Zooming in and out on everyday mobility practices in a rural, mountainous area of Switzerland

low-carbon


Introduction
Accounting for 15% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the transport sector is one of the biggest emitters and continues to grow (IPCC, 2022). The Avoid-Shift-Improve (ASI) framework provides three approaches for making everyday mobility less carbon-intensive: Reduce the number of kilometres travelled (avoid); increase the share of lowcarbon transport modes (shift); and make current technologies more efficient (improve) (IPCC, 2022). A growing body of literature has been investigating individuals' modal choices and shifts (Camilleri et al., 2022;Charreire et al., 2021;Meinherz and Binder, 2020), and all agree that these choices and shifts are not yet understood sufficiently.
One challenge to understanding modal choices is to account for mobility's embeddedness in everyday life (Charreire et al., 2021;Sheller and Urry, 2006;Watson, 2012). Mobility needs to be viewed as a "means to accomplish particular activities" (Watson, 2012), e.g., shopping or working, rather than as an isolated activity to get from points A to B (Sheller and Urry, 2006). Therefore, to understand modal choices, mobility should be analysed in the context of the activities that it enables (Kent, 2022;Watson, 2012), rather than in isolation, as is often the case (see 2.2).
A second challenge to understanding modal choices and shifts revolves around how behaviour is analysed. Individualistic approaches have been criticised for misconceptualising individuals' roles and behavioural choices (Shove, 2010;Watson, 2012). Social practice theory (SPT) provides an alternative approach that places people's practicese. g., driving, cycling or commuting -at the centre of analysis (see 2.1). By examining practices, new insights can be gained into how practices are sustained, how they evolve and how new, more sustainable practices can emerge (Shove, 2010).
Finally, most of the literature on private mobility has focused on urban areas (Gómez et al., 2021;Zhao and Yu, 2020). Challenges specific to rural mobility, e.g., poor access to public transport or travelling longer or hillier distances to access services, often remain unaddressed, even though they can lead to more carbon-intensive mobility practices (Marconi and Schad, 2016;Zhao and Yu, 2020).
This study contributes to current knowledge on mobility practices while addressing the described challenges and literature gaps. To contribute to the scarce research on rural mobility, mobility practices in this study are investigated in the context of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Entlebuch (UBE), a typically rural and mountainous region in Switzerland. UNESCO designated the region as a biosphere reserve which requires it, among others, to mitigate climate change (UNESCO, 2016). This study adopts an SPT approach to develop a richer understanding of residents' everyday mobility practices and the connection of transport with everyday life. The overarching aim of this study is to explore the key characteristics and dynamics of everyday transport in rural Switzerland, using the UBE as a case study.

Social practice theory
The innovation of SPT, compared with established approaches from the psychology and behavioural science fields, is the shift away from the individual and towards practices as a unit of analysis (Shove et al., 2012;Watson, 2012). While individualistic approaches suggest analysing individuals' qualities (e.g., values and attitudes), with SPT, these qualities are part of a practice, and the individual is merely the carrier of that practice (Shove et al., 2012;Warde, 2005).
Practices are viewed as a routinised nexus of activities comprising several connecting elements (Reckwitz, 2002;Schatzki, 1996;Welch and Warde, 2015). The typology that Shove et al. (2012) introduced proposes that a practice consists of three elements: meaning; competence; and materials. Meaning includes symbolic meanings, ideas, aspirations, mental activities and emotional and motivational knowledge (e.g., a car provides flexibility). Competence encompasses know-how or skills, background knowledge and understanding of a practice (e.g., knowing traffic rules). Materials include objects, infrastructure and tools needed to perform a practice (e.g., a car and a road). For a person to be a carrier of a certain practice, a connection between the three elements must be formed and maintained through regular performance of that practice. Furthermore, elements can exist beyond a practice and can be introduced to new practices or change existing ones. For example, the meaning of comfort is a general understanding and independent of any practice. If a practice changes and is no longer associated with being comfortable, the notion of comfort still exists.
Much like how the elements of a practice are connected, so are the practices themselves interconnected (Shove et al., 2012). Practices can require one another, they can compete, or they can mutually transform one another. Practices can be interconnected through space if they are carried out in the same place. Practices can also link in time when they are performed simultaneously (synchronising) or one after the other (sequencing). For example, if a person always buys groceries after work, the practices of commuting and shopping are sequenced. This circumstance may have an influence on the place of shopping for groceries, the time available for the transit to the shop or the means of transport chosen for commuting. Lastly, two practices are connected if they share one common element. For example, the material headphones connect the practice of taking public transport and listening to music.

SPT in mobility and transport research
A large part of the studies on transport that adopted a SPT approach focuses on identifying the practice elements of the different transport practices to better understand how individuals negotiate their everyday mobility. SPT based studies on driving identified several elements that reinforce the car as the default mode of transport, namely the freedom, flexibility, autonomy, privacy, convenience and comfort that it provides (Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016;Kent, 2014Kent, , 2015, time-saving attributes (Kent, 2014) and ease/safety in transporting heavy items (Laakso, 2017;McLaren, 2018). As for cycling, several studies have found that the performance of the practice depends on the available infrastructure and, thus, cycling safety (Caldwell and Boyer, 2019;Larsen, 2017;Spotswood et al., 2015). The same studies also identified a wide range of materials (e.g., weather protection, panniers) and competencies (e.g., cycling with kids, finding safer routes) that people need to engage in the practice of cycling. Furthermore, they found that flexibility, efficiency and speed were common meanings associated with cycling, but only when travelling short distances. Other meanings associated with cycling are that it is healthier, involves exercise (Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016;Spotswood et al., 2015) and is environmentally friendly (Caldwell and Boyer, 2019;Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016). One study that examined public transport found associated meanings tied to environmental friendliness and the ability to do something productive while being mobile (Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016). Other studies found that people do not use public transport because it is viewed as inflexible (Kent, 2014;Larsen, 2017). Across all these studies, environmental concerns were only one among many reasons for engaging in or changing transport modes (Larsen, 2017;Meinherz and Fritz, 2021;Volden and Hansen, 2022).
Many of the studies presented in the previous section analysed the elements of the different modes of transport in the context of commuting. Stein et al. (2022) went even further and identified four types of commuting practices independent of the mode of transport. The first type of commuting practice is influenced by material arrangements (lack of alternatives, bad infrastructure, heavy traffic). The second type focuses more on the benefits of the commute in terms of making use of the time. The third type focuses on the necessity of the commute and hence the habitual attitude towards it. The last type is influenced by the time constraints and heavy time framing of the commute. Their findings illustrate, how differently commuting practices can be framed and in turn explain the stability of means of transport used for the commute. A few studies have focused on mobility purposes other than commuting. Two studies on shopping found that grocery shopping often is viewed as boring, time-consuming and tedious, e.g., buying and transporting groceries home (Berg and Henriksson, 2020;Godin and Sahakian, 2018). The studies on mobility induced by parenting all agree that family life influences the mode of transport adopted (McLaren, 2018;Rau and Sattlegger, 2018). They found that parents prefer driving a car for safety and convenience reasons. In turn, the modal choice for parenting practices also influences the modal choice of other practices connected to that of parenting.
This SPT-based mobility research overview demonstrates that car use and commuting practices are studied well. Only a few studies have examined other modes of transport or mobility purposes. However, the studies that also investigated the elements of the practices that induce mobility (i.e., mobility purposes) were able to provide a deeper understanding of the mobility practices themselves. Furthermore, very little research has been conducted in non-urban settings and no study was found that explicitly analysed mobility in a rural area.

Research context
The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Entlebuch (UBE) is located in a mountainous to alpine region in central Switzerland (see Fig. 1). UNESCO has designated this rural region a Biosphere Reserve, after a bottom-up process in which conservation implications were sought to be counterbalanced with sustainable economic development (UBE, 2022). UNESCO Biosphere reserves are required, besides their core tasks of preserving nature, culture and developing the local economy, to mitigate climate change (UNESCO, 2016). A recent study conducted in the UBE found that transport contributes most to households' carbon footprint, similar to other comparative regions in Switzerland (Wiesli et al., 2020b;Wiesli et al., 2020a;Wiesli et al., 2020c). The UBE management has not (yet) taken any measures to promote sustainable modes of transport and because it has no regulatory authority, it is limited to voluntary instruments. The lack of knowledge of the UBE management on local mobility and the wish to initiate a project on sustainable local mobility induced the present research. Its purpose was to give insights into the UBE residents' mobility practices and point to possible ways of intervention for the UBE and other rural regions. As one of the authors is working with UBE management, direct application of research results into practical implementation is possible.
The UBE covers an area of around 395 km 2 and contains around 17,000 inhabitants, with a population density of 43 inhabitants per km 2 (LUSTAT, 2022). The UBE is characterised by a scattered settlement pattern. Altogether, 22% of the inhabitants work in the agricultural sector, which is significantly higher than the Swiss average of 2.4% (BFS, 2022;LUSTAT, 2022). In Switzerland, over half of the daily distance covered is travelled by car (ARE and BFS, 2017). For about a fourth, public transport is used and active mobility is used only for 8% of the daily distance covered. The UBE's road infrastructure is welldeveloped, and regional centres can be reached in 10 to 20 min (ARE, 2008). However, the area is characterised by poor access to public transport (Marconi and Schad, 2016). The UBE is accessible by train twice an hour and is served by seven local bus routes, but only three of those operate regularly (PostAuto AG, 2022). The rest operate either only during commuting times or on Sundays and holidays. The UBE is part of the pre-and northern Alps with altitudes ranging from 700 to 2350 m above sea level (swisstopo, 2022), making cycling or walking physically demanding. Furthermore, cycling is not very safe because very few cycling lanes are available amid high traffic volume. In return, the region offers many leisure and tourist activities, ranging from biking and hiking during the summer, to skiing and freeriding tours during the winter (UBE, 2022).

Data collection
For the purpose of this study, a qualitative approach was adopted. Semi-structured interviews with adult UBE residents on their mobility practices were conducted. Participants were recruited using the snowballing technique and they were contacted by email or phone. Starting point were the last author's diverse professional contacts from working in the UBE for years, which were asked about potential participants. People that participated in an interview were then asked about further contacts with characteristics that were not yet reflected in our sample. To ensure a wide variety of participants, they were selected based on three criteria (principle of contrast sampling): distance to public transport to account for the convenience of accessing public transport; household size to account for other family members' influence on mobility practices (McLaren, 2018;Rau and Sattlegger, 2018); and agricultural background due to the high share of UBE residents who work in this sector. Participants with different characteristics along these spectra were chosen. Furthermore, balance was sought on gender and age to account for people at different life stages (Greene and Rau, 2018).
The first author conducted interviews with 14 participants between 02.06.22 and 10.08.22 in person or by video call, lasting between 35 and 80 min each. Table 1 provides an overview of the sample's sociodemographic data. The study focused on the most relevant practices that facilitate transport (mobility purposes). In Switzerland, commuting, shopping and pursuing leisure activities induce the most private mobility (ARE and BFS, 2017). The direct transport practices of driving, taking public transport, cycling and walking were investigated in the context of these facilitated practices. For each of the three investigated facilitated practices, a similar set of questions was employed to gather data on meanings, competencies and materials, as well as specific time and space details on the facilitated practice and direct transport practices performed to accomplish the facilitated practice (see the interview guide in Appendix A).

Data analysis
The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in an anonymous form following Kuckartz and Rädiker (2019) transcription rules. While transcribing, the first author translated the data directly from Swiss German to standard German. The transcripts were thematically analysed following the approach by Braun and Clarke (2006), first deductively and second inductively.
For the first round of deductive analysis, this study combined two analytical approaches to identify connections between mobility practices and how they are negotiated, depending on the mobility purpose. First, the zooming in and zooming out approach by Nicolini (2009) was adopted. Zooming in refers to the analysis of the actual performance of a practice and variations in the configuration of the elements of a practice (Castelo et al., 2021;Nicolini, 2009). By zooming out, connections between practices in space and time can be uncovered (Castelo et al., 2021;Nicolini, 2009).
Second, this study differentiated between two types of mobility practices: direct transport practices, e.g., driving or cycling, and practices facilitated by transport (facilitated practices), e.g., shopping or commuting (Kent, 2022), while the latter can also be referred to as mobility purposes. This distinction helps investigate the configuration of practice elements in the context of the associated actions (Kent, 2022).
In line with the zooming in and zooming out approach, the data were first analysed from two analytical perspectives (see Fig. 2). On the one hand, the data were coded and summarised from the perspective of the direct transport practices. A deductively developed coding system containing the elements of a practice was applied for each direct transport practice (see Appendix B). On the other hand, the data were coded from the perspective of the facilitated practices, again applying a separate coding system containing the elements of each facilitated practice. This methodology made it possible to zoom in and analyse each practice and its elements in isolation. By overlapping the two analytical perspectives, it is possible to zoom out and analyse the direct transport practices used for each facilitated practice, as well as the relevance of different elements for the various facilitated practices. This served as a basis to identify the themes across all of the different mobility practices.
In the second round of thematic analysis, we inductively derived how practices are situated in time and space; the relevance of environmental concerns and social dynamics for mobility practices. This allows to deepen the scope of the analysis and investigate modal choices alongside the purposes for being mobile and how everyday life shapes personal mobility.

Results: Zooming in and out on mobility practices
In line with the goal of this study, four overarching themes were identified that shed light on the dynamics of everyday rural mobility in Switzerland. This overview of the results starts with a description of the mobility practices for commuting, shopping and pursuing leisure activities in the UBE. Then, starting with the lens zoomed out, we explore the justifications for the modal choices of residents but also the types of practices that facilitate transport performed along the identified themes. To get an even deeper understanding, we zoom in on the elements of the different mobility practices in each section. A summary of the most relevant justifications for performing certain practices can be found in Table 2 and in a non-summarised form in Table A.5 in Appendix C. Furthermore, Tables A.2, A.3 and A.4 provide an overview of the identified elements of the mobility practices.

The spatio-temporal unfolding of everyday mobility practices of UBE residents
Commuting to work is a practice performed by all but one participant in this study. Interviewees' commuting time ranged from two minutes to one hour and 50 min, covering distances ranging from 250 m to 70 km. Almost half of the participants work from home, but only one or two days per week. About half the interviewees use a car for their commute, while the rest mainly take the train, and only two frequently walk or cycle.
The practice of grocery shopping is performed by all participants, albeit to varying degrees. Many participants have one person in the household responsible for shopping, predominantly the women. While only a few participants mentioned that they shop spontaneously, most households have a structured shopping routine. They take one major grocery shopping trip around once a week and one or two smaller trips spread over the week. Shopping trips can be as short as 200 m or as long as 23 km. More than half the interviewees use cars to go grocery shopping, while the rest mainly walk, and only one person cycles frequently if the store is located in their residential village.
There are four types of leisure activities that participants pursue regularly. Going to club meetings is a common leisure activity for most participants. Members meet one to four times a week, depending on the type of club. Generally, people only walk or cycle to club meetings if they live near (< 1 km) the meeting location. Participants who live farther away drive. Going on a trip is a practice in which primarily families with smaller children engage. Such trips mainly occur on weekends and are predominantly to a location in the region. Participants go on such trips almost exclusively by car. Public transport is viewed as practical only for trips to locations outside the region. Hiking or biking is another practice that almost all participants perform regularly, mainly during the summer. Therefore, cycling and walking, for most participants, are not only modes of transport but also leisure activities. Finally, skiing is a leisure activity performed during the winter. Most participants who engage in this practice go to local skiing areas. Participants almost exclusively go to the skiing area by car.

Space: Being mobile in a mountainous rural area
The mobility of residents in the UBE is influenced not only by the rural geography but also by the local infrastructure and the regional offer of activities. There are several participants that highlight the sheer necessity of using a car for commuting, shopping and pursuing leisure activities due to the long distances and the hilly conditions in the UBE. This goes hand in hand with an often-described lack of alternatives due to poor infrastructure or as Peter describes it more extremely: "We are five kilometres from the train station; we have no public transport. The second reason is that there are also, what is it, 300 metres of altitude that we have to go up."; "[the car] is our vein, we need it. We can't do without it." 1 Especially the commute and shopping trips are viewed as too long and exhausting by bike or foot and cycling is described as unsafe due to the high volume of traffic and the lack of cycling lanes. For shopping the transport of groceries is often mentioned as a reason for not cycling or walking. Also, public transport is often not viewed as an option particularly for leisure activities because there is no train or bus to the desired destination or at the desired time available. While trains are considered only for trips or the commute outside the region, local buses are rarely used. However, a handful of participants found ways to address the geographical challenges, for example Robert: The introduction of new materials into mobility practices such as an electric bike, a bike trailer or a cart enabled participants to switch from driving to cycling or walking for different mobility purposes.
The rural context has however not only an influence on modal choice but also on the types of practices that facilitate transport performed. The region has a large offer of leisure activities such as local sports and culture clubs, skiing areas, and hiking and biking trails and also local shops, bakeries etc. Because of this diverse offer, almost all participants shop and spend their leisure time in the region resulting in relatively short distances travelled. For example Robert, who prefers his local hiking routes: Due to the proximity to nature, many interviewees do not see a need to travel long distances, but start their leisure activity, for example hiking or biking, from home regularly. Similarly, the short trips to local shops are often done by foot or bike. However, equally as many interviewees still require a means of transport to get to their leisure activity. Participants usually drive by car, due to the limited public transport available as described before. In return, several participants refrain from doing certain leisure activities (e.g., going to movies, attending concerts) because the trip to it would be too long.
There is one distinct situation, in which some participants prefer to drive longer distances. When commuting, they value that they can create a physical distance from their workplace, allowing them to maintain a healthier work-life balance.

Time: Lose time or use time
Saving time was one of the most frequently mentioned justifications for driving across all mobility purposes. For most participants, it is faster to drive because they are much more flexible and independent particularly compared to the infrequent public transport in the UBE. However, time is perceived very differently depending on the mobility purpose. For most interviewees, mobility is a means to an end, hence people do not want to "waste" their time on mobility. The following two quotes describe two situations, in which mobility is perceived as a waste of time: Samuel: "And shopping is also more of an evil than something pleasant for me. So, you actually want to waste as little time as possible with that." Anita: "I find, so just the balance of 4 hours driving, 2 hours hiking, that's absurd for me, although I mean, everyone may decide that for themselves. But I think I actually want to be active, I don't want to sit in the car." The first quote describes a situation, in which the practice that facilitates transport is perceived as unpleasant. Therefore, Samuel wants to spend as little time as possible on shopping and thus also with the trip to it. This was mainly observed with shopping and for some participants also for commuting. In contrast, in the second situation, the practice that facilitates transport is viewed as so pleasant that she does not want to waste time on mobility and instead spends it on the activity itself. This was something that interviewees almost exclusively mentioned in the context of leisure activities. Independent of the reason for wanting to limit the time of being mobile, in both situations participants opted for the fastest means of transport, which was usually the car. But it was also an additional reason, why they favoured spending their time in the UBE, leading to shorter distances travelled.
In the context of commuting, many interviewees described the time that they are being mobile as useful time. Participants commuting by train use their commuting time as productive time, as David describes it: "[W]hen I'm on the train, […] I have half an hour to read the newspaper, maybe send off some emails or Whats-App messages, and then I close my eyes for another quarter of an hour. And that's a bit like a holiday, so it's stress-free." Participants that commute by car use their time to listen to music or doing calls and those who commute by bike or walk, see their commute as time to exercise and be outside. For almost all of the participants independent of the means of transport, the commuting time is also a time in the day, when they have time to switch off, relax and do something for themselves. This is something that almost all value in their commuting time and, along with the physical distance the commute creates, contributes to a better work-life balance. This example illustrates well that participants evaluate their time spent on mobility differently depending on how convenient the trip is for them. Mobility for shopping or leisure purposes was hardly ever associated with being productive time.
Another temporal dynamic that some of the participants described was that of sequencing their mobility practices. Most interviewees mentioned that they connect the commute or shopping trip to one another or to other activities that require them to be mobile. A few participants even link all their activities of the day before they return home. The sequencing of direct transport practices was observed much less frequently. Usually, participants stick to one means of transport per trip, either for lack of alternatives or for the reason of convenience, as Table 2 Summary of justifications for using the direct transport practice for the different facilitated practices. A full list of all identified justifications can be found in Again, convenience influences the temporal unfolding of interviewees' mobility practices. However, due to the geography of and infrastructural constraints in the UBE, sequencing of direct transport practices would be necessary to use public transport more frequently for many of the participants.
Car use is mainly dominating for pursuing leisure activities. Even though interviewees tend to spend most of their leisure time in the region, most of them are not willing to reduce the frequency of their leisure activities as Susanne describes it: "You notice that from an ecological point of view, it's actually not very good [to go by car], and we know that and still, we do it because the other thing [such as hiking] is also important to us, to somehow be able to show and pass on certain things [to our kids]."

Perceived environmental friendliness of mobility practices
Similar to the perception of time as relative, participants also view the environmental friendliness of their mobility as relative. When participants were asked how environmentally friendly they view their mobility patterns, they put their mobility into perspective: Peter: "Yes, [the environmental friendliness of our mobility is] actually good. We're not the ones who drive around unnecessarily. Yes, I would say, well, there are those who drive more. So more, in terms of unnecessarily." Generally, interviewees perceived mobility as environmentally friendly if it is a necessary trip, for which no other mode of transport is suitable. Conversely, mobility is perceived as environmentally unfriendly if the trip itself is unnecessary, or if a mode of transport other than a car is available/suitable. Many highlight the geographical conditions in the UBE and the poor access to public transport in the UBE as justification for having no other choice than to drive. Therefore, more than half of the participants perceive their mobility as environmentally friendly. However, there are several statements indicating that driving is the default and unquestioned mode of transport in the UBE: Alex: "So, it has always been clear to me that the moment I move back to the region, I want a car immediately, and I will always have a car here."; Gaby: "Here, actually, everyone has a car. If you're 18 years old, you have a car."; Angela: "So, we don't usually think about whether we should take the train or the car. Most of the time, the car is very easy to take, so we take it.".
When comparing their mobility practices to urban residents, the interviewees in general acknowledge that their mobility is likely to be less environmentally friendly, because of their high car dependency, longer distances travelled and/or their less frequent use of public transport compared to city dwellers. However, there are also some participants being sceptical about the environmental friendliness of urban mobility or even perceive their mobility as environmentally friendlier. Compared to the spatial extension of their leisure activities, which is mainly in the UBE itself, they expect urban residents to have a higher mobility for pursuing leisure activities.

Social dynamics and mobility practices in the UBE
There are two types of social dynamics that were found to have an influence on the mobility practices of interviewees. The first one is family life. All participants with children state that their modal choice but also the activities they pursue are influenced by family life. In terms of modal choice, for most interviewees cycling or walking is either too dangerous or too demanding for their kids. This is a common justification for driving to the shops or the locations of their leisure activities. Furthermore, participants tend to have to carry along more materials for their children, which makes driving more convenient. For Susanne it was even the case that the meanings she associates with the same practice changed depending on whether she is mobile with her kids or not. She stated that she uses the train to go to work because she views driving as stressful and inconvenient due to traffic congestion. However, in the case of pursuing leisure activities with her kids, she generally drives with her car because other means of transport are too inconvenient for her and her kids. Thus, while she associated the meaning of convenience with driving when pursuing leisure activities with her kids, this was not the case with commuting.
In addition to the requirements for the means of transport, participants mention that they need to be very flexible and independent in their mobility to account for their children's needs, as Ruth describes: "I want to leave the house, when the children also leave, and not leave them alone already in the morning. [...] I really appreciate that at the moment, I can be so flexible at my workplace, and with the car, I am, of course, even more so." As described in 4.3, participants that want to be flexible also tend to opt for the fastest means of transport, which is often the car.
As a second influence, the social dynamics between residents of the UBE influence the modes of transport and the types of activities performed. Several interviewees mentioned that they prefer going by bike or walking because they can meet someone spontaneously while being mobile: Robert: "With the car, you are focused on the car, going there, shopping and going back, and the other thing is more. When you walk, it is more of an experience […]. But not only to switch off, but because of meeting people.".
The car is viewed as depriving them of the opportunity to experience social encounters. This illustrates that social encounters among residents are a common motivation for preferring active modes of transport, particularly when shopping and commuting. The familiarity among residents also makes carpooling very effortless and participants described it as a matter of course when friends and family travel to the same location: Gaby: "You always decide on meeting points, and that's how you fill the cars. Until they are full. No, and that's also clear among us. […] [W]e actually know who has to drive, the one who lives the furthest away.
[…] It really organises itself." These two examples illustrate that having social encounters while being mobile can be interpreted as productive time, leading participants to not necessarily opt for the fastest mode of transport. However, there is one participant, Alex, that describes the exact opposite and prefers commuting by car due to unwanted social encounters: "And the other big advantage [of driving] is simply that nobody else upsets you. […] [I]f you grow up in a place like Entlebuch, you simply know three-fourths of the people, to put it exaggeratedly. And when you get on the train in the morning and maybe just want a bit of peace and quiet, and you already know four people at the station […], being on the train with them for half an hour afterwards is quite nerve-wracking".
In this case, the familiarity among residents in the UBE can also be a reason for using a car use in situations in which privacy is valued higher.
Aside from influencing modal choice, the strong social capital in the UBE and the connectedness to the region influence shopping practices and the type of leisure activities pursued. Some interviewees view shopping as a social activity and prefer shopping in local stores because they know the people working and shopping there and they prefer the personal touch. For the same reasons, the vast majority of participants spend their leisure time attending local club meetings or spending time in the nature of the UBE, as Samuel described: "Actually, I'm not really curious about going to any other region. I actually love it when I know where I am and what to expect.", "I prefer [skiing in the local skiing area] […], somehow you know all the people, you know everything a little bit." Therefore, these social dynamics in the UBE have led participants to spend more time in the UBE, and thus travel shorter distances.

Concluding discussion
The themes identified in the results of this study describe the key characteristics and dynamics of rural everyday transport in the UBE. They showed how interconnected the spatial and temporal extension of practices, the social dynamics in the UBE and the environmental friendliness of residents' mobility are and as a whole describe how mobility practices of residents in the UBE unfold. When looking at the described elements participants associated with the direct transport practices, they largely overlap with those of the existing literature. However, the role of infrastructure and geographical conditions (i.e. steep slopes) is much more prominent in the UBE compared to the extant literature on urban mobility. In the rural UBE context, the absence of good access to public transport or service to desired destinations makes it often impossible for people to take public transport. This is hardly ever mentioned in studies conducted in an urban context and is probably also owed to the scattered settlement patterns in the UBE. Furthermore, in the UBE case, cycling almost always has a strong fitness component, which is similar to another study that examined a representative country sample (Spotswood et al., 2015). However, studies on urban cycling did not find the meaning of fitness to be associated with cycling (Caldwell and Boyer, 2019;Larsen, 2017). Differences in topography and distances covered in urban vs. rural regions such as the UBE indicate that these conditions might influence meanings associated with cycling and, thus, influence cycling frequency and occasions. Therefore, material and infrastructural conditions are important to consider when taking measures to facilitate a shift towards low-carbon means of transport in a rural setting. Possible measures are the promotion of electric bikes in combination with improving cycling infrastructure and safety. Also, offers such as ridesharing could complement the regional public transport infrastructure (Thao et al., 2021).
Concerning the social dynamics of mobility, this study's results confirm other studies' findings, demonstrating the influence of family life on modal choices and the temporal and spatial extension of mobility practices (McLaren, 2018;Rau and Sattlegger, 2018). Furthermore, it confirms the findings of several studies conducted in an urban context that showed a connection between high levels of social capital and choosing active modes of transport (Kim et al., 2018;Morales-Flores and Marmolejo-Duarte, 2021). However, the relation between strong social connections and travel distance tends to be negative in an urban setting (Hagiladi and Plaut, 2021). The results from this case study suggest otherwise. The strong social capital in the UBE and also the feeling of connectedness to the region independent of someone's social network (e. g., when hiking) leads to shorter distances travelled. Therefore, community-building measures that strengthen social capital have an impact that goes beyond the social dimension but can also foster less carbon-intensive mobility practices.
In terms of environmental friendliness, this study demonstrated that environmental concerns are only one among many meanings associated with different modes of transport, in line with other studies' results (Larsen, 2017;Meinherz and Fritz, 2021). Spatio-temporal circumstances often outweigh the desire to engage in low-carbon mobility practices. For example, residents are not willing to sacrifice their time and choose a slower but less carbon-intensive means of transport, unless they get some type of value from the time they spend on their mobility. Particularly also because some level of mobility is unavoidable. This supports the research on consumption corridors, which advocates for a necessary consumption minimum, while not exceeding a consumption maximum (Sahakian et al., 2021a). Because residents perceive their level of mobility to be in the range of a consumption minimum, environmental concerns have little to no influence on mobility practices.
In contrast to what one might assume for a Biosphere Reserve, we claim that residents in UBE are very comparable to those in other rural regions at least in Switzerland (Wiesli et al., 2020c). Whilst the UNESCO Biosphere label has a requirement for fostering sustainable development more broadly, the focus in the UBE has been clearly on the conservation of biodiversity and economic development rather than trying to influence individuals' modes of transport to be more environmentally sound. Furthermore, the findings from this study suggest that living in a Biosphere Reserve has had no direct impact on the environmental friendliness of residents' transport practices considering the unquestioned car use and the little influence environmental concerns play on the performance of mobility practices. However, further research would be needed to clarify, whether living in a Biosphere Reserve has any indirect effects on the environmental friendliness of residents' mobility.
Limitations to this study stem from the methods for data collection and analysis. First, our qualitative approach does not allow for detailed analyses of how the different backgrounds of our interviewees influence their mobility practices. To this end, a quantitative survey based on a big sample would be necessary. Second, interviews are less suitable for capturing the materiality and embodied dimensions of practices (Halkier, 2017), which is very likely reflected in the limited number of materials and competencies identified. However, interviews allow to capture the discursive elements of practices, such as meanings, which was the goal of this study. A combination of complementary methods, e. g., diaries or photo journals, could address this limitation (Halkier, 2017). Lastly, qualitative data analysis always comes with some degree of subjectivity (Halkier and Jensen, 2011;Mayring, 2015). To reduce subjectivity, a coding system with coding guidelines was applied consistently, and the transparent display of the results enables a critical review of them.
This study iterates the conclusion of other authors that it is important to analyse mobility in the context of the activities it enables to better understand modal choices (Charreire et al., 2021;Kent, 2022). The zooming in and out approach applied in this study revealed that mobility practices are configured differently in their elements, depending on the mobility purpose, even for the same person. The example of Susanne presented in the results, in which different meanings are associated with driving a car depending on whether she was driving for the commute or leisure purposes, is a representative example of this. Therefore, we strongly encourage further research to broaden the scope of analysis and explore transport practices in the context of the large variety of mobility purposes to enhance our understanding of them.
Lastly, this study also provides insights into how a change in mobility practices can be initiated. An approach to changing mobility practices needs to consider the context of the mobility practices as well as local conditions. This is something the approach of living labs does (Laakso, 2017;Laakso et al., 2021;Sahakian et al., 2021b). By letting people experiment with their practices, living lab approaches disrupt current practices, allowing them to be recrafted and renegotiated, or revealing elements that prevent people from changing (Laakso, 2017;Sahakian et al., 2021a). They challenge social norms and force people to reflect on the meanings, competencies and materials they associate with practices. They also can lead to positive spill-over into other areas of life or the lives of family members or friends because of the interrelation of different practices, challenging fundamental social norms and social learning Sahakian et al., 2021b). This approach could lead not only to changes in modal choices but also to a change in working, shopping and leisure practices, which in turn would induce change in mobility practices in general. It could also spark discussions around the idea of sufficiency and self-limitation (Sahakian et al., 2021a), which is necessary because combatting climate change effectively must involve more than just focusing on modal choice.

Declaration of Competing Interest
None.

Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.