Zoekresultaten

E-mobility in stadslogistiek

Digital kiosks and inclusivity

Mobility hubs facilitate multimodal transport and have the potential to improve the accessibility and usability of new mobility services. However, in the context of increasing digitalisation, using mobility hubs requires digital literacy or even owning a smartphone. This constraint may result in the exclusion of current and potential users. Digital kiosks might prove to be a solution, as they can facilitate the use of the services found at mobility hubs. Nevertheless, knowledge of how digital kiosks may improve the experience of disadvantaged groups remains limited in the literature. As part of the SmartHubs project, a field test with a digital kiosk was conducted with 105 participants in Brussels (Belgium) and Rotterdam (The Netherlands) to investigate the intention to use it and its usability in the context of mobility hubs. This study adopted a mixed methods approach, combining participant observation and questionnaire surveys. Firstly, participants were asked to accomplish seven tasks with the digital kiosk while being observed by the researchers. Finally, assisted questionnaire surveys were conducted with the same participants, including close-ended, open-ended and socio-demographic questions. The results offer insights into the experience of the users of a digital kiosk in a mobility hub and the differences across specific social groups. These findings may be relevant for decision-makers and practitioners working in urban mobility on subjects such as mobility hubs and shared mobility, and for user interface developers concerned with the inclusivity of digital kiosks.

Digital kiosks and inclusivity

Mobility hubs facilitate multimodal transport and have the potential to improve the accessibility and usability of new mobility services. However, in the context of increasing digitalisation, using mobility hubs requires digital literacy or even owning a smartphone. This constraint may result in the exclusion of current and potential users. Digital kiosks might prove to be a solution, as they can facilitate the use of the services found at mobility hubs. Nevertheless, knowledge of how digital kiosks may improve the experience of disadvantaged groups remains limited in the literature. As part of the SmartHubs project, a field test with a digital kiosk was conducted with 105 participants in Brussels (Belgium) and Rotterdam (The Netherlands) to investigate the intention to use it and its usability in the context of mobility hubs. This study adopted a mixed methods approach, combining participant observation and questionnaire surveys. Firstly, participants were asked to accomplish seven tasks with the digital kiosk while being observed by the researchers. Finally, assisted questionnaire surveys were conducted with the same participants, including close-ended, open-ended and socio-demographic questions. The results offer insights into the experience of the users of a digital kiosk in a mobility hub and the differences across specific social groups. These findings may be relevant for decision-makers and practitioners working in urban mobility on subjects such as mobility hubs and shared mobility, and for user interface developers concerned with the inclusivity of digital kiosks.

Towards a core-set of mobility measures in ageing research

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key determinant and outcome of healthy ageing but its definition, conceptual framework and underlying constructs within the physical domain may need clarification for data comparison and sharing in ageing research. This study aimed to (1) review definitions and conceptual frameworks of mobility, (2) explore agreement on the definition of mobility, conceptual frameworks, constructs and measures of mobility, and (3) define, classify and identify constructs.METHODS: A three-step approach was adopted: a literature review and two rounds of expert questionnaires (n = 64, n = 31, respectively). Agreement on statements was assessed using a five-point Likert scale; the answer options 'strongly agree' or 'agree' were combined. The percentage of respondents was subsequently used to classify agreements for each statement as: strong (≥ 80%), moderate (≥ 70% and < 80%) and low (< 70%).RESULTS: A variety of definitions of mobility, conceptual frameworks and constructs were found in the literature and among respondents. Strong agreement was found on defining mobility as the ability to move, including the use of assistive devices. Multiple constructs and measures were identified, but low agreements and variability were found on definitions, classifications and identification of constructs. Strong agreements were found on defining physical capacity (what a person is maximally capable of, 'can do') and performance (what a person actually does in their daily life, 'do') as key constructs of mobility.CONCLUSION: Agreements on definitions of mobility, physical capacity and performance were found, but constructs of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified appropriately. Clear terminology and definitions are essential to facilitate communication and interpretation in operationalising the physical domain of mobility as a prerequisite for standardisation of mobility measures.

Towards a core-set of mobility measures in ageing research

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key determinant and outcome of healthy ageing but its definition, conceptual framework and underlying constructs within the physical domain may need clarification for data comparison and sharing in ageing research. This study aimed to (1) review definitions and conceptual frameworks of mobility, (2) explore agreement on the definition of mobility, conceptual frameworks, constructs and measures of mobility, and (3) define, classify and identify constructs.METHODS: A three-step approach was adopted: a literature review and two rounds of expert questionnaires (n = 64, n = 31, respectively). Agreement on statements was assessed using a five-point Likert scale; the answer options 'strongly agree' or 'agree' were combined. The percentage of respondents was subsequently used to classify agreements for each statement as: strong (≥ 80%), moderate (≥ 70% and < 80%) and low (< 70%).RESULTS: A variety of definitions of mobility, conceptual frameworks and constructs were found in the literature and among respondents. Strong agreement was found on defining mobility as the ability to move, including the use of assistive devices. Multiple constructs and measures were identified, but low agreements and variability were found on definitions, classifications and identification of constructs. Strong agreements were found on defining physical capacity (what a person is maximally capable of, 'can do') and performance (what a person actually does in their daily life, 'do') as key constructs of mobility.CONCLUSION: Agreements on definitions of mobility, physical capacity and performance were found, but constructs of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified appropriately. Clear terminology and definitions are essential to facilitate communication and interpretation in operationalising the physical domain of mobility as a prerequisite for standardisation of mobility measures.

Behavioural perspective on car owners’ uptake of shared e-mobility

In the Interreg Smart Shared Green Mobility Hubs project, electric shared mobility is offered through eHUBs in the city. eHUBs are physical places inneighbourhoods where shared mobility is offered, with the intention of changing citizens’ travel behaviour by creating attractive alternatives to private car use.In this research, we aimed to gain insight into psychological factors that influence car owners’ intentions to try out shared electric vehicles from an eHUB in order to ascertain:1. The psychological factors that determine whether car owners are willing to try out shared electric modalities in the eHUBs and whether these factors are identical for cities with different mobility contexts.2. How these insights into psychological determinants can be applied to entice car owners to try out shared electric modalities in the eHUBs.Research was conducted in two cities: Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Leuven (Belgium). An onlinesurvey was distributed to car owners in both cities inSeptember 2020 and, additionally, interviews wereheld with 12 car owners in each city.In general, car owners from Amsterdam and Leuven seem positive about the prospect of having eHUBs in their cities. However, they show less interest inusing the eHUBs themselves, as they are satisfied with their private car, which suits their mobility needs. Car owners mentioned the following reasons for notbeing interested in trying out the eHUBs: they simply do not see a need to do so, the costs involved with usage, the need to plan ahead, the expected hasslewith registration and ‘figuring out how it works’, having other travel needs, safety concerns, having to travel a distance to get to the vehicle, and a preferencefor ownership. Car owners who indicated that they felt neutral, or that they were likely to try out an eHUB, mentioned the following reasons for doing so:curiosity, attractive pricing, convenience, not owning a vehicle like those offered in an eHUB, environmental concerns, availability nearby, and necessity when theirown vehicle is unavailable.In both cities, the most important predictor determining car owners’ intention to try out an eHUB is the perceived usefulness of trying out an eHUB.In Amsterdam, experience with shared mobility and familiarity with the concept were the second and third factors determining car owners’ interest in tryingout shared mobility. In Leuven, pro-environmental attitude was the second factor determining car owners’ openness to trying out the eHUBs, and agewas the third factor, with older car owners being less likely to try one out.Having established that perceived usefulness was the most important determinant for car owners to try out shared electric vehicles from an eHUB, weconducted additional research, which showed that, in both cities, three factors contribute to perceived usefulness, in order of relevance: (1) injunctive norms(e.g., perceiving that society views trying out eHUBs as correct behaviour); (2) trust in shared electric mobility as a solution to problems in the city (e.g., expecting private car owners’ uptake of eHUBs to contributeto cleaner air, reduce traffic jams in city, and combat climate change); and (3) trust in the quality and safety of the vehicles, including the protection of users’privacy. In Amsterdam specifically, two additional factors contributed to perceived usefulness of eHUBs: drivers’ confidence in their capacity to try out anunfamiliar vehicle from the eHUB and experience of travelling in various modes of transport.Drawing on the relevant literature, the results of our research, and our behavioural expertise, we make the following recommendations to increase car users’ uptake of shared e-mobility:1. Address car owners’ attentional bias, which filters out messages on alternative transport modes.2. Emphasise benefits of (trying out) shared mobility from different perspectives so that multiple goals can be addressed.3. Change the environment and the infrastructure, as infrastructure determines choice of transport.4. For Leuven specifically: target younger car owners and car owners with high pro-environmental attitudes.5. For Amsterdam specifically: provide information on eHUBs and opportunities for trying out eHUBs.