Mobility as a lens of social engagement in the urban context: The case of Florence university students

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA
Autori/Curatori Mirella Loda, Angeliki Coconi
Anno di pubblicazione 2025 Fascicolo 2025/2
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 28 P. 41-68 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rgioa2-2025oa20568
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Mobility has long been recognised by the social sciences as a particularly effective lens through which to analyse the functioning of an urban system from multiple perspectives. This study focuses on both routine and leisure mobility of the student population – a significant component in a university city like Florence – to examine both the adoption of sustainable mobility models and the extent and forms of participation in the city’s socio-cultural life. The study demonstrates the efficacy of analysing mobility as a methodological tool in urban social research, highlighting its potential to detect dynamics of inclusion and/or exclusion.

La mobilità è stata da tempo riconosciuta dalle scienze sociali come una lente particolarmente efficace per analizzare da più prospettive il funzionamento di un sistema urbano. Questo studio si concentra sulla mobilità sia di routine che di svago della popolazione studentesca – componente rilevante in una città universitaria come Firenze – per esaminare sia l’eventuale presa di modelli di mobilità sostenibile, sia la misura e le forme della partecipazione alla vita socio-culturale cittadina. Lo studio dimostra l’efficacia dell’analisi della mobilità come strumento metodologico nella ricerca sociale urbana, mettendo in luce il suo potenziale nel rilevare dinamiche di inclusione e/o di esclusione.

Parole chiave:; mobilità, coinvolgimento sociale, studenti universitari, contesto urbano, Firenze.

  1. Adey P., Bissell D. (2010). Mobilities, Meetings, and Futures: An Interview with John Urry. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1): 1-16. DOI: 10.1068/d3709.
  2. Ahas R., Silm S., Järv O., Saluveer E., Tiru, M. (2010). Using Mobile Positioning Data to Model Locations Meaningful to Users of Mobile Phones. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(1): 3-27. DOI: 10.1080/10630731003597306.
  3. Blizek W.L., Simpson R.B. (1978). The urban university and urban culture. The Urban Review, 10(4): 278-286. DOI: 10.1007/bf02172412.
  4. Bologna R., Hasanaj G., Piferi C., Sichi A. (2023). Residenzialità studentesca e ricettività turistica. Il caso di Firenze. In: Martinelli N., Annese M., Mangialardi G., a cura di, Le Università per le città e i territori. Proposte per l’ integrazione tra politiche universitarie e politiche urbane, Working Papers – Urban@it, vol. 15, pp. 52-63. Bologna: Urban@it – Centro Nazionale di Studi per le Politiche Urbane. DOI: 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/7299.
  5. Bourlessas P., Puttilli M. (2024). “Is this the city of beauty?”: facilitating critical student subjectivities through a creative place-based urban geography workshop in Florence, Italy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2024.2403064.
  6. Bovo M., Briata P., Bricocoli M. (2022). A bus as a compressed public space: Everyday multiculturalism in Milan. Urban Studies, 60(15): 004209802211075. DOI: 10.1177/00420980221107518.
  7. Bozdoğan Sert E., Sahinler S., Korkmaz E. (2016). Environmental awareness and attitudes in university students. An example from Hatay (Turkey). Oxidation Communications, 39: 661-672.
  8. Cadima C., Silva C., Pinho P. (2020). Changing student mobility behaviour under financial crisis: Lessons from a case study in the Oporto University. Journal of Transport Geography, 87, 102800. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102800.
  9. Castells M. (1972). The urban question: A Marxist approach (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Edward Arnold.
  10. Chatterton P. (1999). University students and city centres – the formation of exclusive geographies. Geoforum, 30(2): 117-133. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7185(98)00028-1.
  11. Cicognani E., Pirini C., Keyes C., Joshanloo M., Rostami R., Nosratabadi M. (2007). Social participation, sense of community and social well being: A study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Social Indicators Research, 89(1): 97-112. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9222-3
  12. Cisneros H. (1995). The University and the urban challenge. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
  13. Cook C., Currier L., Glaeser E.L. (2022). Urban mobility and the experienced isolation of students. National Bureau of Economic Research, w29645. DOI: 10.3386/w29645.
  14. Cresswell T. (2006). On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York: Routledge.
  15. Danaf M., Abou-Zeid M., Kaysi I. (2014). Modeling travel choices of students at a private, urban university: Insights and policy implications. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2(3): 142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2014.08.006.
  16. Derevensky J.L., Gupta R. (2001). Lottery ticket purchases by adolescents: A qualitative and quantitative examination. DOI: 10.11575/prism/9657.
  17. Dillman K.J., Czepkiewicz M., Heinonen J., Davíðsdóttir B. (2021). A safe and just space for urban mobility: A framework for sector-based sustainable consumption corridor development. Global Sustainability, 4. DOI: 10.1017/sus.2021.28.
  18. Franz Y., Gruber E. (2022). The changing role of student housing as social infrastructure. Urban Planning, 7(4). DOI: 10.17645/up.v7i4.5661.
  19. Hernandez-Maskivker G., Fornells A., Teixido-Navarro F., Pulid, J. (2021). Exploring mass tourism impacts on locals: A comparative analysis between Barcelona and Sevilla. European Journal of Tourism Research, 29: 2908-2908. DOI: 10.54055/ejtr.v29i.2427.
  20. Insch A., Sun B. (2013). University students’ needs and satisfaction with their host city. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(3): 178-191. DOI: 10.1108/jpmd-03-2013-0004.
  21. Kaufmann V. (2014). Mobility as a tool for sociology. Sociologica, 1/2014.
  22. Kent J.L. (2022). The case for qualitative methods in transport research. In: Australasian Transport Research Forum 2022 Proceedings. Adelaide: Australasian Transport Research Forum. Retrieved from https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ATRF2022_Resubmission_48.pdf
  23. Kristensen N.G., Lindberg M.R. and Freudendal-Pedersen M. (2023). Urban mobility injustice and imagined sociospatial differences in cities. Cities, 137: 104320. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104320.
  24. Książkiewicz S. (2012). Quantitative or qualitative transport planning? An interdisciplinary geographic perspective. Prace Geograficzne, 2012(130): 131-139. DOI: 10.4467/20833113pg.12.024.0665.
  25. Loda M., Puttilli M., Tartaglia M. (2022). Il centro storico di Firenze nel dopo Covid 19. Firenze: Laboratorio di Geografia Sociale (LaGeS) - Università degli Studi di Firenze.
  26. Mosonyi A., Könyves E., Fodor I., Müller, A. (2013). Leisure activities and travel habits of college students in the light of a survey. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 7(1): 57-61. DOI: 10.19041/APSTRACT/2013/1/10.
  27. Muñoz B., Monzon A., Daziano R.A. (2016). The increasing role of latent variables in modelling bicycle mode choice. Transport Reviews, 36(6): 737-771. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1162874.
  28. Nash S., Mitra R. (2019). University students’ transportation patterns, and the role of neighbourhood types and attitudes. Journal of Transport Geography, 76: 200-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.03.013
  29. PUMS: Città metropolitana di Firenze. (2019). Piano Urbano della Mobilità Sostenibile (PUMS) – Relazione di Piano. Firenze: Città Metropolitana di Firenze. Retrieved from www.cittametropolitana.fi.it/wp-content/uploads/7_PUMS-Relazione-di-Piano.pdf.
  30. Røe P.G. (2000). Qualitative research on intra-urban travel: An alternative approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 8(2): 99-106. DOI: 10.1016/s0966-6923(99)00039-3.
  31. Rolfe H. (2017). Inequality, social mobility and the new economy: Introduction. National Institute Economic Review, 240(1): R1-R4. DOI: 10.1177/002795011724000109.
  32. Romei P. (1998). Il sistema metropolitano tra governo locale ed economia globale. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 105(2): 229-256.
  33. Rosano M. (2019). Mixing quantitative and qualitative methods for sustainable transportation in smart cities. 4OR-Q J Oper Res, 18: 247-248. DOI: 10.1007/s10288-019-00421-1
  34. Ryan C., Huimin G. (2007). Spatial planning, mobilities and culture – Chinese and New Zealand student preferences for Californian travel. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(3): 189-203. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.601.
  35. Savino M., Messina P., Perini L. (2024). New forms of relationships between the university and the city: Padua, the UnicityLab project, and the idea of an urban center. URBANA. International Journal of Urban Policies and Studies, 1(1).
  36. Sharmeen F., Timmermans H. (2014). Walking down the habitual lane: Analyzing path dependence effects of mode choice for social trips. Journal of Transport Geography, 39: 222-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.07.012.
  37. Sirgy M.J., Grzeskowiak S., Rahtz D. (2006). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Developing and validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80(2): 343-360. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-005-5921-9.
  38. Stroope J. (2021). Active transportation and social capital: The association between walking or biking for transportation and community participation. Preventive Medicine, 150: 106666. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106666.
  39. Todres L., Galvin K. (2010). “Dwelling-mobility”: An existential theory of well-being. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 5(3): 5444. DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v5i3.5444.
  40. Tuvikene T., Sgibnev W., Kębłowski W., Finch J. (2023). Public transport as public space: Introduction. Urban Studies, 60(15): 2963-2978. DOI: 10.1177/00420980231203106.
  41. Tyrinopoulos Y., Antoniou C. (2012). Factors affecting modal choice in urban mobility. European Transport Research Review, 5(1): 27-39. DOI: 10.1007/s12544-012-0088-3.
  42. Vermeersch L., van Dijk M., a cura di (2024). Mobility | Society: Society Seen through the Lens of Mobilities. Zurich: Lars Muller Publishers.
  43. Wang R., Zhang X., Li N. (2022). Zooming into mobility to understand cities: A review of mobility-driven urban studies. Cities, 130: 103939. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103939.
  44. Whalen K.E., Páez A., Carrasco J.A. (2013). Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 31: 132-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.008.
  45. Worsley J.D., Harrison P., Corcoran R. (2021). Bridging the gap: Exploring the unique transition from home, school or college into university. Frontiers in Public Health, 9: 634285. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634285.
  46. Wu J., Zhou J. (2023). Revealing social dimensions of urban mobility with big data: A timely dialogue. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 16(1): 437-468. DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2023.2281.
  47. Zasina J. (2021). The student urban leisure sector: Towards commercial studentification? Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 36(5): 374-390. DOI: 10.1177/02690942211051879.

Mirella Loda, Angeliki Coconi, Mobility as a lens of social engagement in the urban context: The case of Florence university students in "RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA" 2/2025, pp 41-68, DOI: 10.3280/rgioa2-2025oa20568