-
IN DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30
CREDITS
, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020
Dockless electric scooters and the sustainable mobility
transition in Stockholm: User study, stakeholder insights and
policy perspectives.
Svenska: Elsparkcyklar och omställning till hållbar mobilitet i
Stockholm: användaranalys samt insikter från intressenter och
policyaktörer
MARCUS MILLER
SUPERVISOR: KAROLINA ISAKSSON
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
-
Thesis Summary (English)
In the context of increasing car ownership in Stockholm, this
thesis explores the emergence
of e-scooters in the city and what role they could play in
achieving a transition away from car
usage.
This is explored using theories of sustainable transitions: the
multi-level perspective,
transition management and strategic niche management. These
theories are used to guide the
empirical enquiry of this research project and to suggest areas
of further research and possible
policy recommendations.
Empirical Findings
This study used a mixed-method strategy consisting of interviews
with key stakeholders and
an e-scooter user survey (n=408).
The interviewees from Stockholm Region and two e-scooter
operators were broadly in
agreement that e-scooters could have a positive impact going
forward, whilst acknowledging
challenges. The interviews highlighted a good level of both
private-private and public-private
cooperation in the industry and signalled that this cooperation
is key if e-scooters are to be a
sustainable aspect of Stockholm’s transportation system.
The survey indicated that e-scooters are a poor substitute for
private (self-owned) car use i.e.
only 4% of recorded journeys shifted away from self-owned car
use. However, e-scooters
were found to be a much stronger substitute for taxi/ride-hail
journeys with 10% of e-scooter
journeys shifting away from them. Survey findings were used to
compare the Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of e-scooters with the modes people used
otherwise. It found that
the modes people would have used had a GWP of 64g per km
travelled, which compared to
131g (Moreau et al, 2020) and 125g (Hollingsworth et al, 2019)
for e-scooters reported in the
literature and 35g reported in a study conducted on behalf of
Voi - an e-scooter company
(EY, 2020). For a discussion on these figures please refer to
sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.3.
The timing of the survey gave a unique opportunity to explore
the impact of Covid-19 on e-
scooter journeys. A statistically significant difference between
the modal shift of journeys
taken before and after the Covid-19 outbreak (P-value= 0.027)
was found, with journeys
taken during the Covid-19 pandemic more than twice as likely to
have shifted away from any
type of car use than journeys taken before the outbreak.
The discussion was framed using theories of sustainable
transitions. It argued that e-scooters
will not achieve a transition away from mobility on their own.
However, if there is a more
general switch from ownership to usership in the Stockholm
transport sector, e-scooters (and
other micro-mobility) could substitute an increased number of
taxi/ride-hail journeys which
would see them contribute to a more environmentally sustainable
transportation system. The
final part of this thesis discusses policy options that would
help e-scooters find a space within
Stockholm’s transportation systems where they can best achieve
environmental sustainability
goals including the importance of using a multi-actor approach,
a flexible cap on the number
of e-scooters, environmental merit-based tender processes,
e-scooter parking charges and
minimum prices.
-
2
Sammanfattning av examensarbetet (svenska)
Denna mastersuppsats handlar om framväxten av elsparkcyklar i i
Stockholm, och utforskar
vilken roll detta nya färdmedel kan spela för att minska
bilanvändning i en situation med ökat
bilägande.
Detta utforskas med hjälp av teorier om hållbarhetsomställning:
"multi-level" perspektiv,
transition management och strategisk nisch-management. Dessa
teorier används för att
vägleda den empiriska undersökningen och föreslå områden för
ytterligare forskning och
policyrekommendationer.
Empiriska resultat
Studien har utförts med hjälp av en ”mixed method”-ansats, och
grundas bl a i intervjuer
med viktiga intressenter och en undersökning med
elsparkcykelanvändare (n=408).
De intervjuade intressenterna från Stockholmsregionen och två
elsparkcykelföretag var i stort
sett överens om att elsparkcyklar kan ha en positiv inverkan på
hållbart resande, samtidigt
som det finns utmaningar. Intervjuerna belyste en god nivå av
både privat-privat och
offentlig-privat samarbete i branschen och signalerade att detta
samarbete är avgörande om
elsparkcyklar ska kunna bidra till en hållbar utveckling av
Stockholms transportsystem.
Undersökningen visade att elsparkcyklar inte ersätter privat
(egenägd) bilanvändning i något
större avseende: endast 4% av de idenitfierade resorna ersatte
privat bilanvändning.
Elsparkcyklar visade sig dock vara ett mycket starkare substitut
för taxi / "ride-hail" resor:
10% av elsparkcykel-resorna ersatte en sådan transport.
Undersökningsresultaten användes
för att jämföra den globala uppvärmningspotentialen (GWP) för
elsparkcyklar med de medel
som användes annars. Det visade sig att de färdmedel som folk
skulle ha använt om de inte
hade åkt elsparkcykel hade en GWP på 64g per km per resa, vilket
jämförs med 131g
(Moreau et al, 2020) och 125g (Hollingsworth et al, 2019) för
elsparkcyklar rapporterade i
litteraturen och 35g rapporterade i en studie utförd på uppdrag
av Voi - ett
elsparkcykelföretag (EY, 2020). För en djupare inblick i dessa
siffror hänvisas till avsnitten
2.2.1 och 6.2.3 i uppsatsen.
Tidpunkten för undersökningen gav en unik möjlighet att utforska
effekterna av Covid-19 på
resor med elsparkcyklar. Här visar studien på en statistiskt
signifikant skillnad i
överflyttningspotential gällande resor som gjordes före och
efter covid-19-utbrottet (P-värde=
0,027). De resor som gjordes under covid-19-pandemin hade mer än
dubbelt så stor
sannolikhet att ersätta bilanvändning än resor som gjordes före
utbrottet.
Diskussionen av studiens resultat tar sin utgångspunkt i teorier
om hållbarhetsomställning. I
diskussionen framhålls att endast elsparkcyklar inte kommer
bidra till en omställning. Men i
händelse av en mer allmän övergång från ägande till användning
inom Stockholms
transportsektor, skulle elsparkcyklar (och annan mikromobilitet)
kunna ersätta ett ökat antal
taxi-/"ride-hail" resor, vilket i så fall skulle innebära ett
bidrag till ett mer miljömässigt
hållbart transportsystem. I den sista delen av uppsatsen
diskuteras policyalternativ som
skulle hjälpa elsparkcyklar att hitta en tydlig nisch inom
Stockholms transportsystem, där de
bäst kan bidra till att realisera övergripande miljö- och
hållbarhetsmål. Vidare diskuteras
-
3
behov av att inkludera flera typer av aktörer, att använda ett
flexibelt "tak" på antalet
elsparkcyklar, anbudsprocesser som styrs av miljökrav, samt
tillämpning av
parkeringsavgifter och minimipriser för elsparkcyklar.
-
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to take a few words to thank various people who
have helped me throughout
writing this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank
my supervisor, Karolina
Isaksson, for her guidance and support throughout the project
(and with various translation
along the way!). In addition, I would like to thank Greger
Hendriksson and Gunilla Björklund
for their comments on my survey. I would also like to take the
opportunity to thank interview
participants from Lime, Tier and Region Stockholm and everyone
who answered my survey.
Finally, thanks to my parents for their endless encouragement
whilst writing this thesis during
extraordinary circumstances brought about by the 2020
pandemic.
-
5
Table of Contents
List of Figures
.........................................................................................................................................
7
List of Tables
..........................................................................................................................................
7
1. Introduction
.........................................................................................................................................
9
1.1 Context
..........................................................................................................................................
9
1.2 Emergence of E-scooters in Stockholm
......................................................................................
10
1.3 This Study
...................................................................................................................................
11
1.4 Note on the Covid-19 Pandemic
.................................................................................................
12
2 Literature Review
...............................................................................................................................
13
2.1 Situating e-scooters in smart mobility trends
..............................................................................
13
2.1.1 Switch from Ownership to Usership
....................................................................................
14
2.1.2 Greater convenience and comprehensiveness of intermodality
........................................... 15
2.1.3 Technology Companies as Transport Providers
..................................................................
16
2.1.4 Summary
..............................................................................................................................
17
2.2 Literature review: The impact of E-scooters on Urban
Transportation Systems ............................ 17
2.2.1 Life cycle impact of E-scooters
...............................................................................................
18
2.2.2 Modal Shift
..............................................................................................................................
22
2.2.3 Lifecycle impacts and Modal shift
...........................................................................................
25
2.2.4 Multimodality - Addressing the first/ last mile problem
.......................................................... 26
2.2.5 Impact on public space and the safety of pedestrians
..............................................................
27
2.2.6 Summary- Impact of E-scooters Literature Review
.................................................................
28
3. Theoretical framework
......................................................................................................................
29
3.1 Building the multi-level perspective
...........................................................................................
29
3.2 Governing a transition: Strategic Niche Management and
Transition Management .................. 32
3.2.1 Transition Management
.......................................................................................................
33
3.2.2 Strategic Niche Management
...............................................................................................
34
3.3 Theoretical Framework Summary
..............................................................................................
35
4.Research Methodology
......................................................................................................................
37
4.1 Method 1: Semi-Structured Interviews
.................................................................................
37
4.1.2 Interview participants
....................................................................................................
37
4.1.3 Interview themes
...........................................................................................................
38
4.2 Method 2: User Survey
...............................................................................................................
39
4.2.1 Determining the scope/content of the survey.
......................................................................
39
-
6
4.2.2 Data Collection Strategy
......................................................................................................
39
4.2.3 Sampling Method
.................................................................................................................
41
4.3 Ethical considerations
.................................................................................................................
41
5. Interview findings
.............................................................................................................................
43
5.1 Regulations
.................................................................................................................................
43
5.2 Cooperation
.................................................................................................................................
45
5.3 Environmental Sustainability
......................................................................................................
46
5.4 The future of the
industry............................................................................................................
47
5.5 Summary of findings
...................................................................................................................
48
6. Findings and Analysis from E-scooter User Survey
.........................................................................
50
6.1 Note on external validity
.............................................................................................................
50
6.2 Participant characteristics
...........................................................................................................
50
6.3: Modal Shift
................................................................................................................................
53
6.3.1 Overall modal shift findings
................................................................................................
53
6.3.2 Comparison with Other Studies
...........................................................................................
56
6.2.3 Modal Shift and Life-Cycle Global Warming Potential
...................................................... 59
6.3.4 Effect of Covid-19 on Modal Shift
......................................................................................
62
6.3.5 Other Environmental Impacts of the Reported Modal Shift
................................................ 65
6.4: Multimodal use
..........................................................................................................................
65
6.4.1 General findings, Multi-Modal Use
.....................................................................................
66
2.2.2 Multi-Modal Use Cross-Frequency Table
...........................................................................
67
6.5 Car Ownership and E-scooter Use
..............................................................................................
68
6.5.1 Car Ownership, Use and Plans for Car Ownership
..............................................................
69
6.5.2 Chi-Squared Analysis for Car Owners and Non-Car Owners
.............................................. 71
6.6 Survey Summary
.........................................................................................................................
72
7. Discussion: E-scooters and the Sustainable Mobility
Transition in Stockholm ............................... 73
7.2 E-scooters and car ownership
.....................................................................................................
74
7.2 Current and Future Environmental Impact
.................................................................................
76
7.3 Implications for policy and further research
...............................................................................
78
7.3.1 Long term perspective
..........................................................................................................
79
7.3.2 Multi-actor approach
............................................................................................................
79
7.3.3 Tactical activities
.................................................................................................................
81
7.3.3 Learn by experimentation
....................................................................................................
83
8. References
.........................................................................................................................................
83
-
7
Appendix
...............................................................................................................................................
89
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cars in use in Stockholm 2002-2019
Figure 2: E-scooter Life Cycle Analyses from Literature. Figures
are GWP per Km of Use
Figure 3: Modal Shift – Findings from other studies
Figure 4 The Multi-Level Perspective: Source Geels (2002)
Figure 5 – Reported Modal shift, all respondents, divided into
journeys that are more and less
preferable on the Hierarchy of Sustainable Transport.
Figure 6: Modal shift findings for Stockholm, compared with
other studies in the literature
Figure 7: Comparison of shifted mode impact with e-scooter LCA
studies.
Figure 8 Null and alternative hypothesis’s for car ownership and
e-scooter use variable.
List of Tables
Table 1: Improvements in E-scooter Technology 2018-2020.
Table 2: Interview Participants
Table 3: Survey Respondent Characteristics, Frequencies and
Percentages
Table 4: Modal Shift frequencies and percentages
Table 5: Calculations for lifecycle Global Warming Potential of
shifted modes
Table 6: Count and Expected Count for Before or After Covid-19
Outbreak * Shifted
Transport Mode
Table 7: Chi-Square Tests for Before or After Covid-19 Outbreak
* Shifted Transport Mode
Table 8: Frequency and Percentages for Multi-modal use by
transport mode, divided by all
responses, journeys unaffected by Covid-19 and affected
journeys.
Table 9: Frequency Cross Table for Transport Mode Combined with
E-scooter* Shifted
Transport Mode
Table 10: Questions on car ownership and use, frequencies and
percentages
Table 11: Chi-Squared Results Summary for tests 1-3
-
8
Tables in Appendix
Table 1: Global Warming Potential for Transport Modes in Sweden.
Source: Sinha, Olsson
and Frostell’s (2019)
Table 2: Count and Expected Count for Car Ownership * Shifted
Transport Mode
Table 3: Count and Expected Count Car Ownership * Multi-Modal
Use
Table 4: Count and Expected Count for Car Owner * Frequency of
E-scooter Use Between
1/01/20 and 15/03/20
Table 5: Count and Expected Count for Journey Choice Affected by
Covid-19 * Shifted
Transport Mode
Table 6: Chi-Square Tests for Journey Choice Affected by
Covid-19 * Shifted Transport
Mode
-
9
1. Introduction
1.1 Context
Since the automobile started to be mass-produced in the early
20th century it has proven to be
one of the most influential innovations in history and has
become the dominant transportation
mode of the 21st century (Bailey, 2015). Automobiles have
sculpted the modern city,
transformed transportation and shaped culture. They have
unlocked previously unimaginable
economic & social possibilities and become icons of wealth,
success and freedom. They are
often the easiest, most convenient and cheapest form of
transportation (Bailey, 2015).
However, their increased ubiquity is causing numerous problems.
Automobile emissions are
a key contributor to climate change and urban air pollution. The
infrastructure they require
has fragmented communities (Graham and Marvin, 2001), they
congest cities causing a
knock-on social and economic cost and this has led to
commentators deriding automobiles as
a ‘destroyer of cities’ (Schneider, 1971).
Sweden, and Stockholm, have not been an exception in this
transition towards an automobile
dominated transport ‘regime’ (Geels et al, 2012). Car ownership
started to become popular in
the 1950s and by the 1960s Sweden had the highest private car
density in Europe (Lindgren,
Lindgren and Pettersson, 2010). Automobility became an important
part of the Swedish
economy, being home to two of Europe’s largest automobile
manufacturers: Volvo and Saab.
Thus, Sweden has not escaped the problems of automobility
mentioned above. Automobility
accounts for 22% of Sweden’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(Statistiska Centralbyrån,
2019), an estimated 300-400 people die prematurely per year in
Stockholm due to exposure
to air pollution (Hallman, 2020). The arrival of the automobile
also correlates with
Stockholm’s urban sprawl between 1960 and 1975 (Lindgren,
Lindgren and Pettersson,
2010).
The proliferation of the automobile has arguably been the most
significant factor resulting in
the promotion of a new transport paradigm - the sustainable
mobility paradigm (Banister,
2008). This paradigm has sought to, among several other goals,
reduce the dependency of
transportation systems on the automobile. Some policy in
Stockholm has been aligned with
this paradigm in order to address the problems caused by the
automobile, including
Stockholm’s 2010 city plan ‘The Walkable City’ (Stockholm City,
2010) and the 2006
-
10
congestion charge. However, despite these policy changes, no
transportation alternative
seems to be able to compete with the automobile. The number of
passenger cars in
Stockholm has continued to grow through the last 20 years
(Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Cars in use in Stockholm 2002-2019
Source: Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020)
1.2 Emergence of E-scooters in Stockholm
In August 2018 Voi Technologies, a Stockholm based company
introduced a new transport
mode onto the streets of Stockholm. This new mode, an electric
scooter, looked like a
conventional stand-up push scooter except it was propelled by a
small electric motor and
could reach speeds of up to 20km per hour. The scooters were
dockless, could be unlocked
across the city using a mobile phone-based application and used
for short journeys where
they are left again for the next user to unlock. Since Voi
launched, several other companies
offering an almost identical service have entered the market.
Currently, there are
approximately 10 companies, but four larger companies dominate
the industry; Voi, Bird
(based in Santa Monica, California), Lime (based in San
Francisco, California) and Tier
(based in Berlin, Germany). In a short space of time e-scooters
have become a popular
transport mode in Stockholm. In April 2019 there were
approximately 1000 rental e-scooters
in the city, but by October 2019 there were almost 9000 (Region
Stockholm, 2019). A
600000
650000
700000
750000
800000
850000
900000
950000
1000000
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Pas
sen
ger
Car
s in
Use
in
Sto
ckh
olm
Co
un
ty
Year: 2002-2019
-
11
measurement of all e-scooter, bicycle and electric bicycle
journeys in Stockholm was taken
and it was found that, within a year of their launch in
Stockholm, 10% of the journeys were
completed with an e-scooter (Region Stockholm, 2019).
The e-scooter providers almost always position themselves as
offering an alternative to
private car use and a remedy to the problems associated with
them. They view themselves as
playing a key role in enabling a transition away from automobile
use. Voi state that their
scooters ‘reduce air and noise pollution and break traffic
gridlock’ (Voi Scooters, 2020),
Lime state in their mission that they ‘aim to reduce dependence
on personal automobiles for
short distance transportation’ (Lime, 2020). Similarly, Birds
mission is to ‘make cities more
liveable by reducing car usage, traffic and carbon emissions’
(Bird, 2020).
Despite these claims and mission statements, almost no
independent research has been
conducted about the effect e-scooters are having on Stockholm’s
transportation system. Early
studies in academic literature from other cities have
contradicted these claims and indicated a
negative or minimal environmental dividend as a result of
e-scooter usage (Hollingsworth et
al, 2019; Moreau et al, 2020). Ultimately, it is not known
whether e-scooters can play a role
in the transition towards sustainable mobility in Stockholm and,
if they can, what that role
will resemble.
1.3 This Study
This study will aim to examine whether e-scooters can play a
role in a transition towards a
more sustainable mobility system in Stockholm, and what role
that could resemble. It will
focus on the way e-scooters are impacting the environmental
sustainability of Stockholm’s
transportation system. Hence consideration will be given to
environment-related indicators
including Global Warming Potential (GWP), air & noise
pollution and congestion. Other
ways e-scooters impact transportation systems, such as their
impact on public space, safety
and connectivity will be brought into the discussion when
appropriate.
A key aspect of this thesis is to understand the role the public
sector could play in steering the
e-scooter industry towards achieving societal goals. Sustainable
transitions theories - a group
of related theories which aim to explain the processes, pathways
and actors that are involved
in transformations in technologies and practices (Bush et al,
2017) - will be used to guide this
-
12
research. The multi-level perspective, strategic niche
management and transition
management will be considered. This study uses a mixed-methods
approach that combines an
e-scooter users survey with interviews from key actors in
Stockholm’s micro-mobility sector.
This thesis aims to achieve three goals:
Goal 1: Understand the organisational structure of the e-scooter
industry in Stockholm, how
it functions, who the key actors are and where the industry sees
itself going in the future.
Goal 2: Understand how e-scooters affect Stockholm’s
transportation system dynamics and
what impact this could have on environmental indicators.
Goal 3: Using findings that fulfil goals 1 and 2, suggest policy
frameworks and areas of
further research that will steer the e-scooter industry towards
Stockholm’s sustainability
goals.
Structurally this study will be divided up into 6 main sections.
Firstly, results from a literature
review which considered e-scooters in broader smart mobility
trends and other research that
has already been conducted on e-scooters. Secondly, the
sustainable transitions framework
will be explained which will be followed by a methodology
section. Sections 4 and 5 detail
empirical findings from interviews with industry actors and the
e-scooter user survey. Section
6 will explore possible policy instruments that could be
implemented and areas of further
research, based upon the sustainable transitions framework.
1.4 Note on the Covid-19 Pandemic
The planning for this study started in January 2020, but the
execution of this project was
hugely disrupted by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic which
escalated in Sweden during March
2020. It impacted the empirical research which had to be
conducted online. The survey-based
research was conducted through social media and interviews were
conducted via video
communication software. Additionally, the pandemic has been
widely documented as having
impacted on transportation habits, so these are likely to have
affected the results of the e-
scooter user survey as many of the participants were questioned
on journeys taken after
Covid-19.
-
13
2 Literature Review
2.1 Situating e-scooters in smart mobility trends
The ongoing information and communication revolution continues
to bring with it
remarkable technological capabilities that are changing society
in a multitude of ways
(Castells, 2000). These new information and communication
technologies (ICT) are
increasingly penetrating urban transportation systems and this
is likely to transform the future
of mobility (Lyons, 2018). This merging of transportation
systems with ICT technology has
given rise to a new paradigm for transport planning - Smart
Mobility. There is a contested
debate around what it means for mobility to be ‘smart’, with
some commentators arguing that
‘smart’ should not be synonymous with ICT technology, e.g. see
Lyons (2018) where smart
urban mobility is defined as ‘connectivity in towns and cities
that is affordable, effective,
attractive and sustainable’. A technology-based understanding of
smart mobility is the most
useful in the context of e-scooters. A useful definition based
upon Hollands (2008) definition
of a smart city, is ‘smart mobility is the utilisation of
networked infrastructures, such as
information and communication technology, to improve efficiency
and enable the sustainable
development of transportation systems’. Using this definition
smart mobility can include a
vast array of solutions - including a shift towards mobility as
a service (where ownership of
transportation modes is fully replaced by mobility provided as
an on-demand service),
paperless public transport ticket systems, real-time public
transport information, ‘intelligent’
infrastructure and vehicles connected via ICT technologies and
fully automated cars (see
Cledou et al, 2018 for a full taxonomy of smart mobility
technologies). This definition of
smart mobility also incorporates rental e-scooters as they are
connected to ICT networks and
rely on platform technology to be unlocked and used.
Three key trends which characterise the emergence of e-scooters
in personal mobility have
been identified in smart mobility literature. These are (1) a
switch from ownership to usership
(2) greater convenience and comprehensiveness of inter-modality
(Docherty et al, 2018) and
(3) increasing importance of private sector - typically
technology companies - actors as
transportation operators. These three trends provide the
structure for this section.
-
14
2.1.1 Switch from Ownership to Usership
With the arrival of ride-hailing platforms such as Uber and Lyft
in the early 2010s, the
transportation sector helped pioneer new collaborative
consumption models facilitated by
ICT technology and smartphones. These new models of consumption
have come to be seen
as parts of the shared economy (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). This
is defined by Botsman &
Rogers (2010) as “traditional sharing, bartering, lending,
trading, renting, gifting, and
swapping, redefined through technology and peer
communities”.
A key feature of the sharing economy sees the increased
utilisation of durable assets (Schor,
2016) whereby users only pay for an asset during the time that
they are using it. This is
opposed to the conventional model of ownership whereby people
only use the durable assets
that they have bought such as cars. This business model has
enabled several smart mobility
innovations including docked and dockless bicycles, car-sharing
clubs and increasingly rental
micro-mobility, such as e-scooters. Whilst this model of
usership is not entirely new – car
rentals can be traced back to 1904 (Wood, 2015) - the internet
has made the sharing of assets
more efficient, cheaper and in real-time so making it possible,
for example, to hire a car for
just one short trip. Rental e-scooters epitomise this change
from ownership to usership as
they can be used for short journeys by several people each day
and the sharing of these goods
is therefore facilitated by e-scooter providers through a mobile
phone application.
This switch from ownership to usership has the potential to
improve the utilisation of
resources, improving economic efficiency and decreasing the
environmental impact of
transport modes. For example, a privately owned car is not in
use 92% of the time, and during
this time it takes up valuable (urban) space (Mcgee, 2019),
which has an opportunity cost.
With a switch to a shared economy business model, a car can be
used up to 50% of the time.
Furthermore, spreading the cost among multiple users increases
accessibility for people
previously unable to afford to buy the asset outright. However,
there have also been problems
reported with the sharing of individual transport modes and, for
example, people do not look
after them with the same care as they look after their own
possessions and this can have a
negative effect on durability and in turn environmental impact
(see section 2.2.3 below on
Lifecycle of e-scooters) (Grinswold, 2019).
-
15
A switch from ownership to usership also changes travel
incentives and disincentives. In an
ownership model fixed costs are high, such as car purchase,
annual insurance etc, whilst
variable costs are low, usually only fuel/ electricity. This can
mean that whilst average costs
of using a private car are quite high, the marginal cost of
using it is low and this results in
decreasing average costs over time. This can incentivise more
car use, as opposed to public
transport whereby all costs are paid at the point of delivery.
This phenomenon has been
reported in studies which have found that a switch from
ownership to usership can increase
the use of more sustainable transportation modes such as public
transport, walking and
cycling (Katzev, 2003). Conversely, a sharing transport model
may become so economically
efficient that it competes in cost (and other factors) with
established sustainable transport
modes such as public transport and cycling. This could increase
the total amount that people
travel which could, in turn, have a negative impact on
transportation systems. This might be
the case with e-scooters, which can be price competitive with
public transport (see Section
2.2.2 on modal shift).
2.1.2 Greater convenience and comprehensiveness of
intermodality
It is argued that smart mobility technologies improve the
feasibility, convenience and
efficiency of using multiple transportation modes for one
journey (Lyons, 2018). E-scooters,
and other forms of micromobility, are seen as having a pivotal
role in multi-modal journeys
as they are seen as a solution to the last-mile problem (Voi
Scooters, 2020) – this is the last
section of a journey, usually from a transportation hub to the
final destination, which is
expensive to provide and deters people from using public
transport.
This increase in intermodality has been most comprehensively
articulated as ‘Mobility as a
Service (MaaS)’ (Heikkila, 2014) whereby the transport consumer
buys a ‘bundle’ of
transportation services including conventional public transport,
micromobility, taxis and
shared car access. So, for instance, someone could take a taxi
from their home to the nearest
public transportation hub, take public transport into the city
centre and then ride a dockless
bike to their place of work all while using just one ticket or
application, as opposed to taking
their own car from door to door. This vision has great promise,
as it has been argued that it
can compete with the automobile in terms of time, economic/
resource efficiency and can
improve the environmental sustainability of the transportation
system (Heikkila, 2014).
-
16
However, the realisation of MaaS is technically and
institutionally complicated and there are
currently barriers (institutional, physical or otherwise)
between existing modes of
transportation (Heikkila, 2014). Realising mobility as a service
would therefore require an
increase in communication and cooperation between new and
conventional transport
operators to overcome these barriers (Heikkila, 2014).
2.1.3 Technology Companies as Transport Providers
Before the emergence of technology-led smart mobility, the urban
mobility marketplace had
a reasonably straightforward structure. Cities typically had a
public transport system with
varying degrees of state support, private car ownership and
taxis. In this model roads and
other infrastructure were funded by the state (Docherty et al,
2018). However smart mobility
has resulted in a new provider of urban mobility: global
technology companies such as Uber,
Lyft, Lime and Voi who have introduced rental e-scooters to
cities across the world and have
successfully commodified individual city journeys through ICT
technology. Currently Uber
has an annual revenue of USD 18.1 BN (Uber.com, 2019) and
E-scooter operator Lime had a
USD 2.4 BN valuation in January 2019 (Pymnts.com, 2019). This
trend of globalised tech
firms operating urban transport seems highly likely to
continue.
In line with wider criticism of the ‘smart city’ (Grossi and
Pianezzi, 2017; Holland 2008),
smart mobility has not been spared criticism that it appeals to
neo-liberal ideals of economic
organisation (Mishra and Bathini, 2018). For example, Uber’s
platforms function as a free
market whereby taxi operators compete against each other, which
drives down the price of
taxi rides, increasing the total number of private car journeys.
At the same time workers’
hours increase and earnings decrease (Mishra and Bathini, 2018).
This increase in the
importance of private sector actors in transport provision could
result in the prioritisation of
short-term business goals whilst the companies are not held
accountable for achieving a cities
long term social, economic and environmental goals (Grossi and
Pianezzi, 2017).
Overall this trend, whilst bringing many technological
innovations to cities, threatens to cause
several problems. If these firms are not held accountable in the
cities they operate, these cities
will be unlikely to achieve their goals of sustainable
transportation (Moscholidou and
Pangbourne, 2019).
-
17
2.1.4 Summary
Overall, the trends in smart mobility, which are outlined above
and epitomised by the
emergence of e-scooters, bring simultaneous challenges and
opportunities for cities. On one
hand there is a promise that smart mobility will create an
alternative to private car use, whilst
technologies such as e-scooters will help to solve the ‘last
mile’ problem. On the other hand,
power has been given to unaccountable technology firms, who are
primarily driven by profit
and not urban sustainability. This has resulted in a growing
body of literature that argues that
the government should play a crucial role in ensuring that smart
mobility is ‘steered’
(Moscholidou and Pangbourne, 2019) in a direction that helps
achieve wider goals of
sustainable urban mobility.
2.2 Literature review: The impact of E-scooters on Urban
Transportation
Systems
Since e-scooters surfaced as a new, potentially sustainable,
transportation technology for
cities in 2017, they have attracted interest within academia
regarding the impact they are
having on the urban environment and transportation system
dynamics. This interest has
resulted in a growing body of empirical studies from cities
across the world exploring the
extent to which e-scooters can contribute to the realisation of
sustainable urban
transportations systems. These studies have shown how e-scooters
increase competition
between existing modes of transportation in terms of cost,
speed, safety, comfort etc.
(Rodrigue, 2020) causing modal shift but also complementing the
use of other modes; how
they impact the city visually and aesthetically which affects
how people experience the city;
how they can alter transportation systems global warming impact
emissions as well as other
environmental impacts and how they bring new safety challenges
to urban environments. In
addition to these studies, there has been research published by
e-scooter providers and other
private companies that explore similar themes.
This section will present the findings from these studies. On
the whole, they show that e-
scooters are unlikely to be having the positive impact on the
environmental sustainability of
transportation systems that providers claim. However, this
section also outlines the findings
from a recent study conducted by Ernst and Young suggests that
new e-scooter models are
having a much lower environmental impact than the older models
that have been used in
-
18
peer-reviewed studies. Additionally, this literature review
finds that the situation varies
considerably between the cities researched, demonstrating that
e-scooters impact transport
systems in different cities in vastly different ways.
2.2.1 Life cycle impact of E-scooters
Currently the most comprehensive method of analysing the
environmental impact of a
product or service is through life cycle assessment (LCA). This
method assesses the
environmental impact of a product, process or service during all
stages of its life cycle
starting with material extraction, then processing of raw
materials, to manufacturing,
distribution, use recycling and finally disposal (Ilgin and
Gupta, 2010). LCAs typically assess
the wide range of a product, process or service’s environmental
impacts including Global
Warming Potential (GWP), stratospheric ozone depletion, human
toxicity and acidification
(Stranddorf et al, 2005).
Currently, to the author’s knowledge, two peer-reviewed LCAs on
e-scooter usage have been
conducted; Hollingsworth et al’s study (2019) looked at
e-scooter in Raleigh, North Carolina
and Moreau et al’s study (2020) in Brussels, Belgium. In
addition to these two peer-reviewed
studies consultancy firm Ernst and Young (EY) have conducted an
LCA on Voi’s operations
in Paris, France (Ernst and Young, 2020). Whilst it is difficult
to make a direct comparison
between the three studies due to differences including the
e-scooter model used in the study,
individual city dynamics and difference in methodology, it is
still useful to make a
comparison between the findings. The results for the Global
Warming Potential (GWP)
impact category is used to highlight the different findings
between the three studies. The
results are compared in figure 2 below for each of the study’s
base cases. The figures are in
grams of Co2 equivalent per Km of use.
-
19
Figure 2: E-scooter Life Cycle Analyses from Literature. Figures
are GWP per Km of Use
Sources: Brussels (Moreau et al, 2020); Raleigh (Hollingsworth
et al, 2019); Paris (EY,
2020).
The results show that the two peer-reviewed studies from Raleigh
(126g/Co2 per Km) and
Brussels (131g) (Hollingsworth et al, 2019 and Moreau et al
2020) were approximately 3
times higher than the results in EY’s (2020) Paris study
(34.7g). This large difference in
findings is caused by three key differences in the e-scooter
model analysed in each of the
studies.
Firstly, the Paris study assumes a much higher e-scooter
lifespan of 24 months compared to
the 12-month lifespan used in the base case for both
peer-reviewed studies. There is no
consensus on the actual life span of rental e-scooters; is
largely unknown (in part because e-
scooter manufacturers consistently brought out new e-scooter
models). However, estimates
range from as low as 28 days in a study conducted by Grinswold
(20191) to the 24 months
claimed by Voi in their latest e-scooter model the voyager 3
(Voi, 2020); it is important to
1 In this study (which is not peer reviewed) the average amount
of time each scooter was in operational use was calculated from
e-scooter provider data (available as a result of Louisville’s open
data policy). It is deemed that
this is not a robust way of calculating e-scooter lifespans.
Brussels (Base case)xx Raleigh (Base case)EY study with Voi
Scooter
in Paris
End of Life 0 0 -35.5
Use 24 62.1 6.84
Transport 3 1.86 4.6
Production 104 61.5 58.8
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-
20
note that this is an estimate from Voi as the model was only
released 2 months before the
study was conducted. Overall, whilst the true e-scooter lifespan
is unclear, if the Voyager 3’s
24-month claim is realised it will significantly reduce the
life-cycle GWP of e-scooters.
The second reason why the result from the Paris was remarkably
different is because the new
voyager 3 has swappable batteries (EY, 2020), meaning that
scooters do not have to be taken
back to a warehouse overnight for charging, which significantly
reduces Co2 emissions
during the use-phase. For example, the use-phase GWP/ km in the
Brussels case was 24g
whilst in the Paris case were only 6.84g. The study conducted in
Paris was just on the
Voyager 3 and was conducted during a time when older models with
a lower life-span were
still in use, so it is almost certain to underestimate the
actual impact of its operations in the
city. Furthermore, not all companies operating in Paris use the
model with the swappable
battery, so the industry’s current impact is likely to be
greater than the result that the EY
study produced.
The third noticeable difference between the two studies is the
way the end-of-life phase is
treated. The method used in the two peer-reviewed studies is
different from the method used
by EY. The two peer-reviewed studies input use a recycled
content approach (factoring the
recycled materials in as an input), for example, the Raleigh
study assumes that 24% of the
inputted aluminium is recycled. In contrast, the EY study
factors in a 100% recycling rate
(which is Voi’s promise in Paris) in the end-of-life phase. This
result is that the end-of-life
phase from the EY study has a larger negative impact on the
overall total. However, if Voi
maintains their promise to recycle the scooters it is a good
reflection of reality.
The peer-reviewed studies highlight that old e-scooter models
had a high life-cycle GWP
mainly due to their short lifespan and unswappable batteries.
Recent e-scooter models have
sought to address these and other issues, as shown in Table 1
below. The latest e-scooter
models are significantly more durable and have swappable
batteries. Whilst the results from
the EY study should be met with a degree of scepticism as it is
not an independent peer-
reviewed study, these recent innovations have given e-scooter
companies scope to
significantly decrease their GWP.
-
21
Table 1: Improvements in E-scooter Technology 2018-2020.
Segway Ninebot ES1 (Used in Stockholm in
2018)
Tier Four (Launched in Stockholm in 2020)
• Designed for the consumer market.
• Adapted for the rental market and
used by e-scooter companies in
Stockholm at launch 2018.
• Lightweight frame designed to be
portable
• Built in battery- scooter needs be
transported for charging.
• Designed for rental e-scooter
market.
• Swappable battery system.
• Dispersed charging network.
• 0.5cm thick durable frame to
increase lifespan.
• Suspension increases durability
• Integrated helmet.
Furthermore, the Hollingsworth et al (2019) does show that the
GWP of e-scooters can be
significantly improved if certain changes are made to the
e-scooter system. Voi have
implemented many changes which according to the results of
Hollingsworth et al (2019)
would significantly reduce the GWP of e-scooters. In
Hollingsworth et al (2019) just under
50% of the GWP is accounted for in the collection/ distribution
for charging phase. In
Hollingsworth et al (2019) the vehicles used for
collection/distribution were petrol/ diesel-
fuelled cars, they were collected every night, they did not use
swappable batteries etc. Whilst
the e-scooter system in EY (2020) uses swappable batteries (so
collection rates have reduced
-
22
massively), electric cargo bikes and renewable electricity.
Additionally, it is important that
Hollingsworth et al (2019) use a 1-year life span to get a GWP/
Km of 126g, but they had
assumed a 2-year life span the GWP/ km calculated would have
been 87g/km. In a scenario
where the life span is 2 years the collection/ distribution
phase would to more than 50% of
the GWP/Km. Whilst in the EY(2020) study collection/
distribution only account for 3% of
the emissions (the figure above shows the whole use phase-the
majority of the emissions in
the EY (2020) study use phase are contributed to repairs). So if
the e-scooter system assessed
in Hollingsworth et al (2019) assumed the same changes as Voi
claim to have implemented in
Paris it might be reasonable to half the 2-year life span
calculation, which would give a
GWP/Km of 43.5g, which is much closer to the EY’s calculation of
34.7g in Paris.
Additionally, EY have assumed/ claimed a much higher recycling
rate.
Therefore, if the new Voyager 3s do realise a 24-month lifespan,
and Voi upholds their
promise of all the other implementations, the findings from the
EY study are likely to be a
representation of a best-case scenario for the industry based
upon current technology.
Importantly they show that the e-scooter industry is heading in
the right direction in terms of
global warming impact.
The next sections will compare the findings from these studies
to findings from studies that
look at the modes of transport e-scooters have replaced, in
order to understand the overall
impact of the e-scooter on the environmental sustainability of
the transportation systems they
operate in.
2.2.2 Modal Shift
Another way e-scooters could improve the sustainability of
transportation systems is through
their ability to cause a modal shift from less sustainable modes
of transportation, namely use
of the private car. Modal shifts occur when one mode of
transportation has a comparative
advantage over the mode of transport currently used for a
journey (Rodrigue, 2020). A
person’s decision to change transportation mode can be caused by
the existence of several
types of comparative advantage including in cost, time,
convenience, comfort, enjoyment,
reliability and safety over the previous transport mode.
-
23
Simplistically, a modal shift is preferable, from a
sustainability perspective, when a transport
user switches from a ‘less sustainable’ transport mode to a
‘more sustainable’ transport mode.
Whilst there is some debate around which modes are preferable,
the Institute for Sensible
Transport (2018) have created a ‘hierarchy of sustainable
transport’ based upon transport
modes’ carbon emissions (per passenger km) and the surface area
they take up (footprint). It
ranks a single-occupancy average Victorian car2 as the least
sustainable, followed by an
electric car, then a dual occupancy Victorian car, then a
motorcycle. These are followed by
modes of public transport (train, tram and bus respectively).
The modes of public transport
are then followed by cycling and finally walking. Due to the
infancy of electric scooters it is
uncertain where e-scooters fall in the hierarchy, but it is
deemed that they likely fall between
public transport modes (which emit between 17.7- 28.6 grams of
Co2 per Km) and
motorcycles (which emit 119.6 grams of Co2 per Km) (Figures from
Institute for Sensible
Transport, 2018).
E-scooter operators claim that their e-scooters can have a
comparative advantage over many
car journeys that take place within cities, decreasing the
number of car journeys that take
place in cities, and therefore causing an environmentally
positive modal shift. Voi claim to
‘galvanize change in the way people transport themselves and
pioneer a shift away from
unnecessary car trips to shared electric mobility.’ (Voi, 2020
Voi for cities) whilst Lime’s
aim is to ‘reduce the dependence on personal automobiles for
short distance transportations.’
(Lime, 2020) and claim to have replaced 40 million kilometres of
car travel globally (Lime
study on Paris).
However, e-scooters can also have a comparative advantage over
other modes of transport
that are generally seen as more desirable from a sustainability
perspective (FLOW project,
2016 cited in Gossling, 2020). For example, they are faster than
walking, some are likely to
find them more comfortable than cycling whilst others may find
them more enjoyable than
public transport. Hence, the introduction of e-scooters to urban
environments causes a modal
shift away from journeys that have fewer negative impacts.
Therefore, as e-scooters are likely
to replace journeys taken by modes of transport with both more
and fewer negative
2 ‘Victorian’ car means a car with an internal combustion
engine; it runs directly off fossil fuel.
-
24
externalities, the aggregated impact of the modal shift caused
when e-scooters are introduced
into cities is unclear.
Some independent studies have started emerging that explore the
modal shift that results from
introducing e-scooters in Europe, North America and Australasia.
In addition, there have also
been studies conducted by e-scooter operators. Studies in North
America have included
Rosslyn, Virginia (James et al, 2019); Portland, Oregon
(Portland Bureau of Transportation);
Raleigh, North Carolina (Hollingsworth et al, 2019); Brussels,
Belgium (Moreau et al, 2020)
and countrywide studies in France (Bureau de Recheche, 2019) and
New Zealand. These
studies used different methods and asked slightly different
questions to survey respondents.
For example, the study from France asks users about their last
e-scooter trip, whilst
Hollingsworth et al’s (2019) study from Raleigh asks, ‘If
e-scooters were not available what
percentage of time would you use these alternatives?’ (Moreau et
al, 2020). Furthermore, the
sample sizes are widely different: 4000 were surveyed in France,
591 in New Zealand, 1181
in Brussels, 3444 in Portland, 56 in Rosslyn, 61 in Raleigh,
making perfect comparisons
difficult to make. Nonetheless, it is still important to discuss
these findings. The results from
these studies have been compiled in figure 3.
Figure 3: Modal Shift – Findings from other studies
Sources: New Zealand (Fitt and Curl, 2019); Brussels (Moreau et
al, 2020); France (Bureau de Recherche,
2019); Raleigh (Hollingsworth et al, 2019); Portland (Seattle
Department of Transport, 2018) Rosslyn (James et
al,2019).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Rosslyn, Virginia
Portland Oregon
Raleigh, North Carolina
France
Brussels, Belgium
New Zealand
Public transportation Car Walking Bicycle Other
-
25
These studies have shown that the modal shift effect varies
significantly from city to city. For
example, the three American studies: Portland, Raleigh and
Rosslyn, showed a much greater
shift away from car/ taxi use of 39%, 34% and 46% respectively
(insert references) than the
European and New Zealand-based studies with Brussels, France and
New Zealand reporting
shifts of 27%, 9% and 23% respectively. A global survey
conducted by Lime (2019)3
reported results that are higher than the European studies but
lower than the results reported
in North America; with 30% reported to replace their trip by
automobile. The shifts away
from public transportation are greater in the European cities
with 27% and 28% shifts in the
France and Brussels studies whilst the American studies and New
Zealand study reported
shifts of 7%, 9%, 12% and 5% in Rosslyn, Portland, Raleigh and
New Zealand respectively
(Moreau et al, 2020; Holland et al 2019; Bureau de Recherche,
2019).
Overall, these studies indicate a large difference in modal
shift in different areas, which are
likely to be caused by several different city characteristics
including the size and reliability of
transit networks, urban form, car ownership, average weather
conditions and topography.
2.2.3 Lifecycle impacts and Modal shift
To compare the overall environmental impact of introducing
e-scooters into a city’s
transportation system one method is to weight (based upon the
percentage of modal shift) the
lifecycle impacts of the modes that people would have taken if
e-scooters were not available
and sum them up and compare that against the findings in the
life cycle assessment. Moreau
et al (2020) used this method to compare the findings from their
LCA on Brussels with the
findings from the modal shift. They found that the total life
cycle impact of the replaced
modes would have caused 110g of Co2 per KM whilst the life cycle
analysis of the rental e-
scooter was 132g of Co2 per KM, meaning that as a result of
introducing e-scooters to
Brussels the contribution to global warming is 22g more per km
when compared to the modes
that they replaced. However, as discussed above in the LCA
section, there is potential to
reduce the life cycle impact of e-scooters significantly.
3 Lime. (2019). Latest data show Lime attracts new riders to
active transportation, reduces car use and more.
Retrieved from
https://www.li.me/blog/latest-data-lime-attracts-new-riders-reduces-caruse-more
-
26
2.2.4 Multimodality - Addressing the first/ last mile
problem
The first/ last mile problem is the difficulty of getting people
from a public transportation
hub, such as a train, bus or tram station, to the transportation
user’s final destination. The
first/ last mile problem is thought to significantly deter
transit use for people with access to an
automobile (Zellner et al, 2016) as it can significantly
increase expended journey time and
decrease the convenience of public transport. The first/ last
mile problem has persisted due to
the high cost of providing connecting services to/from
transportation hubs, particularly in
low-density suburban environments (Zellner et al, 2016).
Resultantly first/ last mile options
have previously been very limited, causing automobile dependency
in areas far from
transport hubs. Solving the first/ last mile problem has been
hailed as ‘the key to sustainable
urban transport’ by the European Union (EU, 2016), and has
therefore been a long-term goal
of sustainable urban transport policymakers.
The dockless nature of short-term rental e-scooters gives them
the potential to solve the first/
last mile problem, as users can take them to or from a
transportation hub to their home or a
place of work. Solving the first/ last mile problem is
frequently cited as one of their goals.
For example, Voi state that their ‘mission is to provide
sustainable and inclusive last-mile
mobility solutions, which enable people to move freely in
cities.’ (Voi, 2019).
Few independent studies could be found that examined the extent
to which e-scooters are
being used as a last-mile solution. The survey conducted by Fitt
and Curl (2020) in New
Zealand found that half of the respondents used an e-scooter for
part of their journey, with
28% using it in conjunction with public transport, this could be
an indication that e-scooters
have facilitated public transport journeys in New Zealand.
However, based on the statistics
gathered in the study, it is not possible to determine whether
e-scooters increased the use of
public transport and it is even more difficult to quantify the
impact of this multi-modal use on
the environment.
-
27
2.2.5 Impact on public space and the safety of pedestrians
The dockless nature of e-scooters means that after people have
ridden them, they can be
parked anywhere that is convenient. This feature is key to the
success of e-scooters as a
versatile transport option and makes it possible for them to
address the last mile problem.
This attribute directly causes safety, environmental and
aesthetic problems and has been
recognised as one of the main challenges associated with
e-scooters (Fearnley et al, 2020).
From a safety perspective, they can be a trip hazard for
pedestrians (which particularly
impacts the visually impaired) (Tapper, 2019). Environmentally,
they can cause problems as
they have been (anecdotally) reported being dumped in
Stockholm’s water bodies
(Sydsvenskan, 2020). This can cause environmental damage as the
batteries in the scooters
release lead and sulphuric acid, amongst other toxic chemicals,
which can poison the water
and damage marine life. Aesthetically, people feel they can
degrade the urban environment,
particularly when large numbers of them are parked in historical
parts of the city. Whilst
there is little documentation of these problems in academic
literature, with most instances of
these problems reported in the media, it is still an important
consideration as it damages the
reputation of e-scooters.
A further safety concern regarding e-scooters and their
interactions with public space is
caused by the way users move around cities. While exploring how
e-scooter riders interact
with public space Tuncer et al (2020) found that e-scooter
riders switch from acting like
vehicles to acting in ways pedestrians do, blurring the boundary
between pedestrian and
vehicle. This was found to impact the behaviour of pedestrians,
for example by attracting
their attention and causing them to alter their walking speed
(Tuncer et al, 2020). This has
caused safety concerns among pedestrians, validated, as
pedestrian injuries caused by e-
scooters have been recorded and they have disproportionately
impacted those with
vision/hearing impairments, young children and the elderly
(Sikka et al. 2019).
-
28
2.2.6 Summary- Impact of E-scooters Literature Review
Overall, current academic literature is unconvinced that
e-scooters bring the environmental
sustainability benefits that their providers claim. This is most
apparent in the two
comprehensive LCAs conducted on e-scooters which have found that
the introduction of e-
scooters is likely to increase the global life cycle emissions
of the transportation systems in
these studies: Brussels and Raleigh. However, the rapid
evolution of the e-scooter industry
has meant that these two studies have not been conducted using
the most up-to-date e-scooter
models. The most up to date models are far more durable (the
companies claim lifecycles of
approximately 24 months) (EY, 2020) and they do not require
transportation of the scooters
for charging (which significantly reduces lifecycle impacts
during the use phase). In addition,
these studies do not include the environmental impact of
intermodal use, which is difficult to
calculate but is likely to be positive if intermodal use
contributes to a reduction in car
ownership and usership. EY’s (2020) recent study on Voi’s
e-scooter operations in Paris
might offer a more realistic representation of the environmental
impact of up to date e-scooter
models. Importantly, this study indicates that up to date models
have a much lower
environmental impact than older models used in the LCAs in
academic literature and could
compete with public transport in terms of global warming
potential per kilometre. However,
the findings in this study should be met with scepticism as they
have not been independently
peer-reviewed as there is a clear motive for them to be
underreporting the impacts. The
findings in the EY study are somewhat supported by the findings
in the peer-reviewed studies
as their findings are similar when sensitivity analysis were
used to consider models that are
representative of the up-to-date model used in the EY study.
This study’s findings should
therefore be viewed as a best-case scenario with the most modern
model. Overall, the
findings from these studies tentatively indicate that an
environmentally sustainable future
could be realised in the e-scooter industry if they are not just
substituting walking and cycling
journeys; which the literature indicates they do not.
It is important to note that none of these studies were
conducted on the e-scooter industry in
Stockholm, and that differences may be found if similar studies
were conducted in
Stockholm. However, the findings in some studies, particularly
the LCA findings (as they are
more dependant on the scooter model than urban dynamics) and
findings in cities with similar
transport dynamics to Stockholm (such as Brussels) may be
relevant.
-
29
3. Theoretical framework
For e-scooters to achieve their sustainability potential in
Stockholm, they must play a role in
enabling the transition away from private automobile, otherwise,
they would simply be
causing a shift away from existing sustainable modes. This could
be by causing a direct
modal shift with car use but also buy supporting the
complimentary use of public transport.
Hence, viewing Stockholms e-scooter phenomenon through a lens of
sustainable transition
theories will help to question the extent they can enable a
transition away from the
automobile. Theories of sustainability transitions are a
collection of theories and frameworks
that aim to explain the processes, pathways and actors that are
involved in transformations in
technologies and practices (Bush et al, 2018).
This section starts with Geels’ (2002) notion of a
socio-technical system as a starting point
for describing his framework for technological change; the
multi-level perspective. The
multi-level perspective is then used to outline key aspects of
the two theories of governance,
Strategic Niche Management and Transition Management, which
provide the theoretical
framework used in this project. These two theories can be used
to steer technological
innovation towards sustainability goals. They will guide this
projects empirical enquiry, as
well as the recommendations for further research and policy
recommendations that this
project will produce.
3.1 Building the multi-level perspective
Socio-Technical System’s are defined as a cluster of
interconnected elements involving
technology, science, regulation, user practices, markets,
cultural meaning, infrastructure,
production and supply networks which together perform a societal
function (Geels et al,
2006). Societal functions include waste management, energy
supply, food production and in
this context refers to Stockholm’s transportation system. The
concept draws upon insights
from evolutionary economics and technological studies (Geels,
2002) whereby the systems
evolve over time as the interconnected elements that make up the
system change, which in
turn transforms how the societal function is performed, marking
a transition of a socio-
technical system (Watson, 2012). The changes occur as the
interconnected elements evolve as
a result of two evolutionary processes which occur over long
periods. Firstly, in a similar way
to biological evolution, through the process of variation,
selection and retention and secondly
-
30
as a process of unfolding and reconfiguration whereby the STS is
fundamentally changed
(Geels, 2002).
These changes in a socio-technical system have been articulated
to happen on three-tiered
hierarchy (Geels, 2002). At the top is the level of the
socio-technical ‘landscape’, which
includes macro societal, economic, technical, political and
environmental developmental
factors which are external to the socio-technical system in
question (Geels, 2002). For
example, within the context of road transport changing from
being dominated by the use of
horse-drawn carriages to being dominated by the use of
automobiles between 1860 and 1930
changes at the landscape level included rapid urbanisation and
industrialisation, technological
developments (most notably the invention of the internal
combustion engine- which was
invented in America in 1872), and WW1 (which had such large
governmental costs it
impacted governments ability to provide public transport)
(Geels, 2005). In the context of
Stockholm’s transportation system, recent developments at the
landscape level include the
invention of the internet, which has revolutionised the way
people (and increasingly Internet
of things (IoT) devices) communicate between each other, the
threat of climate change, and
the global neoliberalisation of markets that has been argued to
have decreased the power of
the Swedish state (Ryner, 1999).
The socio-technical landscape interacts with and directs, the
socio-technical system. As
stated, this level contains a cluster of interconnected elements
involving technology, science,
regulation, user practices, markets, cultural meaning,
infrastructure, production and supply
networks which together perform a societal function operating on
a meso level (Geels et al,
2006). This level, at one period (unless undergoing a
transition), is called the socio-technical
regime. Describing it as a socio-technical regime refers to the
dominance of one form of
technology, supported by the co-evolution other appropriate
elements (Fuenfschilling and
Truffer, 2014), performing most of the socio-technical systems
function. The concept of
socio-technical regimes describes the persistence and rigidity
of a structure within a socio-
technical system (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014). This
persistency occurs as the regime is
highly institutionalised both formally (through regulations and
institutional practices) and
informally (through shared beliefs, values and routines)
(Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014).
Currently, within transportation, it has been widely noted that
the automobile is the dominant
transportation regime in the west (Geels, 2005; Dijk, 2014;
Cohen, 2012). This regime has
persisted since the 1930s (Geels, 2005) due to both formal and
informal institutions across
-
31
western countries and in Sweden. For example, policies in Sweden
in the 1980s were aimed
at ‘civilizing’ use of the private car, not limiting it
(Mcshane, Masaki and Lundin, 1984),
whilst the car remains an essential part of Swedish culture
(Rouser and Hewett, 2009). As a
result of increasing pressure at the landscape level, deriving
from the threat of global
warming and increasing urbanisation (amongst other pressures),
it has been widely noted that
use of the automobile (particularly in cities) will need to
decrease (see Banister, 2008).
Within the social-technical system the third level is located,
the technological niche,
operating at the micro-level. It is within this level that
novelty technological innovations are
developed and emerge (Bakker, van Lente and Engles, 2012). These
new innovations try to
compete with the current socio-technical regime as well as with
each other (Bakker, van
Lente and Engles, 2012). This intense competition often results
in the novelty innovations
failing to survive (Bakker, van Lente and Engles, 2012).
However, it is argued that
sometimes when there are changes to the socio-technical
landscape, it can create windows of
opportunity for novelty technological innovations to compete
with the incumbent regime
(Geels 2002; Geels and Schot, 2007). This is crucial in the
context of the recent emergence of
smart mobility (which includes e-scooters) that is being driven
by recent landscape changes
including the invention of the internet, the threat of climate
change and increasing
urbanisation. Hence, e-scooters can be seen as a novelty within
the niche of smart mobility
which might turn out to be a disruptive niche and have the
long-term potential to compete
with private automobile ownership (Gossling, 2020).
Together these three levels; the socio-technical landscape, the
socio-technical regime and the
technological niche are combined to form Geels (2002)
all-encompassing framework of
technological change; the multi-level perspective (See figure 4
below). This framework is all-
encompassing as it describes how technological change does not
simply derive from changes
in engineering know-how, infrastructural or policy design, but
also requires the negotiating of
social norms, customs and practices (Docherty, Marsden and
Anable, 2018). Hence,
achieving technological change, and changing the incumbent
regime, is a very complicated
process.
-
32
Figure 4 The Multi-Level Perspective: Source Geels (2002)
Within this framework, influential governance can take place at
two levels, at the niche level
(whereby niche formation is supported) and at the regime level.
Two theories of governance
have been articulated to describe the way government can
influence technological change
within the multi-level perspective, to achieve a transition
towards a more sustainable socio-
technical system. These theories are Transition Management,
which operates at the regime
level, and Strategic Niche Management, which operates at the
niche level. These two theories
of governance motivate the empirical research within this thesis
and provide the framework
for e-scooter policy recommendations and recommendations for
further research within
Stockholm’s e-scooter industry.
3.2 Governing a transition: Strategic Niche Management and
Transition Management
As summarised in the literature review to ensure that e-scooters
generate and capture genuine
public value and positive environmental externalities, the
government should play a central
role in steering developments. Based upon the multi-level
perspective, this section will
describe two of these theories; strategic niche management (SNM)
and transition
-
33
management (TM). The two concepts are different yet related
theories and aim to achieve
sustainable development and technological innovation (Loorbach
and van Raak, 2006).
3.2.1 Transition Management
Transition management is a “new model of governance that aims to
resolve persistent
problems in societal systems” (Kemp et al, 2011). It has been
proposed as a useful model to
support the transitions within transportation systems. In the
transportation systems “persistent
problems” would include green-house gas emissions, congestion,
noise, landscape
fragmentation and oil dependency. Hence, sustainable transitions
within the transportation
system would reduce the persistence of these problems. A debate
has evolved around the
extent to which electric scooters can help reduce these
problems.
Transitions are defined as non-linear process of social change
resulting in a societal system
being structurally transformed (Rotmans et al, 2001). Transition
management aims to create
alternative regimes that are more desirable form a welfare point
of view it does this by
making use of bottom up developments in this case the emergence
of e-scooters) and top
down goals both at the national and local level (Swedish and
Stockholm goals) (Kemp et al,
2011). Transition management aims to start a process of change
towards societal goals.
There is a divide in the transition management literature
between two types of transitions,
socio-technical transition (Geels and others) and societal
transitions (Rotmans and Loorbach).
The e-scooters phenomenon better aligns with the socio-technical
transitions literature, which
is based upon the multi-level perspective.
Transition management has four key processes:
1. It seeks to widen participation by taking a multi-actor
approach in order to encompass
societal values and beliefs
2. Takes a long-term perspective creating a basket of visions in
which short-term
objectives can be identified
3. Focused on learning at the niche level, experiments are
useful to identify how
successful a particular pathway could be and uses the concept of
“learn by doing,
doing by learning”
4. A systems thinking approach which identifies that problems
will span multiple
domains, levels and actors.
-
34
Kemp et al (2011) put forward a framework for identifying three
different types of activities
that take place in transition management. These are strategic
activities which encompass the
process of vision development, tactical activities that relate
to the interaction between actors
and that steers developments in both the socio-technical
structure and at the regime. Finally,
operational activities constitute the process of learning by
doing through experimentation and
implementation.
3.2.2 Strategic Niche Management
Strategic niche management is defined as the creation,
development and controlled phase-out
of protected spaces for the development and use of promising
technologies by means of
experimentation, with the aim of (1) learning about the
desirability of the new technology and
(2) enhancing the rate of application of the new technology
(Kemp et al, 1998). The key idea
is that through experiments with new technologies and new
socio-technical arrangements, the
niche formation process can be managed and stimulate
co-evolution between the social and
technical elements in the system (Hoogma, 2002). Through
experimentation, a more
sustainable process might emerge. Hence, SNM can foster
transition towards a more
sustainable process. It can be used as a research model or a
policy tool.
Strategic Niche Management:
Loorbach and Van Raak (2006) set out four key aims of strategic
niche management:
1. To articulate the changes in technology and in the
institutional framework that are
necessary for the success of the new technology
2. To learn more about the technical and economic feasibility
and environmental gains
of different technology options.
3. To stimulate the further development of these technologies,
to achieve cost
efficiencies in mass production, promote the development of
complementary
technologies and skills, and stimulate changes in social
organisation that are important
to the wider diffusion of the new technology
4. To build a constituency behind a product- of firms,
researchers, public authorities-
whose semi-coordinated actions are necessary to being about a
substantial shift in
interconnected technologies and practices.
-
35
3.3 Theoretical Framework Summary
Using these three transition theories will tie into all three
goals of this research project. Goal
1 is to Understand the organisational structure of the e-scooter
industry in Stockholm, how it
functions, who the key actors are and where the industry sees
itself going in the future. This
relates to understanding the ‘social’ aspects of the
socio-technical system (Stockholm’s
transportation systems). The second goal which is to understand
how e-scooters affect
Stockholm’s transportation system dynamics and what impact this
could have on
environmental indicators. This relates to how e-scooters are
affecting more technical aspects
of Stockholm’s transportation systems, such as how people are
using the system and how it is
impacting other transport modes in the city. Additionally, the
aspect of the goal which is
‘understand what impact this could have on environmental
indicators’ is crucial to both
Transition Management and Strategic Niche Management as it will
help identify if e-scooters
have potential to offer environmental gains and therefor if it
should be promoted as being
able to offer environmental gains. The third goal is to use
findings that fulfil goals 1 and 2 to
suggest policy frameworks and areas of further research that
will steer the e-scooter industry
towards Stockholm’s sustainability goals. This relates to both
TM and SNM as they are both
used as frameworks for policy. Additionally, SNM is used as a
frame for research.
Overall, these three theories will be used to guide this
project’s empirical enquiry, with the
main aim of the empirical enquiry is to understand the e-scooter
industry in Stockholm (and
fulfil goals 1 and 2). Following the empirical research, key
themes from SNM and TM will
then be used to discuss potential policies and areas of further
research that could be used to
steer the e-scooter industry towards a more sustainable
future.
-
36
-
37
4.Research Methodology
To analyse Stockholm’s e-scooter industry and achieve this
project’s three varied goals a
mixed-methods approach was necessary. This involves using
research methods from
qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are combined to
complement each other, was
necessary. Using these research paradigms together can create a
richer understanding of the
research problem (Hewlett and Brown, 2018). Mixed methods
research is increasingly
popular in social research (Timans et al, 2019) and particularly
in the field of policy and
planning research (Burch and Heinrich, 2016). Its popularity as
a research method in policy
and planning has risen as it is able to generate evidence-based
research findings that have a
pragmatic use. When conducted effectively it can mean policy
decisions that are based on
scientific evidence can achieve more through and considered
policy outcomes (Burch and
Heinrich, 2016). This study combines the use of qualitative
interviews of key stakeholders in
Stockholm’s e-scooter industry with a (mostly) quantitative
e-scooter users survey
4.1 Method 1: Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a research method to
understand the social aspects
of the e-scooter industry. This is to address the first goal of
the research project which is to
understand the organisational structure of the e-scooter
industry in Stockholm, how it
functions, who the key actors are and where the industry sees
itself going in the future. Semi-
structured interviews are defined as a verbal interchange where
one person, the interviewer,
attempts to elicit information from another by asking questions
(Clifford, 2016). Semi-
structured interviews were above structured interviews as they
give the opportunity to explore
topics that are particularly interesting to either the
interviewer of interviewee they can be
explored in greater detail.
4.1.2 Interview participants
It was decided that it would be appropriate to contact
significant organisations in the
Stockholm transport sector and well as e-scooter companies that
operate in Stockholm and
-
38
ask them if they would be willing to participate in an interview
on e-scooters. The Stockholm
transport sector organisations that were contacted were the
Traffic Administration in the City
of Stockholm and the Public Transport Administration in
Stockholm County Council (SL).
Several actors from each organisation were contacted. The
e-scooter operators contacted
included Tier, Lime, Voi Circ, Aimo and Bird. In addition to
these actors, the Nordic
Micromobility Association was contacted.
Unfortunately, only representatives form three of the above
organisations responded to the
interview request. These were from e-scooter operators Tier and
Lime, the third was from the
Public Transport Administration in Stockholm County. This small
sample of interviewees
will affect the comprehensiveness of results and some ways the
e-scooter industry functions
would have been missed. Details of the interviewees a