WCTR

Session D: Activity & Transportation Demand Analysis

D5: Travel Behavior Research

Changing mobility behaviors. 

Three qualitative case studies: Paris, London and Nagoya

Anaïs Rocci

Ph.D Student- INRETS / DEST

2 av Gal Malleret de Joinville
94114 Arcueil – France
tel :+33 1 47 40 72 50 – fax :+33 1 45 47 56 06
Anais.rocci@inrets.fr

Abstract
In a context of environmental concerns about the harmful effects of car use, while the policies try to manage and reduce automobile, motorization and car use are still very high. The question here is to understand why most people are not prepared to refrain from using cars in urban areas, what are the limiting factors to a change and to acceptability for more sustainable mobility practices. A sociological approach is adopted. Qualitative field studies have been carried out in Paris region (France), Nagoya (Japan) and London (England). Through the three cases studied we analyse how individuals choose a mode of transport and what could make them change in terms of practices and representations, environmental awareness, and perception of policies and decision makers. 

Key words
Mobility behaviors, behavioral modification, environmental awareness, transport policies, cross country approach.

In a context of environmental concerns about the harmful effects of car use (Wiel, 1999, Nilsson and Küller, 2000, etc.), while the policies try to manage and reduce automobile, motorization and car use are still very high (Orfeuil, 2001, 2004). A change in mobility behaviors seems difficult to appear, and some researchers speak about car dependency (Dupuy, 1999, 2006).
Our purpose is to examine why most people are not prepared to refrain from using cars in urban areas and what would make them change. We attempt to identify limiting factors to behavioral change for more sustainable mobility practices. The approach is transverse; it embraces three usually separately treated topics: modal choice in terms of practices and representations, environmental awareness, and attitudes towards public actions and decision makers.

Methodology

Research on travel behavior is large (Jones et al., 1983; 1990; Stopher and Lee-Gosselin, 1997; Raux and Andan, 1988, etc.). But most of analyses are quantitative and  are carried out in the economics and statistics fields (Orfeuil, 1996, 2000; Dupuy, 1995, 2006; Massot and Orfeuil, 2005; Madre and Armoogum, 1996; Kaufmann, Jemelin and Guidez, 2001, etc.). Qualitative ones are rarer (Flamm, 2004; Espinasse, 2001; etc.), as are sociological or psychological ones (Kaufmann, 2000; Goodwin, 1985; Frenay, 1997; Ajzen, 1991, 2004; Gossiaux, Barjonet, 1990). 
Our research fits into a sociological perspective with the use of qualitative methods. Information is collected by means of face-to-face semi-directed in-depth interviews. The aim is not to give a representative picture of the population but to show a diversity of occurrences. The qualitative approach is a good way to analyse the individuals’ complexity, logics and mechanisms of actions. It consists in making individuals tell freely their own story centred on their mobility. Information is obtained from the description of their daily life and perceptions and explanations of their mobility. This approach allows encircling in a more deepened way the modal choice in its complexity, and giving meaning to behaviors. 
Each method brings different information (Fichelet, 1989). In our research, understanding individuals’ reluctance to a change means understanding deep motivations in modal choice and mobility strategies at an individual level. Attitudes, preferences and motivations are often not included in many researches on modal choice (Steg et al., 2001). While “generalised cost” theory focuses on time and cost factors, we show that modal choice and change process depend on multi-factor effects (Kaufmann, 2000). Statistics looks for a representation of the reality and not the individual cognitive reasoning and its contradictions (Flamm, 2004). A rational approach cannot take into account the importance of emotion and sensitivity in the modal choice (M. Jensen, 1999). Thus, this method brings complementary insights to those provided by quantitative studies, to understand individuals’ behaviors and obstacles to a change.

A main field study was made in the greater Paris region. And some international comparisons were carried out in urban areas according to the same methodology and interrogations: one in Nagoya (Japan) and one in London (UK). We will focus here on a few results from a comparison of the three surveys. 30 to 40 individuals were interviewed in face-to-face, lasting 1 to more than 2 hours in each city. As much women as men were interviewed and the majority are 25-35 years old. They differ in family situations, work and residential location as well as in the mode used (automobile, public transport, bicycle, walk, motorized two-wheelers) and the main types of trips made (city-to-city, city-to-suburbs, suburbs-to-city, suburbs-to-suburbs). 
Those three cities have quite the same urban configuration and density. Each city has a different policy to reduce car use. London has taxes policies on car ownership and use. Nagoya does not seem to have a strong policy aiming at reducing car use, but technology could help reducing polluted emissions. Paris Region started a few years ago to implement measures limiting car use: constraints on traffic and parking space, but no taxation. Beyond these differences in policies, it is interesting to observe cultural differences and convergences in terms of practices and representations.
Thus our research presents insights for travel behavior research because of the methodology used, the three topics embraced, and the cross cultural approach. 

Some results from the three surveys will be presented in terms of representations and social symbolics, modal choice and strategies, and impacts of attitudes towards political measures and their actors as well as environmental awareness on individuals’ behaviors; dissonances between intention and acting will be highlighted.

Social symbolics, representations and car acquisition

Social symbolics of the car

The car is strongly standardized in mentalities, customs and behaviors, because of the values it conveys, the image and the social status it reflects (Pervanchon, 1990, 1999; Gossiaux and Barjonet, 1990; Dupuy, 1999; Levy, 2001). The automobile appears as a symbol in the life cycle. It is directly related to the events of life, such as coming of age, entrance in the active life and professional changes, family construction and changes in its composition, moving from homes or workplaces, etc. 
Motorization in Nagoya has a significant social symbolic. According to the people interviewed, the car seems to be a symbol of family construction. “it’s normal for the man to buy a car for the family, and to use it. My dad uses the car, my mother the bicycle” (Shinizu). In addition to the socio-professional and family status reflected by the automobile as well as the social symbolic of this object, Nagoya is the city of the car by excellence: the famous car manufacturer Toyota is established there, and the urban developments largely support the use of this mode. “Because of Toyota car manufacturer, the government has to sell many cars. Japan is the country of the automobile, and the economy of this region is specifically based on car manufacturers. They do everything to make the use of the car more comfortable” (Sudo).
In Paris, we observed the impact of social influence from friends. It could make people having a specific kind of car to show a professional, social or family status [“We followed the group to buy this type of car being taken in the spiral of automobile higher bid” (Sylvie, Paris)], or it could make them giving up the car [“If I have continued with the car, I couldn’t be integrated, I felt excluded because they all go by bike” (Daphné, Paris)]. Both studies demonstrate that some people follow the trend of the group they belong to: getting the driving licence if all your friends do, buying a motorbike if they do, acquiring a 4x4 to be on the same social level as your neighbour, or selling your car and cycling to follow the same convictions. 
On the contrary in the case of London, the car does not symbolize any status. Mainly, the car seems to be considered as a mode of transport as any other, without passion or symbolic. The exception is for some very rich people who want to show off their big, luxurious cars, and for those who use it as leisure.

Representations of the other modes

It appears that in Nagoya, the bicycle is more symbolic in terms of social status than in the two other cities. In London public transport does not refer to any social status, unlike in Paris and in Nagoya. Thus, using public transport could refer to a question of culture and social norm. In London as in Tokyo, taking the subway is normal, because it is perceived as the most efficient mode of transport. In Tokyo, public transport is very convenient and comfortable, reliable and speed. People can totally rely on it. And in London, public transport, particularly buses, are quite effective, and using the car is so expensive that most people use public transport.
However, public transport presents shortcomings in the three cities: in terms of service and punctuality, and road system particularly in suburbs, in London and in Paris Region; in terms of road system and frequency in Nagoya. The price is perceived as very high in all the cities studied. Indeed, car costs do not seem to be wholly estimated, especially in Paris Region.

Car ownership

In this context of social image and representations, car acquisition is standardized in Nagoya and in Paris. For motorists interviewed in the two cities, getting the driving licence between 18 and 20 is obvious. In Nagoya, acquiring a car is very common, they almost systematically acquire a car after a first recruiting and/or in a core family objective. “When I will be graduated and I will earn my own salary, I will buy a car for my family” (Matsumoto). This is confirmed by Kato “I bough a car after being graduated and when I started to work. It’s the same for many Japanese people”. Among the individuals interviewed there, each household has at least one car. There are often many cars for one person. For instance, Sasaki owns 4 cars: one to commute, one from his work, a sport one for leisure, and a big family one (for 7 persons). Thus we can conclude that acquiring a car in Nagoya is like a social norm. Even if many rules could constitute obstacles (as owning a parking place, and paying taxes to acquire a car, insurance, etc.). Even if costs seem high and constraining, they are perceived as an inevitable investment which cannot be avoided. 
If getting a driving licence is also common among people of the Paris Region,  acquiring and using a car is mainly constrained by insufficiency of public transportation network and services. They do not have choice; automobile acquisition and use are oriented by various constraints such as residence and employment locations, infrastructures and transport system (accessibility, transport service, etc.), situations of disability (like things to carry, children, stroller, handicaps, etc.), and professional constraints (need for professional trips or condition of recruiting). 
On the contrary, individuals in London do not get a driving licence systematically, and do not acquire a car as we commonly observed in both the other cities studied. Acquiring and using a car is very expensive, so only people who can afford it buy one. A lot of people here give up the car because of its expense. 

As regards to these three cases, social symbolics and representations appear as significant factors in acquiring a car, mostly in Nagoya and Paris Region. But it is not necessarily because people acquire a car that they will use it frequently. In Nagoya and in London we observed that car drivers use different modes of transport according to their mobility objectives, whereas in Paris region many motorists do not think of other modes of transport. The English people we interviewed as well as the Japanese ones have much more multimodal mobility practices than the French. 
After analysing the effect of social images and representations on car ownership, we will attempt next to understand the different factors which have an effect on car use.

Modal choice and strategies

The interviewed Japanese and English people seem to be more multimodal than the French do. In the French case, all goes as if car drivers chose the easiest accessible mode of transport at the origin, whereas for many individuals in the other cities, the choice would take into account more the constraints at destination, looking for the best mode according to the trip and the activities they are going to do. In France, most of the time car drivers choose their car because they own one and do not compare to the other options, they just take it. And most of the French motorists we interviewed do not know how using another mode of transportation and do not imagine the possibility to do it. “Actually, when you have a car, you don’t get informed about the other modes of transport, it’s the easy choice, the solution of facility. You have your own mode of transport and you don’t think of another one” (Daphné, Paris). 
Many people in London and Nagoya first consider all available modes of transport before taking their car when other options were lacking. “I will take my car only if it’s the more convenient, so I avoid taking it when there are traffic jams or when I don’t know the place. By metro, information is clearer than by car” (Hayashi). Sakamoto, as many Japanese people, uses to commute by public transportation because “it’s always on time”, but for week-ends, with children, “public transport is too constraining”.
Almost all the Japanese people questioned had a bicycle and a car. Contrary to the observed practices in Paris region, in Nagoya those two modes of transport are not opposed, and mostly are complementary for intermodal uses. For instance, Kato takes the car to go playing tennis lasting 20 minutes, and to go to his friend’s house he chooses cycling, lasting also 20 minutes, estimating this distance not too far to use the bike. As regards the observed Parisians’ behaviors, we supposed that French car drivers would choose the car in both cases. They would tend to choose their car automatically to reduce travel time from 15 to 5 minutes instead of choosing the bicycle or the subway. In Paris region, people tend to oppose these kinds of transport rather than to make them complementary. Furthermore, the practice of Park and Ride (that supposes to use a bicycle to ride until a station and take the train) was very common in Nagoya, contrary to London and Paris.
As in Nagoya, it was very rare to hear about people driving a car to commute in London. The very few who had a car just used it for leisure or shopping on the week end, to carry heavy things or to go outside London. “To go into London by car is not so fast, and  it’s too expensive because of the Congestion Charge and parking places, so I choose the tube” (John, London). But through the three surveys, a few persons used the car because they feel more comfortable in their car and they can afford having this comfort. For this kind of “addictive” persons, even if they know that the car is not the best solution, they will prefer the comfort of this mode and will accept any other constraints which will be compensated.

The main constraints when using a car are traffic jams in the city centre, the limited number of parking places, and the expensive price of car parks. In addition, the interviewed people especially in London and Nagoya do not drive after drinking alcohol. Consequently, for a Japanese planning to drink some alcohol becomes a criterion for choosing the car or not. “Rules are very strict in Japan about alcohol. If the Police catch you, you have to pay 300.000Y (which is 2000 euros) and then you can’t drive for 3 months” (Yorimoto). And going for a drink after work is part of the culture in Nagoya as it is in London. Though drinking alcohol was also observed as a constraint for some individuals in Paris region, the rule was perceived less strict and avoided easily because of the very few police controls.

Transport policies of the company have a significant impact on travel behaviors in those two cities, Nagoya and London. If a parking space is available at work and a car is provided with all its costs reimbursed, people would tend to use the car. But if on the contrary, the company pay the half price of public transport and do not own parking space, people would mainly choose public transport.

Most of the Japanese and English people we interviewed do not go to work by car because of the uncertainty of travel time. But those who can avoid congestion every time and be sure to be on time, or those who do not have any arrival constraints, choose the car. Indeed, being on time is an important cultural factor in Japan. Thus public transport, which is always on time, is mostly chosen to guarantee it. “It’s always on time, we can predict arrival time, by car we can’t plan how long it will take” (Inoue). Knowing the exact time of one’s journey and the certainty of getting to one’s destination on time seems to be a very significant factor in choosing a mode of transport, particularly for commuting. People in London complain about delays of public transportation but they still use it because it is less constraining than the car and because of the cost.
In the cases met in the greater Paris region, many people try to have the shortest travel time (as they perceive it) and to decrease their mental and physical load (that refers to the constraints perceived or lived). Comfort and pleasure of the mode are extremely important among the selection criteria of the French car drivers.
Considering the reliability of different modes of transport, cycling and walking are the most reliable means of locomotion because the individual is the only one to control it from A to B. In Nagoya, and in Tokyo even more, except for some cases, public transport is definitely the most reliable mode to be on time. For Parisian car drivers, by car they can choose their travel time (flexible working hours), change routes if they are stuck in traffic, thus, they keep control on their mobility. 

Finally, it arises from the practices of mobility of the interviewed people in Nagoya as well as in London, a strong tendency to multimodality. The individuals make use of various modes of transport according to the destination, the activities and the associated constraints. The constraints depend on the distance, time, punctuality and reliability, the perceived cost related to the travel (tickets, gasoline, taxes, insurance, Congestion Charge, fines, etc.), the possibility of parking and its cost, and the restriction on alcohol when driving. 
In the three studied cities, we observed that the congestion and parking space constraints seem to have an important impact on people behavior not to use the car, maybe more than the costs, even if these are still important especially in London with taxes’ Policy. Consequently we can assume that measures to constrain traffic and car parking, as well as measures on costs, would be successful. But that kind of constraints are probably not enough to make a real change, as we will just see it now: individuals seem to justify their practices even if they agree with environmental values and political objectives. 

Impacts and perceptions of policies 

In London and in the greater Paris region, restrictive policies are implemented to limit car use. They prove to have an effect on individuals’ mobility behavior but create some weaving reactions from the users. Public Authorities seem to have an essential role in promoting behavioral change, with their actions and their image. Some of the implemented measures (e.g., on car-parking and traffic) have an impact on the mobility practices of a part of the users. 

Impacts of policies to limit car use on behaviors

From the three surveys, traffic jams, an insufficiency of parking places and high costs prove to be deterrent factors to choosing the car. Implementing measures to limit the car space and its use increase the mental load and dissuade some car drivers to use their car anytime. “We choose the car less because it’s more and more difficult to find a parking place” (Cyril, Paris). The costs are also significant, but more in London than in the two other cities. Policies in London are very restrictive and forced people to change mainly by increasing costs: parking, fines, Congestion Charge to enter in the central zone, other taxes on road, car purchase and insurance. Most people can’t afford it. In Paris region, many individuals accommodate themselves to the rise of taxes and prices or prefer to give up other things than to limit their car use. Thus we assume that probably costs in London are much more dissuasive than in Paris region. 
Beside the taxation measures, the police in London is very strict: there are a lot of controls, and sanctions are very dissuasive. Fines are very frequent and very high; “you can’t avoid it or take the risk of not getting one” (Dan). Thus the measure makes people very disciplined and dissuades them from infringing the law and for some to use the car. 
In comparison with the two other cities, in Nagoya there are not apparent political measures to limit car use in the city. Traffic jams and lack of car space naturally grow worse because of the motorisation growth. For many individuals, the car infrastructures and the maintenance of the roadway system is evidence of the car being still largely a priority in the policies. However, some noticed the strong development of public transport. It appears that policies in Nagoya encourage people to use the alternatives more than they constrain car use, contrary to the other cities studied. Sanctions are very high and dissuasive as they are in London, so people are disciplined too. In addition to legal sanctions, social sanctions have a significant impact on Japanese’s behaviors. 
In Paris, measures are more oriented to limit the car space on the road and parking than to tax people. And contrary to London, policies and sanctions are not so strict, and people try to avoid fine not respecting the rules. Because police control is not systematic, the risk to get a fine is not so big. Sometimes, the cost of the fine is less expensive than paying for the parking place for instance.

Thus even if in Nagoya constraints on using the car do not come from political measures, they increase the mental and physical load and dissuades some people from using the car in all the cities studied. The cases of Nagoya and London point out different ways to change individuals’ behaviors: Encouraging people more than constraining them for the first one (improving public transport and large information), and implementing restrictive measures mainly by the cost for the second one (taxes, Congestion Charge, etc). In those two cases, it appears that the policies take into account the cultural characteristics of the population – the efficiency of the social sanction towards the social image, as well as the punctuality especially in the Japanese case, and for the English case maybe the economically centred way of life. Something new can’t be enforced everywhere immediately, it must be adapted to the local conditions, and to the social and cultural characteristics (Amar, 2004). We assume that all political actions are acceptable and efficient when the expected changes in practices are incorporated, integrated and translated by individuals in the form of social constraints, by combining them with a normative stake.
But beyond those few impacts on behaviors, individuals have justification of not changing their practices.

Perceptions of the decision makers and their measures. Dissonances and justifications

In the French case, we saw that despite the development of public transport in terms of service and infrastructures, and despite the measures implemented to constrain more car use, people were not willing to change. The lack of credibility and coherence of the policies as well as the lack of visibility and communication reinforce the reluctance of individuals to change their behaviors. Indeed, in face of the expected change people justify their practices using cars in many ways. 
The first one concerns the lack of opportunities to move in another way. People refrain from the idea of limiting car use if good alternatives are not developed in the same time. In the three cities, a very few persons were satisfied by the improvement of alternatives, particularly the development of public transport services and frequency. “I don’t have choice, there is no convenient public transport near my place” (Cyril, Paris). “Public transport are not enough efficient, the tube is not reliable, there is too much problems, it’s too old, and it’s very expensive!” (Barbara, London).
The second justification is the incoherence of the policies. “The different political actions are not linked together, there is not a global management” (Suzuki). The Policy plan seems to be misunderstood. Many people are willing to accept more constraining measures if they are coherent, particularly in Paris region. “In Paris, they are unadventurous, they did not want to forbid cars at once, they implement half-measures, but I think that they would have better said: in 5 years, no cars anymore” (Christian, Paris). They charge the decision makers’ timidity, and argue a lack of information to understand the reasons and objectives of a behavioral change. Some individuals don’t understand why the government implements measures to limit car use and does not change buses and taxis to make them pollute less, or does not improve public transport more rapidly. “Widening the bus lanes is not useful, if they want to reduce car use they have to develop network and frequency of metro and buses” (Sylvie, Paris). In the same way, it was often said that the government should improve the technology to increase sustainable cars before limiting the use. “They should develop 0 emission cars, develop new energies not to pollute” (Yamada). 
The third one is the lack of public actor’s credibility. Individuals call into question the lack of willingness and transparency of the political actors. They blame the decision-makers for not practicing what they preach. “Those who are supposed to show the best practices are those who show it the least. They promote it and on the ground they do the opposite” (Alicia, Paris). While in Paris decision makers are blamed not to show the good practices, in London most of the interviewed people do not think that the money of the Congestion Charge and other taxes are used to improve public transport. They perceive it as another way to tax people, without using the benefits to invest in transport and in the city. “The Congestion Charge is unfairly. The mayor tries to get more money from people. I think now, it’s less about reducing traffic but more about getting money. The government is greedy” (Rob).
Many people interviewed through the three surveys don’t feel guilty about their own practices, comparing them to those of the decision makers- “The politics and the manufacturers do nothing to change, then why I would get involved while above they do not” (Alicia, Paris)-; to those of their neighbours who do nothing towards a favourable change or do worse than them, or especially for the French, they hide themselves behind their cultural mentalities, explaining that they think only about their comfort and convenience right now. “The French are like that, it’s individual pleasure and comfort first” (Christian, Paris). Some people justify their car use by the fact that other people do worse than them. “There are families who have much more cars, and some have 4x4, they pollute much more than me!” (Corinne, Paris).
Parallel to these justifications, people incriminate the lack of information and communication about environmental problems, as well as measures constraining car use and supporting alternative modes.
We will now analyse environmental awareness and practices to understand the impact on behavioral change.

Environmental awareness. Dissonances and justifications.

Among the interviewed people in the three cases, only a few really worry about the environment. The urgency to carry out actions concerning transport appears very rarely in their speech. The positive point for some individuals we interviewed of those measures limiting car use would be that they make people think before using their car; they would maybe not take it just out of habit. Even if they do not change their practices they would think about it a bit more. “If this doesn’t make people choose other modes of transport, maybe it makes them think more about environment” (Harriet, London).
We can notice the same justifications through the three cases to explain the dissonances between collective values and individuals practices.
According to many interviewed people, firstly, environmental issues are too far from them and do not let them see the direct consequences of using the car, as well as the effects of the actions carried out to remedy them, and to understand the stakes. “We hear of that but we can’t see any effects” (Cyril, Paris).
Secondly, some of them have a feeling of powerless. They know neither what to do nor how to move in another way. “I don’t know what I could do, what I should do” (Sashio, Nagoya). A few is fatalistic. People do not link their own behaviors and the global phenomenon. “There is not only the car, many other things pollute. If I stop using my car, that will not reduce pollution!” (Alicia, Paris).
Thirdly, they rely on the role of advanced technologies related to automobile engineering and to information systems, as we saw earlier. “I’m not worried because in a few years there will be hybrid vehicles, technology goes very fast” (Suzuki).
Another obstacle to the limitation of car use and environmental awareness proves to be the satisfaction of the individual’s needs. They would be ready to adopt more environmental friendly practices if this change does not constrain them more. “Indeed I want to respect the environment but that should not charge me and doing the selective sorting costs me time, place and energy, taking the train instead of the car makes me lose 1:30!” (Magda, Paris). They choose their mode of transport only with a practical concern. Environment is not a criterion in modal choice, but it could be in addition. “I didn’t choose bicycle because of environment. I ride because it’s more convenient and it’s faster” (Mike, London).
Many people in Nagoya and in Paris Region said that the government should be more strict with environmental measures. “People don’t think about it... if there were laws to forbid polluting cars...” (Yutzi, Nagoya).
Furthermore, giving up the car is perceived as a step back. For some of the interviewed people changing toward environmental values means losing in comfort level, and making the society moves back. 

Thus we can conclude that the criterion of environment may promote a change but does not produce it. It is not because people say that they feel concern that they adopt practices in that way.

Conclusion

Finally, the analysis of the three studies carried out partly shows the same obstacles and factors of no change in behaviors for more sustainable mobility.  We can identify few main obstacles to behavioral change through the three field studies.
First, contrary to what we observed in London and Nagoya, in Paris region individuals support the mode they usually used and discredit the other modes. It can be assumed that people who have not experimented another way to travel, and thus who do not get the knowledge of another kind of mobility, base their practices on their representations and do not look far and wide. People need to be initiated to new practices, and to get used to a new system of mobility. In London and Nagoya, people had much more multimodal mobility practices.
Furthermore, a change, to be acceptable, has to minimize the mental load. Individuals would not change if they do not find advantages in this change. Through the three surveys, only in Nagoya interviewed people seem to be satisfied by compensations and rewards.
People must not feel forced to use a mode, it is preferable to widen the effective possibilities and improve good alternatives.
Another obstacle is the weak environmental awareness. It can promote a change but cannot produce it. People do not know what to do in favour of the environment. Moreover, they do not want to make an effort if it is not useful because nobody acts in the same way, and, above all, if the political actors do not do what they preach. 
Indeed, another limiting factor is the lack of credibility of public actions and of decision makers. Beside incentives measures, constraints seem to be essential. Mostly people change because they are constrained to, by restrictive measures on traffic, parking and taxes. Otherwise, if all good conditions to keep having a car are gathered, there is no reason to give it up.
Social influence has also a considerable impact on behavior, as much as for getting a car as for giving it up. People would use the car or not and buy a kind of car in accordance to the group they belong to, especially in the French case. 
We have seen that social symbolics are significant to understand the attachment to the car. Furthermore various external constraints force people to acquire a car. On another hand, car ownership does not necessarily imply its use.  As we observed particularly in Nagoya, though social representations and social norms have an impact on car acquisition, they do not influence necessarily car use.
Social representations make individuals reluctant to a change: they could be about modes of transport, political actors and measures, environmental issues and also directly about the question of change towards limiting the use of the car which can refer to the decrease of society. 
Finally, beyond constraints and individuals’ logics and criteria, the interviewed people have always arguments to justify their car use and to explain the discordance between their practices and their willingness to do favorable actions for the environment.

We can say that there are universal variables to understand mobility, but some appear more in certain cultures than in others. Thus, we can conclude that reluctances to a change of behavior are quite the same in the three cities studied through the cultural differences. However specific cultural values appear more in some countries, such as the importance of punctuality in Japan, which is positive for public transport, or the respect of the rules and of the authority in Japan and Great Britain, contrary to France, which profits to the community. 

Bibliography
Ajzen, I., and J. A. Thomas, (2004). “Commuters’ concern for the environment and knowledge of the effects of vehicle emissions.” Transportation Research Part D 9.

Amar G. (1994), Mobilités urbaines. Eloge de la diversité et devoir d’invention, L’Aube. 

Dupuy G. (1995), Les territoires de l’automobile, Anthropos.

Dupuy G. (1999), La dépendance automobile. Symptômes, analyses, diagnostic, traitements, Paris, Anthropos.

Dupuy G. (2006), La dépendance automobile, La Documentation Française.

Espinasse C. (2001), « Les femmes pro-voiture », in Avec ou sans voiture ?, coll. Synthèses PREDIT, La Documentation Française

Fichelet R. (1989), « Les approches qualitatives dans la recherche-action », Transports et sciences sociales, questions de méthodes, in Transports et Communication, Ed. Paradigme.

Flamm M. (2004), « Comprendre le choix modal. Les déterminants des pratiques modales et des représentations individuelles des moyens de transports », PhD thesis, Lausanne, EPFL

Frenay P. (1997), « De l’importance des facteurs psycho-sociaux dans le choix modal », Recherche Transport Sécurité, avril-juin 1997.

Goodwin P. (1985), Evolution de la motivation des usagers en matière de choix modal, rapport de la 68ème table ronde de la CEMT, Paris.

Gossiaux and Barjonet (1990), Automobilisme et société locale: les jeunes et l'auto dans la vallée de la Meuse - une approche anthropologique, Rapport INRETS.

Jensen M. (1999), “Passion and heart in transport. A sociological analysis on transport behaviour”, Transport Policy, n°6.

Jones P., Dix M., Clarke M., and Heggie I., (1983), Understanding Travel Behaviour, Oxford Studies of Transport, Gower, Aldershot.

Jones P. (ed.) (1990). Transport Research: New Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches, Gower Press.

Kaufmann V. (2000), Mobilité quotidienne et dynamiques urbaines. La question du report modal, Presses Polytechniques Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne

Kaufmann V., Jemelin C., and Guidez J-M. (2001), Automobile et modes de vie urbains : quel degré de liberté ?, Paris, La Documentation française.

Levy J. (2001), « Transports et enjeux de société », in Réflexion en cours sur l’après-PREDIT, PREDIT

Madre JL., and Armoogum J. (1996), Motorisation et mobilité des Franciliens aux horizons 2010-2020, Rapport INRETS, n°209.

Massot M-H., and Orfeuil J-P. (2005), « La mobilité au quotidien, entre choix individuel et production sociale », Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, volume n° 118, PUF.

Nilsson, M. and R. Küller (2000). “Travel behaviour and environmental concern.” Transportation Research Part D 5(3).

Orfeuil J-P. (1994), Je suis l’automobile, Ed. L’Aube.

Orfeuil J-P. (2000), Stratégies de localisation : ménages et services dans l'espace urbain, PREDIT 1996-2000, Paris, La Documentation française 

Orfeuil J.P. (2001), « L’automobile en questions », La Documentation Française, Problèmes politiques et sociaux, n°851-852.

Orfeuil, J.P. (2004), La mobilité et sa dynamique sur longue période – du Moyen Age à la société hypermoderne, CRETEIL, Université Paris Val de Marne.

Pervanchon M., Khoudour L., and Delmas D., (1991), La voiture dans l’imaginaire de jeunes européens, Rapport INRETS, Arcueil.

Pervanchon M. (1999), Conduire et se conduire. Du monde de la voiture au monde social, L’Harmattan.

Raux C., Andan O. (1988), Les analyses des comportements de mobilité individuelle quotidienne, une synthèse bibliographique, rapport pour le SERT, Let Lyon.

Steg L., Geurs K., and Ras M. (2001), “The effects of motivational factors on car use: a multidisciplinary modelling approach”. Transportation Research Part A, n°3.

Stopher P., and Lee-Gosselin M. (ed.) (1997), Understanding Travel Behaviour in an Era of Change, Pergamon.

Wiel M. (1999), La transition urbaine, Le passage de la ville pédestre à la ville motorisée, Liège, coll. "Recherches et architecture", P. Mardaga.