Framing digital mobility gap: a starting point in the design of inclusive mobility eco-systems

Framing Digital Mobility Gap: A Starting Point in the Design of Inclusive Mobility Eco-Systems Nina Nesterova1(B), L. Hoeke2, J. A.-L. Goodman-Deane3, S. Delespaul4, Bartosz Wybraniec5, and Boris Lazzarini5 1Research and Business Innovation, Academy of Built Environment and Logistics, Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands [email protected] 2Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands 3University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 4Mobiel 21, Leuven, Belgium 5The Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain Abstract. Digital transport eco-systems worldwide provide great advantages to many but also carry a risk of excluding population groups that struggle with accessing or using digital products and services. The DIGNITY project (DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY) delves into the development of such eco-systems to deepen the understanding of the full range of factors that lead to disparities in the uptake of digital transport solutions in Europe. A starting point for developing digitally inclusive transport systems is to obtain state-of-the-art knowledge and understandingofwherelocaltransporteco-systemsareinrelationtothedigitalgap and digital mobility gap in terms of their policies, transport products and services, and population digital literacy. This chapter presents the methodology developed in the DIGNITY project to frame this digital gap, incorporating a self-assessment framework that may be used by public authorities to identify potential gaps in the development of local digital transport eco-systems. This framework is informed by results from customer journey mapping exercises that provide insights into the daily activities and trips of users, and larger scale surveys on digital technology access, use, attitudes and competence in the area. In the DIGNITY approach as a whole, the results from the framing phase are then used to inform subsequent work on bridging the digital gap through the co-creation of more inclusive policies, products and services. The chapter provides concrete results from the framing exercise in four DIGNITY pilot areas: Barcelona, Tilburg, Flanders and Ancona. The results clearly show that a digital transport gap exists in these areas, and that this is manifested in different ways in different local situations, requiring tailored approaches to address the gap. 1 Introduction “Transitioning from a paper card to a chipcard to use public transport, gave me a lot of anxiety. It took me a long time to learn where to hold my card against the machine to validate my ride, which embarrassed me towards other passengers” says an elderly woman. A low-income, migrant woman mentions: “I buy tickets at the station, because I © The Author(s) 2023 I. Keseru and A. Randhahn (Eds.): Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 3, LNMOB, pp. 235–253, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26155-8_14 236 N. Nesterova et al. don’t have an online account to buy them. I don’t like to pay by mobile because I’m not very tech savvy”. Visually impaired man states: “With apps, you cannot zoom in and I do not always carry glasses with me. Then I use voiceover. I can use it, but I do not like it personally”. An elderly couple share their experience: “I would rather do it by phone because I’m afraid I’ll make a mistake and give them too much money; I am not confident enough on the computer. I just prefer to speak to someone” (Nesterova et al. 2021). While digitalisationofdifferent economy sectors and transition to smart cities are becoming our everyday reality, there is also a growing concern that the fast digitalisation pace leads to disparities in the uptake of digital transport solutions within different population groups in Europe, becoming a new risk factor for transport poverty. Public authorities are faced with a challenge to combine the opportunities from the digitalisation of the mobility eco-system with problems arising from this process. Banister (2019) says: “As with many innovations that have huge potential to benefit all society, it is the rich and those with the necessary knowledge and supporting infrastructure who are the main gainers. However, if the objectives of transport policy are to reduce levels of relative and absolute inequality, then priority needs to be given to providing the means by which all members of society can benefit from innovation”. A starting point for the development of the digitally inclusive transport systems is to obtain state-of-the-art knowledge and understanding of where local transport eco-systems are in relation to the digital gap and digital mobility gap in terms of their policies, transport products and services and population digital literacy. The DIGNITY project (DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY) delves into the development of digital mobility eco-systems and contributes to the better understanding of the full range of factors that lead to disparities in the uptake of digital transport solutions in Europe. Financed under European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, DIGNITY brings together the partners from 6 countries, to analyse the digital transition from user and provider’s perspective and to design, test and validate a novel concept for development of the digital inclusive travel system. DIGNITY approach is developed and validated within four pilots: •The pilot in Ancona, the capital city of the Marche region (Italy) with less 100000 inhabitants. •The pilot in Barcelona, embracing a population of 1.7 million inhabitants. •The pilot region of Flanders, with population of around 6.5 million inhabitants. •The pilot in Tilburg, a city located in the south of the Netherlands, which counts 217595 inhabitants. This chapter provides an overview of the methods available for the public authorities to frame the digital mobility gap in their region, as a starting point in the development of the inclusive mobility eco-systems. 2 Framing the Digital Gap Design of the inclusive mobility eco-system requires an integral approach that brings together needs, attitudes and requirements of the transport stakeholders on micro, meso and macro levels: Framing Digital Mobility Gap 237 •TheMicro leveloftheDIGNITYcomprises all citizens and all possible users ofdigital mobility products and services. •The Meso level of the DIGNITY is about the digital mobility products and services available within a region. •At the Macro level, the institutional structure of a region is considered (political administration, as well as other forms of political regulation, network governance and the interdependence of political decision-making levels). Integrating these three levels into one holistic DIGNITY methodology, it proposes to take a three-phase approach (Fig. 1). Within this approach the “framing phase” creates an understanding of how much the digital divide contributes to the mobility poverty of different population groups; “bridging phase” focuses on co-creation of the solutions for design of more inclusive transport policies, products and services; and “evaluation phase” looks at impacts of the overall process and ensures contribution to the formulation of the long-term strategies to fill in the gap. Fig. 1. DIGNITY approach to the development of the inclusive mobility eco-system. This chapter presents the “framing phase” of the methodology. It suggests to start with the self-assessment framework that allows public authorities to identify potential gaps in the development of local inclusive digital transport eco-systems. Framing phase looks at how many people are at risk of being excluded in the mobility sector and why. By analysing how and why target groups are using (or not) existing products and services, a more detailed understanding of vulnerable users and their needs is created. Thus, the objective of the framework is to support public and private mobility providers in generating a knowledge; where current digital transport systems risk leaving some population groups behind, and in conceiving mainstream digital products or services that are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible, regardless of their income, location, social or health situation or age. The framework is informed by results from customer journey mapping exercises that provide insights into the daily activities and trips of users, larger scale surveys on digital technology access, use, attitudes and competence in the area, and focus groups zooming into the needs and attitudes of the specific population groups, further detailed in the following paragraphs. Results from the framing phase provide an overall understanding of the digital gap in mobility, allowing to 238 N. Nesterova et al. zoom into the different stakeholder groups and getting a more in-depth knowledge about challenges of each. Within DIGNITY approach as a whole, the results from the framing phase are then used to inform subsequent work on bridging the digital gap through the co-creation of more inclusive policies, products and services. 3 Building Blocks of the Framing Phase DIGNITY framing phase includes four distinctive methods: •The digital gap self-assessment •Customer Journey Mapping •Large Scale Surveys •Focus groups. 3.1 The Digital Gap Self-assessment in Mobility The digital gap self-assessment framework provides cities and regions with a clear representation of the digital gap in mobility in their region. It includes: •the knowledge about digital abilities and mobility of citizens; •an overview of the current market supply of digital mobility products and services; •and the policy readiness to act on digitalisation in mobility. Performing the digital gap self-assessment helps public authorities to identify focus areas in their policy making processes. The method combines in one comprehensive framework the state of mobility digitalisation at three DIGNITY levels (Fig. 2). Each of these levels is further detailed in the groups of indicators (composed of the detailed indicator set): •Micro level indicator groups are: digitalisation in mobility; population; mobility; digital ability. •Meso level indicator groups are: usage by vulnerable groups; stakeholders; digital transport provision. •Macro level indicator groups are: government structures; regulatory framework; budget and outreach programs. The self-assessment method offers a description of these indicators, possibilities for data collection methods and provides an Excel-sheet to fill in the collected information. The methods for data collection are, for example, the use of national or local statistics, population surveys (micro-level), cross-department working or focus groups within public authorities, questionnaires towards mobility providers (meso-level); interviews within public authorities and focus groups (macro-level). Establishment of the links between micro, macro and meso levels (Fig. 2) allows to identify the areas where potential gaps in the inclusive mobility eco-system exists. For example, combining micro and meso level data makes visible the supply (or lack Framing Digital Mobility Gap 239 Fig. 2. DIGNITY self-assessment framework of it) of digital mobility products/services to specific vulnerable to exclusion group. It becomes clear if a group is underrepresented in the use of a product/service and where inclusive design has a potential to improve it, making it accessible to larger population groups. Bringing the information of meso and macro level together, can help to identify the gaps in policy and regulation necessary to create an inclusive mobility eco-system. Finally, the micro level data provides important information for local authorities at the macro level. Combining data from these two levels allows to identify which vulnerable to exclusion group experiences mobility poverty the most, how big is this problem and where a dedicated regulative and institutional support is the most urgent. All DIGNITY pilots have performed the self-assessment for their municipality/region as the first step in the framing phase. Within the evaluation phase they expressed that this method was very structured, detailed and sometimes too complex. Improvement can be achieved in better guiding the stakeholders in the data and information to collect and in the advice on how to combine different information sources. A more flexible and less structured method would be more beneficial in some cases. Overall, the self-assessment data collection process allowed to realise what data types are missing in local context to create a full understanding on the scope and size of the digital mobility gap problem. Results for this self-assessment methods provide public authorities an overall understanding of the size of the digital gap in mobility, allowing to zoom into the different 240 N. Nesterova et al. assessment levels and getting more in-depth information for each of the levels. With this, potential gaps in policy and supply of mobility services can be derived. The Fig. 3 below shows the data, collected by large scale surveys, from the use of digital services in Flanders among different vulnerable-to-exclusion user groups (micro level). In this graph, elderly, people with disabilities and people with low education can be considered as the less confident to plan a public transport journey using internet or an app. This, for example, provides a clear insight for policy makers that this group needs another than digital approach (or support in digital approach) within this activity. 79% 84% 49% 80% 79% 59% 48% 73% 74% 45% 77% 72% 56% 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total Migrants Low educated Rural inhabitants Women Disabled Elderly Digital services in mobility per target group (Flanders) Confident to plan public transport journey using internet or app Use digital methods to find travel informaon Fig. 3. Example of the self-assessment result: digital services in mobility per target group in Flanders. Another example is shown in Table 1where the list of main mobility services and products in Barcelona are identified (meso level). This shows the diversity of the market supply of digital mobility products and illustrates that alternative to the digital version is not always available on the market, meaning that some vulnerable to exclusion user groups are partially excluded from this mobility option. Combination of interviews; literature review and media review was used to collect this information. On the macro-level, self-assessment framework results have indicated the pilots the readinessorunreadiness of theinstitutionalandregulatorysystem for thedigitalisationin mobility. For example, it was even difficult to find specific references to digital mobility in policy documents, showing unexplored potential for departments to be involved in the digitalisation of transport. In Tilburg, cross disciplinary collaboration is already taking placeandvulnerable-to-exclusiongroups are involvedin policydevelopments.However, it is acknowledged that the complexity of the government structure results in a barrier for certain groups in Tilburg to be well involved and represented in the decision-making process on inclusive mobility. Framing Digital Mobility Gap 241 Table 1. List of main mobility services and products in Barcelona. Category of digital service or product Number of services and examples Non-digital alternatives for product or service Trip planning Around 10: City trips, google maps… Static information of bus lines Navigation 5 to 10: HERE, INRIX, Garmin… Paper maps Parking payment 5 to 10: Wesmartpark, Via-T, Smou,… Non-digital parking payment Consumer car sharing Less than 5: Ubeeqo, Virtuo No non-digital alternative Personal car sharing Less than 5: Social Car, Getaround No non-digital alternative Corporate car sharing Less than 5: Ubeeqo No non-digital alternative Ride splitting Less than 5: Blablacar, Amovens, Journify, RACC Hop No non-digital alternative E-hailing (taxis) Less than 5: Cabify, Social Car Taxi Demand responsive public transport Less than 5: Shotl, Ne-MI No non-digital alternative Bike sharing Less than 5: Bicing, Donkey Republic, Mobike No non-digital alternative Other vehicle sharing Scooters around 5: Yego, Cooltra, SEAT MÓ, Acciona, Movo, Gecco Kick scooters less than 5: Reby No non-digital alternative Vehicle information 10 to 15: Google maps, apps of mobility services… No non-digital alternative Parking information Around 5: Parkopedia, Parclick, Telpark, Wesmartpark No non-digital alternative Facility information Charging station apps 5 to 10: AMB-electrolineres, Charge Map, Plug share. Bike stations less than 5: Google maps, City trips No non-digital alternative Travel information 5 to 10: Waze, Mou-te, RACC… No non-digital alternative Roadside assistance Less then 5: RACC assistència No non-digital alternative 3.2 Customer Journey Mapping Customer Journey Mapping (CJM) is a method known in marketing to map and measure the experiences of users in the form of micro-scale qualitative data. In DIGNITY, it is used to understand mobility challenges of selected vulnerable to exclusion groups. 242 N. Nesterova et al. The method allows to pinpoint specific problems and issues in a predefined journey that the user will make. Collecting these insights for a specific situation or journey results in a clear improvement potential for the mobility products/services that are needed to increase the overall journey experience of the end user. The CJM method consists in several steps: •Define the journey; •Define the target group; •Define activities and touchpoints of the journey; •Prepare research: recruit participants and prepare questions; •Execute the research and analyses the data. The chosen journey can be derived from the outcomes of the self-assessment method (e.g.potentialgapsidentifiedfrommesoandmicrodata)orbesuggestedbylocalindustry or policy-making stakeholders. This can, for example, be a bus trip from home to the train station; the use of a new mobility service (e.g. a shared car); the use of a navigation app or buying a ticket at a ticket machine. The CJM method focuses on the moments that the participant interacts with the mobility product/service, measuring the experience of the participant during these moments. The moments are identified in advance and are divided into three different levels: •activities; part of the journey with a specific purpose; •touchpoints: possible aspects of the activity where the participant can receive external information from mobility provider or government; •dimensions: aspects of the activity that might influence the experience of the participant during the activity such as availability of a seat, waiting time, perceived safety and availability of information. These activities and touchpoints create the basis of the CJM research and help to pinpoint the opportunities for improving travel experiences of the target group. The data that is collected by the CJM research consists of a survey before the journey, questions and observational data during the journey and interviews after the journey. The survey before the journey is meant to get an overall picture of the participant focusing on digital skills, mobility behaviour and use, and experience with the journey that is part of this CJM research. The observations and questions during the journey give insights in where (touchpoint) participants experiences problems or issues and which activities or touchpoints need attention in order to improve the total journey experience of this user group. During the journey the participants are asked to score their experience for each activity using a 1 (very uncomfortable) to 10 (very comfortable) scale. The interview after the journey elaborates on this and dives into the emotions and reasons behind the experience of the participant. The overview of the DIGNITY pilots customer journey parameters are summarised in Table 2. The outcomes differed a lot per pilot. For example, in Tilburg, elderly participants mentioned the difficulties they experience when exiting the bus or train and that it is challenging to find the right direction, especially at larger central stations. Clear signages would be helpful for them. Other participants expressed that they sometimes Framing Digital Mobility Gap 243 Table 2. DIGNITY pilots Customer Journey mapping overview DIGNITY pilot # participants Target group Defined journey Ancona 11 Elderly, people with disabilities Use of local bus service and digital planning app Barcelona 10 Low income, woman Localbustriptowork Flanders 7Elderlyinruralareas Use of dial-a-bus service (it is called Belbus); a service that helps people travel by bus in less populated parts of Flanders. Reservation can be made upfront via phone or internet Tilburg 9 Elderly, low income Bus trip from home to train station (including preparation) feel alarmed or uncomfortable with fellow passengers in the bus. Representatives of the low income group indicated that their preferred payment method was cash over digital methods; and that they are more often using smartphone than a computer for the digital operations. In Flanders pilot, participants appreciated possibility to use the phone for making reservations of the dial-a-bus service. Especially for people with low digital capabilities this service is very successful. In Ancona, almost all participants mentioned it was easy to find the ticket validator machine inside the bus. But when they needed help, only 5 out of 11 participants perceived the bus drivers as friendly and helpful to assists the process. Figure 4illustrates the scores that participants gave for each of the journey activities in the CJM research in Ancona. Each line represents a participant and each number corresponds to the feeling participants had during that activity: 1 means very uncomfortable and 10 is very comfortable. Some of the scores of participants are the same and therefore are not visible in this graph. The activity with the lowest scores has the potential to be improved which will be beneficial for the overall experience of the journey. Fig. 4. Ancona pilot CJM participant scores. The information gathered with the CJM method provided a detailed and clear insight on the experience of the participants. It enriches the quantitative data that is collected in 250 N. Nesterova et al. methodswere further evaluatedand validatedthrough the DIGNITYvalidation approach (Lazzarini B. 2022), which provided detailed feedback on each method from the variety of the involved stakeholders. The objective was to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of individual methods deployed as well as an added value of the overall framing phase to different local/regional context. The evaluation of the framing phase has been carried out usingasetofevaluationcriteria,furtherdetailedwithindicators.Evaluationcriteriawere: effectiveness; efficiency and resources; participation and collaboration; expectations & social learning/capabilities acquired’; relationship with other DIGNITY tasks. Overall, all the methods proposed within the framing phase were considered useful by pilots. Figures 6and 7illustrate it: pilot partners placed themselves on the right upper quadrant of the scheme, which describes their overall satisfaction with the framing phase. For example, pilot partners described without exception that the activities of the framing phase were very important for raising awareness of the problem of the digital divide related to mobility. It also enabled the collection of essential information for the implementationoflocalinitiatives(LazzariniB.2022).Datacollectedthroughthevariety of methodologies, allowed to contextualise the digital gap in a specific geographical context and to better identify the vulnerable to exclusion groups for the further policy focus. Improvement can be achieved in the integration of the different insights/results provided by framing methods, considering the fact that the information collected through the different methodologies is quite diverse. Next, as a result of the framing phase it became evident, that there is currently a lack of public data focusing on the digital gap in mobility of vulnerable-to-exclusion groups and the need to a systematisation of a set of standard data, ideally by public administration/entities in order to support decision making. Fig. 6. Evaluation of the framing phase by DIGNITY pilots. Framing Digital Mobility Gap 251 Fig. 7. Evaluation of the framing phase by DIGNITY pilots. DIGNITY framing phase proposed a portfolio of methods to assist the cities and regions in identification of the impacts that the mobility eco-system digitalisation has on different population groups. This process allows to prioritise the vulnerable-to exclusion groups to which the most attention needs to be paid on the local level within a digital mobility transition process; to identify digital mobility products and services inclusiveness of which can be improved and to distinguish the gaps in institutional, organisational and regulatory structures within public authorities allowing to build inclusive mobility eco-systems. Building up on these results, the next steps within DIGNITY approach allows to act on those shortcomings. The bridging phase includes: •The scenario building approach aims to analyse possible developments in the future and to present them coherently; focusing on the gaps identified at the macro levels. •The iterative process of inclusive design wheel, offering a structured method for generating solutions to challenges, with an emphasis on creating solutions that are usable by as many people as reasonably possible, this way aiming at the gaps identified at micro and macro levels. The outputs of the bridging phase are used to develop a robust regulatory framework and policy action plans as well as to develop more inclusive mobility products and services, addressing the needs of the variety of the users. Pilots confirmed that overall set of methods developed in DIGNITY have improved the understanding of the digital gap, at different levels and allowed to move forward in the development of the inclusive mobility eco-system. 5 Conclusions Digitalisation is one of the current trends in society, that facilitates the connectivity between people, businesses, regions, and countries. Location and distance are no longer 252 N. Nesterova et al. a barrier to meeting and exchanging information (Hoeke et al. 2020). Digitalisation of the transport sector follows a high speed path, changing the ways people access information about transport services and products, as well as changing mobility patterns and the use of some transport options. However, not everyone benefits from these digital developments, bringing specific population groups at risk of being excluded from some mobility products or services and creating a risk of the increasing social isolation. There is no general solution that exists, as this gap manifests itself in different ways taking into account the local situations. Public authorities feel the urge of assessing potential scope of the problem and realise that specific vulnerable to exclusion groups might require growing attention. The framing methodology proposed in DIGNITY, builds on variety of individual methods that allow public authorities to develop an in-depth view on the scope, size and urgency of the problem. Methods presented in this chapter are proven to be useful as standalone activities, however their maximum impact is achieved in their joint implementation. References Banister, D.: Transport for all. Transp. Rev. 39(3), 289–292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/014 41647.2019.1582905 Bracke, A., Delespaul, S., van Apeldoorn, N.: DIGNITY, Framing the digital gap in mobility on a local level (D.3.1.) (2021) Goodman-Deane, J., Bradley, M., Clarkson, P.J.: Relating age, digital interface competence and exclusion. Gerontechnology 20(2) (2021). https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2021.20.2.24-468.11 Goodman-Deane, J., Waller, S.: D1.2 Benchmark of factors affecting use of digital products and surveys across Europe. DIGNITY project deliverable D1.2 (2022a). https://www.dignity-pro ject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Dignity-D1.2-final.pdf. Accessed Apr 2022 Goodman-Deane, J., Kluge, J., Waller, S., Roca Bosch, E.: DIGNITY digital exclusion dataset - Germany . 1 v. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2022b). https://doi.org/10.5821/data2117-367811-1 Goodman-Deane, J., et al.: Towards inclusive digital mobility services: a population perspective. Interact. Comput. 33(4), 426–441 (2022) Hoeke, L., Noteborn, C., Goncalves, M., Nesterova, N.: DIGNITY, Literature review effects of digitalization in mobility in society (D.1.1) (2020) Lazzarini, B., Carmona, N., Roca, E.: DIGNITY, DIGNITY framework validation report (D.4.3) (2022). Forthcoming Nesterova,N.,Goodman-Deane,J.,Bradley, M.:DIGNITY,Interactivecataloguewithgoodexamples of mobility products for vulnerable groups, including an overview of success factors for mobility products/services to meet user needs of vulnerable groups (D 1.3) (2021) UPCommons (undated): https://upcommons.upc.edu/. Accessed Apr 2022 Framing Digital Mobility Gap 253 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.