Why is it so difficult for people to change their mobility habits? Why do people use some kinds of transports instead of some others and what are the rationales behind these choices?
These core questions drive Malene Freudendal-Pedersen's work and are closely linked to the concept of freedom, which is seen as a fundamental right in late modern society.

Very little research has been done in Denmark about transport. And, when it has been done, transport is often considered according to an economic perspective. Not only is Malene Freudendal-Pedersen exploring the field from a sociological point of view but she also goes beyond transport to explore mobility issues. They encapsulate potentials for movement but also opportunities for change.

In her PhD entitled "Mobility in Daily Life. Between Freedom and Unfreedom", the researcher explores the way individuals talk about transports as it is assumed to be closely related to what mobility is. Her analysis of structural stories indicates the apparent rationalities behind individuals' choices, where freedom plays a significant part. They reveal dichotomies and thus places where mobility patterns can be improved.

Malene Freudendal-Pedesen is a Danish expert on sustainability and mobility. She has been awarded a price for her PhD and has been working as a knowledge analyst at the Danish Architecture Centre, working in the Sustainable City departement. She is part of the Cosmobilities Network's task force and is currently working as an assistant professor at Roskilde University at the department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change. This paper is based both on a face to face interview and on her book Mobility in Daily Life. Between Freedom and Unfreedom.

Structural stories: an original analytical tool

Malene Freudendal-Pedersen has introduced the concept of "structural stories" to uncover the rationale lying behind individuals' choices concerning mobility. It is an interesting analytical tool when it can reveal stories which are perceived as "common knowledge" existing around different types of mobility.

In order to define what the structural stories are, the researcher has conducted qualitative analysis in Greater Copenhagen, based on interviews and focus groups with a homogeneous group of people. All the individuals interviewed have "the ability to choose"; they are all white, middle-class and have received a high level of education. Hence, the study has to be considered as a starting point and its purpose is neither to be exhaustive nor to be representative, even if many results can be applied to other groups of people.

Structural stories can both affect the choices of mobility and explain the choices afterward. "It is part of a process whereupon it both helps to guide forthcoming choices while also acting as an apparent rationality when these choices are explained and sometimes justified to others or to ourselves". We can thus think that it is "normal" to take a car in a certain situation because everybody would do the same in a similar situation even if this is not the best choice for the society. "The media, advertising and the political system sustain this by participating in the production of the structural story."

Freedom in daily life mobilities

Freedom emerges as a key concept in structural stories related to daily life mobility. This is partly due to the fact that the idea of freedom is very much linked to the concept of mobility in itself. On top of that, cars are or have been marketed as "freedom providers". This clearly appeared with the sample of individuals interviewed for this research. The most striking stories are about children and cars and late trains:- - "When one has a child, one needs a car or else my freedom is restricted even more than it already is because of my responsibility towards others."
- "The train is always late and therefore it restricts my freedom to do the things I want, and to be an effective player in the labour market. So many things in my life are planned and if I, on top of that, have to be susceptible to a train schedule, I have even less freedom."

These examples highlight a true dichotomy where the "best case" scenario on automobility prevails over the "worst case scenario" on public transports. Malene Freudendal-Pedersen yet tries to flip the concept of freedom. She demonstrates that cars do not provide freedom to the people within them, nor do they provide freedom to people without cars. Even more, "this technology takes up a lot of space in relation to how many people are transported, with roads, parking lots and other materialities being used to facilitate automobility, which largely occupy the spaces of our cities. Those not using the car will thus be limited in their use of the space, not the least because of the increased sense of risks which the growing automobility also results in."

Nevertheless, positive evaluations of the public transports appeared in a second time both during the interviews and the focus groups. The most negative aspect in driving a car is the congestions individuals get exposed to. With regards to that, public transports seem to provide more freedom. In the same way, people using public transports can feel freer in a sense that they don't have to bother with what is going on around them and they can do what they want while being driven home.

Cars are obviously still a need today but indiviudals often use them when they are inappropriate. A few years ago, "Call the bus", a mobility-on-demand project has been established in the countryside. The main reason why it did not work was that people did not use them because they were too used to drive their cars. Habits make individuals forget other opportunities.
In understanding these structural stories it becomes possible to deconstruct them and challenge what is usually taken for granted (Les imaginaires de l'auto nécessaire). New rationales for mobilities can then be put forward.

Changing individuals' habits

These last fifty years, cities have been planned for cars, and we now have a generation who cannot transport itself. What the structural stories reveal is that it is of a very high importance to change discourses if one wants to change individuals' habits.

This goes beyond marketing campaigns. It is also necessary to make critical analysis and to dare talking about the negative parts going with the cars. Research has a great role to play into this. But according to Malene Freudendal-Pedersen researchers do not look enough at dreams and people's choices. This is striking in researches conducted in the field of transport where people are mainly considered as users. And yet, we do not consider ourselves as users! We are students, fathers, mothers, workers... more than rationale beings (See also Chronos' project : Auto-mobilités).

A wrong way of dealing with the need for change is to put responsibility on individuals. Instead of that, there is a need to find common solutions that people can support and where people are part of the project.

To conclude, "mobilities will always play a significant role in our daily lives, but the challenges is now to find a level where many different types of mobility - both the slow and fast, quiet and the noisy, and motor- and human-driven - play together by meeting various needs in everyday life."