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

BJM Petzer, MSc.

Tw: @brettpetzer W: brettpetzer.com E: [email protected]

Project Partners Amsterdam (source: Kirsten Walsh) Preoccupations of my PhD trajectory Overall Research Questions

What roles What forms does Cycling-as-a-Service take in the urban , what does cycling- business models do these services Cycling as-a-service embed, and what is its potential to drive Regime currently a mobility transition? play in the What are the transition pathways for the Cycling as - Connecting -as Dutch urban development of modal integration Mode between cycling-as-a-service and the CyclingService mobility a- Dutch urban mobility system? Research system, what Area roles could it What organisational, policy and Intermodal Integration & Sharing play in the governance conditions are likely to Urban Governance Economy contribute to a successful urban mobility Dutch urban transition? Mobility of MaaS mobility transition, What would be required from a transition and how strategy that fully realizes the potential of The Netherlands could these cycling-as-a-service within the future be realised? Dutch urban mobility system? Rest of the World Evolution of bike fleet size and number of firms in the CaaS market of the Netherlands, 2004-2017 35000 Total Bikeshare Fleet

30000 Size and Firm Tally,

25000 The Netherlands,

20000 2004-2017 Source: Various Press Reports 15000

10000

5000

Sum of Other Bicycles 0 Total Firm Tally → 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 22 8 13 Sum of OV-Fiets Total 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1000

800

600

400 World Growth in Bike

200 Share – No. of Cities (1998-2015) Source: BikeSharingMap.com

1998 1998 2015 PARKING ON PUBLIC BUSINESS MODEL TYPE & CAAS VALUE PROPOSITION OF FIRM LAND WITHOUT FORMAL NUMBER PROVIDERS PERMISSION

1 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 N (OV-Fiets) with common smartcard

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

3 Dock-Based Bikeshare USP B2M dock-based bike share (also allowing dockless locking) within a business park via app N on Public Land Campus-bike (Public/Dock) Uwdeelfiets B2M dock-based bike share within a city via app N Haagsche Back-to-many bike share based at manned rental points via internet, phone or Whatsapp N Stadsfiets Hopper-point B2M GPS-equipped bikeshare within Brabant city centres, via app. N Business Model Cykl Back-to-many bike share within a campus via app run on a modified open-source platform. N Typologies of 4 Dock-Based E-bike E-Bike To Go B21 e-bike share across the Randstad offering higher-speed bike rides with geofencing via app and corporate N Share on Public Land reporting of rides selected (Dock/Private/Ebike) Cycling-as-a- Gobike B21 e-bike share N 5 Dockless Bike Share Obike Dockless, last-mile bike share with blanket coverage of city centres, with deposit Y Service on Public Land Providers in (Public/Dockless) Flick-Bike Dockless bike share in Amsterdam via app [not operational at present] Y the Dockless bike share in Amsterdam via app. N Netherlands 6 Dockless Bike Share Hello-bike Back-to-many bike share based within an urban business using geofencing via an app N with Geo-fencing (2017) (Dockless/Geo)

7 Dockless (E-)-Bike Donkey-Bike B21 e-bike share outside AMS city centre via an app N Share on Private Land (Dockless/Private) Urbee Back-to-one e-bike share across AMS based at places of business via an app

8 P2P Bike Rental BimBim- Rent many kinds of privately-maintained and –owned bikes, using a single platform across many countries. N Platform Bikes (P2P) Spinlister Rent many kinds of privately-maintained and –owned bikes, using a single platform across many countries.

9 Bike Leasing on Private Swapfiets A ‘Netflix model’ for cycling: maintenance and replacement of one lease-bike for a fixed monthly fee. Y Land (Leasing) Student-bike Free cycling-as-a-service in exchange for exposure. N

OV-Fiets Public Transport Concession Dock-Based Bikeshare, on Holders Public Land

Cykl, Hopperpoint, Haagsche Stadsfiets, Utrecht Science Park Campusbike, Uwdeelfiets P2P Bike Hire Dockless Bikeshare, on Public Dockless Bikeshare with Land Geofencing

Bike Leasing Dockless (e-)Bikeshare, on Dock-Based e-Bikeshare, on Private Land Public Land Fleet Sizes by Business Model Type 18000 17400 16000 14500 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000

4000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 340 450 75 80 24 180 50 24 8 50 150 250 300 15 299 0 5 OV-Fiets Keobike Dordrecht Nextbike Maastricht Cykl Stadsfiets Haagsche Hopperpoint USP Campusbike Uwdeelfiets E-Bike To Go Gobike Flickbike Mobike Amsterdam Obike Rotterdam Obike Hellobike DonkeyBike Urbee BimBimBikes Spinlister Studentbike Swapfiets Fleet Size, at launch or last reported in press reported launch last or at Size, Fleet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Firms, grouped by Business Model Type Starting Fleet Sizes of Cycling-as-a- Service Providers in the Netherlands 2003-2017

• 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 popular abroad vandalism - vigilantism perception of bikeshare as city low-quality foreign bikes Dutchness and Otherness foreign money or origin city cycling cultures pride or branding or chaos in chinese cities nederland (deel)fietsland placemaking Scale sudden landing from abroad dumping technical problems only scale will tell Fleet rapid growth of fleet 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 controversy overblown narrative work by entrepreneurs doomsaying complaints User Perspective public reaction user perspective made explicit bikeshare ideology data mining sharing economy is different not true sharing/parasitic Sharing Economy amsterdam as sharing capital platforms

public space is scarce geofencing as solution justified by fall in parking congestion, land use, growth Pressure on Space placemaking justified if in own parking demand/bike numbers bike parking under pressure dockless challenges real space wasters are cars public space monetised, Comm. bikeshare not cause of orphan bikes dock-based as solution parking pressure

public-entrepreneur relations self-regulation by bikeshare entrepreneur-gemeente relations business models and users Entrepreneurs’ providers Perspective justification for amsterdam ban gemeente rotterdam governance lack of vision from government Governance cooperation gemeente amsterdam spokespersons other cities outside experts Gemeente den haag prospective governance policy directions ban in amsterdam regulatory vacuum innovations dockless as plus future of bikeshare public transport as complement to public Niche- Regime Relations bikeshare as solution without as replacement for private replacement/complement transport problem bicycles interoperability essential as future of cycling as car replacement as last mile solution experimental approach and bikeshare privileged over private ov-fiets as incumbent as intermodal maturity bikes bikeshare benefits competition concerns What forms Definition: does Cycling- - Provision of temporary access to a bicycle for personal use, often in a way as-a-Service that incentivises changes in travel behavior take in the urban Business Models: Netherlands, Considerable variety, dominated by an incumbent and two new clusters: what business - very small-scale providers with a social component, models do - and large-scale providers generating controversy and arousing these services protest and bikelash embed, and what is its Public-Private Relationships potential to Tension as regulatory vacuum gains in urgency drive a Risk aversion of gemeentes: small is permitted, big is made to take on major mobility risk for limited reward transition? Business Models' roles in and impacts on societal transitions adapted from Bidmon & Knab, 2018

Role 1: BMs as part of the socio- Impact: BM serves as barrier to transitions; existing technical regime BMs reinforce and stabilise current regime

Role 2: BMs as intermediates Impact: BM is driver of transitions; existing or novel between the technological niche BMs facilitate stabilisation of new technology and and the socio-technical regime breakthrough to regime level

Role 3: BMs as non-technological Impact: BM is driver of societal transitions; novel BMs niche innovation 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

Technology choice Fit Stretch and design Business Model (as Value Proposition) Fit Selective Substitution Leapfrog design for substitution

e.g.: OV-Fiets e.g. Public Dockless bikeshare Stretch Market differentiation Exploration of a new regime

e.g.: Swapfiets e.g.: Blockchain Bikeshare Business Models' roles in and impacts on societal transitions adapted from Bidmon & Knab, 2018

Technology choice Fit & Conform Stretch & Transform and design Business Model (as Value Proposition) Fit & Conform Group A: Selective Substitution Group B: Leapfrog design for e.g.: OV-Fiets (1), RTP (2), substitution Public/Dock (3), e.g. Dockless/Private (7), P2P (8) Dock/Private/Ebike (4)

Stretch & Transform Group C: Market differentiation Group D: Exploration of a new e.g.: Leasing (9) regime e.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.2011.09.007 Bidmon, 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.2017.12.198 Bolton, 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.2016.05.003 Boons, 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.2012.07.007 Cohen, 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.2012.01.021 Kuipers, 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/su9091504 Muñoz, 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.2017.03.035 Osterwalder, 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/10.1080/23800127.2018.1437656 van 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.2018.05.223 van 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.2016.02.095 Wells, 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 bedankt Thank you

BJM Petzer, MSc.

T: @brettpetzer W: brettpetzer.com E: [email protected]

Project Partners