Advertisement

Sustainability Impacts of Mobility as a Service: A Scoping Study for Technology Assessment

  • Rikka WittstockEmail author
  • Frank Teuteberg
Chapter
Part of the Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management book series (SPLCEM)

Abstract

The potential for positive sustainability impacts of Mobility as a Service schemes is frequently mentioned in both scientific literature and public media, although a systematic evaluation of potential impacts is lacking thus far. In preparation of an in-depth technology assessment, we conduct a scoping study aimed at achieving a better conceptualization of what core elements constitute Mobility as a Service, what risks and opportunities are associated with this concept and how these may be further analyzed as part of a technology assessment project. Reviewing a total of 95 sources from academic literature as well as grey literature and media reports, we provide a synthesis of the core elements of Mobility as a Service schemes, develop hypotheses on the risks and opportunities involved and propose a framework for further assessment of the associated sustainability impacts.

Keywords

Technology assessment Mobility as a service Literature review Scoping study Sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the project “Sustainable Consumption of Information and Communication Technology in the Digital Society—Dialogue and Transformation through Open Innovation”. The project is funded by the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony and the Volkswagen Foundation (Volkswagen Stiftung) through the “Niedersächsisches Vorab” grant programme (grant number VWZN3037).

References

  1. 1.
    Zweck A (2013) Technikbewertung auf Basis der VDI Richtlinie 3780. In: Simonis G (ed) Konzepte und Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tran TA, Daim T (2008) A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 75:1396–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Decker M, Schippl J (2015) Technikfolgenabschätzung. In: Kaltschmitt M, Schebeck L (eds) Umweltbewertung für Ingenieure. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 403–437Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leible L (1994) Technikfolgenabschätzung oder Ökobilanz? Beispiel Rapsöl. Fat Sci Technol 96(5):161–168Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rantasila K (2015) The impact of mobility as a service concept to land use in finnish context. In: 2015 international conference on sustainable mobility applications, renewables and technology (SMART 2015). IEEE Press, New York, pp 140–146Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karlsson MA, Sochor J, Aapaoja A, Eckhardt J, König D (2017) Deliverable 4: impact Assessment MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR. VTT Technical Research Center, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnold A, Schippl J, Wassermann S (2018) Von der Nische in den Mainstream? Über Akteure, Angebote und das Diffusionspotential von mobility as a service. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung 37:1–69Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niggebrugge T, Vos S, Lago P (2018) The sustainability of mobility as a service solutions evaluated through the software sustainability assessment method. VU Technical Report, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiiiGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuckartz U (2012) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim-BaselGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jittrapirom P, Caiati V, Feneri AM, Ebrahimigharehbaghi S, Alonso-González MJ, Narayan J (2017) Mobility as a service: a critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Planning 2(2):13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamargianni M, Matyas M (2017) The Business ecosystem of mobility as a service. In: 96th Transportation research board (TRB) annual meeting. Washington DC, 8–12 January 2017Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson ICMA (2018) Mobility as a service: development scenarios and implications for public transport. Res Trans Econ (in press)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson ICMA (2018) Public–private innovation: barriers in the case of mobility as a service in West Sweden. Public Management Review, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hensher DA (2017) Future bus transport contracts under a mobility as a service (MaaS) regime in the digital age: are they likely to change? Transp Res Part A 98:86–96Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarasini S, Sochor J, Arby H (2017) What characterises a sustainable MaaS business model? In: 1st International conference on mobility as a service (ICOMaaS). Tampere, Finland, November 28–29Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ho C, Hensher DA, Mulley C, Wong (2017) Prospects for switching out of conventional transport services to mobility as a service subscription plans: a stated choice study. In: Thredbo15-international conference series on competition and ownership in land passenger transport. Stockholm, 14–18 AugustGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson ICM (2014) Travelers’ motives for adopting a new, innovative travel service: insights from the UBIGO field operational test in Gothenburg, Sweden. In: 21st World congress on intelligent transport systems. Detroit, 7–11 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson ICM (2015) An innovative mobility service to facilitate changes in travel behavior and mode choice. World congress on intelligent transportation systems. Bordeaux, 5–9 October, 2015Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sochor J, Karlsson IM, Strömberg H (2016) Trying out mobility as a service: experiences from a field trial and implications for understanding demand. J Trans Res Board pp 57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    König D, Sochor J, Eckhardt J (2016) State-of-the-art survey on stakeholders’ expectations for Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): highlights from Europe. In: 11th European congress on intelligent transportation systems. Glasgow, 6–9 JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li Y, Voege T (2017) Mobility as a service (MaaS) challenges of implementation and policy required. J Trans Technologies 7(2):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner M, Budgen D, Brereton P (2003) Turning software into a service. Computer 36:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsai WT, Bai XY, Huang Y (2014) Software-as-a-service (SaaS): perspectives and challenges. Sci China Info Sci 57:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hietanen S (2014) ‘Mobility as a Service’—the new transport model? ITS & Transport Management Supplement. Eurotransport 12(2):2–4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holmberg PE, Collado M, Sarasini S, Williander M (2016) Mobility as a service- MaaS. Describing the framework (Final report MaaS framework). Viktoria Swedish ICT, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Belletti F, Bayen AM (2017) Privacy-preserving MaaS fleet management. In: 22nd international symposium on traffic and transportation theory. Transp Res procedia 23:1000–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Callegati F, Giallorenzo S, Melis A, Prandini M (2016) insider threats in emerging mobility-as-a-service scenarios. Cornell University, https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06447
  29. 29.
    Kriukelyte E (2017) New challenges for transport planning—the institutionalization of mobility as a service in the Stockholm region. Degree Project. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yadav P, Hasan S, Ojo A, Curry E (2017) The role of open data in driving sustainable mobility in nine smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 25th European conference on information systems (ECIS). Guimarães, Portugal, June 5–10, pp 1248–1263Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matyas M, Kamargianni M (2018) The potential of mobility as a service bundles as a mobility management tool. In: Transportation research board 97th annual meeting. Washington D.C., January 7–11Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mulley C (2017) Mobility as a services (MaaS)—does it have critical mass? Transp Rev 37:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gould E, Wehrmeyer W, Leach M (2015) Transition pathways of e-mobility services. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 194:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sochor J, Arby H, Karlsson ICMA, Sarasini S (2017) A topological approach to Mobility as a Service: a proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals. In: 1st international conference on mobility as a service (ICOMaaS). Tampere, Finland, November 28–29Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson MA (2017) Procuring Mobility as a Service: Exploring dialogues with potential bidders in West Sweden. ITS World Congress Montreal, October 29–November 2Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kosow H, Gaßner R (2007) Methods of future and scenario analysis. Overview, assessment and selection criteria. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, BonnGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bala BK, Arshad FM, Noh KM (2017) System dynamics—modeling and simulation. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hausschild M, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen S (2018) Life cycle assessment theory and practice. Springer International Publishing, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    European Environment Agency (1998) Life cycle assessment (LCA)—a guide to approaches, experiences and information sources. Publication Office of the European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hinz T, Auspurg K, Liebig S (2009) Komplexität von Vignetten, Lerneffekte und Plausibilität im Faktoriellen Survey. MDA—Methoden Daten Analysen 3:59–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Information SystemsUniversity of OsnabrueckOsnabrueckGermany

Personalised recommendations