From boom to ban: bikeshare, narratives and public-private tensions

Project Partners

BJM Petzer, MSc.

Tw: @brettpetzerW: brettpetzer.comE: B.J.M.Petzer@tue.nl

Amsterdam (source: Kirsten Walsh)

Cycling Regime

Sharing Economy

Intermodal Urban

Mobility

Cycling-as-

a-ServiceCycling as

Connecting Mode

Integration & Governance

of MaaS

The Netherlands

Research Area

Rest of the World

Overall Research Questions

What roles does cycling-as-a-service currently play in the Dutch urban mobility system, what roles could it play in the Dutch urban mobility transition, and howcould these be realised?

What forms does Cycling-as-a-Service take in the urban Netherlands, what business models do these services embed, and what is its potential to drive a mobility transition?

What are the transition pathways for the development of modal integration between cycling-as-a-service and the Dutch urban mobility system?

What organisational, policy and governance conditions are likely to contribute to a successful urban mobility transition?

What would be required from a transition strategy that fully realizes the potential of cycling-as-a-service within the future Dutch urban mobility system?

Preoccupations of my PhD trajectory

Evolution of bike fleet size and number of firms in the CaaS market of the Netherlands, 2004-2017

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 13

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Sum of Other BicyclesTotalSum of OV-Fiets Total

World Growth in Bike Share – No. of Cities (1998-2015)Source: BikeSharingMap.com

Total Bikeshare Fleet Size and Firm Tally, The Netherlands, 2004-2017Source: Various Press Reports

1000

800

600

400

200

1998 1998 2015

138221111111111Firm Tally →

Business Model Typologies of selected Cycling-as-a-Service Providers in the Netherlands (2017)

BUSINESS MODEL TYPE & NUMBER

CAAS PROVIDERS VALUE PROPOSITION OF FIRM

PARKING ON PUBLIC LAND WITHOUT FORMAL

PERMISSION

1 OV-Fiets (OV-Fiets)

OV-Fiets Back-to-one bike share for rail users (with option of 2 extra bikes) at all NS railway stations and some other locations with common smartcard

N

2 Regional Transport Providers (RTP)

Keobike Back-to-many dock-based bike share for users of local public transport provider via app N

Next-bike Back-to-many dock-based bike (with dockless option) share for users of local public transport provider via app or by phone and card

N

3 Dock-Based Bikeshare on Public Land (Public/Dock)

USP Campus-bike

B2M dock-based bike share (also allowing dockless locking) within a business park via app N

Uwdeelfiets B2M dock-based bike share within a city via app N

Haagsche Stadsfiets

Back-to-many bike share based at manned rental points via internet, phone or Whatsapp N

Hopper-point B2M GPS-equipped bikeshare within Brabant city centres, via app. N

Cykl Back-to-many bike share within a campus via app run on a modified open-source platform. N

4 Dock-Based E-bike Share on Public Land (Dock/Private/Ebike)

E-Bike To Go B21 e-bike share across the Randstad offering higher-speed bike rides with geofencing via app and corporate reporting of rides

N

Gobike B21 e-bike share N

5 Dockless Bike Share on Public Land (Public/Dockless)

Obike Dockless, last-mile bike share with blanket coverage of city centres, with deposit Y

Flick-Bike Dockless bike share in Amsterdam via app [not operational at present] Y

Mobike Dockless bike share in Amsterdam via app. N

6 Dockless Bike Share with Geo-fencing (Dockless/Geo)

Hello-bike Back-to-many bike share based within an urban business district using geofencing via an app N

7 Dockless (E-)-Bike Share on Private Land (Dockless/Private)

Donkey-Bike B21 e-bike share outside AMS city centre via an app N

Urbee Back-to-one e-bike share across AMS based at places of business via an app

8 P2P Bike Rental Platform (P2P)

BimBim-Bikes

Rent many kinds of privately-maintained and –owned bikes, using a single platform across many countries. N

Spinlister Rent many kinds of privately-maintained and –owned bikes, using a single platform across many countries.

9 Bike Leasing on Private Land (Leasing)

Swapfiets A ‘Netflix model’ for cycling: maintenance and replacement of one lease-bike for a fixed monthly fee. Y

Student-bike Free cycling-as-a-service in exchange for exposure. N

OV-Fiets Public Transport Concession Holders

Dock-Based Bikeshare, on Public Land

P2P Bike Hire Dockless Bikeshare, on PublicLand

Dockless Bikeshare with Geofencing

Bike Leasing Dockless (e-)Bikeshare, on Private Land

Dock-Based e-Bikeshare, on Public Land

Cykl, Hopperpoint, Haagsche Stadsfiets, Utrecht Science Park Campusbike, Uwdeelfiets

14500

340 75 80 24 180 50 5 24 8 501000

150

20003000

250 450 300 15 2991000

17400

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

OV-Fiets

Keobike

Nextbike D

ordrecht

Nextbike M

aastricht

Cykl

Haagsche Stadsfiets

Hopperpoint

USP Cam

pusbike

Uw

deelfiets

E-Bike To Go

Gobike

Flickbike

Mobike

Obike Am

sterdam

Obike Rotterdam

Hellobike

DonkeyBike

Urbee

BimBim

Bikes

Spinlister

Studentbike

Swapfiets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Flee

t Size

, at l

aunc

h or

last

repo

rted

in p

ress

Firms, grouped by Business Model Type

Fleet Sizes by Business Model Type

Starting Fleet Sizes of Cycling-as-a-Service Providers in the Netherlands2003-2017

• Colours represent cities

• Each block represents 30 bicycles

Primary and Secondary Codes relating to Cycling-as-a-Service –351 Dutch-language online and print popular and specialist press articles, 1994-2017

Dutchness and Otherness popular abroadforeign money or originchaos in chinese cities

vandalism - vigilantismcity cycling culturesnederland (deel)fietsland

perception of bikeshare as city pride or branding or placemaking

low-quality foreign bikes

Scale sudden landing from abroadFleet

dumpingrapid growth of fleet

technical problems only scale will tell

Legitimacy Through Users bikeshare for whom? justified if used by locals stigma for bikeshare users tourism is the real problem

No Owner No Caretaker city mess, chaos, lack of dignity no owner no caretaker

Legitimacy entrepreneur response to complaints

controversy overblown narrative work by entrepreneurs doomsaying

User Perspective public reaction user perspective made explicit

Sharing Economy bikeshare ideology data miningamsterdam as sharing capital

sharing economy is different not true sharing/parasitic platforms

Pressure on Space public space is scarceplacemakingdockless challengesorphan bikes

geofencing as solutionjustified if in own parkingreal space wasters are carsdock-based as solution

justified by fall in parking demand/bike numberspublic space monetised,

congestion, land use, growthbike parking under pressureComm. bikeshare not cause of parking pressure

Entrepreneurs’ Perspective

public-entrepreneur relations self-regulation by bikeshare providers

entrepreneur-gemeente relations business models and users

Governance justification for amsterdam bancooperationoutside expertsban in amsterdam

gemeente rotterdamgemeente amsterdamGemeente den haagregulatory vacuum

governancespokespersonsprospective governance innovations

lack of vision from governmentother citiespolicy directions

Niche- Regime Relations dockless as plusbikeshare as solution without problemas car replacementov-fiets as incumbent

future of bikeshareas replacement for private bicyclesas last mile solutionas intermodalbikeshare benefits

public transport replacement/complementinteroperability essentialexperimental approach and maturity

as complement to public transportas future of cyclingbikeshare privileged over private bikescompetition concerns

What forms does Cycling-as-a-Service take in the urban Netherlands, what business models do these services embed, and what is its potential to drive a mobility transition?

Definition:- Provision of temporary access to a bicycle for personal use, often in a way that incentivises changes in travel behavior

Business Models:Considerable variety, dominated by an incumbent and two new clusters:

- very small-scale providers with a social component, - and large-scale providers generating controversy and arousing protest and bikelash

Public-Private RelationshipsTension as regulatory vacuum gains in urgencyRisk aversion of gemeentes: small is permitted, big is made to take on major risk for limited reward

Role 1: BMs as part of the socio-technical regime

Impact: BM serves as barrier to transitions; existing BMs reinforce and stabilise current regime

Role 2: BMs as intermediates between the technological niche and the socio-technical regime

Impact: BM is driver of transitions; existing or novel BMs facilitate stabilisation of new technology and breakthrough to regime level

Role 3: BMs as non-technological niche innovation

Impact: BM is driver of societal transitions; novel BMs build up significant part of a regime without relying on technological innovation.

Business Models' roles in and impacts on societal transitions adapted from Bidmon & Knab, 2018

Business Models' roles in and impacts on societal transitions adapted from Bidmon & Knab, 2018

Technology choice and design

Fit Stretch

Business Model(as Value Proposition)

Fit Selective Substitution

e.g.: OV-Fiets

Leapfrog design for substitution

e.g. Public Dockless bikeshareStretch Market differentiation

e.g.: Swapfiets

Exploration of a new regime

e.g.: Blockchain Bikeshare

Business Models' roles in and impacts on societal transitions adapted from Bidmon & Knab, 2018

Technology choice and design

Fit & Conform Stretch & Transform

Business Model(as Value Proposition)

Fit & Conform Group A: Selective Substitutione.g.: OV-Fiets (1), RTP (2), Public/Dock (3), Dock/Private/Ebike (4)

Group B: Leapfrog design for substitutione.g. Dockless/Private (7), P2P (8)

Stretch & Transform Group C: Market differentiatione.g.: Leasing (9)

Group D: Exploration of a new regimee.g.: Public/Dockless (5)

Works Cited

Abernathy, W., Clark, K., 1993. Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res. Policy 22, 102.Alpkokin, P., 2012. Historical and critical review of spatial and transport planning in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 29, 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.007Bidmon, C.M., Knab, S.F., 2018. The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New linkages between business model and transition research. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.198Bolton, R., Hannon, M., 2016. Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Res. Policy 45, 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.003Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007Cohen, B., Kietzmann, J., 2014. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 27, 279–296.Frenken, K., van Waes, A., Smink, M., van Est, R., 2017. Eerlijk delen: Waarborgen van publieke belangen in de deeleconomie en de kluseconomie. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag.Geels, F.W., 2012. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021Kuipers, G., 2013. The rise and decline of national habitus: Dutch cycling culture and the shaping of national similarity. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 16, 17–35.Lan, J., Ma, Y., Zhu, D., Mangalagiu, D., Thornton, T., 2017. Enabling Value Co-Creation in the Sharing Economy: The Case of Mobike. Sustainability 9, 1504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091504Muñoz, P., Cohen, B., 2017. Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035Osterwalder, A., 2004. The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach (PhD). University of Lausanne, Lausanne.Parkhurst, G., Kemp, R., Dijk, M., Sherwin, H., 2012. Intermodal Personal Mobility: A Niche Caught Between Two Regimes, in: Automobility in Transition?, Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transition. Routledge, New York, pp. 308–334.Ploeger, J., Oldenziel, R., in press. The Dutch Public Transit-Bike (OV-fiets): Between Anarchistic Provo and Corporate Bike-Sharing, 1965-present.Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business models for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29, 264–289.Spinney, J., Lin, W.-I., 2018. Are you being shared? Mobility, data and social relations in Shanghai’s Public Bike Sharing 2.0 sector. Appl. Mobilities 3, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2018.1437656van Goeverden, C.D., Godefrooij, T., 2010. Ontwikkeling van het fietsbeleid en-gebruik in Nederland, in: Bijdrage Aan Het 37ste Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk. Roermond.van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J.P.J., Raven, R., 2018. Business model innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application to bike sharing. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.223van Zessen, P.C., 2017. De deelfiets in Nederland: Over de potentie van de deelfiets in Nederland en de ruimtelijke effecten van de deelfiets in de stad (HBO). Hogeschool Utrecht, Utrecht.Wainstein, M.E., Bumpus, A.G., 2016. Business models as drivers of the low carbon power system transition: a multi-level perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.095Wells, P., 2013. Sustainable business models and the automotive industry: A commentary. IIMB Manag. Rev. 25, 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2013.07.001

Hartelijk bedanktThank you

Project Partners

BJM Petzer, MSc.

T: @brettpetzerW: brettpetzer.comE: B.J.M.Petzer@tue.nl