The politics of velomobility: Analysis of the vote to include cycling in the Swiss Constitution

IF 3.1 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Patrick Rérat , Emmanuel Ravalet
{"title":"The politics of velomobility: Analysis of the vote to include cycling in the Swiss Constitution","authors":"Patrick Rérat ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Ravalet","doi":"10.1080/15568318.2022.2068388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In 2018, Swiss citizens voted for fostering cycling to be included in the Swiss Constitution. This national vote and a post-vote survey among a representative sample of citizens bring insight into the varying propensity to support cycling among the population. The main explanatory factor is participants’ current cycling practices: cyclists were much more likely to vote positively, as they are more aware of the lack of infrastructure. Non-cyclists were more reluctant, perhaps because they do not wish to challenge the dominant system of automobility. The second most important factor is a right–left political gradient. People on the left were more likely to vote positively and to agree with the arguments for the inclusion of cycling in the Constitution (safety, reduction of congestion, environmental and health benefits), while people on the right were more likely to agree with counterarguments (cycling network already excellent, federalism, unfair to foster cycling). Support for the vote did not vary significantly between social classes, ages or residential contexts. Women, who cycle less than men, voted more in favor and were more concerned about safety, which may be interpreted as a latent demand to cycle. A desire to “catch up” was also observed on the regional level: cantons with a low modal share of cycling were characterized by a higher acceptance rate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47824,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S155683182200702X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In 2018, Swiss citizens voted for fostering cycling to be included in the Swiss Constitution. This national vote and a post-vote survey among a representative sample of citizens bring insight into the varying propensity to support cycling among the population. The main explanatory factor is participants’ current cycling practices: cyclists were much more likely to vote positively, as they are more aware of the lack of infrastructure. Non-cyclists were more reluctant, perhaps because they do not wish to challenge the dominant system of automobility. The second most important factor is a right–left political gradient. People on the left were more likely to vote positively and to agree with the arguments for the inclusion of cycling in the Constitution (safety, reduction of congestion, environmental and health benefits), while people on the right were more likely to agree with counterarguments (cycling network already excellent, federalism, unfair to foster cycling). Support for the vote did not vary significantly between social classes, ages or residential contexts. Women, who cycle less than men, voted more in favor and were more concerned about safety, which may be interpreted as a latent demand to cycle. A desire to “catch up” was also observed on the regional level: cantons with a low modal share of cycling were characterized by a higher acceptance rate.

交通的政治:对将自行车纳入瑞士宪法的投票分析
摘要2018年,瑞士公民投票支持将自行车运动纳入瑞士宪法。这项全国性的投票和一项针对具有代表性的公民样本的投票后调查,让我们深入了解了民众支持骑自行车的不同倾向。主要的解释因素是参与者目前的骑行习惯:骑自行车的人更有可能投积极的票,因为他们更清楚缺乏基础设施。非自行车手更不情愿,也许是因为他们不想挑战占主导地位的自动驾驶系统。第二个最重要的因素是左右政治梯度。左翼人士更有可能投赞成票,并同意将自行车纳入宪法的论点(安全、减少拥堵、环境和健康益处),而右翼人士更有可能同意反对意见(自行车网络已经很好了,联邦制,不公平地促进自行车运动)。对投票的支持率在社会阶层、年龄或居住环境之间没有显著差异。骑自行车的女性比男性少,她们投了更多的赞成票,也更关心安全问题,这可能被解释为骑自行车的潜在需求。在地区一级也观察到了“追赶”的愿望:自行车运动模式份额较低的州的特点是接受率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sustainable Transportation provides a discussion forum for the exchange of new and innovative ideas on sustainable transportation research in the context of environmental, economical, social, and engineering aspects, as well as current and future interactions of transportation systems and other urban subsystems. The scope includes the examination of overall sustainability of any transportation system, including its infrastructure, vehicle, operation, and maintenance; the integration of social science disciplines, engineering, and information technology with transportation; the understanding of the comparative aspects of different transportation systems from a global perspective; qualitative and quantitative transportation studies; and case studies, surveys, and expository papers in an international or local context. Equal emphasis is placed on the problems of sustainable transportation that are associated with passenger and freight transportation modes in both industrialized and non-industrialized areas. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editors and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert reviewers. All peer review is single-blind. Submissions are made online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信