In the INDIMO project context, we targeted people who find it difficult to use digital services. Therefore, to further help with the recruitment, visuals and social cards were created that could be customised for each pilot location. By using this type of targeted communication, we aimed to address the people to whom the situation applies. Figure 2

#### **Table 1.** User recruitment strategies

shows an example of a visual from the Antwerp pilot, which targeted older people, people with reduced mobility, and people with reduced vision. Figure 3 is an additional example from the Emilia-Romagna pilot.

**Fig. 2.** Example of a visual created to help with the recruitment in Antwerp

**Fig. 3.** Example of a visual created to help with the recruitment in EMILIA-ROMAGNA

These materials could then be used on social media and on the partners' websites. Afterwards, each pilot team contacted the stakeholders or organisations needed for reaching potential survey participants in their local context. Some pilot teams also used their own communication channels to reach more people.

Furthermore, to incentivise people to take part in the study, we used:

Specific strategies varied, based on factors like cultural inclinations or the limited penetration of digital communication methods. These are summarised in Table 2 below, along with the number of recruited participants, which were 90 in total.

(*continued*)

#### **Table 2.** (*continued*)

#### **4.2 Data Collection**

After various meetings with the pilots and research partners on how to contact and engage the identified target groups, it became clear that there was no one-fits-all solution that we could apply to collect the necessary information. That is why various research methods were also used for the data gathering, with each method adjusted to the target group and the context of the specific pilot. An overview of the research methods used in the different pilots can be found in Table 3 below:

(*continued*)

**Table 3.** (*continued*)

We analysed the outcomes per pilot and formed connections to make overarching conclusions related to user engagement and data collection. The following section presents an overview of our results, including the lessons learnt.

#### **5 Discussion**

Collecting responses for this study was not always easy due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the holiday period, and limited digital exposure by some members of the targeted groups. For these reasons, it was challenging to get in touch with vulnerable groups and reach the target of 10 to 15 participants in each pilot. However, we still managed to recruit 90 participants with a diversity in age, education, and digital skill level. We collected data related to the following aspects (among others):

In the following sections, we highlight some lessons learnt from these activities, which can provide insights and helpful tips for engaging groups vulnerable to exclusion in similar data collection activities.

#### **5.1 User Recruitment**

In general, groups vulnerable to exclusion are often hard to reach (Tovaas and Rupprecht Consult 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic made it even more difficult to engage with and recruit groups vulnerable to exclusion in the INDIMO study, especially older people and people with a migration background. Some pilots required more time to recruit participants or to make online arrangements for an interview. For the Galilee pilot, for example, the main challenge in finding participants was the limited use of and exposure to the informal ridesharing app due to COVID-19. For the Emilia-Romagna pilot, it was difficult to reach the community of Monghidoro online. For the Antwerp pilot, response was limited at first due to the Easter holiday.

As a result, some pilots had a **bias in participants**. While this can be partly explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, it can also be explained by the fact that only one recruitment channel was used in some cases. By only utilising online channels for example, there is a good chance that only people with digital skills will be reached. Similarly, recruitment conducted via one main organisation, will also engage a homogeneous group of people. In the case of older target groups, participant recruitment via email generally reaches people with (at least some) digital skills, meaning that results are not always representative of the entire elderly society. That is why it is always important to **conduct recruitment through a variety of channels**, both on- and offline and to collaborate with different organisations. In the Antwerp pilot for example, participants were recruited through the channels of user representative organisations. These organisations have a network of people providing care to the target audience or have members that belong to the target audience because they provide services to support them. Because the recruitment message came from an organisation they trust, people were more willing to participate. In a similar light, the snowball referrals method for recruiting users can also be helpful to diversify participants, since the first wave of engaged users can spread the message to their peers.

Similarly, providing incentives, such as vouchers, discounts or small gifts, can also facilitate the recruitment process and increase the level of interest in participation. In this way, groups less likely to participate will be more inclined to do so, such as people with low income (Berlin et al. 1992).

**Attractive images, visuals and storytelling techniques** are also useful instruments for participant recruitment. Storytelling, for example, is a powerful tool that should be applied more often. As a popular trend in communication activities, storytelling can create emotional connections with an audience, which can increase engagement and even motivation (Love 2008). It can similarly attract attention to a research activity and provide context in a way that is relatable to the target group (Mathews and Wacker 2008). Looking for and using an element that is recognisable to the target group or audience helps them identify themselves in the situation being conveyed. In the INDIMO project, we used images of our targeted groups, like older people, in our social cards to attract and engage with them.

Furthermore, if circumstances allow, it also pays off to organise face-to-face events. By doing so, chances of obtaining more participant diversity are higher, and people feel more involved and in general are more willing to engage on a longer term.

To further empower recruitment teams, it can also be beneficial to **organise a recruitment training session** for sharing tips and tricks as well as **strategies on different user involvement techniques.** Recruitment teams will then have access to multiple methods that they can tailor to their needs and desired outcomes.

In the INDIMO context, we also found that participants and local organisations that helped with recruitment and data collection were also motivated to contribute to other upcoming research activities if we shared outcomes with them. In the Antwerp pilot, we organised a brief meeting to **share the most important findings** for the people that participated. This meeting was warmly welcomed. Some of the other external parties involved in the user engagement also indicated that the co-creation process was a **valuable learning process** for them as well. This highlights the importance of starting to question at the beginning of participation what the participants themselves wish to get out of the co-creation process. If they can benefit themselves, they will be all the more motivated to be more engaged.

#### **5.2 Data Collection**

Before disseminating a questionnaire, especially to vulnerable groups, it can be beneficial to ask at least one person of the target group to **proof-read the survey or questionnaire**. This will help detect if questions are difficult to understand or can be misinterpreted by the respondents.

Similarly, because the INDIMO pilots have their own contexts, target groups and cultural-specific aspects, they required customised approaches. This individual support was more time-consuming than expected, because additional time was needed to develop and create customised versions of the surveys, online tools and interviews, since they were tailored to each specific pilot context. It is therefore recommended to **foresee enough time for coordination and for the data gathering activities.**

## **6 Conclusion**

Our ambition for involving vulnerable persons in the INDIMO co-creation process was to understand the barriers and drivers related to the use of inclusive digital mobility services. More specifically, we interviewed and surveyed 90 participants across five pilot locations to gain insights into their needs and requirements regarding digital mobility services.

Despite the strong efforts of the INDIMO pilots to engage with groups vulnerable to exclusion, we did not always manage to achieve the targeted number of 10 to 15 participants in each location. Furthermore, while we aimed to include a wide range of user profiles in these INDIMO surveys and interviews, we noticed that there was a bias in participants, and that the targeted groups were not always reached. This can be partly explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, and by the fact that sometimes recruitment was too one-sided through one specific channel. For example, only utilising online channels for participant recruitment can result in only reaching people with digital skills. It is, therefore, important to consider organising dedicated training sessions to share tips and tricks on different user involvement strategies, and to utilise a variety of channels, both on- and offline for recruitment and data collection. By doing so, chances of getting a more diverse set of participants and data are higher.

#### **References**

Berlin,M., et al.: An experiment in monetary incentives. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (1992)

Brackertz, N.: Who is hard to reach and why?. ISR Working Paper (2007)

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **INDIMO Communities of Practice in Monghidoro, Antwerp, Galilée, Madrid, and Berlin: A Common Space for Co-designing Inclusive Digital Mobility Solutions**

Floridea Di Ciommo1(B) , Eleonora Tu2, Juanita Devis3, Michelle Specktor4, Yoram Shiftan5, Miguel Jaenike6, Gianni Rondinella1, Esau Acosta6, Thais Lamoza7, Martina Schuss8, and Arne Nys7

 cambiaMO | changing Mobility, Madrid, Spain<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fondazione ITL, Bologna, Italy Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium The Israeli Center for Smart Transportation Research, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban and Regional Planning, The Israeli Center for Smart Transportation Research, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel Vivero de Iniciativas Ciudadanas (VIC), Madrid, Spain door2door GmbH, Berlin, Germany Technical University Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany

**Abstract.** This paper demonstrates the co-creation process of digital mobility and delivery services applied in the Inclusive Digital Mobility Solutions (INDIMO) project mainly based on the local Communities of Practice (CoP) drawing on the knowledge and experience of their members to propose solutions adapted to their needs and interests. In the context of the INDIMO project, CoPs were established at five pilot locations and included users, mobility service providers, (digital) developers, user interface designers, and policymakers associated with each pilot. This chapter aims to report on the experience of the INDIMO project in employing the CoP as a tool to integrate the development of digital mobility and delivery services and the contribution and cooperation of different actors such as operators, developers, policymakers, and organizations representing the end-users. The creation of common spaces such as the INDIMO communities of practice was fundamental to enhance cooperation among different actors, co-design inclusive digital mobility solutions, and empower the participants in using the above-mentioned services. This chapter shows the development of the CoP process, the activities and challenges, and its role in making digital mobility services inclusive and universally usable.

#### **1 Introduction**

Communities of Practices (CoP) are a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger

I. Keseru and A. Randhahn (Eds.): *Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 3*, LNMOB, pp. 127–141, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26155-8\_8

et al. 2002). CoPs have been extensively observed in a variety of contexts, such as in the educational or medical sector. The Inclusive Digital Mobility Solutions (INDIMO) project has explored the potential of Communities of Practice (hereinafter referred to as CoPs) by setting up and running local CoPs for its pilots where a digital mobility or delivery service was developed or redeveloped taking the principles of Universal Design into account. Each Community of Practice brought together local users, mobility, and delivery service providers, (digital) developers, user interface designers, and policymakers associated to each pilot. At the beginning of the project, for each pilot, a call for participation was launched to engage interested parties into a collective learning process. The main objective of these Communities of Practices was to contribute to develop the INDIMO Co-creation Community and to identify the profiles of user groups in situation of vulnerability with respect to the digitalization of mobility with their requirements and needs.

The co-produced common knowledge within the local CoPs was consolidated and served as structured feedback for developing various components of the INDIMO digital mobility toolbox, including the Universal Design Manual (UDM), the Universal Interface Language (UIL), the Cybersecurity and privacy assessment guidelines (CSG), the Service evaluation tool (SET) and designing social and educational strategies for enhancing the appropriation of the use of digital mobility services (DMS) and digital delivery services (DDS).

The creation of a safe space such as the INDIMO CoP was crucial to build up common knowledge on the local context, inclusive digital mobility solutions and empowering the participants, including the target groups of vulnerable users. We concretely learned that the creation of the shared space provided by the Communities of Practice (CoP) during the project timeline enhanced the collaboration among different actors who oversee digital, physical, and regulatory features of digital mobility and delivery solutions. In the next sections, we will outline the setting up process of the local CoPs' and their role in identifying the key elements that digital mobility and delivery services should include to be inclusive and universally usable. Section 2 includes the description of the key characteristics of the five Communities of Practice located in each INDIMO pilot location. Section 3 presents the typology of members for each CoP, while Sect. 4 underlines the notable points of the CoP activities and the results of each CoP conversation. In Sect. 5 we share the lessons learned. Finally, insights and conclusions are summed up in Sect. 6, including a reflection on the relevance of sharing different knowledge and perspectives with a universal design approach in the era of digitalization.

The results presented in this chapter refer to the 3 years when the INDIMO project was developed (2020, 2021 and 2022). The content is mainly based on the INDIMO Deliverable D3.2 *Communities of Practice Report*.

#### **2 The INDIMO Pilots and Organization of CoPs**

Each pilot and the related CoP in the INDIMO project had a different aim with the common goal of improving the inclusion and accessibility of digital mobility services for the identified target groups of people in situation of vulnerability (see Fig. 1). Local CoP members participated in the co-creation process of the five pilots. As an open group, anyone could join and leave at any time, yet CoPs were made up of people who were interested in the development and potential growth of the different digital mobility and delivery services.

The figure below shows an infographics of the five different INDIMO pilots, indicating in the outer circle the digital mobility or delivery service of the pilots and in the inner one the target groups that were involved.

**Fig. 1.** INDIMO Pilots

#### *Pilot 1-Monghidoro, Italy*

Pilot 1 (P1) was located in Monghidoro (Emilia-Romagna Region) and aimed to introduce digital technology to enable e-commerce in rural areas to increase the inclusion and accessibility of digital mobility services. Its main activity was the installation of an advanced digital locker operated by Poste Italiane. This service offers the possibility to ship and collect parcels, collection of signed correspondence, postal bill payment, recharging of telephone cards and prepaid Poste-pay cards, and management of customer-to-customer deliveries. The main target population group of P1 were rural residents of Monghidoro, specifically older people with a low level of digital skills and low-income migrants with lower proficiency of the local language (i.e., Italian).

Monghidoro is a small municipality with about 3700 inhabitants about 50 km from Bologna. Based on the index of the Metropolitan City of Bologna, it is classified as highly vulnerable because of a combination of reasons such as low income, a high number of elderly people and migrants, and decreasing population.

Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the CoP meetings in this pilot were organized both in person and online, participants had a preference for holding in = person meetings.

#### *Pilot 2-Antwerp, Belgium*

Pilot 2 (P2) based in Antwerp set up a CoP focusing on the inclusive smart traffic lights and had the purpose of sharing experiences and providing feedback about the proofof-concept smart traffic light smartphone application, physical and online accessibility, the use of the public space, and the relationship of pedestrians with other modes of transport (i.e., cars, bikes, e-scooters). The CoP was a space for sharing knowledge and collectively solving problems about specific conditions that older people with visual disability face when independently moving around in the urban environment.

Given the Covid-19 restrictions, most of the CoP meetings were organized in an online format, which facilitated the engagement of stakeholders living in very different locations in the Flemish region. Therefore, even when the restrictions were lifted, the activities remained online.

#### *Pilot 3 (P3)-Galilee, Israel*

As a result of the lack of public transportation, an informal rideshare service in Pilot 3, based in the Galilee region, aimed to promote the status and rights of Arab women, create alternative travel options for them and increase their mobility for achieving keylife activities (e.g. work, school, hospital). The application for the rideshare service (named SAFARCON)<sup>1</sup> is free and enables drivers to connect with passengers who are traveling to the same destination. It also allows drivers to schedule package deliveries. It aimed to provide access to workplaces in the metropolitan area and higher education both to the Arab community as a whole and Arab women particularly, as well as those living specifically in rural areas. It is important to understand that in Galilee, women do not enjoy always the same opportunities as their male counterparts. Therefore, this pilot had the potential to empower women by giving them access to education and enhance their participation in the job market.

The idea was to promote informal ride sharing in a rural ethnic area of Galilee. The CoP discussed accessibility approaches to an inclusive digital mobility service, as well as the consideration of both gender and ethnic perspectives, language and cultural barriers to service access, and accessibility to technology for vulnerable minority groups of Arab women.

As part of periodic open group CoP meetings, a wide range of participants had the chance to share their perspectives, knowledge, and experience, including users, mobility service providers, digital application developers, user experience designers, and policymakers involved in the pilot, as well as other stakeholders including traditional transportation and digital mobility actors.

The collaboration and interactions between participants were fundamental in enhancing inclusive digital mobility solutions, facilitating the progress of the Galilee Pilot, and advancing INDIMO as a whole.

Pilot 4 (P4) *-Madrid, Spain*

<sup>1</sup> Technion's Transportation Research Institute (TRI) developed the application SAFARCON in collaboration with Kayan, a feminist Arab non-profit organization, under a grant from the Office of the Chief Scientist at the Israeli Ministry of Transportation (MoT) several years ago.

Pilot 4 was located in Madrid and aimed to enable food delivery for people with impairments, such as reduced mobility or vision, mental disability, low-income people, lower digital connection, socially isolated (e.g., unwanted loneliness), Covid-19 isolation through a digital application. The use of an existing cycle logistics platform was tested from users' experience and needs perspective to make this platform more inclusive and accessible. The digital food delivery platform was developed by the European Federation of Bicycle Delivery Cooperatives (Coopcycle), based in France, and it enables cooperatives of riders to operate a food delivery service at the local level with an inclusive approach. In Madrid, the service is operated by La Pájara, which operates the food delivery service from a set of more than 30 restaurants, including vegan ones, to users via the Coopcycle website and application. The main aim of this pilot was to improve the access of the target groups of the population to healthy food.

The CoP in Madrid aimed to discuss among the relevant actors the proximity and ease of use of food delivery as a way of tackling the isolation of target populations. Safety and security concerns were also discussed, along with the specific situations that arose during the Covid-19 pandemic. Digital skills and technological barriers were also important matters of discussion.

The CoP was a safe space for sharing knowledge, while discussing accessibility and inclusivity of a digital delivery service in an urban context. The CoP was intended to find solutions to accessibility problems for specific target groups of the population. Given the Covid-19 restrictions, also this CoP meetings were mainly organized in an online format. This format facilitated the engagement of stakeholders living in very different locations in Madrid. Even when the restrictions were lifted, the activities remained mainly online with some events in person.

#### Pilot 5 (*P5)-Berlin, Germany*

Pilot 5, based in Berlin, had the initial aim of increasing access and providing individual mobility for women as caregivers though a door-to-door ridesharing service. The service sought to improve short-distance mobility of women with children, offering a connection to public transport stations, facilitate short walking distance to pick-up and drop-off points, cover the lack of transport services in peripheral locations and lack of digital skills or low speed of internet connections. An existing multimodal mobility platform was tested by users to make this platform more inclusive and accessible to women as caregivers. This digital platform for trips planning had been developed by the IT developer of door2door and it enables public transport and digital mobility operators to provide an integrated service (i.e., MaaS).

The CoP focused on co-creating knowledge, discussing mobility needs of women as caregivers and sharing their experience in public transport and space. It was mainly oriented to the co-design of digital mobility services that generate confident relationships among caregivers and women, empowering them and fostering sharing of experiences through empathy.

#### **3 INDIMO Community of Practices: Activities, Characteristics and Participants**

This section will present the activities, characteristics, and participants of the five CoPs set up within the INDIMO project. As the target groups varied greatly among the pilots, participants also varied among the different CoPs and over time within each CoP. However, the aims remained focused on giving participants a platform to share their life experiences for improving a human-centered design of digital mobility solutions.

The CoP of Monghidoro (P1) included institutional actors such as the data and ICT services provided for Emilia-Romagna Region (LEPIDA), the Municipality of Monghidoro with its Mayor; the Metropolitan City of Bologna with its Mobility planning and social area department, rural residents, and two local NGOs, one representing elderly users (Le Pozze) and another one representing especially migrants' residents. This CoP was specifically oriented to involve other rural residents coming from municipalities close to Monghidoro, elderly residents, and residents of migrant descent of non-Italian nationality. It was facilitated by INDIMO partners, including the Institute for Transport and Logistics, Poste Italiane, cambiaMO, and DeepBlue.

The Antwerp CoP (P2) community was composed of a diverse group of stakeholders, representing different perspectives and roles in the digital mobility ecosystem. The Community members consisted of intersectional representatives of elderly people and people with visual impairments, developers, and user interface designers, policymakers from the Antwerp municipal services of mobility, regional accessibility agency, mobility service operators, and, most importantly, end-users in situation of vulnerability.

Facilitated by the online format, the Antwerp CoP was able to establish a broader stakeholder community and expand its scope and impact from the city of Antwerp to the Flemish region. In this way, the CoP was able to engage users, representatives, civil servants, and other stakeholders in providing their views coming from the perspectives of the different cities. Moreover, it facilitated the identification of common regional challenges and needs.

To gather feedback from visually impaired users, in some CoP activities, we conducted a series of one-to-one interviews. The interviews followed the same format as the CoP activity. The outcomes of the interviews were then shared during the CoP with other stakeholders. In some situations, where the one-to-one interview was not possible, a breakout room with a facilitator was created for each visually impaired participant.

The CoP in Antwerp (as most of the other CoPs) set up the invitations with a clear agenda and expectations for the different stakeholders. This proved to be effective in maintaining the active participation of the different stakeholders throughout the INDIMO CoP cycle. The type of stakeholders participating in each activity, therefore, varied according to the topic of the activity. As an example, in the activities related to the end-user appropriation of digital mobility tools or the re-design of the proof-ofconcept application the feedback from User Interface designers, developers, and visually impaired users proved to be more relevant. Moreover, we learned that stakeholders, especially civil servants, and service providers, are more eager to participate if there is a dissemination of the results during the CoP activities.

The CoP of in Pilot 3, in Galilee was the most diverse in terms of its members during the timeline of its meeting sessions. Given this diversity, the authors of this chapter found it appropriate to list the members in Table 1. All CoP members were invited to join CoP meetings regularly, yet each meeting consisted of a slightly different mix of seasoned participants making each meeting dynamic and interesting in its way.

In the pilot 4 in Madrid, we organised regular meetings and included a wide range of participants, such as:

These participants had the chance to share their points of view, knowledge, and experiences from different perspectives: as users, mobility service providers, digital application developers, user experience designers, and policymakers. At the beginning of each session, participants introduced themselves and their motivation for taking part in the CoP. The CoPs activities included the assets, values, and the functioning of the platform; the users' requirements prioritization, the persona construction; and the codesign of a mobility and delivery inclusive service.

Finally, for pilot 5 in Berlin, the Community of Practice mainly included (digital) developers and User Interface designers, product managers, a researcher in gendered mobility, and public transport representatives including local users, mobility and delivery services providers, to develop common knowledge around the inclusiveness of the ridesharing app.

#### **4 Relevant Topics and Issues that Emerged During CoP Activities**

The main topics that arose during the CoPs co-creation and co-design processes include different key themes:

#### **Table 1.** P3-Galilee community members

(*continued*)

**Table 1.** (*continued*)

In this section, the main topics from above are presented. It is, however, very important to underline that CoPs faced very practical problems, such as the difficulty of organizing the events at a time suitable for everyone, as policymakers are generally available during the day while users or associations can participate in the CoP activities outside working hours.

In the case of pilot 1 in Monghidoro, one issue was related to the difficulties of meeting on-line. As the target groups were elderly people and people with low digital skills, it was challenging to involve them using the virtual space. Elderly people were involved but health issues related to Covid-19 complications meant that they were no longer able to join. Despite these difficulties, the CoP meetings were lively and explored various challenges, and several themes emerged concerning the domain of the smart locker service implementation in a rural context. These themes are explained below.

During the 11 CoP sessions, there were concerns with regards to the deploying of the service of a digital locker, and particularly if this was meant to replace the existing physical Post Office. The digital locker was perceived as a threat, as in the eyes of the participants it could overtake the role of the physical office. In addition, in the small municipality of Monghidoro, rural residents recognized and attributed social value provided by the few (public) meeting points (such as the post office).

The negative perception of the digital locker is probably connected to the fact that over time, Monghidoro residents had perceived a decrease in the accessibility and availability of basic services. Some activities of the CoP were, therefore, also focused on enabling participants to understand that the digital locker service was an additional service and not a replacement for the current national postal service.

In the case of pilot 2 in Antwerp, the most important topics discussed during the 13 CoPs included: (i) the importance of a well-designed and accessible urban environment, (ii) the different needs of visually impaired users concerning other types of vulnerable populations, (iii) the importance of peers in adopting an application, and (iv) the recurrent issues visually impaired users experience when using digital tools. The complexity and unpredictability of the urban built environment was a key limitation in the autonomy of visually impaired users. As an example, ramps on the sidewalks to cross the street were perceived as a physical barrier for visually impaired people since their dogs could not distinguish where the road started.

Technology has a key role in supporting visually impaired people in navigating the physical space and is evolving to incorporate these urban elements. Visually impaired people tend to be very skilled in using digital tools, older people instead experience many challenges related to technology adoption and usage. Older people, even if affected by visual limitations, have very different needs and technical skills than the average visually impaired people. Today, readers incorporated into different digital systems enabled the usage of any application for visually impaired users. However, not all the applications are accessible to them, making the process of selecting and downloading the apps is difficult. Even more, the reviews of the applications do not take into consideration accessibility for visually impaired users. Consequently, the adoption process relies mostly on the recommendations of their peers.

In pilot 3, in Galilee, CoP meetings were organized around well-defined agendas that included icebreakers, polls, and role plays followed by an open discussion. As a first step, it was important to have the developer explain SAFARCON, the app that aimed to address mobility needs of the Arab community and women. One of its main goals was to improve its service accessibility. CoP participant stakeholders noted that mainly young people downloaded the application and brought up the issue of women's experience. Women must feel comfortable ridesharing with strangers and be confident about the safety of the vehicle. App integration with social media was highlighted as a safety measure, as users would be able to know their Facebook friends' usage and opinions.

The CoPs discussions revolved around how social media influencers, radio shows, and authorities could endorse and promote app use. The main conclusion was that it was crucial to know who the recipients of the design were, because icons do not have a single meaning2.

Looking at how social norms, culture, language, and gender influence the appropriation of mobility apps, we found that it boils down to subjective personal preference, taking into consideration usability, privacy, security, accuracy, reliability, and functionality. In addition, limitations in storage or battery usage of apps, as well as cyber security concerns, affect the adoption and use of digital mobility apps3.

The outcomes of the activities developed within the CoP in pilot 4 in Madrid were beneficial over a wide range of aspects, from the fieldwork deployment of tasks related to the specific objectives of the INDIMO project to the co-created implementation of service improvements and organizational measures. Conducting the co-creation work implied a good number of challenges and obstacles that had to be overcome, especially when the aspiration was to build up a local Community of Practice among stakeholders and researchers who have not experienced this kind of knowledge consolidation tool. The main ideas of the CoP were oriented towards the service and the social economy and sustainable values that it conveys, the actual and potential target audience, and elements of usability of the app itself.

Another argument that emerged was the focus on the ethical approach of the delivery company, mainly towards its workers, and in its way to offer a more inclusive and accessible digital delivery service. This last point implied the recognition of a limitation that

<sup>2</sup> Stakeholders' suggestions to make the app more accessible and help overcome digital barriers were summarized in the INDIMO Deliverable D2.1 - Universal Design Manual and the detailed assessment of screens and icons is presented in the Deliverable D2.3 corresponding to the Universal Icons Language.

<sup>3</sup> The INDIMO Deliverable D2.5 Enhancing Appropriation of DigitalMobility Solutions contains a more detailed analysis of the results of the appropriation exercise.

La Pájara had: a very homogenous base of users, characterized by their young age, high level of education, digital competency, and social and environmentally aware population. Nevertheless, the type of inclusive digital and physical services adaptations and how to implement them were also raised during the CoPs debates. There is a realization that attaining inclusivity in the digital realm takes effort. Full comprehension of the concept of universal design appears.

Participants understood and suggested that the co-design and update of the delivery service platform goes beyond simply adjusting for special needs, but rather aims to meet a wide range of universal requirements. There were some people who were concerned about the fact that the app was too focused on food delivery, and not on a more general courier service, from which it could benefit. The emphasis was on organic growth and inclusion of new users, especially coming from the target-groups of people in situation of vulnerability that are not always addressed by other food delivery platforms, recognizing that food delivery can facilitate their daily lives. During the debates, some people also suggested micro-training for riders, in order to better address the needs of people in situations of vulnerability. In the third phase of the pilot, (deployment), this suggestion was realized through the inclusive training for riders.

CoP meetings of pilot 5 in Berlin were systematically organized around an agenda related to the co-creation activities of the INDIMO project oriented to identify the capabilities and requirements of women caregivers and with children; elaborate and select the Universal Design Manual recommendations for making the ridesharing service more inclusive for women caregivers of children and finally redesign the service by prototyping an app-based security function including three different degrees of safety: the emergency assistance bottom, silent alert for the driver, and silent alert driver's view. During the first meetings, the participants were asked about their interests and how they be could integrated into the discussions of the community of practice. There were doubts among participants about the project, whether it is about the development of an application or a local service strategy. Participants introduced themselves and described how they could contribute to the pilot. There were a few main points raised during the debate on the timeline. The mobility of women with children is a particular concern. One participant claimed that a similar service (titled Berlkönig) was offered as a ride-pooling service in a different peri-urban area. The importance of understanding the needs of women as caregivers was emphasized, specifically since transportation organizations rarely involve women in their discussions.

#### **5 Outcomes**

In this section the outcomes from the individual CoPs in the five pilots are summarized.

For pilot 1, in Monghidoro, the matter of the digital divide due to age and the adaptation and interest of different generations to the technology is a subject that frequently arose. It is expected that the impact of the inclusion will be differentiated for different segments of populations. Many residents (not just elderly people) feel unfamiliar with services that rely on "technology", intended as mobile phone apps, QR codes, payments through the internet, and so on. The need for on-site training, of a person, that "can show how it is done" and the initial availability of in-person assistance must be considered to introduce rural elderly and lower-skilled target groups of users to this digital service without fear. This need was also recognized as the top priority for policymakers, end-users, and stakeholders' organizations across all pilot processes.

The outcomes of the CoP in pilot 2 in Antwerp served to improve the different aspects of the CoP itself, from the organizational part to the way each CoP content was delivered to the participants. The main learnings for P2 included the following recommendations:

In the case of the pilot 3 in Galilee, the expectation to build a local Community of Practice including stakeholders and researchers was challenging. Many of these stakeholders had limited time and no prior experience with such a method. This posed challenges that had to be overcome during the co-creation process. Despite this, as soon as they accepted the invitation to participate, they were engaged and wanted to contribute with their knowledge and insights. Additionally, the open group allowed participants to join and leave at their convenience, making it easier for them to commit according to their schedules.

Fundamentally, it is crucial to think of "Accessibility" from the perspectives of both "App Accessibility" (digital accessibility) and "Service Accessibility". An app may be accessible, but the service itself may not be, for example, a vehicle that is too high for a person with a disability.

Local CoPs played a key role in identifying and recommending the key elements that a mobile and delivery service should contain to be inclusive and universally usable. The need for human assistance was the top priority for policymakers, end-users, and stakeholders' organizations across all co-creation activities relating to inclusive digital mobility.

At the time of Covid-19, the CoP had to be carried out on a digital platform. Some participants had very low familiarity with any type of digital tools and in some cases, for older people, it was the first time that they participated in a videoconference. The availability of the local pilot leaders was the key to guarantee the success of CoPs meetings. This is a clear example of empowering target-groups, that makes the CoP unique in the co-creation process. As a result, CoPs had resources for hypotheses, conjectures, and possible scenarios for participants to talk about their beliefs and feelings about technology and mobility and delivery services.

Users sometimes they talked freely about their concerns and interests in general digital services or general characteristics of technology in services. Thus, the facilitator should drive them back into focus on the CoP aims. There is a general feeling of having consolidated local CoPs in a good way. The great number of verbatims and contents produced for the rest of INDIMO tools (i.e., Universal Design Manual and the Universal Icons languages catalog) anticipates a high level of inputs for clear guidelines for the INDIMO Digital Mobility toolbox.

The recursive appearance of beliefs, motivations, and feelings shared by several participants lead to believe that there are social representations and images about digital mobility and delivery services that should be considered at the time of designing technology for including end-user target groups.

The recruitment of end-users was a challenge for pilot 5 in Berlin because the local partner Door2Door was a white-label platform offering the integrated ride-pooling service to public transport operators and mobility providers but not operating its own service. Then, single mothers in Berlin, Germany were recruited through the Door2Door network responding to profiles through fieldwork in Marzan, a suburban municipality where this profile of person in situation of vulnerability was concentrated. Concretely, the CoP of Berlin shows the development of an emergency button concept that focuses on perceived safety. Therefore, different scenarios were derived to understand when women feel uncomfortable when using ride-pooling services. Three stages of severity of perceived safety are conceptualized: yellow (relatively safe), orange (moderately safe), and red (extremely unsafe).

Subsequently, developers in Berlin, prototyped an app-based security function for each of these situations. This concept goes beyond the well-known emergency breaks in public transportation systems and takes into consideration that security-critical situations many times are very nuanced and need differentiated solutions.

#### **6 Lessons Learnt Across the Pilots**

The INDIMO CoPs revealed several common aspects. Firstly, conducting the co-creation work implied a good number of challenges and obstacles, especially when there was the aspiration to build-up a local Community of Practice within stakeholders and researchers who did not have experience with this kind of knowledge consolidation tool. To support this process, bilateral and collective training sessions were arranged with pilot leaders before starting the meetings of the CoP.

Secondly, all CoPs co-created and contributed with valuable inputs to the INDIMO toolbox within local stakeholders and target-groups of users. Examples of the contribution were the following: prioritizing the requirements to make digital mobility and delivery services inclusive, selecting the appropriate interface icons for different scopes, insights on the appropriation digital tools for carrying out daily live activities of people in situations of vulnerability.

Thirdly, the conversations within the COPs were mainly focused on the problems and participants were eager to contribute and to find common solutions to these common problems. This feeling arose from the CoP where all the practitioners were enthusiastic about their participation and felt safe and comfortable in the space (both virtual and physical) created to talk about these issues. Most participants were aware of the benefits and disadvantages in developing inclusive digital services.

#### **6.1 New Insights and Conclusions**

Despite their differences the CoPs provided several interesting general outcomes. In this section, the key insights and conclusions are presented. These are common across all CoPs.

CoPs can be used in a variety of contexts, and specifically in the realm of digital mobility services, where they can provide expertise and knowledge coming from specific target groups.

There is a need for training facilitators when CoP are set up and run. This training is essential for organizing the CoPs as a safe space for co-creational and co-designing activities. In our case, the profile of a CoP facilitator featured technical notions of Digital Mobility and Delivery services, as well as (and perhaps more importantly) excellent communication and listening skills.

The COVID-19 pandemic measures imposed the use of virtual space for running the INDIMO CoPs. This aspect was a real challenge for involving our user target groups who are per se quite digitally low-skilled. Nevertheless, the digital space was the opportunity to make the digital session more dynamic and provide a pleasant space where people would stay and have a good moment to share their experiences and knowledge. These COPs outcomes were achieved thanks to the previous experience of the COPs task leaders in managing complex and conflictive co-creational processes within the COPs methodological approach. In general, the digital sessions have been run in all kinds of platforms: GoToMeeting, Teams, Zoom and Google Meets. All of them work quite well with light preference for the Zoom virtual space that was more user-friendly for less digitalized participants.

Mutual support plays a key role in this INDIMO CoPs co-creation process. It was crucial to establish relationships based on trust, both within the CoPs but also among the 5 CoPs and with the collective training sessions provided by cambiaMO and VIC, both INDIMO partners.

CoPs were effective to produce knowledge and prioritize recommendations for the design and deployment of inclusive digital mobility services. Outcomes from the CoPs were also the input to several tools that the INDIMO project developed (e.g. toolbox of the Universal Design Manual - UDM, Universal Icons Languages-UIL, the cyber security and privacy assessment guidelines -CSG, and the Stakeholders evaluation tool – SET).

**Acknowledgement.** The research is a part of the Inclusive Digital Mobility Solutions (INDIMO), a Horizon 2020 project that has received funding from European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 875533.

#### **References**

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Mainstreaming Sustainable Urban Mobility – The Mieri-Mobil Project**

Michael Abraham1(B) and Carolin Schröder2

<sup>1</sup> Kommunales Mobilitätsmanagement, Deutsche Plattform für Mobilitätsmanagement (DEPOMM e.V.), Berlin, Germany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<sup>2</sup> Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft/Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Abstract.** In 2021, the Berlin district Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf offered residents various mobility options on a part of an urban square calledMierendorffplatz. The overall objective was to explore how people living at the square or in the closer neighbourhood could change their mobility habits to become more environmentally friendly. The test aimed at exploring how sustainable urban mobility can be successfully implemented on a wider scale in in other parts of the city - thus seeking to contribute to mainstreaming sustainable mobility planning in regular city-wide mobility planning processes.

This article describes results from evaluating the project: Implementing such exploratory living labs successfully and without excluding specific user groups, depends on the integration of knowledge and resources of both the local governing bodies and civil society. This puts a focus on the question of accessibility of urban space and on the need to re-organize it differently if sustainability criteria should be met.

It concludes that sustainable forms of mobility need to become more demandorientated and that different legal and economic frameworks are necessary to make it a real alternative for everybody. These two aspects will be elaborated. The findings are based on empiric evaluation and validated through consultations with high-ranking experts.

#### **1 Introduction**

From mid-June to the end of December 2021, the Berlin district of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf implemented the project Mieri-Mobil on the eastern part of southern Mierendorffplatz (www.mieri-mobil.berlin). Located in the central part of Berlin, it is connected to the public transportation system by bus, subway and city train (S-Bahn). For many years, this district has not been affected too much by gentrifications processes - a large number of residents lives there for decades. But in 2017, the demographically largest group were people in work between 25 and 45 years as well as families with children not attending primary school yet (BA Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf 2017).

The project aimed at offering different forms of alternative mobility to exactly this mix of local residents. This was based on the basic assumption that alternative forms

© The Author(s) 2023

I. Keseru and A. Randhahn (Eds.): *Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 3*, LNMOB, pp. 142–153, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26155-8\_9

of local mobility are more sustainable in both environmental and social aspects than privately owned cars. Another aim of the project was to carefully evaluate the project. The approach pursued was to not only assess the actual effects of alternative mobility services and forms but also the planning and implementing procedures that accompanied the project. This way it should be made sure that factors leading to a successful implementation and transferability criteria could be identified.

The legal basis of the planned project is Section 45 of the German Road Traffic Act "§45 traffic signs and traffic facilities.

The road traffic authorities may restrict or prohibit the use of certain roads or stretches of road for reasons of safety or traffic order and divert traffic. They have the same right… 6. to investigate accidents, traffic behaviour, traffic flows and to test planned traffic safety or traffic regulation measures"1.

The Mieri-Mobil project was characterized by three unique aspects: First, it focussed on introducing new forms of sustainable and smart mobility. Second, the project was based on several mobility and logistics projects in the same area and with a similar group of actors that have been implemented since 2016 and their findings: these are NEW MOBILITY BERLIN, distribut-e, Stadtquartier 4.1, the KIEZBOTE and a mobility transformation concept for the Mierendorffinsel based on SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Rupprecht Consult 2019). Third, it was evaluated by applying a specifically developed evaluation approach (by the authors of this article).

Over the entire period of the project, various forms of micro-mobility were offered in this one location. In addition to a mobility point (called Jelbi in Berlin) with rental bicycles, e-mopeds and e-scooters, the offers also included stationary and free-floating car sharing and cargo bikes. In order to create space for the new offers, existing parking spaces were temporarily rededicated to eight car-sharing parking spaces, a disabled parking space, a cargo bike parking space, a delivery parking space and a logistics hub for a local delivery service (Kiezbote), in the form of a container. Replacement parking spaces were provided for the residents about 200 m away.

Initially, at the beginning of planning the project it was also intended to set up a temporary play street. This linking of different approaches to put more attention to more sustainable mobility increased the experimental character of the project.

Time for preparing the implementation and the evaluation of the project was very short: the decision to implement the project was taken in November 2020 with the actual project work starting in January 2021. The inauguration was scheduled for mid-June 2021, leaving some five months to prepare the mobility offers and the evaluation. Informal discussions with residents and local business people started in April 2021, a formal information letter was sent in early May.

It should be noted that, contrary to the original planning, it was decided not to completely block the street as a temporary play street for car traffic for the duration of the campaign. This was mainly justified by a newly set up construction site on the other side of the square, which increased the parking space pressure in the surrounding area. Another reason for it were concerns of the market management, who feared delivery problems and a decline in customers due to the necessary facilities for the play street.

<sup>1</sup> Original text in German: http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvo/stvo\_45.php.

#### **2 Evaluating the Project – Effects and Processes**

Mieri-Mobil is a unique experiment in this specific location. As mentioned before, it combined a car-based shared mobility hub with additional features and aimed at providing analysis regarding the location and general idea of this area of sustainable and smart mobility. Mobility hubs, in their widest definition, are objects of a growing number of case studies and conceptual studies from all over the world (for example: Schelling 2021; Difu 2020; Bell 2019).

While research on mobility hubs is still an emerging topic, there are three early findings: First, the location should be selected carefully (van Gerrevink 2021; Bell 2019). Second, the provided services should be tailored to suit local needs and be integrated into the existing urban space and uses - and therefore may vary in size and offer (Arseneault 2022; Difu 2020). And third, that existing business models for mobility hubs and the provision of alternative mobility pose new challenges to local governance structures (Arseneault 2022; Pangbourne et al. 2018).

In this context, it needs to be stated that the idea of mobility hubs is still strongly rooted in the concept of mobility as a service (MAAS), focussing on the provision of new vehicles and infrastructures while actual user needs are not yet much in the focus of quantitative and qualitative scientific research (Bell 2019; Pangbourne et al. 2018; Utriainen and Pöllänen 2018).

It may be assumed that the private mobility providers do gain profound insight in the usage numbers and users of their services. But these data rather illustrate actual usages than real needs and are in most cases not accessible for scientific analysis for data-protection reasons (Hadachi et al 2018). Nonetheless, some approaches to analyse actual user demands from a qualitative perspective have been implemented. Methods used include on-site observations, random interviews and focus groups (Arseneault 2022; Bell 2019) as well as peer review workshops in order to frame and compare experiences with mobility hubs (Abraham et al. 2021).

With this in mind, the qualitative – and to a lesser extent the quantitative - evaluation of the implemented aims, measures and processes played an important role throughout the Mieri-Mobil project. The overarching goal of the evaluation was, on the one hand, the qualitative analysis of the use of the mobility offers and their effects on urban space (impact evaluation) and, on the other hand, the implementation of the project itself (process evaluation). Detailed results have been published in a technical report.

The impact evaluation recorded the effects of the implemented measures on two levels: Evaluation of the effects of individual measures and evaluation of the project as a whole. Methods used for impact evaluation were

• A peer review workshop (focus group workshop) in February 2022

The process evaluation was performed on two levels as well: Evaluation of the processes of implementation individual measures and evaluation of the implementation processes within the whole project. Methods used for process evaluation were

#### **3 Results - Impact Evaluation**

Impact evaluation comprised mainly counting the numbers of usages of the new mobility services, a survey among neighbors of the street and the closer surrounding of the square, and information gained by observing how people are dealing with the new services on site. The most relevant and exemplary results are summarized in the following.

User numbers provided by the operators of the new mobility services: After the new mobility service was introduced in June, the number of Lime Scooters rented at Mierendorffplatz rose steadily to almost 70 rentals in August. Thereafter, the number dropped sharply until December, presumably due to deteriorating weather conditions.

The number of MILES rental cars rented at Mierendorffplatz increased after the introduction to more than 50 car rentals in November. Then, the number dropped to 35 by January 2022. The reasons for this are probably the high number of public holidays in December and early January, the reintroduced lock-down caused by the Covid pandemic, or fewer vehicles available for hiring. A correlation of the number of uses with bad weather could not be observed for the closed vehicles.

With more than 20 rentals Emmy scooter rentals reached a peak at the launch of the service in July. The number then fell in August significantly and then rose steadily until October. Usage numbers in November and December differ a lot. The assumed explanation for this development is that more vehicles were brought back to the location by the operator in the first weeks after its introduction. Another reason for lower user numbers in November and December is likely to be the colder and thus more uncomfortable weather conditions.

The qualitative evaluation from the residents and business owners and employees around the square was performed via questionnaires from August until the end of December. Paper questionnaires were provided on site and in nearby cafés and shops. In addition, the questions could be answered in the digital version of the questionnaire that was provided on the project website. A total of 33 people replied either on the paper or digital version of the questionnaire, 13 male, 15 female, one diverse and four without indications on gender. Out of these, were 14 residents and 3 business people. With over 55years, the average age was quite high. More than half of the respondents had a higher education entrance qualification (13 people) or high school diploma (nine people). When asked how they asses the new overall situation compared to the situation before, the participants in the survey answered on a scale from 1 to 5 - Much better (1), A little better (2), Same (3), Slightly worse (4), Much worse (5) with a clear majority "Much worse" (24 of the respondents). In very few cases, however, this was related to the specific mobility services. Interestingly, only four of all respondents used the new mobility services, three people in their free time and one person to go to work. In particular, the position of the mobility offers met with resistance: 23 people stated that the new mobility services would not fit into the local surrounding. When asked for reasons, people indicated that the new service is an impediment to the market (8x); the container is ugly (3x), there is no need for the new services (7x), it leads to a loss of car parking places (7 x). In addition, almost half of the participants in the survey (16 people) stated that they would also not like to have any of the mobility offers at other nearby locations.

Participant observation was performed through regular visits on site by the evaluation team, on different days of the week and at different times of the day. Observation focused on the new parking situation from the start which did not change a lot during the first weeks after the start in June. Most car drivers ignored the newly introduced parking limits and designated spaces for alternative mobility services. In consequence, larger signage in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, had been installed. After a couple of days, the new parking arrangements had been largely accepted by users. But the number of shared cars available on site varied considerably, at times there were no cars available at all. After consulting the mobility providers, the availability of car sharing could be organized more evenly.

The number of available shared bikes, e-mopeds and e-scooters also varied significantly over time. The latter usually outnumbered any other form of mobility - sometimes early in the day, some 30 vehicles were available on site - which was a very large number for this rather peripheral location of the Berlin city center.

A weekly market – existing since many years - has been held right next to the experimental area. On the two market days, access to the mobility services was also massively restricted by market vehicles and visitors. As a result, the access to the vehicles on the market days was restricted. Among other things, this meant that the usage figures on these days were significantly lower than on other days of the week.

#### **4 Results - Process Evaluation**

As a follow-up to discussions that took place between residents and organizers at the opening event of Mieri-Mobil, the first user participation activity took place in form of a first residents' workshop. It was organized in August 2021 with the same people, some other interested residents – altogether almost 15 - the district councilor and four project members. During the discussion, four main points emerged, that were subject of complaints: The container that had been set up to serve a storeroom and as a surface for attaching project posters, the massive number of e-scooters, the lacking possibility to participate in the first planning process of the project, and the density to the weekly market.

Regarding the container, it was suggested by all residents that it should be completely removed from this very place for aesthetic reasons. Also, almost all agreed that the escooters were considered a problem as the (sometimes) large number of vehicles often looked messy, the users did not follow the rules and the (nightly) battery replacement was a source of noise that has been perceived as very annoying. It was also noted that the project as a whole should have been better communicated. Also, some of the participants expressed that they could not understand the meaning of the new signs that had been put up. Some of these signs have been just recently introduced with the reform of the official national German road traffic regulations ('Straßenverkehrsordnung'). Especially the new sign for car-sharing was not being understood as such. Also it seemed to be hardly comprehensible how the signs for regulating parking spaces exactly were meant and what is the purpose of the container. In this context, it was also criticized that there was no opportunity to discuss the type and scope of the individual measures. The new mobility services were perceived more as a hindrance to the weekly market (Wednesday and Saturday mornings), since they made it more difficult to deliver the goods and also to use the market "as a meeting place". It was therefore proposed to relocate the car-sharing spaces.

The second resident workshop was designed as a simulation game on the future of local mobility. It took place in September 2021 and acted as a follow-up to the first workshop with almost the same group of participants (12 residents, district councilor, three members of the project team, and two external facilitators). In contrast to the first workshop, the participants now agreed that alternative mobility offers make sense - only the implementation at this specific location was criticized partially: These were in particular the insufficient number of cars available and the use and appearance of the container). A relocation of the mobility station to a less exposed part (not on a main through road) was suggested. Also, some participants preferred a distribution of several mobility stations throughout the wider area. It was mentioned that commercially used areas (for example supermarket parking lots) appear to be particularly appropriate locations for new mobility services, since there, they cause less disadvantages for neighboring residents.

A Process Evaluation Workshop was arranged in October 2021 with the four members of the core project team. As all of them have been involved since the beginning they were perfectly suited to comment on the processes of planning and implementing the experiment project. The workshop started with conjointly setting up a timeline of important project-related milestones. Subsequently, these were assigned to events that had either a positive or negative effect on the project:

During the first months of preparation (January to March 2021), the plan to use the entire stretch of road as an experimental space and to use it for activities throughout the project period seemed very ambitious to the project team, especially given the short preparation time and limited resources. However, regular team meetings with members of the project team and responsible persons in the district were able to allay many concerns. In addition, flexible adjustments to the planning and implementation concept could be discussed and decided at the meetings. Holding these regular meetings was considered essential.

In April and May, the lack of project resources became noticeable: Additional costs for necessary traffic signs, for additional time required for informal discussions with residents and the market management or the organisation of further events could not be foreseen prior to the start of the project, and additional funds could not be provided. In consequence, some necessary steps had to be taken without funding but with flexible approaches of the project team. Furthermore, the decision was taken by the local administration that a temporary closure of the street was not feasible. This went along with another decision that there would be no play street because the market could not be relocated and construction site nearby that has not been communicated early enough aggravated the local parking situation. The offer for residents to use a replacement parking space about 200 m away was not accepted. On the one hand, the distance was judged to be too impractical, on the other hand, the insufficient lighting in the replacement parking lot was rejected due to safety concerns, especially from women.

From the very beginning, a sceptical attitude towards the project and the team was expressed by local residents and traders. The most common concerns were fears about restrictions on the usability of the traffic areas and a devaluation of the appearance of the square due to the large number of mobility services. The project team reacted to this scepticism with more intensive communication about the scope and goals of the project. This was done through informal on-site discussions, in written form on a provided poster and the project website, and most importantly in the workshops with local residents. Around July, a positive change in the attitude of many local residents could be observed. Three factors that caused this change need to be mentioned: First, the presence of the responsible district councillor at all workshops, second a good preparation and moderation of the workshops that made the participants feel that their perspectives and suggestions were being heard. Third, the project team invested more time than planned in building trust between the team, the local administration and the residents through informal and formal discussions.

The final step of the process evaluation activities undertaken by the project team was to present the results and findings from the process and impact evaluations to experts from similarly experimental projects in Berlin. In a Peer Review Workshop carried out in February 2022, crucial aspects of implementing mobility experiments were discussed in a group of seven experts and project members. Referring to the intermediary findings from the Mieri-Mobil project three aspects were identified beforehand: Communication (before the start and in the project), organizational pitfalls when implementing experimental spaces, and appropriate evaluation methods.

Regarding the communication aspect, the participants agreed that any project aiming at the transformation towards more sustainable urban mobility must expect strong headwinds. In order to deal with this adequately, transparent communication is necessary right from the start. However, the participants also agreed that very early information concerning the idea to implement a project such as this, led to strong protests, while information about four to six weeks in advance led to productive discussions. This is the case particularly when discussion take place in smaller rounds. This raises the question again - which remains unanswered even after all the decades of successful citizen participation - when is the ideal time to start successful communication.

 This includes clearly communicating the end of the project right from the beginning. In addition, it is essential to address all local stakeholder groups, i.e. not only residents but also tradespeople and organizations. Personal contacts and discussions seem preferable.

In addition, it could be observed that the number of complaints seems to be higher when people get the chance to give their feedback online.

Challenges to implementing such experiments were distributed responsibilities in the district administration. In the case of Mieri-Mobil, the people responsible for authorizing the restructuring of the parking spaces were different from those setting up the construction site, or in charge of the local market. In addition, many resources are necessary for the preparation and implementation of such projects. This is often exacerbated by time pressure. If Mieri-Mobil had been implemented as originally planned, even more resources would have been needed. As in many other similar projects, the budget was restricted which did not allow for integrating local NGOs with experience in interactive project communications.

Another challenge was that the existence and implementation of the legal basis the 'experimentation clause' were unknown in large parts of the administration.

In addition, the signage with the car-sharing parking space symbols that were new at the start of the project was unknown. This meant that in the first few weeks it was very time-consuming and a lot had to be explained.

A last but important finding was that the degree of car use and car ownership in the respective districts seems to have a surprisingly high influence on the positive or negative effects of mobility experiments. It is also easier to persuade people with higher education (university degree) and (high) environmental awareness to participate.

As mentioned before, the evaluation of such experiments is not common yet – neither the evaluation of the project nor the evaluation of individual measures. Accordingly, there were only few ideas which methods would be suitable. However, it became apparent that older people tend to take part in surveys and reflection. This raises the question of how different user groups could be included in an evaluation.

#### **5 Challenges to Making Digital Mobility Accessible and Inclusive**

The last chapters described main results of both impact and process evaluation of the Mieri-Mobil project. Most obviously, during the short running time of the experiment, many adjustments to aims and processes of the project had to be made. Nonetheless, the project can be considered a success, as valuable insight into the usefulness and spatial impact of a mobility station could be gained that will be helpful to organize and implement future mobility experiments in Berlin or elsewhere.

At the same time, it became clear that there are still several challenges to mainstreaming alternative forms of mobility.

From the data available, three basic findings could be identified: First of all, the overall usage numbers increased over the course of the project, with a peak shortly after the introduction of the mobility offers in July. From this it can be concluded that people generally seem to be curious about new mobility offers – interestingly, e-scooters seemed more popular than e-mopeds and shared cars. In order to be accepted such new offers and experiments need time to unfold positive effects.

Second, the usage numbers of open vehicles such as e-scooters or e-mopeds seem to be influenced significantly by external influences such as weather, holiday seasons and pandemic events. In consequence, usage numbers were lower during periods of bad weather, during public and school holidays and during phases with increased Corona rates in November and especially in December.

Despite the fact that most mobility alternatives offered at Mierendorffplatz are considered "smart" ones, it is astonishing how little scientific knowledge has been gained so far about their actual usefulness. Of course, data protection is very important, but it would be very helpful if forms of cooperation between mobility providers and scientists could be developed that would allow for further insight into the actual usability of such mobility offers.

During the evaluation, it was very difficult to obtain reliable data regarding usage numbers. Not all providers were able - or willing - to provide usage numbers, not even after repeated requests. In addition, where data was available, the periods of collection were different. Statements about the usage figures over the entire campaign period were therefore not possible. Likewise, no statements could be made about which persons used the offers, since this information was not transmitted for data protection reasons. In consequence, it is impossible to tell which population groups used the offer and which didn't – and why.

Public attitude towards the project changed over time towards the positive. Most significantly, a bias between users of the mobility alternatives and the non-users could be observed. The latter, the non-users, were basically immediate residents and business people - middle-aged and well-educated - who never intended to use alternative forms of mobility. In consequence, the mobility offers were met with a lot of scepticism regarding their usefulness and – more important - their negative impact on urban space and community structure in the beginning. It may be concluded that addressing questions of adequate access to alternative mobility an of impact of mobility stations on public space - are equally important for the success of such experiments. In addition, in may be concluded that the introduction of a mobility station is much more than just offering alternative forms of mobility and that communication with (potential and actual) users and non-users must be organized very differently: The acceptance of the non-user/residents depended heavily on the degree to which they felt understood and to the extent that suggestions for change and improvement were integrated into the project.

Despite all efforts, not all uses of urban space could be integrated into the project adequately: Above all, this was the conflict between the market on Wednesday and Saturday mornings and the mobility offers. In addition, the positioning of the mobility offers and parking spaces right next to a busy main thoroughfare created some issues with people's safety, be it users of the offers or people walking by. In addition, a road construction site that the project team was not aware of in the beginning, caused further issues with public safety and parking space.

In the future, it will be crucial for any mobility experiment to take into account possibly conflicting uses of urban space or temporary restrictions. This requires an early exchange with different administrative units and local stakeholders. In addition, sufficient preparation time for both implementation and evaluation is crucial, along with a comparatively high input of human resources and dedication of the project team as well as the local administration in order to deal adequately with the experimental character. This must include regular project meetings to coordinate feasibilities and pitfalls, as well as the readiness of the time for flexibility, spontaneous actions, alternative solutions and meaningful communication with stakeholders, businesspeople and residents.

Decadelong experiences with participatory processes emphasized the need for early participation and communication in planning and implementation processes (Creighton 2005). During our peer-review workshop, it became obvious that information, participation and communication in temporary experiments must be framed differently: As experiments are clearly time-restricted and have a test character, it must be clear to everyone that there are not and that there cannot be any prefabricated solutions. And that experiments are not (yet) part of traditional planning and implementation processes. In consequence, communication in experimental projects can start too early. This especially if early phases of communication are not attended to intensively by the project team: In the case of mobility, which is a very emotional and contested topic in Germany, informing early about mobility experiments often triggers negative emotions and may also leave a lot of time for organizing protests. About six to eight weeks before the implementation seemed a suitable period for several representatives of Berlin mobility experiments. In this context, the two workshops with residents can be considered a success as continued dialogue, individual information and commitment of the project team and the district councillor helped to develop informed decisions among the residents and to obtain a different perspective on temporary experiments: "First, I was really annoyed, now I see that something is happening. I think that's good!".

#### **6 Conclusions**

It is more than obvious that we, as a society, will need new approaches to urban mobility. The project and its evaluation give concrete impetus as to where and how mobility measures can successfully be organised and implemented. In addition, there were direct consequences of the project and the workshops: The offered range of new mobility services will be relocated to a safer location nearby. As a side effect, other local mobility issues were also discussed in the workshops, for example that a pedestrian crossing is needed nearby and that the general topic of mobility has been picked up by local initiatives.

Mieri-Mobil presented a specific mobility mix at a specific location. Experiences made with each experiment are unique as they relate to specific administrative settings, to a specific population and stakeholder structure, and to specific urban space. However, some of the results can be transferred to other settings in Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf or to other sites in Berlin (see Sect. 5).

Therefore, for future similar experiments in the district, cross-departmental reflection on the project would be recommendable. A comprehensive (sustainable and) smart urban mobility system will need more integration (Uteng et al. 2019) and coordination (Docherty et al. 2018) in order to overcome fragmented responsibilities, singular solutions and path dependencies. In addition, a continuous exchange with those involved in other experimental spaces in Berlin and elsewhere seems sensible, because similar experiences to Mieri-Mobil might have been also made in other projects.

It remains unclear in what terms such experiments focussing on alternative, smart mobility is accessible to different population groups and therefore (socially) inclusive. Clearly, using the mobility alternatives costs money that not everyone is willing or able to pay. In addition, the concentration of mobility services in one single spot leaves many people with long (walking) distances – which may discourage people to use these offers, especially if they have problems walking. And there are indications that people with lower education are less interested in questions of mobility (Neue Mobilität Berlin 2020). Mobility alternatives in the project were clearly supply-led and focussed on testing new technologies. In consequence, mobility needs of specific user groups may not have been met.

Nonetheless, Mieri-Mobil clearly showed the importance of experimenting as the organisation of uses of urban space is very complex, and in most cases unintended effects and overlooked uses of space may complicate a proper integration of new forms of mobility into people's daily lives.

The project also showed that a much more and more in depth evaluation of these projects are needed to be able to really address not only the mobility needs of specific user groups but also to guide planners and administrations the direction towards reaching a true mobility transformation.

#### **References**

Schelling, J.: Mobility hubs: how will they function, look and enrich the city (2021)

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

**User-Centric Design for Digital Mobility**

# **Universal Design and Transport Innovations: A Discussion of New Mobility Solutions Through a Universal Design Lens**

Jørgen Aarhaug(B)

Mobility, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Abstract.** Most technological advances in mobility result in better accessibility for many, yet the benefits remain unevenly distributed. Universal design is a strategy to counter social exclusion, involving the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design New and improved mobility technologies typically result in increased mobility. However, most new technologies create both winners and losers – and who wins and who loses depends on how the mobility solution in question is introduced to the mobility system. This study finds that many of the new mobility technologies that are introduced, though not directly relating to universal design, strongly affect the universality of access to mobility. The chapter aims to give insight into how certain new mobility solutions affect different user groups, and to highlight how the outcome is a function of the interplay between technology and its implementation. The paper concludes by pointing at the need for regulation to align the objectives of the actors behind new technologies and an inclusive society.

## **1 Introduction**

Technological change is an important driver of increased welfare. As society becomes ever more interconnected, mobility is an increasingly important precondition for functioning fully as a citizen. This chapter looks at the relation between mobility innovations – specifically, innovations facilitated by digitalisation – and universal design (UD).

The concept of UD in reference to a strategy towards promoting social inclusion was first coined by the architect Ronald Mace, who defined it as *'the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design'* (Mace 1998). The term is used primarily in the United States, Scandinavia and Japan, while the expression 'design for all' is used with a similar meaning elsewhere (Audirac 2008). The term is also used in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in which it is defined as *'the design of products, environments, programs and services to be usable by all people,*

© The Author(s) 2023

This chapter was written in parallel with Aarhaug (2022) a Norwegian-language article, for the edited volume "Universell utforming i transportsektoren" (Fearnley and Øksenholt 2022).

I. Keseru and A. Randhahn (Eds.): *Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 3*, LNMOB, pp. 157–172, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26155-8\_10

*to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. "Universal design" shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed'* (United Nations 2010).

The UD concept has been adopted for use in transport, internet and communication technologies (ICT) and education following its introduction into the built environment. Within architecture, similar concepts can draw on history back to the 1970s. According to Story et al. (1998), early efforts to render environments accessible frequently depended on segregated measures that were *'more expensive and usually ugly'* than UD, which includes accessibility for all in early design phases.

Within mobility, the UD concept has mainly been used in relation to public transport (Audirac 2008). Bjerkan (2022) finds that half of the documents, journal articles and reports relating to barriers and transport are based on public transport cases.

Since 2000, there has been robust research interest in how mobility restrictions can be a cause of social exclusion (Cass et al. 2005; Preston and Rajé 2007; Preston 2009). These studies argue that mobility constitutes a barrier that prevents individuals from fully participating in the normal activities of society, despite their desire to do so. This conceptual work on social exclusion has increasingly been joined by empirical studies focusing on identifying individual barriers, and how these can be mitigated – as illustrated by a recent literature review by Bjerkan (2022).

The concept of UD, when used in the context of transport, is a way of thinking about these issues mainly as an alternative and complement to 'accessibility'. Here, the difference can be interpreted as accessibility with a focus on solutions created for individuals with impairments, while UD is focused on providing a solution in which impairments are irrelevant: in other words, where the solution can be used by as many people as possible, impairment or no.

The UD philosophy is somewhat in contrast to the commercial and technological focus of new transport innovations. This paper aims to explore this potential conflict, using certain innovations in Norway in 2020 as a case.

#### **1.1 A Window of Opportunity for New Mobility Solutions**

Society is changing. In the broader sense, we are looking at a reorganisation of goods and services available following the fifth technological revolution (Perez 2003), of which digitalisation is a core component. This also affects mobility. In addition, there is an established understanding that the centrepiece of 20th-century mobility – the private car – represents an unsustainable way of providing mobility (Sheller and Urry 2006; Geels et al. 2012). This combination of digitalisation, which increases the opportunity space for innovation, and the narrative placing the private car as the centrepiece of our day-to-day mobility is challenged, creating a window of opportunity for new mobility solutions. Many have emerged to fill this space.

Looking back, the private car powered by an internal combustion engine was one of the most important technological advances of the 20th century, and the most important change within day-to-day mobility. The car solved the problem of horse manure in city streets, and the technology provided an enormous growth in individual mobility. On the flip side, it also brought new challenges related to traffic safety, noise, urban sprawl and consumption of fossil fuels – and conditions related to inclusion. For a variety of reasons, including age, health, ability, wealth and ideology – large segments of the population do not have access to their own car. The car-centred mobility system, is therefore not neutral.

How people relate to cars depends on a series of factors including life events (Uteng et al. 2019a) and wealth (Bastian et al. 2016). The position of the car as the centrepiece of the mobility system is thus being challenged along a series of dimensions, both of which are related to environmental concerns (Geels et al. 2012) and to the idea of what constitutes a good life (Schwanen et al. 2015). In this context, UD and public mobility solutions become more important.

This paper draws on the technology mapping conducted by the Norwegian Board of Technology in 2020 (Haarstad et al. 2020), and experience from empirical studies of how people with mobility impairments interact with new technology – in particular, (Øksenholt and Aarhaug 2018). The mapping exercise was conducted to chart which innovations were likely to influence mobility in the context of Norwegian cities. The technologies listed include physical solutions, such as e-scooters and autonomous vehicles, but also new ways of offering mobility, such as mobility as a service (MaaS) and cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS). Although mapped and analysed in a specific context, the technologies are common in many parts of the world. A selection of these technologies is explored further in this paper. The empirical experience used to discuss these technologies is mainly drawn from research projects in which the author has had a role; these projects were centred on individual issues. This experience is supported by prior research, including (Bezyak et al. 2017, Deka et al. 2016, Fearnley et al. 2022.b, Nielsen 2021).

#### **2 New Mobility Solutions**

There is no single definition of what new mobility solutions are. For the purposes of this paper, there is no need for a precise definition, as the list of technologies discussed is not exhaustive. It focuses on technologies that are either established 'on the streets' following 2010 or expected to have a noticeable presence in northern European cities before 2030, drawing on the findings of expert panels and reports (Haarstad et al. 2020, Kristensen et al. 2018, Bakken et al. 2017, Aarhaug et al. 2018). These sources include discussion of a wide range of solutions, but there are common features. Digital technologies constitute a substantive element in many of the technologies; these work as facilitating or general-purpose technologies across sectors (Bresnahan and Trajtenberg 1995). In addition, several mobility-related innovations are not 'new' transport services per se, as the physical mobility solutions are often very similar to the pre-existing solutions. Rather, existing mobility options are improved (increasing efficiency) and offered in new ways through different business models, facilitated by the development of digital technologies.

Digitalisation increases opportunity space, as do new broader technologies in general. This is not the same as stating that innovations always make things better: neither technology nor how it is adopted are neutral concepts – new technologies create both winners and losers. Moreover, an individual may be both a winner and a loser, when different measurement criteria are applied. That a technology increases total welfare in society does not mean that the benefit is evenly distributed. Indeed, it often is not. Further, it is not certain that those who most benefit from the new technology will be able (or willing) to compensate those who lose out. As a phenomenon, the use of a new technology is not necessarily distribution- and inclusion-neutral, and how a new technology is introduced to market is not accidental.

#### **2.1 Technology Uptake**

Innovation studies have given rise to several conceptual models of how new technology is diffused. One of the classic and most widely used and criticised is that developed by Rogers (2010/1962). Within this model, the uptake of the new technology follows an s-curve, where a technology moves from being a small niche phenomenon – with users often labelled as 'trendsetters', or members of the 'urban elite' – through a takeoff and acceleration phase; the technology is then gradually adopted by the rest of the population. This model of adoption contrasts with the philosophy of UD: Rogers' model is an attempt to theorise based on observations, while the concept of UD is inherently normative.

The idea that some forward-leaning, or 'elite', individuals use a mobility solution before it spreads to other parts of the population does not have to be a problem in terms of UD. But if the elite's consumption cannot be replicated across the population, it becomes problematic in terms of UD because it reflects different access to mobility. As an example, a new mobility solution may require a specific type of smartphone (as some hailing services do), payment by credit card (as many private companies require), substantial income (to afford the service) and a driver's license (in the case of car sharing). A new technology that is only useful for a few will thus not necessarily be universal, and may be at odds with UD as a policy objective.

Avoiding this bias can be difficult. Many of the new mobility technologies that have come on the market are initially aimed at typical 'early adopters'. These are individuals who also tend to have demographic characteristics that overlap with those who initiate the new technologies. In addition, many new technologies are developed in and for a world market. Low replication cost is a key component of digitalisation. User participation may be limited to the question of how the technology should be introduced in the specific locality, rather than how the solution is designed. This may reduce the scope for adaption to address the needs of other user groups than those upon which the developers initially focused.

#### **2.2 Examples of New Technologies**

A common denominator for the technologies selected in this work is that they have been influenced by the development of digital technologies. In this way, and as mentioned earlier, they can be labelled as part of the fifth technological revolution, following Perez' (2003) classification. Digitalisation can be understood as the way digital technologies are introduced into society. Here, an important component is how information is transferred from being a physical to a digital entity – transformed from atoms to bits (Negroponte et al. 1997). This means that replication costs associated with information drop dramatically, and the movement of information is decoupled from the movement of physical entities. This allows a series of new services, and new ways of offering pre-existing services. Information, including vehicle location and status, can be made available for existing and potential travellers at low cost, reducing the disutility of travelling (Flügel et al. 2020).

Digitisation thus provides an opportunity to establish new service offerings based on available information both commercially and non-commercially. This helps potential travellers make more informed choices about when, where and how they travel. At the same time, it can also help to increase the divide between those who have access to this information, for example through the use of smartphones, and those who do not. This points back at the concept of universality and main solutions. Does it mean that the mobility system should include mobility solutions for all, or that each element of the mobility system should be accessible for all?

Predicting the future is challenging. In relation to mobility, the practice has long been to make predictions based on modelling along established trends. This approach has been criticised for creating lock-ins in established technologies. To address how new technologies play-in in future mobility, several methods have been used, including modelling with (very) alternative assumptions, backcasting and scenario building. For the purpose of creating a coherent discussion, this chapter makes no independent effort to assess which technologies are relevant. Instead, as noted above, it uses a list identified by the Norwegian Board of Technology as a starting point (Table 1) and adds to this by using examples and assessing UD relevance. In Table 1, UD relevance is judged based on discussions between the author and other researchers with experience from UD and technology implementation.

(*continued*)

**Table 1.** (*continued*)

aPTA - Public transport authorities.

bTNC - Transport network companies.

In Table 1, small UD relevance means that the technology is judged to not directly impact UD, and thus is less relevant for UD policies. Some UD relevance means that the technology impacts mobility in a heterogeneous way (mainly by providing advantages to some users and possible disadvantages to others), and that this differentiation is linked to users' characteristics. The differentiation may not be directly related to mobility impairments, but is changing the mobility market in a way that influences persons with disabilities. An example would be a reorganisation of the taxi/non-emergency vehicle-for-hire markets, by removing requirements for operators to provide wheelchairaccessible vehicles. Large impact is when the technology is judged to influence persons with mobility impairments directly.

The following text focuses on the technologies that are expected to be most relevant in a UD context.

*Mobility as a service (MaaS)*is a digital platform that connects various mobility offerings from different modes through a single user interface. In this innovation, the main issues are related to implementation, not the development of the technology. As pointed out by Smith and Hensher (2020), MaaS actors have had more success in developing the technology than in functioning as economic and organisational entities. Theoretically, MaaS should increase the possible user group for a particular mobility mode, through reducing the barrier created by lack of information and creating a possibility for nudging; it is possible to inform travellers of various characteristics of the service in question at lower cost. The drawback, in a UD context, is that MaaS requires digital skills and smartphone access. Other potential issues are related to a fragmentation of responsibility: this issue arises when the operator providing the service is not the same as the one interacting with the customer at the point of booking.

*Cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS)* refers to transport systems where two or more sub-systems are able to communicate. This may include vehicles that can communicate with other vehicles and/or infrastructure components. This is not a single technology, rather it is a set of technologies that can gradually contribute to more interconnected mobility systems and automation. C-ITS can help to make mobility more universally designed, by providing access to more and better information about realworld events in the system. An example of this is geofencing, which can limit access to dynamically defined zones: regulating speed and enforcing parking restrictions for electric scooters, introducing zero-emission zones etc. Another example of C-ITS are 'beacons' that can make time- and place-specific information about the mobility service available for visually impaired people.

*Micromobility* is a common term for small vehicles, including e-bikes, e-scooters and skateboards (Fearnley 2021). Some are designed to be used in mixed traffic with pedestrians. To the extent that these vehicles replace cars and vans, they can contribute to make the street space more available to softer travellers. However, when introduced to pedestrian areas, they typically increase the weight and speed of vehicles in these areas.

*E-bikes* make biking more accessible, and enable a wider segment of the population to bike further (Fyhri and Sundfør 2020). E-scooters provide access to individual motorised mobility for persons who would otherwise have less access to motorised mobility, being cheaper than taxis and private cars and more available than public transport. For persons with disabilities, issues with e-scooters are largely related to parking. That these small vehicles are left on the pavement is a problem, as they may get in the way of wheelchair users and can be a danger to the visually impaired.

*Shared micromobility* consists of bicycles, e-bikes or e-scooters that can be rented via subscriptions or on a per-trip basis. This decouples ownership and use and is expected to improve access and reduce the threshold for using the technology. Still, user surveys indicate that the majority of the users are young, wealthy, without disabilities and using the services in city centres (Fearnley et al. 2022a).

*Autonomous micromobility* represent a future iteration of small vehicles. It is still in the concept phase but has the potential to solve many of today's issues with micromobility. Having the vehicles drive autonomously may facilitate access to the service, including for the visually impaired. It may also potentially reduce the issues with misplaced bikes and e-scooters.

*Electrification* helps to make cars less polluting. By itself electrification has little effect on UD and accessibility. Still, battery electric vehicles (BEV) can serve as an illustration of how new technology is introduced to the market, without taking UD into account. The first BEVs that came on the market were only suitable to meet the needs of a small segment of the population. There were few models, with a short range, high purchase cost, and limited publicly available charging points. As the technology has become more mature, more models are available and BEV can cover a wider range of needs. Although they can replace internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE), BEVs are still cars. Charging – especially rapid charging – requires a relatively functional person to operate the charger. Moreover, driving requires a license, and the cost of owning and operating a vehicle exclude many.

*Car sharing* enables car access without having to own a car. In practical terms, car sharing reduces the barrier for each trip, compared to car renting, while still having a higher barrier than private car ownership. Car sharing can reduce car ownership, parking needs and emissions from car ownership in urban areas (Chen and Kockelman 2016). This can help free up space for other types of road users and have a positive effect on accessibility. At the same time, it is not clear how car sharing will affect city space and car ownership in the long run, since the usage patterns and motivations for participation are still under development (Julsrud and Farstad 2020). The implications of car sharing for UD are also uncertain. Car sharing is aimed at people who are able to drive cars with a standardised design and exclude people who cannot use such cars. In this way, it can be argued that car sharing may increase the differences between those who are 'inside' and 'outside' the norm. However, this line of argument seems a bit extreme.

*Ridesourcing* is one of many terms used to describe new, platform-organised, taxilike services. Other terms include transport network companies (TNCs) and ridehailing. The main effect of these services has been to make taxi travel – traditionally the most accessible form of motorised mobility – available for more people. The services are also generally perceived as safer than pre-existing services, further reducing the barriers to use (Aarhaug and Olsen 2018). The potential downside is linked to reduced scope for local authorities to regulate the supply, which may (as is the case in Norway) reduce the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (Aarhaug et al. 2020). This raises the question concerning at what level a system should be accessible. Is it sufficient to have access to some vehicles, or does every vehicle in a fleet need to be accessible? The latter would be more expensive and likely require some form of economic transfer, as the market solutions seem to focus on a narrower user segment than what UD dictates.

*Autonomous cars* have the potential to radically change the mobility system (Docherty et al. 2018, Nenseth et al. 2019). An expectation is that autonomous cars will make car-based mobility accessible to a larger part of the population. In extension, this will lead to an increase in mobility, especially for those who currently do not have access to their own car. Here, downsides include increased traffic and energy use, unless strict policies are introduced. The outcome will be highly policy dependent. Autonomous vehicles may well blur the distinction between private and public transport (Enoch 2015, Seehus et al. 2018). Automation may reduce the cost associated with providing the service, allowing public transport with higher frequency and or more flexibility for similar cost. This should increase the attractiveness of public transport relative to other modes. However, many questions relating to how autonomous vehicles will be perceived and regulated is still unanswered.

*Demand responsive transport* can be seen as closely resembling MaaS, by making a public transport service available on demand, through a potentially multimodal platform. This should point towards increased accessibility and improved UD. The potential downside is linked to the difficulty associated with communicating such services to vulnerable groups (Skartland and Skollerud 2016). In parallel to other services that rely on the automated processing of bookings, issues may arise concerning a lack of the correct tools or knowledge to order the services.

#### **2.3 Impacts of New Technology**

Common across these new technologies is that the innovations are mainly about combining existing elements and services in a new way. Here, the possibility of a better user interface through connection to smartphones has been particularly important. Looking ahead, it seems that autonomous vehicles, in addition to emissions-reducing technology, will also become increasingly important. If autonomous vehicles are used to a greater extent, it will have major consequences – both for how people think about transport and accessibility to mobility services. This is a field that is being researched, but where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

Lenz (2020) points out that in addition to the obvious gains involving better information flow and greater access to information about transport services, there are many factors related to new transport technology and smart mobility that are poorly elucidated. For example, data flow across systems presents new challenges in terms of risk, ownership and responsibility. Many aspects of new mobility technology influence different users in different ways, potentially creating new inequalities. This applies along several dimensions, and is often under-communicated. The typical user of new mobility services described by Lenz (2020) has many similarities with the typical early adapter in traditional technological transition frameworks: young, wealthy, technology-oriented and able-bodied. Depending on whether and how quickly uptake of the new technology spreads to the rest of the population, this may mean that the segment of the population that has access to mobility services becomes both larger and smaller. The optimistic expectation is that more mobility may be available to more people; the negative expectation is that the differences between people's access to mobility increase, as a result of some gaining access to better services while others retain their current mobility – or lose some of this mobility as users who can select the new services. Still, there are a number of examples of user participation in the development and implementation of new technology in the transport sector, especially related to public transport. There are also a number of technological developments that support inclusion. Examples of such technologies include navigation solutions for the visually impaired on smartphones, and contactless payment using mobile phones, which makes it possible to avoid vending machines for tickets and various forms of driver assistance. It seems that the consequences of new technology are mainly determined by how the technology is used and what frameworks and regulations are established, and not just the technology in isolation. While the opportunity space is increasing, the benefits may not necessarily reach everyone.

#### **3 New Possibilities and Challenges**

In studies of travel behaviour, an expected finding is that people with disabilities travel less than people without disabilities (Nordbakke and Schwanen 2015; Aarhaug and Gregersen 2016; Gregersen and Flotve 2021). Some of this is likely explained by correlated variables, such as lower work participation and age, but a major component includes real and perceived barriers (Lodden 2001; Nordbakke and Hansson 2009; Bjerkan et al. 2011; Aarhaug and Elvebakk 2015).

A universally designed mobility system is not a system in which small changes are made to accommodate some individuals with special needs. Rather, UD includes individual design elements that have been tailored to incorporate better accessibility, such as stepless access to public transport, real-time information, automatic or beaconbased onboard information and shelters with seats. These are elements that are highly valued by all users, irrespective of ability (Veisten et al. 2020). There is no contradiction between socio-economically sound investments and UD. However, to some extent, this is challenged by new technology.

There is a correlation between increased income and travel choice. The more affluent are increasingly choosing to travel privately (Button 2010/2014). This need not have a direct impact for UD to the extent that new offers are in addition to the existing ones. But it has the potential to have significant indirect consequences, in that it may undermine the financing models for publicly available mobility solutions, which in turn may be detrimental for universality.

#### **3.1 Concerns Related to Specific Groups**

*For people with mobility impairments*, many mobility-related innovations are good news. Access to electric bicycles can increase the mobility for those who have the opportunity to use them. Public transport services on demand enable door-to-door travel for more people, especially where the first- and last-mile trip segment has been a barrier to traveling. Increased access to car-based mobility also offers increased participation, provided that people with mobility impairments have the opportunity to take advantage of the service – in other words, that the user interface and vehicles are accessible.

*For wheelchair users*, a transition from bus-based to private-car-based offers can present a challenge, mainly through a reduction in the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles available. Another challenge is the provision of shared electric scooters and other free-floating mobility systems that can constitute physical barriers in public areas.

*For people with orientation impairments*, digitisation of information has helped to make travel experiences easier. In practical terms, digitisation of travel information means that the available information – including digital notices and automatic calls – can be (and is) disseminated across platforms and on smartphones, through beacons. Together, this makes the travel experience less intimidating. Digitalisation in a broader sense also makes access to door-to-door transportation more available. While research has identified weaknesses in the implementation of the more advanced information systems (Øksenholt and Aarhaug 2018), this constitutes minor disadvantages of a development that is mainly positive.

*For the visually impaired*, many of the mobility innovations mean increased access to door-to-door transport. This can be very helpful. The expectation is that this will be even better when autonomous transport is introduced on a larger scale. If autonomous mobility is available, several (but not all) of the mobility barriers that visually impaired people currently face will be eliminated. Digitisation and digitalisation have already helped to reduce barriers for the blind and partially sighted. A challenge for people with impaired vision is that new transport solutions, especially micromobility, mean that traffic in pedestrian areas operate at a higher pace and is carried out with heavier vehicles (electric scooters are heavier than manual scooters, electric bicycles are heavier than non-motorised bicycles etc.). This increases the risk of accidents and the severity of such accidents when they occur. In addition, several of the new transport services are only available through smartphone and app booking. This can be challenging as not all smartphones and apps have sufficient support for text-to-speech programs etc.

A structural challenge in mobility is that increased prosperity generally leads to increased use, and in particular of private transport solutions, such as the private car. This has several effects that affect UD. Directly, this means that the revenue base for the shared solutions goes down, as fewer people pay for tickets. To some extent, this can be mitigated through transfers. Targeted taxes on cars, such as urban toll roads, can create transfers from motorists to public transport users. It can also contribute to providing incentives to not travel by car and to maintaining a better public transport system than ticketing supports. At the same time, this system functions only to a limited extent as a redistribution policy (Fearnley and Aarhaug 2019) and may also have limited effects on behaviour, as it does not mitigate the underlying disadvantage faced by public transport in terms of travel time (Lunke et al. 2021; Lunke et al. 2022).

The challenge with new mobility technologies is that many have significant user cost. This can negatively affect overall mobility in two ways: 1) those who cannot afford it do not have access to the increased mobility that new technology entails; and 2) when parts of the population switch to using new mobility solutions – which are often private and user-financed – it undermines the financing of the mobility solutions on which others depend.

#### **3.2 New Mobility Technology and Universal Design**

Several aspects of new mobility technologies are challenging when compared with the policy objective of a universally designed society. How new technology affects the goal of UD is largely related to how new technology is introduced and implemented. On the one hand, new technology increases the opportunity space for actions. On the other, the ability to adopt new technology is unevenly distributed, which may leave many with reduced mobility.

The introduction of new mobility technologies can thus result in new barriers – physical, technological, economic and mental. How this turns out is not only a result of the properties with the relevant innovations, but also the policies surrounding their use. Many of the technological advances that have taken place, especially in public transport (e.g., real-time information, smartphone ticketing and stepless access) have helped to make public transport more accessible. The valuation studies also show that these are measures from which most users benefit, in support of the UD thinking (Veisten et al. 2020; Fearnley et al. 2009).

Looking at technologies that have been introduced under the label of UD in Norway from 2010 to 2020 – in particular, information systems and improved vehicle and travel chain design – these have contributed to creating a more universally designed mobility system (Aarhaug and Elvebakk 2015; Fearnley et al. 2022b). These studies focus on experience within public transport, where important components include real-time information on stops, the use of beacons and improved operator knowledge. This is a great advantage, in terms of a) providing more reliable information to those on board, with automatic stop calls and information screens; and b) through the possibility of creating smart and connected travel planners, and multimodal ticketing systems: measures that are highly valued by all passengers irrespective of impairments (Veisten et al. 2020). However, other components that have been introduced have resulted in new barriers to use. In particular, these are related to the digital skills needed when introducing smartphone or other forms of electronic ticketing (Øksenholt and Aarhaug 2018), but also a wider issue in new mobility (Uteng et al. 2019b).

As argued in this chapter, there are indications that the challenges to UD become more acute with some of the new mobility technologies being introduced. The outcome is increasingly policy dependent.

#### **4 Conclusions**

Mobility innovation facilitated by digitalisation has helped to make the mobility system – public transport, in particular – accessible to larger segments of the population. This means moving in the direction of UD. Mobility innovations is helping to facilitate this development: the result is increased mobility and the opportunity for increased community participation.

Several technologies exist as niches that can potentially contribute positively towards UD. Technologies allowing autonomous motorised means of transport in a mixed traffic system have great potential to provide better mobility for all. These technologies can help make mobility currently only accessible by motorists available to more people. This would result in a substantial increase in the opportunity space for people with disabilities. Nevertheless, it could also lead to unfavourable scenarios along other parameters, such as congestion.

Modelling shows that autonomous vehicles can contribute to reduced transport volumes (ITF-OECD 2018), but the conditions for achieving these results are often strict and unrealistic – including the ability to force users away from private mobility and to share, in a way that in day is not feasible within a democratic society. When relaxing these assumptions, the scenarios become far less attractive, from both environmental and societal perspectives (Berge 2019). The question becomes how the opportunities offered by the innovations are used.

Previous research shows that measures for UD have had great socio-economic benefits; however, the same research shows that accessibility is not necessarily something that market players prioritise without being required to do so. This prompts a set of political considerations. The legal framework – at either the national or EU level – can serve as a tool to increase the benefits to all. The actors would be forced to choose the solutions they should choose anyway, if their aim was to maximise the welfare of society.

If the objectives of UD are to be achieved, regulations must be implemented to distribute the benefits from innovations such that those outside the typical early adopter group also benefit from them. This can be achieved by requirements related to the design of new service offerings, such as linking rights to offer a service commercially with an obligation to ensure adequate accessibility, or by imposing taxes and fees on those services that cause inconvenience to others. This revenue can then be used to support the mobility needs of those in society who do not have the opportunity to directly utilize the new technology.

#### **References**

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **TRIPS: Co-design as a Method for Accessible Design in Transport**

Elvia Vasconcelos1(B) , Kristina Andersen1, Laura Alˇciauskait˙e2, Alexandra König3, Tally Hatzakis4, and Carolina Launo5

<sup>1</sup> Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands<EMAIL_ADDRESS><sup>2</sup> ENIL, Brussels, Belgium<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><sup>3</sup> German Aerospace Center, Institute of Transportation Systems, Berlin, Germany<EMAIL_ADDRESS><sup>4</sup> Trilateral Research, London, UK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><sup>5</sup> CLIConsulting, Genova, Italy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Abstract.** Co-design is an established method for ensuring a more democratic approach to design and change propositions. It is however not without friction. In this chapter we describe parts of a process aimed at co-designing inclusive transport systems. In response to the friction of putting such theory into practice, we propose a set of coping mechanisms based on participant feedback. We suggest that such mechanisms have the potential to improve the co-design process beyond this particular case.

#### **1 Introduction**

Eighty million European citizens face long-term physical, intellectual or sensory impairment (Eurostat 2019). One in four EU citizens report having a disability, characterized by limitations in performing everyday activities for a period of six months or longer (European 2018). At the same time, the group of disabled persons is very diverse, representing a wide range of access needs, concerns, abilities, and objectives.

Transport is a core aspect of independent living and a key right for everyone. However, there is still a lack of accessible transport vehicles and services (Müller and Meyer 2019), and inaccessible transport and infrastructural barriers consistently prevent persons with disabilities from actively and fully participating in society. As a consequence, people are effectively disabled from accessing job opportunities, education, social and leisure activities.

Even though it is a widely accepted fact that the people concerned should be involved in the research process the number of research projects that provide persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate in research is rather limited. There is a need for persons with disabilities to be "involved as consultants and partners not just as research subjects" (Kitchin 2000). Accordingly, Wilson (2003) recommends: "Disabled people

© The Author(s) 2023

need to be consulted in the design, delivery and implementation of accessible transport systems" (Wilson 2003). By starting a dialogue with vulnerable-to-exclusion citizens and involve hard-to-reach or excluded groups in transport planning the accessibility of transport can be improved.