Technology assessment in the mobility sector: What can we learn from social network analysis?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7175Keywords:
autonomous driving, mobility transition, social network analysis, participationAbstract
Many experts assume that increasing automation will lead to far-reaching changes in the mobility system. The pace and direction of this transition are a matter of great social interest. Therefore, the inclusion of citizens’ perspectives is called for. However, similar as with other research approaches in technology assessment, there are two major challenges: the self-selection bias of such formats and the fact that automated driving cannot yet be experienced in the reality of people’s lives. To tackle these challenges, we present a novel two-step research approach in this article. In the first step, a social network analysis is used to examine how people organize their everyday lives and the extent to which the mobility transition will affect them as a result. In the second step, representatives of different everyday configurations discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the transformation.
References
acatech; Körber-Stiftung; University of Stuttgart (2023): Technik Radar 2023. What Germans think about technology. Munich: acatech.
Axhausen, Kay; Sammer, Gerd (2001): ’Stated responses’. Überblick, Grenzen, Möglichkeiten. Zurich: ETH Zürich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004232317
Böhnke, Petra (2011): Ungleiche Verteilung politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Partizipation. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (1–2), 28.12.2010. Available online at https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/33571/ungleiche-verteilung-politischer-und-zivilgesellschaftlicher-partizipation/, last accessed on 05.12.2024.
Bovens, Mark; Wille, Anchrit (2017): Diploma democracy. The rise of political meritocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790631.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790631.001.0001
Collingridge, David (1982): The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter.
Felt, Ulrike; Fochler, Maximilian (2010): Machineries for making publics. Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. In: Minerva 48 (3), pp. 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x
Fifer, Simon; Rose, John; Greaves, Stephen (2014): Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments. Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? In: Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 61, pp. 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.010
Fleischer, Torsten; Puhe, Maike; Schippl, Jens; Yamasaki, Yukari (2022): Public expectations regarding the longer-term implications of and regulatory changes for autonomous driving. A contribution to the debate on its social acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Aachen: IEEE, pp. 1268–1273. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827210
Gkartzonikas, Christos; Gkritza, Konstantina (2019): What have we learned? A review of stated preference and choice studies on autonomous vehicles. In: Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 98, pp. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.003
Golledge, Reginald; Stimson, Robert (1999): Spatial behavior. A geographic perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Graf, Antonia; Sonnberger, Marco (2020): Responsibility, rationality, and acceptance. How future users of autonomous driving are constructed in stakeholders’ sociotechnical imaginaries. In: Public Understanding of Science 29 (1), pp. 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519885550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519885550
Hopkins, Debbie; Schwanen, Tim (2018): Automated mobility transitions. Governing processes in the UK. In: Sustainability 10 (4), p. 956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040956 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040956
Horton, Frank; Reynolds, David (1971): Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. In: Economic Geography 47 (1), pp. 36–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/143224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/143224
Huning, Sandra (2014): Wer plant für wen? Partizipation im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Planung. In: Patrick Küpper et al. (eds.): Raumentwicklung 3.0 – Gemeinsam die Zukunft der räumlichen Planung gestalten. Hannover: Verlag der ARL, pp. 33–43.
Lindgren, Thomas; Pink, Sarah; Fors, Vaike (2021): Fore-sighting autonomous driving. An ethnographic approach. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173, p. 121105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121105
Marin, Alexandra; Wellman, Barry (2011): Social network analysis. An introduction. In: John Scott and Peter Carrington (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 11–25. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413.n2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413.n2
Patterson, Zachary; Farber, Steven (2015): Potential path areas and activity spaces in application. A review. In: Transport Reviews 35 (6), pp. 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1042944 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1042944
Pudāne, Baiba; Rataj, Michał; Molin, Eric; Mouter, Niek; Van Cranenburgh, Sander; Chorus, Caspar (2019): How will automated vehicles shape users’ daily activities? Insights from focus groups with commuters in the Netherlands. In: Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 71, pp. 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.014
Puhe, Maike (2023): Stabilität und Variabilität mobilitätsbezogener Alltagshandlungen. Eine qualitative soziale Netzwerkanalyse. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5445/KSP/1000161171
Puhe, Maike; Briem, Lars; Vortisch, Peter (2020): Understanding social processes of shopping destination choice. An approach to model stability and variability. In: Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7, p. 100183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100183
Puhe, Maike; Schippl, Jens; Fleischer, Torsten; Vortisch, Peter (2021): Social network approach to analyze stability and variability of travel decisions. In: Transportation Research Record 2675 (9), pp. 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211002200 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211002200
Remer, Uwe (2020): Partizipative und deliberative Demokratie auf lokaler Ebene: Eine Vermessung der Beteiligungslandschaft Baden-Württembergs. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29914-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29914-9
Scott, John (2017): Social network analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Stilgoe, Jack; Cohen, Tom (2021): Rejecting acceptance. Learning from public dialogue on self-driving vehicles. In: Science and Public Policy 48 (6), pp. 849–859. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab060
Stolle, Dietlind; Hooghe, Marc (2011): Shifting inequalities. Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in emerging forms of political participation. In: European Societies 13 (1), pp. 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.523476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.523476
Urry, John (2003): Social networks, travel and talk. In: The British Journal of Sociology 54 (2), pp. 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000080186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000080186
Urry, John (2007): Mobilities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Wasserman, Stanley; Faust, Katherine (1994): Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Maike Puhe, Torsten Fleischer, Jens Schippl
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
