Commoning mobility

Towards a new politics of mobility transitions

Bibliographic Data

ID8963676
AuthorsAnna Nikolaeva (0000-0001-8507-2772, Department of Human Geography, Spatial Planning and International Development Studies University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands, corresponding author), P Adey (0000-0001-6807-4282, Department of Geography Royal Holloway University of London Egham Surrey UK), Tim Cresswell (0000-0002-9450-9339, Trinity College Hartford CT USA), Jane Yeonjae Lee (0000-0003-0232-2217, School of Social Sciences Singapore Management University Singapore), Andre Novoa (0000-0001-6582-8800, Institute of Social Sciences University of Lisbon Lisbon Portugal), Cristina Temenos (0000-0003-1635-3823, Department of Geography and Manchester Urban Institute School of Environment, Education and Development University of Manchester Manchester UK)
Year2019
Volume44
Issue2
Pages346-360
Publication date2019-02-05
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-2754 • E-ISSN: 1475-5661
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/tran.12287
OpenAlexW2911282941
LanguageEN
Citations received104
References cited72

Scholars have argued that transitions to more sustainable and just mobilities require moving beyond technocentrism to rethink the very meaning of mobility in cities, communities, and societies. This paper demonstrates that such rethinking is inherently political. In particular, we focus on recent theorisations of commoning practices that have gained traction in geographic literatures. Drawing on our global comparative research of low‐carbon mobility transitions, we argue that critical mobilities scholars can rethink and expand the understanding of mobility through engagement with commons–enclosure thinking. We present a new concept, “commoning mobility,” a theorisation that both envisions and shapes practices that develop fairer and greener mobilities and more inclusive, collaboratively governed societies. Our analysis introduces three “logics” of mobility transition projects. First, the paper discusses how a logic of scarcity has been a driver for mobility planning as the scarcity of oil, finance, space, and time are invoked across the world as stimuli for aspiring to greener, “smarter,” and cheaper mobilities. The paper then identifies two responses to the logic of scarcity: the logics of austerity and the logics of commoning. Austere mobilities are examined to problematise the distribution of responsibility for emissions and ensuing injustices and exclusion in low‐carbon transitions. The logics of commoning shows a potential to reassess mobility not only as an individual freedom but also as a collective good, paving the way for fairer mobility transitions and a collaborative tackling of sustainable mobility challenges

Commons · Economics · Mobilities · Political science · Politics · Scarcity · Social science · Sociology · Law · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Urban Transport and Accessibility

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access