Causal mechanisms in sustainable urban mobility transitions

Cayetano Medina-Molina, Noemí Pérez-Macías, Sierra Rey-Tienda

Article ID: 3262
Vol 8, Issue 8, 2024

VIEWS - 1585 (Abstract)

Abstract


Cities tackle sustainability challenges by modifying their socio-technical systems to adopt more sustainable production and consumption practices, a process known as transitions. Understanding the mechanisms that either facilitate or hinder these transitions is critical. Therefore, this paper aims to identify the mechanisms that can favor or slow down the implementation of sustainable urban mobility solutions using Set-theoretic Multi-Method Research (SMMR), which combines cross-case of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) with within-case via process-tracing in a study of 60 cities. The results show how the degree to which cities make structural changes to implement innovative sustainable mobility solutions, as well as their negation, are explained by five distinct conjunctions. It is also found the existence of lock-in mechanisms that prevent cities from making necessary structural changes for implementing innovative sustainable mobility solutions. However, no unlocking mechanisms were found that trigger such transitions. The main contribution of the paper is the systematic approach used for selecting cities for within-case analysis and identifying existing lock-in mechanisms.

Keywords


urban transitions; causal mechanism; SMMR; urban mobility; QCA

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Abulibdeh, A. (2018). Implementing congestion pricing policies in a MENA Region City: Analysis of the impact on travel behaviour and equity. Cities, 74, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.12.003
  2. Aina, Y. A. (2017). Achieving smart sustainable cities with GeoICT support: The Saudi evolving smart cities. Cities, 71, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.007
  3. Álamos-Concha, P., Pattyn, V., Rihoux, B., et al. (2021). Conservative solutions for progress: on solution types when combining QCA with in-depth Process-Tracing. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 1965–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01191-x
  4. Aljoufie, M., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M., et al. (2013). Spatial–temporal analysis of urban growth and transportation in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia. Cities, 31, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.04.008
  5. Apajalahti, E.-L., & Kungl, G. (2022). Path dependence and path break-out in the electricity sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.010
  6. Beach, D. (2018). Achieving Methodological Alignment When Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 64-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117701475
  7. Beach, D. (2019). Multi-Method Research in the Social Sciences: A Review of Recent Frameworks and a Way Forward. Government and Opposition, 55(1), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2018.53
  8. Beach, D., & Rohlfing, I. (2018). Integrating Cross-case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115613780
  9. Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C., et al. (2014). Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(5), 1037–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-014-0381-5
  10. Chamseddine, Z., & Ait Boubkr, A. (2020). Exploring the place of social impacts in urban transport planning: the case of Casablanca City. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 8(1), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2020.1752793
  11. Chang, R. A., & Gerrits, L. (2022). What spatially stabilises temporary use? A qualitative comparative analysis of 40 temporary use cases along synchronised trajectories of stabilisation. Cities, 130, 103868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103868
  12. Costales, E. (2022). Identifying sources of innovation: Building a conceptual framework of the Smart City through a social innovation perspective. Cities, 120, 103459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103459
  13. Crespo, N. F., & Crespo, C. F. (2016). Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5265–5271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.123
  14. Csukás, M. S., & Szabó, R. Z. (2021). The many faces of the smart city: Differing value propositions in the activity portfolios of nine cities. Cities, 112, 103116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103116
  15. Currie, P. K., Musango, J. K., & May, N. D. (2017). Urban metabolism: A review with reference to Cape Town. Cities, 70, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.005
  16. De Oliveira, L. G. S., Subtil Lacerda, J., & Negro, S. O. (2020). A mechanism-based explanation for blocking mechanisms in technological innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 37, 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.07.006
  17. Deloitte. (2021). Urban Future With a Purpose. 12 trends shaping the future of cities by 2030.
  18. Di Giulio, G. M., Bedran-Martins, A. M. B., Vasconcellos, M. da P., et al. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation in the megacity of São Paulo, Brazil. Cities, 72, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.09.001
  19. Eitan, A., & Hekkert, M. P. (2023). Locked in transition? Towards a conceptualization of path-dependence lock-ins in the renewable energy landscape. Energy Research & Social Science, 106, 103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103316
  20. El Hilali, S., & Azougagh, A. (2021). A netnographic research on citizen’s perception of a future smart city. Cities, 115, 103233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103233
  21. Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.05.004
  22. Geel, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 224-231.
  23. Geels, F. W. (2007). Feelings of Discontent and the Promise of Middle Range Theory for STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(6), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907303597
  24. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
  25. Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627
  26. Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009
  27. Geels, F. W. (2021). From leadership to followership: A suggestion for interdisciplinary theorising of mainstream actor reorientation in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.021
  28. Geels, F. W. (2022). Causality and explanation in socio-technical transitions research: Mobilising epistemological insights from the wider social sciences. Research Policy, 51(6), 104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104537
  29. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
  30. Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., et al. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015
  31. Gorissen, L., Spira, F., Meynaerts, E., et al. (2018). Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.052
  32. Grainger-Brown, J., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., et al. (2022). Exploring urban transformation to inform the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Cities, 131, 103928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103928
  33. Haesebrouck, T., & Thomann, E. (2021). Introduction: Causation, inferences, and solution types in configurational comparative methods. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 1867–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01209-4
  34. Hajek, P., Youssef, A., & Hajkova, V. (2022). Recent developments in smart city assessment: A bibliometric and content analysis-based literature review. Cities, 126, 103709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103709
  35. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social Mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511663901
  36. Hedström, P., & Wennberg, K. (2016). Causal mechanisms in organization and innovation studies. Innovation, 19(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1256779
  37. Heiberg, J., & Truffer, B. (2022). The emergence of a global innovation system – A case study from the urban water sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.007
  38. Irvine, S., & Bai, X. (2019). Positive inertia and proactive influencing towards sustainability: systems analysis of a frontrunner city. Urban Transformations, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-019-0001-7
  39. Jain, M., & Rohracher, H. (2022). Assessing transformative change of infrastructures in urban area redevelopments. Cities, 124, 103573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103573
  40. Jiang, H. (2021). Smart urban governance in the ‘smart’ era: Why is it urgently needed? Cities, 111, 103004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103004
  41. Jørgensen, U. (2012). Mapping and navigating transitions—The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Research Policy, 41(6), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.001
  42. Kaidesoja, T. (2018). A dynamic and multifunctional account of middle‐range theories. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 1469–1489. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12621
  43. Kanger, L. (2021). Rethinking the Multi-level Perspective for energy transitions: From regime life-cycle to explanatory typology of transition pathways. Energy Research & Social Science, 71, 101829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101829
  44. Keller, M., Sahakian, M., & Hirt, L. F. (2022). Connecting the multi-level-perspective and social practice approach for sustainable transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 44, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.004
  45. Kim, J. (2022). Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies. Cities, 123, 103551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103551
  46. Klitkou, A., Bolwig, S., Hansen, T., et al. (2015). The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: The case of energy for road transport. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.005
  47. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., et al. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
  48. Krupnik, S., & Koniewski, M. (2022). Choosing a qualitative comparative analysis solution in multi-method impact evaluation. Evaluation, 28(2), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890221088015
  49. Kuokkanen, A., Nurmi, A., Mikkilä, M., et al. (2018). Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition. Research Policy, 47(8), 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.006
  50. Loorbach, D., Wittmayer, J., Avelino, F., et al. (2020). Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.009
  51. Mandeli, K. (2019). Public space and the challenge of urban transformation in cities of emerging economies: Jeddah case study. Cities, 95, 102409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102409
  52. Marchesani, F., Masciarelli, F., & Doan, H. Q. (2022). Innovation in cities a driving force for knowledge flows: Exploring the relationship between high-tech firms, student mobility, and the role of youth entrepreneurship. Cities, 130, 103852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103852
  53. Medina-Molina, C., Pérez-Macías, N., & Coronado-Vaca, M. (2024). Searching for complexity. Application of the set-theory to the analysis of urban mobility readiness index. Discover Sustainability, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00187-5
  54. Mejía-Dorantes, L., & Soto Villagrán, P. (2020). A review on the influence of barriers on gender equality to access the city: A synthesis approach of Mexico City and its Metropolitan Area. Cities, 96, 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102439
  55. Mello, P. A. (2022). Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Routledge Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis Methods, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003139850-29
  56. Méndez-Ortega, C., Micek, G., & Malochleb, K. (2022). How do coworking spaces coagglomerate with service industries? The tale of three European cities. Cities, 130, 103875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103875
  57. Menendez, M., & Ambühl, L. (2022). Implementing Design and Operational Measures for Sustainable Mobility: Lessons from Zurich. Sustainability, 14(2), 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020625
  58. Mikkelsen, K. S. (2015). Negative Case Selection: Justifications and Consequences for Set-Theoretic MMR. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(4), 739–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115591015
  59. Mirzadeh Phirouzabadi, A., Blackmore, K., Savage, D., et al. (2022). Modelling and simulating a multi-modal and multi-dimensional technology interaction framework: The case of vehicle powertrain technologies in the US market. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121412
  60. Morley, I. (2018). Manila. Cities, 72, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.022
  61. Nathansohn, R., & Lahat, L. (2022). From urban vitality to urban vitalisation: Trust, distrust, and citizenship regimes in a Smart City initiative. Cities, 131, 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103969
  62. Oana, I.-E., & Schneider, C., Q. (2018). SetMethods: an Add-on R Package for Advanced QCA. The R Journal, 10(1), 507. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2018-031
  63. Oana, I.-E., Schneider, C. Q., & Thomann, E. (2021). Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using R. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009006781
  64. Oliver Wyman Forum. (2022). Available online: https://www.oliverwymanforum.com/mobility/urban-mobility-readiness-index/rankings.html (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  65. Panori, A., Kostopoulos, I., Karampinis, E., et al. (2022). New path creation in energy transition: Exploring the interplay between resource formation and social acceptance of biomass adoption in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 86, 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102400
  66. Papachristos, G. (2018). A mechanism based transition research methodology: Bridging analytical approaches. Futures, 98, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.02.006
  67. Pinhate, T. B., Parsons, M., Fisher, K., et al. (2020). A crack in the automobility regime? Exploring the transition of São Paulo to sustainable urban mobility. Cities, 107, 102914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102914
  68. Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., et al. (2020). Advancing Theory with Review Articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351–376. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549
  69. Rahman, S. M., Ratrout, N., Assi, K., et al. (2021). Transformation of urban mobility during COVID-19 pandemic – Lessons for transportation planning. Journal of Transport & Health, 23, 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101257
  70. Rohlfing, I., & Schneider, C. Q. (2016). A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626170
  71. Rubinson, C., Gerrits, L., Rutten, R., & Greckhamer, T. (2019). Avoiding common errors in QCA: A short guide for new practitioners. Sociology, 9, 397-418.
  72. Rutten, R. (2020). Applying and Assessing Large-N QCA: Causality and Robustness From a Critical Realist Perspective. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(3), 1211–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914955
  73. Sá, T. H. de, Edwards, P., Pereira, R. H. M., & Monteiro, C. A. (2019). Right to the city and human mobility transition: The case of São Paulo. Cities, 87, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.024
  74. Saeidizand, P., Fransen, K., & Boussauw, K. (2022). Revisiting car dependency: A worldwide analysis of car travel in global metropolitan areas. Cities, 120, 103467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103467
  75. Schneider, C. Q. (2023). Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research. A Guide to Combining QCA and Case Studies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009307154
  76. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2019). Set‐theoretic Multimethod Research: The Role of Test Corridors and Conjunctions for Case Selection. Swiss Political Science Review, 25(3), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12382
  77. Shamsuzzoha, A., Nieminen, J., Piya, S., et al. (2021). Smart city for sustainable environment: A comparison of participatory strategies from Helsinki, Singapore and London. Cities, 114, 103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103194
  78. Simoens, M. C., Fuenfschilling, L., & Leipold, S. (2022). Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems: an overview and a way forward. Sustainability Science, 17(5), 1841–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01110-5
  79. Simoens, M. C., Leipold, S., & Fuenfschilling, L. (2022). Locked in unsustainability: Understanding lock-ins and their interactions using the case of food packaging. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 45, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.08.005
  80. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005
  81. Sultan, B., Katar, I. M., & Al-Atroush, M. E. (2021). Towards sustainable pedestrian mobility in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, 102831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102831
  82. Thaler, T., & Penning‐Rowsell, E. C. (2023). Policy experimentation within flood risk management: Transition pathways in Austria. The Geographical Journal, 189(4), 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12528
  83. Thomann, E., & Maggetti, M. (2017). Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(2), 356–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700
  84. Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2017). Exploring window of opportunity dynamics in infrastructure transformation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 25, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.12.003
  85. Trencher, G., & Wesseling, J. (2022). Roadblocks to fuel-cell electric vehicle diffusion: Evidence from Germany, Japan and California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 112, 103458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103458
  86. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Leendertse, J. (2020). A practical tool for analyzing socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 37, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.004
  87. Verbong, G. P. J., & Geels, F. W. (2010). Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1214–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.008
  88. Wang, Y., & Wong, Y. D. (2020). Repositioning urban heritage for active mobility: Indications from news coverage in Singapore. Cities, 98, 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102525
  89. Williams, T., & Gemperle, S. M. (2016). Sequence will tell! Integrating temporality into set-theoretic multi-method research combining comparative process tracing and qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1149316
  90. Yu, T. H.-K., & Huarng, K.-H. (2023). Configural analysis of GII’s internal structure. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113323
  91. Yu, T. H.-K., & Huarng, K.-H. (2024). Causal analysis of SDG achievements. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 122977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122977


DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i8.3262

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Cayetano Medina-Molina, Noemí Pérez-Macías, Sierra Rey-Tienda

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.