Advertisement

Governing Mobility-as-a-Service: Insights from Sweden and Finland

  • Göran SmithEmail author
  • Steven Sarasini
  • I. C. MariAnne Karlsson
  • Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren
  • Jana Sochor
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

Based on a review of recent developments in Sweden and Finland, this chapter analyzes the roles of public organizations in the governance of a transition to Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). In particular, we draw on insights from transition frameworks to explore what these two pioneering cases can teach us about how the public sector can both enable the development of MaaS and steer the development trajectory toward diffusion of MaaS offerings that contribute to transport policy goals. We propose three main points. Firstly, public sector organizations at national, regional, and local levels have key roles to play in potential transitions to MaaS, regardless of their intended operative roles in the emerging MaaS ecosystem. Secondly, a central task for public sector organizations is to align operational and tactical MaaS governance activities with both an overarching MaaS strategy and with other relevant strategies, such as transport infrastructures investments, programs for economic and industrial growth, city plans, and parking norms. Thirdly, new models and tools for public–private collaboration are needed in order to effectively govern the development and diffusion of sustainable MaaS.

Keywords

Mobility-as-a-Service Transport policy Public governance Sustainable transitions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter is a product of a research project entitled Institutional Frameworks for Integrated Mobility Services in Future Cities (IRIMS). The authors would like to express gratitude toward Vinnova, which funded the project, and toward our research colleagues who contributed to the analysis, mainly Till Koglin, Annika Kronsell, Adam Laurell, and Emma Lund. Moreover, we are thankful to all the interviewees who devoted their valuable time.

References

  1. Aapaoja A, Eckhardt J, Nykänen L, Sochor J (2017) MaaS service combinations for different geographical areas. Presented at the 24th world congress on intelligent transportation systems, 29 Oct–2 Nov, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  2. Bommert B (2010) Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Int Public Manag Rev 11(1):15–33Google Scholar
  3. Coenen L, Benneworth PS, Truffer B (2012) Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res Policy 41(6):968–979.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donmoyer R (1990) Generalizability and the single-case study. In: Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 175–200Google Scholar
  5. Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, Laerhoven F, Runhaar HAC, Vermeulen WJV (2012) Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance—experiences from the Netherlands. Environ Policy Gov 22(3):143–160.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8):1257–1274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33(6–7):897–920.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glasbergen P (1998) Co-operative environmental governance: public-private agreements as a policy strategy, vol 12. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5143-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen T, Coenen L (2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ Innov Soc Transit 17:92–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001
  11. Heikkilä S (2014) Mobility as a Service—A proposal for action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki (Master’s thesis). Aalto University, AaltoGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodson M, Marvin S (2010) Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Res Policy 39(4):477–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmberg P-E, Collado M, Sarasini S, Williander M (2016) Mobility as a Service (MaaS): describing the framework. RISE Viktoria, Göteborg. https://www.viktoria.se/projects/maas-framework#publications. Accessed 4 Feb 2017
  14. Hysing E (2009) From government to governance? A comparison of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport. Governance 22(4):647–672.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01457.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karlsson ICM, Mukhtar-Landgren D, Lund E, Sarasini S, Smith G, Sochor J, Wendle B (2017a) Mobility-as-a-Service: a tentative framework for analysing institutional conditions. Presented at the 45th European transport conference, Barcelona, 4–6 OctGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlsson ICM, Sochor J, Aapaoja A, Eckhardt J, König D (2017b) Deliverable Nr 4—impact assessment. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/248829. Accessed 14 June 2017
  17. Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 14(1):78–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kickert WJ, Klijn E-H, Koppenjan JF (1997) Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Li Y, Voege T (2017) Mobility as a Service (MaaS): challenges of implementation and policy required. J Transp Technol 7(2):e95–e95.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2017.72007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23(1):161–183.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markard J, Raven RR, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41(6):955–967.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melis A, Mirri S, Prandi C, Prandini M, Salomoni P, Callegati F (2017) Integrating personalized and accessible itineraries in MaaS ecosystems through microservices. Mob Netw Appl, 1–10Google Scholar
  23. Miles MB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Adm Sci Q 24(4):590–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mukhtar-Landgren D, Koglin T, Kronsell A, Lund E, Sarasini S, Smith G, Sochor J (2016) Institutional conditions for integrated mobility services (IMS): towards a framework for analysis. http://www.k2centrum.se/fou-områden/integrerade-mobilitetstjänster. Accessed 4 Sept 2017
  25. Mukhtar-Landgren D, Smith G (2018) Perceived action spaces of public actors in the development of Mobility as a Service. Presented at the 7th transport research arena TRA 2018, Vienna, 16–19 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  26. Myers M (2000) Qualitative research and the generalizability question: standing firm with Proteus. Qual Rep 4(3):9Google Scholar
  27. Nevens F, Frantzeskaki N, Gorissen L, Loorbach D (2013) Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Clean Product 50:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001
  28. Parkhurst G, Kemp R, Dijk M, Sherwin H (2012) Intermodal personal mobility: a niche caught between two regimes. In: Kemp R, Geels FW, Dudley G (eds) Automobility in transition? A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Raven RR, Schot JJ, Berkhout F (2012) Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environ Innov Soc Transit 4:63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.08.001
  30. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. Battelle Press, Columbus.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02887432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rycroft R, Kash D (2002) Path dependence in the innovation of complex technologies. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 14(1):21–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095373202201125865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarasini S, Linder M (2017) Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: the example of new mobility services. Environ Innov Soc Transit.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarasini S, Sochor J, Arby H (2017) What characterises a sustainable MaaS business model? Presented at the 1st international conference on Mobility as a Service (ICOMaaS), Tampere, 28–29 NovGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson ICM (2017a) Mobility as a Service: implications for future mainstream public transport. Presented at the international conference series on competition and ownership in land passenger transport (Thredbo15), Stockholm, 13–17 AugGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson ICM (2017b) Procuring Mobility as a Service: exploring dialogues with potential bidders in West Sweden. Presented at the 24th world congress on intelligent transportation systems, Montreal, 29 Oct–2 NovGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith G, Sochor J, Sarasini S (2017c) Mobility as a Service: comparing developments in Sweden and Finland. Presented at the 1st international conference on Mobility as a Service (ICoMaaS 2017 Proceedings, pp. 223–239), Tampere, 28–29 NovGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson ICM (2018) Public–private innovation: barriers in the case of Mobility as a Service in West Sweden. Public Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1462399
  39. Sochor J, Karlsson ICM, Strömberg H (2016) Trying out Mobility as a Service: experiences from a field trial and implications for understanding demand. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2542:57–64.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2542-07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson ICM (2014) The added value of a new, innovative travel service: insights from the UbiGo field operational test in Gothenburg, Sweden. In: Giaffreda R, Cagáňová D, Li Y, Riggio R, Voisard A (ed) International internet of things summit. Springer, New York, pp 169–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19743-2
  41. Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson ICM (2015) Implementing mobility as a service: challenges in integrating user, commercial, and societal perspectives. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2536:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2536-01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soskice DW, Hall PA (2001) Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Tinnilä MT (2016) Towards servitization of mobility—Mobility as a Service. Int J Res Bus Technol 8(2):958–963.  https://doi.org/10.17722/ijrbt.v8i2.444
  44. Urry J (2004) The ‘System’ of automobility. Theory Cult Soc 21(4–5):25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Voß J-P, Smith A, Grin J (2009) Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy Sci 42(4):275–302.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9103-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Göran Smith
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Steven Sarasini
    • 4
  • I. C. MariAnne Karlsson
    • 1
  • Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren
    • 2
    • 5
  • Jana Sochor
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.K2—The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public TransportLundSweden
  3. 3.Västra GötalandsregionenGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.RISE ViktoriaGothenburgSweden
  5. 5.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations