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

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.

[1]  Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh,et al.  Environmental and climate innovation: Limitations, policies and prices , 2013 .

[2]  Jens Schippl,et al.  Decentering technology in technology assessment : . Prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany , 2017 .

[3]  N. Denzin,et al.  Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. , 2005 .

[4]  M. Kowald,et al.  Exploring motivational mechanisms behind the intention to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS): Insights from Germany , 2020 .

[5]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  Sustainability versus stakeholder preferences: Searching for synergies in urban and regional mobility measures , 2016 .

[6]  Paula Kivimaa,et al.  Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Creation? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions , 2015 .

[7]  Florian Kern,et al.  The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions , 2019, Research Policy.

[8]  Alexander Paulsson,et al.  Public transport regimes and mobility as a service: Governance approaches in Amsterdam, Birmingham, and Helsinki , 2019 .

[9]  F. Geels Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[10]  Glenn Lyons,et al.  Automobility in transition?: A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport , 2012 .

[11]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Socio-technical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: an example from the traffic and transport domain , 2002 .

[12]  Paula Kivimaa,et al.  Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments , 2018 .

[13]  Andreas Knie,et al.  Mobility in the age of digital modernity: why the private car is losing its significance, intermodal transport is winning and why digitalisation is the key , 2016 .

[14]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[15]  J. Schippl,et al.  The Capability Approach as a normative framework for technology assessment , 2019, TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis.

[16]  T. Tettamanti,et al.  Stakeholder engagement in mobility planning , 2019, Autonomous Vehicles and Future Mobility.

[17]  Robin Hickman Automobility in Transition. A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport , 2013 .

[18]  Eran Feitelson,et al.  From Policy Measures to Policy Packages , 2013 .

[19]  J. Schippl,et al.  Technology options in urban transport: changing paradigms and promising innovation pathways - Final Report , 2012 .

[20]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913-1967) , 2013 .

[21]  R. Kemp,et al.  Policies tackling the “web of constraints” on resource efficient practices: the case of mobility , 2019, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy.

[22]  Barbara Lenz,et al.  Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: Guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging , 2014 .

[23]  Ž. Stasiškienė,et al.  Updated Models of Passenger Transport Related Energy Consumption of Urban Areas , 2019, Sustainability.

[24]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Shared ride services in North America: definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling , 2018, Transport Reviews.

[25]  Rob Raven,et al.  What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability , 2012 .

[26]  David Banister,et al.  The sustainable mobility paradigm , 2008 .

[27]  Bernhard Truffer,et al.  The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory , 2014 .

[28]  Moshe Givoni,et al.  Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs , 2018 .

[29]  F. Geels From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[30]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Managing the Transition to Sustainable Mobility , 2004 .

[31]  L. Whitmarsh How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sustainability research? , 2012 .

[32]  Mike Cooley,et al.  Technological change , 2016, AI & SOCIETY.

[33]  Barbara Lenz,et al.  Autonomous Driving - The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Mobility Behaviour , 2016 .

[34]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[35]  H. Rohracher,et al.  Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change , 2012 .

[36]  Timothy J. Dowd,et al.  Legitimacy as a Social Process , 2006 .

[37]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases , 2016 .

[38]  Jillian Anable,et al.  The governance of smart mobility , 2017, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[39]  Moshe Givoni,et al.  Addressing transport policy challenges through Policy-Packaging , 2014 .

[40]  Tim Schwanen,et al.  The Bumpy Road toward Low-Energy Urban Mobility: Case Studies from Two UK Cities , 2015 .