city, is something that needs to be accounted for when looking at the sociality of mobility.
But the mobile phone is not the only thing keeping passengers in public transport occupied and from engaging with their surroundings. A lot of individuals travelling on public transport seem to have the principal need to sit alone and to look for solitude, and this need is only dispensed with in case there are no other free seats available (Epley & Schroeder, 2014; Jensen, 2009). Judging from this, one could argue that passengers really do value their own space and routinely seem to ignore each other instead of engaging in a
conversation with their neighbour (Levine, Vinson, & Wood, 1973). In their experiments on social interactions in public transport, Epley and Schroeder (2014) proposed the following: Either connecting with strangers in public spaces is truly less pleasant than travelling in solitude, or people routinely misjudge the effect of a social interaction with other passengers, when in fact the benefits of social connections extend to contacts with strangers as well (Epley & Schroeder, 2014). However, we would rather connect to close others; people whom we know, than to distant others, i.e. strangers (Epley et al., 2014). General well-being seems to be influenced by the quality of close connections, and distant others are often deemed poor sources of social support. We continuously misjudge the effects of connecting to strangers, and striking up a conversation with an unknown person might actually be more positive than remaining isolated from them (Epley et al., 2014). People misunderstand the consequences of social interactions with others; Epley et al. (2014) found that passengers
who connected with another passenger had a more positive commute than when they would have travelled in solitude. Boterman and Musterd (2016) further this claim by stating that cocooning, i.e. not interacting with others at all, will certainly prevent people from becoming closer to one another. There is thus growing evidence that travelling with others, and not just physically, but also literally by interacting with others and being aware of their presence, can lead to a much more enjoyable journey for all parties, and can improve individual well-being too. Still, why we interact with certain people and not with others, how these interactions will unfold and what their effects are, is mostly unchartered territory in mobilities research.
These contacts we make with other people in everyday life should not be
romanticized, yet they can enrich social capital and influence prejudices both positively and negatively (Peters & De Haan, 2011). Within public transport, the difference between e.g. bus, tram, metro (BTM) and trains, i.e. urban and inter-urban public transport, is mostly manifested in the different compositions of travellers. While urban transport may be used by both urbanites and tourists alike and mostly features short journeys, inter-urban transport may be used more intensely by commuters and on average, features longer journeys.
Consequently, inter-urban transport might expose the passenger to similar people every day, whereas passengers in urban transport may be different every day. Rarely does one move about in complete solitude. When walking down a pedestrian area and stopping at a red light, when being together in the same train carriage, or cycling on the same path with a group of people; all these situations are characterised by the so-called ‘mobile with’: These are temporary congregations, groups of people that typically meet and move alongside each other for a while (Jensen, 2010). The concept of the mobile with, originating from Goffman, is characterized by the fact that it comes into being very quickly, i.e. when we enter a train carriage or stop at a red light, and can be dissolved equally quickly (Jensen, 2010). A ‘with’, defined in Goffman’s sense, would then be characterized by proximity to members, the right to initiate a conversation or interaction among these members, and ritual processes for joining and leaving (Jensen, 2009a). These contemporary congregations of people being mobile together can both be composed of people who are familiar with each other, and individuals who do not know each other and just happen to be in the same place at the same time (Jensen, 2010). The latter is another form of everyday contact, both in mobility as well as in stagnant urban environments, which might impact our social capital.
2.4. Bridging Social Capital
Beyond Peters & De Haan (2011), who wrote extensively about the relation between everyday social contacts and social capital, a variety of research has been conducted on how urban environments affect the concepts that make up social capital. Studies have focussed on residential areas, ethnic diversity, and the walkability of neighbourhoods and
their respective effects on trust, social participation, and the amount and quality of social interactions (Cabrera & Najarian, 2015; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Hooghe, 2007; Leyden, 2003) However, academic scholars have only recently published work on the effects of mobility on social capital. Much of this work has been focussed on the car (Laurier et al., 2008; Mattisson, Håkansson, & Jakobsson, 2015; Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001;
Montgomery, 2014) as in many countries this mode of transport is the most prevalent and common to use. However, and especially because, there is an urgent need to look towards more sustainable forms of travel like public transport, research on the relationship between public transport and social capital is duly needed. Scholars have zoomed in on the everyday encounters of bus passengers (Wilson, 2011) and more recent works have singled out public transport specifically (Currie & Stanley, 2008; Mattisson et al., 2015 )
2.4.1. (Lack of) Definitions
Social capital is a concept that has seen many different definitions and quite some debate about its meaning (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000). Robert Putnam, who coined the term social capital at the beginning of the century, states that it comes in many different forms. The central idea, however, is that the social network has some kind of value to it (Putnam, 2001). The concept can be further broken down into cognitive and structural social capital (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). Whereas cognitive social capital entails people’s
perception of the level of interpersonal trust they experience, structural social capital refers to observable behaviours and actions of actors within a network. Both of these sub-divisions of social capital can be analysed at an individual and at a collective level. Another important sub-division to be made here is the one between bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital is social capital within a homogeneous group of people, and bridging social capital refers to connections between people who are part of a heterogeneous group (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). Bridging social capital traverses boundaries and tends to increase tolerance and acceptance of dissimilar people, their values and beliefs, by means of interpersonal contact. Connections that are made are more likely to be fragile and are, within a network, considered as ‘weak ties’ (Currie & Stanley, 2008; Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). DiPrete, Gelman, McCormick, Teitler, & Zheng (2011, p. 1237) noted that “the combination of ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital arguably correspond [sic] to the condition of ‘generalized trust’ (R. D. Putnam, 2000)”.
In general, there is a lot of debate about the exact definition of social capital, and how to measure it. Currie and Stanley (2008) wrote that theorists disagree about which concepts are encompassed in social capital and which are not. Schuller (2001) noted that the
measurement and definition of social capital is in itself problematic, and that it is interpreted in slightly different ways depending on the context. Still today, the broadness of the concept
makes it important to explicitly state which kind of social capital is used for research.
Mattisson et al. (2015) referred to it as a social network, which creates benefits for the people interacting with each other; Cabrera and Najarian (2015) stated that key components of social capital are so-called bonding and bridging ties, the latter being important in the promotion of bridging social capital. When taking a closer look at bridging social capital, a clear definition of this sub-concept of social capital is less hard to find. The connections between people who are dissimilar, e.g. according to ethnicity or socioeconomic status, are defined as bridging social capital (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). However, according to Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi (2015, p. 48), the general problem in studies of bridging social capital is “not so much measurement error but the fact that attempts to measure bridging social capital is [sic] often altogether absent”.
2.4.2. Measurement
In an extensive literature review, Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi (2015) reviewed articles on bridging social capital and their approaches towards measuring and defining bridging social capital. As there is little agreement about the exact content validity of an instrument that should be measuring bridging social capital, there is little agreement on which specific domains of the concept should be measured by an instrument (Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). Some of the attempts to measure bridging social capital were identified as measuring the individual perception of the heterogeneity of networks (according to age, gender, and socioeconomic status), frequency of interactions with dissimilar others, and perceptions about trust of dissimilar others, i.e. out-group trust (DiPrete, Gelman, McCormick, Teitler, & Zheng, 2011; Enfield & Nathaniel, 2013; Murayama et al., 2013; Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015).
2.5. Diversity
Dissimilarity, or diversity, is the wide variety of characteristics, visible and less visible, that account for the differences between people (Boterman & Musterd,2016). A population can be diverse in all kinds of aspects, e.g. ethnic origin, social class, gender or level of education.
2.5.1. Different Kinds of Diversity
However, defining diversity is an endeavour in itself. A review of the concept by Harrison and Klein (2007) identified at least three different types of diversity, each featuring different indicators. First, separation diversity refers to differences between opinions and attitudes of a given population. Second, disparity diversity entails the different hierarchical positions on a continuum of e.g. wealth or power. Third, variety diversity encompasses
differences in the composition of groups, e.g. a population’s variety in ethnicity or religion (Harrison & Klein, 2007). The latter is probably the most widely used type of diversity; however, its measurement can take many different forms, as Budescu and Budescu (2012) show: Boterman and Musterd (2016) measure diversity by means of the Herindahl-Index, which calculates the squares of the proportions of different, predefined, groups. Hooghe (2007) generalizes diversity into a community characteristic, the general composition of a given group or society in a particular area. Ely and Thomas (2001) found that researchers’ predictions about a diversity variable differ “depending on which of its dimensions they see as critical to determining its impact”. This statement underlines again the somewhat
subjective nature of diversity. Exposure to diversity in mobility is a concept that Boterman and Musterd (2016, p. 139) define as the “probability of encountering people with different attributes”. Te Brömmelstroet et al. (2017) describe it as the opportunity to interact with unfamiliar other people and surroundings while being on the move and traversing stations and changing lines. Additionally, Boterman and Musterd (2016, p. 141) reason that people meet others on the move, interact with them, and that transport spaces are therefore “another domain or sphere that should be integrated into studies on the exposure to diversity”. In public transport the exposure to such diversity might be the highest, all other mobility modes being driving by car, cycling and walking (Te Brömmelstroet et al., 2017). Indeed, Boterman and Musterd (2016) claim that modes of transport may vary in terms of exposure to diversity and that people meet others, interact with them and might even create social bonds when they are on the move. They too suggest that the highest exposure to diversity happens within the public realm of mobility: Public transport (Boterman & Musterd, 2016).
2.5.2. Effects Of Diversity
Research on such exposure to diversity and social capital has both been positive and negative; meaning that social relations between people on the move are not necessarily romanticized, but they are also seen as what they are: social relations, even though most of them probably in a very superficial manner. In fact, the co-presence of other people might even work to reinforce already existing differences between certain groups of people (Wilson, 2011). Furthermore, research has pointed out that living in proximity to other ethnic groups is not sufficient to overcoming social and ethnic divides (Blokland & Van Eijk, 2010). Hooghe (2007) mentioned the commonly drawn negative relation between ethnic and cultural diversity, social capital measures, and trust in particular. On one hand, there is a negative relation between being exposed to a diverse environment and levels of general trust
(Hooghe, 2007). On the other hand, it is important to note not to treat trust as a generalized measure of social capital. It would be better to assume that diverse groups develop different
forms of social capital (Hooghe, 2007). On the other hand, Urry (2002) suggested that the presumed negative effect of diversity on social relations can be moderated by social interactions, meaning that social interactions can foster trust as important part of the social fabric of societies. Peters and De Haan (2011) suggested that diversity in public spaces can result in new mindsets, curiosity and even the desire to form new social bonds. Everyday life in multicultural public spaces can furthermore lead to the “social construction of space where individuals experience a shared sense of belonging” (Peters & De Haan, 2011, p. 174). Socio-psychological research and other statements put forward in social capital research argue that “direct bridging contact with diverse others can be important for the building of an overarching identity or a trust, more generally, that transcends group boundaries” (Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008). Stolle et al. (2008) also found a mediating effect of social interactions in the proposed negative relationship between diversity and generalized trust, which suggests that social interactions can help to decrease part of the negative effect of diversity on social capital, given the fact that generalized trust is a sub-concept of social capital. The daily social interactions and contacts with people have a powerful influence on our prejudices and preconceptions of people outside of our own social circle (Wilson, 2011, Urry, 2002).
Based on the literature review above and some of the most prevalent theories about diversity, social interactions, and their relations with bridging social capital, this research aims to contribute to the existing academic research and examine whether these phenomena manifest themselves in public transport. While exercising mobility, people meet others and interact with them, and it is thus crucial to include transport spaces in research on diversity and bridging social capital. Current research is starting to shed light on the social aspects of being surrounded by many different people in public transport, but has not yet reported on the perceived; subjective experience of diversity and social interactions. The illustrated academic debate about the positive and/or negative effects of diversity and the few attempts of measuring bridging social capital as an overarching concept inform the current research.
2.6. Conceptual Framework
The proposed research originates from several key concepts, which can also be found in the research questions and the theoretical framework.
Of particular importance to this research are the very thin, almost invisible forms of social capital, “meaning networks and the associated norms of reciprocity, like the nodding acquaintance with the person you occasionally see in the supermarket, while waiting in line” (Putnam, 2001, p. 2). The statement below motivated the use of bridging social capital in this research.
“SC [Social Capital] entails interaction with other people. This can occur as a part of travel on public transport since it is by definition ‘public’ and ‘shared’. While
interactions with others on public transport are probably not very ‘deep’ or ‘strong’, these interactions represent some of society’s most extensive opportunities to interact with people outside the individuals common social circles. As such it has good
potential for developing bridging SC [Social Capital].” (Currie & Stanley, 2008, p. 537).
In particular, bridging social capital is operationalized as the frequency of interactions with dissimilar others, trust in dissimilar others, and perceptions of homogeneity or heterogeneity of a particular environment (Enfield & Nathaniel, 2013; Murayama et al., 2013; Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2015). As many of the other identified measurements of bridging social capital in Villalonga-Olives’ and Kawachi’s (2015) literature review were related to health outcomes, they were not suitable for use in a public transport context.
Diversity will be operationalized as the extent to which people are exposed to unfamiliar others and people with different attributes than themselves. It is proposed that potential exposure to diversity in public transport has an effect on our bridging social capital, and that this relationship is mediated by social interactions. The model of ‘Staging Mobilities’ forms the underlying framework for this research, in which the social interactions in it are staged from above by planning, design and institutions and below by consociates in interaction. Additionally, potential exposure to diversity is expected to influence bridging social capital negatively. However, the effect of social interactions with diverse others is expected to act as a mediating variable and thus convert the negative into a positive
relationship. General trust is expected to be one of the confounding variables, as it is one of the most widely stated outcomes of social capital. Subsequently, an already existing high level of general trust might lead to higher bridging social capital and thus make general trust a confounding variable. Another confounding variable in the theoretical relationship is the respondent’s country of origin. Different countries of origin and thus cultural backgrounds might influence the extent to which people are open to social interactions.
The model below illustrates how the main variables of the research relate to Jensen’s (2013) original framework of staging mobilities.
3. Research Design
Diversity, and thus potential exposure to diversity, is highest within public transport, as compared to all other modes of transport. But how does this diversity affect social interactions with fellow passengers; people which are not part of our own social circle, and how are these interactions experienced? How do people define and rate such exposure to diversity and social interactions within trains and busses, trams or metros? How is this process encouraged and staged from above in design and planning by public transport companies?
There are diverging definitions and methods of measurement for the concept of social capital. This is also true for bridging social capital. This lack of a universal definition and attempts to measure it were additional motives for this research. A cross-sectional design was used to collect data. Data for each of the sub-questions was gathered at a single point in time. The research is mainly concerned with variation between cases, individuals and modes of transport in this case. This research design allowed for examining patterns of association between the different variables (Bryman, 2012) and was guided by the following main research question and sub-questions:
3.1. Research Questions
Main research question:
To what extent do potential exposure to diversity and social interactions in public transport affect bridging social capital?
1st sub-question:
How do people define potential exposure to diversity and social interactions in public transport?
2nd sub-question:
How is social interaction experienced by public transport users?
3rd sub-question:
How is the relationship between diversity, social interactions and bridging social capital staged from above?
3.2. Diversity & Social Interactions in Public Transport
In order to get a first impression on how diversity and social interaction are typically defined, an online questionnaire was created and shared via Facebook and Twitter to increase the potential number of responses. This part of the research design measured the independent variable diversity, the mediating variable social interactions and the dependent variable bridging social capital by means of short items.
3.2.1. Aims and Objectives
Besides collecting demographic data from the users of public transport, like age, occupation, and country of origin, the questionnaire assessed what respondents classify as social interaction. Additionally, respondents defined diversity in their own words and rated their perceived exposure to three different types of diversity in their chosen mode of transport. This aimed to collect new insights as to how people define diversity, and how these definitions differ from the ones provided in the questionnaire. Another reason why respondents had to rate diversity is that, in assessing bridging social capital, the individual’s perception of the diversity of a given network or group is one of the means of measurement. This way, data on how respondents perceive diversity, i.e. heterogeneity, can also be used as an indicator for bridging social capital. Moreover, trust was measured, as well as how frequently respondents engaged in social interactions in public transport.
Finally, respondents were asked to provide their e-mail address for participating in a follow-up interview about the social interactions they have had in public transport.
3.2.2. Methods
The data for the first sub-question of this research was gathered by means of an online questionnaire using the platform Google Forms (See Appendix A). An online
questionnaire was useful as a quick means of collecting data and reaching a wider group of possible respondents by sharing the questionnaire on the Internet. The questionnaire was shared in the Facebook group of the Master’s programme ‘Urban and Regional Planning 2017-2018’, as well as via the Twitter account of Marco te Brömmelstroet, reaching a wide follower base of nearly 18.300 users.
First, respondents indicated which travel mode they were considering for filling out the survey, i.e. from which viewpoint they were answering the questions. The two options train and tram were meant to represent inter-urban and urban public transport, respectively.
Second, respondents were provided with five definitions of social interactions and were asked to indicate which one of them fit their own definition of social interactions best. Respondents could select several options, which were: having eye-contact with someone, nodding to someone, greeting someone, exchanging a few words with someone, and having
a conversation with someone for longer than one minute. These types of social interactions were chosen by the researcher and meant to give an impression of how much contact a respondent needed in order to classify a situation between two individuals as a social interaction. Having data on what respondents defined as a social interaction was useful for putting the responses into perspective.
Third, respondents rated separation, disparity and variety diversity, which helped in getting a more varied picture of experienced diversity in public transport. Besides the operationalization of diversity that was used and tested in the questionnaire, respondents were asked to define diversity in their own words. The reason why it was chosen to let respondents define and rate both perceived exposure to diversity and social interactions is that survey-based measures of diversity capture the more important personal experiences and perceptions of diversity and social interactions, as opposed to e.g. census-based
measures (Stolle et al., 2008). Additionally, when researching the perceptions of differences, it is deemed wise to ask about perceived diversity, as it may have more unique or
explanatory power than the actual diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Last, as general trust, a common outcome of social capital, was a confounding variable in this study, it was measured as well. As an indicator for general trust, the
commonly used three-item measurement from the European Social Survey was included in the questionnaire (Reeskens & Hooghe, 2008). A three-item scale allowed for more precise measurement and for measuring trust as a basic attitude and indicator of the prevalence of social capital (Reeskens & Hooghe, 2008). Cultural background, as a potentially confounding variable, was simplified and assessed by asking respondents to indicate their country of origin. Furthermore, the beginning of the questionnaire required the participants to indicate whether they were answering the questions from the perspective of a train- or
tram-passenger. This allowed grouping of the respondents according to transport mode and examination of the data for possible differences between BTM (bus, tram, metro) and train passengers, i.e. urban and inter-urban passengers.
The resulting data was analysed and visualized with Microsoft Excel. The different variables of interest, namely diversity ratings, definitions of diversity, frequency of social interactions, definitions of social interactions, and scores on general trust were summarized and visualized in bar graphs and pie charts. The variables were examined visually for patterns of association. Besides contributing valuably to this research, the resulting relations between several variables were interpreted cautiously, as sample size and analysis tools did not allow for thorough statistical analyses.
3.3. Experiences of Social Interactions
With regard to capturing the experiences of social interactions in public transport, and thus one part of Jensen’s model, five semi-structured interviews were conducted with
randomly selected respondents who had provided their e-mail address when filling in the online-questionnaire. Events of social interactions with other passengers in public transport were addressed, and common themes and triggers for conversations across all five
interviews were identified.
3.3.1. Aims and Objectives
The global aim of the second study was to identify situations and their characteristics which led to a social interaction in public transport. Furthermore, interviewees were sought to define and rate diversity in public transport and discern their own criteria of what they
perceived as social interactions. The three chosen indicators for bridging social capital, namely the frequency of interactions with dissimilar others, perceptions about the diversity of the public transport environment, and perceptions about trust in dissimilar others, served as the structuring framework of the interviews.
3.3.2. Methods
Out of the sample of respondents who left an e-mail address, meaning that they were willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview, five were randomly selected and contacted for an interview. Out of these five selected respondents, four were willing to participate in an interview. In a second round of random selection, a fifth participant was contacted and found willing to participate in an interview. The participants name, age, nationality and mode of transportation can be found in the table below.
Participant Giulio, 26 (Italian, living in UK)
Nagwa, 32 (Dubai, living in the Netherlands)
Anouk, 23 (Dutch) Bart, 30 (Dutch) Thalia, 38 (Dutch)
Mode of transport
Metro (urban) Tram (urban) Train (inter-urban) Train (inter-urban) Tram (urban)
Table 1: Participant’s age and mode of transport. Source: Lea Hümbs
In order to find out whether and how public transport users experience social interactions while travelling, semi-structured interviews were conducted with these five participants. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed. The structure of these interviews was closely aligned with the theoretical background of bridging social capital. That is, when conducting the interviews, the theory on bridging social capital and the various
indicators described above informed the structure of the interview. It was chosen to combine narratives of social interactions with questions about indicators of bridging social capital, as the theory suggests that social interactions act as the crucial mediator in the relationship between the exposure to diversity in public transport and the potential creation of bridging social capital. Indicators of bridging social capital were based on what has been identified in the literature review on measuring bridging social capital by Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi (2015). They are the following: perception about trust of others who are dissimilar, perception of the heterogeneity of the environment, and frequency of interactions with people who are dissimilar to oneself. Note that general trust was treated as a confounding variable in this study, whereas trust in dissimilar others, also referred to as out-group trust, is one of the indicators of bridging social capital (DiPrete et al., 2011). The semi-structured design allowed for collecting data on how these instances of social interactions were experienced, what led up to them, and how they were reflected upon. By also asking the interviewees to define social interactions and exposure to diversity, additional data on social interactions and perceived diversity was generated. First, the data were analysed by identifying indicators of bridging social capital and looking for definitions of diversity and social interactions. Second, triggers for social interactions were identified, as well as how interviewees recounted their experiences with these social interactions. Last, the data were compared to each other and common patterns which emerged during the interviews, like the use of the mobile phone or the perception of group cohesion among the passengers were categorized in a table (See Appendix B).
3.4. Staging from Above
The three concepts diversity, social interactions and bridging social capital all come together in public transport as a staging place. More specifically, how are the ‘scenes’ where these situations unfold themselves, created; and are they consciously created by public transport companies at all? Three semi-structured interviews were conducted with actors who stage this process of ‘mobilities in situ’, and concern the ‘staging from above’ part of Jensen’s model.
3.4.1. Aims and Objectives
The three parties selected as actors who stage the ‘mobilities in situ’ process from above are the Dutch Railways, hereafter called NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen), GVB, the public transport company for the city of Amsterdam, and Waarmakers, an Amsterdam-based design agency, who collaborated with NS last year at the Dutch Design Week and designed a game meaning to stimulate and foster social interactions between passengers on Dutch trains. It was sought to find out how the main variables of the research, exposure to diversity,
social interactions, and indicators of bridging social capital were used by these companies, and whether they were included at all in design- or decision-making processes. The general aim was to find out how mobilities are staged by these actors, and how the social interactions taking place in mobilities can be understood in the framework of Jensen’s staging mobilities model.
3.4.2. Methods
As two different modes of transport were investigated for this process, trains and trams, the Dutch railways, the design agency Waarmakers, and the public transport company of Amsterdam (GVB) were selected as the three parties staging the mobilities process from above. These institutions design and create the context in which mobilities take place. The operationalization of the main variables of the research represents one part of the structure for the interviews, Jensen’s model of mobility staging represents the other.
In order to find out how much these processes are guided by definitions of social capital and diversity, and whether these concepts are something that both NS and GVB are generally aware of in thinking about the future design of transit, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviewees were Mark van Hagen, a Senior Customer Experience Consultant at NS; Talitha Koek, the Corporate Social Responsibility Manager at GVB; and Maarten Heijltjes, a Designer at Waarmakers. The interviewees were contacted via email and agreed to participate in an interview. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed, or visualized thematically in a mind map, including quotes, paraphrases and images.
All interviewees were asked whether and how their work incorporates diversity and social interaction and whether they were aware of the concept of bridging social capital. After elaborating on the study’s objective of researching the relationship between the three
concepts, the interviewees were asked questions about the possible relevance to their field of expertise, and contemporary and future mobility. The semi-structured nature of the interview gave the respondents enough room to deviate from questions if necessary and elaborate on other projects relevant to the research in question. The data was ordered and analysed with the help of mind-maps and interview transcripts. Data on the role of diversity, social interactions and bridging social capital was identified in all of the three interviews and highlighted and categorized on paper.
4. Diversity and Social Interactions in Public Transport
In order to identify possible relations between the main variables of interest, the results of the questionnaire were visualized with the help of Microsoft Excel. The stated exposure to the three different aspects of diversity was visualized for urban transport modes (bus, tram and metro, hereafter referred to as BTM), as well as for the inter-urban transport mode, the train. Additionally, exposure to diversity was compared between respondents from the Netherlands and from other countries. The stated frequency of social interactions was visualized for BTM and trains, as well as the scores on the three trust items from the questionnaire. The responses on definitions of social interactions were visualized in a bar graph. Out of the 71 respondents, 45 respondents chose the train as their main mode of transportation, and the other 26 indicated bus, tram or metro (BTM) as their main
transportation mode.
In a time period of twelve days, a total of 73 people filled out the questionnaire. Two respondents were excluded, as they indicated ‘walking’ and ‘airplane’ as their main mode of transportation, which thus made their responses not applicable to the current study. The remaining sample consisted of 71 participants. Their age ranged from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 36.48 years. A total of 43,66% of the respondents indicated that they were working full-time, another 7,04% were working part-time, 7,04% of the respondents were freelancers, 40,85% of the respondents were students and 1,41% indicated that they were unemployed at that time.
Figure 4: Respondent’s occupations. Source: Lea Hümbs
4.1. What are Social Interactions?
In the questionnaire, respondents were given the opportunity to categorize social interactions from having eye-contact, to nodding to someone, greeting someone, exchanging a few words, towards having a conversation with someone for longer than one minute. These different levels of social interactions represent the different types of interactions usually taking place in public transport. It was possible to select several options, which is why the percentages mentioned below do not add up to 100%. Most of the respondents, namely 74%, included exchanging a few words with someone in their interpretation of a social interaction, closely followed by having a conversation with someone for longer than one minute (60,3%), greeting someone (50,7%) and having eye-contact with someone (45,2%). Nodding towards someone was endorsed by 32,9% of the respondents.
Out of the train passenger sample, 20% indicated that they experienced social
interactions every time they travelled by public transport. 15,56% indicated ‘every other time’, 46,67% reported having social interactions less than half of the times they travelled by public transport, and 17,78% reported having social interactions almost never.
19,23% of the respondents from the BTM sample reported social interactions every time, 23,08% reported having them every other time, 38,46% indicated that they experienced social interactions less than half of the times they used public transport, whereas 19,23% experienced social interactions almost never.
7,04% 43,66% 7,04% 40,85% 1,41%
Respondent's occupations
Figures 5 and 6: Frequency of social interactions in BTM and Train. Source: Lea Hümbs
When comparing Dutch respondents to non-Dutch respondents, it becomes apparent that the Dutch stated to experience more social interactions (34,78% indicated ‘every time’, and 13,04% ‘every other time) compared to respondents not from the Netherlands (12,5% indicated ‘every time’ and 20,83% indicated ‘every other time’).
4.2. Perceived Diversity in Public Transport
Perceived exposure to diversity resulted in different scores for BTM- and train-users as well. For the sake of simplicity, ratings of ‘very diverse’ and ‘diverse’ are aggregated when reporting on high diversity, as well as ‘not very diverse’ and ‘homogeneous’ when reporting on low diversity.
While train passengers rated their exposure to separation diversity, i.e. differences in opinions and attitudes, as very diverse (15,56%) and diverse (37,78%), BTM passengers’ ratings exceeded this with 23,08% of the ratings as ‘very diverse’, and 50% as ‘diverse’. More train passengers rated this diversity as neutral (35,56%) than compared to the BTM passengers (23,08%). Only 3,85% of BTM passengers perceived this diversity to be low (‘not very diverse’ and ‘homogeneous’), compared to 11,11% of train passengers.
20,00% 15,56% 46,67% 17,78%
Train: Frequency of social
interactions
Everytime Every other time Less than half of the time Almost never
N=45 19,23% 23,08% 38,46% 19,23%
BTM: Frequency of social
interactions
Everytime Every other time Less than half of the time Almost never
N=26 N=26
Figures 7 and 8: Separation diversity ratings (BTM and train passengers). Source: Lea Hümbs
Ratings of disparity diversity, defined as diversity in income and status, show a different pattern. 55,56% of train passengers and 50% of BTM passengers rated this
diversity as high. 26,67% and 38,46% of train and BTM passengers, respectively, perceived this diversity to be neutral in their respective modes of transportation. 17,78% of train
passengers and 11,54% of BTM passengers rated disparity diversity as ‘not very diverse’, but none of the respondents perceived this as ‘homogeneous’.
Figures 9 and 10: Disparity diversity ratings (BTM and train passengers). Source: Lea Hümbs
15,56% 37,78% 35,56% 8,89% 2,22%
Train: Diversity in opinions
and attitudes
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
N=45 23,08% 50,00% 23,08% 3,85% 0,00%
BTM: Diversity in opinions and
attitudes
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
N=26 8,89% 46,67% 26,67% 17,78% 0,00%
Train: Diversity in income or
status
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
N=45 7,69% 42,31% 38,46% 11,54% 0,00%
BTM: Diversity in income or
status
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
Finally, the perceived exposure to passengers diverse in their religion or ethnicity, hereafter referred to as variety diversity, was perceived as high by 60% of train and 80,77% of BTM passengers. 22,22% of train passengers found this to be neutral, compared to 7,69% of BTM passengers. 17,78% and 11,54% of train and BTM passengers, respectively, rated this kind of diversity as ‘not very diverse’. Again, none of the respondents endorsed the option ‘homogeneous’.
Figures 11 and 12: Variety diversity ratings (BTM and train passengers). Source: Lea Hümbs
Both BTM and train passengers perceived variety diversity to be the highest of all three kinds of diversity. In comparing Dutch to non-Dutch respondents, it can be said that non-Dutch respondents judged all three kinds of diversity as higher than Dutch respondents. 43,48% of Dutch and 68,75% of non-Dutch respondents rated separation diversity as high, 47,83% of Dutch and 56,25% of non-Dutch respondents perceived disparity diversity to be high, and 43,48% of Dutch and 79,17% of non-Dutch respondents rated variety diversity as being high.
In conclusion, bus, tram and metro are seen as more diverse in terms of variety and separation diversity, whereas the train is seen as exposing passengers to more disparity diversity than compared to bus, tram and metro. Additionally, non-Dutch respondents rate all three kinds of diversity as higher, probably due to either more exposure to diversity in
general or due to different personal perceptions of diversity.
4.2.1. Definitions of Diversity
Next to rating their exposure to different kinds of diversity in public transport, respondents of the questionnaire were also asked to define the term diversity in their own words. Definitions were typically confined to a couple of words or one sentence. 33
13,33% 46,67% 22,22% 17,78% 0,00%
Train: Diversity in ethnicity or
religion
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
N=45 34,62% 46,15% 7,69% 11,54% 0,00%
BTM: Diversity in ethnicity or
religion
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
respondents (46,5% of the total sample) mentioned explicitly what kind of diversity they were referring to in their definitions, like diversity in ethnicity, age, or socio-economic status.
26 respondents (36,6% of the total sample) framed diversity in terms of nationality or ethnicity, i.e. as “people of different backgrounds/ethnicity/nationality etc”, “being amongst people with different incomes, different languages, different customs or culture or religions”, or as “exposure to different ethnicities, cultures and nationalities”. Some of these
respondents referred to diversity attributes explicitly; namely by describing passengers as “people from different places” or as “multi-cultural riders”.
19 respondents (26,8% of the total sample) mentioned income, status or social class in their definitions. Definitions ranged from “being amongst people with different incomes”, and “people from many different socio-economic backgrounds”, to “being interactive with people from a different background/social status” to “amount and difference in meeting people from different backgrounds – age, gender, ethnicity, religion, languages, status, income and clothes”.
12,8% of the respondents framed diversity in terms of religion, and 11,3% of the respondents in terms of age. Age and religion were mostly both referred to in one definition. Most of the definitions of diversity (43 responses) were either framed rather passively or actively. Examples of passive definitions include “being around or near people who are different from yourself”, “being exposed to different people”, “how much of human variety one is coercively confronted with when using public transport”, “people from all x using the same mode to go where they need to go”, “to be confronted with different people”, “being
surrounded by other people one wouldn’t be surrounded with in the first place”, or “co-presence of different people”. Definitions which were framed rather actively, include “having random conversations with others, encountering people, greetings, listening to other
languages”, “meeting people from other social or ethnic groups, interacting with them or being affected by their group-typical behaviour”, “accepting differences and being open”, “being near and interacting with different people”, “having the opportunity to be among and learn from a variety of people”, “meeting people I otherwise wouldn’t meet”, or “direct contact with or conscious proximity to an array of different people”.
Additionally, when plotting the three types of diversity against the frequency of social interactions, it can be observed that passengers who have social interactions ‘every other time’ rate all three types of diversity as highest, i.e. as ‘very diverse’ and ‘diverse’. This pattern is similar in people who state to have social interactions every time.
29% 36% 36% 0% 0% 31% 69% 0% 0% 0% 13% 55% 23% 10% 0% 8% 8% 62% 15% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
Ratings of diversity (in opinions and attitudes) by
frequency of social interactions (SI)
SI every time SI every other time SI less than half of the times SI almost never
N=71 7% 50% 36% 7% 0% 23% 69% 0% 8% 0% 6% 45% 32% 16% 0% 0% 15% 54% 31% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
Ratings of diversity (in income and status) by
frequency of social interactions (SI)
SI every time SI every other time SI less than half of the times SI almost never
N=71 29% 36% 21% 14% 0% 31% 69% 0% 0% 0% 16% 45% 16% 23% 0% 15% 31% 38% 15% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
very diverse diverse neutral not very diverse homogeneous
Ratings of diversity (in ethnicity and religion) by
frequency of social interactions (SI)
SI every time SI every other time SI less than half of the time SI almost never
N=71
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people? Generally speaking, do you think that most people try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair? Generally speaking, would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves?
Measures of trust: Train and BTM passengers
Train BTM 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8every time every other time less than half of the
time almost never
Scores on general trust items, sorted according to
frequency of social interactions
Trust-Item 1 Trust-Item 2 Trust-Item 3
4.3. Confounding Variables
Trust and country of origin were classified as confounding variables in the relationship between exposure to diversity, social interactions and bridging social capital. On the three-item scale on generalized trust, train passengers scored higher than BTM passengers. Average scores for train and BTM passengers on the first item were 7,44 and 6,85, respectively, 7,36 and 6,81 on the second item, and 6,33 and 5,92 on the third item. If
averaged across all three items, the scores of train and BTM passengers amount to 7,04 and 6,53, respectively.
Figure 16: Measures of trust: Train and BTM passengers. Source: Lea Hümbs
Scores on general trust plotted against the frequency of social interactions do not result in a recognizable pattern of association between the two variables. The mean trust score of people who interact less than half of the time or almost never is slightly higher than the trust score of passengers who state that they interact more.
Most of the respondents indicated that they were from one of the European countries, whereby a majority of respondents was from Germany (27.4%) and the Netherlands (31,5%). 20.5% of the remaining respondents stem from other European countries like Italy, the UK, Finland, Hungary, Switzerland and France. 20.5% of the respondents were from other countries, such as the USA, Brazil, Canada, Dubai and Australia. The large difference in diversity ratings between Dutch and the rest of the respondents indicates that there might be big differences in perceived diversity between the Netherlands and other countries.
Summing things up, bus, tram and metro are perceived as higher in separation and variety diversity than trains. BTM passengers also indicated that they interact more often than train passengers. Social interactions were mostly defined by actions like exchanging a few words with someone, and greeting someone. Additionally, it seems to be the case that respondents who engage in social interactions every (other) time, define exposure to diversity more actively than other respondents, by including conversations, greetings, and engaging with other passengers in their definitions of diversity. Even though general trust appears to be lower in BTM than in trains, the above-mentioned findings indicate a higher prevalence of bridging social capital in urban transport (BTM) than inter-urban transport (trains).
