Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the

Role of ICT

Dennis Lawo

1,2 a

, Lukas B

ohm

1,2 b

, Anna-Katharina Fl

ugge

, Christina Pakusch

1,2 c

and Gunnar Stevens

1,2

Information Systems, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany

Institut f

ur Verbraucherinformatik, University of Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhein-Sieg, Sankt Augustin, Germany

Keywords:

Public Transport, Practice Theory, Multimodal Mobility, Sustainability, Consumer Informatics.

Abstract:

With the debates on climate change and sustainability, a reduction of the share of cars in the modal split has

become increasingly prevalent in both public and academic discourse. Besides some motivational approaches,

there is a lack of ICT artifacts that successfully raise the ability of consumers to adopt sustainable mobility

patterns. To further understand the requirements and the design of these artifacts within everyday mobility

adopted a practice-lens. This lens is helpful to get a broader perspective on the use of ICT artifacts along con-

sumers’ transformational journey towards sustainable mobility practices. Based on 12 retrospective interviews

with car-free mobility consumers, we argue that artifacts should not be viewed as ’magic-bullet’ solutions but

should accompany the complex transformation of practices in multifaceted ways. Moreover, we highlight in

particular the difﬁculties of appropriating shared infrastructures and aligning own practices with them. This

opens up a design space to provide more support for these kinds of material-interactions, to provide access

to consumption infrastructures and make them usable, rather than leaving consumers alone with increased

motivation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Against the background of climate change and com-

mon transport-related problems such as noise, con-

gestion, and air pollution, a change in the nature

and extent of car use is necessary (Hasselqvist et al.,

2016). Although the private car offers high ﬂexibility

and comfort (S¸ims¸eko

glu et al., 2015), it is rather un-

sustainable compared to public transport alternatives

(Wright and Fulton, 2005; Girod et al., 2013).

However, according to Kemp and van Lente

(2011) changing consumption patterns towards such

sustainable modes ”include[s] two challenges: on the

one hand a long-term change to various technologies

and infrastructures, while on the other hand ensur-

ing that consumer criteria change in the same move”.

The development of new infrastructures and technolo-

gies related to low-emission vehicles and sustainable

modes of transport is an ongoing challenge addressed

by various parties. However, supporting consumers to

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2848-4409

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8191-8232

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5810-4556

change their consumption practices is an often over-

looked challenge (Kemp and van Lente, 2011).

Research already explored such transformations

of consumption practices for other domains (Twine,

2018) and highlighted the opportunities of ICT to sup-

port consumers (Lawo et al., 2020). For mobility,

such a practice-based HCI focus is missing. Here,

”research on mobility and transport has been dom-

inated by a focus on the automobile” (Gl

oss et al.,

2020) or the use of a motivational lens (Anagnos-

topoulou et al., 2018). For public transport, there is

very little ethnographic research on ICT use in HCI,

according to Wulf et al. (2019). Therefore, there is a

lack of an understanding of how ICT artifacts can fa-

cilitate and simplify more sustainable mobility prac-

tices beyond motivational aspects only.

Research Gap: Designing artifacts to support the

transformation of consumers’ practices and the adop-

tion of new modes of transport, requires a more nu-

anced understanding of consumer trajectories. There-

fore, we address the research question of ”How

consumers appropriate car-free multimodal mobility

practices and which role ICT artifacts play?”.

Lawo, D., Böhm, L., Flügge, A., Pakusch, C. and Stevens, G.

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT.

DOI: 10.5220/0010652400003060

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2021), pages 36-47

ISBN: 978-989-758-538-8; ISSN: 2184-3244

To answer this research question, we conducted

a qualitative study with 12 participants using semi-

structured interviews. The focus was on consumers’

narratives about their car-free practice transforma-

tion journey and the associated ICT use. Similar to

other other research on sustainable practices, we in-

terviewed consumers who had already changed their

habits as a source of knowledge about the difﬁcul-

ties and how they have addressed them (Lawo et al.,

2020). We used as a practice-theoretical lens (En-

twistle et al., 2015) to understand the role of ICTs and

their relationships with infrastructures and practices.

From this retrospective perspective, our ﬁndings

show how the appropriation of sustainable mobil-

ity practices comes with a tinkering into new prac-

tices rather than a motivational process only. Partici-

pants use ICT artifacts that mediate between their own

practices and the inherit schedule of the infrastruc-

tures they use. This perspective on sustainable prac-

tices contributes to the design of ICT artifacts, by, on

the one hand, presenting the dynamic needs of con-

sumers for infrastructure-related practices that can be

addressed by designers, but, on the other hand, also by

critically reﬂecting on the role of ICT and the bound-

aries of design solutions.

2 RELATED WORK

2.1 From Car Dependency to

Multimodal Mobility

One of the main drivers of consumption related car-

bon emissions is transport. It is responsible for about

one third of the energy consumption in western soci-

eties (Gabrielli et al., 2014). Especially private mo-

torized transport plays a particularly problematic role

(Miehe et al., 2016). In contrast to public transport

and shared mobility, the private car is less environ-

mentally friendly and less resource-efﬁcient (Girod

et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the car is still the num-

ber one mode of transport and it is even considered to

be growing in ownership (Wright and Fulton, 2005).

The car plays an important role in the modal split

of many people because it offers a certain freedom.

Urry (2004) stated that a large part of social life would

even not be possible without the ﬂexibility of the

car and its 24-hour availability. The modal split de-

scribes the extent to which certain modes of trans-

port are used. In the context of personal mobility, it

can be considered equivalent to the individual choice

of transport mode. It therefore provides information

about consumers’ mobility behavior from an abstract

perspective on their daily mobility patterns (Qu et al.,

2015).

To be able to address trafﬁc-related problems, the

share of motorized individual transport in the modal

split must be reduced (Girod et al., 2013). In this con-

text, multimodality means the use of several modes

of transport for daily mobility. In order to close this

gap, the integration of innovative mobility services,

such as public bicycle sharing, into traditional pub-

lic transport is an important step towards promoting

multimodal practices. After all, such practices are

only possible if appropriate alternatives to the private

car are available. Through this integration, traditional

public transport gains ﬂexibility and attractiveness,

which are traditionally understood as motivators for

car-dependent mobility (S¸ims¸eko

glu et al., 2015). For

sustainable mobility, it is therefore crucial to promote

walking, cycling and public transport, and to avoid or

limit motorized private transport wherever possible.

2.2 Designing ICT for Sustainable

Mobility

Over the past decade, HCI research has increasingly

focused on the provision and consumption of mo-

bility services (Loos et al., 2020). ”However, for

various reasons, research has been dominated by the

car”(Gl

oss et al., 2020). Although others modes have

received less attention, we ﬁnd research on public

transport (V

anen et al., 2016), walking (Winstan-

ley et al., 2014), cycling (Reddy et al., 2010), and

car or ride-sharing (Brewer and Kameswaran, 2019).

Nevertheless, studies on ICT and public transport are

still rare (Wulf et al., 2019).

Within this research, persuasive design to moti-

vate consumers has been one of the dominant themes.

In particular, various prototypes were used to stim-

ulate and motivate sustainable mobility with eco-

visualizations, social comparison, and emotional ap-

peals (Anagnostopoulou et al., 2018). These attempts

to promote sustainable consumption (DiSalvo et al.,

2010) primarily rely on theories of environmental

psychology (Froehlich et al., 2010), as well as gam-

iﬁcation and persuasiveness (Fogg, 2002). Neverthe-

less, the focus on motivation has been criticized for

having positive short-term impact on behavior change

motivation, but no long-term impact (Brynjarsdottir

et al., 2012; Dourish, 2010; Maitland et al., 2009;

Schwartz et al., 2013, 2015). Along with this critique,

research on eco-feedback concludes that it needs to be

incorporated into multimodal travel planning and that

access to and use of infrastructure is a practical difﬁ-

culty that is not solved with higher motivation and can

even be demotivating (Cellina et al., 2019b,a; Meurer

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT

et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2017). In short, there is a lack

of ICT artifacts that successfully support the simplic-

ity and ability to conduct new behaviors (Fogg, 2009).

To overcome this focus on rational consumers that

just need to have enough motivation and more broadly

consider ability factors (Fogg, 2009), sustainable con-

sumption studies in HCI have used a practice lens

(Meurer et al., 2019; Hasselqvist et al., 2016; Has-

selqvist and Hesselgren, 2019; Stein et al., 2017).

Still, the settings were rather limited by the provision

of electric vehicles in urban areas (Hasselqvist et al.,

2016), or the provision of a planning platform for

the speciﬁc group of elderly consumers (Stein et al.,

2017; Meurer et al., 2014). Moreover, it lacks a mul-

timodal and public transport perspective (Wulf et al.,

2019) that develops an understanding of the role of

ICT artifacts and their design.

2.3 Theoretical Framing

To give greater attention to the ability and simplic-

ity factors that facilitate sustainable routines (Fogg,

2009), this research adopts a practice lens that ”in-

crease[s] the understanding of the complexity of what

inﬂuences how we do things and to create support for

more sustainable practices”(Hasselqvist et al., 2016).

Practices are the ”routinized way in which bodies

are moved, objects are handled, subjects are treated,

things are described and the world is understood”

(Reckwitz, 2002). They exist in a context of materi-

als, competences, and meanings (Shove and Pantzar,

2005; Shove et al., 2012). Meanings are the ”sym-

bolic meanings, ideas and aspirations”(Shove et al.,

2012), e.g. the perception of biking as healthy

Hasselqvist et al. (2016). Competences are skills

and know-how, practical knowledge, or techniques

needed (Shove et al., 2012), e.g. knowing the city or

which train to catch Hasselqvist et al. (2016). Lastly,

materials are all ”objects, infrastructures, tools, hard-

ware and the body itself” (Shove et al., 2012), e.g.

the train, the station or the phone to buy a ticket.

In HCI, this lens has been adapted to understand

the relationship between infrastructures (shared ma-

terials) and ICT artifacts (near/owned material) (En-

twistle et al., 2015). Infrastructures can, thereby,

be seen as the ”entirety of devices, tools, technolo-

gies, standards, conventions, and protocols on which

[...] the collective rely to carry out the tasks and

achieve the goals assigned” (Pipek and Wulf, 2009).

From a consumption perspective, this entails the pro-

duction and distribution mechanisms of consumable

goods, that are shaped by shared usage but not steered

and controlled by individual consumers (Entwistle

et al., 2015). Such mechanisms entail, e.g., the public

transport-system, streets and shared vehicles.

Given the question of how mobility practices

transform to a more sustainable state, we have to

consider the dynamics of practices as well. In daily

consumption routines, the elements are stably con-

nected, creating a kind of equilibrium (Stevens and

Pipek, 2018). Still, an imbalance or ”crisis of rou-

tine” (Reckwitz, 2002) could lead to a dynamic that

comes with the appropriation of (proto-) practices and

their respective elements (Shove et al., 2012). In the

course of dynamic practices, the near materiality of

the ICT artifact is also dynamic (Bødker and Klok-

mose, 2012), e.g., the acquisition of new artifacts for

new situations or the abandonment of artifacts after

the practice has stabilized (Lawo et al., 2020). In this

sense, it begins with an unsatisfactory state, followed

by exploration and testing of new options and ideas

(excited state), and ﬁnally a new equilibrium in a sta-

ble state (Bødker and Klokmose, 2012).

3 INTERVIEW STUDY

In line with the research question, the goal of our in-

terview study was to understand consumers’ car-free

practices and the supporting role of ICT artifacts. A

particular focus was on comparing different stages of

the transformation of mobility practices.

We, therefore, conducted and analyzed 12 (P1-12)

interviews (24 - 74 min.) with consumers. The sam-

ple was recruited using a snowball sampling approach

(Noy, 2008), starting from contacts in the authors’

extended social network. The ﬁnal selection crite-

rion, in terms of purposive sampling (Tongco, 2007),

was the renunciation of prior car use. This approach

did not aim for a representative sample, but rather a

broad and diverse sample in terms of mobility prac-

tices, life situations, and personal experiences with

practice transformation. This diversity is reﬂected in

the selection of participants (see Table 1). Our sam-

ple includes participants living in rural, suburban, ur-

ban, and metropolitan areas. In addition, motivations

for adopting a multimodal practice range from leav-

ing home, migrating to Germany, moving to another

city, and environmental reasons.

The semi-structured interviews (Ayres, 2008) fol-

lowed an interview guideline that covered (1) the

participants’ reasons for car abandonment, (2) their

current mobility practices, and (3) the transforma-

tion of their practices, and (4) the appropriation of

ICT for both current and transforming mobility prac-

tices. All interviews were transcribed and analysis

was conducted by two researchers using the induc-

tive approach of thematic analysis. As an initial tem-

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

Table 1: Participants.

# Age Gender Education Residence Time Car-Free Modes

P1 25 f University Degree Urban 6 years bike; train

P2 24 m University Degree Sub-Urban few months bike; bus; train

P3 24 m University Degree Urban 3 years bus; tram

P4 38 m University Degree Metropolitan 15 months bus; train; taxi

P5 23 f University Degree Urban 4 years bus; train; tram

P6 54 f Middle School Urban since 1987 bus; train

P7 25 m University Degree Sub Urban/Rural 3 years bike; bus; train

P8 28 m University Degree Metropolitan 2 years bus; train

P9 30 f University Degree Rural 8 years bus; train; taxi; ride-sharing

P10 32 f University Degree Rural 1 year bus; train

P11 24 f University Degree Urban 4 years bus; train

P12 20 f High School Urban 2 years bus; train

plate for coding (King, 2004), we used the differenti-

ation between pre-, on- and post-trip practices (Rehrl

et al., 2007; Kramers, 2014) and the simpliﬁed action-

theoretically informed constructs of stable practices

and unstable practices (Bødker and Klokmose, 2012).

After coding, the codes were consolidated and the

themes were developed collaboratively to achieve a

mutual understanding of the material.

4 RESULTS

Our 12 participants were either car owners or had ac-

cess to a car in their family. Accordingly, it can be

said of all participants that they were socialized with

individual motorized transport practices and carried

them out for a certain phase of their lives. Thus, at

the beginning of our study, the question arose how

a change from car-oriented practices to multimodal

practices occurred.

Unlike the change of other practices (Lawo et al.,

2020), there was no careful tinkering into the new

practices. Instead, all participants faced the challenge

of adopting new practices from one day to the next

due to a change in the personal situation. Examples of

this are moving to a bicycle-friendly or a car-hostile

city (P1, P2, P9), their own car breaking down (P4,

P7), moving to another country (P8, P10) or even the

fear of driving after an accident (P6) or due to a lack

of routine (P12). In addition to these disruptive events

as a crises of their routines, there are also participants

who no longer own a car for ﬁnancial reasons. It can

thus be stated that a change of practice is enforced by

a disruptive event, rather than inﬂuenced by ICT.

Over the course of practice transformation, con-

sumers appropriated additional meanings. For exam-

ple, the advantages of car-free mobility, e.g. the pos-

sibility of sports and leisure activities (P1, P8, P10),

independence from one mode of transport (P1, P10),

cost and time savings (P2, P3, P5, P7, P11), environ-

mental protection (P3, P6, P7, P11), efﬁcient use of

time (P4, P5, P9) and freedom from car-related wor-

ries (P2, P12) come to the fore. Similar meanings are

also found in research on small electric vehicle prac-

tices (Hasselqvist et al., 2016).

I think it’s really important. I mean, you

always have your phone with you or you al-

ways have a piece of technology with you to

check the best route, to check the schedule, to

check different things. –P10

While ICT does not play a role as a trigger in our

sample, the role of ICT increases with ﬁnding one-

self in an unsatisfactory state, given by disturbed rou-

tines. Thus, participants used artifacts to re-establish

stable routines. In the following, we look at the estab-

lishment of new routines in the pre-, on- and post-trip

practices. In contrast to previous research (Stein et al.,

2017; Meurer et al., 2014; Hasselqvist et al., 2016),

the focus is on ICT artifacts (near materiality) and in-

frastructures (e.g. public transport, bicycle lanes, etc.)

in relation to the practice transformation. From an an-

alytical point of view, we further distinguish between

artifacts that are used to re-stabilize practices, e.g. at

the beginning of practice transformation, and artifacts

that well established in stable multimodal mobility

practices.

4.1 Pre-trip: From Planning Trips to

Synchronizing with Infrastructures

4.1.1 Planning the Unseen

At the beginning of the practice transformation, our

participants were confronted with a new uncertainty

caused by the lack of knowledge about alternative mo-

bility infrastructures.

While the previous use of the car was perceived

as something familiar and simple, the new uncertainty

had to be resolved by planning the trips in more detail.

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT

”If I wanted to go somewhere, I could just

get in my car, look at the GPS and go where

I want to go. Now I have to look on the

timetable to see, ok, at what time I can go, [...]

I wanted to be there at 10, so I have to take the

train earlier. [...] what time is the last train or

what time do I have to be back so I don’t miss

the train. So I have to be really conscious with

the time.” –P10

The planning practices themselves are strongly in-

terwoven with the appropriation and use of new tech-

nologies. It is noticeable that mainly the smartphone

and partly also a computer are used for planning.

Also, Google Maps is one of the most frequently used

tools. In addition to information about the available

modes of transport, other factors are also included

into the planning process. P2, for example, also takes

the difference in altitude into account for trips for

which a bicycle would in principle be an option.

”If I’m about to do something new now,

[...] I would just look on Google Maps on my

phone, where is that, or look on my laptop,

where is the address?” –P2

Although technology provides access to multi-

modal planning and connecting of different mobility

infrastructures, participants faced the problem of not

ﬁnding the best solution directly. This problem seems

to be caused by the technologies themselves. For ex-

ample most apps do not take into account that taking

a bike on a train ride could be faster than the subse-

quent bus. Other issues, arise from non-transparent

pricing models, which need workarounds and explo-

rative tactics to ﬁnd the best price.

”And then I found a solution, but some-

how I also tried out different things. First I

tried [...] Bicycles that you can just rent [...]

That was better [...] But somehow still not so

optimal [...] And then I ﬁnally found out that

you [...] can take your bike on the train for

free. [...] And that is now the perfect solution

for me to get there quickly. But it took a while

to ﬁnd this solution.” –P1

But it is not just infrastructures and modes that

need to be explored. Especially in the early stage

of practice transformation, participants reported ex-

ploring and trying out different apps and technologies

to ﬁnd a suitable solution that worked for them and

their information needs. Thereby, they reported that

local apps, in particular, often provide better informa-

tion, such as live transit schedules or the locations of

sharing vehicles, while other apps provide a broader

overview of cross-regional traveling.

”I also downloaded the [local mobility

app] [...], but I’ve deleted it again because I

use this [other local mobility app] and it basi-

cally has the same functions. And why should

I have two of the same apps on my phone?”

–P6

4.1.2 Daily Synchronization

However, all of this effort and exploration is not

necessary in the long-term. Once multimodal prac-

tices become more stable, e.g. routinely conducted

trips and the corresponding infrastructures are better

known, participants did not need to use the artifacts

that intensively.

However, the technological solution and the cor-

responding competencies to ﬁnd a possible connec-

tion of modes to get from A to B, once appropriated,

remained an integral part of their mobility practices.

Although usage generally decreased, new situations,

e.g., destination not yet reached, again create some

type of instability that needs to be resolved through

these technologies and competencies.

”So if I’m looking for an unknown route

now, I still check busliniensuche.de to see if

there’s somehow a bus that goes there cheaply

and in a reasonable time.” –P11

But similar to the initial trigger of practice trans-

formation, major life changes, such as moving to a

new neighborhood or starting a new job, can cause a

new instability that requires reﬂection and application

of well-learned patterns to re-stabilize the own mobil-

ity routines.

In addition to this repetition of learning about in-

frastructures, the issue of synchronizing one’s sched-

ule and practices with the infrastructure’s schedule

emerges in long-term pre-trip practices. Here, our

participants explained how they learned the departure

and arrival times of their most frequently used modes

and adjusted their routines to ﬁt the schedule.

Somehow I adjust my timetable, my own

timetable to the bus timetable. And that has

affected my life, [...] it’s just not sponta-

neous.” –P8

This synchronization with the timetable goes hand

in hand with another phenomenon, the use of apps

to check whether the train or bus is on time. Most

participants reported that even though they know the

lines very well, they often check the live schedule if

they need to hurry to miss the bus, or stay inside a

little longer to not wait in the cold.

”Most of the time you don’t have to wait

that long, but I often check Quando or other

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

apps to see when the bus is coming and it it

leaves on time, and it happened to me so many

times that the bus has even arrived too early.”

–P3

”I usually activate this reminder function,

so that you are notiﬁed when the train is de-

layed.” –P11

Again, our participants shared how they tried dif-

ferent solutions to have the best synchronization ex-

perience. Through trial and error, they tried differ-

ent apps to see how up-to-date the data really is and

how well the technology actually reﬂects the infras-

tructure. Still, a compromise had to be made between

artifacts that aggregate multiple transport services but

often lack real-time information, and detailed infor-

mation provided by region-speciﬁc artifacts.

”In city C, I used the [local mobility app],

[...] because it was somehow more accurate

than the DeutscheBahn app. So for cities it’s

maybe even better to use their own app be-

cause they can provide even better data and

not all of them have forwarded that to the DB

app.” –P7

Once matching artifacts are appropriated, they re-

main an integral part of consumers’ multimodal prac-

tices. But of course, the need for synchronization

depends strongly on the chosen modes. In a situa-

tion where they use their bicycle, which can still be

considered an individual mode of transport, there is

less need to synchronize with the infrastructure. Still,

for bicycle trips routines need to be aligned with the

weather or the amount of trafﬁc, which requires com-

pletely different apps.

4.2 On-trip: From Continuous

Optimization to Enjoyment and

Efﬁciency

4.2.1 Continuous Orientation and Optimization

Especially at the beginning of practice transforma-

tions, but also in uncertain new situations, our par-

ticipants show a high need for information about the

currently used mode of transport, even on-trip. When

the environment is unfamiliar or the mode of transport

seems slower than expected, participants reported us-

ing the service provider’s app to check for punctual-

ity. They also look for alternatives if they guarantee a

faster or safer arrival. This can be seen as a repeated

synchronization with the infrastructure.

”To see when the next one is leaving or

simply to have alternative routes suggested to

me, if the app then tells me that the bus is can-

celed, then the app can also tell you how you

could [...] get there after all.” –P5

Similar to daily synchronization, the use of arti-

facts is highly dependent on the chosen modes. When

biking or walking, there are obviously far fewer op-

portunities to use ICT. In this sense, technology use

for these more individual modes of transport is mostly

limited to navigation.

”I then usually go to satellite and zoom

in a bit closer and then look at some of the

surroundings and then look at anchor points

where I basically have to search for. [...] I

recently had to walk from work to another

practice and didn’t know one hundred percent

how to get through the side streets. So I used

Google Maps, for example, and then I sort of

walked according to Google Maps. I use that,

too, but otherwise I wouldn’t know what to do

to get to the [local destination] [...] Yes, well,

I also use the train app.” –P6

But again, the interaction between the technology

(near materiality) and the infrastructure is prevalent.

Our participants chose the technology that provides

the appropriate level of detail and features for navi-

gating the mode. This is particularly interesting be-

cause it is the technologies that include a wide vari-

ety of modes that lack a certain level of information

for speciﬁc modes. For example, while Google Maps

provides a good overview of the entire route, naviga-

tion with a bicycle requires different apps that provide

more detailed bicycle maps.

”I sometimes do not use Google Maps, but

another map, MapsME it is called, because the

bike paths were still somehow better shown or

drawn.” –P1

4.2.2 Time Exploitation and Enjoyment

In the long term, uncertainty decreases as our partici-

pants reported being more aware of schedules and al-

ternatives and simply becoming more comfortable us-

ing different modes of transport. Therefore, exploita-

tion of time, efﬁciency, and enjoyment become more

important within the ecology of artifacts used on-trip.

Nevertheless, some participants have developed a rou-

tine of checking live information at least once.

”So I deﬁnitely look at it at least once

before I get on the train, because a lot can

change. And the station usually has the most

up-to-date information.” –P11

However, this established routine is not only used

to check the infrastructure’s schedule, but also to

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT

reach the subsequent modes of transport. This can be

done, as the example of P10 shows, through a simple

communication via messenger or call to ensure a cer-

tain synchronicity, but also checking one’s own loca-

tion to get off at the right stop or to reach subsequent

modes in time and space.

”I would just text the person that I’m there and

where we’re going to meet. And sometimes if

you’re not sure where you are, because for me

it’s like I’m traveling there for the ﬁrst time, so

then I make sure I’m in the right city or where

I’m going, for example, I look around to see if

there’s some kind of signal. Or I even look in

Google Maps to see if I’m at the right stop.”

–P10

In addition to these routines, which are still pre-

dominantly focused on the functionality of the trans-

port infrastructure, the participants also explained

how a certain routine emerged over time and the use

of travel time came to the fore as a new space that

can be shaped. On the one hand, this shows, from a

practice-theoretical perspective, how the new modes

of transport are also gradually seen as an opportunity

for more leisure time. On the other hand, the design

of this new time is as different as the participants and

the modes they use. For example, they reported that

they use the time to rest, to consume media, but also

to study or work.

”Play games, listen to music, read. Work. I

think I forgot to mention working, because it’s

often the case that you do have something that

you can do on the laptop. It’s just not as effec-

tive as at home, i have to admit. But I used to

watch movies from time to time, but I haven’t

done that for a few years now.” –P2

This involves adapting the ecology of artifacts

to the particular mode and the established rou-

tines. Speciﬁcally, our participants reported explor-

ing which applications can be used without an in-

ternet connection (ofﬂine mode) if their route passes

through an area with low internet coverage or only use

certain features of their applications. Participants also

reported preparing accordingly, such as downloading

content for later consumption.

”With Spotify, it’s just my previously

downloaded playlists that I listen to, in Net-

ﬂix then also only the downloaded stuff, be-

cause for this my network ﬂat is not enough

[...] WhatsApp just write messages, also no

video calls or so, simply because the connec-

tion would be too bad for that.” –P5

Similarly, some participants explained how they

chose to refrain from certain activities because their

chosen mode of transport does not provide the neces-

sary infrastructure in terms of WiFi or charging op-

tions. While routines and artifacts are mostly aligned

with the infrastructure in use, in some cases partici-

pants also report choosing a different mode of trans-

port and making trade-offs between how they can use

their time and how fast, comfortable, or expensive the

mode is.

”I think it’s stupid that train don’t have

WiFi, which means you can’t work there well.

[...] When I really ﬁnd a cheaper train, that’s

mostly such train. And sometimes I decide

against it when I really want to work on some-

thing, but I’m prevented from doing because

they don’t have WiFi.” –P7

4.3 Post-trip: From Reﬂection on

Practices to Routinized Non-usage

4.3.1 Optimizing Practices and Improving

Infrastructures

Even for post-trip practices, our participants reported

using artifacts to predominantly stabilize their prac-

tices. Optimizing the route previously taken and com-

paring the recommendation or time predictions of the

travel planning systems with the real travel time arose

as an important theme, especially in early practice

transformation.

”If you have the navigation that you want

to be guided from A to B, then you can track,

for example, how long it took me to get there

by bike. I sometimes ﬁnd that quite interest-

ing, especially if it’s a new route, because then

I can also estimate for the future, okay I need

20 minutes to get there.” –P1

The example of P1 shows how the participants,

depending on the mode, compared the planned travel

time with the actual time. This optimization approach

for one’s own routines is explained by the fact that

one can better estimate the time needed to travel ei-

ther earlier or later. Such optimization is not limited

to bike rides or walks, but also to transfer times be-

tween bus rides, where the consumer might get an ear-

lier ride because the app underestimates the walking

speed.

In addition to optimizing their own routines, by re-

ﬂecting on their own use of infrastructures, some par-

ticipants began to optimize the infrastructure them-

selves. This optimization is sometimes focused

towards the digital infrastructures, such as Open-

StreetMap, where they record their trips or label

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

roads, such that other consumers have access to better

data and route recommendations.

”I came across OpenStreetMap at that

time through my dad, because he also liked

to enter data there, so when he made bicycle

tours, where no one has entered that there is

a bike path and has taken the GPS data, [...]

which was then recorded on this map, okay

there is a bike path. I thought that was cool

because it was somehow ﬁlled in by the peo-

ple and because it also took into account all

those little paths that maybe only the people

who live in the place know.” –P1

Besides, participants tried to share their experi-

ences and optimize the physical infrastructures. For

example, they went to demonstrations for better bike

lanes after realizing that certain areas are dangerous

or do not provide good riding conditions. Other ex-

amples include writing letters of complaint about cer-

tain bus routes, their service or the schedule.

4.3.2 Routinized Non-usage

Since post-trip ICT usage itself is less prominent, it

plays a marginal role for stable practices in the long

term. Most of our participants reported that they are

just happy to have arrived at their destination with-

out uncertainty and that they already used their smart-

phone or computer a lot during the trip.

”I’m usually glad when I’ve arrived, es-

pecially after longer trips, you’re glad when

you’ve arrived and can do the other stuff.” –P2

Still, there are situations where they want or even

need to check for bonus programs or travel-related

news, such as upcoming constructions. But non-use

of artifacts remains the majority case for the post-trip

practices.

”What I might check is the rail bonus sta-

tus later to see if it’s enough for a free ride

again.” –P10

5 DISCUSSION

To answer our research question, we discuss our ﬁnd-

ings from two perspectives. First, from a theoretical

perspective that sheds light on the appropriation of

sustainable mobility practices by consumers and the

respective role of ICT. Second, building on this un-

derstanding, we discuss design implications that put a

different focus on the design for sustainable mobility

practices.

5.1 Practice Transformation as

Mediating between Practices and

Infrastructures

At the beginning of our participants’ practice trans-

formations, a change in their personal situation or

a breakdown in their mobility infrastructure forces

them to rethink their mobility practices. For our par-

ticipants, the obvious outcome was to give up their

cars and adopt multimodal mobility practices. This

immediate change is quite similar to the Hasselqvist

et al. (2016) experiments, but consumers still gave

up motorized personal transport completely. Inter-

estingly, while in other transformations of consumer

practices (Lawo et al., 2020) media and ICT triggered

the questioning of infrastructures and practices, in

mobility it seems that — speaking with a practice-lens

in mind — transformation is triggered by a change

in the material context, e.g., moving to a new city or

abandoning the car, rather than by a change in mean-

ings.

While the motivational aspects of persuasive de-

sign (Fogg, 2002) are a major focus of HCI research

on sustainable mobility, it does only play a small role

in our sample. Of course, we cannot draw broader

conclusions about all consumers due to our sample

size, but nonetheless, motivation tends to come from

material change. Nonetheless, there seems to be an

initial meaning that changed and inﬂuenced the de-

cision even before the material change that initiates

the moment of transformation. This meaning is, for

example, the high price of a car or the inﬂexibility

in ﬁnding a parking space. In addition, this mean-

ing changes and stabilizes as the transformation pro-

gresses towards other perspectives, e.g. the environ-

mental beneﬁt. Here, despite the observed non-use of

motivational design, this branch of ICT could play its

role in practice transformation, e.g., preparing con-

sumers for a transformation decision when the mate-

rial context provides an opportunity. Moreover, to sta-

bilize practices and support sustainable practice trans-

formation, persuasive features could provide informa-

tion to develop new positive meanings.

Given the material-focused initiation of practice

transformation, the simpliﬁcation of the interplay

of technologies and infrastructures was much more

prevalent in our sample. This, as our results show, is

not just a matter of planning the routes to take, but an

ongoing synchronization of practices and infrastruc-

tures. While planning has already been observed by

Hasselqvist et al. (2016); Stein et al. (2017), our re-

search emphasizes that multimodal practices require

not just planning but also information about the inter-

connectivity of modes, their schedules, and real-time

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT

information. This need for information exists not only

before the trip, but also on-trip, e.g. when changing

the mode. Given this perspective, a main lever to fa-

cilitate multimodal mobility is ICT, which supports

consumers in connecting to, appropriating and using

the infrastructure, in short, getting familiar with the

new material that suddenly became part of mobility

practices without adapting the other elements, neither

skills, nor meanings, nor other materials.

This observed role of ICT use is not just an in-

termaterial relationship between ICT and infrastruc-

tures, but is highly related to the acquisition of knowl-

edge about infrastructures. This knowledge acquisi-

tion is reﬂected in the decreasing need for planning,

but constant synchronization to deal with everyday

problems before and during the trip. Moreover, ICT

is even used for learning about the infrastructure in

the post-trip phase, e.g., reﬂecting on the duration of

different mode combinations. But the appropriation

of the various ICT solutions is also accompanied by

learning about their use, the data they provide, and

tinkering with a useful ecology of artifacts that ﬁts

the ecology of the multimodal infrastructures. In this

sense, access to infrastructures proved to be the more

relevant issue, as current ICT designs hardly support

consumers in accessing infrastructures, but in contrast

make it more difﬁcult for them, as mobility modes are

interconnected while ICT remains isolated.

Lastly, ICT plays an important role in the use of

additional travel time. Although this role seems quite

trivial at ﬁrst, it should not be underestimated when

designing ICT. Behind this are the different needs of

consumers and their desire for efﬁcient use of time

and space when traveling (Stevens et al., 2019). Fur-

thermore, the ability to use time in the intended way

even shapes meanings toward sustainable mobility, as

a way to travel and have an enjoyable and/or efﬁ-

ciently used time.

5.2 Implications for Design

Reﬂecting on our research, we will discuss the de-

sign implications for supporting multimodal practice

transformation using ICT from different perspectives

in light of our empirical ﬁndings.

5.2.1 Motivation beyond Instability

Given the initiation of a practice change motivated

by a changing material context, it appears that cur-

rent persuasive design approaches, that strongly fo-

cus on motivational aspects, are either not prevalent

in the actual app offering or simply play a marginal

role for mobility consumption. Nevertheless, in our

view, there is room for such motivational approaches.

While they may not be well suited to address initial

instability in practices, motivational artifacts could

prepare consumers for infrastructural and material

changes when they are in their work routines, so

that the decision in these cases is in favor of alter-

native modes. In addition, (eco-)feedback technolo-

gies could help shape meanings even after consumers

have started their multimodal journey, i.e., the design

could help them see how long it actually takes them

to travel a distance, how much workout or time in the

fresh air they spend, how much money they saved,

or even how much extra work they were able to do.

As our results show, these meanings form slowly with

stabilizing routines, but given the sample, we still do

not know how many consumers reverse their change

for lack of positive meanings toward their new situ-

ation. Moreover, motivational approaches could en-

courage the sharing of data and the active participa-

tion in shaping the sustainable infrastructure, as seen

in 4.3.1.

5.2.2 Facilitating Multimodal Infrastructure

Access

Although one can identify sweet spots for the use

of motivational artifacts, the main issue is access to

and connected use of infrastructures. Current designs

force consumers to plan their trips by combining dif-

ferent apps, measuring their walking/biking times be-

tween different steps of their trip, and summarizing

to ﬁnd a suitable multimodal trip on their own. In

this context, it is particularly important to ensure a

region-speciﬁc adaption of ICT to be able to support

mobility practices in line with local conditions. Local

information and integration of all mobility services in

the region can provide a platform. This integration

should also include new shared mobility services that

can complement existing services to solve problems

such as the last mile or switching between modes.

Here, consumer-centric design approaches could fa-

cilitate infrastructure appropriation by supporting trip

planning in a personalized way. Personalization here

refers to one’s own capabilities, tickets, and needs for

time use. Helpful information could be, e.g., network

coverage along the route, the availability of WiFi in a

train, or seat occupancy.

5.2.3 Pro-active Infrastructure Synchronization

In addition to planning, synchronization the own

practices and their schedules with the infrastructure

turned out to be an issue, even for long-term rou-

tine multimodal mobility users. To the best of our

knowledge, this synchronization has not been the fo-

cus of design approaches to support multimodal mo-

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

bility users. Even in the wild, we observe that it is

the consumers who actively check the status of the

infrastructure pre-, on- and even post-trip. Here, a

more proactive design approach could support con-

sumers to travel more comfortably and waste less time

waiting for public transport or get information about

weather conditions for the whole trip. It is especially

important to not only provide the real-time informa-

tion pro-actively, but to assist in ﬁnding alternative

routes that consider the proprieties of the consumer’s

practices.

5.2.4 Data Sharing beyond Regional and Modal

Borders

While infrastructure access requires smart design

concepts from a consumer-centric perspective, the

backend of such technologies must enable data shar-

ing and processing across regional or modal mobil-

ity service boundaries. Currently, different mobility

providers are rather reluctant to share their data. As a

result, consumers need different apps for different in-

formation, ranging from real-time information about

bus delays to comprehensive information about how

their bus connects with the train in the next city. The

situation is even more complex when it comes to in-

tegrating novel mobility services from the shared mo-

bility context into practices. Accordingly, ICT should

rely on shared data to support better planning and

access to infrastructure so that searching for and se-

lecting the right information is not a burden on con-

sumers. Moreover, such data sharing could facilitate

planning by providers themselves to offer better and

more coordinated services to their customers.

5.3 Critical Reﬂection on the Scope of

ICT

In addition to the implications presented for the de-

sign of ICT to support the appropriation of multi-

modal mobility practices and the corresponding in-

frastructures, we want to use the space to reﬂect on the

scope of ICT itself. Sustainable ICT design has been

criticized for conforming to the neoliberal agenda that

places the burden of transforming society toward sus-

tainability on consumers (Dourish, 2010). However,

it must be admitted that the presented roles of ICT and

the corresponding implications are mostly focused on

consumers and thus create expectations for their be-

havior and practices. On the one hand, such an ap-

proach is necessary given the urgent need to rapidly

reduce our environmental impact. On the other hand,

at least the providers of mobility services would also

need to change some of their practices, such as shar-

ing data, providing real-time information, facilitat-

ing bicycle trips to catch a train, or providing more

consumer-oriented services. Nonetheless, we want to

emphasize that consumers and providers are not the

only actors in this process and that ICT is not a ’magic

bullet’. As our results show, ICT can facilitate mul-

timodal mobility, but providers still need to optimize

and expand their offerings, and likewise policymak-

ers need to support such forms of mobility (Meurer

et al., 2019). Local authorities could address this on a

higher level, since they do not primarily pursue their

own economic interests but instead seek to improve

mobility as a whole. Public digital mobility infras-

tructure could promote the emergence of both novel

mobility services and new types of providers, also in

suburban and less densely populated areas.

Still more and better information and increased

connectivity with infrastructures, could facilitate con-

sumers’ political participation and allow them to prac-

tice some power over policymakers and providers

(Meurer et al., 2019).

6 CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented an interview study with 12

car-free mobility consumers who changed their mo-

bility consumption practices. By analyzing the data

from a practice-theoretical lens, we show how ICT

mediates and simpliﬁes the interaction between prac-

tices and infrastructures. This is deﬁned by different

modes of planning, synchronization, and optimization

of use, and even optimization of the infrastructures

themselves. Based on these results, we contribute to

HCI research by discussing a nuanced understanding

about the transformation of mobility practices and the

role of ICT artifacts in particular for the use of shared

infrastructures (Entwistle et al., 2015), which is cur-

rently lacking (Wulf et al., 2019) but important to bet-

ter support sustainable practices rather than leaving

consumers alone after having increasing their motiva-

tion (Lawo et al., 2020; Hasselqvist et al., 2016).

Still, our research is limited by the sample selec-

tion for two reasons. First, our sample is rather young,

although it reﬂects the trend of young adults abandon-

ing their cars. This raises the need for broader gener-

alization with other age groups, as they might have

different ICT preferences and usage patterns. And

second, by interviewing ”survivors” of practice trans-

formation, we can only suggest that ICT plays an im-

portant role in individual journeys based on consistent

reports, but cannot show that its absence makes a dif-

ference. Future research should, therefore, focus on

a broader sample as well as the (non-)appropriation

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT

of ICT and its inﬂuence on the practice transforma-

tion. Moreover, our research only emphasizes future

design, but does not provide and evaluate any instance

of a solution yet. Therefore, in future research we

need to focus on prototyping the consumer-facing ar-

tifact as well as the backend that enables collaboration

and organization of mobility providers.

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulou, E., Bothos, E., Magoutas, B., Schram-

mel, J., and Mentzas, G. (2018). Persuasive tech-

nologies for sustainable mobility: State of the art and

emerging trends. Sustainability, 10(7):2128.

Ayres, L. (2008). Semi-structured interview. The SAGE

encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 8:811–

813.

Bødker, S. and Klokmose, C. N. (2012). Dynamics in ar-

tifact ecologies. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic

Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Making

Sense Through Design - NordiCHI '12. ACM Press.

Brewer, R. N. and Kameswaran, V. (2019). Understand-

ing trust, transportation, and accessibility through

ridesharing. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Confer-

ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages

1–11.

Brynjarsdottir, H., H

akansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E.,

DiSalvo, C., and Sengers, P. (2012). Sustainably un-

persuaded: how persuasion narrows our vision of sus-

tainability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 947–

956.

Cellina, F., Bucher, D., Mangili, F., Veiga Sim

ao, J., Rudel,

R., and Raubal, M. (2019a). A large scale, app-based

behaviour change experiment persuading sustainable

mobility patterns: methods, results and lessons learnt.

Sustainability, 11(9):2674.

Cellina, F., Bucher, D., Veiga Sim

ao, J., Rudel, R., and

Raubal, M. (2019b). Beyond limitations of current be-

haviour change apps for sustainable mobility: Insights

from a user-centered design and evaluation process.

Sustainability, 11(8):2281.

DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., and Brynjarsd

ottir, H. (2010).

Mapping the landscape of sustainable hci. In Proceed-

ings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in

computing systems, pages 1975–1984.

Dourish, P. (2010). Hci and environmental sustainability:

the politics of design and the design of politics. In

Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing

interactive systems, pages 1–10.

Entwistle, J. M., Rasmussen, M. K., Verdezoto, N., Brewer,

R. S., and Andersen, M. S. (2015). Beyond the indi-

vidual: The contextual wheel of practice as a research

framework for sustainable hci. In Proceedings of the

33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems, pages 1125–1134.

Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers

to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(De-

cember):2.

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design.

In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on

Persuasive Technology, pages 1–7.

Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., and Landay, J. (2010). The de-

sign of eco-feedback technology. In Proceedings of

the SIGCHI conference on human factors in comput-

ing systems, pages 1999–2008.

Gabrielli, S., Forbes, P., Jylh

a, A., Wells, S., Sir

en, M.,

Hemminki, S., Nurmi, P., Maimone, R., Masthoff, J.,

and Jacucci, G. (2014). Design challenges in motivat-

ing change for sustainable urban mobility. Computers

in Human Behavior, 41:416–423.

Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P., Grahn, M., Kitous, A.,

Kim, S. H., and Kyle, P. (2013). Climate impact of

transportation a model comparison. Climatic change,

118(3):595–608.

oss, M., Tuncer, S., Brown, B., Laurier, E., Pink, S., Fors,

V., Vinkhuyzen, E., and Str

omberg, H. (2020). New

mobilities: A workshop on mobility beyond the car.

In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–8.

Hasselqvist, H. and Hesselgren, M. (2019). Bridging citizen

and stakeholder perspectives of sustainable mobility

through practice-oriented design. Sustainability: Sci-

ence, Practice and Policy, 15(1):1–14.

Hasselqvist, H., Hesselgren, M., and Bogdan, C. (2016).

Challenging the car norm: Opportunities for ict to

support sustainable transportation practices. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Fac-

tors in Computing Systems, pages 1300–1311.

Kemp, R. and van Lente, H. (2011). The dual challenge of

sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation

and Societal Transitions, 1(1):121–124.

King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analy-

sis of text. Essential guide to qualitative methods in

organizational research, page 256.

Kramers, A. (2014). Designing next generation multimodal

traveler information systems to support sustainability-

oriented decisions. Environmental Modelling & Soft-

ware, 56:83–93.

Lawo, D., Esau, M., Engelbutzeder, P., and Stevens, G.

(2020). Going vegan: The role (s) of ict in vegan prac-

tice transformation. Sustainability, 12(12):5184.

Loos, E., Sourbati, M., and Behrendt, F. (2020). The role

of mobility digital ecosystems for age-friendly urban

public transport: A narrative literature review. Inter-

national Journal of Environmental Research and Pub-

lic Health, 17(20):7465.

Maitland, J., Chalmers, M., and Siek, K. A. (2009). Persua-

sion not required improving our understanding of the

sociotechnical context of dietary behavioural change.

In 2009 3rd International Conference on Pervasive

Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pages 1–8.

IEEE.

Meurer, J., Lawo, D., Pakusch, C., Tolmie, P., and Wulf, V.

(2019). Opportunities for sustainable mobility: Re-

thinking eco-feedback from a citizen’s perspective. In

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

Communities & Technologies-Transforming Commu-

nities, pages 102–113.

Meurer, J., Stein, M., Randall, D., Rohde, M., and Wulf,

V. (2014). Social dependency and mobile autonomy:

supporting older adults’ mobility with ridesharing ict.

In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1923–1932.

Miehe, R., Scheumann, R., Jones, C. M., Kammen, D. M.,

and Finkbeiner, M. (2016). Regional carbon footprints

of households: a german case study. Environment,

Development and Sustainability, 18(2):577–591.

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneu-

tics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. In-

ternational Journal of social research methodology,

11(4):327–344.

Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward

an integrated perspective on the design and use of in-

formation technology. Journal of the Association for

Information Systems, 10(5):1.

Qu, Y., Gong, H., and Wang, P. (2015). Transportation

mode split with mobile phone data. In 2015 IEEE 18th

international conference on intelligent transportation

systems, pages 285–289. IEEE.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A

development in culturalist theorizing. European jour-

nal of social theory, 5(2):243–263.

Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Denisov, G., Cenizal, C., Estrin,

D., and Srivastava, M. (2010). Biketastic: sensing

and mapping for better biking. In Proceedings of the

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems, pages 1817–1820.

Rehrl, K., Bruntsch, S., and Mentz, H.-J. (2007). Assist-

ing multimodal travelers: Design and prototypical im-

plementation of a personal travel companion. IEEE

Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,

8(1):31–42.

Schwartz, T., Denef, S., Stevens, G., Ramirez, L., and

Wulf, V. (2013). Cultivating energy literacy: results

from a longitudinal living lab study of a home energy

management system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

pages 1193–1202.

Schwartz, T., Stevens, G., Jakobi, T., Denef, S., Ramirez,

L., Wulf, V., and Randall, D. (2015). What people

do with consumption feedback: a long-term living lab

study of a home energy management system. Inter-

acting with Computers, 27(6):551–576.

Shove, E. and Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers

and practices. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1):43–

64.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M. (2012). The Dy-

namics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it

Changes. SAGE Publications.

S¸ims¸eko

glu,

O., Nordfjærn, T., and Rundmo, T. (2015). The

role of attitudes, transport priorities, and car use habit

for travel mode use and intentions to use public trans-

portation in an urban norwegian public. Transport

Policy, 42:113–120.

Stein, M., Meurer, J., Boden, A., and Wulf, V. (2017).

Mobility in later life: Appropriation of an integrated

transportation platform. In Proceedings of the 2017

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-

tems, pages 5716–5729.

Stevens, G., Bossauer, P., Vonholdt, S., and Pakusch, C.

(2019). Using time and space efﬁciently in driverless

cars: Findings of a co-design study. In Proceedings of

the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-

puting Systems, pages 1–14.

Stevens, G. and Pipek, V. (2018). Making use: understand-

ing, studying, and supporting appropriation. In Socio-

Informatics. Oxford University Press.

Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for

informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and ap-

plications, 5:147–158.

Twine, R. (2018). Materially constituting a sustainable food

transition: The case of vegan eating practice. Sociol-

ogy, 52(1):166–181.

Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’of automobility. Theory, cul-

ture & society, 21(4-5):25–39.

anen, K., Ojala, J., Hilden, E., Karlsson, M., Wall-

gren, P., and Turunen, M. (2016). Improving attrac-

tiveness of public transportation with interactive expe-

riences. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference

on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 1–2.

Winstanley, C., Davies, N., Harding, M., and Norgate, S.

(2014). Supporting walking school buses. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Con-

ference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Ad-

junct Publication, pages 291–294.

Wright, L. and Fulton, L. (2005). Climate change mitiga-

tion and transport in developing nations. Transport

Reviews, 25(6):691–717.

Wulf, V., Misaki, K., Randall, D., and Rohde, M. (2019).

Travelling by taxi brousse in madagascar: An investi-

gation into practices of overland transportation. Media

in Action, (1):57–97.

Going Car-free: Investigating Mobility Practice Transformations and the Role of ICT