![Classification of municipalities in Sweden based on population density and commuting patterns (revised from [34]). The category "Smaller towns and rural municipalities" is not included](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ellen-Lagrell/publication/354612205/figure/fig1/AS:1076714067238913@1633720046538/Classification-of-municipalities-in-Sweden-based-on-population-density-and-commuting_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Ellen Lagrell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ellen Lagrell on Oct 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Car Use of the Carless in Sweden: Everyday Life Conditions for
Reducing Car Dependence
Ellen Lagrell * and Ana Gil Solá
Citation: Lagrell, E.; Gil Solá, A. Car
Use of the Carless in Sweden:
Everyday Life Conditions for Reducing
Car Dependence. Sustainability 2021,
13, 10250. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su131810250
Academic Editor: Dimitris Potoglou
Received: 1 August 2021
Accepted: 3 September 2021
Published: 14 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Unit for Human Geography, Department of Economy and Society, School of Business, Economics, and Law,
University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; ana.gilsola@geography.gu.se
*Correspondence: ellen.lagrell@geography.gu.se
Abstract:
For the sake of reducing car dependence, much can be learned from non-car owners about
how everyday life can, and cannot, be organized without private car ownership. This study aims to
explore carless mobility, including the role of the car, in relation to specific everyday projects and
life situations. We do so through a descriptive analysis of data from the Swedish National Travel
Survey 2011–2016, comparing carless mobility with that of car owners. Theoretically, our analysis
builds on a constraints perspective with respect to mobility, which is rooted in time geography.
We find that the constraints associated with activities and life situations seem to matter for how
mobility is performed and for the feasibility of living a carless life. Managing the material flows of
the household (for example, buying food and disposing of waste) is a project handled differently
by non-car owners, through using nearby services and with a low degree of car use. On the other
hand, our data suggest that maintaining social relations is car dependent and can potentially be more
problematic for the carless. Moreover, an individual’s social network itself seems to be an important
source of occasional car access. Results also indicate that the life situations of individuals may affect
the mobility implications of carlessness, and the largest effect on trip frequency is found among
carless retirees. From a planning perspective, and with the ambition to reduce private car use, this
study identifies significant value in considering the different contexts of everyday life in which car
use may or may not occur.
Keywords:
car use; carless; non-car owners; everyday mobility; sustainable mobility; time geogra-
phy; constraints
1. Introduction
Excessive car use strongly contributes to a series of societal problems. In addition to
congestion and local air pollution, car traffic is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases,
and Swedish authorities establish that in order to reach national targets on reducing cli-
mate impacts from the transport sector, a reduction in road traffic will be necessary [
1
].
Particularly in cities, reductions in car use also have the potential to promote well-being
and the allocation of space for more sustainable purposes [
2
]. Furthermore, the prece-
dence of private car travel has socially excluding effects, circumscribing many non-car
owners and enforcing expensive car ownership on others. Hence, in parallel with vehicle
development and planning-oriented strategies, such as densification and development of
transit services [
3
], a transition from ownership to access of transport means appears to be
a necessary part of the solution to these problems.
Enabling such a transition calls for novel ways of thinking about mobility in relation
to the context of everyday life, and much can be learned from those who presently do not
own cars (here referred to as the carless) about how life can be organized without private
car ownership. This paper takes an interest in the carless to gain insights into when non-car
mobility is manageable, and the situations in which car access may remain necessary.
Carlessness and mobility have been extensively studied [
4
–
8
] (cf. Section 2.1), but
mainly in terms of mobility in general and as related to the residential environment. Fewer
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810250 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 2 of 19
have considered how mobility is performed by the carless in relation to the constraints
imposed by everyday activities and life situations. In an intensive study of mobility
practices and accessibility strategies among voluntarily carless families with children in
Gothenburg, Sweden [
9
], we saw that the conditions of carlessness are highly situated
regarding the activities of everyday life. We found that mobility demands varied between
activities: sometimes the use of nearby services and careful coordination were key, while
for other activities, the car played a role, and the carless shared, rented, or borrowed a car,
or relied on other peoples’ car use [
9
]. These case-based results pose questions about carless
mobility, including the role of the car, in relation to the everyday context of activities and
varying life situations in the wider population. Probing these questions may give a fuller
picture of the sufficiency of non-car mobility, as well as when car dependence renders the
car necessary in everyday life.
In this study, we investigate the daily mobility of carless individuals in Sweden, and
relate it to the contexts of everyday life by scrutinizing specific activities and life situations.
Theoretically, the study builds on a constraints perspective on mobility, rooted in time-
geography. In this perspective, which is further explained in Section 3of the paper, mobility
is seen in the context of the temporal and spatial constraints in which people and their
everyday activities are embedded. Such constraints arise from life conditions and the
geographic setting of the individual, but also from the spatial and temporal fixities of
activities. Through this lens, we see the car use of carless individuals as a reflection of car
dependence (i.e., an adjustment to mobility constraints).
Our purpose is to explore carless mobility patterns, including the occurrence of car use,
in relation to different everyday life contexts. Such an investigation may uncover potentials
for reducing car use as well as situations in which car access may remain necessary. Using
data from the Swedish National Travel Survey 2011–2016, we scrutinize mobility in relation
to (i) important everyday projects in the adult carless population, and (ii) three groups
of carless expected to be subject to different sets of constraints due to their life situations:
young adults, parents with children at home, and retirees. To better understand the mobility
of the carless, we compare it with that of car owners. The following research questions
guide our study:
1.
In comparison with car owners, which are the mobility patterns of carless Swedes in
relation to specific everyday projects and life situations?
2.
In relation to these specific everyday projects and life situations, to what extent is the
car used by the carless?
2. Theoretical Context
2.1. Previous Research on Carlessness and Everyday Mobility
The research field of carlessness and mobility is relatively small, mainly analysing
dimensions such as trip frequency, trip distance, and travel time. As expected, the carless
are generally less mobile than car owners [
4
–
6
]. In the UK, the carless in total made about
73% as many trips as did car owners, trips of the carless being on average 68% as long [
6
].
In the USA, the carless made 77% as many trips as did “low-owners” (i.e., <1 car per adult
in the household) and 64% as many trips as did high-owners (i.e., 1+ cars per adult in the
household) [
5
]. It is also found that car use is prevalent among the carless for 29% of trips
in the U.S [5].
To investigate car use practices not based on private car ownership, Lovejoy [
5
]
analysed US National Travel Survey data focusing on car use and mobility in different
carless groups, and comparing with car owners. The results indicated that in denser
residential environments, the carless’ mobility was more similar to that of car owners.
Furthermore, Lovejoy [
5
] found that the mobility implications of carlessness, as well as
opportunities for car access, differed between different groups. While carless individuals
in their 70s and 80s made 40% and 50%, respectively, of their trips in cars, they had the
largest mobility deficit among the age groups. On the other hand, the 18–24-year-old age
group, displaying a similar share of car use, had no mobility deficit compared with car
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 3 of 19
owners. Overall, carless women used cars more often and made more total trips than did
carless men [5].
Car use and mobility among the carless has also been found to vary depending on
the activity setting. Lovejoy [
5
] found car use among carless individuals to be the highest
for religious activities and activities classed as social/recreational [
5
]. These results are
in line with an interview study of voluntarily carless families in Gothenburg, Sweden [
8
],
showing that some social activities give rise to car use. However, in the Gothenburg study,
shopping activities seemed to be managed quite smoothly using other transportation
modes and online services [
9
]. This is not the case in the US, where the carless was found
to experience hardship in mobility related to shopping [
5
,
10
]. In a mixed-methods study of
mobility practices among residents in car-free housing developments in Switzerland and
Germany, Baehler [
11
] found car use to be very infrequent, less than once per month for
most households. When car use did occur and was not for professional reasons, the most
common reasons were shopping for big or heavy things, leisure, and visiting relatives and
friends [
12
]. The literature demonstrates that the consequences of carlessness on trips for a
given activity, such as shopping, can differ between geographical contexts.
In the carlessness and mobility research field, carlessness is often viewed in terms of
two important and deeply interrelated aspects: the influence of the residential environment
on the occurrence of carlessness (and the mobility implications thereof), and whether
carlessness is voluntary or enforced. Analysing the British National Travel Survey for
the years 2002–2010, Mattioli [
6
] found that the composition of carless people, as well as
the mobility implications of carlessness, varied with residential environment. In more
sparsely populated areas with less access to transit, carless individuals were more socially
marginalized and the mobility gap was larger between the carless and car owners [
6
].
Similarly, King et al. [
13
] found carlessness to be less associated with poverty in the less car-
oriented, pre-war-built New York district of Manhattan than in the rest of the USA. These
results indicate that carless individuals residing in city centres are more often voluntarily
carless than are rural residents. Developing this theme, Mitra and Saphores [
7
,
8
] used
the California Household Travel Survey from 2012, which explicitly probed the cause of
carlessness, to analyse the consequences of carlessness being voluntary or involuntary.
They found that voluntarily carless individuals resided in denser, more varied and walkable
areas with better access to transit than did the involuntarily carless. The same dataset
was used by Brown [
4
], who also found that voluntary carlessness was associated with
fewer mobility consequences in terms of trip distance and frequency than was carlessness
enforced for economic, health, or driving ability reasons. Mitra and Saphores [
8
] have
also established that the trips of involuntarily carless households take more time than
those of voluntarily carless households, which is likely a further consequence of observed
differences in the residential environment. From these findings we can establish that
involuntary rather than voluntary carlessness increases mobility disadvantage, and that
this is related to car dependence enforced by the built environment.
To sum up, we know a fair amount about the importance of the built environment,
and about the association between social disadvantage and carlessness. However, our
knowledge of the travel patterns of carless individuals in relation to the everyday life
context is scanter, and this study contributes with such knowledge. It can help to identify
possible enablers and barriers to reducing car dependence. Furthermore, as illustrated
by this overview, much existing research into carlessness was conducted in an American
context. The importance of the built environment and of the organization of society together
call for attention to carless mobility in a wider range of geographic contexts. We answer
this call by contributing insights from the Scandinavian setting of Sweden.
2.2. Conceptual Framework: Daily Mobility and Constraints
To analyse mobility in relation to the contexts of everyday life, we focus on the
constraints that surround individuals and their activities. The notion of constraints stems
from time-geographic thinking [
14
] and relates to the degrees of temporal and spatial fixity
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 4 of 19
of activities [
15
] as well as to individual conditions. Hägerstrand [
14
] organized constraints
in three aggregate groups central to time-geography in its application to daily mobility.
Capacity constraints are the cognitive and physical abilities of the individual, as well as
the tools available to extend individual reach. Hence, apart from bodily capacity, access
to mobility resources such as vehicles and, by extension, the economic means to acquire
them are formative of capacity constraints. Coupling constraints concern the need to bring
individuals and/or material objects together for the performance of activities. It may be the
need for ingredients to prepare a meal, the dependent relationship between children and
parents and the associated requirements for coordination, or the need to gather colleagues
for a meeting at work. Authority constraints essentially arise from power relations [
16
] and
comprise the rules, institutions, and norms controlling who may be in a certain place and
when. Authority constraints may be explicit, such as the rules of traffic, office hours, or the
opening hours of a convenience store; however, they may also arise from social norms and
emotions, such as the notion of not “fitting in” somewhere or the fear of traversing certain
places at night. Constraints are relational and stem from complex, multiple circumstances
related, among others, to activities and life situations which are the foci of this paper.
2.2.1. Activities and Projects
In time-geographic thinking, mobility is understood in relation to the activities in
which people engage [
17
] to realize their projects. Whether activities need to be performed
in a given place at a given time—their degree of fixity in time and space—vary, affecting
the conditions for mobility. Furthermore, some activities are mandatory while some are
discretionary, which is a further aspect of their degree of fixity [
18
]. Projects, in turn, imply
certain goals, aspirations, and intentions of various scopes [
17
]. In our study, we group
common activities into central everyday projects: work or school, managing material flows,
maintaining social relations, and leisure.
The activities within the work or school projects are often routinely and regularly
performed. They are typically mandatory and associated with a high degree of fixity in
both time and space, although flexibility is increasing in some types of professions through
telework and flexible working hours [
19
,
20
], not least during the Covid19-pandemic.
The routinized, high-priority character of many work and school activities makes them
anchor-points in the organization of everyday life around which other, more flexible and
discretionary activities may be arranged [
21
]. They are what Cullen and Godson [
22
],
elaborating on Hägerstrand’s ideas, have called pegs: “Activities to which the individual is
strongly committed and which are both space and time fixed tend to act as pegs around
which the ordering of other activities is arranged and shuffled according to their flexibility
ratings” [
22
] (p. 9). Hence, related mobility is prioritized to function smoothly and
sometimes at the cost of other activities.
Project activities related to the household’s flows of material (i.e., the movement
of things due to, for instance, the acquisition and disposal of consumer goods) can be
described as routinized without being particularly fixed. Many such activities, as for
instance shopping for groceries or disposing of used packaging for recycling, are much
more flexible in time and space than are work or school activities. Material flow activities
can therefore potentially be arranged around other projects, such as the anchor-points of
work, school, and the home. However, trips related to managing material flows often
include transporting objects that can be many, heavy, and/or bulky. This entails coupling
constraints, but also renders capacity constraints stemming from physical abilities and
access to various means of transport important for this project. Mattioli et al. [
23
] noted that
such trips can be car dependent as the “cargo function of the car” may be hard to replace.
Earlier research indicates that car use increases with the flexibility of activities, and
that activities unrelated to work, education, and household maintenance, during what
may be called free time, can be assumed to be the most flexible [
18
]. In this paper, we
deliberately distinguish between leisure activities and maintaining social relations, to
explore any differences that could be ascribed to coupling constraints. The project that we
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 5 of 19
define as maintaining social relations includes activities whose main purpose is getting
together with friends and family or escorting others. These activities are presumably much
less routinized than are work, school, or material flow activities, and are more flexible than
those pertaining to work or school. However, maintaining social relations requires adapting
to the constraints, mobility resources, and preferences of others. Therefore, trips related
to maintaining social relations can be a challenge for the carless [
9
], and may be handled
through relying on the car-based mobility of others, adapting through borrowing or renting
a car, or simply avoiding some of these activities. Leisure, entailing a great variety of
activities, such as hobbies, visiting cafés, physical exercise, and cultural activities, can
also be assumed to be much more flexible than work/school and material flow activities.
Furthermore, leisure activities can be expected to be spatially more adjustable to anchor-
points. For instance, a location for physical exercise, such as a gym, park, or training club,
may be chosen in relation to the home or workplace. Still other aspects may affect the fixity
of leisure activities, such as their degree of sociality or the influence of social norms and
related expectations of mobility. These aspects can be prevalent, for instance, in relation to
children’s free-time activities [9].
2.2.2. Life Situations and Constraints
The fixity of activities, and related constraints, are not independent from the context
in which the activities are performed [
15
]. An important aspect of this context is the indi-
vidual’s life situation. Though the life situation is undeniably unique for each individual,
some aspects may be common on a group level and over the life cycle. In this study, we
consider the constraints posed by the life situation by taking a closer look at the mobility
of carless young adults, parents, and retirees. Being a parent typically entails coupling
constraints due to the responsibility for one’s children [
24
], and this is a life situation that
has been associated with car use [
25
] and ownership [
26
]. Being a non-parent young adult,
on the other hand, may imply fewer coupling constraints but more capacity constraints, in
terms of economic resources, before one is established on the labor market. Furthermore,
reductions over time in mobility patterns as well as car ownership and use among the
young have been noted in several western countries [
27
–
29
]. Being a retiree entails few
coupling constraints, but is more likely associated with capacity constraints in terms of
economic resources and, with age, physical ability. The transition to retirement is in fact
associated with changed mobility patterns [
30
], and car ownership has shown to be lower
in retiree households [
26
]. Yet, retirees in Sweden travel more today than a few decades
ago [31].
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Databases and Geographic Selection
Our analysis is descriptive and based on the Swedish National Travel Survey, con-
ducted annually during the years 2011–2016, with just over 64,000 respondents and
120,000 trips in total [
32
]. Since the carless share of the population is relatively small,
we use pooled data for these years to increase robustness of the analysis. The data com-
prise detailed information about individuals (e.g., gender, age, car ownership, education,
and employment) and households (e.g., income, children, and housing). It also includes
information about the trips made on the day studied (for example, trip purpose, means
of transportation, and distance). The data were collected via telephone interviews with
individuals aged 6–84 years. The response rate declined over the years from 43 percent
in 2011 to 32 percent in 2016. The main reason for non-response was that the respondents
could not be reached during the interview period [33].
Except for the introductory review of the carless in Sweden, which included all types
of municipalities (Section 3.3), our analysis refers to the adult population residing in non-
rural Sweden, divided into urban and semi-urban municipalities (Figure 1). However,
the “urban” designation should be seen as highly contextual, as Sweden is considerably
more sparsely populated than most other European countries. We base our geographic
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 6 of 19
delimitation on the classification of the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and
Regions [
34
] and exclude municipalities classed as small towns and rural municipalities.
This selection excludes municipalities where a carless life is probably associated with
isolation, for which the residential environment has been shown to be important [
4
,
6
], but
without focusing solely on the major cities. According to the 2011–2016 survey, only 10 per
cent of the Swedish carless population resided in the rural municipalities excluded from
this study, while 20 per cent of the population as a whole lives in these municipalities.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
to 32 percent in 2016. The main reason for non-response was that the respondents could
not be reached during the interview period [33].
Except for the introductory review of the carless in Sweden, which included all types
of municipalities (Section 3.3), our analysis refers to the adult population residing in non-
rural Sweden, divided into urban and semi-urban municipalities (Figure 1). However, the
“urban” designation should be seen as highly contextual, as Sweden is considerably more
sparsely populated than most other European countries. We base our geographic delimi-
tation on the classification of the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
[34] and exclude municipalities classed as small towns and rural municipalities. This se-
lection excludes municipalities where a carless life is probably associated with isolation,
for which the residential environment has been shown to be important [4,6], but without
focusing solely on the major cities. According to the 2011–2016 survey, only 10 per cent of
the Swedish carless population resided in the rural municipalities excluded from this
study, while 20 per cent of the population as a whole lives in these municipalities.
Figure 1. Classification of municipalities in Sweden based on population density and commuting
patterns (revised from
[34]
). The category “Smaller towns and rural municipalities” is not included
in the analysis. Geo data: Sweden Map, © Lantmäteriet.
3.2. Use of Variables
The basic unit of our analysis is trips made by members of non-car-owning house-
holds. Our research questions are answered through descriptive bivariate analyses, and
through basic logistic regression analysis to support our findings (see Figure 2 for an il-
lustration of the research procedure). The variables used to analyse mobility are modal split
(i.e., walking, cycling, public transport, car, and other modes), trip distance (i.e., median
kilometres), trip chaining (i.e., mean number of trip units per trip), and trip frequency (i.e.,
mean number of trips per person and day). The share of car use in the modal split, in com-
bination with trip frequency as a measure of activity participation, is used as a proxy for
car dependence. We also analyse how non-car owners gain access to cars, and their roles
as drivers and passengers, indicating forms of non-private car use in relation to the con-
straints of everyday life.
Stockholm
Gothenburg
Malmö
Figure 1.
Classification of municipalities in Sweden based on population density and commuting
patterns (revised from [
34
]). The category “Smaller towns and rural municipalities” is not included
in the analysis. Geo data: Sweden Map, © Lantmäteriet.
3.2. Use of Variables
The basic unit of our analysis is trips made by members of non-car-owning households.
Our research questions are answered through descriptive bivariate analyses, and through
basic logistic regression analysis to support our findings (see Figure 2for an illustration of
the research procedure). The variables used to analyse mobility are modal split (i.e., walking,
cycling, public transport, car, and other modes), trip distance (i.e., median kilometres), trip
chaining (i.e., mean number of trip units per trip), and trip frequency (i.e., mean number
of trips per person and day). The share of car use in the modal split, in combination
with trip frequency as a measure of activity participation, is used as a proxy for car
dependence. We also analyse how non-car owners gain access to cars, and their roles as
drivers and passengers, indicating forms of non-private car use in relation to the constraints
of everyday life.
The term carless refers to individuals who are part of households with no car in use.
To contextualize the mobility of the carless, we compare it with that of car owners, defined
as individuals who are part of households with one or more cars in use. Through this
comparison, we expect to illuminate when the mobility patterns of the carless and car
owners are consistent and whether they deviate in certain contexts. Such deviations can
point to contexts in which the carless arrange the activities of everyday life to cope with
their mobility resources. The contexts we refer to are: (1) everyday projects and (2) life
situations, as illustrated in the theoretical section. In analysing everyday projects, we
cluster trip purposes (i.e., activities) into four overarching projects (Table 1). Life situations
are defined based on variables pertaining to individuals, representing various sets of
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 7 of 19
constraints (Table 1). The classifications of projects and life situations are based on our
theoretical framework, previous research, and exploration of the dataset. The purpose of
relating mobility to these contexts is to grasp the interplay of mobility and constraints, and
the role of the car in everyday life.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Figure 2. Research procedure. CF, Conceptual framework; RQ, Research question.
The term carless refers to individuals who are part of households with no car in use.
To contextualize the mobility of the carless, we compare it with that of car owners, defined
as individuals who are part of households with one or more cars in use. Through this
comparison, we expect to illuminate when the mobility patterns of the carless and car
owners are consistent and whether they deviate in certain contexts. Such deviations can
point to contexts in which the carless arrange the activities of everyday life to cope with
their mobility resources. The contexts we refer to are: (1) everyday projects and (2) life
situations, as illustrated in the theoretical section. In analysing everyday projects, we clus-
ter trip purposes (i.e., activities) into four overarching projects (Table 1). Life situations
are defined based on variables pertaining to individuals, representing various sets of con-
straints (Table 1). The classifications of projects and life situations are based on our theo-
retical framework, previous research, and exploration of the dataset. The purpose of re-
lating mobility to these contexts is to grasp the interplay of mobility and constraints, and
the role of the car in everyday life.
Table 1. Analyzed everyday projects, including defining activities and number of observed trips for carless and car owners.
Analyzed life groups, including defining variables, number of individuals, and number of observed trips for carless and
car owners.
Project Defining Activities in the NTS Number of Observed Trips
Carless Car Owners
Work or school
Work 2528 16,685
School 593 960
Total 3121 17,645
Figure 2. Research procedure. CF, Conceptual framework; RQ, Research question.
For the bivariate analyses, confidence intervals were calculated. Significant differ-
ences at 95%-level between carless and car-owners are marked in the tables. Significant
differences between project and life situation groups are not marked in tables, however
only significant differences are mentioned in the text if not explicitly indicated.
Finally, a logistic regression analysis serves to strengthen our findings. The dependent
variable of this analysis is car trips (made by non-car owners), and we aim to explain
which independent variables related to the individual, her environment, and everyday life
projects exert significant influence in a joint analysis. As several independent variables
are correlated (i.e., limit set to 0.3 in Pearson’s correlation test), they are included in three
separate models. In each model, only variables with no or very weak correlations are
included. By using different models, we ensure that every independent variable is tested
at least once. Since this is a logistic regression analysis, in order to describe the model fit
we look at the Nagelkerke R2-value.
To refine the analysis, we exclude specific variables and values. Vacation trips are
excluded from the analysis for two reasons. First, they are not interpreted as part of the
everyday life context considered here. Second, they generate extreme values of the trip
distance variable. Furthermore, the upper limit for the age interval of retirees was set to
80 years, as capacity constraints from physical disabilities are expected to increase with
age, greatly affecting mobility and activity participation.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 8 of 19
Table 1.
Analyzed everyday projects, including defining activities and number of observed trips for carless and car owners.
Analyzed life groups, including defining variables, number of individuals, and number of observed trips for carless and
car owners.
Project Defining Activities in the NTS Number of Observed Trips
Carless Car Owners
Work or school
Work 2528 16,685
School 593 960
Total 3121 17,645
Material flow
Grocery shopping 1792 7891
Other purchases 974 5813
Fetching or delivering things 176 1289
Total 2942 14,993
Maintaining social
relations
Escorting/picking up another person 235 4900
Family and friends 1267 6114
Total 1502 11,014
Leisure
(vacations excluded)
Hobbies, music practice, study circles, courses 123 714
Restaurants and cafés 580 2110
Physical exercise: sports, walking, etc. 1590 9922
Entertainment, culture: parties, concerts, movies, etc. 462 1986
Club activities, religious practice 89 740
Other leisure activities 144 1088
Total 2988 16,560
Group Defining Variables in the NTS Number of Individuals Number of Observed Trips
Carless Car Owners Carless Car Owners
Young adults
Aged 18–30 years
No children
Not living with parents
1512 1432 3905 4064
Parents with children at
home
Aged > 18 years
Parents
Children aged 0–18 living at home
710 8613 1706 26,987
Retirees Aged 65–80 years
Not employed 1528 6219 2252 13,477
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Adult, non-rural population.
Some data shortcomings delimited the study. Although the non-weighted number
of trips by carless individuals is sufficient for our analysis, the sample is too small for
more complex scrutiny. An initial intention was to investigate the intersection between
projects and life situations to answer questions regarding, for instance, how carless parents
handle specific everyday projects. However, the data did not allow for such a fine-grained
analysis. The complexity of such dimensions will require more in-depth methods. The
data set the same limitation on our ability to thoroughly scrutinize the car trips made by
non-car owners in relation to more detailed project categories.
3.3. Empirical Context: The Carless Swede
An overview of the socioeconomic and demographic composition of the carless pop-
ulation, and how this has changed over time, serves as a backdrop to our analysis. The
overview is based on data from the 2011–2016 Swedish National Travel Survey, and change
over time is analyzed through a comparison with the 1994–1999 survey. Currently, adults
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 9 of 19
in carless households represent 17 per cent of the adult Swedish population. Overall,
several important aspects related to individuals and their environment are associated with
carlessness. Being carless is more common among young adults, followed by individu-
als aged 65 years and older, than among the two middle-aged groups. There is a slight
overrepresentation of carless individuals among women and the disabled, and a clear
overrepresentation among the non-employed. Variables capturing individuals’ resources
in terms of income and driving license possession are clearly associated with carlessness.
Also, the residential environment seems to be important at both the regional and local
scales, as carlessness increases with population density at the municipal level, and is sev-
eral times more common in apartment blocks than in single- or dual-family housing. The
importance of the residential environment reflects the findings of previously cited studies
in Europe [
6
] and the USA [
4
,
7
] showing that the more sparsely populated and farther
from urban centres a residential environment is located, the more likely carlessness is to be
associated with social exclusion. As for family composition, singles without children are
the group with the largest share of carless individuals, followed by singles with children.
Co-habitants, with or without children, are rarely carless.
Comparison of the carless population in the periods 1994–1999 and 2011–2016 offers
insights into changes over time. As levels of car ownership increased in Sweden and
globally over the period, the reasons for and consequences of carlessness can be expected to
have shifted somewhat. From Table 2, we see that the importance of population density at
the municipality level increased over time. Meanwhile, the role of gender, unemployment
and low income slightly decreased. Most clearly, however, carlessness increased among
young adults and decreased strongly among individuals aged 65 years and older.
This reflects a change in life situation in both groups, as found in previous research.
Frändberg and Vilhelmson [
35
] discussed potentially important trends that may affect and
postpone car use among young Swedes: longer education, delayed start of career and
family formation, weaker economic conditions, and a greater tendency to settle in cities.
Results from Norway also indicate that the decrease in driving license possession among
young adults is particularly pronounced in urban environments [
29
]. Furthermore, the
trend seen in the older segment of non-car owners reflects earlier research showing that car
ownership has increased among older people in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark [31].
Table 2.
Share of carless (%) in the adult population: different socioeconomic and demographic groups for the periods
1994–1999 and 2011–2016.
Variable and Class 1994–1999 2011–2016 Change Over Time (% Points)
Age, years
18–29 28.4 31.5 3.2 *
30–49 13.8 12.5 –1.4
50–64 11.7 11.4 –0.3
65+ 35.4 17.9 –17.5 *
Sex Woman 25.1 19.2 –5.9 *
Man 16.1 14.6 –1.5
Driver’s license Yes 12.0 11.5 –0.5
No 57.0 53.5 –3.5 *
Gainfully employed Yes 12.3 12.7 0.4
No 33.5 24.5 –9.0 *
Disability ** Yes - 21.4 -
No - 15.4 -
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 10 of 19
Table 2. Cont.
Variable and Class 1994–1999 2011–2016 Change Over Time (% Points)
Density in the residential
environment (H-region) ***
Stockholm region 30.9 27.8 –3.1 *
Malmö region 26.4 23.2 –3.2 *
Gothenburg region 24.3 21.9 –2.4
Medium-sized city regions 19.1 14.0 –5.1 *
Small city regions 13.9 8.7 –5.2 *
Small towns/rural regions 12.9 10.4 –2.5 *
Remote rural regions 15.3 8.0 –7.3 *
Type of housing Single or dual family 6.9 4.1 –2.8 *
Apartment block 39.2 36.0 –3.2 *
Individual income (quartiles)
Low 32.8 29.2 –3.6 *
Medium-low 20.9 14.8 –6.1 *
Medium-high 13.2 10.9 –2.3
High 7.7 7.7 0.0
Household income (quartiles) **
Low - 41.0 -
Medium-low - 13.9 -
Medium-high - 5.6 -
High - 4.4 -
Family composition
Single with no children at home 51.7 44.2 –7.4 *
Single with children at home 35.6 28.4 –7.1 *
Cohabiting with partner and no children
10.5 8.5 –2.1 *
Cohabiting with partner and children 6.1 5.2 –0.9
Entire population 20.7 16.9 –3.8 *
Number of observations 7084 6911
Source: Riks RVU/RES 1994–1999 and RVU 2011–2016. Weighted values, adult population, all types of municipalities.* Statistically
significant difference at p< 0.05. ** Data are missing for physical disabilities and household income in the 1994–1999 survey.*** Listed in
order of declining density; density refers to population/km2[36].
Our overview shows that the Swedish carless population is diverse, although certain
socioeconomic and demographic groups are overrepresented. Several aspects (related
to the individual and her environment) influence car ownership, and their importance
changes over time. In the next section, we analyse how these, and other aspects of everyday
life, affect mobility patterns and car use.
4. Results
4.1. Introduction
To investigate the mobility patterns of carless individuals in relation to the everyday
context of projects and life situations, we compare their trips with those of car owners. In
doing so, our analysis first turns to mobility in relation to specific everyday life projects,
and continues by focusing on mobility patterns in different life situations. We then analyse
car use and means of gaining access to cars among the carless, in relation to the everyday
contexts of projects and life situations.
4.2. Mobility and the Projects of Everyday Life
As shown in Table 3, carless individuals make shorter and fewer trips and do more trip
chaining than car owners do. While shorter trips indicate reliance on nearby destinations,
more trip chaining suggests a higher degree of multimodality and activity coordination.
Walking and public transport are the most widely used modes, while cycling and driving
each represent just over a tenth of the total trips. However, looking more closely at the
projects of work or school,managing material flows,maintaining social relations, and leisure
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 11 of 19
brings further nuance to the pattern. We find that carless mobility, as well as the differences
between carless individuals and car owners, varies between projects. For travelling to work
or school, which is a relatively car-dependent project for car owners, public transportation
predominates among the carless, mainly complemented by walking and cycling. This is
the project in which the bicycle appears to play the most important role. The work/school
trips are among the longest made by the carless, yet they are less than half as long as the
equivalent trips made by car owners. For both groups, work/school is the project entailing
the most trip chaining of all types of studied projects.
Table 3. Mobility and everyday projects of carless and car owners.
All Individuals
and Activities Work or School Material Flows Social Relations Leisure Activities
Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners
Mode
(% of trips for
the project)
Walking 40 * 19 23 * 9 52 * 17 30 * 11 58 * 44
Bike 12 * 7 20 * 12 10 * 5 5 5 11 * 7
Public
transport 34 * 8 48 * 16 24 * 4 39 * 5 22 * 5
Car 12 * 63 7 * 62 13 * 74 24 * 77 8 * 42
Other modes 2 * 2 2 * 1 1 * 0 2 1 2 2
Trip distance
(Km/trip, median) 3.0 5.0 4.0 9.0 1.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 2.5 4.0
Trip chaining
(Number of trip units/trip, mean) 1.6 * 1.3 1.9 * 1.5 1.4 * 1.3 1.6 * 1.2 1.3 * 1.2
Trip frequency
(Number of trips/day and person,
mean)
2.0 * 2.6 0.6 * 0.7 0.4 * 0.5 0.2 * 0.4 0.5 * 0.6
Number of observed trips
(unweighted) 12,588 73,799 3121 17,645 2942 14,993 1525 11,228 2988 16,560
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Trips made by adult, non-rural population. Weighted values. * Statistically significant difference at p< 0.05,
comparing carless and car-owners.
Managing material flows of the household is the project for which the carless as well
as car owners make the shortest trips, though that is not equally reflected in the car use of
the two groups. For car owners, it is a highly car-dependent project, while for the carless,
walking predominates. Also, the difference in trip frequency is small between carless and
car owners for this project.
The most car-dependent project for both groups is maintaining social relations. Along-
side work and school, maintaining social relations also entails the longest trips. Further-
more, maintaining social relations entails the largest differences between the carless and
car owners in trip chaining and frequency.
Leisure is the project for which carless mobility is most similar to that of car owners
in terms of trip distance, trip frequency, and trip chaining, and the level of car use is
consistently low.
Whereas public transport plays an important role in accomplishing the anchor-point
project of work or school, active modes (i.e., walking and biking) predominate for the more
temporally flexible material flow and leisure projects. Maintaining social relations appears
to be the most car dependent of the projects analysed here.
4.3. Mobility and Life Situations
Adding to the context of everyday life are the constraints imposed by life situation
(Table 4). We identify three groups of carless individuals with differing sets of such
constraints: young adults,parents with children at home, and retirees.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 12 of 19
Table 4. Mobility and life situation of carless and car owners.
All Individuals and
Activities Young Adults Parents with Children at
Home Retirees
Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners
Mode
(% of trips made by
the group)
Walking 40 * 19 32 * 20 46 * 18 51 * 26
Bike 12 * 7 15 * 7 11 * 8 10 * 5
Public transport 34 * 8 35 * 10 30 * 7 27 * 5
Car 12 * 63 16 * 60 10 * 66 11 * 64
Other modes 2 * 2 3 3 2 1 2 * 1
Trip distance
(Km/trip, median)
3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.0 4.0
Trip chaining
(Number of trip units/trip, mean)
1.6 * 1.3 1.7 * 1.3 1.6 * 1.3 1.4 * 1.2
Trip frequency
(Number of trips/day and person, mean)
2.0 * 2.6 2.3 * 2.8 2.3 * 2.9 1.4 * 2.1
Number of observed trips (non-weighted) 12,588 73,799 3905 4064 1706 26,987 2252 13,477
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Trips made by adult, non-rural population. Weighted values. * Statistically significant difference at p< 0.05,
comparing carless and car-owners.
Carless young adults are the group whose mobility in terms of trip distance and
frequency differ the least from that of the corresponding car-owning group. Compared
with the other carless groups, they have a more even modal split, travel farther, and do
slightly more trip chaining.
Carless parents walk more and make considerably shorter trips than do car-owning
parents. Furthermore, it is notable that the car-owning groups of parents and young adults
have very similar patterns in all dimensions of mobility considered here, while among the
carless, parents walk more and make shorter trips. As the age groups of young adults and
parents overlap somewhat, this observation suggests that the responsibilities of parenthood
affects the mobility patterns of carless parents.
Carless retirees are the group most often travelling on foot, doing so for half of their
daily trips; they also make the shortest trips and do the least trip chaining. This pattern
suggests that access to nearby services may be of great importance for carless retirees.
Furthermore, the trip frequencies of this group are the lowest among the carless, and differ
the most from those of the corresponding car-owning group.
In sum, our findings suggest that the mobility implications of carlessness may differ
depending on life situation. Although carlessness affects mobility in all three groups, the
trips made by young adults appear to be the least affected by carlessness, while the activity
spaces of carless parents are quite strongly reduced in terms of trip distances. The largest
carless effect on trip frequency is found among retirees.
4.4. Forms of Non-Ownership Car Use and Car Dependence in Everyday Life
We have thus far elaborated on carless mobility in relation to everyday life projects
and life situations, and how it differs from, or resembles, that of car owners. We note
that the car does play a role in the mobility of the carless, even though they do not own
one—a seemingly paradoxical circumstance illustrating the role of the car in everyday life.
We therefore take a closer look at how the carless acquire access to cars through forms
of non-ownership car use (Tables 5and 6). This description is followed by a regression
analysis controlling for the aspects of everyday life correlated with car use among non-car
owners—a proxy for car dependence in the everyday context.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 13 of 19
Table 5. Shared car use and everyday projects, carless and car owners.
All Individuals and
Activities Work or School Material Flows Maintaining Social
Relations Leisure Activities
Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners Carless Car
Owners
Form of
access (%
of car
trips)
Car owned by
co-passenger 50 * 4 45 * 2 51 * 2 53 * 5 64 * 9
Borrowed car 21 * 1 23 * 0 28 * 1 24 * 1 17 * 0
Own car ** 1 * 92 0 * 94 1 * 96 0 * 93 2 * 89
Other access *** 28 * 4 32 * 4 21 * 1 23 * 1 16 * 2
Role (% of
car trips)
Driver 39 * 83 47 * 93 42 * 81 40 * 79 29 * 73
Passenger 61 * 17 53 * 7 58 * 19 60 * 21 71 * 27
Number of observed trips
(non-weighted) 1591 46,820 225 11,167 369 10,897 387 8835 273 6871
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Trips made by adult, non-rural population. Weighted values.* Statistically significant difference at p< 0.05,
comparing carless and car-owners. ** Own car refers to a car that is not borrowed or owned by a co-passenger, and does not fall within the
definition of other access. *** Other access: Taxi transport for the disabled, taxi, rental car, employer ’s car, other car, unknown form of
ownership.
Table 6. Shared car use and life situation, carless and car owners.
All Individuals and
Activities Young Adults Parents with Children Retirees
Carless Car Owners Carless Car Owners Carless Car Owners Carless Car Owners
Form of
access (% of
car trips)
Car owned by
co-passenger 50 * 4 44 * 10 43 * 2 58 * 4
Borrowed car 21 * 1 28 * 2 25 * 0 7 * 0
Own car ** 1 * 92 0 * 80 4 * 94 0 * 95
Other access *** 28 * 4 28 * 7 27 * 3 35 * 1
Role (% of car
trips)
Driver 39 * 83 48 * 78 45 * 86 13 * 75
Passenger 61 * 17 52 * 22 55 * 14 87 * 25
Number of observed trips
(non-weighted) 1591 46,820 600 2387 205 18,157 241 8410
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Trips made by adult, non-rural population. Weighted values. * Statistically significant difference at p< 0.05,
comparing carless and car-owners. ** Own car refers to a car that is not borrowed or owned by a co-passenger, and does not fall within the
definition of other access. *** Taxi transport for the disabled, taxi, rental car, employer’s car, other car, and unknown form of ownership.
An overview of forms of car access reveals that half of the studied car trips are made in
cars owned by fellow passengers. Adding the fact that six out of ten car trips are made as a
passenger, this indicates that the carless quite often get rides from others. This is a tendency
most pronounced for leisure activities and among retirees. Overall, one in five car trips
undertaken by the carless are made in a borrowed vehicle, emphasizing the importance
of social relations for car access, and this is most common for material flow activities.
Depending on life situation, this reliance on social relations may inhibit independence in
terms of mobility, particularly for retirees who drive on only about a tenth of their car trips.
To consolidate our interpretations regarding the role of the car in relation to different
constraints, we conduct a logistic regression analysis aiming to explain in which everyday
life contexts car trips are made by the carless. In doing so, we simultaneously consider
all potentially influencing factors scrutinized above. The variables tested thus relate to
constraints connected to the individual and her household, everyday projects and life
situation, and physical environment.
In the regression analysis (Table 7), variables confirmed to be associated with a trip
being made by car are holding a driving license, being gainfully employed, having a
disability, making a trip for material flow purposes or to maintain social relations, and
belonging to the young adult group. Aspects associated with less car use are increased age,
living in an urban rather than a semi-urban municipality, living in an apartment building,
making a trip for work or school, making a leisure trip, and belonging to the retiree group.
The results of the regression are thus aligned with the above findings (
Tables 3and 4
),
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 14 of 19
confirming the role played by different constraints. Taking a thorough look, we note
that all independent variables related to everyday life projects have a significant effect
on car use, underlining the importance of analysing carlessness in relation to the context
of everyday life. However, the B-coefficients indicate only moderate differences between
the four project variables, implying difficulties in singling out which of them interact the
most with car use. Among the variables related to life situation, only two are significant
(being a young adult or a retiree) and here too, the B-coefficients indicate only moderate
differences between the variables. Interestingly, two variables are not significant in any of
the three models: sex and belonging to the parent group. That sex is not significant is rather
unexpected, since previous research has repeatedly found differences in car use between
women and men [
35
,
37
–
39
]. In a corresponding regression analysis among car owners,
however, gender displays a significant correlation, implying that gender structures are
manifested differently among the carless as compared with car owners (cf. [
5
]). Overall, the
analysis indicates that most of the tested independent variables are significantly associated
with car use in the carless population. Yet, as the analysis uses trips, not individuals, as the
observed unit, it might overestimate the significance of some of those relationships.
Table 7.
The influence of socioeconomic conditions, project, and life situation on non-car owner’s
propensity to travel by car; logistic regression, dependent variable car trip (yes = 1).
Independent Variable B-Coefficient
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Age (continuous) –0.010 * - -
Sex (ref = woman) –0.101 –0.092 –0.092
Drivers’ license possession (ref. no) 0.394 * 0.329 * 0.389 *
Gainfully employed (ref. no) 0.354 *
Having a disability (ref. no) 0.206 *
Density of the residential environment (ref.
semi-urban) –0.268 * –0.289 * –0.269 *
Type of housing (ref. single/dual) –0.624 * –0.604 * –0.589 *
Project
(ref. other trips)
Work or school –0.660 *
Material flows 0.292 *
Maintaining social relations
0.896 * 1.177 * 1.000 *
Leisure activities –0.294 *
Life situation
(ref. other groups)
Young adults 0.410 *
Parents –0.052 0.118 –0.088
Retirees –0.318 *
Number of observed trips 12,043 11,863 12,043
Nagelkerke R20.065 0.062 0.055
Constant –0.952 * –2.029 * –1.454 *
Source: RVU 2011–2016. Trips made by adult, non-rural population. Three models are used for the regression anal-
ysis due to correlation between several independent variables. Only variables with no or very weak correlations
are included in each model (cf. Section 3.2) * p< 0.05.
5. Discussion
The results presented above indicate some notable differences in the mobility patterns
of carless and car owning persons. In this section, we discuss our findings in the light
of previous research and the conceptual framework. As might be expected we see that,
overall, carless individuals make fewer and shorter trips and do more trip chaining than
car owners. This is in line with earlier research establishing that the carless are less
mobile than car owners [
5
,
6
,
8
]. However, this pattern is not consistently reflected in all
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 15 of 19
everyday life contexts. Our findings illustrate that constraints associated with different
projects and life situations are part of shaping carless mobility, and for the feasibility of a
carless life. The limits to carless mobility can be discerned from car dependence in specific
situations, inhibiting activity participation or inducing car use, while seeming to function
more smoothly in other contexts. The car may be necessary for some trips, to manage
the varying fixity of activities in time and space, and to fulfil the need to coordinate with
people and things involved in activities. However, in many situations, multimodality and
non-car mobility [
40
], prioritizing proximity [
9
,
41
], and coordinating activities may in fact
be sufficient.
Long distances and a high degree of trip chaining characterize work and school trips
for both carless individuals and car owners. However, for the carless, work/school trips
are much shorter but still more chained than for car owners, aligned with a large share of
public transport in the modal split of the carless. This pattern suggests that the carless, to
a larger extent than car owners, must adapt their choices of residency, work, and school
(the “pegs” of everyday life [
22
]) to the available mobility resources. The opposite strategy
would be adapting mobility to the choices of residency and employment, as may be the
case in a more car-reliant lifestyle. While this may limit the options of the carless for
employment, education, and housing, trip frequencies indicate that travelling to work
and school is often possible without private car use. Obviously, this can be at the cost of
other projects.
The results further indicate that walking and cycling are common modes in managing
material flows and leisure, two projects for which activities are likely to be more flexible
as to when and where they can be performed. For these projects, trip frequencies for the
carless are close to those of car owners. The results thus suggest that such activities may
be feasible through mobility based on proximity to everyday life pegs [
22
]. While leisure
activities are only weakly car dependent for car owners as well, the pattern is different in
managing material flows, for which the gap between carless and car owners is wider in
terms of distance and modal split. Previous research has shown that “the cargo function”
of the car makes shopping and waste-disposal activities car dependent [
23
]; our results
nevertheless indicate that the carless somehow manage to fulfil the material flow project.
This could partly be ascribed to the residential environment, as non-car ownership is more
common in denser areas. Nevertheless, whether the carless handle activities pertaining to
material flows differently than do car owners merits more in-depth attention. Arguably,
the concept of consumption may be understood otherwise without constant access to a
private car, as the need to plan, coordinate, and prioritize is more pressing.
Maintaining social relations is the most car-dependent project for both the carless and
car owners. Possible difficulties are discerned for the carless regarding this project as they
make fewer trips for social relations purposes, which can be interpreted as an inhibiting
effect of carlessness. Social activities inherently entail adjusting to the localization and mo-
bility practices of others (for instance, when visiting relatives in a car-dependent residential
area [
9
]). Car dependence in getting together with friends and family is thus attributed to
coupling constraints in combination with the uncertainty that may arise from the temporal
and spatial flexibility of the involved activities [
9
]. However, difficulties derived from
carlessness can to some extent be handled using various strategies. Sometimes, borrowing
a car or getting a ride will help overcome the constraints on getting together with family
and friends. Indeed, the relatively high degree of car use by the carless to maintain social
relations suggests that for them, fulfilling this project can itself be dependent on mobility
resources in the social network [
10
]. Furthermore, what our data do not reveal is the
strategy observed elsewhere [
9
] of relying on the car-based mobility of others, for example,
being visited by friends and family instead of visiting them. The carless could also be
thought of as delegating car ownership to others, or as using cars more collectively as a form
of carpooling. Finally, comparison of the projects maintaining social relations and leisure
shows that leisure activities are less car dependent for both car owners and non-car owners,
and less inhibited in terms of activity participation (i.e., trip frequency) for the carless.
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 16 of 19
This suggests that activities specifically pertaining to maintaining social relations make a
considerable contribution to the part of leisure time previously shown to entail heavy car
use [
42
]. It may be that leisure activities are easier to fit into everyday sequences of routine
activities, such as work or school, or that leisure activities are themselves more routinized
than are activities in the project of maintaining social relations. Instead, innovative shared
mobility solutions may be of increasing importance in maintaining social relations. Such
solutions can complement public transport systems, increasing flexibility and allowing the
users of buses, trains and trams to reach beyond the boundedness of major transportation
networks [43].
We also see that constraints related to life situation matter for carless mobility. Travel-
ling on foot and by public transport to nearby destinations characterizes carless parents’
mobility patterns. The smaller activity space this entails may well constitute an active
approach to coping with the coupling constraints of parenthood. However, depending on
the residential environment, limited reach can also mean fewer opportunities in everyday
life. Furthermore, while car-owning young adults and parents have quite similar mobility
patterns, the relationship is different among the carless. Carless young adults have a much
more even modal split than do the other carless groups and have a larger share of car use,
leaving their trip distance and trip frequency somewhat less affected by carlessness. This
pattern of young adults may partly be an effect of the absence of constraints imposed by
parenthood and old age. However, it may also reflect a generational shift that has been
noted elsewhere, with young people obtaining a driver’s license and acquiring a car later
in life [
29
]. This postponement may give them time to learn how to arrange their daily
activities using other modes. The somewhat larger degree of car use among carless young
adults than among the other carless groups may be explained by better opportunities to
borrow vehicles, for instance, from their parents, but could also signal stronger tendencies
among young adults to decouple car use and ownership. Carless retirees have a similar
modal split to that of carless parents, and they also make short trips. However, the great
difference in trip frequencies between carless and car owning retirees indicate that some
desired activities may not come about for the carless retirees. This unfulfilled demand
would likely be due to capacity constraints related to their life situation, i.e., poorer health
and financial conditions obstructing suitable mobility solutions.
In sum, our results show that the contexts of projects and life situations does matter
for the mobility implications of carlessness, pointing towards the significant value of
considering the everyday context that may or may not prompt car use.
6. Conclusions
Reducing private car use is a prerequisite for more sustainable transport systems and
enhanced well-being in cities. To increase knowledge about the everyday conditions for
such reductions, this study investigates the mobility patterns of carless individuals and
their car use in relation to central everyday life projects and life situations, and compare
them to that of car owners. We find tendencies regarding when carless mobility may be
feasible, as well as when the demands for fast and flexible mobility are higher. From
these findings, we draw some conclusions with relevance for sustainability policy and
planning, aiming to facilitate car-free mobility. Notably, accessing important amenities
smoothly in everyday life can be seen as central to individuals’ wellbeing, and thus to
socially sustainable planning [
44
]. These results should therefore be seen as relevant when
aiming for both environmentally and socially sustainable cities.
A first conclusion is that several activity contexts seem to be managed differently
by the carless, compared with car owners. One such example is the project of managing
material flows, for which the carless are apparently not overwhelmingly constrained, but
have found other ways of managing. Potentially, managing material flows is a “low-
hanging fruit” in the endeavor to reduce car dependence. It may be facilitated by online
services, shared transport solutions, and the proximity-oriented localization of amenities.
Maintaining social relations, on the other hand, is a project for which policy and planning
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 17 of 19
efforts may not be sufficient to reduce car dependence. Getting together with family and
friends may be harder to manage without car-based mobility due to the need to coordinate
with others in flexible and unpredictable ways. Inclusive solutions for shared mobility may
have an important role to play for these activities.
Another conclusion from the study is that the potential for car-free mobility differ
depending on the life situation. For many carless retirees, access to nearby opportunities
may be crucial for activity participation. Carless parents also rely heavily on proximity
and a high degree of walking, while the mobility patterns of young adults are somewhat
less affected.
The quantitative character of our study entails limitations, suggesting avenues for
future research. Importantly, we find that carlessness and car use are not mutually exclusive
phenomena. Especially among young adults, there may be other ways of using the car
than those involving private ownership. Thus, in-depth investigations of the car use of
non-car-owning young adults could bring knowledge of what such car use, and associated
mobility strategies, may be like.
Furthermore, investigations of specific project contexts could offer valuable informa-
tion regarding how constraints can be handled in less car-dependent ways, such as those
found in relation to the project of material flow management. In such studies, intensive
research methodology involving interviews and detailed time diaries would enable a
deeper contextualization of mobility in relation to individual constraints and the fixity of
activities. A qualitative approach could also grasp the implications of ongoing digitization
for carless mobility strategies. Also, and in accordance with findings in the USA [
5
], we see
an indication that among the carless, car use is not affected by gender to the same extent as
among car owners. This suggests that gender and gender structures play different roles in
carless than in car-owning households [
45
], a difference that should be further investigated.
Finally, our results do not constitute a universal narrative, and the focus on non-rural
Sweden has important implications for our findings. The geographic setting and built
environment, the way infrastructure has developed, and the norms inherent to society all
affect how constraints arise within different groups. Similar studies in other geographic
and social settings where, for instance, car use is associated with congestion and long travel
times, would likely reveal different insights.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.L.; data curation, E.L.; formal analysis, E.L. and A.G.S.;
funding acquisition, A.G.S.; writing-original draft preparation, E.L. and A.G.S.; writing-review and
editing, E.L. and A.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by a faculty grant for Ph.D. research, with additional funding
from the Swedish Energy Agency (grant number 2018-006519).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank the Mobility Research Group at the University
of Gothenburg, and particularly professor Eva Thulin and Senior Researcher Bertil Vilhelmson, for
constructive comments on an early draft of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Fördjupad Analys av Den Svenska Klimatomställningen 2020; Rapport 6945; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. Avail-
able online: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publ-filer/6900/978-91-620-6945-2.pdf?pid=27859 (accessed on 3
September 2021).
2. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environ. Int. 2016,94, 251–262. [CrossRef]
3.
McIntosh, J.; Trubka, R.; Kenworthy, J.; Newman, P. The role of urban form and transit in city car dependence: Analysis of 26
global cities from 1960 to 2000. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014,33, 95–110. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 18 of 19
4.
Brown, A.E. Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households. Transp. Policy
2017
,60,
152–159. [CrossRef]
5.
Lovejoy, K. Mobility Fulfillment amsong Low-Car Households: Implications for Reducing Auto Dependence in the United States.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis, CA, USA, 2012.
6.
Mattioli, G. Where sustainable transport and social exclusion meet: Households without cars and car dependence in Great Britain.
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2014,16, 379–400. [CrossRef]
7. Mitra, S.K.; Saphores, J.-D.M. Carless in California: Green choice or misery? J. Transp. Geogr. 2017,65, 1–12. [CrossRef]
8.
Mitra, S.; Saphores, J.-D. How do they get by without cars. An analysis of travel characteristics by carless households in California.
Transportation 2019,47, 2837–2858. [CrossRef]
9.
Lagrell, E.; Thulin, E.; Vilhelmson, B. Accessibility strategies beyond the private car: A study on voluntarily carless families with
young children in Gothenburg. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018,72, 218–227. [CrossRef]
10.
Lovejoy, K.; Handy, S. Social networks as a source of private-vehicle transportation: The practice of getting rides and borrowing
vehicles among Mexican immigrants in California. Transp. Res. Part A 2011,45, 248–257. [CrossRef]
11.
Baehler, D. Living in a Car-Free Housing Development: Motivations and Mobility Practices of Residents in Nine Developments
in Switzerland and Germany. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitéde Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2019.
12.
Baehler, D.; Rérat, P. Beyond the Car. Car-free housing as a laboratory to overcome the “system of automobility”. Appl. Mobilities.
2020, 1–18. [CrossRef]
13.
King, D.A.; Smart, M.J.; Manville, M. The poverty of the carless: Towards universal auto access. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
2019
,
1–19. [CrossRef]
14.
Hägerstrand, T. What about people in regional science? In Transport Sociology: Social Aspects of Transport Planning; de Boer, E. Ed.;
Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1986.
15.
Schwanen, T.; Kwan, M.-P.; Ren, F. How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints and geographies of everyday
activities. Geoforum 2008,39, 2109–2121. [CrossRef]
16. Ellegård, K. Thinking Time Geography; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019.
17.
Ellegård, K.; Svedin, U. Torstens Hägerstrand’s time-geograhy as the cradle of the activity based approach in transport geography.
J. Transp. Geogr. 2012,23, 17–25. [CrossRef]
18.
Vilhelmson, B. Daily mobility and the use of time for different activities. The case of Sweden. GeoJournal
1999
,48,
177–185. [CrossRef]
19.
Thulin, E.; Vilhelmson, B.; Johansson, M. New telework, time pressure and time use control in everyday life. Sustainability
2019
,
11, 3067. [CrossRef]
20.
Vilhelmson, B.; Thulin, E. Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New
Technol. Work. Employ. 2016,31, 77–96. [CrossRef]
21.
Neutens, T.; Schwanen, T.; Witlox, F. The prism of everyday life: Towards a new research agenda for time geography. Transp. Rev.
2010,31, 25–47. [CrossRef]
22. Cullen, I.; Godson, V. Urban networks: The structure of activity patterns. Prog. Plan. 1975,4, 1–96. [CrossRef]
23.
Mattioli, G.; Anable, J.; Vrostou, K. Car dependent practices: Findings from a sequence pattern mining study of UK time use data.
Transp. Res. Part A 2016,89, 56–72. [CrossRef]
24.
Schwanen, T. Gender differences in chauffeuring children among dual-earner families. Prof. Geogr.
2007
,59, 447–462. [CrossRef]
25.
Fults, K.K.; Börjesson, M. Drivers of change in travel Patterns—Stockholm 1986–2004. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference
on Transport Research, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010.
26.
Dargay, J.; Hanly, M. Volatility of car ownership, commuting choice and time in the UK. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
2007
,41,
934–948. [CrossRef]
27.
Frändberg, L.; Vilhelmson, B. Spatial, generational and gendered trends and trend-breaks in mobility. In Handbook of Sustainable
Travel; Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 15–32.
28.
Kuhnimhof, T.; Armoogum, J.; Buehler, R.; Dargay, J.; Denstadli, J.M.; Yamamoto, T. Men shape a downward trend in car use
among young Adults—Evience from six industrialized countries. Transp. Rev. 2012, 761–779. [CrossRef]
29.
Hjorthol, R. Decreasing popularity of the car? Changes in driving license and access to a car among young adults over a 25-year
period in Norway. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016,51, 140–146. [CrossRef]
30.
Berg, J.; Levin, L.; Abramsson, M.; Hagberg, J.-E. Mobility in the transition to retirement—The intertwining och transportation
and everyday projects. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014,38, 48–54. [CrossRef]
31.
Hjorthol, R.; Levin, L.; Sirén, A. Mobility in different generations of older persons: The development of daily travel in different
cohorts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010,18, 624–633. [CrossRef]
32.
Transport Analysis. Travel Survey: About the statistics. 2021. Available online: https://www.trafa.se/en/travel- survey/travel-
survey/ (accessed on 3 September 2021).
33.
Transport Analysis. RVU Sverige—Den Nationella Resvaneundersökningen 2015–2016. 2016. Available online: https://www.
trafa.se/globalassets/statistik/resvanor/2016/rvu-sverige-2016-kvalitetsdeklaration.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2021).
34.
The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Kommungruppsindelning 2017: Omarbetning av Sveriges Kommuner
och Landstings Kommungruppsindelning. 2016. Available online: https://webbutik.skr.se/bilder/artiklar/pdf/7585-455-7.pdf
(accessed on 10 September 2021).
Sustainability 2021,13, 10250 19 of 19
35.
Frändberg, L.; Vilhelmson, B. More or less travel: Personal mobility trends in the Swedish population focusing on gender and
cohort. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011,19, 1235–1244. [CrossRef]
36.
Gil Solá, A. På Väg Mot Jämställda Arbetsresor? Vardagens Mobilitet i Förändring och Förhandling (Towards Gender Equality?
Women’s and Men’s Commuting under Transformation and Negotiation). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg,
Sweden, 2013.
37.
Hjorthol, R. Daily mobility of men and Women—A barometer of gender equality. In Gendered Mobilities; Uteng, T.P., Cresswell, T.,
Eds.; Ashgate: Hampshire, UK, 2008.
38.
Vance, C.; Buchheim, S.; Brockfeld, E. Gender as a determinant of car use: Evidence from Germany. In Proceedings of the
Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Chicago, IL, USA, 18–20 November 2004; Volume 2, pp. 59–67. Available online:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP35v2.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2021).
39.
Yang, M.; Li, D.; Wang, W.; Zhao, J.; Chen, X. Modeling gender-based differences in mode choice considering time-use pattern:
Analysis of bicycle, public transit, and car use in Suzhou, China. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2013,5, 706918. [CrossRef]
40.
McLaren, A.T. Parent-child moility practices: Revealing ‘cracks’ in the automobility system. Mobilities
2016
,13, 844–860. [CrossRef]
41.
Gil Solá, A.; Vilhelmson, B. To Choose, or Not to Choose, a Nearby Activity Option: Understanding the Gendered Role of Proximity in
Urban Settings; submitted.
42.
Vilhelmson, B. The use of the car—Mobility dependencies of urban everyday life. In Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban
Life; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 145–164.
43.
Vinci, I. Shared mobility in the process of city-transport coevolution: Emergin geographies and policy challenges. In The Role of
Sharing Mobility in Contemporary Cities. Legal, Social and Environmental Issues; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 36–50.
44.
Gil Solá, A.; Levin, L. Introduktion: Stöd och Inspiration för Nya Vägar Framåt (Introduction: Support and inspiration for new
ways forward). In Socialt Hållbar Transportplanering: Inspirationshandbok Med Exempel Från Forskning och Praktik (Socially Sustainable
Transport Planning: Inspiration Manual with Examples from Research and Practice); in press.
45.
Gil Solá, A. Constructing work travel inequalities: The role of household gender contracts. J. Transp. Geogr.
2016
,53,
32–40. [CrossRef]
