Theories of practice : understanding the practice of setting parking requirements : an analysis of influencing factors on the setting of parking requirements

(1)

University of Amsterdam Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning Willemijn Hut (10250174)

Theories of Practice: Understanding the

Practice of Setting Parking Requirements

An Analysis of Influencing Factors on the Setting of Parking Requirements

(2)

Abstract

Theories of Practice: Understanding the Practice of Setting Parking Requirements Willemijn Hut

Abstract of Master’s Thesis, Submitted 12 August 2019

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Amsterdam

Although the interest in sustainable forms of mobility is growing, the car retains its dominant role in western society. Parking requirements is an effective policy tool to cope with the negative concequences of unrestrained increases of car traffic. On the other hand, dysfunctional parking requirements could form a barrier to transitioning toward more sustainable forms of mobility. Parking requirements is a relatively rare research domain compared to other transport and mobility themes. Currently, the majority of academic research analyses the outcomes of parking requirements rather than the practice of setting parking requirements. Researching this practice could help to obtain insights which could be useful in rethinking how parking requirements could be set more effectively and efficiently. Hence, the objective of this qualitative research is to obtain a better understanding of the practice of setting parking requirements. Shove’s et al. (2012) framework based on social practice theory has been used to systematically identify and analyse the elements on which this practice depend: ‘meaning’, ‘materiality ‘and ‘competence’.

In this comparative case-study the practice of setting parking requirements in the municipalities of Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer have been compared. Data for this study has been collected and thematically analysed through in-depth interviews and thematical analysis of policy documents and transcribed interviews.

The results show that although the influencing elements of the practice of setting parking requirements can be identified separately, they all depend on each other. The discussion and conclusions chapter depicts how Shove’s social practice theory enables a thorough systematic analysis of the dynamic practice of setting parking requirements. It shows how the practice depends on the dynamics of its interwoven elements. Further research could focus on how this practice and the elements it depends on, could be influenced in order to induce transition toward more sustainable forms of mobility.

(3)

List of figures

Figure 1. A combination of illustrated elements form the type of parking requirements (Made by author, 2019)

p. 10 Figure 2. The vicious cycle which could arise when implementing high parking

requirements (Willson, 1995)

p. 13 Figure 3. An illustration of the practice of setting parking requirements (Made by

author, 2019)

p. 15 Figure 4. The linking elements of social practice theory (made by author, 2019). Based

on Shove et al., 2012)

p. 17 Figure 5. The interconnectedness of the elements of the practice of setting parking

requirements (Made by author, 2019). Based on Shove et al., 2012)

p. 17 Figure 6. Overview of conducted interviews p. 19 Figure 7. An illustration of the coding process (Made by author, 2019) p. 20 Figure 8. Operationalization of the elements of ‘practice’ (Made by author, 2019). p. 21 Figure 9. The Metropole Region of Amsterdam (MRA Bureau, 2018) p. 22 Figure 10. Contextual data on case-study locations (Made by author, 2019). Based on

CBS (2019)

p. 24 Figure 11. The effect of meaning on the practice of setting parking requirements, made

by author (2019)

p. 25 Figure 12. Influence of accessibility and urbanity on the setting of parking

requirements. Sources: Gemeente Amsterdam (2017), Gemeente Amstelveen (2016), Gemeente Haarlemmermeer (2018), Gemeente Uithoorn (2008)

p. 28

Figure 13. Main findings of the interconnectedness of the elements of the practice of settings parking requirements in Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Haarlemmermeer and Uithoorn (Made by author, 2019)

p. 41

Figure 14. Most important identified barriers to setting lower parking requirements (Made by author, 2019)

p. 42

List of terminology and abbreviations

National parking directives The Dutch national parking directives have been developed to help local governments to calculate how many parking spaces must be supplied to satisfy demand (CROW, 2018).

Parking requirements The number of parking spaces that are required at a particular location. This number is set by local governments (Litman, 2006; CROW, 2018)

HQT High quality public transport

CROW CROW is a knowledge institution for transport, infrastructure and public space (CROW, 2018).

MRA The Metropole Region of Amsterdam is a collaboration between the provinces of Noord-Holland and Flevoland, 31 municipalities and the Vervoerregio Amsterdam. The MRA aims to develop a strong

regional economy and an attractive living environment (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem statement and societal and academic significance

Although it is common ground that western society’s interest in sustainable forms of mobility is growing, the car retains a dominant role in our society. In 2018, more than 8.2 million passenger cars were registered in the Netherlands, 25% more than in 2000 (CBS, 2018). These 8.2 million cars spend on average 95% of their time parked, while city space is becoming increasingly scarce. Consequently, parking is a growing topic of debate among academics and practitioners (Shoup, 2005; Bates, 2014; Mingardo, 2016).

Parking regulation could help cities in coping with the negative consequences of unrestrained increases of car traffic (Marsden, 2006). Various academics advocate the opportunities of effective parking policies contributing to the accessibility of cities, lowering emissions, effectively tackling congestion issues and a more efficient use of valuable space (Verhoef et al., 1995; Valleley et al., 1997; Stubbs, 2002; Shoup, 2005; Marsden et al., 2001; Marsden, 2006). However, poorly designed parking policies could have the opposite effect and manifest in a shortage or an excess of parking facilities, search-behaviour, pollution and degradation of liveability (Palmer et al., 2010). To illustrate, the municipality of Amsterdam is dealing with intractable parking problems such as polluting ‘search-behaviour’ for free parking spots, long parking permit waiting lists and excessively packed streets due to parked cars (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). A dysfunctional parking policy is a missed opportunity to achieve a more optimal use of parking facilities (Mingardo, 2016).

One of the most effective parking regulation policy tools is parking requirements (Mingardo, 2016). In the nineties, the Netherlands introduced one of the first national parking policies in Europe: the ‘ABC-locatiebeleid’. In line with this policy, parking requirements were determined by the national government according to distance to the closest public transport station (Van den Bergh et al., 2001). However, the policy has been abolished in order to offer local authorities more agency. Nowadays, Dutch local governments are free to set their own parking requirements. They have the agency to determine what they consider a ‘sufficient’ amount of parking facilities (Mingardo, 2016). As Mingardo states:

“National governments usually provide guidelines, mostly on parking requirements, but rarely interfere in policy making. The main reason for this is the recognition that parking is a local matter

and that local authorities will deal with it better than will regional or national government.”

(Mingardo, 2016, p. 14-15)

Some municipalities choose to exactly replicate the national parking directives, while other municipalities set their own locally designed parking requirements. It is arguable that the national directives do not fit the characteristics of every city. Hence, the question of how parking requirements ideally should be set is a widely debated topic. Nonetheless, the process of setting parking requirements is still a relatively rare research domain compared to other transport and mobility themes, such as charging users for road use and new sustainable modes of transport (Barter, 2010). Mingardo conducted exploratory parking research in which he concludes that a knowledge gap still

(7)

exists even though the academic knowledge of parking has grown widely in the past decades. The lack of practical applicable results of academic parking research and the lack of well-founded knowledge of policymakers have resulted in a knowledge gap between both groups. Mingardo advocates that

“Future academic research on parking should aim to bridge this gap in order to help policy makers produce more evidence-based parking policy” (Mingardo, 2016, p. 97).

It is arguable that part of this knowledge gap could be found in the way we look at policymaking. Freeman et al. argue that policy should be considered as a practice in order to get a better understanding of its complex nature. However, researchers often focus on analysing the outcome of policy, rather than on the practice of policymaking (Freeman et al., 2011). Researching the practice of policymaking could result in insights which may be useful in rethinking how policy could be set more effectively and efficiently.

1.2. Research objective and research questions

This research seeks to take the first steps toward bridging the mentioned knowledge gap through an analysis of the setting of parking requirements as a practice. Hence, the objective of this research is to obtain a better understanding of what influences municipalities’ practice of setting parking requirements. This could be helpful in rethinking how parking requirements could be set more effectively and efficiently. Social practice theory offers opportunities to conduct this research and has been used as a theoretical lens to answer the following research question:

How can social practice theory help understand the practice of setting local parking requirements?

A variety of decisions have to be made when implementing parking requirements. The literature review (Chapter 2) will discuss the variation of possible parking requirements and its implications. In addition to presenting the current debates about parking requirements, this introduction to parking requirements also provides background knowledge helping to get an initial understanding of the dynamic character of setting parking requirements.

This research has used Shove’s et al. (2012) theoretical framework based on social practice theory as a lens to examine the practice of setting parking requirements. This framework illustrates the dependency of a practice on three interacting elements: meaning, materiality and competence. Therefore, interacting elements of the practice of setting parking requirements must first be identified in order to answer the main research question. Hence, the following sub-research questions will be answered in the results (Chapters 6, 7 and 8) and discussion (Chapter 9):

I. How does meaning influence the practice of setting parking requirements? II. How does materiality influence the practice of setting parking requirements? III. How does competence influence the practice of setting parking requirements?

1.3. Research methodology

(8)

An expansion of past academic work in practice theory has been realised through the application of Shove’s et al. social practice framework to analyse a different type of practice than commonly examined with social practice theory; the practice of setting parking requirements. A further elaboration on the theoretical framework can be found in Chapter 3.

The municipalities of Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer have been chosen as case-study locations to research the practice of setting parking requirements. These case-study locations have been chosen due to their interesting similarities, such as their positioning in the densely populated Metropole Region of Amsterdam (MRA), and simultaneous differences such as their degrees of urbanity. The decision to choose neighbouring municipalities could be explained by the assumption that mobility policy does not only impact the city itself, but also its surroundings (Hodson et al., 2017). More details on methodology decisions can be found in Chapter 4, Methodology.

1.4. Outline

Chapter 2, the theoretical review, reviews literature on parking policy and parking requirements. The concept of structuration and social practice theory are outlined in Chapter 3. A depiction of how these concepts can be applied to the practice of setting parking requirements has been included. Chapter 4 outlines the qualitative research design and comparative case-study strategy. Chapter 5 is concerned with presenting a short context of the municipalities. Next, chapters 6 to 8 carry out the case studies, structured by the elements of practice. The conclusion and discussion in chapter 9 answers the main research question.

(9)

2. A review of literature on parking requirements

This chapter will review academic research on parking requirements. The origins, problematic character and the different types of parking requirements will be discussed.

2.1. Academic fields of research within the parking domain

Until the end of the 1990s, a lack of scientific journals on parking policy was present. From the 1990s on, the academic interest in parking has been increasing, but according to academics such as Ison et al. (2006), Barter (2010) and Mingardo (2016), parking is still an under researched topic in the transport and mobility domain. Topics of academic literature on parking vary from economic analysis of parking costs and revenues, for example by Shoup (2005) and Button (2006), to the effects of parking policy on traffic congestion and car occupancy rates by Arnott (2010) and Guo (2013). Other academics such as Litman (2006) and Barter (2010) conducted more comprehensive research on parking. It is notable that most parking research is based on North American planning practice. Nevertheless, the more recently published work of Kodransky et al. (2011) and Mingardo (2016) reviews European parking policies.

A greater overview of main parking research topics has been presented in Appendix I. The majority of academic literature on parking requirements analysis the outcomes of parking requirements rather than the process of setting parking requirements. This chapter reviews this literature as a first step toward a better understanding of the complex nature of the practice of setting parking requirements.

2.2. Historical background of parking policy and regulation

The car unrestrainedly grew in popularity among civilians during the 1910s and 1920s. Increasing car ownership led to the development of the first parking problems. The introduction of paid parking was one of the first implemented parking regulation tools. Next to paid parking, urban planners proposed another solution; a requirement to provision on-site parking spaces for all new buildings, assuming most people would travel by car. Cities started to supply as many off-street parking spaces as needed to satisfy the expected peak demands. A self-fulfilling prophecy started to exist, the parking requirements started to encourage people to drive everywhere they went, knowing that there would be sufficient parking at their destination (Shoup, 2005). Shoup (2005) and Marsden (2006) argue that parking is an often forgotten and misunderstood topic, despite its significant impact on land use and mobility, as Shoup states in his book The High Cost of Free Parking: “[…] there is no such thing as “free

parking.” The cost of parking is hidden in higher prices for everything else.” (Shoup, 2005, p. 1).

Nonetheless, the awareness of the need of parking policy to control parking supply has been growing through the years. Valleley et al. (1997) and Stubbs (2002) argue that well designed parking policies could contribute to less pollution, a more efficient use of the mobility system and more efficient use of valuable city space, which lead to more inclusive urban design. Conversely, poorly designed parking policies could work in opposite directions (Marsden, 2006). Local governments could implement a multitude of policy instruments to influence parking supply, including parking requirements, parking regulation, marketing and information and communication tools. The implementation of parking requirements is known to be one of the most effective policy instruments to directly influence parking

(10)

2.3. The problematic character of setting parking requirements

The effectiveness of parking requirements depends on how they are set. Academics, such as Willson (1995), Shoup (1997 and 2005), Litman (2006) and Mingardo (2016), state the problematic character of parking requirements mainly lies in the ignorance of urban planners of the price and cost of parking, resulting in the nonstrategic translation of parking demand into minimum parking requirements. Mingardo advocates that: “[...] planners and policymakers must rethink parking requirements in the

light of the inadequacy of national guidelines. Parking requirements should be more flexible, considering the specific characteristics of each site and activity, and should find the right trade-off between the needs of the public authority and the needs of private developers” (Mingardo, 2016, p.

94). In order to better understand planners’ and policymakers’ choices to implement a certain type of parking requirement, the variety of parking requirements types (see Figure 1) will be discussed in the following subsections, including:

● locally or regionally or nationally set parking requirements ● reactive or proactive parking requirements

● minimum, minimum and maximum or maximum parking requirements ● low or high parking requirements.

2.3.1. Local or national approach

Whereas parking requirements in the nineties were determined by the national government in the Netherlands, nowadays cities are not bound to nationally set parking requirements anymore and are free to set their own local parking requirements. Mingardo (2016) advocates this approach and states that it has been widely recognised that parking is a topic which should be dealt with locally. Local authorities should have the agency and be stimulated by the national government to implement their own strategically set parking requirements, as Mingardo states:

(11)

“National government should play an active role in encouraging cities to take a more innovative approach to parking policy and in highlighting to them the need to place parking policy within a wider strategic transport-planning context. For example, the national government could use spatial

planning legislation to create more room for local authorities’ initiatives and could downgrade the importance of parking requirement guidelines.” (Mingardo, 2016, p. 94)

Nationally set parking requirements can be inflexible and often are poor fits for the local urban character of cities (Mingardo, 2016). Willson advocates considering local parking demand levels in the decision-making process of setting parking requirements instead of replicating national directives, arguing that demand varies from location to location and by different types of land-use (Willson, 1995).

2.3.2. Reactive or strategical approach

Cities could either introduce parking requirements in reaction to parking demand, aiming to satisfy this demand, or strategically introduce parking requirements as part of transport demand management strategies. A reactive approach of setting parking requirements is mostly found in smaller and remote cities in which parking policy is not noticeably a part of integral city policy. These type of parking requirements are introduced to satisfy demand and to prevent excessive traffic (Mingardo, 2016). However, Shoup describes parking requirements set to parking demand as often problematic. He advocates for a more strategic approach of setting parking requirements in cities.

“[...] urban planners neglect both the price and the cost of parking when they set parking requirements, and the maximum observed parking demand becomes the minimum required parking

supply” (Shoup, 2005, p. 580)

Engel-Yan et al. underpin Shoup’s statement that parking requirements should not only depend on parking demand but also advocate a more strategic approach. They argue that the approach of setting parking requirements should be based on the local government’s purpose of implementing parking requirements. This purpose could, for example, focus on alignment with actual parking demand, alignment with long-term policy objectives, ease of implementation and predictability for developers (Engel-Yan et al., 2010). Although the approaches are contrasting, both types of parking requirements are often implemented with the same objective; managing parking demand and preventing parking disturbances (Mingardo, 2016).

2.3.3. Minimum or maximum parking requirements

Local governments could either set minimum parking requirements (for example, there should be at least 1,7 parking spots per dwelling) or maximum parking requirements (for example, only a maximum of 0,5 parking spots per dwelling are allowed) or a combination of both which results in a range. Various academics debate the advantages and disadvantages of minimum and maximum parking requirements. Minimum parking requirements are often based on parking demand and implemented to prevent parking disturbances. Willson argues that setting minimum parking requirements potentially leads to an oversupply of parking facilities and unnecessary use of valuable urban space (Willson, 1995). Nonetheless, local governments still dominantly set minimum parking requirements

(12)

Mukhija et al. advocate such maximum parking requirements. They state that local governments often neglect the consequences of minimum parking requirements for the urban design. They describe the creation of a self-perpetuating cycle (Mukhija et al., 2006):

“Such requirements create a self-perpetuating cycle in which increasing the supply of parking leads to increased demand. Plentiful parking encourages people to buy more cars, and more cars lead cities to require even more parking spaces. Parking lots consume land that could be put to higher-value uses, such as housing, and they detract from the traditional pedestrian ambience of cities.” (Mukhija et al.,

2006, p. 297)

Maximum parking requirements could limit car traffic in and to a neighbourhood and offer more free space for public transport, cycling and walking. The implementation of the Greater London Development Plan in 1976, is an example of how maximum parking requirements could be a tool to lower parking supply. Due to this plan, parking requirements in the central area of London have been changed from minimum to maximum requirements (Lester, 2013; Mingardo, 2016). In 2004, the parking reform has been applied to the whole city of London. Guo and Ren researched this and concluded that the parking supply in residential areas noticeably decreased after the implementation of the parking reform (Guo et al., 2013).

2.3.4. Low or high parking requirements

Parking requirements are directly influencing the amount of to be built parking spaces. A variety of studies show that the amount of residential parking spaces, together with other external factors, can affect the modal split. Although all reviewed studies are case-studies and do not contain generally applicable results, the results are still valuable, offering insights into implications of implementing low or high of parking requirements (Antonson et al., 2017). See some examples of studies concerning parking requirements below:

● A case-study of London showed that high minimum parking requirements (together with other external factors) and guaranteed parking at home resulted in higher car occupancy rates and longer and more frequent car trips (Guo, 2013).

● A case-study of Gothenburg showed that after implementing low parking requirements, 25% of the citizens drove less frequently and car ownership declined 19% (Antonson et al., 2017). ● A case-study of New York showed that even with guaranteed parking spots at a location connected to sufficient public transport services, people still tend to drive to their destinations (Weinberg, 2012).

● A case-study of central and outer London showed that low parking requirements did not restrict the growth of car-ownership. In addition, it led to dangerous and illegal parking (Liebling, 2014).

● A study of Willson (1995) shows a vicious cycle resulting from implementing high parking requirements (see Figure 2): “When parking supply exceeds demand, it tends to be treated like

a costless good. Market prices cannot be sustained; and because parking is free to the motorist, solo driving is encouraged. The resulting increase in automobile use consumes more energy and increases traffic congestion and air pollution. At the same time, high minimum

(13)

parking requirements lower density and land values, helping to establish an urban form and transportation system oriented to automobile use.” (Willson, 1995, p. 34).

2.4. Conclusion

This chapter sketched out the different type of parking requirements and their implications. Parking requirements are often implemented to prevent parking disturbances. Whereas some municipalities implement high minimum parking requirements to satisfy parking demand, some municipalities strategically implement low minimum and maximum parking requirements in order to stimulate more sustainable forms of mobility. It could be concluded that academics do not yet find agreement on how parking requirements could be most effectively implemented. The implications of parking requirements are strongly dependent on locational context. This research will examine what influences local governments with different locational contexts to set certain type of parking requirements. The next chapter will elaborate on how social practice theory could contribute in conducting this research.

(14)

3. Theories of practice: a theoretical framework

Insights into practice theory can provide a useful framework to systematically analyse the practice of setting parking requirements. The first part of this chapter will explain the origins of practice theory and will argue why policymaking, and thus the setting of parking requirements, could also be seen as a practice. The second part of this chapter will introduce Shove’s et al. practice theory based framework and will illustrate how the framework can be used to analyse the practice of setting parking requirements.

3.1. A history of social practice theories

A well-known often asked question is why societies change so slowly. It is still difficult to understand the dynamics behind novelty and persistence to change. Academics try to understand change by researching social practice and developing theories of practice. In the past, a variety of research has been done to understand how societies change. In general, this research predominantly relies on theories of individual behaviour change, attitudes and choices. Giddens claims that the basic domain of social sciences should not only be research on individual actor behaviour or to the existence of social totality, but it should also include social practices ordered across time and space (Giddens, 1984; Shove et al., 2012).

According to Giddens’ Theory of Structuration, practices transcend the recursive relationship between social structure (social totality) and agency (individual actor behaviour), “[…] the day to day activity of

social actors draws upon and reproduces structural features of wider social systems.” (Giddens, 1984,

p. 2). Giddens does not consider social structure and agency as a one-way relationship, but as a duality. Structuration theory proposes that social structure and agency flow concurrently and constantly affect each other (Giddens, 1979 and 1984; Whittington, 2015).

Based on Giddens’ Structuration Theory and following conceptualisations of practice by theorists such as Bourdieu and Foucault, Reckwitz describes a practice as a creator of structures of action. He defines a practice as: “[...] a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected

to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge.”

(Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249). According to this definition, a practice is formed out of a set of a multitude of combined actions. This set of actions embodies interdependencies between the above described elements, influencing the practice as a whole. When a practice is reproduced and transformed into a slightly different practice, the elements of the practice have been reconfigured. The individual human being is solely the “carrier” of this practice. In the case of this research, the policymaker who sets parking requirements could be seen as the carrier of the practice (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012).

3.2. The practice of setting parking requirements

Policy is frequently depicted as an abstraction which is separated from the activities of humans who conceive policy and carry it out. Hence, practice is most often described as action happening after policy making (Wagenaar, 2004; Freeman et al., 2011). However, Freeman et al. (2011) focus on the underexplored practice of policy making. Currently, the knowledge of policy instruments seems to be

(15)

greater than the knowledge about how policy instruments are designed and used by policymakers (Hood, 1983). Freeman et al. argue that policy making should also be conceived and analysed as a practice:

“We distinguish between policy and practice, between policy makers and practitioners, as though

policy makers themselves were not also practitioners of a special kind. The world of policy making, we contend here, is itself a realm of practice as well as of ideas, interests and institutions.“ (Freeman

et al., 2011, p. 128)

Policy making, and more specifically ‘the setting of parking requirements’, should not only be researched in terms of impact, but also as a practice to understand why it has impact. To illustrate the definition of a practice and to give an example of how policy making could be conceived as a practice, an illustration of the practice of setting parking requirements is given in Figure 3.

3.3. A framework to systematically analyse practice

In line with Giddens’ Theory of Structuration and Reckwitz’ definition of practice, Shove et al. argue that theories of practice have potential for understanding change. A perquisite of this potential is the development and use of a “[…] a means of systematically exploring processes of transformation and

stability within social practices.” (Shove et al., 2012, p. 1). Shove et al. developed a conceptual

framework to systematically analyse practices such as driving, cycling and consuming behaviour in relation to environmental pollution, see Figure 4 (Giddens, 1984; Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012). However, this research experiments with the implementation of Shove’s social practice framework by implementing it as a theoretical lens to analyse the practice of setting local parking requirements, see Figure 5. Implementing the framework in this research, an analysis could be made by actively combining and exploring the constantly iterative linked elements of which a practice, such as setting parking requirements, exist and depend on: meaning, material and competence. These elements will be explained in the following sub sections.

An illustration of the practice of setting parking requirements

The practice of setting parking requirements could consist of a combination of a multitude of influencing elements; the physical presence of the current built parking environment and the related limited space in the inner city along with the competence of policymakers to develop accurate parking policy, the local council’s view on the car as mode of transport and its meaning to policymakers. The combination of these elements forms an entity which draws upon a set defining the practice of setting local parking norms carried out by policymakers.

(16)

3.2.1. Meaning

Meaning could be considered as “forms of mental activities […], states of emotion and motivational

knowledge” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249). Shove et al. consider ‘meaning’ as an element that represents

the “social and symbolical significance of participation at any one moment” (Shove et al., 2012, p.1). To illustrate, local politicians represent their citizens and understand their desire to have their car parked in front of their homes, but they also have to implement sometimes less desirable strategic parking policies. It is a challenge for local politicians to find the right trade-off between both, as Stubbs illustrate: “The challenge for residential designers […] is to pay attention to this desire, whilst utilizing

a palette of design solutions to ensure that car parking provision does not dictate urban design layout.” (Stubbs, 2002, p. 235). Hence, based on Shove’s et al. perception of meaning, in this research meaning

has been defined as cultural conventions, expectations and socially shared meanings of the car by local politicians.

3.2.2. Materiality

Whereas Giddens’ structuration theory is almost completely social, Reckwitz and Schatzki argue the importance of exploring the connections and interweaving of practices with physical objects (Giddens, 1984; Schatzki, 2001; Reckwitz, 2002). Røpke reviewed a variety of researches to social practice theory and concluded that a wide agreement exist on the importance of treating objects, also called ‘things’, as elements of practice (Røpke, 2009). This is why Shove et al. incorporated ‘materiality’ as an element of their framework. Shove et al. define materiality as physical infrastructure, objects and tools, arguing that once we have built in space, these spatial constructions determine encouragement or restrictions of our future choices (Shove et al., 2012; Gieryn, 2002).

It could be explained that the built-environment are highly influencing modal split, as Priemus et al. state the following: “[…] a compactly built city presents a good condition for a modal split with a high

share of public transport and a low share of car traffic. However, the more compact a city becomes, the greater level of suburbanization of housing and industry we may expect as a result of locational preferences and the increase of land prices and real estate. This suburbanization actually stimulates car mobility” (Priemus et al., 2001, p. 168). Therefore, the choice has been made to examine the

element materiality by identifying the influence of degrees of urbanity and accessibility.

3.2.3. Competence

The final element of focus is ‘competence’, by Reckwitz defined as “[…] background knowledge in the

form of understanding, know-how” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249). Giddens describes this as shared

understandings and judging of well appreciated performances. A differentiation could be made according to senses of knowledge, namely knowledge to evaluate a performance and knowledge required to perform a skill (Warde, 2005). Shove et al. bundled and simplified both types of knowledge together as ‘competence’: the embodied skills and practical knowledge to execute practices. Spaargaren et al. describe the importance of including competence in analysing practice by arguing that practices are not skilfully executed and attained of preferred outcomes if competence is missing (Spaargaren et al., 2000).

(17)

3.2.4. The interconnectedness of elements of practice

Reckwitz defined a practice as behavior that forms a ‘block’ existing out of the three elements discussed in this research: meaning, materiality and competence (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012)(see Figure 4 and 5). They are glued together (Reckwitz, 2002; Røpke, 2009), as Spaargaren illustrates: “Without meaning, there is no reason to do things; without competence there is neither

skilful execution of tasks nor attainment of preferred outcomes; and without hardware the things cannot be done anyway” (Spaargaren et al., 2016, p. 215). The emerging, stabilizing and dying out of

a practice depends on the interconnectedness of these elements and happen when links are made and broken. Change could emerge from both outside and inside a practice. When a practice comes in contact with another practice, a practice could be changed from the outside. When a policymaker improvises due to a new situation which induces change within elements, a change in practice has emerged from the inside. Inducing change to a practice calls for breaking and replacing links between elements (Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012).

Figure 4. The linking elements of social practice theory (made by author, 2019). Based on Shove et al., 2012)

Figure 5. The interconnectedness of the elements of the practice of setting parking requirements (Made by author, 2019). Based on Shove et al., 2012)

(18)

4. Methodology

4.1. Research design

In this research, the practice of setting local parking requirements will be examined and is the core unit of analyses. The research intends to reach an understanding of this practice by analysing the elements it depends on: meaning, materiality and competence. It has been chosen to conduct qualitative research using concepts rather than measures and interpreting data while conducting and analysing data. This allows thorough analysis of already known and less well known factors influencing the practice of setting parking requirements. Next, Bryman argues that social phenomena are better understandable when contrasting cases are being compared and when a particular situation is analysed in depth. This offers a chance to state a more analytical robust conclusion (Noor, 2008; Yin, 2009; Bryman, 2016). Hence, a comparative case-study strategy was chosen to research the practice of setting parking requirements.

4.2. Case selection

To conduct the research, four case-study locations have been chosen: Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer. More than one or two cases were chosen in order to obtain a broader understanding of diverging types of practices of setting parking requirements. Hudson states that mobility problems should not be regarded as stand-alone local problems, but as problems which are part of a bigger network (Hudson, 2017). He argues that “Geographies of transition require a focus on

both the distribution of activity within a particular space but also geographical interconnections between that space and other spaces.” (Hodson et al., 2017,p. 3). Traditional urban mobility planning

often overlooks the importance of the role of infrastructure networks between cities (Straatemeier, 2008). Hence, it is important to consider the geographical perspective and the spatial differences of cities and the existence of a multiplicity of mobility transition pathways (Wittmayer et al., 2016). Therefore it has been chosen to research a several neighbouring municipalities. These particular municipalities have been chosen due to their interesting similarities and simultaneous differences. They are all positioned in the densely populated MRA, but simultaneously differ considerably in degrees of urbanity and accessibility.

4.3. Data collection

A comparative case-study design is comprised of a comprehensive method and preferably relies on multiple data sources. This research also applied a multitude of data sources in order to develop converging lines of inquiry, hence strengthening construct validity (Patton 1990; Yin, 2009). Open in-depth interviews with traffic engineers were conducted to explore the field of parking requirements. These interviews were followed up by five semi-structured in-depth interviews with key-informants of local governments and a key-informant of CROW (see Figure 6). The interviews were not completely structured in order to leave room for input. Semi-structured interviews are useful to get insights into ‘why’ questions rather than ‘how much’ and ‘how many’ questions (Fylan, 2005). This fits the qualitative approach of the research. The interview themes have been based on the theoretical framework, the outcomes of the literature review and the interviews with the traffic engineers. The

(19)

semi-structured interview scheme has been added to Appendix II. The structure has only been used as a guiding instrument to make sure every topic is covered and to maximize the information obtained during the interview (Kohn, 1997). The interview recordings have been transcribed in order to maintain a chain of evidence and to increase reliability (Yin, 2009). Next to interviews, municipal policy documents have been analysed. An overview of analysed documents has been added to Appendix III.

Interview participant reference code in text

Organisation Field of Expertise Type of interview Interview date

Not used in text Verkeersatelier Traffic engineer Open interview, in person

08-04-2019

Not used in text Vervoerregio Amsterdam

Traffic engineer Open interview, in person 02-04-2019 Policymaker of Amsterdam Gemeente Amsterdam

Parking policy advisor Semi-structured interview, in person 28-05-2019 Policymaker of Amstelveen Gemeente Amstelveen

Traffic and transport policy advisor Semi-structured interview, in person 01-05-2019 Policymaker of Uithoorn Gemeente Uithoorn

Traffic and transport policy advisor Semi-structured interview, in person 11-04-2019 Policymaker of Haarlemmermeer Gemeente Haarlemmermeer

Traffic and transport policy advisor Semi-structured interview, in person 03-05-2019 Parking Expert CROW

CROW Parking expert, expertise on national parking directives

Semi-structured interview, in person

29-05-2019

Figure 6. Overview of conducted interviews

4.4. Data analysis

The thematic data analysis has been guided by the prior outlined theoretical framework (Chapter 3) (Yin, 2009; Shove et al., 2012). The elements of social practice theory (meaning, materiality and competence) have been operationalised in relation to the research objective (see Figure 8). The transcriptions of the interviews and policy documents are accordingly thematically analysed. A structured coding process is needed to analyse the data to increase reliability. The coding process consists of three steps: (1) open coding, (2) axial coding and (3) selective coding. The first step is to label fragments of the interviews and policy documents per theme. The open coding has been deductively and inductively approached. Deductively because the selection of fragments has been based on the three elements of social practice theory (meaning, material and competence) and inductively because the selection has also been based on its own criteria, namely other influence factors found during the data analysis. During the second step, axial coding, the coded fragments are compared in order to analyse how fragments of data cluster together. This has resulted in new main-coding and sub-main-coding categories. During the third step, selective main-coding, core variables of the data has been sought. The selective codes partly include the codes derived from theory and partly include

(20)

new codes (Strauss, 1987; Bryman et al., 1994; Allen, 2017). An example of an iteration of the three steps has been presented in Figure 7.

A multiple case-study research strategy requires an examination of the interrelationship of cases and thus a comparison of cases (Kohn, 1997). Accordingly, structured by the elements on which practice depends, the results of each municipality have been presented separately in the results (Chapters 6, 7 and 8) and have been merged and related to theory in the discussion of the analysis (Chapter 9). Clearly articulating and structuring the results helps to get insights into the practice from within and helps to present the various perspectives on the main unit of analysis, the practice of setting parking requirements.

Resulting codes from open coding Resulting codes from axial coding

Resulting code from selective coding Use of parking standard calculator;

Use of national directives; Use own parking research; Use of Research from other cities; Use of knowledge of future development; Use of knowledge shared car;

Use of knowledge autonomous car;

Use of knowledge monitoring parking pressure.

Use of own research; Use of external research; Use of knowledge of future developments.

Competence

Figure 7. An illustration of the coding process (Made by author, 2019)

4.5. Operationalisation

Shove et al. (2012) describe their view on the concept ‘practice’ and argue that a practice depends on the making and breaking of links between three interacting elements: meaning, materiality and competence. All elements have their own indicators in theory. The concept of practice and three elements have been translated into indicators fitting the research objective of obtaining a better understanding of what influences municipalities’ practice of setting parking requirements (Figure 4, 5 and 8).

4.5. Limitations

A comparative case-study strategy has many strengths, but also has limitations. The main limitation is the limited external validity. The results cannot be generalized to cases in which parking requirements are set in a different context (Bryman, 2016). However, as stated before, this is also not the objective of this research. Also, due to the time constraint, only a limited number of policymakers has been interviewed. This limitation has partly been addressed, because the interviewed policymakers could be considered as key-informants due to their role in the organization. Finally, replicability is also limited due to data collection through semi-structured interviews. The question themes of the interview scheme are semi-structured, but do not offer the opportunity to replicate the interviews completely. However, this also offers the opportunity to question in-depth, which is considered to be more important for the objective of this research.

(21)

Concept Dimension Indicator(s) in theory Indicators in this research

Practice

Meaning Cultural conventions, expectations and socially shared meanings.

Local government’s expectations and meanings of the car.

Research question I

Materiality Infrastructure, objects and tools. Once we have built in space, these spatial constructions determine encouragement or restrictions of our future choices.

The built environment of a city, possibly determining the amount and location of parking facilities, focussing on urbanity and accessibility.

Research question II

Competence Embodied skills and practical knowledge to execute practices.

Use of sources of knowledge which could be used in the decision-making process of setting parking requirements:

- National parking directives - Internal knowledge and research - Research to future mobility trends - Intermunicipal shared knowledge

Research question III

Figure 8. Operationalization of the elements of ‘practice’ (Made by author, 2019). Based on Giddens (1979) and Shove et al. (2012)

(22)

5. Context of case studies

This chapter is concerned with contextual information of the selected case-study municipalities: Amsterdam, Amstelveen, Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer. A short explanation of the MRA will be given in the following subsection. Next, the remaining subsections outline the main characterizations and ambitions of the municipalities derived from their policy documents. In addition, Figure 10 depicts relevant quantitative data of the four municipalities for matters of comparison. An overview of the municipalities’ calculation elements of residential parking requirements has been depicted in Appendix IV.

5.1. The Metropole Region of Amsterdam

The four examined neighbouring municipalities are part of the MRA, see Figure x. The MRA is a collaboration between 32 municipalities, the province of Flevoland and Noord-Holland and the Vervoerregio Amsterdam (see Figure 9). This partnership is mainly focusing on strengthening the region’s economics. The region can be characterized by its growing population and strong economy compared to other parts of the Netherlands. Since 2008, this growth is mainly visible in Amsterdam and its direct surroundings. Parts outside the core region are increasingly turning into residential areas, resulting in a growth of commuting traffic between municipalities. Hence, the MRA advocates collaboration between municipalities in order to face the relating challenges concerning the labor market, housing market and infrastructure in order to strengthen the region’s economy and resilience (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).

(23)

5.2. Amsterdam

Amsterdam is the capital city of the Netherlands and positioned in the core of the MRA. The municipality’s main objective is to continuously develop economically strong and sustainable. Amsterdam emphasis on six spatial tasks: densification, transformation of monofunctional business parks into an urban mix of residential and business functions, frequent and comfortable regional public transport, high quality public spaces, transitioning toward sustainable energy and more investments in the recreational use of green space and water (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). In accordance with MRA’s housing development, it has been planned to build 50.000 houses until 2025. Nowadays, this is already resulting in increasing densification. Altogether, Amsterdam prioritizes slow traffic and public transport above the car in order to maintain the balance between accessibility and livability (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).

5.2. Amstelveen

Amstelveen could be characterized as a commuter’s town, neighbouring Amsterdam and Schiphol Airport. Amstelveen aspires to increase its economic growth and focuses on developing its own international office market. Hence, the number of (international) companies residing in Amstelveen, such as KLM and KPMG, is growing. In addition, Amstelveen’s ambition is to increasingly become connected to the metropolitan network and to have access to a high-quality public transport network (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011). Amstelveen does not have a train station, despite the high population density (see Figure 7). Hence, the city considers a futureproof public transport connection with the train station Amsterdam Zuid of great importance. Next to developing the office market and increasing public transport connectivity, Amstelveen also envisions keeping their acquired accessibility by car, as they accordingly state in the most recent spatial planning act ‘Plan Structuurvisie Amstelveen 2025+’ (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011):

“[…] to keep and improve the following strengths: accessibility by car and public transport, parking, spatial quality, above average retail provision.” (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011, p. 35)

5.3. Uithoorn

Uithoorn is, compared to the other three researched municipalities, the smallest municipality in terms of size and number of citizens. The municipality aims to have a “[…] pleasant living environment,

uniquely situated next to the Amstel river and in Het Groene Hart, close to all highly urban amenities”

(Gemeente Uithoorn, 2011, p. 5). Uithoorn could be characterized by its clear separation of living environment and the work areas at the border of the municipality. It could be argued that Uithoorn is the least accessible, by public transport, of all three municipalities. The closest train station is situated an average of 11,7 kilometers away. However, Uithoorn does have connecting bus lines departing from the central bus station and in 2024, a tramline to Amstelveen and Amsterdam will be realized. Next to an improvement of public transport connections, Uithoorn aims to “improve internal and

(24)

5.4. Haarlemmermeer

Haarlemmermeer, which has merged with the former municipality of Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude in 2019, could be characterized by its diverse landscapes: agricultural, urban, transformational, recreational landscape and airport. Haarlemmermeer has a variety of infrastructure hubs and has strong economic dynamics due to its central positioning in the MRA. However, the municipality also includes large swaths of agricultural land with weak connections to living environments. Compared to the other three municipalities in this research, Haarlemmermeer has a relatively low number of citizens per square kilometer. Haarlemmermeer desires well defined infrastructure connections in such a way that citizens could pleasantly live, work and recreate within municipal borders. The municipality has four train stations (Schiphol, Hoofddorp, Halfweg-Zwanenburg and Nieuw-Vennep). As has been stated in the Structuurvisie: “The possibility to be able

to quickly move around by car and public transport are staying perquisites.” (Gemeente

Haarlemmermeer, 2012, p. 35).

Amsterdam Amstelveen Uithoorn Haarlemmermeer

Citizens (2018) 854.047 89.870 29.445 147.282

Average household size (2018)

1,81 2,08 2,28 2,37

Citizens per km² (2018) 5.160 2.185 1.623 826

Average income per household per year (€) (2017)

39.000 48.900 45.500 48.300

Average residential property valuation (€) (2018)

340.000 342.000 258.000 272.000

Average distance to a train station (km) (2018)

2,5 5,9 11,7 3,9

Cars per 1000 citizens (2018)

420 274 498 750

(25)

6. Results I. Meaning

This chapter presents the results of the collected data on the first element of practice ‘meaning’. Translating parking demand into parking requirements is nowadays increasingly becoming a topic of debate, according to CROW’s interviewed parking expert. It would defeat the opportunities to effectively use parking requirements as a policy tool to achieve policy objectives. It could be argued that a municipality’s political given meaning to cars, could be linked to their political positioning with respect to parking requirements (Parking Expert CROW, personal communication, 2019). Figure 11 summarizes the political meaning given to cars by the local governments of the researched municipalities and its effects on the practice of setting parking requirements. The following subsection will further elaborate on the results per municipality and will make the first steps toward answering the sub-research question: “How does meaning influence the practice of setting parking requirements?”.

6.1. Amstelveen

The municipality of Amstelveen has been advocating for the facilitation of the car as a mode of transport for decades. They consider accessibility of the city by car of great importance and acknowledge, for example, accessibility by car as one of the success factors of the local shopping mall: - “The great accessibility by car and public transport has resulted in the transformation of the local shopping district ‘het Stadshart’ to a regional attractive shopping district” (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011, p.7)

- “It is of great importance that new real-estate developments are easy accessible by cars” (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011, p.37)

- “It is of great importance to develop accessibility of facilities for walking, cars, bikes and public transport” (Gemeente Amstelveen, 2011, p.37)

Figure 11. The effect of meaning on the practice of setting parking requirements, made by author (2019)

Important for city’s development Cases: Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer

Meaning in transition Case: Amstelveen

Undesired Case: Amsterdam

(26)

However, during the interview of the Amstelveen policymaker an argument was made that nowadays a shift of Amstelveen’s political view on car-usage and parking requirements is starting to occur. Policy objectives are shifting toward “minimalizing parking disturbances and proactively directing toward

lower parking requirements, although we still have our doubts.”(Policymaker of Amstelveen, personal

communication, 2019). This transition is slowly happening due to several reasons. First of all, the growingly urban character of Amstelveen and the growing amount of high rise infringement real-estate developments, are resulting in a lack of space to realize parking facilities. Secondly, the high minimum parking requirements have created turmoil among real-estate developers. They argued that developing real-estate has become prohibitively expensive due to the relatively high costs of building parking facilities. This then pressured the municipal council and board to act: “We were focused on

facilitating new citizens’ cars, but parking is becoming a more complicated topic. It gets harder to stick to the high parking requirements we formulated in our parking policy. Many real-estate developers try to negotiate lower parking requirements.” (Policymaker Amstelveen, personal communication, 2019)

In accordance, Amstelveen’s alderman decided on a more flexible implementation of the set parking requirements, offering real-estate developers more freedom in the decision of the number of parking facilities to be built. However, this again resulted in discord, but now among citizens, which again has resulted in a change of implementation of parking policy: “Since last elections we have an alderman

that explicitly argued that she wanted Amstelveen to handle parking requirements more flexibly, resulting in the build of less parking spots. Until she noticed resistance of citizens due to a shortage of parking facilities. Nowadays she is more cautious. She still wants to be more flexible on interpreting earlier set parking policy, but not always and everywhere anymore.” (Policymaker Amstelveen,

personal communication, 2019).

It could be concluded that Amstelveen’s parking policymakers are still searching for a right balance between the needs of real-estate developers, citizens and the objectives set by the municipal council and board. These groups could be placed in overlapping social systems, from which the given meaning to the car and its influence all counts in developing policy on parking requirements.

6.2. Amsterdam

In contrast, Amsterdam advocates low-traffic urban areas and pursues policy that stimulates people to use other modalities rather than the car. The city actively implements measures such as removing public parking spots in the city center, raising parking fees and setting lower parking requirements. The interviewed policymaker of Amsterdam explains this as a result of the increasingly overcrowding of the city. He states that such measures are unavoidable and needed in order to maintain the city’s livability for its citizens.

- “It is important to continuously work on a variety of measures to stimulate sustainable mobility. […] The use of sustainable modes of transport such as the bike and public transport, will increase in respect of the car.” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2011, p. 317-318).

- “We actively use parking requirements as a tool to lower car-use” (Policymaker Amsterdam,

personal communication, 2019)

- “There is a lot of development going on in Amsterdam. We expect to build 50.000 houses by 2025. This also means the addition of 20.000 to 30.000 cars. For our current and new citizens

(27)

it is of great importance that the parts of Amsterdam with the most traffic, will not become congested. If we would like to keep the city accessible to pedestrians, by public transport and by car, less space will remain for parking.” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017, p. 5)

The interviewee contends that parking is an important political tool. The current policy on parking requirements was established in 2017 by the former coalition. The current coalition aims to further the realization of a modal shift. Although this has not formally affected parking policy yet, the question has been raised how much say developers should have in determining parking requirements. In some cases, for example the area development project Sluisbuurt, the municipality has already decided to deviate from current parking policy and lower the maximum parking requirements: “We are nowadays

talking about changing Amsterdam’s parking policy. Should we lower the maximum parking requirement? Sluisbuurt is an example of this. The municipal coalition has decided to implement lower parking requirements and deviate from established parking policy. The average parking requirement for a dwelling should be 0,3. It is conceivable that this consideration will appear in more projects like this.” (Policymaker Amsterdam, personal communication, 2019).

6.3. Haarlemmermeer and Uithoorn

Statements in policy documents, as well as statements made during the interviews conducted for this research, show Uithoorn’s and Haarlemmermeer’s political meaning given to car-usage. Both municipalities consider the car an important mode of transport which should be facilitated.

“We think it is important to facilitate new citizen’s car-use by providing a sufficient amount of parking facilities” (Gemeente Uithoorn, personal communication, 2019)

Uithoorn and Haarlemmermeer make similar arguments supporting this statement. First, they explain their reasoning by their towns commuter characteristic, which they argue, implies high car occupancy rates (see Chapter 5). In order to prevent parking disturbances and complaints by citizens, the municipalities feel obligated to satisfy parking demands through the implementation of relatively high parking requirements. Next, the interviewed policymakers argue that they have limited agency to change parking policy. The municipal board and municipal council have the agency of rendering final decisions. Uithoorn’s interviewed policymaker emphasized the influence of citizens’ opinions on the decision made by the board and council: “Uithoorn is just a small municipality. We could perhaps

change our parking policy, but our citizens will for sure not like that decision” (Policymaker of Uithoorn,

personal communication, 2019). This creates an area of tension between satisfying citizens in the short term and strategically doing what is best for the city in the longer term.

(28)

7. Results II. Materiality

Once we have built in space, these spatial construction determine both the encouragement and/or restrictions of future choices (Shove et al., 2012). The interview with CROW’s parking expert advocates this and argues the importance of taking the current surrounding environment of a real-estate development location into consideration when determining the amount of parking facilities (Parking Expert CROW, personal communication, 2019). Figure 12 shows to what extent urbanity and accessibility by public transport are part of the determination of parking requirements in policy documents. This chapter presents the results of the collected data on the element of practice ‘materiality’ and will make the first step toward answering the sub-research question: “How does materiality influence the practice of setting parking requirements?”.

7.1. Amstelveen

Degree of urbanity

The policymaker of Amstelveen explained during an interview that Amstelveen considers the degree of urbanity in the practice of setting parking requirements. However, this is not discernable in the parking requirements calculations in policy documents. The explanation given by the interviewee is that CBS data identifies the whole of Amstelveen as highly urban:

- “Since the first of January 2009, the municipality of Amstelveen has an address density of 2.031 addresses per square kilometer. This address density has been identified as ‘highly urban’.”

(Gemeente Amstelveen, 2016, p. 3)

- “We identified the whole municipality as highly urban, in accordance with CBS data. So it is not necessary to differentiate by degree of urbanity in Amstelveen.” (Policymaker of Amstelveen,

personal communication, 2019)

Although Amstelveen has already been identified as highly urban, the municipality is becoming increasingly densely populated due to its economic ambitions and the MRA’s housing development plans (see Chapter 5). Amstelveen is increasingly focusing on high-volume high-rise housing development within municipal borders. This growth is, comparable with Amsterdam, resulting in

Differentiation according to:

Amsterdam Haarlemmermeer Uithoorn Amstelveen

Distance to train station or HQT 1. A-location 2. B-location 3. C-location 1. Train station <700m or HQT <400m 2. Trainstation 700-1200m or HQT 400m-700m 3. HQT>700m or train station>1200m No differentiation No differentiation

Urban zone No differentiation other than ABC-locations

1. Center

2. Outskirts of center 3. Other parts of

built-up area

4. Outside built-up area

No differentiation No

differentiation

Figure 12. Influence of accessibility and urbanity on the setting of parking requirements. Sources: Gemeente Amsterdam (2017), Gemeente Amstelveen (2016), Gemeente Haarlemmermeer (2018), Gemeente Uithoorn (2008).

Theories of practice : understanding the practice of setting parking requirements : an analysis of influencing factors on the setting of parking requirements