IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i7p1788-d342692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Views on Multimodal Urban Mobility Futures: A Matter of Policy Interventions or Just the Logical Result of Digitalization?

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Schippl

    (Institute of Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Annika Arnold

    (ZIRIUS–Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that strategies to decarbonize energy systems cannot omit the mobility sector. For several decades, particularly in urban areas, a shift from car-based mobility to more environmental-friendly modes has been high on political agendas. Progress has been made in many urban areas, but so far only in small, rather incremental steps. The dominance of the car has remained largely stable in urban transport. For some time now, many experts have argued that processes of digitalization will co-evolve with societal trends and lead to multimodal urban mobility regimes in which private car usage will lose its dominance. In this paper, we examine if stakeholders active in the field believe that, despite digitalization, policy interventions are essential to achieve such a transition. The analysis draws on concepts from transition research and is based on 10 semi-structured interviews with providers of innovative mobility services that may contribute to more multimodal urban mobility systems. Geographical focus is on the City of Stuttgart (Germany). Results indicate broad agreement amongst the interviewees that digitalization alone is not sufficient for achieving a full-scale transition towards multimodal urban mobility. Policy measures that restrict car-based mobility would also be needed. However, many of the interviewed actors doubt that the essential policy mixes will find the necessary political and societal acceptance. Finally, the paper indicates ways to overcome this dilemma.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Schippl & Annika Arnold, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Views on Multimodal Urban Mobility Futures: A Matter of Policy Interventions or Just the Logical Result of Digitalization?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:7:p:1788-:d:342692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/7/1788/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/7/1788/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Enes Dingil & Joerg Schweizer & Federico Rupi & Zaneta Stasiskiene, 2019. "Updated Models of Passenger Transport Related Energy Consumption of Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    3. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    4. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    5. Bulckaen, Jeroen & Keseru, Imre & Macharis, Cathy, 2016. "Sustainability versus stakeholder preferences: Searching for synergies in urban and regional mobility measures," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 40-49.
    6. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    7. Docherty, Iain & Marsden, Greg & Anable, Jillian, 2018. "The governance of smart mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 114-125.
    8. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    9. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2014. "The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 772-791.
    10. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2013. "The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913–1967)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1749-1767.
    11. Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2012. "How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sustainability research?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 483-487.
    12. Hirschhorn, Fabio & Paulsson, Alexander & Sørensen, Claus H. & Veeneman, Wijnand, 2019. "Public transport regimes and mobility as a service: Governance approaches in Amsterdam, Birmingham, and Helsinki," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 178-191.
    13. Shaheen, Susan & Cohen, Adam, 2018. "Shared ride services in North America: definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2wr9q8c2, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    14. Kfir Noy & Moshe Givoni, 2018. "Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Truffer, Bernhard & Schippl, Jens & Fleischer, Torsten, 2017. "Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-48.
    16. Schikofsky, Jan & Dannewald, Till & Kowald, Matthias, 2020. "Exploring motivational mechanisms behind the intention to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS): Insights from Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 296-312.
    17. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    18. Moshe Givoni & James Macmillen & David Banister & Eran Feitelson, 2013. "From Policy Measures to Policy Packages," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, January.
    19. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    20. Tim Schwanen, 2015. "The Bumpy Road toward Low-Energy Urban Mobility: Case Studies from Two UK Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-26, June.
    21. Justen, Andreas & Schippl, Jens & Lenz, Barbara & Fleischer, Torsten, 2014. "Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: Guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 19-30.
    22. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tomasz Rokicki & Grzegorz Koszela & Luiza Ochnio & Kamil Wojtczuk & Marcin Ratajczak & Hubert Szczepaniuk & Konrad Michalski & Piotr Bórawski & Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska, 2021. "Diversity and Changes in Energy Consumption by Transport in EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Marc Dijk & Paula Kivimaa, 2020. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Policy for Low-Carbon Transformations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-6, September.
    3. Lisa Schmieder & Dirk Scheer & Chiara Iurato, 2021. "Streams Analysis for Better Air Quality: The German Lead City Program Assessed by the Policy Package Approach and the Multiple Streams Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Marzena Kramarz & Lilla Knop & Edyta Przybylska & Katarzyna Dohn, 2021. "Stakeholders of the Multimodal Freight Transport Ecosystem in Polish–Czech–Slovak Cross-Border Area," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-32, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    2. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    3. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett, 2018. "Technology and Instrument Constituencies as Agents of Innovation: Sustainability Transitions and the Governance of Urban Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 298-312.
    8. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    9. Canitez, Fatih, 2019. "Pathways to sustainable urban mobility in developing megacities: A socio-technical transition perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 319-329.
    10. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Nilsson, Måns & Nykvist, Björn, 2016. "Governing the electric vehicle transition – Near term interventions to support a green energy economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1360-1371.
    12. Edler, Jakob & Köhler, Jonathan Hugh & Wydra, Sven & Salas-Gironés, Edgar & Schiller, Katharina & Braun, Annette, 2021. "Dimensions of systems and transformations: Towards an integrated framework for system transformations," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S03/2021, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    13. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    15. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    16. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    17. Nikas, A. & Koasidis, K. & Köberle, A.C. & Kourtesi, G. & Doukas, H., 2022. "A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    18. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: Re-thinking Strategic Niche Management with a case study of French tramway diffusion (1971–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1412-1428.
    19. Lisa Scordato & Markus M. Bugge & Arne Martin Fevolden, 2017. "Directionality across Diversity: Governing Contending Policy Rationales in the Transition towards the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Sibylle Bui, 2021. "Enacting Transitions—The Combined Effect of Multiple Niches in Whole System Reconfiguration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:7:p:1788-:d:342692. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.