The Social Representation of Sustainable Mobility: An Exploratory Investigation on Social Media Networks
[ad_1]
1. Introduction
The present paper aims, thus, to address this issue by (1) offering a theoretical reflection on the potential role of social media networks (SM) as indicators of the ongoing cultural trends regarding sustainable mobility, and by (2) reporting the results of an exploratory empirical investigation that analyzed the content and structure of the communication about sustainable mobility in the social media networks. The latter was carried out using a particular social psychological model (Serge Moscovici’s theory of social representations; SRT) as a theoretical framework, which utility for investigating cultural trends in mobility is also further explored.
2. Personal and Socio-Structural Characteristics of Transport and Mobility Culture
3. Sustainability Communication and the Social Media Advent
4. Social Media-Based Research on Sustainable Mobility Issues
The identification of an appropriate theoretical framework to support such comparison emerges as another necessity, in this sense, because most of the investigations so far carried out appear to be of a descriptive nature. The theory of social representation seems particularly suitable to this scope.
5. The Theory of Social Representation (SRT) as a Framework for Investigating Sustainable Mobility Culture on SM
The analysis of social media communication could be of help in overcoming such limits as well. More in general, the application of the SRT to the study of the SRs of sustainable mobility could represent a starting point for a deeper understanding of the overall contribution that such media channels may provide to addressing the complex issue of changing mobility styles and culture.
6. Goals of the Study
The goal of the study reported in this paper was to analyze the social representations (SRs) of sustainable mobility as they emerge from social media networks. In particular, we aimed at answering the following queries:
Q1—What were the main dimensions characterizing the SRs of sustainable mobility and their content?
Q2—How are the SRs of sustainable mobility cognitively, affectively, and normatively oriented?
Q3—What similarities and/or differences can be observed in the SRs of sustainable mobility in different social media?
Q4—How do the SRs of sustainable mobility vary over time?
7. Method
The investigation was carried out through the analysis of posts published in English on Facebook and TikTok users’ public pages. We decided to focus our attention on these particular social networks for two main reasons. First of all, recent investigations confirmed that Facebook is one of the most popular social networks in several countries, including English-speaking ones, where millions of people use it every day for a variety of purposes. Moreover, the literature suggests Facebook to be universally used by people of all ages, although slightly less by the youngest generations. TikTok, instead, still represents an emerging SM platform and has so far mostly attracted the interest of the youngest generations. Hence, we expected that confronting these two SM platforms could have offered us the possibility of assessing whether a different typology of users could translate into different SRs of sustainable mobility. Moreover, although both SM platforms had been extensively investigated in social sciences, we have no knowledge of investigations that focused on them to respond to our particular queries.
7.1. Dataset Building Procedure
The same procedure was implemented to search for Facebook posts, which led to eventually retrieve 1212 posts published between 7 January 2022 and 3 September 2023.
An additional pertinence check was reiterated at the end of phase 2 and before starting to extract the relevant information from the posts, in order to exclude non interesting material. This led to eventually retaining 1046 posts for TikTok and 1135 for Facebook, which then composed the data corpus for our analyses.
7.2. Information Extraction
All information gathered for our investigation consisted of publicly available data (see Ethical statement for further details).
7.3. Data Analysis
8. Results
8.1. Data Check
The two data corpuses respected the conventional expectations for richness and variety: hapax (words appearing one time only) accounted for 47.52% of all occurrences/words (54,969) in the TikTok total corpus and 46.94% of all occurrences (74,195) in the Facebook corpus. The type/token ratio (corresponding to the total number of distinct word forms divided by the total number of word occurrences) resulted as sufficiently low for both corpuses also (4.86% for TikTok; 4.14% for Facebook). Since data analyses were performed separately for each data corpus, results will be separately discussed in the next paragraphs accordingly.
8.2. Social Representations of Sustainable Mobility on Facebook
-
Class 1 gathered 41.60% of the segments classified and contained words referring to the eco-centric dimension of sustainable mobility. In this view, sustainable mobility was seen as ecological/green (e.g., “eco”, “green”, “planet”, and “friendly”), revolutionary (“embrace”, “revolution”, “goodbye”, “welcome”, “conversion”, “upgrade”, “chance”, and “redefine”), and future-oriented (“future”).
However, contrary to findings of previous studies, it was also seen as a reality of present times (“today”, “ready”, and “test”) and was associated with positive emotions (“joy”, “fun”, “happy”, and “freedom”), as well as with the possibility to obtain personal desirable statuses (“elegance”, “excellence”, “empower”, “powerful”, “independence”, “dream”, and “incredible”). In sum, this view prospected sustainable mobility as able to potentially contribute to the improvement of both the environmental conditions of the planet and personal quality of life. This SR also clearly saw two-wheeled (“scooter” and “ride”) electric (“electrify” and “ampere”) mobility as the emblem (i.e., concrete and tangible objectification) of sustainability in the mobility sector. A reference to “luxury” was also present in this view, which conveyed the idea that sustainable mobility was not an option for everyone, while confirming an evolution of eco-centric views towards more standardized norms.
This class seemed not to be associated with a particular temporal period, suggesting its contents not to have changed much in the two-year period considered. The posts of this class were also associated with a substantial n° of likes (i.e., medium level), while the n° of comments did not contribute to the construction of this class.
-
Class 2 gathered 20.8% of all segments classified and referred to the practical/technological dimension of sustainable mobility intended as a mere personal/individual choice (egocentric SR). This SR was grounded on the pros and cons (in terms of comfort, safety, and freedom) of sustainable mobility, linked to the innovations introduced. For this reason, words highlighting the digital (e.g., “platform”, “connectivity”, “screen”, “device”, and “downloads”) and technical attributes (“feature”, “combination”, “battery”, “charger”, “rear”, “front”, “max range”, “km”, “design”, “versatility”, “speed”, and “destination”) of individual means of transportation (“motorcycle”, “ride”, and “summer”) appeared to be associated with words recalling personal comfort (“comfort“, “comfortable”, “effortless”, “peace”, and “assistance”) on the one hand and safety (“safe”, “safety”, “trust”, and “worry”) on the other hand.
This class also included words that prospected sustainable mobility as a winning personal lifestyle (“lifestyle”, “win”, “perfect”, “enjoy”, and “high”) and consumer choice (“purchase”, “offer”, and “Peugeot”).
This class referred to posts published most recently (during 2023) and, thus, likely referred to emerging topics of interest and discussion. This class also referred to posts with a substantial n° of likes (i.e., medium level), while the n° of comments did not contribute to the construction of this class.
-
Class 3 gathered 37.6% of all segments classified and referred to the collective and global dimension of sustainable mobility, which was seen as a common endeavor, combining the synergic effort of people, public institutions, and the industrial sectors across boundaries. Public transportation (“public”, “transport”, “transportation”, “bus”, “share”, and “mobility”) as well as the industrial infrastructures (“industry”, “manufacturer”, “infrastructure”, and “sector”) were the emblem (concrete object of incarnation) of this joint (“network”) effort (“support”), linking people worldwide (“Europe”, “Indian”, “Asia”, “international”, “global”, “region”, “country”, “rural”, and “local”) in a joint pioneering mission (“project”, “mission”, “aim”, “vision”, “pioneer”, and “leader”). Transformation (“transform”), transition (“transit”, “forward”, and “accelerate”), development (“create”, “development”, and “develop”), improvement (“improve” and “progress”), strength (“strong” and “potential”), and exceptionality (“exceptional”) were the guiding ideas also associated with this view. The associated emotion was thus pride (“proud”).
This class referred to posts published in 2022, likely indicating a declining set of discussion topics. The n° of likes associated with this class was high, while comments were absent.
8.3. Social Representations of Sustainable Mobility on TikTok
-
Class 1 gathered 81.8% of the segments in this corpus and contained words referring to the sustainable and collective dimension of mobility (“sustainable” and “sustainability”). The transport means emblem in this case was represented by electric vehicles (“electrical”, “electricity”, “electrify”, and “charge”) in general and cars in particular (“car” and “drive”), which could also be energy efficient and/or use low-impact fuels (“energy”, “efficiency”, “clean”, “renewable”, “emission”, and “performance”).
The collective (“we”, “community”, “make”, “share”, and “join”) and future-oriented perspective (“future” and “next”) were predominant, but they were combined with an even stronger (“strong”) strive for technological innovation (“tech”, “technology”, “solution” “innovation”, “innovative”, “revolution”, and “smart”) able to offer new travel (“travel”, “journey”, and “commute”) experiences (“explore”, “adventure”, and “discover”). Luxury and style (“Luxury”, “design” “style”, and “lifestyle”) were also frequently associated with the discourse on sustainable mobility on this SM as an added value, which unequivocally marked a change in the views of sustainability compared to the past. This class referred to posts published in 2023 (most recent posts), suggesting that it included emerging topics of discussion. This class was associated with a low number of likes and the presence of comments.
-
Class 2 gathered 18.2% of the segments classified and contained words mostly referring to urban micro-mobility. Discussions mostly revolved around particular transport means (“scooter”, “escooter”, “kickscooters”, “Segway”, “ebike”, and “mini-vehicles”) and brand names (several specific brand names are mentioned), as well as locations (“City” and “Malaysia transport”), according to a community-oriented perspective (“gang”, “friendly”, and “fun”). This class referred to posts published in 2022, thus suggesting a declining set of discussion topics. This class was associated with a medium number of likes and the absence of comments.
8.4. Comparing SRs of Sustainable Mobility across the Two Social Networks
However, the SR of sustainable mobility in the two SM platforms also presented aspects of discontinuity. For example, while on Facebook eco-centric and ego-centric views still tended to emerge in distinct discourses (the three thematic classes recorded by the Descendant Hierarchical Analysis), they appeared, instead, to collapse in a unique, undifferentiated discourse in TikTok’s class 1.
As for the temporal perspective, on Facebook, this translated in discourses referring to both the “present” (“today”) and the “future” (“tomorrow”), while on TikTok, the future-oriented ones seemed predominant.
Furthermore, although class 1 of Facebook and class 1 of TikTok shared similar contents, they differed in terms of likes and comments, with Facebook presenting more likes associated with its posts than TikTok.
We also noticed that Facebook showed more references to emotional status (e.g., “Joy” and “Happy”) in its posts, while references to emotional statuses of any kind were absent from the TikTok posts of our data sample.
Given the explorative nature of our investigation, it is impossible to ascertain the origins of the differences recorded between the two social networks. They could be due to the different nature and structure of the two SM platforms discussed in the introduction, as well as to the existence of an association between the number of likes and comments received by the posts and the presence of emotional references in their contents. In our view, these represent two interesting hypotheses to test in future investigations.
9. Discussion and Conclusions
Our analyses revealed substantial differences between the social representation (SR) of sustainable mobility emerging from the social media (SM) platforms (considered in our investigations) and the SRs recorded by the literature in the past 20 years. Sustainable mobility was long considered as a beautiful utopia of the future, resulting from ideological and eccentric views of social reality. It was also perceived as extremely difficult (if not impossible) to achieve without seriously compromising the quality of life of the populations and/or jeopardizing their market/business economy. Skepticism and discouragement tended to prevail in such views, while social discussions mainly revolved around a limited number of public transportation options. Busses and bicycles were the emblems (concrete objectifications) of these representations. Hence, although significant differences existed in the perceptions of the various types of users, the adoption of sustainable forms of transportation was long viewed as a singular eccentricity, endorsed by a minority of marginal (and marginalized) groups. Such groups were seen as challenging the behavioral trends of the majority of a society firmly anchored to traditional non-renewable fuel-powered types of transportation. Our data appear to reverse this vision in many ways.
First of all, we found that utopian views and skepticism were absent (or anyway declining) in the discourses that emerged from the posts we examined. In other words, in the particular contexts examined (Facebook and TikTok), sustainable mobility was no longer depicted as a remote impracticable hypothesis of the future; it, rather, emerged as a feasible reality of the present. Optimistic and prospective views of sustainable mobility seem now to have replaced the skeptical ones in the discussions, and an enthusiastic and full of hope endorsement of the new technologies seemed to pervade the posts examined. This means that the discussions no longer revolve around “if” sustainable mobility can be achieved. Rather, they revolve around “how” it can be achieved. This contention is supported by a substantial number of posts related to providing practical and instructive information regarding the technical characteristics of vehicles and infrastructures, as well as by the proliferation of references to specific geographical locations (nations, cities, and places) where such technologies have been (or can be) implemented. Taken together, such communications convey the idea that something is happening, and that it is happening now, in concrete identifiable places. In other words, it is there, and it is real.
The typology of vehicles considered in the communication about sustainable mobility has also widened substantially. Electric vehicles, once mostly absent from the discourses on sustainable mobility, have taken the lead in the post communications, thus outclassing those on busses and bikes.
Several signs of normalization (the process that transforms a polemic representation into an emancipated or even hegemonic one through re-negotiations and re-signification of meanings) can be observed in the discussions, indicating that the sustainable mobility concept is no longer a mere prerogative of marginal groups in society. Once for all, references to luxury, design, and style appear, typical status symbol indicators in modern society. The new expensive electric cars have now become emergent status symbols for those who can afford them and desirable dreams for those who cannot. This mirrors similar processes recorded for the traditional type of transport vehicles and represents an evident cue that the concept of sustainable mobility has started its path towards social standardization. In particular, the presence of posts mentioning luxury, design, and style indicate that business brands (and the people they target) have been starting to redefine their image and aspirations in relation to such new types of vehicles and communicate them in their posts.
Our study seems to confirm such data as, in our case also, the eco-centric representational nucleus of sustainable mobility appears to have been substantially diluted by several peripheral elements. This is clearly indicated by various cues, besides the reference to luxury, including the exaltation of personal implications (positively and not negatively oriented as in the past). A clear reference to the possibility of improving the individual quality of life is evident in the first dimension extracted from the analysis of Facebook posts and even more in the first dimensions extracted from TikTok. The fact that the latter presents the maximum contamination in this sense is also particularly informative. If TikTok constitutes the SM platform most used by youngsters, we should conclude that eco-centric instances of conservation and self-centered aspirations have found ways of cohabiting in the ecological views of the youngest generations. This suggests that environmentalism is in the process of further multiplying its forms and that the SRs of sustainable mobility on SM platforms are able to perfectly seize this transformation. The new vehicles clearly designed for the younger and more skilled generations (scooters, escooters, kickscooters, segways, and mini-vehicles) might have become the objectification of the desire for freedom and change and the impetus towards the future, adventure, and new experiences typical of this age. The alternate presence of this topic in the posts during the two years considered could parallel the inevitable highs and lows with which particular transport means (and brands) tend to enter or exit youth trends.
However, we would add to this view by suggesting the important additional role played by changes in the physical world, as a consequence of environmental degradation (as postulated by the Social Practices Theory). This might have increased public opinion’s awareness of climate change-related issues and pushed an increasing number of people towards accepting sustainable mobility solutions. Concomitant and important innovations brought about in the technological domain (e.g., the advent of new and varied types of sustainable vehicles, from hybrid technologies to electric engines) could have also played a decisive role in this regard. In particular, technological innovations might have removed many of the barriers formerly perceived by people to the use of sustainable vehicles (e.g., low comfort, scarce practicality, and high costs), and the variety of options now available (e.g., cars, mini-cars, ebikes, kickscooters, etc.) could have met much better the needs of many initially skeptical users. These and other social structural factors could be related to changes in the SRs of sustainable mobility that we recorded, as much as to their observed precarious nature. Indeed, the variability in the representations we recorded over time (like, for example, the differences recorded between the contents of particular SR dimensions in 2022 compared to 2023) could also be traced back to contextual changes in policies, the communication sector, the environmental conditions, and the technological innovations that have occurred in the considered period.
10. Limits of the Study, Future Research, and Practical Implications
This investigation also presents crucial limitations that could be addressed by future research. The limited number and type of social media platforms considered in this study may have produced a restricted view of the social phenomenon investigated. Although Facebook and TikTok are among the most used social media of the moment, many people still do not use them, while others may prefer other types of social media. This means that the data collected cannot account for all the discussions that took place on social media during the years considered. Our results could thus be particular to the nature of the two social media platforms considered. Although Facebook is a full-multimodal type of social media, written texts tend to play a relevant role in it. On the contrary, TikTok was launched as a video sharing platform, and users are thus more interested in viewing and posting videos than in viewing and posting the captions/comments that we analyzed.
Moreover, the type of social media we chose to focus on can also have biased the range of topics discussed, as well as the perspective with which they were presented. Facebook, for example, has been traditionally indicated as a platform for personal and more intimate communications, rather than for issues of general and public interest (for which other SM channels exist). This fact may have led to an over-representation of ego-syntonic thoughts (i.e., the personal perspective) in the posts, compared, for example, to those related to the implications for the environment and society in general. Future studies could address this aspect too, by expanding the number of social media platforms considered, in order to also include those more frequently used to discuss topics of general and public interest.
Future investigations could also expand the type of communication modality sampled and analyzed. Emoticons, photos, and videos could be as informative as textual comments in conveying people’s perception of a phenomenon, and new approaches to their investigation could, and should, thus, be explored.
Our work also has some relevant practical implications. For example, it confirms social media to be a relevant social context to consider for assessing trends in the conceptual representation of environmental issues in general and sustainable mobility in particular. This seems essential for planning communicational campaigns directed at fostering the endorsement of the use of particular sustainable means of transportation. In this regard, our data indicate that both the business sector and governmental institution should pay greater attention to the emotional components of their communication campaigns, as touching people’s emotions might be revealed to be as important as providing new technical information regarding the sustainable means of transportation.
[ad_2]