From Car-Dependent to Public Space Enthusiast: How can a typology of attitudes help to understand social acceptance of street space reallocation projects?

• Explanatory factors of social acceptance of temporary street space reallocation projects are examined. • Interviews with residents of two neighborhoods in Munich are analyzed through typifying qualitative content analysis. • Seven types of attitudes enhance the comprehensibility of individual needs and preferences. • Practical implications include user group specific design, communication, and participation processes. Reduced car ownership and use as well as public space reallocation are understood as a relevant part of a transition towards sustainable mobility and livable cities. Despite frequent protest following low-car interventions and the importance of acceptance for a successful transition, there is limited understanding of the social acceptance of street space reallocation measures. This research identifies types of attitudes towards temporary street space reallocation measures on the neighborhood level to develop a better understanding of residents’ social acceptance and the underlying explanatory factors. Using a coding frame, interview notes with residents of two neighborhoods in Munich were qualitatively analyzed and grouped into types based on similar characteristics and combinations of characteristics. In-depth interviews were conducted later to refine the types and identify acceptance drivers and barriers. Seven types of attitudes emerged: the Car-Independent, the Car-Dependent, the Tree Advocates, the Public Space Enthusiasts, the Noise Sensitive, the Change Supporters, and the Status-Quo Satisfied. The types feature distinctive characteristics in terms of mobility behavior and preferences, openness towards a mobility transition, and public space-related needs and fears. Car dependency, car affinity, and the increase in recreational noise were identified as acceptance barriers. In contrast, introducing alternative mobility options, creating public spaces for interaction, and adding greenery were identified as acceptance drivers. Different types might have opposing perceptions of whether an intervention is “fair”. Targeted communication and participation processes proved to be relevant cross-type acceptance factors. Practitioners may benefit from such user-group specific insights to design more robust transformation strategies.