Making cycling acceptable : exploring the who and how of potential (cycle-)0aths to sustainable urban mobility : case studies from Mexico city and London

(1)

MAKING CYCLING ACCEPTABLE

Exploring the Who and How of Potential (Cycle-)

Paths to Sustainable Urban Mobility

Case Studies from Mexico City and London

!

Research Master Thesis – 19.6.2015

Research Master Urban Studies – University of Amsterdam

Student:

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld – 6067018 – kcvschoenfeld@gmail.com

Supervisor & first reader:

Prof. Luca Bertolini

Second reader:

(2)

ii

(3)

iii

MAKING CYCLING ACCEPTABLE

EXPLORING THE WHO AND HOW OF POTENTIAL (CYCLE-) PATHS TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY

Case Studies from Mexico City and London

Research Master Urban Studies Thesis University of Amsterdam

19.6.2015

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld – 6067018 kcvschoenfeld@gmail.com

Supervisor and First Reader: Prof. Luca Bertolini Second Reader: Prof. Marco te Brömmelstroet

(4)

(5)

v “MOTORISTS: Cyclists are not another species – most of them drive cars at least some of the time – and they’re not, by and large, wilfully stupid or reckless. But they experience the roads differently from you…So be patient. After all, it’s not as if getting rid of cyclists is a realistic option now – there are too many of them, and the numbers are growing all the time. And a few years down the line, as petrol gets more expensive, you might well end up as one of them yourself.”

Robert Hanks, ‘The Independent’, 12th June 2006

(6)

(7)

vii

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks go out to the many people who have helped me in making this thesis possible. I would like to thank first of all my supervisor, Luca Bertolini, for his support throughout all the struggles, and the adjustments and re-adjustments he continuously and patiently gave me feedback on. His guidance but also trust in my choices and learning process gave me the necessary confidence and critical thought throughout.

Furthermore I thank all those people who gave me their time for an interview – it was highly valued! I cannot name them here due to confidentiality issues, but I hope they can feel my gratitude nonetheless. Although not everyone could be done justice equally because I had to find a relatively narrow focus, all respondents contributed significantly to making this thesis possible and to giving me crucial information to make choices and provide important information.

This thesis would also not have been possible without the support of various persons in Mexico City, especially Dolores Rojas and Claudia Wondratschke, who helped me in crucial situations. Thank you very much for your help and encouragement! Back in Amsterdam, the PUMA group was a great help giving me feedback on my progress and giving suggestions and inspiration for ways to critically rethink my findings.

For their endless support and encouragement, I thank my mom, my dad and David. Without them I could not have pushed through this long process, no matter how fun. My mom encouraged me and pushed me during my stay in Mexico City (and from a distance also in London and Amsterdam) right when I needed it. Without her in Mexico City I would not have found foot nearly as fast as I now could. My dad, as always, helped me rethink the thesis critically and thoroughly at various points in the process. And David has been there for every phase, helping me think through each little detail, showing incredible patience. Thank you!

And last but certainly not least I want to thank my friends, in various parts of the world – Berlin, Amsterdam, Mexico City, London – for their support and for distracting me from my work just enough at the right times.

(8)

viii

Preface

This thesis was written for the Research Master Urban Studies. My background includes a bachelor in Human Geography and Planning, with a focus on International Development, and a lifetime of experience living in Europe and Latin America and travelling around the world. Through this background it became clear to me how important it is to show that differences across continents and the so-called ‘North’ and ‘South’ are not always as significant as they are presented. Especially in academia, there appears to be a gap when it comes to treating such differences: either the ‘North’ and ‘South’ are used as extreme opposites, or they are not treated as ‘comparable’ at all. This thesis tries to break with that trend, showing that there is a lot of space in between those two stances and that despite some significant differences, there are still areas in which such places can both learn from each other, and in which the learning process need not be one-sided.

It is important to note that this text was necessarily written as a research master thesis and thus for an academic (and mostly western) context. In this context, certain problematizations, namely those directly answering pre-set (even if readjusted) research questions, are given priority over others. Different choices might be made in non-academic areas. This does not mean the perspective taken here is the 'right' one or the only one.

The names used throughout this thesis are 'anonymised' for various reasons, among them to ensure that any controversial statements or thoughts could be shared with me without worry. This had to be done consistently throughout the thesis. Nevertheless I want to thank every respondent that gave me their time and input to make this thesis possible. I hope each one can find themselves somewhere in the thesis and can tell they have contributed significantly. In several cases the interviews also provided background information that could not be included here but which was crucial to understand which things did need to be included. Furthermore, some of the issues that could not be included in this thesis might help in future further research I hope to conduct.

(9)

ix

Summary

Cycling is a mode of transport that many cities are now trying to adopt and increase. It serves as a solution to reach their CO2 reduction targets but also to make the city more liveable in face of increasing recognition that the car has negatively impacted urban social life and that the bicycle can bring a much more engaging and less disruptive atmosphere with it. However, cities face many barriers to the implementation of initiatives seeking to increase the mode share of cycling. One key barrier is acceptability – a factor usually treated as a contextual albeit important issue. This thesis examines how cycling can be made acceptable – for the general public and for planners and policy-makers – and who can be involved in this process. Specifically, top-down and bottom-up initiatives are studied as agents in a multi-level perspective on transitions theory. This is done through a triangulation of in-depth interviews, participant observation and media and document analysis of four case studies per city in Mexico City and London.

The thesis shows how top-down and bottom-up initiatives can both play a crucial role in increasing the acceptability of a cycling transition, through protest, campaigning, education, regulation and building infrastructure. Findings include that bottom-up initiatives usually stir first changes in acceptability, positive or negative. These changes are then taken up by top-down initiatives and developed further. Often relationships between top-down and bottom-up initiatives play a significant role in how the changes in acceptability are taken up and how they are steered. Furthermore, there are indications that increased acceptability for cycling (initiatives) paves a (cycle-) path to a cycling transition– an increase in cycling and possible decrease in car use – but further research should provide more insight into this.

Keywords: cycling, acceptability, top-down, bottom-up, transitions theory, MLP,

North-South, Mexico City, London

(10)

x

Resumen (Spanish Summary)

Varias ciudades están intentando aumentar el uso de la bicicleta como modo de transporte. La bicicleta se ve como solución para alcanzar metas de reducción de CO2, pero también como instrumento para tornar las ciudades más habitables ya que se reconoce que el automóvil ha impactado la ciudad de manera negativa y que la bicicleta puede traer el cambio necesario. Sin embargo, urbes encuentran varias barreras en la implementación de iniciativas que intentan incrementar el uso de la bicicleta como medio de transporte. Una barrera clave es aceptabilidad – un factor normalmente tratado como contextual, aunque importante. Esta tesis investiga como andar en bici puede tornarse aceptable – para la sociedad tanto como para planificadores y tomadores de decisiones – y quién puede participar en el proceso. Específicamente, esta tesis estudia iniciativas ‘de arriba hacia abajo’ (top-down) y ‘de abajo hacia arriba’ (bottom-up) como agentes en la perspectiva de múltiples niveles (MLP) de la teoría de transiciones (Geels 2011). La metodología incluye entrevistas semi-abiertas, observación participativa, y análisis de media y documentos oficiales en la Ciudad de México y Londres.

Esta tesis demuestra como iniciativas top-down y bottom-up pueden ambas tener un rol crucial en incrementar la aceptabilidad de una transición ciclista, por medio de protestas, campañas, educación, regulación e infraestructura. Se concluye que iniciativas bottom-up normalmente crean los primeros cambios en aceptabilidad de la bicicleta, de forma positiva o negativa. Estos cambios son identificados por iniciativas top-down, que reaccionan. Frecuentemente relaciones entre iniciativas top-down y bottom-up influencian cómo cambios en aceptabilidad son recibidos y cómo conducidos. Además hay indicaciones que un aumento en la aceptabilidad de (iniciativas para) la bicicleta como modo de transporte crea una (ciclo-) vía para una transición ciclista – un incremento en el uso de la bicicleta como modo de transporte y una posible disminución en el uso del automóvil. Investigaciones adicionales tendrán que analizar esto en más detalle.

Palabras clave: bicicleta, aceptabilidad, top-down, bottom-up, teoría de transiciones,

(11)

xi

1. Introduction

Sustainable urban mobility has been recognized as a necessary goal to secure a liveable planet into the future (Hickman & Banister 2013, Schwanen et al 2011). Cycling is one of the most environmentally sustainable modes of transportation, and simultaneously provides several social and spatial benefits (Priewasser 1998). While cycling can usually not function as the single mode for an area, it can significantly increase sustainable mobility in combination with other modes and by increasing its modal share for certain trips (see e.g. Priewasser 1998, Heinen et al 2010). There is widespread willingness to turn this potential of cycling into reality by increasing cycling’s share in mobility choices, but implementation proves difficult (idem).

Lack of acceptability has been identified as a fundamental barrier to implementing an increase in cycling as a mode of transport (see e.g. Banister 2003). While the term acceptability includes acceptance, it also refers to the ability to accept under certain, not yet given conditions. Acceptability is usually treated as a contextual variable: something that varies in a (city's) population and might enable or constrain policies’ or plans’ (successful) implementation (idem). As such acceptability can provide a key solution to several other barriers. This thesis brings acceptability to the foreground of analysis and asks how different types of initiatives (i.e. 'top-down' and 'bottom-up') have an impact on acceptability.

Transitions theory provides a framework in which ways of overcoming barriers such as a lack of acceptability can be studied. This framework can help understand how acceptability arises and how it can encourage sustainable mobility. For example, transitions theory includes strategies for identifying influential actors (see Geels 2011, Switzer et al 2013). This framework looks at socio-technical landscapes, regimes and niches as different levels at which a transition occurs and is influenced (idem). In doing so it allows a researcher to take on a broad view of opportunities for a shift towards sustainable mobility while giving room to focus on a specific part of the full picture, i.e. specific actors or issues at play. It must be noted that this thesis studies in particular a

cycling transition, i.e. a transition towards an increase in cycling, which may contribute

indirectly to a decrease in car use. However, such a transition includes more than an increase in the share of cycling among other transport modes, or a decrease in car use,

(14)

2 University of Amsterdam

though these may be indicators of such a transition. As the theory proposes, for a transition to occur several factors need to come together at various levels to allow for fundamental change. Agency helps make a transition happen – so looking at who can influence a transition and how is central to transitions theory.

Top-down and bottom-up initiatives are fundamental categories within which key agents of change can be found (see e.g. Miazzo & Kee 2014). Bottom-up initiatives have been studied more extensively over the past decade, in the shape of bottom-up action, do-it-yourself urbanism, handmade urbanism, grassroots urbanism and many others (e.g. idem, Rosa & Weiland 2013). These terms have been used to describe what seems like a new phenomenon: people want to take city making into their own hands (idem). Or, perhaps, it is rather that they feel the need to or are in some cases strongly encouraged to do so by various institutions or governments (e.g. Rosa & Weiland 2013). A wide variety of such bottom-up initiatives exist, also in the field of cycling, and are increasingly taken seriously by governments or other top-down organisations, either to encourage them or work against them (e.g. Miazzo & Kee 2014, Rosa 2011). Top-down organisations are also increasingly initiating cycling projects, such as bike-sharing programmes (e.g. GLA 2013, SMA 2013). Looking at how top-down and bottom-up initiatives influence acceptability provides one way to approach the question of how these developments might impact cycling transitions in cities. By studying both types of initiatives in relation to acceptability, this impact can be better understood. The main research question this thesis explores is therefore: How do top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives

influence the acceptability of cycling transitions? Furthermore, the thesis explores to

some degree how looking at acceptability as more than a contextual variable can help understand possible ways forward in a transition towards sustainable urban mobility. It ends with suggestions for how aiming at acceptability more directly can be useful for any kind of initiative to achieve its goals.

The following chapter sets out the research questions that structure the thesis. Next, the theoretical framework is presented. This leads to the research design, which explains how answers to the research questions were sought and analysed. The answers to the research questions are set out in chapters five through seven. The eighth chapter sets out the main conclusions that can be drawn from the research and the final chapter reflects on the research process and results.

(15)

2. Research Questions

The main research question of this thesis is:

How do top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives influence the acceptability of cycling transitions?

To answer this question, contextual, core and exploratory sub-questions were used. This differentiation highlights which questions are needed to understand the context, within which the ‘core’ questions concerning the main question more directly can be understood. The exploratory question starts addressing wider implications.

Sub-questions (contextual):

1. To which degree and for whom is a mobility transition toward the bike and/or away from the car taking place?

2. To which degree and for whom is a mobility transition toward the bike and/or away from the car acceptable?

Sub-questions (core):

3. Do top-down and/or bottom-up initiatives consider acceptability relevant in their work?

4. How do cycling initiatives work to influence the acceptability of cycling transitions?

5. What are barriers and enablers when top-down/bottom-up initiatives try to influence the acceptability of cycling transitions?

Sub-question (exploratory):

6. What impact does acceptability of cycling transitions appear to have on cycling transitions?

(16)

It is relevant to first look at contextual questions to create a baseline against which subsequent findings are set. The core questions go into detail about the ways in which different initiatives influence acceptability. The exploratory question helps look at the relevance of the findings, though further research is needed for more detailed conclusions on this subject. Finally, the main question draws wider conclusions and attempts to give some inspiration for how different initiatives can influence acceptability, reflecting to some extent on how the overall findings matter in terms of cycling transitions.

(17)

3. Theoretical framework

As argued in the introduction, transitions theory provides a particularly useful framework for studying how cycling transitions can be brought about, and which actors can play what role in this. Acceptability helps understand barriers that may play a crucial role in the success of a cycling transition. Theories on top-down and bottom-up initiatives are useful for identifying findings on the impact of different kinds of initiatives. Therefore, these theories and concepts are discussed in this theoretical framework. This chapter elaborates on how these theories provide a lens to answer the research questions. The chapter ends with hypotheses that have been set up based on the theory, which guide the deductive part of the research.

3.1 Transitions

Transitions theory has to be understood to be able to assess the role of acceptability in a mobility transition. In short, transitions theory attempts to find and explain (potential for) change. The ontological assumption in transitions theory is that the world is made up of socio-technical systems, which are in turn made up of actor-networks, formal institutions and material artefacts (Markard et al 2012: 956). Key concepts ordering socio-technical systems are socio-technical regimes, which “[impose] a logic and direction for

incremental socio-technical change along established pathways of development,” and niches, which

provide space for radical innovation that can be more or less influential in the wider regime (idem: 957). This thesis focuses on transition studies related to sustainability, transportation and mobility. In studies on transportation and planning, most attention has been given to ways of achieving change towards less environmentally damaging or socially exclusive transportation systems (see Schwanen et al 2011). Issues include how to convince decision makers, planners and the general public to decrease car dependency, promote the use of more environmentally friendly cars and fuel types or to encourage public transport use, cycling and walking. Transitions theory tends to aim at relatively deep-rooted societal change rather than pure design, technological or infrastructural change, though there are exceptions (for example Köhler et al 2009). Switzer et al (2013) argue that a deeply rooted transition is the only truly sustainable transition. Deep-rooted transitions imply a time-consuming, gradual process rather than fast change, although again there are those who argue this is not always the case (see Marsden & Docherty

(18)

2013). Schwanen et al (2011) are referred to for a useful overview of how transitions theories have been used in transport studies (as related to climate change mitigation). For this thesis, the multi-level perspective (MLP) in transitions theory is most relevant and therefore elaborated on further. The MLP focuses on the interplay between an exogenous socio-technical landscape, a socio-technical regime and (regime-challenging) niches (e.g. Geels et al 2011; see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Geels' multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels 2011)

The MLP theorizes that for a (deeply-rooted) transition niches are necessary because they provide strong alternatives to the regime. At the same time the regime needs to allow for niches to develop and adopt certain changes pushed by niches. The latter becomes possible through unsettling or other forms of pressure from the exogenous landscape of which the regime is a part. (Smith et al 2010) Geels (2012) applies the MLP

(19)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 7 to transport studies by analysing low-carbon transitions in transportation: he finds promising niches offering alternative modes of transport to the car, analyses landscape developments that have potential for destabilizing the automobility regime, and finally looks at cracks that are already showing in the latter regime. Zijlstra and Avelino (2011) analyse the ‘Car Regime’ from a less ‘optimistic’ point of view, pointing at how it emerged in the first place and how it is reinforced by the exogenous landscape, but also looking into different movements that have been challenging the regime even since its emergence. Switzer et al (2013) provide a heuristic framework conceptualizing the mobility system from a multi-level perspective (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 The mobility system conceptualized from a multi-level transitions perspective (Switzer et al 2013)

Figure 2 relies heavily on the land-use-transport feedback cycle, which illustrates the interplay between land-use and transport networks. This cycle indicates how land-use and transportation are linked in fundamental ways and are mutually reinforcing in their developmental direction. For example, car-focused transportation planning will lead to different and more spread-out land-use developments than cycling- or public-transport oriented transportation developments. This relationship, although the causal direction can be reversed, stands even without being formally integrated in planning. However, there are good reasons to integrate planning on the different fields within this cycle to

(20)

improve the capability of steering these developments, for instance in a more sustainable direction. (Bertolini 2012)

The land-use-transport feedback cycle and the Multi-Level Perspective in transitions theory both hint at the different levels of planning and development as well as at contextual variables. These must be considered to understand how a mobility transition towards cycling and away from the car could take place. It must be kept in mind that such a transition would require, for example, not only changes in modal shares but also in infrastructure and traditional ways of planning, a mentality of shared spaces and even fundamental changes in how ‘progress’ is defined. Figure 2 is very relevant to this research since it links transitions theory and mobility theory. Not only does it identify contextual variables and relevant regime and niche actors that should be considered, but it also shows how they relate in the process of making mobility systems.

3.2 Acceptability

Transitions theory provides a framework within which the relevance of acceptability can be explored. Acceptability is defined here as the ability of a public to accept or even embrace planning projects and their intended effects, possibly under certain conditions. Acceptability is also seen as closely related to willingness to accept certain projects. Scholars working on ecosystem management, adaptive management and sustainable development have embraced acceptability as necessary to consider in policy making and planning (Shindler et al 2004). However, in social sciences acceptability does not yet have a definition of its own (idem). Brunson (1996, in Shindler et al 2004: 2-3) attempted such a definition within the natural resource studies context and linked it to social sciences more broadly: “[acceptability is] a condition that results from a judgmental process by which

individuals 1) compare the perceived reality with its known alternatives; and 2) decide whether the real condition is superior, or sufficiently similar, to the most favourable alternative condition.” Shindler et al

(2004: 3) highlight that these judgements are made at an individual level but are influenced by wider external conditions. This leads to Brunson’s definition of social acceptability, which Shindler et al (idem: 3) argue is most useful in policy making: “social acceptability [refers to] aggregate forms of public consent whereby judgements are shared and articulated

by an identifiable and politically relevant segment of the citizenry.” The concept of social

acceptability also points to the idea that there may be social acceptability that is not reflected in all individuals of a society but which forms a context in which something is

(21)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 9 generally accepted. By contrast individual acceptability might go contrary to a social level of acceptability. This distinction can be useful in identifying the level to which acceptability of cycling is truly a niche or already being incorporated into part of the regime.

In land-use and transportation planning literature the concept of acceptability is not very widespread, although it often infiltrates into articles on transport- and land-use planning integration or similar subjects as one element that must be considered. Banister (2003, 2008) is one of the few academics who discusses acceptability of land-use planning and to some extent transport planning more widely. He argues that necessary conditions for change are dependent on, among other things, “the need to gain public confidence and

acceptability to support these measures” (idem 2008: 73) but that this is often forgotten. In the

example of congestion charging policy implementation in London he considers acceptability among the population as a necessary condition for success (idem 2003: 252+261). He appears to equate the concept with the idea of public support (idem). Other authors mention the topic but do not go further into detail. For example, Bertolini et al (2008: 72) argue that public acceptability is one of the keys to progress in urban transport planning. Geerlings and Stead (2003: 194) name public acceptability and finance as the two main barriers to implementation of an integration of land-use and transport planning and the environment in policy making. Hull (2005: 327) identifies uncertainty about public acceptability as contributing to a fragmented decision-making process, which is in the way of a better-integrated transport-land-use planning agenda. Acceptability is furthermore identified as specific to certain countries or regions which will in turn influence policy-makers’ options as to what plans they can implement (van Wee 2002: 269). In some cases plans are made and put in place despite little to no acceptability, but this can lead to failed projects (see Breheny 1997).

Usually, acceptability is used as a self-explanatory concept that is either there or lacking. For example, Banister (2008: 76) posits that “public acceptability drives political acceptability” and that a “balance must be struck between the desired scheme and an acceptable scheme.” Shindler et al (2004) identify five themes that ‘theorize’ acceptability: social acceptability as a dynamic process, multiplicity of influential factors, the influence of context, the importance of the process of decision making, and the importance of trust. Again these

(22)

conceptualisations (rather than theories) are mainly ontological but help bring issues of acceptability into debates on policy and planning more easily.

Banister (2008: 76) argues that there may be a greater acceptability for sustainable mobility than usually expected, but that in many cases people tend to say they are themselves supportive to more compact planning and related issues while they usually contend to believe that others might not be (individual vs. social acceptability). Furthermore, Banister (2008: 77) shows that positive demonstration effects are helpful in increasing public acceptability. However the discrepancy between long- and short-term effects remains problematic and can even be reinforced through such positive demonstration effects (idem). Like Shindler et al (2004), Banister (2008) highlights the importance of trust, respect and legitimacy1_{when trying to achieve acceptability of the}

public.

Especially Banister’s (2008: 76) suggestion that “public acceptability is core to successful

implementation of radical change” indicates the strong link this concept has to (mobility)

transitions. Banister (2003: 261) considers some mobility-related acceptability issues that influence a transition: “underlying this debate [on making congestion charging acceptable] are

individuals’ relations with their car (e.g. status, privacy, and independence) and the dependence of current lifestyles on the car.” This also makes the link between acceptability and car-dependency

(reinforced through land-use and planning processes such as described in Figure 2). However, none of the above theories and conceptualizations have re searched these links thoroughly. That is one point where this thesis hopes to make a significant addition. To do so, a definition specific to acceptability for a cycling transition has been developed: Acceptability for a cycling transition includes a readiness to use a bicycle and possibly decrease car use under certain conditions, to accept plans favouring bicycles and to

1_{It may be relevant to highlight that acceptability is similar but not equal to legitimacy, which has been}

extensively studied particularly in political sciences (see e.g. Scharpf 2007). Legitimacy focuses on whether a state’s choices and implementation of (planning) projects is acceptable. The focus is on whether it is acceptable that the state, as a representative of a whole society, can make such choices on society’s behalf. Smaller initiatives do not have such a relationship with wider society (necessarily), but they can nevertheless be acceptable initiatives or not. Furthermore, individual acceptability is also not covered by the idea of legitimacy. There may be other such similar concepts with some different aspects, but this footnote should help to show that the choice for the concept of acceptability identified carefully as the most suitable concept for the purpose of this thesis.

(23)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 11 (when in this position) plan actively for increasing the use of the bicycle and decreasing the use of the car.

3.3 Top-down and Bottom-up Initiatives

Top-down and bottom-up initiatives are likely to both have an influence on acceptability for a cycling transition, possibly in different ways. First, for clarification, an initiative needs to be defined. In this thesis, an initiative in general is a single or regularly repeating event or project with a specific, though not always equally fixed or flexible, purpose. The term is linked to initiating, since it relates to the origin (here usually a group of citizens or a government institution) of the first step taken in a certain direction, initiating action (dictionary.com, Miazzo & Kee 2014). In some cases an initiative can be equated with an entire organisation when that organisation focuses on only one (repeated) event or type of event.

Statements about how top-down and bottom-up initiatives might influence acceptability are based mostly on implicit discussions of the two types of initiatives and on ways in which top-down initiatives can increase acceptability (e.g. Rosa & Weiland 2013, Curtis 2008, Banister 2008), but needs to be further researched. One crucial way in which top-down initiatives are different from bottom-up initiatives is in the amount of people they aim to reach and the depth with which this is done. The distinction between top-down and bottom-up initiatives is relevant for this thesis because they each introduce (radical) change towards a transition in different ways and at different (transition) levels (see Geels 2011).

Discussions on definitions of top-down and bottom-up initiatives are frequently based on contrasts between the two (see Easterly 2008, Miazzo & Kee 2014). The terms ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ are often used as self-explanatory terms and not further defined (see Bond 2006), with a few significant exceptions (see Miazzo & Kee 2014). When they are conceptualized further, the context in which they are used is highly influential for the conceptualization. Top-down approaches, in the context of institutions and management for example, focus on making decisions from the highest management position without involving workers from other levels. Bottom-up approaches are those involving the opinions of workers at all levels of a firm (Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith 2005, Easterly 2008). In the context of research methodology, a top-down approach “assumes that

(24)

legislation and policies set explicit aims and objectives, providing a blueprint that is then directly translated into action ‘on the ground’,” while a bottom-up approach “recognizes the importance of additional actors, other than ‘policy makers’ at the top, in shaping the detailed content of policies as they interact with one another in congested policy spaces and are eventually implemented” (Urwin & Jordan

2008: 183). However for this research project, which is linked mainly to the fields of planning and to some extent governance, top-down and bottom-up initiatives are defined somewhat differently, though the methodological definition comes quite close. Especially the bottom-up side is conceived rather as an initiative by those working ‘on the ground’ or those directly affected by a problem or by the initiative (see Hartley 2005, Rosa & Weiland 2013, Miazzo & Kee 2014).

The following paragraphs generate definitions of top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ initiatives as they will be used throughout this thesis by joining several definitions and implicit uses of the terms. It must be noted in advance, however, that top-down and bottom-up initiatives are not always as clearly cut and separate as indicated in these definitions. They might for example be linked through participatory planning or through varying financing schemes (see Rosa & Weiland 2013, Bickerstaff & Walker 2001).

Top-down initiatives are initiatives planned and decided upon by governmental or other large-scale, usually public, institutions (see Urwin & Jordan 2008, Maloney et al 2000, Hartley 2005, Rosa & Weiland 2013, Miazzo & Kee 2014). They tend to be financed publicly and, theoretically, should benefit the entire population of the area the institution covers (idem), though the ‘consumers’ tend to be seen as ‘passive’ rather than ‘co-creators’ (Miazzo & Kee 2014: 2). Bureaucracy often plays a larger role and (national or regional) politics has a stronger influence than is usually the case in bottom-up initiatives. They are also more commonly large-scale (see Rosa & Weiland 2013).

Bottom-up initiatives are activities triggered by individuals or communities that aim to “[adapt] available products to better meet their needs” (Ross et al 2012: 470) – arguably not only products but also spaces and networks are adapted by such initiatives. They can be seen as “development projects including end users as not only consumers but also as decision makers,

co-creators, and/or co-managers before, during and/or after the construction/renovation phase” (Miazzo

& Kee 2014: 2). They “are initiated by local individuals or grassroots groups; they are not sanctioned

(25)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 13 If these initiatives need financing this is usually covered by the community or private actors themselves. Rosa et al (2013: 18) add that such initiatives “indicate the ability of

citizens to present solutions to challenges posed by everyday life, and use creativity to transform and multiply existing resources.” Usually such initiatives work on a local scale and their focus is

often on concrete short-term developments, with significant exceptions (e.g. Rosa & Weiland 2013).

It is tempting to see bottom-up initiatives in a romantic light, in which they appear to offer positive solutions to many problems. This needs not be the case: often such initiatives do not arise, are not successful (in the sense that they don’t achieve their goals and/or fizzle out easily), or provide solutions that are not acceptable to a wider public. Nonetheless, when such initiatives arise they bring potential for change and can reflect wider developments and wishes in society (see Geels 2011). From a transitions theory perspective this makes them very interesting for investigation.

3.4 Hypotheses following from theory The following hypotheses result from the theory:

1. Acceptability is a crucial factor in the development of a cycling transition (see Banister 2003 & 2008, Breheny 1997, Eriksson et al 2006).

2. Top-down and bottom-up initiatives have different effects on the acceptability of cycling transitions (among different groups) (Ross et al 2012, Rosa & Weiland 2013, Rosa 2011, Bickerstaff & Walker 2001). Top-down initiatives can function to reach a wider population than bottom-up initiatives, but bottom-up initiatives go into more depth and create stronger individual acceptability (idem). The expectation following from literature is that bottom-up initiatives are often impulsive, have a strong impact on their immediate surroundings and, if they aim for it and are successful, on top-down decision making. However, funding can be a crucial problem. Top-top-down decision-making is, in the end, the actor who has most (monetary and ‘legitimate’) power to implement wider-reaching initiatives.

3. Transitions theory tends to classify bottom-up initiatives as niches, and top-down initiatives as the regime (see Geels 2011). This suggests that bottom-up initiatives will cease being bottom-up if they are incorporated into the regime, and that top-down

(26)

initiatives cannot be part of a niche2_{. This furthermore suggests that for a transition}

to take place, bottom-up initiatives only become ‘effective’ if they are taken up by the regime (into top-down initiatives or conforming with regime aims). In the same vein, top-down initiatives automatically work towards a cycling transition once they are implemented, because they are by definition (in theory) part of the regime.

The above hypotheses produced hypotheses specific to answering the research sub-questions for the studied cities (the numbers refer back to the sub-sub-questions):

1. It is likely that a cycling transition is budding around the world due to overall landscape factors and sustainability issues, but a transition is a slow and difficult process so a full cycling transition is unlikely to have already occurred in many places, particularly where first steps towards this were not taken long ago (e.g. Schwanen et al 2011);

2. Where there is a cycling transition, some tension surrounding acceptability can be expected (e.g. Banister 2003);

3. Theory and case studies thus far have not identified acceptability as a central issue for top-down or bottom-up initiatives; this may be an indication that initiatives have not identified acceptability as a significant concern (yet) themselves (e.g. Rosa & Weiland 2013). However, top-down initiatives tend to be more purposefully involved with the subject since their projects may or political legitimacy would be compromised fail if they are not accepted (e.g. Banister 2008, Breheny 1997);

4. Top-down initiatives act assertively and (attempt to) target the entire city with their plans and policies while bottom-up initiatives are impulsive and not very well organised but their aims are reached at the small level at which they operate;

5. Financial constraints are the main barrier for bottom-up initiatives, while top-down initiatives do not have this problem;

6. Acceptability is one necessary condition for a cycling transition.

It should be clear that these hypotheses are made rather sharp to make them more falsifiable. They do follow from the theory, but are set up in their more ‘extreme’ form.

2_{These statements may not be set as strongly by transitions theorists in all cases, but this hypothesis can be}

(27)

4. Research Design & Methodology

4.1 Conceptual scheme

The scope of this thesis is summarized in Figure 3. The research project focuses on the two types of initiatives (X1a and X1b) and how they lead to acceptability (Y1). The link between acceptability (X2) and a transition (Y2) and other factors (Xn) that might be involved in either case were also studied, but in a less extensive manner. The research questions are reflected in the figure: the contextual questions on whether there is acceptability and whether there is a transition are necessary to determine the baselines for acceptability and a transition. The core sub-questions are about the link between initiatives (X1) and acceptability (Y1). This thesis focuses on the type of relationship that does exist rather than focusing on whether it is a central relationship as compared to others. Nevertheless the figure shows that other factors (Xn) can have a significant impact on acceptability (Y1) and a transition (Y2) as well, but this relation will be left mostly for further research. Here this is covered only in part through the use of the transitions framework, which considers landscape factors as defining for a transition.

Figure 3 Conceptual scheme (Source: author)

The initiatives (X1) were identified and categorized based on the following characteristics (based on Chapter 3):

o Initiatives: planned single or recurring events, organisations or programmes with a specific (though not always equally pre-defined) purpose;

(28)

o Top-down: organized by government or by public-private partnerships that do not usually involve more community participation than that specifically dictated by law;

o Bottom-up: small-scale initiatives rooted in communities that can be defined geographically or by lifestyle or other preferences; only indirectly if at all linked to government.

Acceptability (Y1/X2) was measured through expert-interviews, document analysis and media analysis, looking for direct answers to questions on levels and types of acceptability. More specifically measured by looking at tendencies relating to absolute and relative amounts of people who

o cycle and the frequency with which they do so, o use the car and the frequency with which they do so,

o express a readiness to cycle more and/or make less use of the car but don’t (yet) do so,

o plan and/or make policy and express a readiness to plan for the bicycle or for a decrease in the use of the car (under certain conditions).

These amounts, how they are influenced and how they differ across groups and places were in part also measured through the use of surveys conducted previously by other institutions, in addition to the methods mentioned above. Details on the indicators used can be found in Annex 1.

A transition was measured based on the following indicators:

o number and kinds of changes in planning and policy at city level over the past ten years related to an increase in cycling or plans for cycling and to reduce the use of the car;

o landscape, regime and niche factors pressing for (or against) a cycling transition. Ten years are an interesting time frame because different political terms can be covered and because of data availability. In practice the past ten years have indeed shown many changes in the countries studied (see Chapters 5 and 6). Possible ‘other’ factors (Xn) were sought in an exploratory manner.

4.2 Case selection

A case-study approach was chosen for two reasons: first, because of its ability to provide rich context information (Yin 2009) and second, because of the relevance of case study research for furthering planning theory and practice. Case studies can often provide new

(29)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 17 insights into how or whether a theoretical assumption works in practice (idem, Abbott 2004). Practitioners in planning often use case studies in their work as examples of success and failure and to consider aspects that might be applicable to their own context (Thomas and Bertolini 2014). Planning is thus a field in which case studies are common and useful, even though it can be problematic that they are often not compared in a more systematic way (idem). This problem highlights the importance of the careful consideration of contextual variables. Furthermore, a comparison between two cities was chosen to help clarify when context matters, and how and when certain relationships between variables appear to be relevant despite different contexts. Small (2009) argues for care when trying to generalize from few cases, but even a small number of cases have proven very useful in planning, also when they are not generalizable per se. The drawbacks concerning difficulties of generalizing and a lack of control of variables has implications for the results of the research project. However, as long as these drawbacks are not ignored, the benefits of the case study method prevail for this project.

To operationalize the case study, multiple embedded case-selection was used to identify the cases for this project, as visualized in Figure 4. First, cycling was placed into context along with other possible kinds of mobility transitions. This is important to highlight that cycling transitions must be seen in relation to other kinds of mobility transitions as well since these might influence, complement or substitute each-other (see various options in Banister 2008). Furthermore, focusing on cycling transitions implies a focus on specific characteristics that are not generalizable among other mobility transitions. Next, two cities were chosen, which exemplify a potential cycling-related mobility transition (see choices and their justification below). Finally, within these cities two top-down and two bottom-up initiatives were chosen to show which types of initiatives might influence acceptability and how.

(30)

Figure 4 Embedded Case selection (Source: author)

Cities A and B in Figure 4 were identified by looking for least-likely crucial cases (see Gerring 2006: 115-119): cities in which cycling initiatives seem to be of increasing influence on mobility transitions although this is at first sight unexpected. Least-likely crucial cases were chosen because if a transition can be identified here, the process might be relevant to both more-likely cases or other least-likely cases. These are places where sustainable mobility is likely to be very desirable and yet difficult to implement. The label ‘least-likely’ has to be treated carefully, however, since it is highly influenced by subjective perspectives and specific measurements. While the two cities have some level of contextual variation, it was considered important that they were experiencing roughly similar developments in terms of mobility and that comparable top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives could be identified. Comparability on relevant factors was thus the most central overall criterion, followed by a high potential for a cycling transition in a city in which a low potential would be expected. The latter also makes the research more relevant and performable (see discussion under criterion ‘urgency for mobility transition’ below). In more detail, the selection criteria for the cities were:

o Availability of top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives

Comparable cycling initiatives per city had to be active, at least one top-down and one bottom-up, to be able to research how these have an impact on acceptability. For the cycling initiatives diverse cases were sought (see Gerring 2006: 97-101), since the

(31)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 19 full range of the types of initiatives had to be covered that could have an influence on the acceptability of a mobility transition (top down or bottom-up). The assumption that the categories ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ represent the full range of types of initiatives will be more critically discussed in Chapters 5-7 and in the conclusions. The initiatives were meant to present a useful example of top-down and bottom-up initiatives, but no initiative can really be called representative. Nevertheless a short reflection on their representativeness is offered in Chapter 6 to place each initiative into its context vis à vis other initiatives.

o Cities of similarly large size, density and population

This criterion refers to the influence of these characteristics on mobility systems and on how crucial they are to the functioning of the city. Size, density and population of a city influence the feasibility of cycling. This influence had to be kept as constant as possible across cases to ensure comparability. Furthermore, large size, low density and large population size are characteristics that at first indicate low potential for a cycling transition, for example because one may assume these characteristics make people unlikely to want to cycle the necessary large distances (see Heinen et al 2010). However, as the other criteria show, the chosen cities have high potential for such a transition despite these conditions (especially concerning large size and population). o Varying degrees of acceptability of cycling transitions within cases

Varying degrees of acceptability, especially within the cases, helped to make sure that some acceptability existed but that there was also still a process going on through which acceptability was contested. It was important to have variation within cases to make sure there would be some issue with acceptability, making it a relevant subject to research. It was difficult to know the level of acceptability before conducting research, so the availability of different kinds of cycling-initiatives (e.g. sport- or leisure-related as well as daily use and governmental incentive campaigns) were used as an indication for this, as well as levels of cycling and car use as they changed over time.

o Similar level of cycling among the population (low)

Cities with a low level of cycling were chosen because this indicated both the difficulty and necessity for a cycling transition to take place. This criterion was

(32)

deemed relevant because it ensured comparability of the cases in terms of the starting point in a cycling transition (together with the next criteria).

o Similar level of car use and car dependency (relatively high)

Cities with relatively high levels of car use and car dependency were chosen. This ensured comparability but also heightened the necessity for a transition. It served as an indication of levels of acceptability that might hinder a transition – or might be changing. A cycling transition in this scenario would also make a big difference for the cities.

o Urgency for mobility transition

Cities with some urgency for a mobility transition were sought so that the research would be relevant, also for the cities in question. This helped make the subject interesting for interviewees and increased the chance for a cycling transition to take place due to such urgency.

Secondary selection criteria were also included in the city-case selection. One city from the so-called ‘Global North’3_{and one from the so-called ‘Global South’ were chosen out}

of the conviction that more studies should challenge the supposition that such cases differ too much in context to provide valuable insights for each other. By carefully considering the context of each city it is argued that the context of the ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ should not make a significant difference for this research. Finally, the secondary selection criterion of feasibility was used, recognizing that pragmatic reasons always influence research choices and that this should not be hidden – although pragmatism should also not provide the main criterion for such choices.

Through this case selection procedure, the choice fell to the London Metropolitan Area and Mexico City Metropolitan Area as the two cities. The term cities, and the more common names of the cities (Mexico City and London) are used throughout the thesis4_,

but where possible refer to the larger metropolitan areas. This choice was made because in both cities economically and in terms of transportation the metropolitan area cannot

3_{For an overview of the North-South debate see McGregor & Hill (2009). This dichotomy is similar to}

those termed Western-Non-Western, Developed-Developing, or First World-Third World.

4_{The cities’ common names are used to create consistency and to allow readers to recognise them more}

(33)

Kim Carlotta von Schönfeld 21 be separated from the core city. Nevertheless, in administrative and political terms, these two are separate, and the level referred to is specified where it is relevant.

Table 1 shows how the cities meet the criteria. The selection process did include other cities, such as Paris and São Paulo, but although they and other cities met some of the criteria as well, the feasibility criterion eliminated the choices that did meet all the other criteria. However even if the feasibility criterion was a significant criterion in the final choice, this does not diminish the fit of these two cities to all the other criteria.

Table 1: Selection of Cities

Criteria Mexico City London Availability of top-down and

bottom-up cycling initiatives

Online research and previous participant observations showed extensive numbers of top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives

Online research and informal conversations with (former) residents showed extensive numbers of top-down and bottom-up cycling initiatives

Cities of similarly large size, density and population

Area: 9,560 km² Density: 2213/km2 Population: ca. 21 Mio (metropolitan area; Rosa & Weiland 2013)

Area: 8,382.00 km2 Density: 1550/km2 Population: ca. 13 Mio (metropolitan area; ONS 2014)

Varying degrees of acceptability of cycling transitions within cases

The variation in types of (top-down and bottom-up) cycling-related activities and people who could be identified taking part in them was identified as high through online research. Furthermore preliminary media analysis showed some conflict between cyclists and non-cyclists in the city (e.g. Lomnitz 2013, Stapley 2011).

The variation in types of (top-down and bottom-up) cycling-related activities and people who could be identified taking part in them was identified as high through online research. Furthermore preliminary media analysis showed some conflict between cyclists and non-cyclists in the city (e.g. Kennedy 2014).

Similar level of cycling among the population (low)

Ca. 1% bicycle use in modal split (2009 – LSE Cities 2011)

Ca. 2% bicycle use in modal split (2012 – TfL 2013a)

Similar level of car use and car dependency (relatively high)

Ca. 21% car use in modal split (2009 – LSE Cities 2011)

Ca. 33% Car use in modal split (2012 – TfL 2013a)

Urgency for mobility transition CO2 emissions, air-quality, car

dependency, social inequality and congestion are very high (see El Poder del Consumidor 2008)

See CO2 emissions and resilience discussion in Travel in London Report 2013 (TfL 2013a): climate change is considered a significant threat although improvements are found over the past few years; congestion is a problem.

‘Global South’/’Global North’ ‘Global South’ (McGregor & Hill (2009))

‘Global North’ (McGregor & Hill (2009))

Feasibility - Possible to travel there and take accommodation with family; visit was planned originally for visiting

- Exchange destination for study, also allowing for longer stay - Financially feasible through

(34)

For choosing initiatives within each city, diverse cases were sought, since they should indicate the full range of types of initiatives: bottom-up and top-down (see discussion on first of city’s selection criteria). Although several initiatives of each kind were analysed per city, for the central analysis two pairs per city were chosen to allow for a more in-depth analysis. The criteria for choosing the initiatives within each city were:

o Two top-down and two bottom-up (or more) per city; o Initiatives active during fieldwork to allow researchability;

o Aim (at least in part) to increase (daily-use) cycling for transport in the population. Some initiatives that focus on sport or leisure were also researched for information on whether they appear to influence general acceptability (through e.g. visibility of cycling);

o Ideally the aim to decrease car use by increasing cycling (at least for some daily trips), considering this when possible also in combination with other sustainable modes; o Among the initiatives that met these criteria, first research results were used to

identify some level of variety on scale and content of initiatives to avoid giving a one-sided image of the kinds of initiatives available in each city. In the same vein, the ‘representativeness’ of each initiative was reflected on;

o Data availability.

Table 2 shows how the chosen initiatives per city meet the selection criteria. The process of selection of these initiatives was long, changing throughout the research, but the last criterion helped make the final choice. Some data was also gathered on other initiatives, but the scope of this research made it impossible to increase the number of initiatives studied in detail. Those that could not be focused on in this thesis can be found with some basic information in the table in Annex 4.

family

- Financially feasible through savings and university support - Previous visits allowing for ground knowledge

- Language ability

savings and university support - Friends could give some orienting information to find important beginning connections - Language ability

(35)

Table 2: Selection of Initiatives

Criteria Mexico City London

Bottom-up Top-down Bottom-up Top-down Two top-down

and two bottom-up (or more) per city - Bicitekas - Mujeres en Bici - Ecobici & Infrastructure - Law of Mobility - LCC - Stop Killing Cyclists

- Barclays Bikes & Infrastructure - ‘Better Places for Everyone’ Initiatives active during fieldwork to allow researchability; continuation at least during fieldwork

Both were active and I could participate in some initiatives and speak to participants. The Ecobici programme and infrastructure were in place and I could make use of them and speak to other users. The law of mobility was passed during my stay and was discussed in various interviews, media and publications.

Both were active and I could participate in some initiatives and speak to participants.

The Barclays Bikes and infrastructure were in place and I could use them and speak to other users. The ‘Better Places for Everyone’ policy was discussed in various interviews and at cycling-related events, and written about in publications.

Aim (at least in part) to increase (daily-use) cycling for transport in the population. Some initiatives that focus on sport or leisure were also researched for information on whether they appear to influence general acceptability Both initiatives have this aim, though through different

intermediate goals: Bicitekas focuses on pressure for the implementation of laws and infrastructure; Mujeres en Bici focuses on education, especially for women on cycling and sharing road-space with other road-users. Both were assumed to have some impact on acceptability due to their wide community involvement (and political pressure in Bicitekas’ case).

Both initiatives have this aim, the first focusing on infrastructural and physical

improvements to make cycling attractive for daily use, the second on the regulations for the use of road space. Both initiatives were assumed to have an impact on acceptability based on literature on effects of cycling infrastructure and bike sharing programmes (e.g. Pucher et al 2010, Aldred 2015) and on the relevance attributed to these initiatives in interviews. Both these initiatives aim to increase the daily use of cycling, but their methods to achieve this are different (see fifth criterion). They were assumed to be relevant for acceptability based on media coverage and because they use political pressure openly.

Both initiatives have this aim, the first focusing on infrastructural and physical

improvements to make cycling attractive for daily use, the second on how this relates to the city’s entire population. Both initiatives were assumed to have an impact on acceptability based on literature on effects of cycling infrastructure and bike sharing programmes (e.g. Pucher et al 2010, Aldred 2015) and on the relevance attributed to these initiatives in interviews.

Ideally the aim to decrease car use by increasing cycling (at least

Bicitekas has this aim, Mujeres en Bici less so. However, both

Ecobici has the direct aim to substitute especially short

The LCC does not have this aim very explicitly, though

Barclays Bikes have the direct aim to substitute especially short trips

(36)

for some daily trips), considering this when possible also in

combination with other sustainable modes

initiatives would prefer less cars on the road and more cyclists and are in favour of particularly sustainable modes of transport.

trips currently made by car with cycling. The cycling infrastructure tends to take away space from cars, though in some cases solutions are sought that do not take away space for cars (making car lanes slightly thinner, or making shared bus/cycle lanes). The main aims of these initiatives are more focused on increasing cycling than decreasing car use though, especially because of awareness that people may also switch to the bike from other modes. The new law highlights a hierarchy in transport policy and planning that prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists far above motorists. So the law focuses explicitly more on cycling and less on car use.

respondents did confirm they hope cycling also substitutes some car trips. Stop Killing Cyclists are very much interested in decreasing car use – not only by substituting these trips by cycling but also through government planning to make car use impossible (those trips could then be made cycling but also through other non-motorised modes or public transport). currently made by car with cycling. The cycling infrastructure tends to take away space from cars, though in some cases solutions are sought that do not take away space for cars (making car lanes slightly thinner, or making shared bus/cycle lanes). The main aims of these initiatives are more focused on increasing cycling than decreasing car use though, especially because of awareness that people may also switch to the bike from other modes. The Better Places for Everyone policy focuses on how cycling can benefit users of other modes, thus does not

necessarily aim to decrease car use, but in effect that is in the long run one of its aims.

Variety on scale and content of initiatives to avoid giving a one-sided image of the kinds of initiatives available in each city (for representativeness see Chapter 6) Bicitekas is much larger scale than Mujeres en Bici, and they focus on different strategies to achieve their goal (infrastructure/pol itics vs. education/persona l realisation of educational projects).

Bike sharing and other infrastructure projects can be rather controversial top-down initiatives, though in varying measures. Their scale is limited to specific areas. The law is a very different kind of

The LCC is active as a larger scale that Stop Killing Cyclists and is more diplomatic, while Stop Killing Cyclists is more radical. The LCC works through campaigning and educational programmes

Bike sharing and other infrastructure projects can be rather controversial top-down initiatives, though in varying measures. Their scale is limited to specific areas. Policy-making that emphasises benefits for

Making cycling acceptable : exploring the who and how of potential (cycle-)0aths to sustainable urban mobility : case studies from Mexico city and London

MAKING CYCLING ACCEPTABLE

Exploring the Who and How of Potential (Cycle-)

Paths to Sustainable Urban Mobility

Case Studies from Mexico City and London

MAKING CYCLING ACCEPTABLE

Acknowledgements

Preface

Summary

Resumen (Spanish Summary)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Research Questions

3. Theoretical framework

4. Research Design & Methodology