IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03388213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research

Author

Listed:
  • Virginie Boutueil

    (LVMT - Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Gustave Eiffel)

  • Luc Nemett

    (LVMT - Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Gustave Eiffel)

  • Thomas Quillerier

    (LVMT - Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Gustave Eiffel)

Abstract

Mobility systems in metropolitan areas in both the Global North and the Global South have entered an era of rapid change since the early 2010s under the influence of mobile information and communication technologies (ICTs). Mobile ICT-based shared mobility platforms have been filling some of the gaps in transport supply left by historical modes of transport (i.e., private cars, public transit, and for-hire services). Shared mobility digital platforms are a subcategory of mobility applications that give individual customers direct and full access to one or several shared mobility services. Based on a worldwide systematic census, this paper documents the diversity of services provided by such platforms, then analyzes the trends in geographic distribution and competition among platforms across the world's metropolises. It proposes a new classification of shared mobility services. Since innovations in shared mobility are also taking a leading place in the Global South, future research avenues in this field are discussed in an effort to break away from the prior focus of the scientific literature on the Global North. The census brings out four original findings. First, the rise of shared mobility digital platforms is a worldwide metropolitan phenomenon transcending the traditional distinction between the Global North and the Global South. Second, emerging countries have become clusters for innovation and competition among platforms. Third, three types of shared mobility digital platforms are identified based on geographic reach (local, regional, or global). Fourth, shared mobility digital platforms providing for-hire services are the most widespread in the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginie Boutueil & Luc Nemett & Thomas Quillerier, 2021. "Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research," Post-Print hal-03388213, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03388213
    DOI: 10.1177/03611981211036346
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-03388213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-03388213/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/03611981211036346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt79v822k5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2019. "Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt00k897b5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    3. Shaheen, Susan A & Cohen, Adam P, 2007. "Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2zv240pp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    4. Acquier, Aurélien & Daudigeos, Thibault & Pinkse, Jonatan, 2017. "Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Jonathan Levin, 2011. "The Economics of Internet Markets," Discussion Papers 10-018, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    6. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2016. "Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8042k3d7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    7. Shaheen, Susan A & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6qg8q6ft, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson & Bansal, Apaar & Cohen, Adam, 2015. "Shared Mobility: A Sustainability & Technologies Workshop: Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2f61q30s, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Alessio Guandalini & Francesca Romana Mallamaci & Vincenzina Vitale & Laura Bocci, 2021. "To Share or not to Share? Determinants of Sharing Mobility in Italy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 647-692, April.
    2. Koglin, Till & Mukhtar-Landgren, Dalia, 2021. "Contested values in bike-sharing mobilities – A case study from Sweden," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Chambers, Peter, 2020. "O Bike in Melbourne: A plea for more scepticism about disruption and capital, based on what we can know about one dockless bike scheme," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 72-80.
    5. Amirmahdi Tafreshian & Neda Masoud & Yafeng Yin, 2020. "Frontiers in Service Science: Ride Matching for Peer-to-Peer Ride Sharing: A Review and Future Directions," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2-3), pages 44-60, June.
    6. Narayanan, Santhanakrishnan & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Shared mobility services towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS): What, who and when?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Xavier Bach & Carme Miralles-Guasch & Oriol Marquet, 2023. "Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Intini, Mario & Tangari, Luca, 2021. "Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Guangnian Xiao & Zihao Wang, 2020. "Empirical Study on Bikesharing Brand Selection in China in the Post-Sharing Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Qing Yu & Weifeng Li & Dongyuan Yang & Yingkun Xie, 2020. "Policy Zoning for Efficient Land Utilization Based on Spatio-Temporal Integration between the Bicycle-Sharing Service and the Metro Transit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    12. Pucher, John & Buehler, Ralph & Seinen, Mark, 2011. "Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 451-475, July.
    13. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    14. Levy, Nadav & Golani, Chen & Ben-Elia, Eran, 2019. "An exploratory study of spatial patterns of cycling in Tel Aviv using passively generated bike-sharing data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 325-334.
    15. Hyungkyoo Kim, 2020. "Seasonal Impacts of Particulate Matter Levels on Bike Sharing in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen, 2016. "A Latent Segmentation Multinomial Logit Approach to Examine Bicycle Sharing System Users' Destination Preferences," 57th Transportation Research Forum (51st CTRF) Joint Conference, Toronto, Ontario, May 1-4, 2016 319270, Transportation Research Forum.
    17. Zhou, Xiaolu & Wang, Mingshu & Li, Dongying, 2019. "Bike-sharing or taxi? Modeling the choices of travel mode in Chicago using machine learning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Wang, Xize & Lindsey, Greg & Schoner, Jessica E. & Harrison, Andrew, 2016. "Modeling bike share station activity: Effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations," SocArXiv stav4, Center for Open Science.
    19. Chrysa Vizmpa & George Botzoris & Panagiotis Lemonakis & Athanasios Galanis, 2023. "Micromobility in Urban Trail Paths: Expanding and Strengthening the Planning of 15-Minute Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Mohammed Elhenawy & Hesham A. Rakha & Youssef Bichiou & Mahmoud Masoud & Sebastien Glaser & Jack Pinnow & Ahmed Stohy, 2021. "A Feasible Solution for Rebalancing Large-Scale Bike Sharing Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Shared Mobility; Digital Platforms; Geographic Distribution; Competition; Classification;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-03388213. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.