Culture in Motion: Exploring the Social Acceptability of Shared Mobility and the Influence of Cultural Dimensions (HCDs). A case study in Overvecht, Utrecht.

Abstract

As cities face growing spatial and environmental challenges, shared mobility emerges as a sustainable alternative to private car ownership. However, while infrastructural and socio-demographic barriers have been widely researched, the cultural influences on the acceptability of shared mobility remains underexplored. This study investigates how Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions Collectivism (COL), Masculinity (MAS), and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) influence the social acceptability of shared mobility in the multicultural district of Overvecht, Utrecht. Social acceptability is understood through the 4A-framework (availability, accessibility, affordability, attractability) of De Paepe et al. (2023). Through a mixed-methods approach, quantitative data were collected through a survey (n = 78) measuring both perceived acceptability of shared mobility and the cultural dimension scores. Complementary qualitative insights were gathered through interviews with local residents (11) and stakeholders (6) to contextualise and interpret the statistical results. Findings show that shared mobility is viewed as moderately acceptable in Overvecht, with availability (particularly the reliability) and affordability emerging as key determinants of its perceived suitability. Notably, shared mobility is considered reliable and affordable by users, but is often perceived as unreliable or costly by non-users. This discrepancy highlights the importance of increasing awareness about shared mobility’s service use and true costs. Regression analyses reveal that the cultural dimensions of COL and MAS significantly influence perceptions of availability, accessibility and affordability. Specifically, more collectivist orientations are associated with lower perceived availability and accessibility, while masculine values negatively influence accessibility but positively influence perceived affordability. Although no significant effects were found for UAI, qualitative data suggests that a higher resistance to change may hinder shared mobility adoption in the district. Despite its theoretical promise, shared mobility is not yet widely accepted in Overvecht due to practical, financial, and cultural barriers. Car ownership remains tied to social status and personal pride, particularly in more masculine subcultures. Moreover, shared mobility services are considered not to resonate with diverse cultural groups. Additionally, awareness was found to be an important factor influencing inhabitants’ perceptions about shared mobility. Therefore, this study proposes to expand the social acceptability framework towards 5A’s, including awareness. This study demonstrates the relevance of integrating cultural dimensions into shared mobility research. Tailoring strategies to cultural values, improving awareness and multilingual outreach, and fostering inclusive design are key steps to making shared mobility a viable and equitable option for residents. Future research could build on this framework to further assess cultural dynamics in urban (shared) mobility transitions.