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