four cultures of walking

8/12/2019 Four Cultures of Walking

1/13

Four cultures

four ways of perceiving and practicing walking?

Eirin Olaussen Ryeng, Dr.ing.

Department of Civil and Transport Engineering

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology

No-7491 Trondheim

Norway

email: [email protected]

Abstract

The grid-group theory origins from anthropology, and has been successfully applied within social and

political sciences. The theory postulates that by categorising along the two axis of group and grid, four

viable cultures can be identified. These are hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism and fatalism, all of

them being present in any group or society of people. These cultures, or worldviews, can be regarded aslenses through which each individual perceives and interprets the world. Thus, an individual adhering to

one culture may have diverging preferences and behaviours from an individual adhering to another

culture. These four cultures have been associated with four myths of nature, expressing four different

ways of considering the vulnerability of nature. It can be hypothesised that individuals adhering to

different cultures will have diverging preferences to sustainable modes of transport, which can be

manifested through their actual choice of mode. If so, knowledge about each culture, especially about

the mindsets of individuals adhering to any less walker friendly culture, would become essential in order

to target efficient measures to promote walking.

This paper presents a study in which grid-group theory is used to explore the travel preferences of a

group of engineering students, both in Norway and in Argentina. Do students adhering to different

cultures and believing in different myths of nature have different travel patterns and different views on

transportation issues? Are there any patterns to be found? Are there any differences between

Norwegian and Argentine students?

The paper is based on a questionnaire study among 357 students. The results from the analyses will be

discussed in order to identify any challenges to which policymakers should be aware when planning

strategies to achieve a more sustainable transport pattern.


2/13

Eirin Olaussen Ryeng is teaching transportation planning. Her research interests are: the link between

transport system/infrastructure design and road user behaviour, as well as traffic safety, transport

modelling, sustainable mobility, and universal design. She was a member of COST C6 1998-2001, and

participated in the EU-funded project PROMPT 2000-2003.


3/13

Four cultures

four ways of perceiving and practicing walking?

Eirin Olaussen Ryeng, Dr.ing.

Department of Civil and Transport Engineering

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology

No-7491 Trondheim

Norway

email: [email protected]

A good little typology

In 1970, Mary Douglas first published her theory about four cultures observed to be found in every

society or social group (Douglas, 1970). This theory was first labelled cultural theory and in later years

it has also been referred to as grid-group theory (Perri 6 and Mars, 2008). The latter name origins in

the 2x2-table based on the two dimensions grid and group, defining four categories, also named

cultures. The theory is based on observations of how people act and respond to other people in a socialsetting. The dimension group reflects the degree to which persons adhere to and identify themselves

to a group of other, while the dimension grid reflects the degree to which persons feel restricted or

controlled by the group. By combining these two dimensions orthogonally, the four categories of grid-

group theory are found: hierarchism (high group high grid), egalitarianism (high group low grid),

individualism (low group low grid), and fatalism (low group high grid). According to the theory, all

individuals could be placed in one of these quadrants1. These four cultures, or worldviews, can be

regarded as lenses through which individuals perceive and interpret the world, thus defining four ways

of life. An important feature of this theory, named the impossibility theorem, is that none of these

cultures are viable without the other three (Thompson et.al., 1990). Consequently, none of them are

any better or more favourable than the others. The theory simply describes a natural set of social

cultures, and Mary Douglas herself described it many years later as a good little typology (Coyle, 1994).

The grid-group theory origins from anthropology, but has later been successfully applied within various

fields, such as sociology, economy, environmental sciences, engineering, political sciences,

safety/security, law, history, geology, etc. (Thompson et.al, 1999). Although a standardised

1Actually, one person can reside in more than one culture, for example adhere to individualism at work while

adhering to hierarchism at home.


4/13

questionnaire battery is still lacking, a number of studies have explored the possibilities in using

questionnaires to operationalise the theory on individual level.

A closer look at the four cultures

Hierarchism

Hierarchism is the culture found when combining a high group level with a high grid level. Hierarchism

comprises strong groups with complex hierarchical structures. Individuals adhering to this culture

supports tradition and order, as well as clear role definitions and rules of how to act. These are

individuals who trust experts and authorities. There are strong interactions between individuals, and

the welfare of the group as whole is emphasised.

Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism combines a high group level with a low grid level. This results in strong groups, but with

weak structures. Since equality is pursued, any organisational form putting one person above another is

perceived with high scepticism. Decisions should ideally be made by consensus. Individuals adhering to

this culture support economic resources and other goods to be equally distributed.

Individualism

Individualism is the culture in which a low group level is combined with a low grid. Since their social

bonds to other are loose, and they feel few constraints, authority is continuously challenged and role-

based rules are not always followed by individuals adhering to individualism. Competition and survival

of the strongest is supported by this culture, as well as a free market. Individuals adhering to

individualism pursue liberty, and therefore libertarianism might have been as well suited as a label for

this culture.

Fatalism

Fatalism is the fourth culture, combining a low group level with a high grid level. The combination of

weak social bonds with the perception of being strongly tied and controlled by others forms a culture

experiencing powerlessness. Individuals adhering to fatalism believe that the social system is essentially

unpredictable and unfair, and that they have minimal control over their lives. Thus, they believe in fate,

hoping to have luck and win the great lottery. Fatalism is often referred to as the passive culture,

contrasting the other three active cultures (Douglas, 1992).

Myths of nature

Inspired from ecology, the theory has been expanded by introducing four myths of nature associated

with each culture (Thompson, 1996). According to these myths hierarchism sees the nature as tolerant

within definable limits. Keeping within these limits, nature can be relied upon to behave predictably.

Egalitarianism, on the other hand, sees nature as ephemeral, fragile and unforgiving. Even small

disturbances in nature may have the potential to cause catastrophic results. A clear opposite view is

found among the individualism culture, in which nature is seen as benign, predictable, robust and stable.

If large disturbances should occur, the nature will seek to and eventually return to equilibrium. The


5/13

fatalism myth of nature sees nature as capricious and unpredictable, as it is impossible to foresee the

outcome of any disturbance or action. For illustrating purpose a set of cartoons were developed

showing these four myths of nature as balls balancing in a landscape, see Figure 1.

Fatalism myth of nature

The nature is capricious and unpredictable. We do

not know what will happen.

Hierarchism myth of nature

The nature is perverse and tolerant. Within limits,

nature can be relied upon to behave predictably.

Individualism myth of nature

The nature is benign; it is predictable, robust and

stable, and will return to equilibrium even after large

disturbances

Egalitarianism myth of nature

The nature is ephemeral; fragile and unforgiving.

Small disturbances may have catastrophic results.

Figure 1 The four myths of nature, cartoons copied from Grendstad and Selle (2000)

Transportation issues of concern

Also within the field of transportation, the grid-group theory has been applied. Hendriks (1994) and

Hoppe and Grin (1999) have studied how the three active cultures (hierarchism, egalitarianism and

individualism) impress transportation planning and policies. The cultures are reflected in thetransportation issues of concern, as well as in the preferred measures to cope with the problems.

Hierarchism focuses on the provision of sufficient supply of infrastructure to meet the demand in order

to ensure stable, predictable and controllable systems. High tech solutions to manage and improve

traffic efficiency are welcomed. The main concern of egalitarianism is equality. Thus, equal access to

public space by all kinds of road users (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and motorists) is the

core focus, although only sustainable modes are regarded as acceptable. Consequently, the solution to

congestion problems should be to reduce demand for car driving. Individualism, on the other hand, sees

individual mobility as a fundamental good. Private cars and high speed is highly valued. Therefore, the

solution to congestion problems should be to expand road capacity.


6/13

A set of hypotheses

It is suggested that there is a direct link from social relations, via worldviews (the four cultures of grid-

group theory), to attitudes and behaviours (Boyle and Coughlin, 1994). It can therefore be hypothesised

that individuals adhering to different cultures will have diverging attitudes and preferences to

sustainable modes of transport. These attitudes and preferences are further expected to be manifested

through their actual choice of mode. The following hypotheses are set out based on the typology

description of the four cultures, emphasising the expected difference between individualism and

egalitarianism as the most interesting:

H1: People adhering to individualism are more likely to travel by car, while people adhering to

egalitarianism are more likely to choose more sustainable modes of transport (walking, cycling and

public transport).

H2:People believing in the individualism myth of nature are more likely to travel by car, while people

believing in the egalitarianism myth of nature are more likely to choose more sustainable modes of

transport (walking, cycling and public transport).

H3:People adhering to individualism walk shorter daily distances than other, while people adhering to

egalitarianism walk longer daily distances than other.

H4:People believing in the individualism myth of nature walk shorter daily distances than other, while

people believing in the egalitarianism myth of nature walk longer daily distances than other.

H5:People adhering to individualism are more likely to have no walking trips at all compared to other,

while people adhering to egalitarianism are more likely to have at least one walking trip per daycompared to other.

H6:People believing in the individualism myth of nature are more likely to have no walking trips at all

compared to other, while people believing in the egalitarianism myth of nature are more likely to have at

least one walking trip per day compared to other.

A questionnaire survey among young people

A questionnaire survey was conducted among 375 undergraduate civil engineering students in Norway

and in Argentina: 254 students at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim,and 103 students at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. By choosing a sample of high

socioeconomic homogeneity in the two countries respectively, comparison between students adhering

to the four cultures becomes less distorted by other socioeconomic effects than gender.

The questionnaires were distributed in auditoriums after or during ordinary scheduled lectures, and

even though participation was voluntary, almost all students present at these lectures accepted the

invitation to participate in the survey. To help motivate participation, a lottery was arranged among the

participants.

The questionnaire consisted of several parts. Initially the respondents were asked to fill in a travel diary

describing all of yesterdays trips. The data collection did not take place on Mondays, assuring that only


7/13

ordinary weekdays were included in the travel data set. Information about travel purpose, trip length2

and mode choice was collected for each trip. Thereafter, the respondents were presented to a set of

statements for which they had to mark along a Likert scale their agreement or disagreement with each

statement. These statements constituted the items used for calculating the respondents scores for

each cultural bias, and subsequently to allocate the respondents to the four cultures. Since there is no

standardised battery of items to include in a grid-group study, inspiration was sought from several

previous studies (Boyle and Coughlin, 1994; Grendstad, 1999; Grendstad and Rommetvedt, 1996;

Grendstad and Selle, 2000; Grendstad and Selle, 1995; Grendstad and Sundback, 2003; Lima and Castro,

2005; Marris et.al., 2008; Meader et.al., 2006; Steg and Sievers, 2000) when designing the

questionnaire. A set of statements concerning transportation issues was also included. Finally, the

respondents were asked to range the four cartoons illustrating the myths of nature according to how

well they corresponded to the respondents own views on the vulnerability of nature.

The methods of analyses

Initially, descriptive statistics were used to get acquainted with the data set and the travel patterns of

the respondents.

Secondly, factor and reliability analyses were performed in order to identify the cultures and the items

included for each culture. Having identified these items, new scores were calculated for all respondents

indicating their degree of compliance with, or rejection of, each culture. Each respondent was

thereafter allocated to the culture achieving the highest score.

Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests were used to compare travel patterns to

cultural biases. A significance level of 5% was chosen for all tests.

All analyses were performed parallel for the Norwegian and the Argentine sample.

Similar travel patterns in the north and in the south?

The respondents in this study were civil engineering students from Norway and Argentina. Although

being in the same phase of life, studying the same field of engineering, some of the external conditions

are quite different and were therefore expected to affect the travel pattern. The most striking is the size

of the city. Trondheim is a city with 175.000 inhabitants, and with the campus located about two

kilometres from the city centre. Buenos Aires covers a metropolitan area with about 12 million

inhabitants. The campus is located about three kilometres from the city centre. While the Norwegian

students meet for lectures in the mornings and early afternoons, the Argentine students, at least those

participating in this survey, get their lectures in late afternoons and early evenings.

Table 1 summarises an overview of some characteristics of the respondents, as well as some main

figures describing the travel pattern among the two respondent groups. The most striking differences

between these two samples are commented.

2Since the responds estimated the length of each trip themselves when filling in the questionnaire, it is important

to be aware of this variable being less reliable than the others.


8/13

Table 1 Respondent characteristics and travel pattern, Norwegian and Argentine students

Norwegian students Argentine students

Number of respondents 254 103

Gender distribution 33,2% female

66,8% male

26,2% female

73,8% male

Age Mean: 20,8 years

(SD: 1,5)

(Range: 18-31)

Mean: 24,4 years

(SD: 4,7)

(Range: 20-57)

% holding a driving

license

88,2% 71,8%

% having car available

yesterday among those

holding a driving license

27,1% 32,4%

% having bicycle available

yesterday

83,0% 20,6%

Number of trips

yesterday

4,2 trips per person 3,9 trips per person

Average trip length Mean: 2,1 km per trip

(SD: 2,5)

Mean: 10,4 km per trip

(SD: 26,7)

Travel purpose To university: 25,6%

To own home: 43,9%

To leisure activities: 10,3%

To health and other services: 0,6%

To do shopping: 10,8%

To visit someone: 4,2%

To own work: 0,5%

Other: 4,1%

To university: 26,0%

To own home: 42,0%

To leisure activities: 5,8%

To health and other services: 3,9%

To do shopping: 5,8%

To visit someone: 6,4%

To own work: 8,0%

Other: 2,1%

Modal split Walk: 50,0%

Bicycle: 27,2%

Public transport: 9,8%

Car driver: 7,4%

Car passenger: 4,0%

Other: 1,6%

Walk: 30,1%

Bicycle: 2,2%

Public transport: 53,1%

Car driver: 9,1%

Car passenger: 5,0%

Other: 0,5%

Firstly, the Argentine students are on average somewhat older than the Norwegian students, and their

ages are more spread and cover a wider range of ages, giving a higher standard deviation. Secondly,


9/13

while four out of five Norwegian students had a bicycle available the day before the survey took place,

only one out of five Argentine students had the same. This reflects in the modal split which shows that

bicycling was used as travel mode for 27,2% of the Norwegian trips while only for 2,2% of the Argentine

trips. The low share of bicycle trips in Buenos Aires might intuitively seem a bit surprising given the very

flat topography of the city, ideal for cycling. However, a dedicated bicycle infrastructure is sorely

missing, and, as can be seen from Table 1, the average trip length exceeds 10 kilometres, favouring

motorised transport modes. Comparing the daily number of trips and the travel purpose distribution

reveals no big differences between the two samples. The apparent major differences are the trip

lengths and consequently the share of non-motorised modes. The students in Trondheim travel 2,1

kilometres per trip on average. The walking and bicycling trips c onstitute respectively 50,0% and 27,2%

of all trips. The Argentine students travel 10,4 kilometres per trip on average. Still, as much as 30,1% of

their trips are carried out on foot, in addition to the small share of 2,2% trips performed on bicycle.

Obviously, the significant difference in size between these two cities explains the differences found in

trip lengths and modal split. However, what happens if we narrow down our focus to include only theshort trips and study the modal split of these? Such a comparison is performed in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Modal split for short trips, 0-5 kilometres, Norwegian and Argentine students

As can be seen from Figure 2, there are still differences between the two samples when modal split is

compared for short trips divided in intervals of one kilometre each. The Argentine students are more

likely to use public transport within all length intervals, while for trips between two and four kilometres,

the shares of walking trips among the Norwegian students are about three times as high as those of the

Argentine students. One possible explanation for these observations might be the travel time budget

constraints, limiting the total daily time spent for travelling. Since the Argentine students cover far


10/13

longer travel distances per day, it can be suggested that due to this constraint, they cannot allow

themselves to choose slow modes even for relatively short trips. The figures of Figure 2 should however

be interpreted with care since the number of trips included for each interval is pretty scarce, especially

for the Argentine data.

Four cultures among civil engineering students?

Based on the respondents degree of agreement or disagreement with a selection of statements, a score

for each cultural bias was calculated. Thereafter each respondent was allocated to the culture for which

the highest score was achieved. If a respondent achieved identical high scores for two cultures, the

respondent was not allocated to any culture and therefore not included in further analyses. How the

respondents distribute on the four cultural biases are shown in Table 2. The allocation reveals clear

differences between the two samples, with individualism as the dominating worldview among the

Norwegian students contrasting hierarchism as the culture of which the majority of Argentine students

adhere to. Fatalism is almost negligible in both samples. Since fatalism is regarded as a passive culture,

this finding is not surprising. Civil engineer students are young people in pursuit of a higher education

by investing a lot of effort into a high workload. These students represent therefore typically active

cultures.

Table 2. Allocating respondents to cultural biases, Norwegian and Argentine students

Cultural bias Norwegian students

N=249

Argentine students

N=100

Hierarchism 22,1% 55,0%

Egalitarianism 32,5% 23,0%

Individualism 44,6% 18,0%

Fatalism 0,8% 4,0%

Four myths of nature among civil engineering students?

The four myths of nature represent four ways of perceiving the balance of nature. The respondents

were asked to range them according to how well they corresponded to their own views and beliefs. As

shown in Figure 3, the majority of students in both samples believe strongest in the hierarchism myth,

that nature is tolerant within limits.


11/13

Figure 3 The distribution of myths of nature given first rang, Norwegian and Argentine students

Four ways of perceiving walking?

The questionnaire covered a selection of statements regarding transportation issues, of which one was

directly related to walking, emphasising the importance of prioritising pedestrians and cyclists when

planning the road user infrastructure: Pedestrians and cyclists should be given higher priority when

road spaces are divided between vulnerable and motorised road users. The analysis found that the

Norwegian students adhering to egalitarianism stated a significantly higher support to this statement

than students adhering to hierarchism, individualism and fatalism. For the Argentine students the

analysis found a similar significant higher support among the students believing in the egalitarianism

myth of nature compared to those believing in the individualism myth of nature. Two other statementsemphasised the need for improving the infrastructure for car traffic, and the analysis found that

students adhering to individualism, as well as students believing in the individualism myth of nature,

gave significantly higher support to these statements compared to the others. Given that attitudes

reflect in action, these findings suggest that students adhering to egalitarianism and believing in the

egalitarianism myth of nature are more likely to walk, while on the other hand, students adhering to

individualism and believing in the individualism myth of nature are more likely to drive a car, as

hypothesised previously in this paper.

Four ways of practicing walking?Six hypotheses were initially set out, linking the cultural biases and myths of nature to mode choice, to

the daily travel distance by foot, and to the likelihood of walking at all.

The analysis reveals almost none significant differences, and thus hardly any support for these

hypotheses. The only significant difference found relates to H3: People adhering to individualism walk

shorter daily distances than other, while people adhering to egalitarianism walk longer daily distances

than other and were found among the Norwegian students, showing that students adhering to

individualism stated to walk shorter daily distances compared to students adhering to hierarchism.


12/13

Given such scarce support for the hypotheses, this study concludes that neither cultural biases nor

myths of nature seem to affect the walking practices. This was found both for students in Trondheim

who travel short daily distances mainly by foot or cycling, and for students in Buenos Aires whose travel

distances are about five times as long as those of their northern colleagues, and mainly done by public

transport. Is this a surprising result? On one hand, yes, it is rather surprising. The issue of global

warming and the importance of choosing sustainable transport modes have been targeted by

governments and media for some time. According to the grid-group theory, people adhering to the

different cultural biases should perceive and react to these issues in quite varying ways. On the other

hand, no, this is not a surprising result. Steg and Sievers (2000) found a similar result when studying the

use of car versus the myths of nature. They found no significant relationship between the two, although

the analysis indicated that respondents committed to the egalitarianism myth of nature were more

likely to use other modes of transport, while respondents committed to the hierarchism and fatalism

myths of nature seemed to user their cars more often. The lack of significant relationships may be due

to societal constraints. ORiordan and Jordan (1999) emphasise energy use and transport as two areas

in which individuals are forced by the organisation of the society to behave in unsustainable ways, evenif it conflicts with their basic worldview. The latter may be a plausible explanation for the lack of

support for the hypotheses from the Argentine dataset, as suggested due to long travel distances and

travel time budget constraints. It is h owever less obvious when studying the Norwegian data. These

students have already a pretty sustainable pattern of daily travel. Still, differences between the cultures

were expected to be seen since the combination of short travel distances, a high share of students

holding a driving license, as well as having bicycle available, opens for a considerable freedom of choice

when decisions about travel modes are made. A restrictive parking policy at the campus may be one

explanation why no differences between the cultures are revealed. But also economic constraints when

being a student may reduce the possibility for them to choose unsustainable transport modes, even if

they otherwise would be preferred.

While the link between the worldviews of grid-group theory and attitudes has been explored in several

studies, few studies have explored the link between worldviews and behaviours. The study presented in

this paper is an attempt to contribute to this lacking field of research. The lack of support for the

hypotheses set out in this paper may on one hand be interpreted as an unsuccessful application of the

theory. On the other hand, however, it can be interpreted as a successful application of the theory

identifying an area of behaviour for which societal constraints restrict the individuals freedom to make

choices in accordance to ones worldview.

References

Boyle, R.P., Coughlin, R.M. (1994) Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Cultural Theory. In Coyle and

Ellis (eds),Politics, Policy, and Culture. Westview Press, 191-218

Coyle, D.J. (1994) The Theory That Would Be King. In Coyle and Ellis (eds), Politics, Policy, and Culture.

Westview Press, 219-239

Douglas, M. (1970) Natural Symbols.Explorations in Cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff, The Cresset Press,

London

Douglas, M. (1992) Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory.Routledge, London


13/13

Grendstad, G., Selle, P. (1995)Cultural theory, postmaterialism and environmental attitudes. LOS-senter,

Notat 9511, ISSN 0802-3646, Bergen

Grendstad, G., Rommetvedt, H. (1996) Fem tyver p samme marked? In Grendstad and Selle (eds),Kultur som levemte, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo, 314-329

Grendstad, G. (1999) A political cultural map of Europe. A survey approach. GeoJournal, 47, 463-475

Grendstad, G., Selle, P. (2000) Cultural Myths of Human and Physical Nature: Integrated or Separated?

Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No 1, 27-39

Grendstad, G., Sundback, S. (2003) Socio-Demographic Effects on Cultural Biases. A Nordic Study of Grid-

Group Theory. Acta Sociologica, 46 (4), 289-306

Hendriks, F. (1994) Cars and Culture in Munich and Birmingham: The Case for Cultural Pluralism. In Coyle

and Ellis (eds), Politics, Policy, and Culture. Westview Press, 51-69

Hoppe, R., Grin, J. (1999) Pollution through traffic and transport. The praxis of cultural pluralism in

parliamentarian technology assessment. In Thompson, Grendstad and Selle (eds)Cultural theory as

political science, Routledge, London and New York, 154-169

Lima, M.L., Castro, P. (2005) Cultural theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues.Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 25, 23-35

Marris, C., Langford, I.H., ORiordan, T. (2008) A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk

Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm. In 6 and Mars (eds),The Institutional

Dynamics of Culture, Vol 1, 221-233

Meader, N., Uzzell, D., Gatersleben, B. (2006) Cultural theory and quality of life. Revue europenne depsychologic appliqu, 56, 61-69

Perri 6, Mars, G. (2008) Introduction. In Perri 6 and Mars (eds), The Institutional Dynamics of Culture,

Vol 1, 221-233

ORiordan, T., Jordan, A. (1999) Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a common

analytical framework. Global Environmental Change, 9, 81-93

Steg, L., Sievers, I. (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks.Environment

and behavior, Vol. 32, No 2, 250-269

Thompson, M., Ellis, R., Wildavsky, A (1990) Cultural Theory. Westview Press, Boulder

Thompson, M (1996) Inherent Relationality. An Anti-Dualist Approach to Institutions. LOS report 9608,

The Norwegian Research Centre in Organisation and Management, Bergen

Thompson, M., Grendstad, G., Selle, P. (1999) Cultural theory as political science. In Thompson,

Grendstad and Selle (eds) Cultural theory as political science, Routledge, London and New York, 1-23

four cultures of walking

Documents