Hello. Research work on unemployment shows that the mobility of people in space, or at least their capacity to be is a quality that can be critical to finding a job. This injunction to mobility may be important in some areas of highly specialized activities. It is sometimes necessary to resort to significant daily trips or a move to reconcile private and professional life. Thus, in bi-active couples, it can be difficult to find a spatial consensus to minimize the distance home to work for both people. In this session, we focus on these intensive mobilities work related that are mainly covering long-term commuting and frequent absences from the main home from traveling for business or weekly roundtrips between the main house and a pied-a-terre close from workplace. This phenomenon is not anecdotal. One in two is concerned with a situation like this at some point in his career. The purpose of this presentation is to know if the use of a motility measure is relevant and useful for a better understanding of the issue of large job-related mobilities. This presentation is based on a survey conducted in four countries: Germany, Spain, France and Switzerland. They are panel data that is to say that the same people were surveyed for the first time in 2007, then again in 2011. Qualitative interviews were also carried out in France, with a large mobile population. French and Swiss parts of the second survey wave were funded by the mobile lives forum. To illustrate the results that I will present, I used drawings from a cartoon called Slices of Mobile Life, that we published with Stephanie Geslin Vincent and Vincent Kaufmann. These drawings are presented with the courtesy of the designer Jean Leveugle and the publishers. In accordance with what was presented to you in the more theoretical sessions on motility, we sought to characterize the access, skills and projects in connection with the great mobility. We start here by access. Contextual said access were characterized in our research by the proximity of a highway, a regional train line, a large railway and airport. Thus, 9 out of 10 have a highway or a regional train line less than 20 minutes. 60% of people on average have an airport less than 45 minutes away and a large railway less than 20 minutes away. The presence of railway infrastructure is even more important since we know that more than the distances are large, more the use of the train increases mainly because the transport time can be upgraded more easily than by car, for example by working or resting. Beyond these contextual access, it is necessary to discuss personal access starting with the car or other motorized modes like the two-wheeled motors type, which can be useful for managing loaded activity programs like those of the major mobile. Access to various information and communications technology is also seen in our work. You will notice here that Martin with me is holding a cell phone in his right hand. Tics play an effective role in the appropriation of transport times. They can afford to stay in touch with relatives, sometimes distant, or can participate in creating a familiarity bubble avoiding interactions. They also facilitate access to transport networks, schedules, locations, the ticketing, etc. For mobility, various skills can be very useful. Mastering foreign languages especially English, is thus part of the ongoing development of an European labor market. English is also helpful since the person is brought to make business trips abroad. In addition, we considered the ability of people to read a map and orientate oneself in space but also skills such as the ability to consider the opportunities of moving to a new region. The way people are able to appropriate transportation time to value, as does Martin, always by my side, Another point of useful skills for mobility. The projects on mobility vary widely among individuals. To consider them, we questioned the disposition of these people to move to another region, overseas, to commute more than a two-hour round trip, to make frequent trips to their work, or to take a pied-a-terre and doing a round-trip every week between here and the main housing. 37% of people on average say they would commute against 18% for moving abroad. Based on all of these elements, we have been able, through statistical analysis of factor analysis type and hierarchical classification, to construct a typology of motility in connection with the mobility. We got six groups we offer now to describe in pairs of opposites. The first of these pairs of opposites returns to an ordinal reading of motility, that is to say to have more or less of it. Low mobile on one side, are people who combine low access, low skills, with no project for mobility. Conversely, highly mobile people have good access, their skills are more developed and they say they are ready to move and ready for most forms of mobility. Note that people with higher levels of education and income are found in greater proportion in the highly mobile group. The second pair of opposition concerns reversible and non-reversible. It allows to highlight the opposition in projects between people who are willing to relocate but not wishing to commute, and those who think the opposite, that is to say they do not want to move, but are ready for intensive commuting. This returns to questions of anchoring at residence. This anchoring can be linked with being the owner, but also a residential location close to relatives or friends, or even an attachment to places in which routines were implemented. This opposition is also that of a vision of what the quality of life for people who do not wish to be forced to spend several hours daily in transportation. We can clearly see that there is no group more mobile than the other. Reversible nor non-reversible are more gifted than the other. The approach of mobility allows especially here to highlight lifestyles that are different. To simplify the reading of the last couple of opposition we propose to combine the access and skills in what might be called power, being great mobile, while projects concerned the will to be great mobile. Thus, those reluctant to move far can move, but do not want to. Indeed, skills and access are good, compared to the rest of the population, but they do not want to move or use forms of mobility. Conversely, those willing to move cannot move a lot, but want to a lot. It means that despite the skills and low access, they declare themselves ready to move to commute or travel frequently. Those reluctant to move are more people which are in the second part of their careers, their level of education is high overall, their income level also is. These are usually more Germans or Swiss than French or Spanish. Those ready to move are younger, their levels of income and education are low overall, and they are rather French mostly Spanish. The economic crisis that plagued specifically in Spain, and in lesser measures in France seems directly linked to the growth of this group from 2007 to 2011. The analysis of mobility of people and its evolution in time iquire about what determines the use of high mobility practices related to work. Thus, the great mobile finds its justification in the complex articulation between private and professional spheres, in consideration of a supply of transport and travel. From the perspective of motility, we found in our analysis, how projects could evolve between 2007 and 2011, with a number of events. From a personal point of view, first, when couples merge or separate, or upon the arrival of a child, arbitrages on residential location and on the possible use of mobility are redesigned. Note also that when there are children in a couple, projects related to mobility concern more often men than women. These, by their role often in household are often unable to articulate mobility and family life with children. Professionally now, high mobility projects prove to be dependent on the economic context of the living territory. On this graph it is observed that in the regions where unemployment rose sharply between 2007 and 2011, especially due to the economic crisis, the provisions, ie, projects, of people are greater vis-a-vis the use of mobility. It is particularly striking to observe that this concerns both people who have low access and low skills than the reverse. It is here of a setting mobility to avoid unemployment or leave in question. This greater willingness to be mobile to find work can have positive effects on access to employment. On this map, you can compare the size of territories in which a person with low provisions to high mobility can find a job, here, which then is ready to long term commuting and the last, who stands ready to move, although they are not ready to move anywhere. Our analyzes show that people with lower provisions for mobility in 2007 find themselves in an economic and employment situation more unfavorable in 2011 than others. However, the approach by mobility also allows to put in balance, these projects with power, that is to say the access and skills, highly variable between individuals. The group of those willing to move is enlightening to this view. Or, and this is often underestimated, the experience of mobility is much less rosy for those whose skills and access are low. The costs of mobility in terms of health, fatigue, stress, or equilibrium of couples, will also depend on the conditions of exercise of this mobility. This work on mobility finally allows to question for all people, not just for those who move, the place high mobility holds in daily life. We have been able to enter in the complexity arbitrations between work and family. It was possible also to address the variability of individual situations, opening the door for reflection on interindividual inequalities with an approach that is not based on actual practice, but the access and skills, that is to say, the power, and the way projects, unintentionally, are guided by the social norm and the pressure of access to employment. Mobility finally allowed us to pinpoint on very strong economic and social issues. So do we have to help so that the most possible people is adapted to the largest mobile lifestyle, or should we fight against the generalization of an injunction to mobility ? Let us leave this question open for now but keep in mind the high level of fatigue of mobile people. <I> Thank you and good night. </ I>
