Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Papers

No. 2 (2025)

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

  • Mirella Loda
  • Angeliki Coconi
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rgioa2-2025oa20568
Submitted
luglio 3, 2025
Published
2025-07-21

Abstract

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.

References

  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.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...