Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Transport
2.2. Smart Mobility
3. Research Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Innovator’s Current Perspective on the Transport System and Its Problems
4.2. Entrepreneurs’ Envisioning of the Future of the Transport System
4.3. The Venture—Is It Smart and Sustainable?
5. Discussion
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Study’s Questionnaire
- ❍
- My/Our venture is totally ‘smart’ (1)
- ❍
- My/Our venture is totally sustainable (2)
- ❍
- My/Our venture is both ‘smart’ and sustainable (3)
- ❍
- My/Our venture is more ‘smart’ than sustainable (4)
- ❍
- My/Our venture is more sustainable than ‘smart’ (5)
- ❍
- My/Our venture is neither sustainable nor ‘smart’ (6)
1 (1) | 2 (2) | 3 (3) | 4 (4) | 5 (5) | |
Private mobility will be a service, not based on private ownership (1) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Private mobility will be fully autonomous (2) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Private mobility will be connected to others and objects (v2v, v2x) (3) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Public transport will be fully autonomous (4) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Public mobility will be connected to others and objects (v2v, v2x) (5) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
The private car will no longer be the most popular form of travel (6) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Future demand for transport (in total) will decline in comparison to today (7) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Freight transportation will increase dramatically—mainly maritime and aviation (8) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Congestion problem will decrease dramatically and even solved (9) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Large portions of road infrastructure inside cities will be removed and changed in favor of open space and alternative modes of travel (10) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Walk and cycle Inside cities will increase dramatically (11) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Crude oil dependency in the transport sector will reduced dramatically (12) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
1 (1) | 2 (2) | 3 (3) | 4 (4) | 5 (5) | |
Private mobility will be a service, not based on private ownership (1) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Private mobility will be fully autonomous (2) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Private mobility will be connected to others and objects (v2v, v2x) (3) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Public transport will be fully autonomous (4) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Public mobility will be connected to others and objects (v2v, v2x) (5) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
The private car will no longer be the most popular form of travel (6) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Future demand for transport (in total) will decline in comparison to today (7) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Freight transportation will increase dramatically—mainly maritime and aviation (8) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Congestion problem will decrease dramatically and even solved (9) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Large portions of road infrastructure inside cities will be removed and changed in favor of open space and alternative modes of travel (10) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Walk and cycle Inside cities will increase dramatically (11) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Crude oil dependency in the transport sector will reduced dramatically (12) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
- ❍
- Owner (1)
- ❍
- Member (2)
1 (1) | 2 (2) | 3 (3) | 4 (4) | 5 (5) | |
Public:Private (1) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Passengers:Freights (2) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ |
Land (1) | Martime (2) | Aviation (3) | |
Main Platforms (1) | ❑ | ❑ | ❑ |
Vehicle (1) | Infrastructure (2) | Energy-Propulsion (3) | Services-Data-Apps (4) | Other (5) | |
Segments (1) | ❑ | ❑ | ❑ | ❑ | ❑ |
- ❍
- Initial idea (1)
- ❍
- Prove of Concept/Prototype (2)
- ❍
- Product development/R&D (3)
- ❍
- Initial testing (Alpha-Beta)/MVP (4)
- ❍
- Scale-up/Growth (5)
- ❍
- Pre seed (1)
- ❍
- Seed capital/FFF/Angels/Equity (2)
- ❍
- Early stage (3)
- ❍
- Later stage (4)
- ❍
- IPO/SPO (5)
References
- Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, E.; Lauwers, D. Smart mobility: Opportunity or threat to innovate places and cities. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regional Development in the Information Society, Ghent, Belgium, 5–7 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Banister, D.; Givoni, M.; Macmillen, J.; Schwanen, T. Thinking change and changing thinking. In Towards Low Carbon Mobility; Givoni, M., Banister, D., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 267–284. [Google Scholar]
- Daly, H.E. Elements of Environmental Macro Economic. In Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability; Costanza, R., Ed.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 32–46. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, R.K. Sustainability principels and practice. In Sustainability, Critical Concepts in the Social Science; Redclift, M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, J.M. Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Int. Soc. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Kates, R.; Parris, T.; Leiserowitz, A.H. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and practice. Environment 2005, 47, 8–21. [Google Scholar]
- Schiller, P.L.; Bruun, E.C.; Kenworthy, J.R. An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning and Implementation; Wahnschafft, R., Ed.; Earthscan: Oxon, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Givoni, M.; Banister, D. Mobility transport and carbon. In Towards Low Carbon Mobility; Givoni, M., Banister, D., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Black, W.R. Sustainable Transport Definitions and Responses, In Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process; National Academics Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 35–43. Available online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/conf/CP37.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2017).
- Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Towards Sustainable Transportation: The Vancouver Conference; Conference Highlights and Overview of Issues; OECD: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Sheller, M.; Urry, J. The new mobilities paradigm. Environ. Plan. A 2006, 38, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beyazit, E. Mobility Cultures. In Towards Low Carbon Mobility; Givoni, M., Banister, D., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- EU. Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. 2014. Available online: http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2017).
- WBCSD. Sustainable Mobility Project 2.0. Methodology and Indicator Calculation Method for Sustainable Urban Mobility. 2nd Edition. 2015. Available online: http://wbcsdpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SMP2.0_Sustainable-Mobility-Indicators_2ndEdition.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2017).
- Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attard, M.; Shiftan, Y. Sustainable Urban Transport—An Introduction. In Sustainable Urban Transport; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2015; Volume 7, pp. xv–xxvi. [Google Scholar]
- Banister, D.; Cornet, Y.; Givoni, M.; Lyons, G. From minimum to reasonable Travel Time. Presented at the 14th World Conference on Transport Research, Shanghai, China, 10–15 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Keblowski, W.; Bassens, D.; Criekingen, M.V. The Differential Performativity of Academic Knowledges in Urban Transport and Mobility Policy and Practice: A View from Brussels. Cosmopolis 2014. Available online: http://www.cosmopolis.be/sites/cosmopolis.be/files/Cosmopolis%20working%20paper.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2017).
- Banister, D. Cities, mobility and climate change. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1538–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Givoni, M. Alternative pathways to low carbon mobility. In Towards Low Carbon Mobility; Givoni, M., Banister, D., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 209–230. [Google Scholar]
- Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benevolo, C.; Dameri, P.D.; D’Auria, B. Smart Mobility in Smart City. Action Taxonomy, ICT Intensity and Public Benefits. In Empowering Organizations; Torre, T., Braccini, A.M., Spinelli, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization 11; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Caprotti, F.; Cowley, R. The UK Smart Cities Survey. In Smart Cities UK; The King’s: London, UK, 2016; Available online: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Kings-College-London-UK-Smart-Cities-Survey-2016.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2017).
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: A study in science, technology and society. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 29, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramers, A.; Hojer, M.; Lovehagen, N.; Wangel, J. Smart sustainable cities-exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 56, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? City 2008, 12, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanter, R.M.; Litow, S.S.; School, H.B. Informed and Interconnected: A Manifesto for Smarter Cities; Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper; No. 09-141; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Pierce, P.; Ricciardi, F.; Zardini, A. Smart Cities as Organizational Fields: A Framework for Mapping Sustainability-Enabling Configurations. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangiaracina, R.; Perego, A.; Salvadori, G.; Tumino, A. A comprehensive view of intelligent transport systems for urban smart mobility. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2012, 20, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, G.; Jain, J.; Mitchell, V.; May, A. The emergent role of user innovation in reshaping traveler information services. In Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 268–285. [Google Scholar]
- Agha, M.A.K. A Stakeholder Based Assessment of Developing Country Challenges and Solutions in Smart Mobility within the Smart City Framework: A Case of Lahore; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2016; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Agha_Khan/publication/301650423_A_Stakeholder_Based_A ssessment_of_Developing_Country_Challenges_and_Solutions_in_Smart_Mobility_within_the_S mart_City_Framework_A_Case_of_Lahore/links/571fd3db08aead26e71b7496.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2017).
- Jittrapirom, P.; Caiati, V.; Feneri, A.M.; Ebrahimi, S.; Alonso, G.M.; Narayan, J. Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Plan. 2017, 2, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiscock, R.; Macintyre, S.; Kearns, A.; Ellaway, A. Means of transport and ontological security: Do cars provide psycho-social benefits to their users? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2002, 7, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Gifford, R.; Vlek, C. Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality? Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grush, B.; Niles, J.; Baum, E. Ontario Must Prepare for Vehicle Automation Automated Vehicles Can Influence Urban Form, Congestion and Infrastructure Delivery; RCCAO: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016; Available online: http://rccao.com/research/files/RCCAO_Vehicle-Automation_OCT2016_WEB.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2017).
- Lyons, G. Getting smart about urban mobility—Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prime Minister’s Office. Israel Cabinet Approves National NIS 250 Million Plan to Advance Smart Transportation, Retrived. 2017. Available online: http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokeTransportation220117.aspx (accessed on 6 August 2017).
Cases | Frequency | |
---|---|---|
Respondent type | ||
Venture’s member | 78 | 68% |
Venture’s owner | 36 | 32% |
n = 114 | 100% | |
Financing development phase | ||
Pre-seed | 12 | 1% |
Seed | -- | 0% |
Capital/FFF/Angels/Equity | 23 | 2% |
Early stage | 27 | 24% |
Later stage | 35 | 31% |
IPO/SPO | 17 | 15% |
n = 114 | 100% | |
Product development phase | ||
Prove of Concept/Prototype | 20 | 18% |
Product development/R & D | 26 | 23% |
Initial testing (Alpha-Beta)/MVP | 14 | 12% |
Scale-up/Growth | 53 | 47% |
n = 113 | 100% | |
Targeted form of transport | ||
Land | 98 | 84% |
Maritime | 1 | 1% |
Aviation | 3 | 2% |
Land-maritime | 5 | 4% |
Land-aviation | 2 | 2% |
Land-maritime-aviation | 8 | 7% |
n = 117 | 100% | |
Targeted smart mobility market | ||
Vehicle | 41 | 35% |
Services-data-apps | 19 | 16% |
Infrastructure | 10 | 9% |
Other | 9 | 8% |
Vehicle-services-data-apps | 9 | 8% |
Energy-propulsion | 7 | 6% |
Other combinations * (12) | 22 | 18% |
* For example Infrastructure-Vehicle-Energy | n = 117 | 100% |
Transport market orientation | ||
Only public | 45 | 38% |
More public | 12 | 10% |
Both | 32 | 27% |
More private | 2 | 2% |
Only private | 26 | 22% |
n = 117 | 100% | |
Freight vs. Passenger orientation (of the product) | ||
Only Passengers | 66 | 56% |
More for Passengers | 16 | 14% |
Both | 28 | 24% |
Only Freights | 7 | 6% |
n = 117 | 100% |
Ranking | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|
N/A | 30 | 37 | 47 | 114 |
Environmental impact | 24 | 16 | 9 | 49 |
Congestion (time, cost) | 16 | 13 | 8 | 37 |
Inefficiency (fuel, energy, vehicle) | 18 | 9 | 4 | 31 |
Bad service public transport | 4 | 14 | 8 | 26 |
Bureaucracy | 2 | 5 | 11 | 18 |
High cost of transport | 4 | 5 | 8 | 17 |
Safety | 4 | 2 | 9 | 15 |
Automobile dominance | 8 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
Lack of infrastructure | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
Uncertain future | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
Lack of intermodality | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
Not smart | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Insufficient parking | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Human factor/behavior | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Level of motorization | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Not sustainable | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
No sharing of resources | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Scenario | Desirable | Probable | Gap |
---|---|---|---|
Public mobility will be fully autonomous | 3.89 | 3.66 | −0.23 |
Crude oil dependency in the transport sector will be reduced dramatically | 3.79 | 3.31 | −0.48 |
Public mobility will be connected to others * and objects (v2v, v2I) | 3.78 | 3.84 | 0.06 |
Walk and cycle inside cities will increase dramatically | 3.74 | 3.44 | −0.3 |
Private mobility will be connected to others * and objects (v2v, v2I) | 3.71 | 3.78 | 0.07 |
The private car will no longer be the most popular form of travel | 3.68 | 3.11 | −0.57 |
Congestion problem will decrease dramatically and even solved | 3.62 | 2.85 | −0.77 |
Large portions of road infrastructure inside cities will be removed and changed in favor of open spaces and alternative modes of travel | 3.62 | 3.08 | −0.54 |
Private mobility will be fully autonomous | 3.50 | 3.34 | −0.16 |
Private mobility will be a service, not based on private ownership | 3.49 | 3.47 | −0.02 |
Freight transportation will increase dramatically—mainly maritime and aviation | 3.05 | 3.31 | 0.26 |
Future demand for transport (in total) will decline in comparison to today | 2.69 | 2.24 | −0.45 |
Phrases | Total Relative Frequency |
---|---|
My/Our venture is totally ‘smart’ | 15% |
My/Our venture is totally sustainable | 2% |
My/Our venture is both ‘smart’ and sustainable | 66% |
My/Our venture is more ‘smart’ than sustainable | 9% |
My/Our venture is neither sustainable nor ‘smart’ | 3% |
My/Our venture is more sustainable than ‘smart’ | 5% |
100% (N = 117) |
Phrases * | What Makes Your Company “Smart” (Q5) | What Makes Your Company “Sustainable” (Q6) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tech. | Venture-Oriented | Null | Economic | Environment | Social | Null | Tech.-Innovation | |
‘smart’ | 71% | 24% | 5% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 59% | 35% |
sustainable | 0 | 50% | 50% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
smart’ and sustainable | 63% | 32% | 5% | 3% | 32% | 4% | 8% | 54% |
more ‘smart’ then sustainable | 73% | 27% | 0 | 0 | 27% | 0 | 9% | 64% |
neither sustainable nor ‘smart’ | 33% | 0 | 67% | 0 | 33% | 0 | 67% | 0 |
more sustainable than ‘smart’ | 86% | 14% | 0 | 14% | 14% | 14% | 14% | 43% |
Total | 64% | 28% | 8% | 3% | 26% | 3% | 18% | 49% |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Noy, K.; Givoni, M. Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2018, 10, 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020422
Noy K, Givoni M. Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs. Sustainability. 2018; 10(2):422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020422
Chicago/Turabian StyleNoy, Kfir, and Moshe Givoni. 2018. "Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs" Sustainability 10, no. 2: 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020422
APA StyleNoy, K., & Givoni, M. (2018). Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs. Sustainability, 10(2), 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020422