Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Smartness-induced transport inequality: Privacy concern, lacking

knowledge of smartphone use and unequal access to transport information
Mengzhu Zhang a, Pengjun Zhao b, Si Qiao a, *
a
Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
b
Centre for Urban and Transport Studies, School of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the context of continuous worldwide practices in building smart cities and promoting smart mobilities, the
Smart city literature on the reproduction of transport inequality caused by unequal access to smartphone use is gradually
Smart mobility increasing. In addition to physical access to smartphone use, this study contributes a new perspective from the
Unequal access to transport information
privacy concern on (motivational access) and lack of knowledge (skill access) in using location-based service
Digital divide
Transport-related social exclusion
(LBS) to the understanding of unequal access to transport information during the transition to a smart city. Using
a two-stage modelling approach to a dataset collected from two Chinese cities, the study found that women are
vulnerable to restricted access to smart transport information due to the privacy concern on and lack of
knowledge of using LBS. People aged over 50 tend to be restricted to the traditional source of transport infor­
mation due to the lack of knowledge of using LBS. Moreover, city-sensitive factors should be considered. Muslims
in Urumqi are vulnerable to restricted access to smart transport information compared with Han Chinese because
of the lack of knowledge of using LBS. In Wuhan, manual workers/attendants are vulnerable to restricted access
to smart transport information compared with those working in offices for the same reason. The lack of
knowledge affects the transformation from a traditional source user to a smart source user, whereas the privacy
concern restrains individuals from using multiple smart sources. From these findings, policy recommendations
for mitigating the smartness-induced unequal access to transport information are proposed.

1. Introduction
In the past two decades, the deepening of the information revolution
has profound effects on people’s social life (Brandtzæg et al., 2011). As
the key frontier of practicing information and communication technol­
ogy (ICT)-based innovative integration of population, land use, traffic,
and economic activities, cities have witnessed rapid changes in urban
governance and daily behavior of individuals in recent years (Vanolo,
2014). This change is apparent in the frequent adoption of the “smart
city” concept in the governmental agendas that aim to optimize urban
resource allocation and public services provision using ICTs. Certain
scholars and policymakers envisage an efficient, equitable, and inclusive
“smart city” and celebrate great reforms in urban planning, trans­
portation demand management, and municipal service provisions owing
to the adoption of ICT-based smart systems. However, a rising critique of
the overriding “smart city paradigm” is recognized (e.g., Vanolo, 2014).
A key concern is the reproduction of social inequality, marginalization,
and exclusion due to unequal access to ICT-based services, and
accordingly, social opportunities and life chance (Kong and Woods,
2018). Such a concern is increasingly important in the context of
contemporary urban entrepreneurialism (Jessop and Sum, 2000) and
fast policy mobility among cities (Peck, 2011). Both have prioritized the
adoption and promotion of a smart city in municipalities regardless of
other constitutes of the society (e.g., social equity and fiscal sustain­
ability) for nurturing city competitiveness (Vanolo, 2014).
As a frontier for practicing smart-oriented reforms and a key realm of
networking urban services, jobs, and social opportunities (Lucas, 2012),
the urban transport sector has recently attracted scholarly attention for
the-pursuit-of-smartness-induced transport inequality (Groth, 2019;
Varghese and Jana, 2019). The emerging literature focused on unequal
access to smartphone-based mobility services and its social conse­
quences. Scholars have revealed that the uneven access to
smartphone-based mobility services is a result of the geographically
uneven distribution of ICT infrastructure and differential affordability to
smartphone use that exists among people (Varghese and Jana, 2019).
Such inequality in physical access to smartphone use is determined to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mengzhu.zhang@pku.edu.cn (M. Zhang), pengjun.zhao@pku.edu.cn (P. Zhao), siqiao@hku.hk (S. Qiao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.016
Received 7 January 2020; Received in revised form 26 July 2020; Accepted 16 August 2020
Available online 19 August 2020
0967-070X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Zhang et al.
have engendered socioeconomic variances in mobility behavior (Var­
ghese and Jana, 2019; Groth, 2019). Given the increasingly salient role
of ICT systems in networking virtual information exchanges and phys­
ical population mobility, understanding the factors affecting unequal
access to smartphone-based mobility services is imperative. However, is
there any other explanation aside from the physically and economically
unequal access to smartphone use?
This study answers from the perspective of individual differences in
privacy concerns on and knowledge of using location-based service
(LBS) on smartphones. LBS is the pivot of the smartphone-based
mobility service provision. The selection of this point of entry is
underpinned by two facts. First, a geographically even distribution of
ICT infrastructure and high smartphone penetration in some contexts
downplay the digital divide between mobile owners and non-owners
(Brandtzæg et al., 2011). Given the trend of increasing investment in
constructing ICT infrastructure and the reduced production cost of
smartphones, physical access to smartphone use might be less salient in
the near future. Second, the unequal access to Internet-based provision
of services due to privacy concerns on and the lack of knowledge of using
the Internet or computers has persisted since the advent of e-society
(Bellman et al., 2004; Cao and Everard, 2008; Thomson et al., 2015).
The complexity of smartphone functions (i.e., frequent updates of
Android/iOS) and the number of smartphone/Internet-related crimes (i.
e., leakage of personal information on smartphones used for crimes)
increased. Hence, the privacy concern on and the lack of knowledge of
using smartphones should be increasingly relevant for addressing the
unequal access to smartphone use and smart mobility services.
This study focuses on the effects of the two cited factors on individual
behavioral patterns for obtaining transport information for daily
mobility, particularly on whether and how to use the smart source of
transport information. We selected this access to transport information
as the research object because it has become an increasingly important
factor that influences mobility intentions, plans and efficiency, and
therefore access to urban services and social opportunities (Farag and
Lyons, 2008, 2010; Nyblom, 2014; Mulley et al., 2017). In summary, this
study aims to determine who is vulnerable to restricted access to smart
sources of transport information due to the privacy concern on and lack
of knowledge of using LBS. To this end, we employ a two-stage modeling
approach to a dataset collected from two Chinese cities. By doing so, this
article contributes a new perspective and empirical evidence to a critical
understanding of smart cities and mobilities. Theoretically, this article
extends the digital divide theory to understand the reproduction of so­
cial inequities during the transition to a smart city/society.
2. Smartness and transport inequality
2.1. Rising critique of smart city
“Smart city” remains a fuzzy concept emerging as an approach that
seeks to address the deteriorating urban conditions of air, trans­
portation, housing, and land use for sustainable social and economic
development (Nam and Pardo, 2011). In addition to various definitions
made by scholars from different perspectives, organizations in different
fields, and technology companies specializing different businesses, the
concept “smart city” sees a range of conceptual variants generated by
replacing smart (e.g., digital, intelligent, and information cities) and city
(e.g., smart governance, mobility, and tourism) with other alternative
adjectives (Nam and Pardo, 2011). This study takes the definition made
by Washburn et al. (2010) “the use of smart computing technologies to
make the critical infrastructure components and services of a city—­
which include city administration, education, healthcare, public safety,
real estate, transportation, and utilities—more intelligent, inter­
connected, and efficient” to make “smart city” an operational concept.
Central to a smart city is the “smartness” that improved the efficiency of
economic, social, and environmental governance. In addition, public
service provision is improved by using intelligent ICT-based systems that
176
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
are underpinned by the automatic computing principle (Nam and Pardo,
2011). In this conceptualization, “smart city” is an envisioned paradigm
for a sustainable, inclusive, and equitable urban future within which a
great quality of life of the citizenry is achieved (Partridge, 2004). And
“smartness” is the approach to such visions, in ideological dimension
(justifying smart city as a common goal/priority of the whole society)
and technological dimension (adopting ICTs to optimize the urban sys­
tem). In practice, “smartness” is taken as the measure for the smart city
or to what extent a city has become a smart city (Trencher, 2019).
Similarly, smartness-oriented reform refers to the amelioration of a
city’s various sectors in pursuit of the “smartness” of a city.
The recent rising critique of a smart city is characterized by three key
arguments. First, given the scarce definition of the “smart city” concept,
scholars are concerned about the manipulation of the power-laden (re)
conceptualization process of the smart city (Vanolo, 2014). This concept
is arguably employed by the pro-growth coalition of politicians, tech­
nologists, and business elites to justify the urban entrepreneurial stra­
tegies instead of social equity (Gibbs et al., 2013; Firmino and Duarte,
2016). Moreover, smart city development involves technology com­
panies in urban governance by empowering them to collect and analyze
the data on citizens’ daily behavior (Kong and Woods, 2018). This event
exposes citizenry to threats from the private sector. Second, scholars
suspected the disciplinary nature of the smart city. They argued that on
the one hand, the discourse on smart cities produces a pre-given defi­
nition of the “appropriate, good, and optimal” form of cities (Vanolo,
2014; Kong and Woods, 2018). This view forces municipalities to pursue
smartness-based urban competitiveness regardless of other constituents
of the society (Vanolo, 2014). On the other hand, a smart city paradigm
imposes new behavioral norms on the citizenry that require them to
adjust their daily lives to new smart devices, systems, narratives, and
rationalities (Vanolo, 2014; Kong and Woods, 2018).
Third, scholars are concerned about unequal access to smart systems,
and smart-based service provision and opportunity distribution (Vanolo,
2014; Kong and Woods, 2018). Focusing on the variances in knowledge,
ability, and resource in using ICT devices among people, scholars argue
that certain social groups tend to be marginalized in an increasingly
smart society (e.g., Kong and Woods, 2018). Although smart systems
have been weaving a prime urban network (i.e., information exchange
and physical mobility) where jobs and other social opportunities can be
accessed, the “unsmart” people suffer from reduced chances in life.
Thus, the smart city paradigm involves the (re)production of social
exclusion and inequality (Vanolo, 2014; Kong and Woods, 2018). Such a
concern concurs with the digital divide theory that is proposed to
conceptualize any uneven distribution in the access to, use of, or impact
of ICT in the context of the fast Internet development in the 1990s
(NTIA, 2002; van Dijk and Jan, 2006).
2.2. Smart mobility and reproduction of transport inequality
As a key component of the “smart city” framework, the recent
smartness-oriented reform in the urban transport sector embodies the
aforementioned negative aspects of a smart city. A key concept that
underpins the widespread smartness-oriented reform of the urban
transport sector is the “smart mobility paradigm” (Groth, 2019).
Although a complex sociotechnical paradigm has recently begun to
form, smart mobility involves a new vision for the daily mobility that is
achieved in a clean, safe, and efficient manner with the assistance of ICT.
Groth (2019) characterized smart mobility by two key elements. First,
ICT-based sharing of mobility services enables the maximum utilization
of transportation capability (Groth, 2019), which is exemplified by the
rising real-time information-based carpooling (Rayle et al., 2016),
taxi-sharing (Firnkorn and Müller, 2015; Shaheen et al., 2015), and
bike-sharing (Shaheen et al., 2015; Zhao and Li, 2017). This ICT-based
sharing of mobility service is taken as a form of “collaborative
mobility” that provides access to a variety of transport modes (Miller,
2011) and improves the efficiency of vehicle use (Groth, 2019). Second,
M. Zhang et al.
the ICT-based interconnection of all mobility services enables sustain­
able alternatives to private cars (Groth, 2019). Studies have found that
the provision of smartphone-based mobility information/services can
encourage multimodal travel behavior (Kopp et al., 2015; Groth, 2019)
and mitigate private car use (Chatterjee et al., 2013; Martin and Sha­
heen, 2011; Costain et al., 2012; Fishman et al., 2014).
Therefore, smart mobility should have merits for reducing transport
emissions, energy consumption, and congestion and enhancing acces­
sibility to jobs and urban services, which promote economic efficiency
and social inclusion (Groth, 2019). Smart mobility has increasingly
become a new criterion of a good city and urban competitiveness due to
the successful practice of smart mobility in several advanced cities
(Vanolo, 2014). This notion is reflected in the incorporation of “devel­
oping smart mobility” as a key goal into city agendas, which has
occurred in Europe (Vanolo, 2014), America, and China. On the one
hand, the rising worldwide tide of smart mobilities has driven munici­
palities to reform the urban transport sector accordingly (Vanolo, 2014).
Examples of these initiatives are government-sponsored projects for
building smart infrastructure, replacing manual ticketing/information
services with electronic ticketing and information devices, and restruc­
turing local institutional frameworks to enable technology companies to
collect or analyze data on citizens’ travel behavior (Rayle et al., 2016).
On the other hand, smart mobility has become a new norm of an
advanced form of urban life that induces citizens to accept the gradual
disappearance of traditional mobility services.
The two cited structural forces that recently emerged in the urban
transport sector have raised scholarly concern on the negative social
consequences of the overwhelming “smart mobility paradigm.” A few
but growing empirical studies have examined the reproduction of
transport inequality and social disadvantage due to the rise of smart
mobility. Varghese and Jana (2019) revealed a relationship among in­
dividual socioeconomic characteristics, access to smartphone use
(measured by geographical proximity to ICT infrastructure and smart­
phone ownership), and fairness to services. The authors found that
people who attained low education level and reside under poor living
conditions tend to have less access to smartphone use based on a
modeling approach to a dataset from Mumbai. Furthermore, increased
access to smartphone use increases the time allocated for out-home
maintenance activities.
Groth (2019) substantiated the reproduction of transport poverty
(people with restricted mode choices) due to the unequal integration to
smart mobility. The author focused on the uneven distribution of mode
options caused by unequal access to smartphone use and based on a
questionnaire survey conducted in Offenbach, Germany. Then, the
author initially found a salient digital divide (having versus not having a
smartphone) that exists among people. Second, a positive association
was observed between the mono-optional groups and the lack of
smartphones. Hence, the author argued that the unequal access to
smartphone use (indicated by smartphone ownership) had caused the
uneven distribution of travel mode options and unequal access to social
opportunities. In summary, despite the different entry points, the pre­
vious theoretical concern on the reproduction of transport inequity
Fig. 1. From one-to multi-dimensional digital divide.
177
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
through the unequal access to smartphone use has been empirically
confirmed. This study intends to enrich this existing literature on the
critical understanding of smart cities/mobility from the perspective of
the reproduction of transport inequality.
2.3. Smartphone, digital divide, and unequal access to transport
information
This study looks beyond physical access to smartphone use. We are
interested in exploring the psychological reasons that lead to unequal
access to smart transport information for two reasons. Theoretically,
through a reconceptualization of digital divide (see Fig. 1), van Dijk and
Jan (2006) noted that digital divide should not be understood as a single
dimension of the physical or material access to digital devices; (a)
motivational access and (b) skill access are also important dimensions of
the digital divide. Motivational access refers to one’s intention to buy or
use a digital device or ICT-based service that is shaped by various social,
cultural, and psychological factors (van Dijk and Jan, 2006). Skill access
refers to one’s ability to use a digital device or ICT-based service (van
Dijk and Jan, 2006). Similarly, the existing studies on the unequal access
to smart mobility services (e.g., Varghese and Jana, 2019; Groth, 2019)
were only concerned about the material access to smartphone use
measured by the smartphone ownership, affordability to data service,
and geographical access to ICT infrastructure. Attention to the motiva­
tional access and skill access is still limited. Empirically, in certain
contexts, such as in American cities and Chinese metropolises, the high
penetration level of smartphone and the complete ICT infrastructure
networks reduce the importance of physical access to smartphone use,
which engenders unequal access to smart mobility services. Instead,
information leakage on smartphones becomes increasingly salient,
which has forced smartphone users to take security actions including
avoiding storing strong confidential information on smartphones (Das
and Khan, 2016). Moreover, individually differential skill/knowledge of
using smartphones is found to be a significant factor for the unequal
access to the smartphone-based public service provisions (Kim et al.,
2016). These empirical studies suggest the increasing importance of
motivational and skill access in the (re)production of unequal access to
smart mobility services and transport inequality.
The present study considers two key insights for deepening the un­
derstanding of unequal access to smart mobility services based on the
conceptual advancements in the digital divide and the empirical nu­
ances of the socioeconomic variances in smartphone use. The first is the
effect of privacy concerns on user adoption of LBS (Zhou, 2011). Indi­
vidual real-time location information is central to the current smart
mobility practices. A self-enabled report of individual real-time location
via smartphones is a prerequisite for using online carpooling, finding
available shared vehicles or bicycles, and obtaining accurate transfer
information (Groth, 2019). Allowing private technology companies to
collect or analyze real-time positional information can raise concern on
personal privacy and security (Zhou, 2011), which can further prevent
people from using LBS-based services. In this regard, the privacy concern
on smartphone use can be a factor for the unequal access to smartphone
M. Zhang et al.
use and smartphone-based mobility service provisions (motivational
access). The second is the increasing complication of smartphone fea­
tures in terms of miscellaneous functions and intricate interface design
(Thomson et al., 2015). This aspect suggests that the digital divide might
exist not just between these having and not having a smartphone (ma­
terial access), but also between smartphone sophisticated and normal
users (skill access). Combining the two insights, we are inspired to
consider the socioeconomic factors in producing variances in privacy
concern on and knowledge of using LBS and how the socioeconomic
variances could have caused unequal access to transport information.
Notably, this research focuses on the behaviors of obtaining trans­
port information instead of mobility behaviors due to three reasons.
First, the existing studies that directly examined the effects of unequal
access to smartphone use on specific mobility behavior have overlooked
the fine-grained, multidimensional effect mechanism. In particular,
various mediators might exist between unequal access to smartphone
use and mobility behavior (Groth, 2019), whereas its complexity can be
barely verified with just one work. Mobility behavior is arguably
influenced by considerable contingent factors. Accurately capturing its
regularity by either using a questionnaire survey or big data approaches
is difficult. Hence, we focus on the individual behavioral pattern of
obtaining transport information, rather than mobility behavior. Second,
access to transport information is found to be an important factor
influencing mobility behavior, such as mode/transfer choice, travel
time, trip chaining, and travel planning (Farag and Lyons, 2008, 2010;
Nyblom, 2014; Mulley et al., 2017). The effect of access to transport
information on mobility behavior is arguably magnified by the current
Fig. 2. Conceptual framework.
178
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
trends toward smart mobilities (Groth, 2019). However, studies empir­
ically examining the prevalence of unequal access to transport infor­
mation in the age of smart mobility or cities are limited. Third, the
causes of unequal access to transport information or disadvantaged
groups that are vulnerable to smartness-induced deprivation of trans­
port information should be deciphered for garnering policy implications
to mitigate the smartness-induced reproduction of transport inequalities
and disadvantages. This notion owes to the fact that compared with
other factors influencing mobility behavior, transport information pro­
vision is deeply affected by government intervention (Farag and Lyons,
2008). Thus, municipalities possibly improve transport equity through
appropriate policy formation on transport information provision.
3. Methodology
3.1. Conceptual framework
In light of the discussions above, we propose an analytical frame­
work for examining the relationship among the following: (a) individual
socioeconomic characteristics, (b) motivational and skill access to
smartphone use, and (c) factual access to transport information. As
shown in Fig. 2, we assume that an indirect effect path exists between (a)
and (c), in which (a) affects (c) by influencing (b). That is, different
social groups might have different levels of access to transport infor­
mation due to individually differential motivational and skill access to
smartphone use. In particular, (i) motivational access is indicated by,
but not limited to, privacy concern on using LBS, and (ii) skill access is
M. Zhang et al.
indicated by, but not limited to, the knowledge of using LBS.
We initially categorized the existing variegated sources of transport
information to measure access to transport information. That is,
smartphone-based apps (i.e., online maps, carpooling/taxi-calling apps,
and city-specific traffic apps) specializing in providing real-time trans­
port information (i.e., road congestion, the arrival time of bus/train,
available shared cars or taxis in surrounding areas, and travel duration
of different travel routes or transfer plans) are defined as a smart source
of transport information. By contrast, traditional approaches to non-
real-time transport information (i.e., listening to traffic radio and
querying transport information via SMS) are defined as (ii) traditional
sources of transport information. We categorize the behavioral pattern
of obtaining transport information into four types on the basis of the
intensity of using the smart information source based on this sorting. (a)
The first pattern is the “multiple smart source user” which refers to the
use of two or more smart sources of transport information for daily
mobility. (b) The second pattern is the “single smart source user” which
refers to the use of one smart source of transport information. The two
cited behavioral patterns lack the use of traditional sources of transport
information. (c) The third pattern is the “mixed user” which refers to the
use of smart and traditional sources of transport information. (d) The
fourth pattern is the “traditional source of user” which refers to the only
use of the traditional source of transport information. We assume that
accessibility to transport information increases with the intensity of
using the smart source of transport information. Accordingly, accessi­
bility to transport information decreases from the first to the last pattern.
We examine the analytical framework using a two-stage modeling
approach to a dataset collected from a questionnaire survey conducted
in two Chinese cities.
3.2. Rising smart mobility paradigm in Chinese cities
China is a good case for examining smartness-induced unequal access
to transport information due to two features. First, among other coun­
tries, China has experienced the fastest economic growth process in the
past decades; during which, cities play a key role (He et al., 2017). Urban
entrepreneurialism refers to a shift in the role of municipalities from
public service or welfare provision to ensuring local growth in the age of
neoliberal globalization (Jessop and Sum, 2000). This concept is a key
attribute of China’s post-reform urban governance (Wu, 2003; He et al.,
2017). The Chinese municipalities have endeavored to promote the city
image for nurturing local competitiveness to solve the problem of global
capital (He et al., 2017). Hence, the smart city or mobility paradigm that
has been discursively reworked into an indispensable quality of a
competent city in the western world has spread rapidly among Chinese
cities in recent years. Evidence is apparent either from state-led
competition for the title of “National Smart City” or the set of “devel­
oping smart city or mobility” as a key goal in city agendas by most
Chinese municipalities. In this context, Chinese cities have witnessed a
fast smartness-oriented reform in the transport sector, particularly in the
mobility service provision since 2012. Most municipalities have
promptly replaced “old-fashioned” manual services in metro or bus
stations with the Internet or smartphone-based smart services and
advocated smart lifestyle or mobility. Within the transport information
provision, multiple sources now coexist in the Chinese urban residents’
daily mobility, which range from extremely “smart” to extremely
“traditional” approaches. However, no effort has been made to under­
stand unequal access to transport information among individuals, which
is probably caused by the overriding state-led or sponsored
smartness-oriented reform. Second, China has a high smartphone
penetration (more than 70%) and a geographically even development of
ICT infrastructures in cities (State Radio Regulation of China, 2018).
This situation enables us to examine the effects of psychological factors
on individual access to transport information because physical access to
ICT infrastructure or smartphone has been naturally controlled.
Wuhan and Urumqi are selected as cases for empirical studies for two
179
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
reasons. First, the majority of the population in China’s developed cities,
such as Beijing and Shanghai, are highly-educated young migrants, and
the social acceptance of smart lifestyle/mobility is relatively high.
Hence, in contrast to these cities, Wuhan and Urumqi, which are inland
and relatively underdeveloped, have just started their smartness-
oriented reform of the transport sector in 2014. This situation, in
conjunction with the balanced composition of the population (in terms
of education level and age) of the two cities, provides a good juncture to
examine unequal access to transport information during the transition to
a smart city or society. Second, albeit less developed compared with
Shanghai and Beijing, Wuhan and Urumqi are provincial capital cities
with rapidly expanding yet increasingly complicated modern transport
networks where multiple travel modes are interweaved (Table 1), where
an individual can limitedly access urban services and social opportu­
nities. Thus, compared with small- and medium-sized cities, the
importance of access to transport information to individuals is more
evident in big cities, such as Wuhan and Urumqi, because it can signif­
icantly influence mobility behavior and individual access to social
opportunities.
3.3. Data and quantitative approaches
The dataset used in the empirical examination was developed from a
household survey conducted between June and September 2015 in
Wuhan and Urumqi. In each city, six communities were selected for
questionnaire surveys; among which, three were in central areas, and
the rest were in the inner suburbs. Notably, the sampling process was
assisted by officials from local governments. The objectives are to ensure
that the selected communities had a balanced population composition
(age, gender, and employment status) and to avoid the selection of
aging, wealthy, and poor communities. A total of 100 residents were
randomly selected from each community to answer the survey with
assistance from local neighborhood committees. The questionnaire
survey was conducted face to face. In each community, the neighbor­
hood committee gathered the respondents in the meeting room of the
neighborhood committee. Then, the recruited investigators distributed
the questionnaires to the respondents and ensured that all the ques­
tionnaires were filled out by the respondents on site. After collecting all
the 1200 questionnaires, we found that 13 questionnaires from Wuhan
and 126 questionnaires from Urumqi were invalid because the re­
spondents did not answer the key questions on the privacy concern on
and the knowledge of using LBS. Hence, the 139 invalid questionnaires
were excluded from the dataset, and a total of 587 valid questionnaires
from Wuhan and 474 from Urumqi were used for the final analysis.
Table 2 shows the comparison of the population structure between the
samples used in this research and the local census data.
In the questionnaire survey, two key questions were asked to assess
respondents’ privacy concern on and knowledge of using LBS. The first
question is “Did you ever stop using LBS on due to privacy concern?” If
the answer is “yes,” then the respondent has a privacy concern on using
smart mobility services. The second question is “Did you know the LBS
function in your smartphone?” If the answer is “no,” then the respondent
lacks knowledge of LBS use. In the questionnaire, LBS is clearly defined
as “shou ji ding wei fu wu,” which was the term commonly used in
Chinese referring to the LBS on smartphones. Moreover, the respondents
were asked about their frequent sources of obtaining transport infor­
mation during daily mobility. Table 1 shows the options including all
existing sources of transport information in respective cities. Moreover,
we collected the socioeconomic information of each respondent, such as
gender, age, educational background, social status (employed, retired,
student, housewife/househusband, or unemployed), occupation, and
residence (central areas or inner suburbs). Gender, education attain­
ment, age, social status, and occupation were selected variables because
these individual socioeconomic features are widely examined to be the
factors for the material, motivational, and skill access to the Internet or
computer and the ICT-based service provision (NTIA, 2002; Horrigan
M. Zhang et al.
and Rainie, 2002; Katz and Rice, 2002; de Haan, 2003; Rojas et al., 2004;
Dutta-Bergman, 2005; van Dijk and Jan, 2005, 2006; Brandtzæg et al.,
2011). Notably, Urumqi is a semi-secular city in which approximately
30% of the urban population are Muslim. A salient discrepancy in the
perception of using a smartphone, the Internet, or any other modern
device might exist between the Muslim and Han Chinese. The existing
literature also mentioned the ethnicity and religious belief as a signifi­
cant factor for access to digital device use (Stanley, 2001; Rojas et al.,
2004; van Dijk and Jan, 2006). Therefore, ethnicity is also taken as a
variable in Urumqi. Furthermore, given that the behavior of seeking for
transport information is shaped by the degree of need for transport in­
formation (Farag and Lyons, 2008), the residence (central areas or inner
suburbs) is taken as a variable. This action is because in Chinese cities, a
salient gap exists in the transportation service or facility provision (e.g.,
the frequency of bus services and the number of bus lines, the number of
available taxies and shared cars or bikes, and road network density)
between the central and suburban areas. Furthermore, people living in
the latter are often more in need of transport information than those
living in the former. In China, people are usually reluctant to disclose
individual information on income and in our questionnaire survey,
where over 30% of the respondents did not report their income levels.
Hence, income is not taken as a variable although it is widely identified
as a factor for the digital divide (van Dijk and Jan, 2006). We
acknowledge this limitation in our dataset and research.
Table 3 illustrates the two-stage modeling approach. We initially use
logistic regression to examine or identify socioeconomic variances in
privacy concerns on and lack of knowledge of LBS use. Subsequently, we
use a structural equation model (SEM) to examine the mediating effect
of privacy concerns and lacking knowledge of LBS use on access to
transport information. In the SEM, the behavioral pattern for obtaining
transport information is taken as the dependent variable with privacy
concern on and lack of knowledge of LBS use as mediators. We identify
the social groups that are vulnerable to low access to transport infor­
mation due to the privacy concern on and the lack of knowledge of LBS
use through the two-stage modeling approach. We run the aforemen­
tioned quantitative models for each city separately to garner compara­
tive evidence.
4. Modeling results
4.1. Socioeconomic variances in privacy concern on and lack of
knowledge of using LBS
Tables 4 and 5 present the regression results of the socioeconomic
factors affecting the privacy concern on and lack of knowledge of LBS
use, respectively. The models for the overall samples and each city are
employed. The significance of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test of each model
ranges between 0.1 and 0.7. These results suggest a considerable level of
fitness of the models (significance > 0.05) and the explanatory power of
the variables. Specifically, four significant findings can be drawn from
the regression results.
First, gender is a significant factor influencing the generation of
privacy concern on and lack of knowledge of LBS use. We found that
compared with men, women tend to have higher privacy concerns on
LBS use (0.24**). One explanation is that women tend to be victims of
crimes and violence, particularly sexual assault by men (Pain, 1997;
Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014). Moreover, in the age of e-society, the stea­
ling/leakage of personal information on residence, workplace, and
real-time position via the Internet, smartphone, and apps has become a
new threat to women’s security. This scenario is proven by the
increasing number of crimes caused by the leakage of personal position
information. In this respect, women’s tendency of exhibiting privacy
concerns on and thus stopping LBS use can be interpreted as a proactive
self-protection measure. Women also tend to lack knowledge of LBS use
(0.49**) compared with men. Although many studies have argued or
examined women’s poor performance in learning math, science, and the
180
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
use of complex electronic devices compared with men, these previous
findings cannot be simply interpreted as women’s lack of logical
thinking. Rather, the gender difference in performance is probably
caused by the gender threat effect. That is, the formation of the gender
stereotype of women as incompetent for learning math, science, and
computers can effectively deprive women of confidence and opportu­
nities in learning these “masculine subjects/skills” (for a discussion, see
Link and Phelan (2001)). The advent of e-society is accompanied by the
gender stereotype of women as incompetent for learning or using
computer/Internet/smartphones, particularly in China. Such events
possibly frustrate women’s initiatives in learning increasingly compli­
cated smartphone functions, such as LBS.
Another explanation for women’s tendency to lack knowledge of LBS
use is their general lower affordability to smartphones (caused by a low
income level) compared with men, when smartphones were introduced
in the previous years. Despite the reduced smartphone price that has
potentially led to equal smartphone ownership between men and
women in recent years, the comparatively shorter years of using
smartphones could have impeded women from being sophisticated
smartphone users. The discussed vulnerability of women to privacy
concerns on and lack of knowledge of LBS use is found to be significant
in the models for each city, which suggests the generality of such gender
difference in LBS use.
Second, compared with middle and old aged (over 50 years old),
young people (aged between 20 and 25 years old) are less likely to lack
knowledge of LBS use (− 1.84***) but more likely to have privacy
concerns on LBS use (1.30**). This finding is in line with Kong and
Woods (2018) concern on the disadvantaged position of seniors in the
transition to a smart city due to their declined ability in learning how to
use smart devices. Young people’s sensitivity to privacy concerns on LBS
can also be explained by their better knowledge of possible negative
consequences of LBS use compared with the seniors. In China, the highly
developed mobile-based online social media have caused unequal access
to news between the young and the elderly. On the one hand, declined
traditional media (i.e., television, radio, and newspaper) have forced
news departments to turn to the “smart ways” of news reporting (i.e.,
streaming video on TikTok, news apps, Facebook, Twitter, Weibo, and
WeChat). On the other hand, despite smartphone ownership, middle and
old aged are commonly incapable of or interested in using emerging
apps in contrast to young people. Thus, the middle and old aged are in
disadvantaged positions in knowing LBS-use-induced crimes, thereby
yielding the lack of privacy concerns on LBS use. This age-based
discrepancy in privacy concerns on and knowledge of using LBS is also
found to be significant in the models for each city (except for privacy
concern in Urumqi).
Third, the education level is associated with sufficient knowledge of
LBS use. We found that compared with people with middle or high
school education, those with primary school education and below level
tend to lack knowledge of LBS use (0.47**). This association is also
found significant for the models of each city. Notably, compared with
people having middle or high school education, those with college and
above level education lack an advantage for obtaining knowledge of LBS
use. Therefore, learning LBS use is not as challenging or does not require
a high level of intelligence. Furthermore, at the overall level, holding a
college degree and above level education is associated with the
increased possibility of having privacy concerns on LBS use, whereas
this effect is found non-significant in the models for each city.
Last, in Urumqi, the Muslims tend to lack knowledge of LBS use
compared with Han Chinese (1.07**) after controlling for education
level and age variables. Muslim’s tendency of lacking knowledge of LBS
use can be explained by their religious beliefs that discourage the use of
smartphones or other modern devices (van Dijk and Jan, 2006). Inter­
estingly, compared with office workers, in Urumqi, experts and ad­
ministrators tend to have more serious privacy concerns on LBS use
(0.72***). One possible explanation is that the position in holding
valuable business and technical information increases expert and
M. Zhang et al.
administrators’ awareness of privacy concerns on information leakage
via smartphone use. In Wuhan, retirees tend to lack privacy concerns on
LBS use compared with students (− 0.99*). In Wuhan, compared with
office workers, manual workers and attendants tend to lack knowledge
of LBS use (1.77** and 1.39**). One explanation is that manual workers
and attendants lack motivational working environment for smartphone
use (van Dijk and Jan, 2006). By contrast, the ability to use smartphones
skillfully increasingly becomes a prerequisite of being a competent office
worker in China.
4.2. Mediating effects of privacy concern and lack of knowledge on access
to transport information
In this section, we use SEM to capture the indirect effect of socio­
economic factors on individual access to transport information with
privacy concerns on and lack of knowledge of LBS use as mediators.
Instead of establishing models for overall samples, we run the models for
each city considering the city-specific conditions of transport informa­
tion provision (i.e., types and service quality of different information
provisions) and population composition. Notably, we combine “manual
labor” and “attendant” into a category to improve conciseness of results
given that the two variables have the same positive association with the
lack of knowledge of LBS use in Wuhan in the previous logistical
regression. Moreover, as for the age variable, we changed the reference
group to “between 20 and 35 years old” to make the interpretation of the
modeling results more meaningful. Tables 6 and 7 reveal that the fitness
of the model for each city reaches the test standard. Therefore, the
models have a considerable level of robustness, and the variables exhibit
explanatory power. In particular, four important findings are drawn
from the modeling results. First, women’s vulnerability to privacy con­
cerns on LBS use can effectively impede them from using multiple smart
sources of transport information. This association is found significant in
the models for Wuhan (− 0.079***) and Urumqi (− 0.011**), which
suggests the generality of women’s disadvantaged position in terms of
Fig. 3. Mediating effects of privacy concern and lack of knowledge on access to transport information in Urumqi.
Fig. 4. Mediating effects of privacy concern and lack of knowledge on access to transport information in Wuhan.
181
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
access to transport information due to privacy concern. Women’s ten­
dency to lack knowledge of LBS use can effectively encourage them to
become traditional transport information source users (0.111** for
Urumqi and 0.051* for Wuhan). Combining the two modeling results,
we prove women’s higher tendency to suffer from restricted access to
transport information compared with men in the transition to smart
mobility/city.
Second, middle/old aged and less educated individuals are other
groups that tend to suffer from restricted access to transport informa­
tion. Instead of vulnerability to privacy concerns, their disadvantaged
role in access to transport information is caused by their vulnerability to
the lack of knowledge of LBS/smartphone use. The study found that
aged over 50 is positively associated with the possibility of using the
traditional source of transport information (0.255*** for Urumqi and
0.034* for Wuhan). By contrast, these individuals are negatively asso­
ciated with the possibility of using a single smart source of transport
information (− 0.163*** for Urumqi and − 0.011** for Wuhan) with the
lack of knowledge of LBS use as mediator. Furthermore, findings reveal
that the primary education level and below is negatively associated with
the possibility of using the traditional source of transport information
(− 0.174*** for Urumqi and 0.006* for Wuhan). On the contrary, this
level is positively associated with the possibility of using the single smart
source of transport information (0.111*** for Urumqi and − 0.055** for
Wuhan) with a lack of knowledge of LBS use as mediator. These results
suggest that individuals aged 50 and above and people with primary
education level and below tend to suffer from restricted access to
transport information due to the lack of knowledge of LBS/smartphone
use.
Third, city-specific factors influence the variances in access to
transport information among individuals. In Wuhan, occupation type is
found to be a factor for the behavioral pattern of obtaining transport
information. That is, manual workers or attendants tend to use the
traditional source of information (0.026*) due to the lack of knowledge
of LBS use. As previously discussed, their disadvantaged role in access to
M. Zhang et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185

Table 1 a person uses the smart approach to transport information, whereas

Existing sources of transport information in Wuhan and Urumqi in 2015. privacy concern influences the intensity of using smart transport infor­
Features Wuhan Urumqi mation sources.
Urban Approximately 5.5 million Approximately 2.5 million
population 5. Conclusion and implication
size
2 2
Built-up area size 560 km 430 km
Focusing on unequal access to transport information in the
Major transport Private car, metro, bus, e-bike Private car, metro, bus and
modes or bike, and ferry bus rapid transit, and e-bike contemporary transition to smart society, this study aims to contribute a
or bike new perspective to the critical understanding of the rising smart city/
Major sources of Traditional sources: local Traditional sources: local mobility paradigm (Vanolo, 2014; Kong and Woods, 2018). In addition
transport traffic radio and local traffic radio and local to physical access to smartphone use caused by the geographically un­
information transport information hotline transport information hotline
even distribution of ICT infrastructure (Varghese and Jana, 2019) and
(phone calls and SMS) (phone calls and SMS)
Smart source: Wuhan Smart source: Didi App individual differential affordability to smartphone and data service
Transport App, Wuhan (carpooling and taxi-calling (Groth, 2019), this study unravels the role of the subjective factors in
transport information app) and online map apps causing unequal access to transport information for daily mobility. Our
platform on WeChat, Didi App (Baidu and Gaode)
point of entry is the socioeconomic variances in having privacy concern
(carpooling and taxi-calling
app), and online map apps
on and lack of knowledge of using LBS on smartphones, which is the
(Baidu and Gaode) pivot of individual access to smart transport information and mobility
Source: summarized by authors
Table 3
Profile of respondents and variables used for the two-stage modeling.
transport information is probably caused by the lack of a working
environment that encourages them to learn smartphone use in contrast Variables Wuhan Urumqi Variable
form
to office workers. However, this effect is found to be non-significant in
Urumqi, where ethnicity is a significant factor that affects unequal ac­ First-stage modeling
Dependent variable: mental factors
cess to transport information. We found that Muslims tend to be
1 Strong privacy concern on using LBS (no as 35% 37% Binary
restricted to use traditional sources of transport information due to their a reference)
vulnerability to lack of knowledge of LBS use (0.067**). Therefore, these 2 Lack of knowledge of using LBS/being non- 13% 16% Binary
results underlie a contextual understanding of unequal access to sophisticated smartphone user (no as a
smartness-induced unequal access to transport information that takes reference)
Independent variable: socioeconomic factors
locally specific population composition, cultural atmosphere, and eco­ Male (as a reference) 52% 46% Binary
nomic conditions into account. Female 48% 54%
Last, Figs. 3 and 4 depict that the lack of knowledge increases the Middle and high school level (as a 37% 36%
tendency of becoming traditional source user (0.599*** for Urumqi and reference)
College degree and above 60% 2%
0.146* for Wuhan) and decreases the tendency of becoming single smart
Primary school level and below 3% 62%
source user (− 0.343** for Urumqi and − 0.527*** for Wuhan). How­ Aged over 50 years old (as a reference) 19% 4% Categorical
ever, the lack of knowledge exhibits no effect on impeding people from 35 years old to 50 years old 23% 36%
using multiple smart sources of transport information. By contrast, pri­ 20 years old to 34 years old 55% 58%
vacy concern effectively impedes people from becoming multiple smart below 20 years old 3% 2%
Han Chinese (as a reference) 100% 78% Binary
sources user (− 0.146** for Urumqi and − 0.695*** for Wuhan). This Muslim 0 22%
discrepancy suggests that the lack of knowledge has an effect on whether Student (as a reference) 8% 2% Categorical
Employed 70% 84%
Retired 6% 2%
Table 2 Housewife/househusband 16% 12%
Comparison between the sample structures used in this research and the local Residing in the central area (as a 47% 50% Binary
census data. reference)
Residing in inner suburbs 53% 50%
Item Urumqi Wuhan Office Worker (as a reference) 26% 29% Categorical
Sample used Local Sample used Local Worker 4% 5%
in this census in this census Attendant 14% 5%
research data research data Administrator/expert 18% 35%
(2015)* (2015)# Self-employed/freelancer 8% 13%
Unemployed 30% 13%
Gender Second-stage modeling
Male 46% 51% 52% 51% Source of transport information
Female 54% 49% 48% 49% Local transport app# 29% None
Age Local transport social media on WeChat# 11% None
Below 20 years old 2% 4% 3% 3% Carpooling/taxi-calling app# 44% 23%
Between 20 and 58% 41% 55% 39% Online map app# 66% 57%
35 years old Traffic radio 13% 19%
(including 20 Calling/taxing service hotline 15% 30%
years old) Dependent variable: access to transport information
Between 35 and 36% 32% 23% 23% Behavioral pattern of obtaining transport information
50 years old Single smart source user 23% 25% Categorical
(including 35 Multiple smart source user 49% 10%
years old) Traditional source user 20% 36%
Over 50 years old 4% 23% 19% 35% Mixed source user (as a reference) 8% 29%
(including 60 Independent variable
years old) Socioeconomic factor (as exogenous variables)
(a) Privacy concern and (b) lack of knowledge of using LBS (as mediating and
Note: * collected from Urumqi Statistical Yearbook (2016); # collected from
endogenous variables)
Wuhan Statistical Yearbook (2016)

182
M. Zhang et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185

Table 4
Regression results for factors influencing privacy concern on using LBS.
Variables Wuhan Urumqi Overall

B S.E. B S.E. B S.E.

Constant 20.75 40193.51 − 0.66*** 0.97 − 1.89** 0.82

Residence (reference: suburbs)
Central area 0.51 0.18 0.47 0.28 0.17 0.14
Ethnicity (reference: Han Chinese)
Muslim None None − 0.10 0.28 − 0.06 0.24
Age (reference: aged over 50 years old)
Below 20 years old 0.65 0.81 0.63 1.10 1.02 0.65
20 years old to 34 years old 1.18** 0.57 0.12 0.52 1.30** 0.41
35 years old to 50 years old 0.75 0.61 − 0.09 0.52 1.00** 0.42
Gender (reference: male)
Female 0.76*** 0.19 0.41** 0.21 0.24** 0.13
Education level (reference: middle and high school level)
College degree and above − 1.72 1.07 − 0.85 1.13 − 1.41* 0.76
Primary level and below 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.18 0.16
Social status (reference: student)
Employed − 22.86 40193.51 − 0.49 0.77 − 0.36 0.62
Housewife/unemployed − 0.48 0.58 − 0.65 0.79 − 0.37 0.38
Retired − 0.99* 0.52 − 21.24 14723.37 − 0.99** 0.46
Job Hierarchy (reference: office worker)
Manual worker 0.23 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.35 0.34
Attendant − 0.40 0.32 0.04 0.53 − 0.23 0.26
Administrator/expert 0.19 0.27 0.72*** 0.26 0.44** 0.18
Self-employed/freelancer 0.46 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.44* 0.25
Unemployed − 22.32 40193.51 1.05 0.77 0.41 0.61

N 587 474 1061

Hosmer–Lemeshow test (sig.) 0.193 0.498 0.383
Pseudo R2 0.257 0.282 0.266

Note: 1. ***Significant at 0.01, ** at 0.05, and * at 0.1.

2. Bold entries denote significance.

Table 5
Regression results for factors influencing individual knowledge of using LBS.
Variables Wuhan Urumqi Overall

B S.E. B S.E. B S.E.

Constant − 23.63 40197.20 − 22.36*** 17745.69 − 1.89 1.16

Residence (reference: suburbs)
Central area − 1.00 0.28 − 0.06 0.39 − 0.24 0.22
Ethnicity (reference: Han Chinese)
Muslim None None 1.07** 0.41 1.41*** 0.32
Age (reference: aged over 50 years old)
Below 20 years old − 20.03 10194.91 − 31.58 17746.12 − 20.21 8815.26
20 years old to 34 years old − 2.04*** 0.61 − 2.10*** 0.57 − 1.84*** 0.41
35 years old to 50 years old 0.78 0.61 − 0.69 0.54 − 0.45 0.40
Gender (reference: male)
Female 0.25 0.28 0.92** 0.31 0.49** 0.20
Education level (reference: middle and high school level)
College degree and above − 1.33 0.60 − 1.15 0.93 − 1.19 0.49
Primary level and below 0.23** 0.33 1.12*** 0.33 0.47** 0.22
Social status (reference: student)
Employed 21.20 40194.20 − 0.16 1.26 0.31 1.00
Housewife/unemployed 1.42 1.15 0.05 1.29 1.06 0.81
Retired 1.21 1.19 0.65 1.66 0.64 0.89
Job Hierarchy (reference: office worker)
Manual worker 1.77** 0.80 0.48 0.66 0.97** 0.48
Attendant 1.39** 0.65 0.84 0.64 0.73** 0.41
Administrator/expert 1.29 0.61 0.31 0.41 0.54 0.33
Self-employed/freelancer 1.22 0.71 0.37 0.51 0.54 0.39
Unemployed 21.59 40197.20 0.71 1.00 0.50 0.82

N 587 474 1061

Hosmer–Lemeshow test (sig.) 0.130 0.668 0.617
Pseudo R2 0.289 0.309 0.270

Note: 1. ***Significant at 0.01, ** at 0.05, and * at 0.1.

2. Bold entries denote significance.

183
M. Zhang et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185

Table 6
SEM results for Urumqi.
Behavioral type Female Age (aged over 50) Education (primary level and below) Muslim Job (administrator/expert)

(a) Privacy concern as a mediator

Multiple smart source user − 0.011** None None None − 0.013**
Single smart source user None None None None None
Traditional source user None None None None None
(b) Lack of knowledge as a mediator
Multiple smart source user − 0.073** None None None None
Single smart source user None − 0.163*** 0.111*** − 0.037** None
Traditional source user 0.111** 0.255*** − 0.174*** 0.067** None

Summary of the model: RMSEA = 0.048 (<0.05); GFI = 0.978 (>0.9); NNFI = 0.932 (>0.9); CFI = 0.970 (>0.9); Standardized RMR = 0.045 (<0.05).
Note: 1. ***Significant at 0.01, ** at 0.05, and * at 0.1. None means no significant association.

services in the age of the smart city. The transport information in peo­
ple’s intentions to travel (Nyblom, 2014; Mulley et al., 2017), the effi­
ciency of daily mobility activities (Farag and Lyons, 2008, 2010; Yeboah
et al., 2018), and accessibility to urban services and social opportunities
(Mulley et al., 2017) is increasingly important. Hence, our efforts are
significant for informing policymakers on mitigating the tendencies of
the-pursuit-of-smartness-induced transport inequality and social exclu­
sion. In summary, social groups vulnerable to the restricted access to
smart sources of transport information are identified using the two-stage
modeling approach to a dataset collected from two Chinese cities.
Through this, this study provides three key insights to the existing
literature on the smartness-induced reproduction of transport
inequality.
First, in addition to the gap between smartphone owners and non-
owners (Brandtzæg et al., 2011), the digital divide exists between men
and women and the young and old smartphone owners. This finding
indicates the inducing prevalence of unequal access to transport infor­
mation. The empirical evidence indicates that women’s vulnerability to
crimes or violence has potentially caused an increased tendency for
privacy concerns on LBS use. This event effectively restricts them from
deeply using smart sources of transport information. Such a disadvan­
tage is exacerbated by women’s tendency to lack knowledge of
LBS/smartphone use, which effectively bounds them to the traditional
sources of transport information. Similarly, individuals aged over 50 are
vulnerable to the restricted use of smart sources of transport information
due to the lack of knowledge of LBS/smartphone use.
Second, locally sensitive factors for the generation of unequal access
to transport information are evident. In Urumqi, Muslims are vulnerable
to restricted access to smart sources of transport information due to the
lack of knowledge of LBS use. Such a disadvantage is arguably caused by
the religious belief that discourages the use of modern devices. This
finding indicates that Muslim’s disadvantage in access to transport in­
formation can hardly be mitigated by general external interference. In
Wuhan, compared with those working in offices, the manual workers’
and attendants’ vulnerability to restricted access to the smart source of
transport information is arguably caused by the lack of a working at­
mosphere and a social network that motivates the learning of smart­
phone use. This result supports a recent ethnographic investigation on
the low-income migrant workers’ restricted access to transport infor­
mation. Accordingly, accessibility to urban services in inner Beijing is
decreased due to a segregated social network from the local inhabitants
(Li and Zhao, 2018). Thus, the peculiar yet isolated sociocultural at­
mosphere and social network within a certain social group is an
important perspective for understanding the reproduction of
transport-related exclusion (Lucas, 2012). Overall, a locally sensitive
understanding of the causes of unequal access to transport information
should be considered when developing practical policies on improving
transport equity against the backdrop of smart mobility trends.
Third, knowledge of LBS/smartphone use is significant for the shift
from being a traditional source user to a smart source user. On the
contrary, the privacy concern on using LBS or smartphone affects the
intensity of using smart sources of transport information. Thus, the
policies designed for promoting the shift to use the smart source of
transport information and smart mobility services should focus on
popularizing the relevant knowledge of using smartphones and smart
transport apps. However, the unequal intensity in using smart sources of
transport information among people can hardly be mitigated given the
entrenched yet increasing privacy concern on using smartphones and
the Internet in the age of e-society.
Based on these empirical findings, we proposed two policy recom­
mendations for mitigating the smartness-induced unequal access to
transport information and other mobility services. First, the local gov­
ernments must consider the unequal ability in using smart mobility
services among social groups when promoting smart mobility services.
“One size fits all” policies aiming to radically replace traditional with
smart mobility services should be avoided. Reserving some traditional
mobility services (e.g., manual ticketing and information services of the
bus and metro services) and holding regular information sessions that
teach the public how to use the smart mobility services are necessary,
particularly in the aging communities and minority neighborhoods.
Second, the legal system that criminalizes the leakage, steal, and ex­
change of the big data and strengthening the monitor on the technology
companies (e.g., smartphone manufacturers, app developers, and tele­
com operators) which have rights to collect, store, and analyze the data
on people’s daily mobility and other privacy must be improved.

Table 7
SEM results for Wuhan.
Behavioral type Female Age (aged over 50) Education (primary level and below) Occupation (manual worker/attendant) Social status (retired)

(a) Privacy concern as a mediator

Multiple smart source user − 0.079*** None None None − 0.003*
Single smart source user None None None None None
Traditional source user 0.041** None None None 0.012*
(b) Lack of knowledge as a mediator
Multiple smart source user None None None None None
Single smart source user 0.041*** − 0.011** − 0.055** − 0.041*** None
Traditional source user 0.051* 0.034* 0.006* 0.026* None

Summary of the model: RMSEA = 0.046 (<0.05); GFI = 0.915 (>0.9); NNFI = 0.921 (>0.9); CFI = 0.970 (>0.9); Standardized RMR = 0.043(<0.05).
Note: 1. ***Significant at 0.01, ** at 0.05, and * at 0.1. None means no significant association.

184
M. Zhang et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mengzhu Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing. Pengjun Zhao: Supervision, Reviewing and Editing. Si Qiao:
Reviewing and Editing.
Acknowledgements
The data used for this research is from a research program funded by
the World Bank, specifically The Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality
(UFGE); this research is also supported by the the National Science
Foundation of China (Project No.: 41925003). We would like to thank
two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments during the
editing of this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.016.
References
Bellman, S., Johnson, E.J., Kobrin, S.J., Lohse, G.L., 2004. International differences in
information privacy concerns: a global survey of consumers. Inf. Soc. 20 (5),
313–324.
Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J., Karahasanović, A., 2011. Understanding the new digital
divide—a typology of Internet users in Europe. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 69 (3),
123–138.
Cao, J., Everard, A., 2008. User attitude towards instant messaging: the effect of
espoused national cultural values on awareness and privacy. J. Global Inf. Technol.
Manag. 11 (2), 30–57.
Costain, C., Ardron, C., Habib, K.N., 2012. Synopsis of users’ behaviour of a carsharing
program: a case study in Toronto. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 46 (3), 421–434.
Chatterjee, K., Andrews, G., Ricci, M., Parkhurst, G., 2013. Qualitative insights into the
effect on travel behavior of joining a carshare. J. Transport. Res. Rec 2359, 76–84.
Das, A., Khan, H.U., 2016. Security behaviors of smartphone users. Inform. Comput.
Secur. 24 (1), 116–134.
de Haan, Jos, 2003. IT and social inequality in The Netherlands. IT & Society 1 (4),
27–45.
Dutta-Bergman, M., 2005. Access to the Internet in the context of community
participation and community satisfaction. New Media Soc. 7, 89–109.
Farag, S., Lyons, G., 2008. What affects use of pretrip public transport information?
Empirical results of a qualitative study. Transport. Res. Rec. 85–92, 2096.
Farag, S., Lyons, G., 2010. Explaining public transport information use when a car is
available: attitude theory empirically investigated. Transportation 37, 897–913.
Firmino, R., Duarte, F., 2016. Private video monitoring of public spaces: the construction
of new invisible territories. Urban Stud. 53 (4), 741–754.
Firnkorn, J., Müller, M., 2015. Free-floating electric carsharing-fleets in smart cities: the
dawning of a post-private car era in urban environments? Environ. Sci. Pol. 45,
30–40.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2014. Bike share’s impact on car use: evidence
from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp.
Behav. Environ. 31, 13–20.
Gibbs, D., Krueger, R., MacLeod, G., 2013. Grappling with smart city politics in an era of
market triumphalism. Urban Stud. 50 (11), 2151–2157.
Groth, S., 2019. Multimodal divide: reproduction of transport poverty in smart mobility
trends. Transport. Res. Part A 125, 56–71.
He, S., Kong, L., Lin, C.S., 2017. Interpreting China’s new urban spaces: state, market,
and society in action. Urban Geogr. 38, 635–642.
Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., 2002. Getting Serious Online: as Americans Gain Experience,
They Pursue More Serious Activities. Pew Internet and American Life Project,
Washington DC from. http://www.pewinternet.org.
Jessop, B., Sum, N., 2000. An entrepreneurial city in action: Hong Kong’s emerging
strategies in and for (Inter)Urban competition. Urban Stud. 27 (12), 2287–2313.
Katz, J.E., Rice, R.E., 2002. Social Consequences of Internet Use, Access, Involvement
and Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kim, M., Kim, W., Kim, J., Kim, C., 2016. Does knowledge matter to seniors’ usage of
mobile devices? Focusing on motivation and attachment. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit.
Manag. 28 (8), 1702–1727.
185
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 175–185
Kopp, J., Gerike, R., Axhausen, K.W., 2015. Do sharing people behave differently?: an
empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car- sharing
members. Transportation 42 (3), 449–469.
Kong, L., Woods, O., 2018. The ideological alignment of smart urbanism in Singapore:
critical reflections on a political paradox. Urban Stud. 55 (4), 679–701.
Link, B.G., Phelan, C.J., 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu. Rev. Soc. 27 (1), 363–385.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., 2014. Fear and safety in transit environments from the women’s
perspective. Secur. J. 27 (2), 242–256.
Li, S., Zhao, P., 2018. Restrained mobility in a high-accessible and migrant-rich area in
downtown Beijing. Euro. Transp. Res. Rev. 10, 4.
Lucas, K., 2012. Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transport Pol. 20,
105–113.
Martin, E.W., Shaheen, S.A., 2011. Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in
North America. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12 (4), 1074–1086.
Miller, H.J., 2011. Collaborative mobility: using geographic information science to
cultivate cooperative transportation systems. Proc. – Soc. Behav. Sci. 21, 24–28.
Mulley, C., Clifton, G., Balbontin, C., Ma, L., 2017. Information for travelling: awareness
and usage of the various sources of information available to public transport users in
NSW. Transport. Res. Part A 101, 111–132.
Nam, T., Pardo, T.A., 2011. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology,
people, and institutions. In: The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International
Conference on Digital Government Research. College park, MD, June 12-15, 2011.
NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), 2002. A nation
online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. from. http://www.nti
a.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html.
Nyblom, A., 2014. Making plans or ‘‘just thinking about the trip’’? Understanding
people’s travel planning in practice. J. Transport Geogr. 35, 30–39.
Pain, R., 1997. Social geographies of women’s fear of crime. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 22,
231–244.
Partridge, H., 2004. Developing a human perspective to the digital divide in the smart
city. In: Proceedings of the Biennial Conference of Australian Library and
information Association. Queensland, Australia, Sep 21-24. 2004.
Peck, J., 2011. Geographies of policy: from transfer- diffusion to mobility-mutation.
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 35 (6), 773–797.
Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., Shaheen, S., 2016. Just a better taxi?: a survey-
based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco.
Transport Pol. 45, 168–178.
Rojas, V., Straubhaar, J., Roychowdhury, D., Okur, O., 2004. Communities, cultural
capital and the digital divide. In: Bucy, E., Newhagen, J. (Eds.), Media Access: Social
and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. LEA, London, pp. 107–130.
Shaheen, S.A., Chan, N.D., Micheaux, H., 2015. One-way carsharing’s evolution and
operator perspectives from the Americas. Transportation 42 (3), 519–536.
State Radio Regulation of China, 2018. Annual report of China radio regulation 2018.
from. http://www.srrc.org.cn/srrc/pdf/6692274.pdf.
Stanley, L., 2001. Beyond access. from. www.mediamanage.net/Beyond_Access.pdf.
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Ito, N., 2015. A socio-ecological approach to national differences
in online privacy concern: the role of relational mobility and trust. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 51, 285–292.
Trencher, G., 2019. Towards the smart city 2.0: empirical evidence of using smartness as
a tool for tackling social challenges. Technol. Forecasting Social Change 142,
117–128.
Urumqi Bureau of Statistics, 2016. Urumqi Statistical Yearbook 2016.
Varghese, V., Jana, A., 2019. Interrelationships between ICT, social disadvantage, and
activity participation behaviour: a case of Mumbai, India. Transport. Res. Part A 125,
248–267.
van Dijk, Jan, A.G.M., 2005. The Deepening Divide Inequality in the Information Society.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA/London/New Delhi.
van Dijk, Jan, A.G.M., 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings.
Poetics 34, 221–235.
Vanolo, A., 2014. Smartmentality: the smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 51
(5), 883–898.
Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R.A., Hayes, N.M., Nelson, L.E., 2010.
Helping CIOs Understand “‘Smart City’” Initiatives: Defining the Smart City, Its
Drivers, and the Role of the CIO. Forrester Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Wu, F., 2003. The (post-)socialist entrepreneurial city as a state project: Shanghai’s
reglobalisation in question. Urban Stud. 40 (9), 1673–1698.
Wuhan Bureau of Statistics, 2016. Wuhan Statistical Yearbook 2016.
Yeboah, G, Cottrill, C.D., Nelson, J.D., Corsar, D., Markovic, M., Edwards, P., 2018.
Understanding factors influencing public transport passengers’ pre-travel
information-seeking behaviour. Public Transport. 11 (1), 135–158.
Zhao, P., Li, S., 2017. Bicycle-metro integration in a growing city: the determinants of
cycling as a transfer mode in metro station areas in Beijing. Transp. Res. Part A:
Policy Pract. 99, 46–60.
Zhou, T., 2011. The impact of privacy concern on user adoption of location-based
services. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 111 (2), 212–226.