REGULAR PAPER
Commoning mobili y: Towa ds a new poli ics o mobili y
ansi ions
Anna Nikolae a
1,2
|
Pe e Adey
3
|
Tim C esswell
4
|
Jane Yeonjae Lee
5
|
And e Nó oa
6
|
C is ina Temenos
7
1
Depa men o Human Geog aphy,
Spa ial Planning and In e na ional
De elopmen S udies, Uni e si y o
Ams e dam, Ams e dam, The Ne he lands
2
Cope nicus Ins i u e o Sus ainable
De elopmen , U ech Uni e si y,
U ech , The Ne he lands
3
Depa men o Geog aphy, Royal
Holloway, Uni e si y o London, Egham,
Su ey, UK
4
T ini y College, Ha o d, CT, USA
5
School o Social Sciences, Singapo e
Managemen Uni e si y, Singapo e
6
Ins i u e o Social Sciences, Uni e si y
o Lisbon, Lisbon, Po ugal
7
Depa men o Geog aphy and
Manches e U ban Ins i u e, School o
En i onmen , Educa ion and
De elopmen , Uni e si y o Manches e ,
Manches e , UK
Co espondence
Anna Nikolae a
Email: [email p o ec ed]
Funding in o ma ion
Mobile Li es Fo um; No heas e n
Uni e si y
Schola s ha e a gued ha ansi ions o mo e sus ainable and jus mobili ies equi e
mo ing beyond echnocen ism o e hink he e y meaning o mobili y in ci ies,
communi ies, and socie ies. This pape demons a es ha such e hinking is inhe -
en ly poli ical. In pa icula , we ocus on ecen heo isa ions o commoning p ac-
ices ha ha e gained ac ion in geog aphic li e a u es. D awing on ou global
compa a i e esea ch o low‐ca bon mobili y ansi ions, we a gue ha c i ical
mobili ies schola s can e hink and expand he unde s anding o mobili y h ough
engagemen wi h commons–enclosu e hinking. We p esen a new concep , “com-
moning mobili y,”a heo isa ion ha bo h en isions and shapes p ac ices ha
de elop ai e and g eene mobili ies and mo e inclusi e, collabo a i ely go e ned
socie ies. Ou analysis in oduces h ee “logics”o mobili y ansi ion p ojec s. Fi s ,
he pape discusses how a logic o sca ci y has been a d i e o mobili y planning
as he sca ci y o oil, inance, space, and ime a e in oked ac oss he wo ld as s imuli
o aspi ing o g eene , “sma e ,”and cheape mobili ies. The pape hen iden i ies
wo esponses o he logic o sca ci y: he logics o aus e i y and he logics o com-
moning. Aus e e mobili ies a e examined o p oblema ise he dis ibu ion o espon-
sibili y o emissions and ensuing injus ices and exclusion in low‐ca bon ansi ions.
The logics o commoning shows a po en ial o eassess mobili y no only as an indi-
idual eedom bu also as a collec i e good, pa ing he way o ai e mobili y an-
si ions and a collabo a i e ackling o sus ainable mobili y challenges.
KEYWORDS
Ams e dam, aus e i y, commons, mobili ies, San iago, ansi ion
Like any ue commons, he s ee i sel was he esul o people li ing he e and making ha space li eable
…s ee s a e no mo e o people. They a e now oadways o au omobiles, o buses, o axis, ca s, and
ucks. People a e ba ely ole a ed on he s ee s unless hey a e on hei way o a bus s op. I people now sa
down o s opped on he s ee , hey would become obs acles o a ic, and a ic would be dange ous o
hem. The oad has been deg aded om a commons o a simple esou ce o he ci cula ion o ehicles. People
can ci cula e no mo e on hei own. T a ic has displaced hei mobili y. They can ci cula e only when hey
a e s apped down and a e mo ed. (Illich, 1983, n.p.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion‐NonComme cial‐NoDe i s License, which pe mi s use and dis ibu ion in any medium,
p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, he use is non‐comme cial and no modi ica ions o adap a ions a e made.
The in o ma ion, p ac ices and iews in his a icle a e hose o he au ho (s) and do no necessa ily e lec he opinion o he Royal Geog aphical Socie y (wi h IBG).
© 2019 The Au ho s T ansac ions o he Ins i u e o B i ish Geog aphe s published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Royal Geog aphical Socie y (wi h The Ins i u e o
B i ish Geog aphe s).
Accep ed: 28 Decembe 2018
DOI: 10.1111/ an.12287
346
|
wileyonlinelib a y.com/jou nal/ an T ans Ins B Geog . 2019;44:346–360.
Unbounded eedom uled he wande ing scene
No ence o owne ship c ep in be ween
To hide he p ospec o he ollowing eye
I s only bondage was he ci cling sky
One migh y la undwa ed by bush and ee
Sp ead i s ain shadow o immensi y
And los i sel , which seemed o eke i s bounds
In he blue mis he ho izon's edge su ounds
(John Cla e, The Moo es c.1812)
1
|
AT THE SPEED OF A BICYCLE
In wha ways can mobili y be econcep ualised in o de o necessi a e a shi in ac ions owa ds low‐ca bon ansi ion when
he mo emen o people and hings con inues o be a majo con ibu o o g eenhouse emissions? Schola s ha e long
a gued ha any meaning ul clima e change policy should o e “cleane ”al e na i es o high‐ca bon mobili ies, ye he
eluc ance o ques ion he alue o high‐ca bon mobili y is sus ained by he dominan belie in he p io i y o (na ional) eco-
nomic g ow h and he dependence o ha g ow h on he mobili y o people and hings (Cohen & Gössling, 2015; Cowen,
2014; Gi oni & Banis e , 2013; Hickman & Banis e , 2014; Low, 2013). This na a i e is suppo ed by a cul u al appa a-
us linking indi idual eedom, p og ess, and mode ni y wi h physical mobili y (C esswell, 2006a). We a gue ha he
in as uc u al and cul u al “lock‐in”(U y, 2009) suppo ing high‐ca bon mobili ies canno be sepa a ed om wide deba es
on cul u al poli ical economies o ansi ions o sus ainabili y, ques ioning wha ideologies and co esponding o ms o
poli ical and economic o ganisa ion a e suppo ing cu en high‐ca bon li ing (c . Gössling & Cohen, 2014; Schwanen e
al., 2011). These ques ions, howe e , ha e no been add essed wi hin he hus a dominan app oach o low‐ca bon ansi-
ions –socio‐ echnical ansi ion s udies (Cha e on, 2016).
We make h ee con ibu ions o his ield. The i s is o b ing he discussion o low‐ca bon ansi ions in o con e sa ion
wi h o he heo isa ions o mobili y ansi ion –ones ha ocus on “mobili y jus ice”(Shelle , 2015) in o de o explo e
how access o mobili y (and he access ha mobili y p o ides) can be mo e equi able ac oss ace, gende , class, age, and a
ange o o he social ma ke s. Such discussion has s a ed in he ansi ion deba e, b oadly unde s ood (Cha e on, 2016),
add essing long‐s anding c i iques o socio‐ echnical ansi ion heo ies as downplaying ideology, powe , and jus ice in
a ou o echnologically de e mined inno a ions (Sho e & Walke , 2007; Smi h & S i ling, 2010).
Second, we oo ou discussion o mobili y jus ice in longe in ellec ual his o ies o mobili y and en i onmen al and
mobili y and acial jus ice. P e‐da ing he heo isa ion o ansi ions o low‐ca bon mobili y u u es has been wo k on mobil-
i y jus ice. Illich (1974), o example, a gued ha high ene gy use in all i s o ms co odes social ela ions and deg ades
landscapes. “Pa icipa o y democ acy,”he a gued, “demands low‐ene gy echnology, and ee people mus a el he oad
o p oduc i e social ela ions a he speed o a bicycle”(1974, p. 8). T a elling a he speed o a bicycle signi ied ha a
adical s uc u al shi away om mode nis 's obsession wi h speed was necessa y o add ess en i onmen al c isis. C i ical
ace schola s ha e also ocused on mobili y equi y p ima ily, hough no exclusi ely, in he Uni ed S a es. Theo is s o “jus
anspo a ion”ha e explo ed he long his o y o connec ions be ween unequal access o mobili y and acism, linking con-
empo a y a gumen s abou such hings as he p o ision o public ansi and he acial p o iling o black d i e s o deep
his o ical ajec o ies connec ing ace o mobili y, including Jim C ow Laws and ac i ism a ound bus boyco s (Bulla d e
al., 2004; Bulla d & Johnson, 1997). In addi ion o connec ing ace and class in discussions o ansi , Bulla d (2007) e-
quen ly linked issues o social jus ice o en i onmen al issues h ough an analysis o en i onmen al acism. Simila con ic-
ions d i e he wo k o schola s wo king on “jus sus ainabili y”and equi able o ms o “sha ing economies”(Agyeman
e al., 2016; McLa en & Agyeman, 2015; Swilling & Annecke, 2012).
Thi d, we d aw on hese wo app oaches o mobili y ansi ions – ocusing on low‐ca bon ansi ions and on jus ansi-
ions –in o de o highligh a adical poli ics o mobili y in o med by ecen mobili ies esea ch. The s eng h o he mobil-
i ies li e a u e on ansi ions has been a icula ing how high‐ca bon mobili ies a e pa and pa cel o con empo a y ways o
li ing (Shelle & U y, 2016). The heo isa ion o a “poli ics o mobili y”(C esswell, 2010, 2006a; see also Massey, 1993)
o e s a c i ique o he cul u al poli ical economies ha shape high‐ca bon mobile li ing while o e ing new possibili ies o
concep ualising mobili y ansi ions. Ou discussion o ansi ions is oo ed in mobili ies schola ship, inco po a ing insigh s
om bo h socio‐ echnical ansi ions li e a u e and wo k on jus ansi ions.
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
|
347
We do so in h ee ways. Fi s , his pape expands spa ial unde s andings o he poli ics o mobili y by a guing o a
econcep ualisa ion o mobili y as commons. We a gue ha he commons lens can lead o concep ualising ansi ions ha
a e uly ans o ma i e, ha aim o econ igu e he e y ela ionship o humans wi h mobili y and wi h each o he . The
enclosu e o space has oubled schola s and poe s since a leas he Enclosu e Ac s beginning in he 17 h cen u y. This
ela ionship be ween enclosu e, mobili y, and ansi ion, which he opening epig aphs demons a e, has pu us in li e al and
concep ual g idlock and he e o e needs o be heo e ically and ma e ially e hough .
Second, we a gue ha a new poli ics o mobili y ansi ions based on a logic o he commons can c i ically in e oga e
mobili y‐ ela ed sca ci ies on na ional and local poli ical agendas and sc u inise he poli ics o p oduc ion o “aus e e mobil-
i ies”–mobili ies ha equi e ewe esou ces –as a esponse o sca ci ies.
Thi d, a commons pe spec i e enables nuanced c i icism o eme ging “sha ing”p ac ices, whe eby a na a i e o com-
muni y and pa icipa ion disguises he highly une en e ec s o new o ms o o ganising mo emen , which is pa icula ly
p e alen in u ban agglome a ions h ough sma ci y policies and deba es o e ide‐sha e and bike‐sha e businesses
(McLa en & Agyeman, 2015).
Ou a gumen is based on a global compa a i e s udy analysing key na ional mobili y ansi ion policies and a
selec ed numbe o local p ojec s in 14 coun ies: B azil, Canada, Chile, Kazakhs an, he Ne he lands, New Zealand,
No way, Po ugal, Singapo e, Sou h A ica, Sou h Ko ea, Tu key, he Uni ed A ab Emi a es, and he Uni ed Kingdom.
A sepa a e “case”co e ed in e na ional policy‐making in he sphe e o mobili y ansi ions and included a s udy o he
Eu opean Union policies and p ojec s ini ia ed by he Uni ed Na ions and associa ed bodies. Policy analysis was com-
plemen ed by 216 s akeholde in e iews including ep esen a i es o anspo companies, na ional, egional and local
au ho i ies, NGOs, hink anks, in e na ional o ganisa ions, ac i is g oups, and knowledge ins i u es.
Examining he logics behind mobili y ansi ion p ojec s as well as ha o he policies, ini ia i es, and p ojec s hey a e
en angled wi h, we ha e analysed he b oade con ex o mobili y ansi ion policies and p ojec s, including policies in he
sphe es o anspo , heal h, wo k, en i onmen , ade, economy, and u ban and egional de elopmen . We ha e iden i ied
h ee in e ela ed “logics”o mobili y ansi ion –logics being a cohe ing, s uc u ing, and e en a coali ion o a ionali ies,
he o ics, ideologies, and discou ses ha unde pin he policy and p ac ice o mobili y ansi ion (in he same way ha in
his w i ing Foucaul iden i ied he logic o “no malisa ion”as an “inne unc ional cohe ence”wi hin biopoli ics; Collie ,
2009; Eagle on, 1991). Two dominan logics eme ged in he 14 coun ies, all o which ope a e unde an inc easingly
neolibe al, capi alis global economy. These a e: sca ci y unde lying mobili y ansi ion planning and aus e i y as a
esponse o sca ci y. The hi d logic, commoning, is one ha is eme gen , o en quie , and de ian agains he p edominan
logics o sca ci y and aus e i y. Howe e , i is a logic ha demons a es ha spaces o al e na i es and po en ial ans o -
ma ions a e ali e and well ac oss he Global No h and Global Sou h. Commoning was no a dominan logic and did no
appea in he majo i y o ou case s udies. Indeed ins ances o commoning we e small scale and o en incomple e, exhibi -
ing ensions wi h cu en go e nance s uc u es. D awing on li e a u es on commoning and C esswell's no ion o mobili y
as mo emen , meaning, and p ac ice, highligh s he possibili y o al e na i e poli ics, p og ams, and policies, demons a ing
how he logic o commoning can ans o m spaces o go e nance and p ac ices o mobili y and challenge he dominan
na a i es on he meaning o mobili y in socie y. In C esswell's e ms, hey poin owa ds an eme gen “cons ella ion o
mobili y.”
The pape un olds as ollows. In he nex sec ion we ou line cu en mobili y ansi ion esea ch and discuss he po en ial
o a “poli ics o mobili y” o add ess issues o meaning, powe , and jus ice ha ha e ecei ed less a en ion in dominan
app oaches o mobili y ansi ions. Second, we ou line he logics o sca ci y and aus e i y in mobili y ansi ion p ojec s.
Nex , we d aw on ecen wo k in geog aphy and mobili ies esea ch on commoning p ac ices in o de o a gue o “ ansi-
ions wo h making”(Cha e on, 2016, p. 406). We go on o illus a e ou a gumen o e hink mobili y as commons
h ough an analysis o wo cases d awn om ou wo k o demons a e he logics a play in he cu en mobili y ansi ion
landscape and he ans o ma i e po en ial behind hem. In he conclusion we ou line ways o b ing his new poli ics o
mobili y ansi ions o wa d and discuss how he concep ual oolki o commoning mobili y can ad ance he schola ship on
he geog aphies o mobili ies and mobili y ansi ions.
2
|
TOWARDS A POLITICS OF MOBILITY TRANSITIONS
The Fi h Assessmen Repo (AR5) o he In e go e nmen al Panel o Clima e Change (IPCC) es ima es ha g eenhouse
emissions om anspo a ion “ha e mo e han doubled since 1970 …80% o his inc ease coming om oad ehicles”
(IPCC 2014, p. 606). The demand o mobili y is cu en ly p ojec ed o inc ease and i no mi iga ion measu es a e aken
348
|
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
“ he cu en anspo sec o 's GHG emissions could inc ease by up o 50% by 2035 …and almos double by 2050”(2014,
p. 648). Fac s such as hese ha e led o he ise o socio‐ echnical ansi ion s udies. The examina ion o socio‐ echnical
ans o ma ions o low‐ca bon o ms o ene gy, mobili y, and li es yles has eme ged as a dominan sub ield add essing sus-
ainable anspo solu ions o clima e change in geog aphy and beyond (Geels, 2002, 2014; Schwanen, 2017; Temenos e
al., 2017). Geog aphe s ha e p ima ily engaged ansi ion s udies by d awing on analyses ha use he mul i‐le el pe spec-
i e (MLP) –a amewo k seeking o accoun o complex socio‐economic and poli ical p ocesses ha media e sus ainabil-
i y inno a ion.
Mul i‐le el pe spec i e app oaches s a om he p emise ha he ansi ion in ques ion is singula ly ocused on educ-
ing ca bon emissions and has a la gely echno‐social solu ion. Jus ice is no a he cen e o MLP app oaches, which la gely
ail o accoun o exis ing powe dynamics and poli ics (A olde bach & Schulz, 2016; Geels, 2014; Shelle , 2012). While
some s udies ha e conside ed he poli ics o sus ainabili y ansi ions in gene al (A elino e al., 2016; Cha e on, 2016),
esea ch on mobili y ansi ions mo e o en han no ocuses on echnological change as a s a ing poin o inqui y. Ye ,
while echnology‐powe ed sus ainable mobili y solu ions ( om elec ic bicycles o d ones used o deli e ies) a e abundan ,
anspo schola s ag ee ha ocusing on echnology is insu icien and can be coun e ‐p oduc i e (Banis e e al., 2013;
Fe ei a e al., 2017; Temenos e al., 2017). Li le, i any, a en ion has been paid o pa allel heo isa ions o mobili y ansi-
ions o igina ing om a conce n o social jus ice. As schola s o en i onmen al jus ice and jus sus ainabili y ha e long
a gued, a singula ocus on ca bon emissions may lead o a new wo ld o mobili y ha ails o add ess s uc u al asymme-
ies o powe (Cha e on, 2016; Swilling & Annecke, 2012). Cha e on obse es ha “ he e emains a eluc ance o name
and ad oca e o he mo e adical na u e o ansi ions ha socie y needs o emba k on o add ess he huge challenges i
aces”(2016, p. 403). While hinking h ough he poli ical implica ions o low‐ca bon ansi ions has begun in a eas such
as building s anda ds (A olde bach & Schulz, 2016) and ene gy (Bouza o ski & Simcock, 2017; Pe o a, 2018), unda-
men al ques ions su ounding he poli ics o mobili y ansi ions ha e ye o be explo ed o accoun o mobili y as a key
si e and c ucial p ocess o conside a ion.
The poli ics o mobili y has long been a he hea o adical schola ship on anspo and ansi (Bulla d & Johnson,
1997; C esswell, 2006a). Wo k in he new mobili ies pa adigm, in o med by ea lie wo k on ansi jus ice, has sough o
p o ide a amewo k o hinking h ough he ole o mobili y in sys ema ically asymme ical powe ela ions. This has
been especially ue in ela ion o ques ions o ace and i s in e sec ion wi h en i onmen al sus ainabili y and low‐ca bon
ansi ions (C esswell, 2016; Nicholson & Shelle , 2016; Shelle , 2015). Mobili y i sel can be b oken down in o h ee
in e ela ed elemen s: mo emen , meaning, and p ac ice (C esswell, 2006a, 2010). Mo emen , he physical ac o ge ing
om poin A o poin B, is he mos basic elemen o mobili y and is inhe en ly embodied and spa ialised. Meaning o ep-
esen a ions o mo emen s uc u e socie al and indi idual pe cep ions o mobili y ha a e ela ional, coding mo emen and
i s a endan mobile li es and esou ces wi hin pa icula con ex s. Finally, d awing on Bou dieu (1990), C esswell de ines
mobili y p ac ices as encompassing “bo h he e e yday sense o pa icula p ac ices such as walking o d i ing and also he
mo e heo e ical sense o he social as i is embodied and habi ualised”(2010, p. 20).
These elemen s o mobili y –mo emen , meaning, and p ac ice –a e always ci cumsc ibed by exis ing go e -
nance s uc u es, his o ies, powe ela ions, and embodied expe iences. Mobili y is in and o i sel ela ional. How and
why mobili y happens exe s i s own o ce on he ways laws a e cons uc ed and poli ics plays ou ac oss spaces,
a ec ing poli ical and li ed ou comes and spa ial o ma ions (Adey, 2009; C esswell, 2006a; Temenos & McCann,
2012). Mobili y, hen, is always bo h spa ial and poli ical. We con end ha any meaning ul conside a ion o ansi-
ion mus also en ail a conside a ion o he poli ics o mobili y ansi ions, including ques ioning he ela ionship
be ween an indi idualised “ igh o mo e”(C esswell, 2006b) and how collec i e social needs a e media ed h ough
mobili ies.
This app oach is ound in he connec ion be ween mobili y and jus ice. Fo example, Shelle (2015) cha s how
Philadelphia's a emp s o mo e i s ci izens o bike and ca sha ing schemes and ac i e anspo a ion a e esis ed, seen
as p ojec s o acialised gen i ica ion. The his o ically embedded pa e ns o inequali y, po e y, and seg ega ion el by
poo and e hnic mino i ies also p oduce pa icula ly s ong desi es o ca owne ship as a signal o secu i y and s a us.
In his ins ance, achie ing mobili y ansi ion equi es a ending o he cul u al logics o acial jus ice simul aneously.
C esswell (2006a) likewise cha s how he Los Angeles Bus Ride s Union ough o access o public anspo a ion in
an au omobile‐domina ed ci y, d awing on a long his o y o u ban ac i ism o acial jus ice. In hese ins ances, s uggles
o e how o mo e and i s ep esen a ions a e inex icably linked wi h s uggles o e u ban space, he poli ics o dis ibu-
ion o esou ces, and he ques ion o pa icipa ion in decision‐making. In his pape we p opose a new poli ics o mobil-
i y ansi ions ha ies hese issues oge he h ough he no ion o commoning. To o eg ound his concep ualisa ion, in
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
|
349
he nex sec ion we ou line he dominan logics
1
o sca ci y and aus e i y ha la gely ame con empo a y public policy
deba es conce ning mobili y.
3
|
FROM CONTESTED SCARCITIES TO AUSTERE MOBILITIES
The logics o sca ci y and calls o some o ms o aus e i y – o sa ing esou ces such as ime, money, space, and oil –
a e ubiqui ous in deba es su ounding mobili y and socie y in he 21s cen u y. They ha e also been he mains ay o ans-
po planne s, geog aphe s, and p ac i ione s conce ned wi h imp o ing mobili y o anspo e iciencies o many decades
–al hough we dis inguish ou iden i ica ion o “aus e i y” om a conce n o “e iciency.”
2
Sca ci y is consis en ly na u-
alised, gene alised, and aken ou o speci ic his o ical and geog aphic con ex s. In ou wo k, sca ci y has been in oked as
mo i a ion o accele a e ansi ion o as an excuse o hinde change in almos e e y case, om he na ional le el (e.g.,
Chile, he Ne he lands, No way, Singapo e) o he le el o u ban s ee space (e.g., São Paulo, Alma y, San iago, Vancou-
e ). In mos con ex s, sca ci y and aus e i y logics, e en when wo king in qui e con adic o y ways, bo ow om he poli -
ical‐economic endencies o neolibe alism as an economic logic based on Da winian o neo‐Mal husian impe a i es o
compe i ion, e iciency, and indi idualism, se e ed, as Bou dieu pu s i , om a “social logic […] subjec o he ule o ai -
ness”(1998, n.p.), and an a ch‐enemy o ins i u ional and social collec i e s uc u es.
While sca ci y is o en p esen ed as a aken‐ o ‐g an ed “ ac ,”i is mo e o en he case ha he esou ce ha is
de ined as “sca ce”exis s in ela ion o o he esou ces ha a e igno ed o ma ginalised. The de ini ion o some hing
(space, ime, ene gy, e c.) wi h a pa icula limi o ini ude plays an ac i e ole in he de ini ion o app op ia e
esponses. As Denie (2007) sugges s in he e y di e en con ex o heal h ca e, economic a ional and mechanis ic
app oaches o sca ci y end o lead owa ds a ioning mechanisms in o de o di ide up o limi access o a limi ed
esou ce. In he Ne he lands, o example, he sca ci y o oad space and he ela i ely small e i o ial oo p in o he
coun y was e oked by many Du ch policy expe s in in e iews: “We' e go a lack o space in he ci y, we' e go a
lack o space on he oad and we' e go a lack o space …i 's a s ange me apho , bu a lack o space in he ai ”
(Sus ainable mobili y expe ,
3
pe sonal communica ion, 24 July 2015).
In his sense, sca ci y is e oked as a lack o space: a lack o oom o pedes ians, cyclis s, and ca s; wi hin ci ies o
people and buildings o inhabi ; and e en wi hin he ai –imagined o be ull o unwan ed ca bon and exhaus pa icula es.
And so, despi e i s epu a ion as a leade in cycling policy, oad conges ion is p esen ed as “ he mobili y p oblem”o he
coun y (TFMM, n.d.). Th ough he na ional p og amme “Op imising Use”(“Be e Benu en”), beha iou change is encou -
aged ia incen i es o a ion hose sca ce esou ces, by d i ing du ing al e na e imes, elecommu ing o wo king a home
occasionally, using e‐bikes, o ca pooling. In his ins ance, nei he en i onmen al impac no he a ionali y o d i ing i sel
(du ing low‐conges ion pe iods) is ques ioned: high‐ca bon mobili y has o be managed by mino adjus men s o indi idual
beha iou a he han h ough sys emic change.
The a en ion o mechanis ic no ions o economics and human beha iou should pe haps no be su p ising. While sug-
ges ing ha sca ci y is a “common ea u e o anspo a ion sys ems,” anspo economis Jona han L. Gi o d (2011)
a gued ha anspo and mobili y could be conside ed h ough se e al beha iou al‐economic app oaches o sca ci y: he
capaci y o anspo sys ems; esou ces o imp o ing and main aining hose sys ems; in o ma ion abou he sys ems and
hei eliabili y, and he a en ion o he a elle o op imising o imp o ing hei own decisions. Resou ce p icing is one
o he me hod o managing demand. In Singapo e, sca ci y is an explici policy a ionale o i s in oduc ion o ime‐based
elec onic oad p icing (ERP) and he Vehicle Quo a Sys em (VQS; Go e nmen o Singapo e, 2013). Nei he policy is
new, wi h he i s e sion o ERP beginning in 1975 and he VQS es ablished in 1990, no is he discu si e emphasis on
indi idual beha iou change. ERP and VQS policies ha e been success ul in s emming oad conges ion om indi idual
ehicles, ye nei he ques ions he assumed “ igh o mobili y”(C esswell, 2006b).
Sca ci ies, so p ominen in Du ch and Singapo ean policy goals, a e ela i e, as bo h coun ies’ oad ne wo ks a e among
he denses in he wo ld (T ading Economics, n.d.). These sca ci ies, usually amed wi hin discussions on sa ing ime in
he daily commu e, a e no a consequence o lacking in as uc u e, bu o p esump ions abou he alue o pa icula mobil-
i ies abo e o he s and hei appa en igh o pa icula p opo ions o hose sca ci ies. Con adic ions come o he o e e en
mo e p ominen ly in ou case, co e ing he p o es s agains new cycling lanes in São Paulo in 2015, whe e he edis ibu-
ion o “sca ce” oad space was seen as a “ he ”by axi d i e s and au omobilis s, despi e cyclis s using a signi ican ly
smalle sha e o u ban space han d i e s.
These b ie examples demons a e he cons uc ed and con es ed na u e o sca ci ies in mobili y policy deba es. Fu he -
mo e, discou ses on sca ci y con inue o shape hinking on mobili y and imagina ions o ai e and cleane mobile u u es.
350
|
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.

Mos na ional and sup ana ional policies we examined demons a e ha , despi e he pe cei ed p essu es o sca ci y, he ole
o mobili y has no been c i ically eassessed a a socie al le el: educing mobili y o goods and people emains a “ aboo”
subjec wi hin neolibe al g ow h pa adigms and ecological mode nisa ion app oaches (Gössling & Cohen, 2014; Schwanen
e al., 2011). In he con ex o sca ci y, mobili y is exp essed in squa e me es o oad space, kilome es o mo o way ne -
wo k, millions o Eu os, limi s o pollu ion, o minu es o sa ed a el ime. Such logics, we ha e obse ed in ou s udy,
mos o en lead o ad oca ing some o m o sa ing hose esou ces, ei he h ough op–down s a e and local policies o
h ough bo om–up communi y p ojec s.
Fo example, in se e al cases, he esponse o policy‐make s and poli icians o managing he dual p essu es o mo ing
people and goods while also add essing en i onmen al conce ns has been o pa e back s a e se ices a he han inc ease
in e en ions o encou age sus ainable mobile u u es. The esul is he c ea ion o wha we call aus e e mobili ies –mobili-
ies ha equi e ewe esou ces: hey a e, o ins ance, cheape ( o he s a e) o occupy less space. In an age o inancial
aus e i y, aus e e mobili ies may in ol e he c ea ion o spaces whe e only he mos basic le el o in as uc u e is p o-
ided, and p e iously exis ing se ices such as public anspo a ion a e inc easingly con ac ed ou o p i a e companies.
This was he case in Po ugal du ing he 2008 socio‐economic c isis. Ins ead o upg ading public anspo a ion o incen-
i ising s a e‐d i en sus ainable solu ions, he Po uguese go e nmen , p essed by a co‐join supe ision commi ee be ween
he IMF and EU au ho i ies ( he oika), adop ed a se ies o neolibe al policies based on a s ic economic a ionale aimed
a educing s a e spending. This mean supplying mobili y h ough he e o s o p i a e companies, u he libe alising he
anspo sec o –examples include a emp s o p i a ise public companies and ew i en laws o accommoda e eme ging
p i a ised lexible anspo se ices like Ube . Illus a ing an en anglemen o inancial aus e i y policies and aus e e mobil-
i ies leading o low‐ca bon mobili y p ojec s ha delega e esponsibili y o ansi ion o i s ci izens, in Ams e dam he
emo al o a bus line in a public‐ anspo a ion‐dependen communi y was ollowed by a pilo o an elec ic‐cab‐on‐demand
ha was no pe cei ed by he inhabi an s as an adequa e subs i u ion and was discon inued (see also Mo an Figue oa,
2015).
Aus e e mobili ies a e unde pinned by logics o aus e i y b oadly unde s ood as limi ing consump ion. The a gumen o
aus e i y is necessa ily linked o dominan o es ablished de ini ions o wha has been de ined as “sca ce.”Thus, hey a e
no always linked o inancial aus e i y policies, which a e bu a ecen a icula ion o an ancien and e e ‐changing se o
ideas (see Schui, 2014) and may also esul in immobili ies. A good example o his is ou case Telewo k New Zealand, a
company p omo ing he educ ion o a ic conges ion and emissions by encou aging people o a oid commu ing al o-
ge he . They espond o he logics o sca ci y by p oposing ways ha companies can sa e money, space on he oad, and
a el ime h ough immobili y, and ope a ionalise his aus e i y logic h ough using a “Bene i Calcula o ” o calcula e he
sa ings o hei clien s (Be is England, pe sonal communica ion, 11 Ma ch 2015). A simila logic and oolki is o e ed
by he “Low Ca Die ,”a campaign by a Du ch en i onmen al ounda ion U genda, whe eby hey help pa icipa ing compa-
nies y a “low ca die ” o a limi ed pe iod o ime and explo e he esul s oge he wi h pa icipan s. By ans o ming an
en i onmen al a gumen in o an economic one, hey encou age people o cycle, wo k om home o dedica ed places close
o home, and demons a e he bene i s o ansi ion o he employe : “[T]he companies say, hey …i 's no abou CO
2
, I'm
sa ing money”(U genda, pe sonal communica ion, 24 July 2015). While hey also emphasise heal h and well‐being bene-
i s o d i ing less, he appeal o economics, in hei iew, is he mos powe ul one.
Ano he playe in he aus e e mobili ies ield is he ansi ion own mo emen ocusing on small‐scale p ac ices wi hin
de ined a eas (Ja is, 2015; Mason & Whi ehead, 2012). While mobili y is no o emos among hei conce ns, hei gene al
philosophical o ien a ion is owa ds localisa ion. P ac ically, his means emphasising local, o ganic ag icul u e and die , con-
s uc ion using local ma e ials, p ac ising local consensual o ms o democ acy, de eloping Local Economic T ans e
Schemes (LETS), and gene ally ac ing agains he inco po a ion o place in o wide global ne wo ks. The mo emen is o i-
en ed owa ds d ama ically educed mobili ies o ood, ene gy, capi al, ma e ials, and people. The agen s o ansi ion a e
communi ies. Go e nmen s, ad oca es a gue, will be oo la e and indi iduals oo ine ec i e (Hopkins, 2011). T ansi ion
owns d aw on and e lec la ge public unde s andings o al e na i e mobili y ansi ions ha celeb a e localism and discu -
si ely wo k in opposi ion o dominan policy agendas ha a ou de elopmen , speed, and echnological ixes. Ye , hei
low up ake and uppe ‐middle‐class suppo base (Aiken, 2012) indica e ha , a he han ushe in a as ly di e en mobili y
ansi ion, hey may emain niche ini ia i es.
These examples ocus on cu bing indi idual beha iou in esponse o la ge‐scale socie al c ises. E en hough hey a e
no coupled wi h he poli ics o inancial aus e i y, hey may ne e heless ollow dominan logics o neolibe alisa ion ha
ocus on educing dependence on s a e se ices and elying on indi idual momen um and ingenui y o p o ide solu ions
wi hin cu en socio‐economic sys ems. Thinking abou mobili ies in he con ex o aus e i y di ec s a en ion o ce ain
p oblems and pa adoxes ha hese discou ses and p ojec s may en ail. Like inancial aus e i y, logics o aus e e mobili ies
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
|
351
a e deeply ideological, d i en by “mo al and poli ical conside a ions”(Schui, 2014, p. 6) and a e augh wi h con adic-
ions. While economic aus e i y policies could be associa ed wi h an i‐consume is ideology, and his o ically ha e been,
con empo a y inancial aus e i y policies do no a ge indi idual consump ion, which is seen as he p ima y d i e o he
economy (B amall, 2013; Schui, 2014). Ins ead, hey a e ocused on go e nmen expendi u e, mos p ominen ly on con-
sumable se ices such as heal hca e o public anspo a ion, and he educ ion o labou cos s. The logics o aus e e mobili-
ies a e o en also based on a pa adox ha e lec s a simila ideological choice o p opose ha some mobile subjec s ake
ca e o hemsel es while subsidising he mobili ies o o he s. Thus, globally, people a e encou aged o ake up heal hie
li es yles h ough walking and cycling (cos ing he go e nmen no hing when no suppo ed by in es men in in as uc-
u e), while na ional go e nmen s implemen policies main aining and p omo ing (au o)mobili y consump ion h ough oad
building, economic incen i es o co po a e policies s imula ing ca use by employees, expo ing oil, e c. (Spinney, 2016).
Fu he mo e, like inancial aus e i y measu es ha a e in amous o dis ibu ing he esponsibili y o bea ing he conse-
quences o deb h ough sa ing on spending (Bly h, 2015), aus e e mobili ies do no adequa ely e lec he pa ies p ima ily
esponsible o c ea ing he deb i sel . Fo example, he UN discou se on “leap ogging”– he hope ha coun ies in he
Global Sou h will ansi ion o low‐ca bon mobili y egimes by skipping he s age o poli ical ca elessness abou ca bon
emissions ha cha ac e ised many OECD coun ies’de elopmen –illus a es he disjunc ion be ween he o igins o he
emissions and he si es whe e aus e i y logics may be applied. Guil ‐ ee unlimi ed p i a e ca usage is en isaged as a hing
o he pas ; howe e , wi h 10% o he wo ld popula ion accoun ing o 80% o ca a el, mobili y is s ill a sca ce and
es ic ed esou ce o many (IPCC, 2014, p. 606).
Mobili y hus emains a desi ed and legi ima e ac and calls o cu bing i a e no embedded in na ional policy. Ye ,
unde s anding mobili y h ough a lens o aus e i y allows us o iden i y p oblema ic dis ibu ions o esponsibili y o p o-
ducing he nega i e consequences o high‐ca bon mobili y and exis ing inequali ies in accessibili y. Aus e e mobili ies a e a
esponse o sca ci y discou ses. We a gue ha bo h sca ci y discou ses and a endan esponses can and should be chal-
lenged, and in he nex sec ion we poin o an al e na i e possibili y o e hinking mobili y as a ans o ma i e se o p ac-
ices enabling ai e sus ainable u u es.
4
|
COMMONING MOBILITY
Apa om he logics o aus e i y as a esponse o sca ci y and clima e change, we ha e obse ed some ini ia i es unde -
pinned by a poli ics ha ques ions no only he shee quan i y o mo emen , emi ed CO
2
, o in es men , bu also chal-
lenges he e y logics o sca ci y and pushes o e hinking he alue o mobili y and possible o ms o mobili y
go e nance. Connec ing ou indings wi h geog aphic deba es on commons, we demons a e how hese ini ia i es a e
ins ances o commoning mobili y and a gue o he need o heo ise mobili y as commons, a icula ing a new poli ics o
mobili y ansi ions.
Common p ope y and commonweal h ha e been o in e es o economis s and philosophe s om Hobbes (1651/1960)
o Ma x (1867/1977). In he 20 h cen u y, Ha din's (1968) unde s anding o he “ agedy o he commons,”which a gued
ha commonly held esou ces a e subjec o o e use and des uc ion (and can be seen in he logic o aus e e mobili ies se
ou abo e), has been a lashpoin o hese deba es. While his hesis has had conside able impac on deba es su ounding
s a e owne ship s p i a isa ion, Os om (1990) con incingly a gued o he egula ion o he common pool esou ces
(CPR) by sel ‐go e ning ins i u ions as an al e na i e mode o go e nance. Ou a gumen ocuses no only on common
spaces hemsel es, bu also on he p ocesses o commoning, o changing logics and pe cep ions as well as p ac ices o go -
e nance and managemen o access o mobili y.
The no ion o commoning, a he han commons, highligh s ac i e and collec i e p ocesses o making commons (B esni-
han, 2013; Linebaugh, 2008). Wi hin geog aphy, he no ion o commoning is p ima ily engaged h ough wo deba es: he
discussion o he managemen o CPR beyond he s a e and he ma ke , and he in e oga ion o he no ions o commons
and commoning as ools o en ision and enac al e na i e pos ‐capi alis poli ics (Hu on, 2015). While o en s ill ocusing
on he ac ual physical p ope ies o commons, geog aphe s ha e been pushing owa ds unde s anding commons as “com-
plex social and poli ical ecologies which a icula e pa icula socio‐spa ial p ac ices, social ela ionships and o ms o go e -
nance ha unde pin hem o p oduce and ep oduce hem”(Cha e on, 2010, p. 626; see also B own, 2007). As such he
p ocessual, he spa ial, and he ela ional dimensions o commons come o wa d as he ocus shi s owa ds commoning
(Cha e on, 2010; Williams, 2017) and o s a egies and p ac ices ha can wo k o “assemble mo e inclusi e, jus and sus-
ainable spaces”(Je ey e al., 2012, p. 2) and, as we a gue, mobili ies.
352
|
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
Mo eo e , i commoning desc ibes a se o p ocessual ela ions h ough which some hing becomes common, i should
be unde s ood in ela ion o he p ocesses o enclosu e ha w es le some hing om he commons. As Je ey e al. w i e,
“ he seizu e o he commons is ac i ely assembled h ough po ous, socio‐ma e ial and dis ancia ed o ms o enclosu e –
h ough ela ions o s abili y and lux, ixi y and mo emen ”(2012, p. 2). Such p ac ices a e also dialec ically ela ed o
p ac ices o commoning, which migh seek o sub e , unde mine, o euse hose enclosu es h ough di e en spa iali ies, a
di e en scales, and e en h ough he p oduc ion o di e en o ms o subjec i i y.
The ac s o enclosu e a e li e ally and igu a i ely connec ed o ques ions o (in)jus ice. The spa ial ac o enclosu e
enac s a edis ibu ion o esou ces – emo ing hem om many and alloca ing hem o some. One such esou ce is mobil-
i y. F om he beginning o he 17 h cen u y in he Uni ed Kingdom, he Enclosu e Ac s we e expe ienced by many (as poe
John Cla e w i es in he epig aph) as a limi on hei “ igh o oam.”This included bo h people and li es ock ha people
wished o g aze on common land. This igh was explici ly ecognised in he Coun yside and Righ s o Way Ac o 2000,
a i ming he igh o oam on all common land as well as ou es h ough p i a e land along so‐called “ igh s o way,”in
England and Wales. Fo Blomley (2007, p. 5), he hedge ma ked one o he key ma e iali ies o enclosu e in B i ain, con-
c e ising “a new se o con o e sial discou ses a ound land and p ope y igh s”aiming “ o p e en he o ms o physical
mo emen associa ed wi h he commoning economy”As well as immobilising, enclosing p ac ices we e also inhe en ly dis-
placing, causing despe a e mobili ies esul ing om dispossession and e ic ion as labou e s and peasan a me s sough sub-
sis ence elsewhe e. Mo e ecen ly, ca ‐cen ic planning has been heo ised as enclosu e o public space and as a sca ci y‐
p oducing egime (Illich, 1983; Hoeschele, 2010).
Gi en his his o y, i is su p ising ha he li e a u e on commoning and mobili y is absen . The e a e ew engagemen s
wi h he no ion o he commons as i ela es o anspo . While Ve linghie i and Ven u ini (2018) men ion a possibili y o
hinking o mobili y as a common in he con ex o discussing he igh o mobili y, hey do no elabo a e wha ha migh
en ail. Road in as uc u e has been epea edly amed as commons, wi h conges ion being seen as he “ agedy o he com-
mons”(Iaione, 2010; F ischmann, 2012). A b oade app oach is aken by O'Boyle, who iews mobili y as a “ o m o
in as uc u e commons”and de ines “mobili y commons”as “ he a ailabili y o means o mo e sa ely and eely abou he
communi y wi h minimal impedimen o incon enience”(2010, p. 59). Ye , his discussion emains ocused on in as uc-
u e managemen a he han he meaning o mobili y and pa icula poli ics o mobili y ha p oduce exis ing inequali ies in
access o in as uc u e and he de imen al en i onmen al oo p in , o which pa icula mobile “classes”a e esponsible.
A mo e ho ough engagemen wi h he concep o “mobili y commons”app oaches small‐scale, localised endea ou s,
such as communi y‐owned anspo o social en e p ises unning anspo a ion se ices, as common in as uc u e ha can
po en ially be in eg a ed in o la ge anspo sys ems (Glo e , 2016). De eloping insigh s on anspo se ices and ans-
po in as uc u e as a common pool esou ce, Glo e (2016) pu s o wa d an app oach ha is b oade han adi ional
no ions o he commons as a bo de ed e i o y, u ging a econside a ion o he use o ma e ial in as uc u es and ocusing
on ques ions o pa icipa ion in mobili y go e nance. This ision, howe e , s ill elies on sca ci y discou ses, neglec ing o
engage wi h he po en ial o cu bing mo emen o econside ing i s alue.
Ha d and Neg i (2009) push beyond he no ion o p ope y as commons and hink h ough o he in ellec ual and cul-
u al esou ces. They de ine he no ion o cul u al commons as “dynamic, in ol ing bo h he p oduc o labo and he
means o u u e p oduc ion. This common is no only he ea h we sha e bu also he languages we c ea e, he social p ac-
ices we es ablish, he modes o sociali y ha de ine ou ela ionships, and so o h”(2009, p. 350). Ou heo isa ion o mo-
bili y as commons ollows his b oade de ini ion, emb acing o ms o hinking abou and o ganising mobili y ha d aw on
he logics o commoning such as communal decision‐making p ac ices, openness o new o ms o pe cei ing he igh o
mobili y as well as he igh o immobili y ( he igh no o be displaced), he awa eness o he social p oduc ion o mobili y
and he powe ela ions inhe en in i , as well as a commi men o c ea ing equi y and wo king in he in e es o he public
good, con es ed as i may be. This no ion o commoning has con inui ies wi h wo k on jus sus ainabili ies and jus ansi-
ions ha ha e social jus ice a i s hea . While he p ecise meaning o he commons may no ha e been widely in e o-
ga ed, i is he case ha anspo jus ice ad oca es ha e asked us o ocus on mobili y as a key ac o in ongoing ools o
exclusion and, mo e hope ully, as a b oad ci izenship igh and a esou ce a he hea o es ablishing an equi able common
good (Bulla d & Johnson, 1997; B owne, 2015; Sha pe, 2016).
Commoning mobili y can he e o e be unde s ood as a p ocess ha encompasses go e nance shi s o mo e communal
and democ a ic o ms while also seeking o mo e beyond small‐scale, niche in e en ions and p ojec s. I is impo an o
emembe ha “ he commons”a e always con es ed, as is he ideology behind i (Ha ey 2011). Fu he mo e, while Glo e
(2016) desc ibes mobili y commons as a egime o owne ship and Iaione (2010) and F ischmann (2012) ocus on in as-
uc u es, ou emphasis is on e hinking he alue, meaning, and p ac ice o mobili y as a s ep owa ds econ igu ing soci-
e al mobili y egimes in mo e equi able and en i onmen ally sus ainable ways: a new poli ics o mobili y ansi ions.
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.
|
353
5
|
TOWARDS A NEW POLITICS OF MOBILITY TRANSITIONS
In his sec ion, we illus a e ways o hink abou commoning mobili y by d awing ou he h ee essen ial elemen s o a poli-
ics o mobili y: mo emen , meaning, and p ac ice. Using wo examples om ou esea ch, we illus a e wha a new poli ics
o mobili y ansi ions migh look like by ocusing on commoning mo emen , commoning meaning, and commoning p ac-
ice. Commoning mo emen e e s o collec i e engagemen wi h he amoun o mo emen ac oss space; commoning mean-
ing is de ined he e as collec i e econside ing o he socie al alue o mobili y; and commoning p ac ice as collec i e
e hinking o ways in which mobili y is pe o med and go e ned, wi h a pa icula emphasis on he la e . These elemen s
o mobili y a e en angled wi h each o he ; so oo a e he elemen s o commoning mobili y. As physical mo emen is “ he
aw ma e ial o he p oduc ion o mobili y”(C esswell, 2010, p. 19), commoning mo emen mo e o en han no akes
place in conjunc ion wi h commoning meaning and p ac ice, which a e en angled elemen s o mobili y ha un old ac oss
spa ial scales and le els o go e nance. Elemen s o commoning meaning, mo emen , and p ac ice a e p esen in he ansi-
ion own mo emen and elewo k ini ia i es, ye hey a e mani es ed s onge in bo om–up mo emen s challenging he
enclosu e o public space h ough ca ‐cen ic planning and emphasising he collec i e na u e o p oducing mobili y and
mobili y ansi ions, such as a you h‐led ini ia i e “Gene a ion Ze o”in New Zealand o a smalle p o‐cycling communi y
g oup “Velo‐Alma y”in Kazakhs an. The la e emphasises ha being in ol ed in cycling ad ocacy means engaging wi h
o he s, also d i e s and pedes ians whom hey see as “closes allies”; i means c ea ing a communi y and os e ing “u ban
cul u e”(Velo‐Alma y, pe sonal communica ion, 3 Decembe 2015).
In he wo b ie igne es below, we illus a e how commoning mo emen , meaning, and p ac ice can be ound ac oss
wo di e se si es –one in he Global No h, he o he in he Global Sou h –c ea ing openings o ans o ma i e poli ics o
mobili y ansi ions. As we no ed abo e, we highligh hese cases as excep ions o hegemonic neolibe al p ac ices. Com-
moning mobili y in bo h cases is no a o alising o disc e e p ocess, a he i is a p ocess ha exhibi s go e nance and p ac-
ice‐based ans o ma ions ha se he s age o edi ec and es uc u e adical democ a ic engagemen wi hin exis ing
ma e ial ci cums ances. Bo h cases p oduce “ enegade ca og aphies”(Ka z, 1996) o commoning, showing ha al e na i e
mobili y p ac ices a e possible.
5.1
|
Mobilising mobili y: Fos e ing communi y connec ions h ough cycling
Commoning he meaning o mobili y happens when a social ac o o ac o s ac i ely push o e hink he social impac s o
mo emen , i s ep esen a ions, o he meaning o ela ionships on he mo e. In he IJbu g a ea in Ams e dam o example,
a bo om–up neighbou hood ci ic ini ia i e began in 2011 ha aimed o inc ease cycling h ough communi y connec ions
and ac i ism. Ring‐Ring
®
uses a sma phone applica ion o encou age mo e people o cycle, bu i wo ks di e en ly om
o he nudging applica ions o such ype. Cycling kilome es –“ ie skilome e s”in Du ch, o Fkm –a e eco ded and can
be “exchanged” o discoun s in local shops. The co e dis inguishing ea u e o his applica ion is, howe e , i s ocus on
changing and poli icising he meaning o mobili y, whe e i p o ides a possibili y o “mobilise mobili y”
4
o a social goal.
A public au ho i y, a p i a e company, o a g oup o ci izens can s a a “g oup”in he applica ion, se a cycling a ge
(e.g., o achie e 1,000 Fkm pe mon h), alloca e an amoun o money, and announce ha i will be spen on a pa icula
social goal i he a ge is achie ed. Ring‐Ring
®
collec s he money om he dono and media es he exchange, ans e ing
he money o a pa icula local ini ia i e chosen by he g oup. P ojec s such as a local lib a y, a ins alla ions on a local
cycling ou e, a monumen in he neighbou hood, ips o a pony a m o child en wi h disabili ies, pu chasing bikes o
handicapped people, and plan ing ees we e co‐ inanced in his way.
A non‐ma ke based in e en ion, Ring‐Ring
®
a emp s o shi he meaning o mobili y o e hink i s po en ial as a com-
mon con ibu ion o socie y. The a ionale behind he p og amme is ha cycling con ibu es o neighbou hoods and ci ies
no only as an en i onmen ‐ iendly mobili y mode, bu also as ac i i y which –when unde aken collec i ely –suppo s
li eabili y, sociali y, and p ospe i y o places, since cyclis s a e encou aged o equen small businesses in he local econ-
omy, and o be mo e deeply engaged in he communi y and place a ound hem due o hei slowe speeds and openness.
Thus, cycling, acco ding o he ounde o Ring‐Ring
®
,isa“gi ” o onesel and o socie y: by being mobile, you a e
enac ing change and econ igu ing you ela ionship wi h he communi y (pe sonal communica ion, 30 Augus 2017). The
in e ace o he applica ion media es commoning mo emen and meaning by showing he numbe o Fkm cycled by an
indi idual use , he o al amoun o Fkm cycled by all use s, and he amoun o Fkm cycled by pa icula g oups wo king
owa ds a common social goal.
While he key objec i e o Ring‐Ring
®
is o inc ease cycling a es, p e e ably encou aging people o swi ch om d i ing
o cycling, i s b oade social goal is o eassess mobili y beyond i s u ili a ian alue and do i in a democ a ic ashion
354
|
NIKOLAEVA ET AL.