Tag Archives: affordability

Misrecognition in the transition

Posted on by
Reply

Urban residents’ reactions to distributional e-mobility policies offer insights into what misrecognition means.

Recognition Justice: Whose issues, needs, values, experiences and understandings are respected in policy and governance?

When we started talking about the different dimensions of social justice to policymakers and stakeholders as part of this research project back in late 2021, we quickly realised that recognition justice was the least recognised.

Matters of distributional justice are often well-integrated – even if not always executed – into planning, design, and appraisal processes. It’s an exercise in identifying costs, benefits, and upon whom they fall.

Now, as we come to the end of the project, we see that whilst matters of recognition justice remain elusive, expressions of distributional injustice in interviews with urban residents offer insights into their experiences of misrecognition… and how it might be addressed by policymakers.

Transport is a spatially organised sector. Spatial and physical accessibility is almost always a key metric for transport infrastructure and service provision. E-mobility is no exception, and policymakers regularly consider the distribution of public charging and shared micro-mobility, for example. Concerns around the affordability of EVs (usually cars and vans, but sometimes e-bikes too) are also widely documented, and policies often aim to make adoption cheaper.

Yet these and other policies to promote electric mobility can misrecognise what would make e-mobility more affordable or accessible to different groups. Our interviews with a wide spectrum of ~100 e-mobility users and non-users in four medium-sized European cities, from Oslo to Poznan, highlight some of the issues and experiences that such policies may need to recognise.

For example, a policy focus on the accessibility of electric mobility and EV adoption is seen by some to distract from the shortcomings of public transport and transport exclusion, misrecognising what certain sections of the population might actually need in terms of transport infrastructure.

Likewise, some social groups would never consider buying or leasing a new car – this can have to do with class and upbringing as much as income. So if grants and loans designed to make EV adoption cheaper don’t apply to second-hand vehicles, then the values of such groups are misrecognised.

Urban residents highlight how policies to improve accessibility for users of services such as shared e-scooters or public charging must be careful not to misrecognise the impacts on non-users. Do these services make other users of the same public spaces less safe? Do the needs of family members, such as children, make the services inaccessible in a way they would not be if the individual were travelling alone?

Restrictive policies like Clean Air Zones can misrecognise who ends up with the most financial burden, as well as how financial incentives could best reduce those burdens. Calls for greater flexibility in the use of loans and incentives highlighted one way to address this inequity, but care is needed.

Different groups understand and react to financial and regulatory policies, never mind their short and long-term impacts, in different ways, threatening further misrecognition, potentially born of poor communication and a perceived gap in procedural justice.

Recognition justice is not the same as distributional or procedural justice, but they all overlap. Through the window of distributional injustice as described by diverse users and non-users of electric mobility, the shape of recognition injustices become clearer. And through more purposive participation, in-depth engagement, and knowledge production, perhaps we can all learn to recognise it.

Moving Beyond Modes

Posted on by
Reply

Many of the policymakers and stakeholders we have interviewed for the ITEM project expressed uncertainty, and even hesitancy about the transition to electric mobility. In Poznań, Poland; Bristol, UK; and even Oslo, Norway, the urban transport policymakers in particular were not sure that supporting the transition to electric mobility is a local priority.

Or more specifically, supporting the transition from personal internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric cars is not a priority in these medium-sized European cities. Why? An electric car is ‘still a car’ as one Poznań policymaker said. The same policymaker went on to describe the importance of investing in public transport, explicitly contrasting it to electric mobility.

In other words, many of our participants interpreted questions about the transition to electric mobility as questions about the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) or even more specifically, to personal / private EVs. Personal, private EVs do not fit urban transport policy visions of less congested, more vibrant cities, any more than ICE vehicles do, even if EVs make the city less polluted and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

We, as researchers, often had to prompt participants to give their policy perspective on the switch to electric propulsion for other vehicle types like buses and bicycles. Their views on new(ish) vehicle types like e-scooters were ambiguous – pleased with their popularity, worried about their impact on space and place. Most didn’t even mention other EV alternatives, such as the electric mobility scooters and wheelchairs, or the pedal-free two- and three- wheelers commonly found in other parts of the world.

Partly this is because the focus of global and national discussions about the transition to electric mobility is often on EVs, as the IEA’s annual report demonstrates. However, that is not the only reason that many transport planners and practitioners default to personal EVs when asked about the transition to electric mobility.

Modes, modal hierarchies and modal shift are useful ways of explaining, learning about, and dividing responsibilities for transport policy, design and operation. Even those responsible for transport strategy across the geographical area of a municipality usually divide transport into modes. E-scooters and alternative types of EVs are not easily assigned to traditional modal categories such as active travel or public transport – no wonder our policymakers are not sure how to regulate them or whether they are a positive addition to their city’s transport system.

Meanwhile, alongside the heuristic of segmenting transport by mode sit other assumptions: Modal hierarchies describe which modes are more or less socially, economically, and environmentally valued in policy terms. Modal shift is what needs to happen so that more people travel by the more valued modes in a given hierarchy. Therefore, transport policy processes should aim to influence individual mode choice to achieve the desired modal shift. They should make more valued modes more attractive and efficient or less valued modes less attractive and efficient.

The problem is that not everyone has the same capability to choose nor the same perception of what is attractive nor the same urge for efficiency of movement. Accessibility and affordability are obvious barriers or motivations, but what about social opportunities and pressures? What about experiences of safety or enjoyment of risk? What about the added value of travelling more slowly if that time is also active or productive or contemplative?

Modal thinking limits how innovative and inclusive policy-making for the transition to electric mobility can be because it comes with so many prior assumptions, not least that personal electric cars are the only type of electric mobility being discussed. We need to move beyond modal knowledge. It is useful, perhaps fundamental to the responsibilities of transport policymakers and practitioners. But it must be complemented by new learning if we are to take advantage of all the opportunities to be innovative and inclusive that the transition to electric mobility can offer.

A plurality of policy processes and a pluralist perspective on social justice

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last five months, we have interviewed 13 policy-makers and others involved in the policy-making process in Bristol, the West of England, UK.

We have heard about the ideas, evolution and implementation of policies for not only electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, but also the e-scooter trial, e-car clubs, the Clean Air Zone and accompanying grants and incentives, and to a lesser extent the integration of electric modes into public realm and neighbourhood improvements, e-bicycles, e-freight options, and the electrification of public transport.

We have coded, analysed and summarised the interviews, identifying not only the extensive consideration given to distributional justice issues such as accessibility and affordability, but also the greater recognition of diverse needs spatially and socio-demographically. Compared to the policy documents analysed last summer, the increased prominence of recognition justice may be attributed to more participatory approaches in procedural justice terms than was apparent in the published narratives. Our interviewees could and did describe their in-depth engagement with local residents and the establishment of diverse working groups that could inform policy.

All of them, however, local and national policy-makers, shared mobility operators, civic society representatives and experts, still raised concerns about the inclusivity and fairness of electric mobility policies. They asked what policymakers could realistically do to make electric vehicles more affordable to purchase; whether the necessities of commercial viability limited their ability to provide services to certain groups in certain neighbourhoods; and whether limited local government resources and capabilities could be allocated fairly given external constraints.

However, there were clear indications that local capabilities (even if not resources) had grown over the years through learning from both other places and from local people, tapping into national and academic expertise, and gaining professional experience.

On the other hand, our interviewees who were involved in public electric vehicle charging knew little about the e-scooter trial, and those involved in administering the Clean Air Zone did not work directly with operators implementing e-car clubs or expanding other shared mobility. This siloed approach may be limiting the potential for policymakers and operators to make the transition to electric mobility more socially just. Our research suggests it is already limiting their understanding of how just (or not) the transition is in Bristol at the moment and in what ways.

By jointly considering multiple major electric mobility policies and policy processes, the ITEM project is developing a more holistic understanding of how these policies and processes involve different groups, meet diverse needs and variably affect experiences of mobility and public space in and around Bristol. In other words, the research assesses the implications of a plurality of electric mobility processes for the multiple dimensions of social justice in our pluralist perspective.

By comparing the policy approaches and the dynamics of the transition to electric mobility across our four, medium-sized, case study cities in Europe, each at different stages in that transition, the ITEM project is also investigating how real and perceived constraints to accelerating a more inclusive transition can change and be addressed over time. That, however, is a topic for another blog.

Public Realm Resource

Posted on by
Reply

The thorniest topic at the UN’s COP27 on climate change this month has been finance, or the lack thereof, to lower income and more vulnerable countries. Affordability is front and centre of the debate to not only tackle climate change globally, but also to do so justly.

Similarly, affordability is a word that has been on the lips of many policy makers and stakeholders as soon as we started researching inclusivity in the transition to electric mobility in Bristol. Electric vehicles (EVs) are seen as unaffordable by and for many people. Even retrofitting or upgrading to a vehicle compliant with the Clean Air Zone (introduced today!) is considered financially out of reach for some of the most vulnerable and vehicle-dependent.

Furthermore, for cash-strapped governments, there is debate as to whether limited public monies should be spent on installing public EV charging infrastructure, rather than leaving it to the private sector? Public sector public charging might improve inclusion by enabling EV adoption by those without an off-street parking and domestic charging option, but if only wealthier households (whether they have private parking or not) can afford an EV, do they really need public charging infrastructure to be subsidised? Especially as electricity prices go up, and providing as well as using public charging becomes less affordable.

There are arguments the other way, of course, as lower income households might still drive a company car or van. They might be able to access a second-hand or shared EV.

And there are other forms of electric mobility. E-scooters and e-bikes not only can improve accessibility, but also can be considered a reasonably affordable transport option, especially for medium-length journeys where public transport is limited. Besides, many e-scooter trials have included discounts for low income groups to make sure the scheme is affordable.

But affordability and how public monies are used are not the only topic up for debate when considering whether the transition to electric mobility is progressing in an inclusive way. Digging a little deeper, another inclusion / justice issue is around the rights of different people to use the public realm in different ways and how their different ways of moving are accommodated in public spaces.

A number of the policy-makers and stakeholders we spoke to described how the allocation or reallocation of space on the public highway or footway is one of the most contentious interventions they can propose. Even in terms of people moving through space, there are the ever-recurring problems of congestion, crowding, and the use of space of different modes. Then there’s the space taken up for parking, deliveries, sign posts, bollards, traffic signals, cycle stands – so much of our public realm is used for dormant vehicles or the smooth running of the transport network, never mind for other things like retail or socialising.

The addition of electric mobility infrastructure such as EV charging and e-scooter parking places new demands on the scarce resource that is our public realm. Electric mobility also raises questions about how that resource is used – which modes are sharing which spaces, whose space is reallocated, who will face new challenges using public space, and will there be new conflicts and safety concerns? Basically, how efficient and fair is the use and allocation of the public realm once electric mobility is added into our transport systems?

Unsurprisingly, the policy makers and stakeholders we spoke to did not all have the same answers or perhaps any answers to these questions. And yet, they were asking the questions. They realised that social justice is not all about affordability or accessibility, but also the diverse needs, rights, experiences, and expectations of the public realm resource. That is an important step in not only our developing research, but also in achieving an inclusive transition to electric mobility.