Leisure mobility: Situating emotional geographies of friluftsliv in urban mobility transitions
休闲出行：城市出行转型中 friluftsliv 的情感地理定位

2.1. Friluftsliv in the Norwegian context
2.1.挪威背景下的 Friluftsliv

According to national statistics, 82 percent of the Norwegian population partook in friluftsliv (i.e. hiking in and around mountains, forests and fields) in 2021 (Statistics Norway, 2021). This makes it important to study in relation to other forms of social production such as mobility. Friluftsliv as a term has been evoked to invoke ecological sensitivity, not commercialised outdoor activities. Faarlund (1993, p. 174) regards the latter as a form of tourism that rather “produce[s] a sense of alienation from our environment” that “gives people a taste of what they are missing while letting them continue in their nature-alienated lifestyles”. He argues that the term should not praise the power or splendour of nature, but rather represent a more harmonious friendship in which we feel at home in the wilderness. In Norway, friluftsliv is also connected to specific spaces and activities, underlining the material components of the concept. These connections include hiking in mountains and on plains, walking or trekking in woods and forests, fishing, paddling, and swimming in lakes, fjords and rivers (Faarlund, 2003). Crowley (2013) describes friluftsliv as a concept of ‘loving nature’, one deeply embedded in Norwegian culture. He associates the concept with philosopher and mountaineer Arne Næss (1912–2009) and the Deep Ecology movement, stating how Deep Ecology “can be seen as an extension of the Romantic longing for a cultural and emotional reconnection with nature. In Norway, this longing often took the form of friluftsliv” (Crowley, 2013, p. 46). This bears traces of essentializing and connoting rurality, remoteness and some sort of pristine nature, but unlike broader human-nature relations that encompass urban nature (as urban ecologists have articulated) and nature-based solutions, friluftsliv has tended to be more linked to more ‘out in nature’ imaginaries.
根据国家统计数据，2021 年，82% 的挪威人口参加了 friluftsliv（即在山脉、森林和田野及其周围徒步旅行）（挪威统计局，2021 年）。这使得研究其他形式的社会生产（例如流动性）变得很重要。 Friluftsliv 这个术语被用来唤起生态敏感性，而不是商业化的户外活动。 Faarlund (1993, p. 174) 将后者视为一种旅游形式，它“产生一种与我们环境的疏离感”，“让人们尝到他们所缺失的东西，同时让他们继续他们的本性——疏远的生活方式”。他认为，这个词不应该赞美自然的力量或辉煌，而应该代表一种更和谐的友谊，让我们在荒野中感到宾至如归。在挪威，friluftsliv 也与特定的空间和活动相关，强调了这一概念的物质组成部分。这些联系包括在山区和平原上徒步旅行、在树林和森林中散步或徒步旅行、钓鱼、划船以及在湖泊、峡湾和河流中游泳（Faarlund，2003）。 Crowley（2013）将 friluftsliv 描述为一种“热爱自然”的概念，这一概念深深植根于挪威文化中。他将这一概念与哲学家兼登山家阿恩·奈斯（Arne Næss，1912-2009）和深层生态运动联系起来，指出深层生态学“可以被视为浪漫主义渴望的延伸，即与自然在文化和情感上重新建立联系。在挪威，这种渴望常常以 friluftsliv 的形式出现”（Crowley，2013，第 46 页）。 这带有本质化和暗示乡村、偏远和某种原始自然的痕迹，但与包含城市自然（正如城市生态学家所阐述的）和基于自然的解决方案的更广泛的人与自然关系不同，friluftsliv 往往与更多的事物联系在一起。 “脱离自然”的想象。

Academic writing on friluftsliv is most frequent in educational research (Backman, 2008, 2011; Lyngstad and Saether, 2021; Sharma-Brymer and Brymer, 2021) and environmental education (Beery, 2013; Sandell and Ohman, 2010). For instance, Mikaels (2018, p.15) follows Deleuze and Guattari's concept of ‘becoming-place’ to argue for new avenues for teachers to relate to the spaces of friluftsliv and create unthought-of ways to contribute to “education for an environmental and sustainable future”. Friluftsliv has clear Scandinavian boundaries and does include an aspect of work-leisure dualism. In Norway, Faarlund (2003) understands friluftsliv as a reaction to urban modernity, industrial society, and a longing to reconnect with nature emotionally and physically. Johansen et al. (2021, p. 140) argue that this work-leisure dualism provides the frame for public policy and spatial planning, with the purpose of “providing recreational opportunities for citizens' leisure pursuits, seen as something clearly separated from work life and daily routines”.
关于 friluftsliv 的学术写作最常见于教育研究（Backman，2008、2011；Lyngstad 和 Saether，2021；Sharma-Brymer 和 Brymer，2021）和环境教育（Beery，2013；Sandell 和 Ohman，2010）。例如，Mikaels（2018，第 15 页）遵循德勒兹和瓜塔里的“成为场所”概念，主张为教师提供与 friluftsliv 空间建立联系的新途径，并创造出意想不到的方式来为“环境教育”做出贡献。和可持续的未来”。 Friluftsliv 具有明确的斯堪的纳维亚界限，并且确实包含工作与休闲二元论的一个方面。在挪威，Faarlund（2003）将 friluftsliv 理解为对城市现代性、工业社会的反应，以及在情感和身体上与自然重新联系的渴望。约翰森等人。 （2021，第 140 页）认为，这种工作休闲二元论为公共政策和空间规划提供了框架，其目的是“为公民的休闲追求提供娱乐机会，将其视为与工作生活和日常生活明显分离的东西” 。

We will argue that friluftsliv in Norway is strongly linked to the experiences and fulfilment of ‘the good life’. Much has been written on the relationship between nature and categories often equated with living ‘the good life’ such as well-being (Fagerholm et al., 2021; Russell et al., 2013) and health (Hartig et al., 2014; Twohig-Bennett and Jones, 2018). In human geography traditions, ‘the good life’ is less the fulfilment of predetermined categories, and more a cultural category in itself. Tuan (1986) explains how what makes a good life is largely determined by aspirations towards certain environmental spaces and certain activities that are idealised and specific within any given culture. Tuan's ideas go a long way in insisting on the importance of place, and people's sensory and emotional relations to places, in the production of a good and idealised way of living. Thus, one must understand the good life beyond the categories of health and well-being, taking seriously the relational connections of material and non-material elements that produce it. In the mobilities literature that draws on a mobile ontology privileging movement over stasis and sees mobility as productive of space, however, what constitutes the good life is additionally dependent on dominant discourses around mobility, and related to forms of Mobility Justice (Sheller, 2018; Sheller and Urry, 2006). In the current car-centric mobility regime, dominant discourses tend to revolve around automobility and the ideal of the car as an emancipating and liberating object associated with economic opportunity, freedom, masculinity, and fun. Urry (2004) establishes this as one of six component that make up the ‘system of automobility’ (p.26) that has so deeply defined many societies since the mid-20th century.
我们认为，挪威的 friluftsliv 与“美好生活”的体验和实现密切相关。关于自然与通常等同于“美好生活”的类别之间的关系已经有很多文章，例如福祉（Fagerholm 等人，2021 年；Russell 等人，2013 年）和健康（Hartig 等人，2014 年；Russell 等人，2013 年）。图希格-贝内特和琼斯，2018）。在人文地理学传统中，“美好生活”与其说是预定范畴的实现，不如说它本身就是一种文化范畴。 Tuan (1986) 解释了美好生活的要素如何在很大程度上取决于对特定环境空间和特定文化中理想化和特定活动的渴望。 Tuan 的思想在坚持场所的重要性以及人们与场所的感官和情感关系在创造良好和理想化的生活方式方面大有帮助。因此，人们必须超越健康和福祉的范畴来理解美好生活，认真对待产生美好生活的物质和非物质元素之间的关系。然而，在利用移动本体论优先于静止的移动性文献中，并将移动性视为空间的生产力，美好生活的构成还取决于围绕移动性的主导话语，并与移动性正义的形式相关（Sheller，2018；谢勒和厄里，2006）。在当前以汽车为中心的移动体系中，主导话语往往围绕着汽车和汽车作为与经济机会、自由、男子气概和乐趣相关的解放和解放对象的理想展开。 Urry（2004）将其确定为构成“汽车系统”（第 26 页）的六个组成部分之一，自 20 世纪中叶以来，该系统深刻地定义了许多社会。

To situate friluftsliv in our context, we shall emphasise the roles that affect and emotions, space, and movement play in producing it. This requires a conceptual framework. The next two sub-sections therefore provide the theoretical foundation of our approach to affect and mobility.
为了将 friluftsliv 置于我们的背景中，我们将强调情感、空间和运动在产生它时所发挥的作用。这需要一个概念框架。因此，接下来的两个小节为我们的影响和流动性方法提供了理论基础。

2.2. An affective approach
2.2.情感方法

Davidson et al. (2007) define an emotional geography as “attempts to understand emotion –experientially and conceptually – in terms of its socio-spatial mediation and articulation rather than as entirely interiorised subjective mental states” (p.3). Emotions and space are both conceptualised within a relational frame, which highlights “how emotions are produced in relations between and among people and environments” (ibid.). This understanding can be further elaborated through Deleuze and Gauttari's reading of Spinoza, which emphasises affects rather than emotions (Conradson, 2016, p. 104; Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. xvi). Here, affects denote attention to the externalities, and embodied and inter-subjective formulations of feelings, rather than focusing on individual emotions as pre-existing categories in human cognition (see also Thrift, 2004). We therefore distinguish a focus on emotions, which we refer to here as internalised categories of feelings (like anger, sadness, and happiness) and a focus on affects, which are defined as heterogenous connections where space, movement, and culture form important affective assemblages. For us, this is an important distinction as our analysis is not one that explicitly focuses on the participants' emotions as an object of study, but rather tries to illustrate the role that affects can play in shaping cultural mobility practices like friluftsliv. This represents a general viewpoint within the affective turn (Clough and Halley, 2007; Massumi, 1995; Pile, 2010), which cautions against the vocabularies of emotion, warning that they “only express affects that have already been engineered by the powerful” (Pile, 2010, p. 12). Indeed, Thrift (2004) advocates for the non-representational approach offered by privileging affects rather than emotions, so as to avoid a “false” representation of authenticity and personal experiences based on the language of emotion.
戴维森等人。 （2007）将情感地理学定义为“尝试从经验上和概念上理解情感的社会空间中介和表达，而不是完全内化的主观心理状态”（p.3）。情感和空间都是在关系框架内概念化的，它强调了“情感是如何在人与环境之间的关系中产生的”（同上）。这种理解可以通过德勒兹和高塔里对斯宾诺莎的阅读得到进一步阐述，斯宾诺莎强调情感而不是情感（Conradson，2016，第104页；德勒兹和高塔里，1987，第xvi页）。在这里，情感表示对外部性、感受的具体化和主体间表述的关注，而不是关注作为人类认知中预先存在的类别的个体情感（另见 Thrift，2004）。因此，我们区分了对情感的关注，我们在这里将其称为情感的内化类别（如愤怒、悲伤和快乐），以及对情感的关注，其被定义为异质连接，其中空间、运动和文化形成重要的情感组合。对我们来说，这是一个重要的区别，因为我们的分析并不是明确关注参与者的情绪作为研究对象，而是试图说明影响在塑造像 friluftsliv 这样的文化流动实践中可以发挥的作用。这代表了情感转向中的一种普遍观点（Clough and Halley, 2007; Massumi, 1995; Pile, 2010），它警告不要使用情感词汇，警告它们“只表达已经由强者设计的情感”（桩，2010，第 12 页）。 事实上，Thrift（2004）主张通过赋予情感而不是情感来提供非表征方法，以避免基于情感语言对真实性和个人经历的“错误”表征。

Therefore, focusing on emotions becomes indicative from an affectual perspective, as a “feeling is something that may emerge between bodies of various kinds, whether human or otherwise” (Conradson, 2016, p. 107). Interactions between people, but also their interactions with animate and inanimate objects, are equally important to understand the production of human emotions and feelings (Conradson, 2016). This conceptualisation of a relational and affective approach to emotions and place comprises our foundation for thinking about the way people relate to nature and other places in their environment, and how these can produce affects related to living ‘the good life’ in the socio-spatial context of urban western Norway and other analogous places.
因此，从情感的角度来看，关注情感变得具有指示性，因为“感觉是可能出现在各种身体之间的东西，无论是人类还是其他”（Conradson，2016，p.107）。人与人之间的互动，以及他们与有生命和无生命物体的互动，对于理解人类情感和感觉的产生同样重要（Conradson，2016）。这种对情感和场所的关系和情感方法的概念化构成了我们思考人们与自然和环境中其他地方的关系方式的基础，以及这些方式如何产生与社会空间中的“美好生活”相关的影响。挪威西部城市和其他类似地方的背景。

2.3. The” new mobilities paradigm” and meaningful mobility
2.3. “新出行范式”和有意义的出行

The “new mobilities paradigm” emerged in the humanities and social sciences in the early 2000s, partly as a criticism of the “sedentarist metaphysics that started from the assumption of clearly bounded and rooted spaces, places and territories as the normal starting point for understanding mobility” (Cresswell, 2021, p. 52). Mobility is seen as “entangled with wider assemblages of place, affect, and atmosphere” (Sheller, 2020, p. 191), and this new mobilities paradigm (Sheller and Urry, 2006) has ushered into mobility studies a sort of theoretical awakening where temporality and spatiality, movement, meaning, materialities, and affect are given important agency in ‘fluid ontologies’ (Cresswell, 2006; Merriman, 2019). Adey, 2017 describes mobility as not having any pre-existing significance in and of itself, but as something that takes on meaning depending on the context in which it occurs and on who determines its significance. He conceptualises out mobility in context, i.e., meaning ascribed to movement (as in the meaning given in the act of movement itself), and thus claims that “even while mobility has no pre-existent meaning, certain places, cultures and societies can give particular kinds of mobility particular kinds of meaning”. Thus, Adey captures the productive elements of mobility and situates them within an emotive landscape.
“新移动范式”在 2000 年代初期出现在人文和社会科学领域，部分是对“久坐形而上学”的批评，这种形而上学假设明确界限和根深蒂固的空间、场所和领土是理解移动性的正常起点。 ”（克雷斯韦尔，2021 年，第 52 页）。流动性被视为“与场所、情感和氛围的更广泛组合纠缠在一起”（Sheller，2020，第 191 页），这种新的流动性范式（Sheller 和 Urry，2006）为流动性研究带来了一种理论觉醒，其中时间性和空间性、运动、意义、物质性和情感在“流体本体论”中被赋予了重要的作用（Cresswell，2006；Merriman，2019）。 Adey，2017 年将流动性描述为本身不具有任何预先存在的意义，而是根据其发生的环境以及决定其重要性的人而具有意义的东西。他在语境中概念化了流动性，即赋予运动的意义（如运动行为本身所赋予的意义），并因此声称“即使流动性没有预先存在的意义，某些地方、文化和社会也可以赋予特定种类的流动性特定种类的意义”。因此，阿迪捕捉到了流动性的生产要素，并将它们置于情感景观中。

Mobility gains meaning in relations with other heterogeneous entanglements such as places, affects and environments, but also objects like cars, roads and built environment on the one hand, and also non-material forms like language, discourse, politics and values on the other. This is what we mean when we refer to assemblage where we draw on Deleuze and Guattari's notion of assemblages as relational and productive collections of heterogeneous parts linked together for a time to form a Whole (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). such as Norwegian friluftsliv. Flemsæter et al. (2015) draw on Cresswell's (2010) work on the ‘politics of mobility’ to analyse the implications for inclusion and diversity in participation in Norwegian outdoor life. They argue that friluftsliv has certain moral coding that pertains to a form of mobile citizenship. As shown above, friluftsliv has narrow parameters for what constitutes a legitimate, and idealised, use of space. This prompts Flemsæter et al. (2015, p.2-3) to ask whether new groups of people should adapt to established friluftsliv culture, or whether there is room to redefine the boundaries of contemporary friluftsliv. Our analysis is mindful of this concern.
流动性在与其他异质纠缠（例如地点、情感和环境）的关系中获得意义，但一方面也与汽车、道路和建筑环境等物体相关，另一方面也与语言、话语、政治和价值观等非物质形式相关。这就是我们在提到组合时的意思，我们借鉴了德勒兹和瓜塔里的组合概念，即异质部分的关系性和生产性集合，在一段时间内连接在一起形成一个整体（Deleuze and Guattari，1987）。例如挪威的 friluftsliv。弗莱姆塞特等人。 （2015）借鉴克雷斯韦尔（2010）关于“流动性政治”的研究来分析对参与挪威户外生活的包容性和多样性的影响。他们认为，friluftsliv 具有某些与流动公民身份相关的道德准则。如上所示，friluftsliv 对于构成合法且理想化的空间使用的参数很窄。这促使 Flemsæter 等人。 （2015，p.2-3）询问新的人群是否应该适应既定的 friluftsliv 文化，或者是否有重新定义当代 friluftsliv 边界的空间。我们的分析注意到了这一问题。

Friluftsliv pertains to distinct forms of mobility and movement: specific forms of mobility in nature spaces, and the movement to and from these spaces of friluftsliv. According to Sheller and Urry (2000), a mobile lifestyle is about the opportunities and choices of movement, with daily mobility shaping lifestyle and thereby also identities. Automobility constitutes one form of mobility that offers personal freedom and a set of identity practices. Cars are embedded in places and societies in more-than-socio-technical networks as well as in emotional geographies, which “occur at different scales ranging from the feeling of the individual body within the car to the familial and sociable setting of car use to the regional and national car cultures that form around particular systems of automobility and different driving dispositions” (Sheller, 2004, p. 236). Illustrating the emotional geographies of automobility, Sheller (ibid.) makes the important claim that “[c]ars will not easily be given up … [t]oo many people find them too comfortable, enjoyable, exciting. And enthralling. They are deeply embedded in ways of life, networks and friendship and sociality, and moral commitment to family and care of others”. In Sheller's concept of mobility justice (Sheller, 2018), automobility is also seen as a root cause of many contemporary and historical injustices that are produced in the highly mobile world. For example, injustice produced by the way that car-centric infrastructure unevenly distributes benefits and burdens as it produces different (urban) spaces, for example how polluted inner cities have been the cost of highly automobilized suburbs. Or how negative externalities of automobility like pollution, injuries and deaths are disproportionally affecting the relatively poor or otherwise marginalized in modern societies (ibid.). Sheller conceptualisation sees (in)justices occurring on multiple scales, and like mobility itself they exist in relation to “class, racial, sexual, gendered, and disabling exclusions from public space, from national citizenship, and from the means of mobility at all scales” (Sheller, 2016, p. 15). Thus, a transition away from the automobility regime requires detaching the car from intricate emotional geographies and relations to “gender expression, racial and ethnic distinction, family formation, urbanism, national identity and transnational processes” (Sheller, 2004, p. 236, p. 236)), while the broader mobility transition should pay attention to the different scales of mobility justice.
Friluftsliv 涉及不同的流动性和运动形式：自然空间中特定的流动性形式，以及进出这些 friluftsliv 空间的运动。根据 Sheller 和 Urry (2000) 的说法，移动生活方式是关于移动的机会和选择，日常移动塑造生活方式，从而塑造身份。汽车构成了一种提供个人自由和一系列身份实践的移动形式。汽车嵌入在不仅仅是社会技术网络和情感地理的地方和社会中，这些网络“以不同的尺度发生，从车内个人身体的感觉到汽车使用的家庭和社交环境，再到汽车的使用”。围绕特定汽车系统和不同驾驶倾向形成的地区和国家汽车文化”（Sheller，2004 年，第 236 页）。为了说明汽车的情感地理，谢勒（同上）提出了一个重要的主张：“汽车不会轻易被放弃……太多人发现它们太舒适、令人愉快、令人兴奋。并且令人着迷。他们深深植根于生活方式、网络、友谊和社交，以及对家庭和照顾他人的道德承诺”。在谢勒的流动正义概念中（Sheller，2018），汽车也被视为高度流动世界中产生的许多当代和历史不公正现象的根源。例如，以汽车为中心的基础设施在产生不同的（城市）空间时分配利益和负担不均匀，从而产生不公正，例如，污染严重的内城区是高度汽车化郊区的成本。 或者汽车的负面外部性（如污染、伤害和死亡）如何对现代社会中相对贫困或边缘化的人产生不成比例的影响（同上）。谢勒的概念化认为正义发生在多个层面，就像流动性本身一样，它们的存在与“阶级、种族、性、性别以及公共空间、国家公民身份和所有规模的流动手段的残疾排斥”相关。 ”（Sheller，2016 年，第 15 页）。因此，摆脱汽车体制的转变需要将汽车从错综复杂的情感地理和关系中分离出来，转向“性别表达、种族和民族区别、家庭形成、城市化、国家认同和跨国进程”（Sheller，2004，第236页） 236))，而更广泛的流动转型则应关注不同规模的流动正义。

Friluftsliv as meaningful mobility, that is friluftsliv as a form of mobility that is given meaning in relation to its emotional geography, is embedded in the pursuit of the good life – to national identity, family life and wellbeing (Bischoff et al., 2007; Crowley, 2013) and dependent on movement in and between spaces, is unequivocally tied to dominant mobility regimes. In the context of Stavanger's ongoing mobility transitions, we consider it crucial to anchor analysis in these connections between mobility (and especially automobility) and emotional geographies. The culturally significant leisure activity of friluftsliv, we argue, provides an ideal case for precisely that.
Friluftsliv 作为有意义的流动性，即 friluftsliv 作为一种流动性形式，因其情感地理而被赋予意义，植根于对美好生活的追求——民族认同、家庭生活和福祉（Bischoff 等，2007； Crowley，2013）并且依赖于空间内和空间之间的移动，明确地与占主导地位的移动机制联系在一起。在斯塔万格正在进行的流动性转型的背景下，我们认为对流动性（尤其是汽车流动性）和情感地理之间的联系进行锚定分析至关重要。我们认为，friluftsliv 具有文化意义的休闲活动恰恰为此提供了一个理想的案例。

3.1. Data collection 3.1.数据采集

Respondents ranged from singles and couples to families with children and dog owners. 13 of 24 informants were found in the field, and they were disproportionately car owners (11 out of 13). This was disappointing considering our hopes to capture CO and NCO hikers in their element, i.e., in the field. To pursue equal representation and perspectives from NCOs, we reached out on local Facebook groups and online friluftsliv communities posting a call for mobility practices in relation to friluftsliv. Agreements were made to interview those who responded in person. The interview guide was structured in such a way as to allow informants to talk freely about their lived experiences. Questions were not explicitly focussed on the emotional aspects, but rather on mobility practices in the pursuit of friluftsliv. Yet affectual and emotional responses arose from the fieldwork across the respondents, amplifying affectual themes such as lifestyle commitment, no car equals no hiking, limited range, and social exclusion, as a result of early-stage description and analytical reflections stemming from iterative cross-reading of transcribed interviews.
受访者包括单身人士、夫妇、有孩子的家庭和养狗的人。 24 名举报人中，有 13 人是在现场发现的，而且他们大多是车主（13 人中有 11 人）。考虑到我们希望捕捉 CO 和 NCO 徒步旅行者的元素，即在野外，这是令人失望的。为了追求军士的平等代表性和观点，我们联系了当地的 Facebook 群组和在线 friluftsliv 社区，呼吁采取与 friluftsliv 相关的流动性做法。我们同意采访那些亲自做出回应的人。采访指南的结构允许受访者自由谈论他们的生活经历。问题并没有明确集中在情感方面，而是集中在追求 friluftsliv 的流动性实践上。然而，情感和情感反应来自受访者的实地调查，放大了诸如生活方式承诺、没有汽车等于没有徒步旅行、有限范围和社会排斥等情感主题，这是迭代交叉产生的早期描述和分析反思的结果。阅读采访记录。

Thus, the empirical material consisting of emotional responses was thematically analysed (Braun and Clarke, 2006) after being extracted as separate from the overall dataset. We understand “theme” as in line with Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 82) “A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set”. More specifically, exploring and interpreting meaning within the data, led to the formation of themes listed in the empirical analysis section. Preliminary codes and keywords that we encountered prominently initiated the thematic structure, which in turn revealed oversights in local mobility strategies. As such, the analysis allowed for systematic processing and interpretation of the qualitative data. We draw attention to quotes from the interviewees, and sometimes also depict the setting and situation of our interaction, with attention to body language, moods, and ways of speaking that illustrate an additional emotive layer beyond just the spoken words to ground our analysis.
因此，从整体数据集中提取出由情绪反应组成的经验材料后，对其进行了主题分析（Braun 和 Clarke，2006）。我们对“主题”的理解与 Braun 和 Clarke (2006, p. 82) 一致，“主题捕获了与研究问题相关的数据的一些重要信息，并代表了数据集中某种程度的模式化响应或含义”。更具体地说，探索和解释数据中的含义导致了实证分析部分列出的主题的形成。我们遇到的初步代码和关键词显着地启动了主题结构，这反过来又揭示了当地流动战略的疏忽。因此，分析可以对定性数据进行系统处理和解释。我们关注受访者的引言，有时也会描述我们互动的背景和情境，同时关注肢体语言、情绪和说话方式，这些都说明了除了口语之外的额外情感层，为我们的分析奠定了基础。

Additional data was gathered from a workshop we held on the topic of socially inclusive low-carbon urban transport transitions, conducted as part of a larger research project, with a large variety of 17 sectoral stakeholders, including representatives from mobility operators, Stavanger municipality, Rogaland County, regulators, and interested mobility users. None of the interviewees took part in the workshop, thus this broader discussion helped to underpin and triangulate our findings.
我们举办的关于社会包容性低碳城市交通转型主题的研讨会收集了更多数据，该研讨会是一个更大的研究项目的一部分，该项目涉及 17 个部门的利益相关者，其中包括出行运营商、斯塔万格市、罗加兰市的代表县、监管机构和感兴趣的出行用户。没有受访者参加研讨会，因此这种更广泛的讨论有助于支撑和三角分析我们的发现。

Reflecting over methods and approaches raises issues of reflexivity. As noted by Rose (1997), “The need to situate knowledge is based on the argument that the sort of knowledge being made depends on who its makers are” (ibid pp.306-307). This prompts the authors to reflect over our own position as part of the friluftsliv culture, having lived in the local context ourselves while frequently enjoying friluftsliv. Two of the authors have Norwegian ethnicity and local upbringing, whereas two have encountered and embodied it over several years. Hence the team has been positioned well to triangulate and consider our positionality on this form of cultural meaning. Moreover, we have reflected on the abductive approach as what Dey (2004) terms “a matter of interpreting a phenomenon in terms of some theoretical frame of reference” (p.91). While our theoretical frames are detailed above, we highlight the importance of understanding our data in relation to heterogeneous assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987), meaning that our empirical data on affects alone does not inform our analysis, which also draws on important cultural, spatial, and material elements. We understand that conclusions can differ or be argued against with respect to explanatory power (Danermark et al., 2019 pp.112-113), whereas what is essential about inferences is recontextualization that improves understanding.
对方法和途径的反思提出了反身性问题。正如 Rose (1997) 所指出的，“对知识进行定位的必要性是基于这样的论点：知识的种类取决于其创造者是谁”（同上，第 306-307 页）。这促使作者反思我们自己作为 friluftsliv 文化一部分的立场，我们自己生活在当地环境中，同时经常享受 friluftsliv。其中两位作者拥有挪威血统并在当地长大，而另外两位作者则在几年内经历并体现了这一点。因此，团队已经做好了三角测量的准备，并考虑我们在这种文化意义形式上的立场。此外，我们还反思了 Dey（2004）所说的“根据某种理论参考框架解释现象的问题”（第 91 页）的溯因方法。虽然上面详细介绍了我们的理论框架，但我们强调了理解与异质组合相关的数据的重要性（Deleuze 和 Guattari，1987），这意味着我们关于影响的经验数据本身并不能为我们的分析提供信息，我们的分析还借鉴了重要的文化、空间和物质元素。我们知道结论可能会有所不同或在解释力方面存在争议（Danermark et al., 2019 pp.112-113），而推论的本质是重新语境化以提高理解。

3.2. Limitations and scope
3.2.限制和范围

There was a noticeable difference in the length of the interviews between COs and NCOs, where CO interviews were shorter compared to NCO ones. This can be attributed to several factors, such as 11 out of 12 CO interviews taking place at hiking destinations approached at random. We attempted to reach NCOs the same way, in addition to placing ourselves on relevant buses and at the nearest bus stop, but none were found this way. The NCO interviewees from our online outreach were scheduled, allowing for more time flexibility on their terms. It is also possible that this group felt they had more to voice given that they are the ones who encounter considerable limits when trying to access friluftsliv. Another limitation is the sample size. Our sample of 24 semi-structured interviews is relatively small and thus has potential limitations in range and coverage of diverse issues. However, the study reveals adequate consistency to convincingly capture a range of concerns that pertain to the socially lived experiences of both groups of interest in this case. These concerns range from the modalities of access to friluftsliv to the emotional states that go hand in hand with particular forms of access. We did not observe an outcry for public transportation to popular hiking destinations in local mainstream or social media debates, which we tracked regularly during 2020–2023. However, we hold that there is value in understanding how and why people justify car ownership in relation to friluftsliv, despite some of them being avid public transport commuters for work.
CO 和 NCO 之间的访谈长度存在明显差异，CO 访谈比 NCO 访谈更短。这可以归因于几个因素，例如 12 次 CO 采访中有 11 次是在随机接近的徒步目的地进行的。除了乘坐相关巴士和最近的巴士站外，我们还尝试以同样的方式到达 NCO，但没有找到这种方式。我们在线外展中的士官受访者已被安排，从而可以根据他们的条件提供更多的时间灵活性。也有可能该群体认为他们有更多的声音要表达，因为他们在尝试访问 friluftsliv 时遇到了相当大的限制。另一个限制是样本大小。我们的 24 次半结构化访谈样本相对较小，因此在不同问题的范围和覆盖范围上存在潜在的局限性。然而，该研究显示出足够的一致性，足以令人信服地捕捉到与本案中两个感兴趣群体的社会生活经历相关的一系列担忧。这些担忧的范围从获取 friluftsliv 的方式到与特定获取形式相关的情绪状态。我们在 2020 年至 2023 年期间定期跟踪，在当地主流或社交媒体辩论中没有观察到对前往热门徒步目的地的公共交通的强烈抗议。然而，我们认为，了解人们如何以及为何证明拥有与 friluftsliv 相关的汽车的合理性是有价值的，尽管他们中的一些人是热衷于公共交通上班的通勤者。

4.1. Lifestyle commitment
4.1.生活方式的承诺

When asked about reasons for using or not using public transportation, the majority of COs say they prefer to use the car due to convenience, although some of them use public transportation to commute to work. As for hiking, they all prefer to use the car, as public transportation does not take them to where they would like to recreate and therefore justifies car ownership as an enabler in actively pursuing friluftsliv as a lifestyle.
当被问及使用或不使用公共交通的原因时，大多数 CO 表示，由于方便，他们更喜欢使用汽车，尽管其中一些人使用公共交通上下班。至于徒步旅行，他们都更喜欢使用汽车，因为公共交通无法将他们带到他们想要重建的地方，因此证明拥有汽车是积极追求 friluftsliv 作为一种生活方式的推动者。

At Preikestolen, we meet a CO interviewee who is idealistically aligned with environmental issues and uses public transportation for this reason as well as due to the lack of a driving license (she is marked as a car owner because her husband owns a car, and customarily drives a private vehicle to reach hiking destinations). They are relatively new to car ownership, having purchased their first car only four years ago. She describes them as an environmentally idealistic couple who adjust their lives to rely on public transportation and bikes as much as possible. Yet they now cannot see themselves switching back to a life without an automobile. “We use the bus when we can, (the car) it's more for when we want to go somewhere far where the buses do not go” – this quote strongly indicates a lack of public transportation services to friluftsliv places. Moreover, since the onset of the pandemic and the newfound time that came with it, they have been more active, taking trips and hiking more often. In this instance, pursuing optimal or pragmatic friluftsliv manages to trump what comes across as a lifelong commitment to environmentally-friendly mobility practices.
在布道台，我们遇到了一位 CO 受访者，她对环境问题抱有理想主义态度，因此使用公共交通工具，同时也因为没有驾驶执照（她被标记为车主，因为她的丈夫拥有一辆汽车，而且通常驾驶私家车到达徒步旅行目的地）。他们对汽车拥有权相对较新，四年前才购买了第一辆汽车。她将他们描述为一对环境理想主义夫妇，他们调整自己的生活，尽可能依赖公共交通和自行车。然而，他们现在无法想象自己会回到没有汽车的生活。 “我们尽可能使用公共汽车，（汽车）更多的是当我们想去公共汽车无法到达的远方时”——这句话强烈表明缺乏前往 friluftsliv 地方的公共交通服务。此外，自从大流行爆发和随之而来的新时期以来，他们变得更加活跃，更频繁地旅行和徒步旅行。在这种情况下，追求最佳或务实的 friluftsliv 成功地超越了对环保出行实践的终生承诺。

Having the identity of being close to nature is closely tied up to car ownership in the sense that it comes with a sense of freedom, agency and convenience. “I own a diesel car. I have been thinking about whether I could manage without a car, I mean it would be nice. But I see that I simply cannot do it with the lifestyle that I have because I am in the Scouts. I have to plan and bring equipment so I just have to have a car”. The interviewee is currently an urban dweller but recalls his grandmother disliking his move from a rural area, because then he would be moving away from nature, reminiscing that: “Now I live in Sandnes city and I don't feel like I live close to nature”.
拥有亲近自然的身份与拥有汽车密切相关，因为它带来了自由感、代理感和便利感。 “我拥有一辆柴油车。我一直在想我是否可以在没有汽车的情况下生活，我的意思是那会很好。但我发现我根本无法以我的生活方式做到这一点，因为我是童子军的一员。我必须计划并携带设备，所以我只需要有一辆车”。受访者目前是城市居民，但回忆起他的祖母不喜欢他从农村地区搬来，因为那样他就会远离自然，他回忆道：“现在我住在桑内斯市，我觉得我住得离大自然不近。”自然”。

4.2. No car, no hiking
4.2.没有汽车，没有徒步旅行

The 12 CO interviewees, 11 of whom we met out in the field, describe a very car-centric local community of friluftsliv enthusiasts who often justify car ownership in pursuing this lifestyle. They also cite the “scattered about” sprawled landscape in which we live and recreate outside. One interviewee frustratedly expressed “Regarding not owning a car, I can tell you, then one must move to Oslo! As long as the region is built as it is, it is very difficult to make public transportation in a way that covers all roads frequently enough.” He then goes on to express that if this need were to be met (frequent schedules to the outskirts, as well as hiking destinations), he could then perhaps reconsider car ownership. He owns two cars to meet the transportation needs of his family of six: a Tesla that he uses to commute, and a diesel family car. When asked about ways of improving the transportation system for better access to the outdoors, he talks briefly about the importance of improved roads to hiking destinations and states that a car is necessary unless you are doing friluftsliv right outside your door. He is keen to talk about the personal motivation challenges of getting outside, and concluding that to achieve improved access to the outdoors, there must be bus departures that run “very flexible and terribly frequent, and that just does not pay off here.”
12 名 CO 受访者（其中 11 名是我们在现场遇到的）描述了一个非常以汽车为中心的 friluftsliv 爱好者社区，他们经常证明拥有汽车是追求这种生活方式的合理性。他们还引用了我们在户外生活和娱乐的“分散”的广阔景观。一位受访者沮丧地表示，“关于没有车，我可以告诉你，那就必须搬到奥斯陆！只要该地区保持现状，公共交通就很难足够频繁地覆盖所有道路。”然后他继续表示，如果这种需求得到满足（经常去郊区以及徒步旅行目的地），他也许可以重新考虑拥有汽车。他拥有两辆车来满足一家六口的交通需求：一辆特斯拉用于通勤，一辆柴油家用车。当被问及如何改善交通系统以更好地进入户外时，他简短地谈到了改善道路对徒步旅行目的地的重要性，并指出除非您在门外进行 friluftsliv，否则汽车是必要的。他热衷于谈论户外活动对个人动力的挑战，并得出结论，为了改善户外活动，必须有“非常灵活且非常频繁的巴士发车，但这在这里没有回报”。

In our question regarding carpooling, the informant's son is quick to jump in to tell us quite factually and candidly that “us kids are sometimes forced to go on hikes from time to time.” “Yes. We sometimes force you to go, absolutely right!” replies the father in a sarcastic, tough love tone and manner. This father explicitly pursues the lifestyle of friluftsliv as a family activity. When we met them on site, they were headed back to the seating area closer to the parking lot. The son needed to rest his knee that had been injured in a football game while the rest of the family were still hiking, hence the family's commitment to friluftsliv reads as substantial and strong. What comes across quite clearly is that a hike must be pursued on a Sunday, despite a knee injury. When asked about whether or not he makes time for daily walks, he responds: “No, but I manage to jam it in … for me it's important to get out, so, it will be in the evenings and such”. By contrast, when asked to imagine a car-free life with current public transportation routes, he exclaims “… then there will be no hiking!“.
在我们关于拼车的问题中，线人的儿子很快就插话，如实坦白地告诉我们，“我们这些孩子有时会被迫去远足。” “是的。我们有时会强迫你去，绝对正确！”父亲用讽刺、强硬、充满爱的语气和态度回答。这位父亲明确地将 friluftsliv 的生活方式作为一种家庭活动来追求。当我们在现场见到他们时，他们正回到靠近停车场的休息区。儿子在足球比赛中受伤的膝盖需要休息，而家里的其他人仍在徒步旅行，因此家庭对 friluftsliv 的承诺读起来是充实而坚定的。很明显的是，尽管膝盖受伤，周日仍必须进行徒步旅行。当被问及他是否每天抽出时间散步时，他回答说：“没有，但我设法把它塞进去......对我来说，出去很重要，所以，会在晚上等”。相比之下，当被问及想象一下现有公共交通路线下的无车生活时，他惊呼“……那就不会徒步旅行了！”。

Results from CO interviewees show that the majority do not experience transportation as a challenge, as they have the convenience of access to a car. This indicates that this group has a strong sense of agency and experiences mobility as the freedom to get to where they want when they want. It also highlights the relationship between friluftsliv and the dominant automobility regime, and prompts questions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of recreational sites based on modal choice and access to means of mobility. The few COs who cited transportation challenges mentioned public transportation fees and lack of routes as improvement points for them to use the public transportation service more often, rather than personal vehicles. This suggests that there is a willingness to switch away from car ownership in the event of improved mobility infrastructure and public transportation services. In general, COs have the impression that public transportation is quite good, and some of them use it to commute to work.
CO 受访者的结果显示，大多数人并不认为交通是一个挑战，因为他们可以方便地使用汽车。这表明该群体具有强烈的代理意识，并且体验到流动性，即可以自由地在自己想去的时间到达自己想去的地方。它还强调了 friluftsliv 与占主导地位的汽车制度之间的关系，并提出了有关根据模式选择和交通方式获取娱乐场所的纳入和排除的问题。少数提到交通挑战的 CO 提到公共交通费用和缺乏路线是他们更频繁地使用公共交通服务而不是私家车的改进点。这表明，如果移动基础设施和公共交通服务得到改善，人们就会愿意放弃拥有汽车。总体而言，CO 的印象是公共交通相当好，其中一些人使用公共交通上下班。

NCOs, however, tell of user difficulties in a digitalised transport sector, experiencing bad transfers between buses or across modes, the lack of a safety margin for such transfers, and a more detailed set of problems with great improvement potential. They pull from their experience of depending on the public transportation system to reach nature destinations to a far greater extent than COs. Experiences such as a limited weekend schedule, lack of safety margin and user difficulty often resulted in destinations not being pursued, hence affecting not only their choice of hiking destination but also whether or not hiking was even an option. When asked about challenges encountered when trying to recreate outside, 11 out of 12 NCOs respond that transportation is their main challenge. Interestingly, the one interviewee who did not say that transportation was a challenge, light-heartedly answered the question with “dørstokkmila” (just getting out the door) as the biggest challenge. However, this informant went to the greatest lengths to reach the destination where we met in the field, walking to the bus stop, taking the bus as far as it goes, and then taking a taxi to the start of the hiking path. Despite his light-heartedness, his response implicitly expresses feelings of a challenge as “dørstokkmila” or getting out the door to him, evidently requiring considerable planning and logistics. Later in the interview, the informant revealed that all logistics must be looked up and planned before leaving home since he does not own a smartphone and is therefore unable to look up transportation information while out and about, something that the public transportation system assumes users can do, hence lacking much signage and information at various locations during transit.
然而，NCO 讲述了数字化交通领域的用户困难，公交车之间或跨模式换乘效果不佳，此类换乘缺乏安全裕度，以及一系列具有巨大改进潜力的更详细的问题。他们从依赖公共交通系统的经验中汲取经验，比公共交通系统更能到达自然目的地。周末行程有限、缺乏安全余地、使用困难等经历往往导致目的地未被追寻，从而不仅影响他们对徒步目的地的选择，甚至影响徒步是否成为一种选择。当被问及尝试在户外重建时遇到的挑战时，12 名士官中有 11 人回答说交通是他们的主要挑战。有趣的是，一位没有说交通是一个挑战的受访者却轻松地回答了这个问题，称“dørstokkmila”（刚出门）是最大的挑战。然而这位线人却竭尽全力到达了我们在野外见面的目的地，步行到公交车站，乘坐公交车到底，然后乘坐出租车到达远足路径的起点。尽管他很轻松，但他的回应含蓄地表达了一种挑战的感觉，即“dørstokkmila”，或者向他走开，显然需要大量的计划和后勤工作。随后，该举报人在采访中透露，所有的物流都必须在出门前查询和计划，因为他没有智能手机，因此无法在外出时查询交通信息，而公共交通系统认为用户可以查询交通信息。这样做，因此在运输过程中各个地点缺乏很多标牌和信息。

4.3. Limited range 4.3.范围有限

One interviewee, who relies on public transportation for recreation, speaks of digital difficulties when trying to use Kolumbus’ shared electric cars. The app shows an available car at a location, only to find out upon arrival that the car is 3 km away. A Kolumbus employee then drives them to the car, which then turns out not to be charged. The interviewee ended up losing over 2 h before being able to access a fully charged car. As a result, she finds the car-sharing scheme too unreliable to gamble her weekend hiking time on.
一位依靠公共交通进行娱乐的受访者谈到了在尝试使用哥伦布共享电动汽车时遇到的数字困难。该应用程序显示某个位置有可用的汽车，但到达后却发现汽车距离酒店 3 公里。随后，哥伦布的一名员工开车送他们上车，结果发现车并没有被收费。受访者最终花了 2 个多小时才能够使用充满电的汽车。因此，她发现汽车共享计划太不可靠，无法拿周末的徒步旅行时间来冒险。

Another NCO finds herself going to the same destination repeatedly for her weekend camping hikes, to the point where she feels like she has become friendly and acquainted with the destination wildlife, something she finds quite enjoyable. Throughout the interview, she keeps saying “I could have gone to different destinations, but it would require so much planning”, therefore Dale is where she keeps returning. She elaborates: “I guess there is a sense of familiarity being there as well, so I feel comfortable being there on my own, not having like a ‘flight car’ to escape if something were to happen. So yeah I guess I normally stay in places that I am familiar with, where I know I can find my way if my equipment were to fail, like losing battery. Dale is very safe most of the time.” Indisputably, as a lone hiker who does not own a car, she has a limited choice of destinations. Little flexibility in her work hours requires accurate planning for the bus schedules, bus transfers and hiking time, something she has worked out down to the minute for this specific destination she finds herself returning to. It works when everything is on time. Yet, something as simple as the bus being a few minutes delayed makes her miss a transfer, resulting in a complete change of plans for that specific hike, and hours added to the hike or travel time. This particular hike is a well-known destination which makes the low safety margin for corresponding buses especially frustrating and puzzling. We see this as a potential point of improvement to meet the needs of the people whom public transportation should be serving.
另一位士官发现自己在周末露营远足时多次前往同一个目的地，以至于她觉得自己已经对目的地野生动物变得友好和熟悉，她觉得这很有趣。在整个采访过程中，她一直说“我本来可以去不同的目的地，但这需要很多计划”，因此戴尔是她不断返回的地方。她解释道：“我想那里也有一种熟悉感，所以我一个人呆在那里感觉很舒服，而不是像‘飞行汽车’一样在发生什么事时逃跑。所以，是的，我想我通常会待在我熟悉的地方，在那里我知道如果我的设备出现故障（例如电池丢失），我可以找到出路。戴尔大部分时间都非常安全。”毫无疑问，作为一个没有汽车的孤独徒步旅行者，她的目的地选择有限。她的工作时间缺乏灵活性，需要准确规划公交车时刻表、公交车换乘和徒步旅行时间，而她针对自己返回的这个特定目的地，已经精确到了分钟。当一切都准时时它就会起作用。然而，像公交车晚点几分钟这样简单的事情就会让她错过换乘，导致该特定徒步旅行的计划完全改变，并且徒步旅行或旅行时间增加了几个小时。这次特别的徒步旅行是一个众所周知的目的地，这使得相应巴士的低安全系数尤其令人沮丧和困惑。我们认为这是一个潜在的改进点，可以满足公共交通应服务的人们的需求。

4.4. Social exclusion 4.4.社会排斥

It is important to note the issues of exclusion that emerged from this study, found in both infrastructure and social interactions. Not only were the on-site informants disproportionately car owners, but they were also all native Norwegian speakers, whereas the majority of NCOs were non-Norwegians temporary residents seeking to more actively participate in friluftsliv. The lack of NCOs on-site points to the social differences and structural power dynamics. NCOs’ unanimous response that transportation is a main challenge when trying to recreate makes it evident that friluftsliv is undoubtedly a more attainable lifestyle for COs. The automobile-centric transport system excludes NCOs in pursuing outdoor and cultural citizenship, legally established by Allemannsretten and Friluftsloven. This form of structural exclusion in turn shapes identities, a sense of belonging, and a discursive hegemony of cars as key to mobility in practice. Integrating into this culture, one has to overcome hurdles both tangible (such as access to a car) and intangible (such as solely Norwegian language use on digital hiking platforms like UT. no).
重要的是要注意这项研究中出现的基础设施和社会互动中出现的排斥问题。现场举报人不仅车主比例过高，而且都是以挪威语为母语的人，而大多数士官都是非挪威人的临时居民，他们寻求更积极地参与 friluftsliv。现场缺乏军士表明了社会差异和结构性权力动态。军士们一致认为，交通是重建过程中的一个主要挑战，这表明 friluftsliv 无疑是军士们更容易实现的生活方式。以汽车为中心的交通系统将士官排除在外，以追求户外和文化公民身份，这是由 Allemannsretten 和 Friluftsloven 合法建立的。这种形式的结构性排斥反过来又塑造了身份、归属感和汽车的话语霸权，作为实践中流动性的关键。融入这种文化，人们必须克服有形（例如获得汽车）和无形（例如在 UT 等数字徒步平台上仅使用挪威语）的障碍。

In theory, friluftsliv should be attainable for all, yet in reality, this is not the case. The surveyed hiking destinations favour COs with extended parking lots, marginalizing NCOs who at Dalsnuten walk on a heavily trafficked road from the nearest bus stop to the many trails available from there. Our expert interviewee from Stavanger Turistforening (a local outdoor organisation) mentioned running shuttles on this stretch from the nearest bus stop to Dalsnuten, but only for special hiking events arranged by them, such as a lantern trail. There is otherwise no cooperation between them and Kolumbus, leaving the already marginalized NCOs even more vulnerable when navigating the well-frequented road.
理论上，所有人都应该能够获得 friluftsliv，但实际上情况并非如此。接受调查的远足目的地倾向于拥有扩展停车场的 CO，这使得在 Dalsnuten 的士官们被边缘化，他们在一条交通繁忙的道路上从最近的公交车站步行到那里的许多小径。来自斯塔万格 Turistforening（当地户外组织）的专家受访者提到，从最近的巴士站到 Dalsnuten，这段路段上有班车运行，但仅限于他们安排的特殊徒步活动，例如灯笼步道。除此之外，他们和哥伦布之间没有任何合作，这使得本已边缘化的士官在走这条人迹罕至的道路时更加脆弱。

As mentioned in our methods section, a workshop on urban transport transition was held as part of a larger research project. Here, a participant pointed out that structuring public transport around commuters, as is often the case, is rather outdated. To quote: “A workday today is different, I could for instance have a work session while walking the dog in the woods! We must therefore extend the range and reach of public transport, and also have an inclusive system that allows for dogs”. This underpins our findings in that aspects of friluftsliv, being firmly embedded in the culture, must be explicitly acknowledged and considered in urban green transitions strategies, especially when a strategy calls for a shift away from car dependency, as the Stavanger climate and environment plan does. Our analysis also illustrates how the mobility system currently affords room for thinking beyond established workday patterns and creating a more flexible mobility system beyond binary constructs of a work/leisure society.
正如我们的方法部分提到的，作为一个更大的研究项目的一部分，举办了一个关于城市交通转型的研讨会。一位与会者指出，像通常的情况一样，围绕通勤者构建公共交通已经相当过时了。引用：“今天的工作日有所不同，例如，我可以一边在树林里遛狗一边工作！因此，我们必须扩大公共交通的范围和覆盖范围，并建立一个允许狗进入的包容性系统。”这支持了我们的发现，即 friluftsliv 的各个方面牢牢植根于文化中，必须在城市绿色转型战略中得到明确承认和考虑，特别是当战略要求摆脱对汽车的依赖时，就像斯塔万格气候和环境计划所做的那样。我们的分析还说明了当前的出行系统如何提供超越既定工作日模式的思考空间，并创建一个超越工作/休闲社会二元结构的更灵活的出行系统。

Exclusion, therefore, unfolds at several levels, not only in the attempt to access nature but also in Norwegian culture and what is considered ‘the good life’. Such a rigid dichotomy, shaping identities of the haves (COs) and have-nots, exacerbates the dilemma of elitism in this context.
因此，排斥在多个层面上展开，不仅体现在接近自然的尝试中，而且体现在挪威文化和所谓的“美好生活”中。这种严格的二分法塑造了富人（CO）和穷人的身份，加剧了精英主义在这种背景下的困境。

5.1. Nature, affect, and ‘the good life’
5.1.自然、情感和“美好生活”

Interviews with both COs and NCOs show how central the car is in friluftsliv assemblages in the Stavanger context. The emotional geography of leisure mobility and the contextual importance of automobility in friluftsliv assemblages highlights the importance of rethinking the mobility transition in ways that account for how mobility is meaningful within a certain context. All respondents broadly agreed that relating with nature in their place-situated reality intertwined with owning or having easy access to a car. The dearth of NCOs at hiking destinations affirms forced car dependency. It weds friluftsliv as a lifestyle to justification of car ownership, with most COs citing access to nature as the main reason to own a car, as key to a sense of freedom and agency. This paradoxical association, undergirded by decades of advertising campaigns subliminally linking cars, freedom and rugged nature, suggests that pursuit of ‘the good life’ is accompanied by a disconnect from the environment, if measured up against the local targets in Stavanger's climate and environment plan. This manifestation of ‘the good life’ lacks what according to Faarlund is the very essence of friluftsliv: to encourage ecological sensitivity and question mainstream lifestyles (Crowley, 2013).
对 CO 和 NCO 的采访显示了该车在斯塔万格地区的 friluftsliv 组合中的核心地位。休闲流动性的情感地理和 friluftsliv 组合中汽车的语境重要性凸显了重新思考流动性转变的重要性，以解释流动性在特定背景下的意义。所有受访者普遍认为，与当地现实中的自然联系与拥有或轻松使用汽车交织在一起。远足目的地缺乏士官，证实了人们对汽车的被迫依赖。它将 friluftsliv 作为一种生活方式与拥有汽车的合理性结合起来，大多数 CO 都将亲近大自然视为拥有汽车的主要原因，作为自由感和能动性的关键。这种自相矛盾的关联，在数十年的广告宣传下，在潜意识中将汽车、自由和崎岖的自然联系在一起，表明，如果与斯塔万格气候和环境计划中的当地目标相比，对“美好生活”的追求伴随着与环境的脱节。这种“美好生活”的表现缺乏 Faarlund 认为的 friluftsliv 的本质：鼓励生态敏感性和质疑主流生活方式（Crowley，2013）。

Our analysis articulates the strong affective link between experiences of mobility and friluftsliv in the Stavanger context. This came across in the COs' frequency of hiking and justification of car ownership in pursuing this lifestyle. For NCOs, the strong emotional connection was noticeable in their commitment to friluftsliv, despite the many hurdles experienced in its pursuit. However, our argument goes beyond claiming that there are positive emotional effects of ‘being in nature’. Thinking in affective terms breaks with a human-nature dichotomy, allowing us to consider how emotions are in themselves assemblages – connections that emerge between people and their surroundings. The affect of friluftsliv in Stavanger relates to the entire friluftsliv assemblage, including mobility (often automobility), geography (the spatial separation of home and nature spaces for friluftsliv), and culture. As argued above, this assemblage features the individual and collective pursuit of ‘the good life’. In doing so, it maintains this cultural imaginary and interweaves it with imaginaries of urban transportation. For NCOs, pursuing ‘the good life’ through friluftsliv requires more effort, time and planning than for COs. How people relate with nature, how they experience friluftsliv, or what constitutes ‘the good life’ for them imbues the experience of mobility with meaning, and in turn informs their sense of a place.
我们的分析阐明了斯塔万格背景下的流动性体验和 friluftsliv 之间的强烈情感联系。这体现在 CO 徒步旅行的频率以及追求这种生活方式而拥有汽车的理由中。对于军士来说，尽管在追求 friluftsliv 的过程中遇到了许多障碍，但他们对 friluftsliv 的承诺中明显表现出强烈的情感联系。然而，我们的论点不仅仅是声称“存在于自然中”具有积极的情感影响。用情感的方式思考打破了人性二分法，使我们能够思考情感本身是如何组合的——人与周围环境之间出现的联系。斯塔万格 friluftsliv 的影响涉及整个 friluftsliv 组合，包括流动性（通常是汽车）、地理（friluftsliv 的家庭和自然空间的空间分离）和文化。如上所述，这个组合体现了个人和集体对“美好生活”的追求。在此过程中，它保留了这种文化想象，并将其与城市交通的想象交织在一起。对于士官来说，通过 friluftsliv 追求“美好生活”比 CO 需要更多的努力、时间和计划。人们如何与自然建立联系，如何体验 friluftsliv，或者什么构成了他们的“美好生活”，这些都为移动体验注入了意义，进而影响了他们对地方的感觉。

Then there is the aspect of work-leisure dualism that constitutes our daily routines. As Johansen et al. (2021) put it, leisure is a breaking away from work life. However, when this work/leisure dualism frames spatial planning, friluftsliv is planned for as something separate. We argue that this leads to an imbalance evident in the contrasting leisure mobility patterns we unearthed. For COs, this work-leisure dualism is easier to break than for NCOs, using easy car access for flexibility to integrate friluftsliv into their mobility practices. This is in stark contrast to most NCOs’ experience, as they must overcome several barriers to access friluftsliv. The enrolment in a hegemonic automobile-centric system of mobility leads to a lack of demand for public transport services by most hikers, limiting the agency of the few NCOs to express their needs in mobility transitions. Strikingly, despite the emergence of several car sharing services enabled by digitalisation, informants did not highlight these as relevant in relation to their access to friluftsliv.
然后是构成我们日常生活的工作与休闲二元论。正如约翰森等人。 (2021) 简单地说，休闲就是摆脱工作生活。然而，当这种工作/休闲二元论框架空间规划时，friluftsliv 被规划为单独的东西。我们认为，这导致了我们发现的对比休闲流动模式中明显的不平衡。对于 CO 来说，这种工作休闲二元论比 NCO 更容易打破，可以使用便捷的汽车通道，灵活地将 friluftsliv 融入到他们的出行实践中。这与大多数士官的经历形成鲜明对比，因为他们必须克服几个障碍才能进入 friluftsliv。以汽车为中心的霸权出行系统的加入导致大多数徒步旅行者对公共交通服务的需求不足，从而限制了少数 NCO 表达其出行转型需求的代理权。引人注目的是，尽管出现了几种由数字化支持的汽车共享服务，但知情人士并没有强调这些服务与他们访问 friluftsliv 相关。

5.2. Friluftsliv as meaningful mobility
5.2. Friluftsliv 是有意义的流动性

Accessing nature mostly through automobile ownership to some extent contradicts the sense of closeness to nature, ironically sustaining a car-centric community of nature lovers. Achieving the municipal objective of 70 percent of trips being taken by public and active transport by 2030 requires transitioning away from automobility lock-in. Hence, uncovering why people feel they need to own a car despite living in urban areas reveals a gap between local policy and the culture of urban residents. Thus, looking reflexively at the dynamic of emotions in pursuit of ‘the good life’ highlights the contemporary significance and challenge of urban mobility transitions. Our complex relations and connections to nature, including on the affective plane, shape action. We see car ownership as an affective outcome of pursued human-and-nature encounters.
主要通过拥有汽车来接触自然在某种程度上与亲近自然的感觉相矛盾，讽刺的是维持了一个以汽车为中心的自然爱好者社区。要实现到 2030 年 70% 的出行由公共和主动交通出行的市政府目标，需要摆脱汽车锁定。因此，揭示为什么人们尽管生活在城市地区仍然需要拥有一辆汽车，揭示了当地政策与城市居民文化之间的差距。因此，反思性地审视追求“美好生活”的情感动态，凸显了城市交通转型的当代意义和挑战。我们与自然的复杂关系和联系，包括在情感层面上，塑造了行动。我们将拥有汽车视为追求人与自然相遇的情感结果。

This situation disfavours residents who in principle do not wish to or cannot afford to own a car, limiting their pursuit of friluftsliv as ‘the good life’. While relatively affluent, Stavanger has among the highest levels of income inequality in Norway (Statistics Norway, 2019). Leisure mobility differences show what it means to be marginalized in a wealthy city.
这种情况对原则上不想或买不起汽车的居民不利，限制了他们对“美好生活”的追求。斯塔万格虽然相对富裕，但也是挪威收入不平等程度最高的国家之一（挪威统计局，2019）。休闲流动性差异表明了在富裕城市中被边缘化意味着什么。

Rather than being a critique of friluftsliv or automobility, our paper challenges social constructs of public transport. Beyond a means to move people, it must do so in ways aligned with local cultures and values, yet in this case social and environmental values are competing, as evident on the emotive plane. A move away from automobility necessarily requires expanded service provision to meet people's mobility priorities, with scope for some shifts in these needs and desires in the cognitive and discursive domain. This implies the need for intentional work to unlearn received narratives of how to access nature to achieve urban mobility transition goals.
我们的论文不是对 friluftsliv 或汽车的批评，而是挑战公共交通的社会结构。除了感动人们的手段之外，它还必须以符合当地文化和价值观的方式来实现这一目标，但在这种情况下，社会和环境价值观是相互竞争的，这一点在情感层面上很明显。远离汽车必然需要扩大服务范围，以满足人们的出行优先事项，并在认知和话语领域对这些需求和愿望进行一些转变。这意味着需要有意识地努力忘却关于如何接近自然以实现城市交通转型目标的既定叙述。

Understanding friluftsliv as a form of meaningful mobility reveals the nuances that should be accounted for when planning for urban mobility transitions. In Stavanger, spaces for friluftsliv activities often fall outside the parameters of existing public transportation, a system designed to address work commute needs. Automobility, thus, remains a defining form of movement if one is to pursue friluftsliv activities. If urban mobility transitions reproduce this dualistic work-leisure paradigm, ‘new mobility’ (such as on-demand and shared mobility services) might provide greater flexibility in the ‘meaningful mobility’ of work-life assemblages, but still uphold forced car dependency in leisure mobility. This has implications beyond our case context to leisure assemblages more generally. To transcend dichotomous work-leisure axes in urban mobility transitions, we can benefit from viewing mobility in a more nuanced way. As we have shown in this article, friluftsliv, which is an important form of mobility but also reliant upon other modalities that structure access to this form of mobility, carries significant meaning and is entangled with assemblages of emotions, space and culture. There are also mobility justice (Sheller, 2018) implications if car-restricting policies unevenly affect marginalized people and increasingly enclose friluftsliv spaces in favour of the highly automobile middle-class. In other words, our insights reflect how mobility is always entangled in complex power relations and hierarchies. In Stavanger, the automobility regime places barriers on the transition to a more sustainable form of friluftsliv as mobility.
将 friluftsliv 理解为一种有意义的出行形式，揭示了规划城市出行转型时应考虑的细微差别。在斯塔万格，进行 friluftsliv 活动的空间往往超出了现有公共交通的范围，而现有公共交通是一个旨在满足工作通勤需求的系统。因此，如果一个人要从事休闲活动，汽车仍然是一种定义性的运动形式。如果城市交通转型再现了这种工作与休闲二元范式，“新交通”（例如按需和共享交通服务）可能会为工作与生活组合的“有意义的交通”提供更大的灵活性，但仍然会维持人们对汽车的依赖。休闲流动性。这超出了我们的案例背景，对更广泛的休闲组合产生了影响。为了超越城市交通转型中工作与休闲的二分法，我们可以从以更细致的方式看待流动性中受益。正如我们在本文中所展示的，friluftsliv 是一种重要的流动性形式，但也依赖于构建这种流动性形式的其他方式，它具有重要的意义，并且与情感、空间和文化的组合纠缠在一起。如果汽车限制政策对边缘化人群的影响不均匀，并且越来越多地围堵 friluftsliv 空间以支持高度汽车化的中产阶级，那么也会产生流动正义（Sheller，2018）。换句话说，我们的见解反映了流动性如何总是与复杂的权力关系和等级制度纠缠在一起。在斯塔万格，汽车出行制度为向更可持续的 friluftsliv 出行方式过渡设置了障碍。