This Ph.D. thesis explores the issues of mobility and accessibility for individuals in precarious situations within urban environments, particularly focusing on social exclusion caused by inadequate transportation options. It analyzes the interactions between urban structure, time, and individual mobility competencies as significant factors affecting access to job opportunities and social participation. Using a sociological perspective, the research aims to identify barriers to mobility and highlight the importance of effective transport policies in addressing social vulnerability.

1. Ph.D thesis
Urbeur XXVII ciclo
Tutor: Matteo Colleoni (Università di Milano-Bicocca)
Co-tutor: Luc Gwiazdzinski (Université de Grenoble)
Course Analysis of Temporary Inhabitants in the Public Spaces – Prof. Citroni – 4 cfu

2. Why this topic?
Scientific-, social-, personal- relevance

3. End of the compact city; sprawl
Temporal de-
synchronization
Car-dependency; Inadequate
transit supply
Mobility and accessibility related social exclusion
Social relevance
Nowadays, generally, urban opportunities (work; goods; services; encounters; social ties; etc.) are
not located in the proximity of households’ residences.
Movement is necessary in order to connect in space and time the different daily-life domains (work;
consumption; leisure, etc.).
Increasing importance of mobility, especially auto-mobility, in managing daily life.
The ability to move as a resource for social inclusion  Issue of mobility related social exclusion
The process by which people are prevented from participating in the economic, political and social
life of the community because of reduced accessibility to opportunities, services and social networks,
due in whole or in part to insufficient mobility in a society and environment built around the
assumption of high mobility (Kenyon et al. 2002: 210–211)

4. Scientific relevance
Debate around the «poor»’s mobility:
Exclusion due to immobility and lack of mobility skills  Move to cope (Le Breton 2005)

Policy programs that aim to encourage the mobility of people who are in a precarious
situation (Lucas 2004; 2006)
VS
Mobility injunction that characterises contemporary advanced capitalistic societies (Fol
2009)
Sociological approach allows to overcome some shortcomings associated to
the current engineering dominant perspective in transport and urban planning
Accessibility is analyzed in terms of transportation network performance (e.g. improve access =
travel time savings) BUT
The issue is not how to travel more easily or rapidly from one location to another, but how to
access better jobs and opportunities within a daily time constraint.
Furthermore, it is not sufficient that an opportunity is available to access to it. Other social
determinants have a role.

5. Personal relevance
Research interests in urban studies and mobility, especially in
understanding the effects of space-time transformations in terms of
social exclusion;
Precarious worker, urban being, highly-mobile, without car, engaged
in bicycle grassroots movement, who has experienced
inaccessibility due to transport related problems;
Ethical outlook: social justice;
VALUE-FREE SOCIAL SCIENCES / VALUE RELEVANCE (Weber)
Sociologists should observe value neutrality while conducting social research […] He should
not make evaluative judgment about empirical evidence […] He should make his own values
open and clear and refrain from advocating particular values […]
BUT
In order to carry out social research viewpoints are needed which form the basis of hypothesis
which enables the social scientists to collect empirical data […] Thus a sociologist has to be
value frank and should make the values which have got incorporated in the choice of the topic
of the research of the formulation of hypothesis clear and explicit at the very outset in the
research
(SociologyGuide.com 2015)

6. Research aim
Analysing from a sociological point of view the mobility and the
accessibility to urban opportunities of a sample of individuals in a
precarious situation,
In order to understand the role of mobility and accessibility in the
processes of social vulnerabilization in contemporary cities and to
identify the main factors linked to inaccessibility and to access
constraints
Do they refer to urban structure characteristics or to individuals
properties, such as the lack of mobility skills and attitudes?

7. Analytical framework

8. Social exclusion
(Castel 1995; Paugam 1996;
Madanipour et al. 1998; SEU
2003; Byrne 2005)
Urban structure
matters
(Næss 2006; Indovina 2009)
Time matters
(Harvey 1989; Gwiazdzinski
2003; Colleoni 2004; Rosa
2010)
Mobility studies - 1
(Dupuy 1999; Urry 2004; Currie
et al. 2009)
Mobility studies - 2
(Kaufmann 2002; Orfeuil 2004;
Cass et al. 2005; Le Breton
2005; Urry 2007; Fol 2009)
Time-geography &
Activity space
(Hägerstrand 1970; Dijst &
Kwan 2005;)
Accessibility
studies
(Farrington & Farrington 2005;
Farrington 2007; Fol & Gallez
2013)
Employment/Social
Precarity
(Castel 1995; Gallie & Paugam
2000; Paugam 2006)
Theory building: searching for new insights

9. Daily mobility, accessibility, social exclusion
Social Exclusion (In)accessibility
Spatial-temporal
dimension
«a process, which causes
individuals or groups, who
are geographically
resident in a society, not
to participate in the
normal activities of
citizens in that society»
(Hine & Mitchell 2001: 12)
«The ability of people to
reach and engage in
opportunities and
activities» (Farrington &
Farrington 2005: 2)
Land use
component
Transport
component
Temporal
component
Individual
component
LeisureEmployment
Social ties
Welfare
Shopping

10. Opportunities
(pull factors)Access
Social obligations
(push factors)
Potential mobility
Competences
Cognitive
appropriation
Resources
- Options;
- Conditions;
- Aptitude;
- Knowledge;
- Skills;
- Organizational; - Physical;
- Financial;
- Organizational;
- Temporal;
- Relational;
- Socialization;
- Habit;
- Signification;
Actual mobility
The individual characteristics: resources,
competences and socio-cognitive appropriation
Source: my adaptation from Orfeuil 2004: 14

11. Research design and methods

12. FIELDS
IDENTIFICATION
(gis)
INTERVIEWS
(questionnaire,
in-depth interviews)
Topic(s):
- Availability of means
of mobility;
- Competences and
resources;
- Weekly activities;
- Constraints to access
to opportunities;
- Coping strategies;
Domain Opportunity
Transportation Underground stops
Railway stations
Bus, Tramway stops
Healthcare Physicians
Pharmacies
Hospitals
Education Crèches
Schools
Commerce Post office
Supermarkets (food)
Malls (food)
Leisure
(sport) Sport equipment
(culture) Public libraries
Museums
Cinemas
Theatres
(social) Youth centres
Community centres

13. Main results

14. INSEE
(2014)
Lyon
Pop. 1 281 971
Km2 538
Dens.
(hab./Km2)
2 382,85
ISTAT
(2014)
Milan
Pop. 3 176 180
Km2 1 575,65
Dens.
(hab./Km2)
2 015,80
Scale of analysis:
“Metropoli di Milano” & “Métropole de Lyon”

15. The GIS index of potential
spatial accessibility

20. Cultural equipment
(library, cinema, theatre, museum)
Healthcare facilities
(physicians, pharmacies, hospitals)
A different accessibility

21. 0
5
10
15
20
25
Alta
Alto-m
edia
M
edio-alta
M
edia
M
edio-bassa
Basso-m
edia
Bassa
%
Accessibility classes
Popula on distribu on per accessibility class
Milano
Lione
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
AltaAlto-m
ediaM
edio-alta
M
ediaM
edio-bassaBasso-m
edia
Bassa
%
Accessibility classes
Foreigners distribu on per accessibility area
Milano
Lione

22. Precarious mobility and
accessibility

23. Car-dependent jobs
« … I must start a stage for 2 weeks and my brother is going to lend me his car
because I need it to reach the stage place, it isn’t far, but it’s the time: I have to be
there at 5am… » (unemployed)
«…The automobile is the main cause because they have never offer me a job at
the desk […] but they proposed me jobs as an external consulent and I need the
car for these positions…» (unemployed)
« …I spend 320 euros per month. It’s a lot, but without a car what can we do?...»
(worker)
Exclusion related to the
no-availability of car
Forced car ownership

24. Precarious but mobile
 “…Four years ago I was working for the same firm […] they begun to moving me and
I did half an hour in a place and one hour in another place, then I moved again… For
doing it I had to use the car, also if the places weren’t far from each other but I had to
be fast […] It was a nightmare, all the charges for the gasoline, the parking were at my
expense…” (cleaning service)
 « …The work conditions they promised me were not true [...] financially the rental car
was at my expense, and no compensation or reimbursed km... Today, it costs more to
me working for people like that than what I receive [...] It is a job very expensive... »
(salesperson)
 “…I refused a job proposal outside Varese also because they do not refund the hour
and a half to come back to Milan […] I consider it as work-time but they do not pay
it!…” (social worker)
Flexibility Employability

25. Precarity implies being mobile
The respondents are not immobile, without the necessary mobility
competences for the inclusion in the job market
They have precarious resources with they adapt themselves to a
precarious situation
Their coping strategies to face precarity often involve mobility and the
disposal of many competences
Survival circuit - Assistance circuit : spatial and temporal points of
reference where find the resources to satisfy needs

26. Comparison between Milan and Lyon
A differentiated protection: different mobility and access “rights”
Lyon more policies than Milan
BUT in both cities tension with the actual mobility and access needs of people
“…il faut être vraiment dans la misère…” (rappresentante di vini)
“…poi ho dovuto aprire la partita IVA per accettare un lavoro e quindi non ho potuto fare
domanda in quanto lavoratore indipendente…” (educatrice e psicologa)
« ..J’ai plus droit, non, même en tant que chercheur d’emploi j’ai plus droit. Oui, avant
faisant partie du PLIE, oui, mais là non… » (disoccupata)
“…si, l’anno scorso ho ottenuto l’abbonamento ATM, ma quest’anno avendolo già preso
non posso presentare la domanda perché, naturalmente, preferiscono a darlo a chi non ne
ha beneficiato…” (disoccupato)

27. a) Protected from the risks related to (in)accessibility;
b) Mobiles with a precarious access related to work;
c) Mobiles of precarity;
a) No or soft effect;
b) Indirect effect;
c) Direct effect (single domain or activity);
Profiles
Relationships
Mobility, accessibility and social exclusion

28. References
 Byrne, D., 2005. Social Exclusion 2nd ed., Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International.
 Cass, N., Shove, E. & Urry, J., 2005. Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Sociological review, 53(3), pagg.539–555.
 Castel, R., 1995. Les métamorphoses de la question sociale: une chronique du salariat, Librairie Fayard.
 Currie, G. et al., 2009. Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne—
Preliminary results. Transport Policy, 16(3), pagg.97–105.
 Dijst, M.J. & Kwan, M.P., 2005. Accessibility and quality of life: time-geographic perspectives. , pagg.109–126.
 Dupuy, G., 1999. La dépendance automobile: Symptômes, analyses, diagnostic, traitements, Anthropos.
 Farrington, J. & Farrington, C., 2005. Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13(1), pagg.1–12.
 Fol, S., 2009. La mobilité des pauvres: pratiques d’habitants et politiques publiques, Paris: Belin.
 Gallie, D. & Paugam, S., 2000. Employment Precarity, Unemployment, and Social Exclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Hägerstrand, T., 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), pagg.6–21.
 Hine, J. & Mitchell, F., 2001. Better for Everyone? Travel Experiences and Transport Exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(2), pagg.319–
332.
 Indovina, F. a c di., 2009. Dalla città diffusa all’arcipelago metropolitano, Milano: Franco Angeli.
 Kaufmann, V., 2002. Re-thinking mobility: contemporary sociology, Farnham: Ashgate Pub Ltd.
 Kenyon, S., Lyons, G. & Rafferty, J., 2002. Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion
through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(3), pagg.207–219.
 Le Breton, É., 2005. Bouger pour s’ en sortir: mobilité quotidienne et intégration sociale, Paris: Armand Colin.
 Lucas, K. et al., 2006. Moving from welfare to work: the role of transport, London: FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society.
 Lucas, K., 2004. Transport and Social Exclusion: A survey of the Group of Seven Nations, London: FIA Foundation for the
Automobile and Society.
 Madanipour, A., Cars, G. & Allen, J. a c di., 1998. Social exclusion in European cities: processes, experiences, and responses,
London - Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
 Næss, P., 2006. Urban structure matters, Routledge.
 Orfeuil, J.-P. a c di., 2004. Transports, pauvretés, exclusions: Pouvoir bouger pour s’en sortir, Éd. de l’Aube.
 Paugam, S., 1996. L’exclusion, l’état des savoirs, Editions de La Découverte.
 Schönfelder, S. & Axhausen, K.W., 2003. Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transport Policy, 10(4), pagg.273–286.
 SEU, 2003. Making the connections: Final Report on Transport and social exclusion, London: Social Exclusion Unit - Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister.
 Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities, Cambridge: Polity Press.
 Urry, J., 2004. The ‘system’of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4-5), pagg.25–39.