Hélène Nessi: The influence of the urban environment and attitudes towards the living environment on leisure mobility in the Île-de-France region and Rome

Suburban areas are often criticised for the excessive mobility (particularly car use) they generate. In this PhD thesis, we have taken this criticism seriously and put it to the test by exploring the links between the living environment and leisure mobility. Indeed, whilst some studies have focused exclusively on the influence of households’ socio-economic variables (level of education, socio-professional category, income) to explain their mobility, others have highlighted the influence of the urban context. We build on this research, but by making a twofold shift. On the one hand, we do not merely consider the urban context shared by a group of households, but also the living environment specific to each household (understood as the space ordinarily used by the household in question within its urban context). Secondly, we hypothesise that households’ spatial practices (both within and outside their living environment) are also based on their ‘relationship with their living environment’. This ‘relationship with their living environment’ does not stem solely from the households’ socio-economic characteristics but also relates to their individual history, their residential history, and their differing valuations of the functional, social and sensory dimensions (in other words, their perception) of their living environment.

Our work therefore involved empirically testing the hypotheses regarding the influence of the urban context and the relationship with the living environment on leisure mobility. The Paris and Rome metropolitan areas, which exhibit contrasting urban structures and patterns of suburbanisation, form the focus of our study. For our sample, we selected families (households comprising adults aged between 30 and 45 with children) and conducted surveys in nine neighbourhoods (within their urban context), distinguished by their geographical location (central, semi-central, peri-urban) and their level of public transport provision. Our empirical work combines three complementary approaches: a contextual approach in which we describe the functional, perceptual and social characteristics of the study areas; a qualitative approach comprising 81 semi-structured interviews; and a quantitative approach based on 2,250 telephone interviews (closed-ended questionnaire) with households residing in the neighbourhoods studied. Drawing on the literature, an analytical framework was used to analyse the interviews and classify households into five profiles of ‘relationship with the living environment’ based on their perceptions and practices in the functional, sensory and social domains.

Our statistical results confirm the strong influence of income and socio-economic status on leisure mobility, but also highlight the significant influence of two other variables that act both independently and in combination: the relationship with the living environment and the urban context. Furthermore, when controlling for the effects of income and socio-economic status, the results clearly confirm a statistically significant influence of geographical location. Residents of the city centre always travel more kilometres for leisure mobility than those in the city’s outskirts and the suburbs, and their overall mobility (work + leisure) is almost equivalent to that of suburban and outskirt residents. Analysis at the neighbourhood level allows us to test the hypothesis of compensatory mobility and to identify the specific contextual factors that are decisive in the choice of leisure activities. Analysis of the context at different scales (the conurbation, geographical location, neighbourhood and housing) confirms the influence of key factors that account for a significant proportion of leisure mobility in terms of distance, such as a lack of tranquillity, green spaces and the strength of community and social networks, as well as the location of leisure facilities within the conurbation. We then observe the influence of rail transport provision, housing density and tenure status (owner-occupied or rented). The type of housing (detached house or block of flats), however, has no influence on leisure mobility.

The findings highlight the role of the relationship with the local environment in shaping a lifestyle upon which leisure mobility is based. By focusing on the relationship between households and their local environment, it becomes clear that leisure mobility depends, in particular, on the image that households form of their local environment.