(Not so) free-float mobility How free-float mobility became regulated in Amsterdam, Brussels and Madrid

Rens L. Jonker

Supervisor: Bas van Heur Co-supervisor: Nadia Casabella

Master thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Studies (VUB) and Master of Science in Geography, general orientation, track ‘Urban Studies’ (ULB)

Date of submission: August 12, 2019 Table of contents

Foreword ...... 4

Abstract ...... 5

1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Mobility and the city ...... 6 1.2 A move towards shared mobility ...... 7 1.3 Defining new models of sharing ...... 7 1.4 Surge of free-float mobility ...... 8 1.5 Competition between free-float mobility operators ...... 9 1.6 Free-float mobility in the city ...... 9 1.7 Regulating free-float mobility ...... 9 1.8 Academic relevance ...... 10

2. Research goal ...... 11

3. Research question ...... 11

4. Theoretical framework ...... 12 4.1 Searching for a theory ...... 12 4.2 What is ANT? ...... 14 4.3 What does ANT do? ...... 14 4.4 ANT and the introduction of new technologies ...... 15 4.5 ANT and the formulation of policy and regulations ...... 15 4.6 Translation and its stages ...... 15 4.6.1 Problematisation ...... 15 4.6.2 Interessement ...... 16 4.6.3 Enrolment ...... 16 4.6.4 Mobilisation ...... 16 4.7 Methodological principles of ANT ...... 16

5. Sub-questions ...... 17

6. Research context ...... 18

7. Methodology ...... 21 7.1 Application of ANT principles ...... 21 7.2 Research strategy ...... 21 7.3 Analysing and processing the findings ...... 23 7.4 Case selection for interviews ...... 24 7.4.1 Amsterdam ...... 24 7.4.2 Brussels ...... 25 7.4.3 Madrid ...... 26 7.4.4 Supranational ...... 27

2 8. Problematisation ...... 28 8.1 Amsterdam ...... 28 8.1.1 Bicycles ...... 28 8.1.2 Kickscooters ...... 30 8.1.3 Scooters ...... 30 8.2 Brussels ...... 31 8.2.1 Bicycles ...... 31 8.2.2 Kickscooters ...... 32 8.2.3 Scooters ...... 32 8.3 Madrid ...... 32 8.3.1 Bicycles ...... 32 8.3.2 Scooters ...... 33 8.3.3 Kickscooters ...... 33 8.4 Synthesis ...... 34

9. Interessement ...... 36 9.1 Amsterdam ...... 36 9.2 Brussels ...... 37 9.3 Madrid ...... 38 9.4 Synthesis ...... 38

10. Enrolment ...... 40 10.1 Amsterdam ...... 40 10.2 Brussels ...... 41 10.3 Madrid ...... 41 10.4 Synthesis ...... 42

11. Mobilisation ...... 43 11.1 Amsterdam ...... 43 11.2 Brussels ...... 44 11.3 Madrid ...... 45 11.4 Synthesis ...... 47

12. Discussion ...... 48 12.1 On policy goals ...... 48 12.2 On balancing the old and the new ...... 48 12.3 On reverse technological assessment ...... 48 12.4 On the public or private character of free-float mobility ...... 49 12.5 On free-float mobility’s target audience ...... 50 12.6 On pre-launch cooperation ...... 51 12.7 On the development of digital skills and ICT provisions ...... 51

13. Conclusions ...... 53 13.1 Conclusions ...... 53 13.2 Critical reflection ...... 53 13.3 Suggestions for further research ...... 54 13.4 Personal reflection ...... 55

Bibliography ...... 55

3 Foreword Dear reader,

I want to thank you for your interest in my master thesis and for taking the time to read this foreword. While I have written this thesis entirely on my own, there is an entire network of people that contributed to the research process. Similar to the policy process described in the following chapters, the research should thus be seen as fully relational and not just as the product of my individual labour. In plain language: it was a group effort.

I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to some of these people below, because without them I couldn’t have done it. My VUB supervisor Bas van Heur and my co- supervisor Nadia Casabella, for their guidance and constructive criticism. My supervisor at the Loendersloot Groep, Kees den Hollander, for the advice and support wherever necessary. All of the people that agreed to be interviewed by me, trusting me with their viewpoints and providing insight in their actions. My parents, for supporting and encouraging me throughout my studies. Rafael, for late night brainstorms about our theses. Jan, for providing a critical lens on the topic and helping to place free-float mobility on the urban agenda. Romy, for hearing me ramble about free-float mobility more often than a person can be expected to withstand.

I hope you will enjoy reading the research as much as I did conducting and writing it.

Rens Jonker August 2019

4 Abstract Since 2016, cities worldwide have seen a rise of shared mobility services offered in public space of which the use is enabled by smartphone applications and other ICT interfaces. They have become known as free-float mobility; vehicles intended for occasional transportation inside cities and made available to other users after every trip. Their initial landing in major world cities often happened without any permission or even the knowledge of local authorities. In addition, several characteristics of free-float mobility led to friction causing governments to respond with bans and intentions to create policies and regulations reactively. This research looks into the process leading up to the creation of policies and regulations in three European cities, paying special attention to the framing of the problem, actors involved and final outcomes. It does so using mixed methods such as a literature study and semi-structured interviews. The results are structured using actor-network theory, resulting in three detailed narratives which depict policymaking processes in Amsterdam, Brussels and Madrid from initiation until finalisation. This research shows that governments often legitimise the presence of free-float mobility in their city by linking it to existing policy goals such as the reduction of car usage and CO2 emissions, while actual effects in these areas are still unclear. The question if the vehicles should be treated as a public or private service remains unresolved by governments. In addition, governments are urged to learn digital skills and build ICT platforms in order to monitor operators and remain relevant. The lessons learned from this research can be used by operators to increase their value to cities in which they are active. Governments can use the results to make well-informed decisions on policy and regulations and to critically scrutinise free-float mobility operators that are or want to be active within cities’ jurisdictions. The research results may provide useful information when examining other novel services active in the sharing economy, transport sector and ICT-based services.

5 1. Introduction 1.1 Mobility and the city In urban life, personal mobility is essential and virtually inevitable to fulfil daily needs. It is only in artificial or otherwise undesirable situations that one is rendered immobile for longer periods of time, think of hospitalisation or incarceration. Even in these situations, the immobility of one leads to increased mobility of others: people that are bound to a certain location will need to make more frequent use of e.g. delivery or care services to fulfil their needs. The spatial lay-out of a city has a large impact on the mobility needs of its citizens. With a dense and mixed-use lay-out, the average distance citizens have to travel to complete their daily routine is lower than in a zoned and sprawled city. This mobility need can be fulfilled in various ways, such as with personal, privately owned transport, shared and publicly owned transport or variations of these. When functions are in close proximity to each other, it is generally possible to reach these using sustainable transport modes like walking and cycling. This dynamic is also valid the other way around, if functions are further apart it is likely that less sustainable vehicles are needed to fulfil the mobility need.

Density and mixed-use can also lead to an increased support for public transport. Namely, a higher density and high degree of mixedness lead to a high potential userbase throughout the day. If the density is low, and zones are mostly monofunctional, this can lead to stretched- out public transport networks that only serve main arteries. They are likely to be overcrowded at certain times of the day corresponding with the respective use of the areas that the public transport line connects, for example during the morning commute when workers travel from their residential neighbourhood to the business district.

This means that ideally, from a mobility perspective, cities worldwide would need to have a high density and mixed functions throughout to support sustainable transport options and a well-functioning dense public transport network. However, cities are rarely – if ever – planned or realised with mobility optimisation as the main priority. Other dynamics that need to be taken into account are for example the costs of land acquirement or development, which are generally lower in low-density areas. Even in the rare cases that cities and their mobility systems are planned and constructed from the ground up, such as Brasilia in Brazil, future growth no longer adheres to the original principles alongside which the city was constructed. This means that when cities are growing organically, the inner and outer infrastructure networks face increasing pressure. Over the past decades, city size and populations worldwide have been growing at an accelerating rate, with over half the world’s population now living in cities (UN-Habitat, 2016). Through this urban growth the total mobility need of citizens and related air pollution increased, and if the spatial structure can’t absorb the mobility need, congestion grows as well.

Through city planning, development and regulations, governments at all scales can have a large impact on the mobility needs of their citizens, and the options that are available to them. One option to decrease congestion would be to lower the overall mobility need of the citizens by optimising the city lay-out. However, overthrowing the entire spatial structure of a city is often not a realistic short-term solution. Another radical approach to counter congestion is to change the character and use of the entire city, for example by changing the capital of a nation from one city to another. This has been realised in Brazil when the capital changed from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia in 1960, more recent proposals stem from Egypt and Indonesia (CIA, 2019; Lamb, 2019). A less radical but nevertheless difficult approach is to stimulate citizens to choose a sustainable or more space-efficient transport mode such as walking, cycling or public transport. This approach has received additional traction in recent years, by adding new possibilities in the shape of shared mobility to the mobility offering in cities.

6 1.2 A move towards shared mobility A system-wide move towards shared mobility is often proposed as a solution that can relieve cities of aforementioned issues. The principle of sharing mobility is nothing new, modalities such as bus and train have been widely spread for over a century. A relatively new addition to this is the widespread sharing of modalities previously meant for individual or private use. Cohen & Kietzmann (2014) give examples such as carsharing, bicycle sharing or ridesharing. They state the trend towards sharing is driven by environmental consciousness combined with new possibilities of ICTs.

The idea of sharing mobility for environmental benefits is also not new. An early example of shared mobility for individual use is the so-called ‘Wittefietsenplan’ or white bicycle plan in Amsterdam, which started in 1965 (Gu, Kim, & Currie, 2019). With the intention of countering pollution, bicycles were placed in the city centre and were free to use. However, because of a lack of theft protection many bicycles were stolen (Faghih-Imani, Eluru, El-Geneidy, Rabbat, & Haq, 2014; Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). Advances in technology such as the development of GPS-systems and internet-connected smart locks decrease the probability of vehicles being stolen, thereby removing a barrier towards shared mobility (Cannegieter, Huysmans, & van Boggelen, 2018; Si, Shi, Wu, Chen, & Zhao, 2019).

Zhang & Mi (2018) indicate that bicycle sharing causes significant petrol savings and contributes to reduced CO2 emissions, if replacing trips made by cars. Gu et al. (2019) describe that the number of short-distance trips with motor vehicles dropped sharply after the introduction of shared bicycle services in Shanghai and Beijing. Cohen & Kietzmann (2014) name a movement towards a service economy as a good way to mitigate negative side- effects of a consumption-based economy.

Another promise of shared mobility is the potential to reduce the physical footprint of mobility. The basic principle is that one vehicle that is used by multiple people throughout the day uses less space than if all these people own and park their own vehicle during the day. Otero, Nieuwenhuijsen & Rojas-Rueda (2018) describe that bicycles’ use of public space is much smaller than that of cars, meaning a substitution of cars by bicycles has the potential to free up even more space. This shows that a bicycle share system could be a good measure to reduce pollution and congestion.

Faghih-Imani et al. (2014) suggest that in order to promote usage of bicycle share systems, multiple scattered small-capacity stations with lower capacity are preferred to fewer large- capacity stations. As the cost of acquiring or reserving public space to construct stations is high, this ideal could not always be realized by governments or operators of bicycle share systems.

1.3 Defining new models of sharing Since 2016, new forms of shared mobility have appeared, preserving the potential benefits while surpassing classical barriers of shared mobility by employing ICTs. These emerged in China but have rapidly spread to other countries around the globe (Si et al., 2019). Because of this recent international diffusion, there is not yet a consensus reached on the term that needs to be used. In some cases, the term ‘Dockless Bike Share’ is used to indicate systems where bicycles are distributed in public space, as opposed to earlier generations where distribution was done using stations or ‘docks’ placed in public space (Gu et al., 2019; Mooney et al., 2019). Within bicycle share literature this is sometimes interchanged with the term ‘free-floating’ without substantiating the choice for either name (Ma, Lan, Thornton, Mangalagiu, & Zhu, 2018).

7 Van Waes, Farla, Frenken, de Jong, & Raven (2018) describe multiple bicycle share systems by distinguishing based on the distribution model. They identify ‘two-way station-based’, ‘one-way station-based’, ‘one-way free-floating’ and ‘two-way free-floating’. Here, one-way free-floating is used when there is an operator placing bicycles in public space where citizens can then rent them. Two-way free-floating is used to describe a model where private individuals can rent out their bicycles to other individuals, often via an online platform provided by a company.

A Brussels ordonnance aimed at regulating bicycle share services names the phenomenon “vrije vloot fietsdelen”, or free-float bicycle sharing and defines them as “where bike share vehicles are made available to multiple users for occasional movements, where the bike share vehicle is parked after every use to be made available for another user” (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement, 2018, p. 21). The term ‘bike share vehicle’ is used to indicate that the regulation applies to not just bicycles but also other vehicles that can be shared according to the same principles.

Because of a lack of consensus on the adequate term for these vehicles, it is useful to establish the definition of the concept as it will be used in the underlying research. The term dockless is considered inadequate, because it implies that the vehicles follow on a generation of vehicles that used to be docked. While this might be true for bicycle sharing, shared vehicles have already appeared that never operated using docks, such as shared scooters and kickscooters. ‘Free-float’ thus would be a more generally applicable term and will be clarified by dissecting it. The term ‘free’ is used to indicate modalities that are not bound to fixed distribution points and don’t require fixed parking spots or docks when not in use. This means that self-appointed free-float car sharing services such as car2go (2019) will be excluded. The reason for this demarcation is that the cars are not truly ‘free’ as they are limited to parking in designated car parking spaces. The modalities currently under research are not yet fully institutionalised hence can still use the entirety of public space for parking. The shared nature of these vehicles is another important aspect, which truly enables them to ‘float’: multiple users can access them, meaning they are relocated after every use according to an unknown pattern. This is in line with the aforementioned definition used by the Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement. Following this definition, the ‘two-way free-floating’ of Van Waes et al. (2018) does not qualify as free-floating, as the individual rental model prevents them from ‘floating’.

While the academic literature on free-float mobility is so far limited to bicycles, the criteria as established above currently lead to a broader selection of vehicles. While the Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement (2018) uses the term ‘bike share vehicle’, in order to avoid confusion the broader terms ‘vehicle’ or ‘mobility’ will be used in this research. When statements are made about a specific modality, that modality will be named. Vehicles that are currently offered include bicycles and scooters, while within scooters a distinction can be made between scooters ridden standing up or sitting down. In Belgium, the first is called a step or trottinette, while in Spanish it is called a patineta while in English sometimes kickscooter is used. In this research, the terms scooter and kickscooter will be used for scooters respectively ridden sitting down and standing up.

1.4 Surge of free-float mobility As free-float mobility does not require docks to secure vehicles in public space, this space does not need to be acquired or reserved by operators for the construction of docks. As a result, the costs to roll out and scale the service have lowered dramatically (van Waes et al., 2018). Because of these lower costs, the founder of Lime explains that the market has been opened up to other players than just governments of large metropolitan areas (Beyer, 2017). A concrete result of the lowered cost can be witnessed in Seattle, where Mooney et al. (2019)

8 describe that the city used to have a 500-bicycle docked system and switched to a 10.000- bicycle free-floating system because of the lower per-bicycle cost.

Additionally, many local and global free-float mobility companies are privately financed. Global examples such as Bird and Lime (resp. in kickscooter, and kickscooter and bicycle business) and local examples such as Felyx (scooter business in Amsterdam) explicitly mention this in interviews (Beyer, 2017; Bouma, 2019; Yakowicz, 2018). Where many other bicycle-share companies depend on government funding for initial investment or scale-up, by using venture capital, free-float mobility is not tied to government cooperation when initiating or scaling up their service (van Waes et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2019). Financing from large investors and technology companies thus enables the large scale diffusion of bicycles, which is why Si et al. (2019) go further by naming venture capital an essential component in the worldwide scale-up of free-float mobility companies.

1.5 Competition between free-float mobility operators In cities all over the world, fierce competition between operators can be witnessed. In Brussels, as of January 2019, four different kickscooter operators were active (Hendrickx, 2019). Madrid has issued a decree granting 18 kickscooter operators a permit to distribute their vehicles within the city (Diario de Madrid, 2019). Quinten Selhorst, a scooter entrepreneur states on this topic that “our biggest business-risk is that we don’t expand fast enough. […] If we aren’t fast enough, others will overtake” (Bouma, 2019). Van Waes et al. (2018) describe that for bicycle sharing schemes, more users of the system enable a larger number of bicycles to be rolled out, which in turn creates more value for users. As Selhorst describes “it only works on a large scale: Nobody is interested in ten electric scooters in Utrecht” meaning the current system provides strong incentives for a fast roll-out.

A larger number of vehicles on the streets creates a more attractive thus potentially more profitable service, van Waes et al. (2018) label this dynamic an ‘increasing returns to adoption’. Experience with free-float bicycle systems in Chinese context suggests that when increasing a fleet size leads to additional profit, operators tend to over-supply their vehicles (Gu et al., 2019). They state that due to cumbersome registration procedures, when users choose an operator of bicycle systems, they often remain loyal to it. To keep attracting new users, operators thus keep expanding their fleet regardless of actual user demand. This means that current market dynamics eventually materialise an oversupply of vehicles.

1.6 Free-float mobility in the city The dynamics between the number of users and the number of vehicles leads us to an explanation why virtually all current forms of free-float mobility are limited to an urban context. A larger number of vehicles is only attractive to businesses when there is a large number of (potential) users nearby. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, a high population density is preferred, as told by Lime-founder Toby Sun: “[…] ideally, we like a 1-to-100 bike-to-person ratio. So that requires a certain level of density over the coverage area for our bikes.” (Beyer, 2017).

1.7 Regulating free-float mobility Because of the innovative nature of free-float mobility services, many cities have not yet set up fitting regulations. It is this lack of regulations that enabled a period of ‘free and unlimited growth’ for free-float bike services (Gu et al., 2019). Docked bicycle operators needed to acquire and reserve segments of public space to be able to construct their stations. In doing so, it was virtually impossible to circumvent the proper authorities. Now that the construction of docks is no longer a necessity, it has become easier to circumvent them. Kickscooter company Bird indicated it used the absence of regulations as one of the indicators to decide

9 which cities to expand to (Yakowicz, 2018). When Flickbike wanted to start their service in the municipality of Amsterdam, they were told ‘there are no rules, so go ahead’ (van Waes et al., 2018). However, as established before, current market dynamics lead to a surplus of both operators and vehicles. This can lead to a backlash from governments, threatening continuity of operations. This potential of a backlash is why Cohen & Kietzmann (2014) argue that cooperation between operators and local governments from the start would be better.

According to Mooney et al. (2019) free-float mobility has led to ‘freedom from the station’, meaning users are no longer required to park the vehicle in a physical station after use. While this increased flexibility is valued highly by users, it also leads to what Gu et al. (2019) call ‘fleet congestion’: the careless parking of vehicles in public space blocking pedestrians’ passage. While some cities have installed parking regulations for free-float mobility, often enforcement is lacking (Gu et al., 2019). Van Waes et al. (2018) demonstrate that while other bicycle share systems make minimal use of public space, within the free-float business model it is seen as a key resource. This means that if user behaviour does not change, enforcement is needed to prevent or solve fleet congestion.

As demonstrated, free-float mobility has many potentially positive and negative consequences. An important argument in favour of regulations could be the limiting of negative consequences and the creation of a more equal playing field. On the other hand, there are also arguments to be made for the limiting of regulations. Van Waes et al. (2018) state that strict regulation will negatively influence the upscaling potential of free-float mobility services. Cannegieter et al. (2018) argue that more detailed regulations lead to increased monitoring, reporting and enforcing efforts. They also note that some operational aspects should be left to the operator’s discretion.

1.8 Academic relevance At the time of writing, cities around the world are studying free-float mobility and considering how to respond. The introduction has shown that virtually all academic research on free-float mobility has so far focused on bicycles, while scooters and kickscooters remain unresearched. Because of differences between these vehicles, it is to be expected that attitudes towards them will be different as well, meaning there is still room for research. In addition, to the best knowledge of the author, no academic research has been conducted with policy and regulations surrounding free-float mobility as its main research subject. This means that a significant research gap exists.

Section 1.7 has demonstrated that public space is seen as a key resource in the business model of commercial operators of free-float mobility. Streeck (2012) outlines tensions that emerge between commercial goals and the nature of public goods and describes a trend where “governments worldwide accepted and promoted the claim that only private firms would be able to satisfy the rising expectations of more exacting consumers” (p. 37). Massey (1991) demonstrated that while certain mobility services can bring two places closer together for some, they can increase distances for others. This becomes clear with free-float mobility, which is more flexible and often faster than public transport, thus forming an attractive alternative to it for some. For others, it might increase distances by e.g. obstructing sidewalks. Now that operators are offering their services in public space, sometimes without a priori permission, research can show if tensions arise between these operators and local governments and how this is reflected in the regulation that is created.

Flyvbjerg (2006) describes the concept of a paradigmatic case as one that can shed a light on more general characteristics of societies. One could argue that free-float mobility is such a paradigmatic case. As mentioned before, societies are moving towards the sharing of resources, are increasingly making use of ICTs and want to move away from unsustainable

10 modes of transport such as cars that run on fossil fuels. Frenken & Schor (2017) describe how multiple new companies fitting into these trends have started offering their services in cities over the past years, in sectors such as tourism, transport, and restaurants. They add that calls for regulations in aforementioned sectors are getting louder because of unfair competition between these new and unregulated companies and their traditional counterparts. They have established a research agenda that calls on researchers to look into “how we [can] explain and evaluate the variety of regulatory responses of governments at local, national and supra- national levels as well as the modes of self-governance employed by platforms?” (p. 9). Audouin & Finger (2018) add that a research gap exists on “our understanding of how institutions need to evolve vis-à-vis new technological developments in transport” (p. 25). This means that research into free-float mobility has the potential to produce knowledge that is not only useful within the sector but also in other areas of the sharing economy, transport sector and ICT-based services. It can reveal how cities are dealing with services that are expected to increase in prominence in the future. 2. Research goal In the introduction, it has become clear that research into policy and regulations is lacking and can be considered necessary. Where the literature clearly diverges on the extent to which free-float mobility needs to be regulated, there seems to be an agreement that some form of regulation should be installed. On one hand, governments want to have some control over public space, because they are responsible for the governing of that space. Also, for business viability and continuity a well-defined playing field is preferred. Because of the innovative and (so far) largely unregulated nature of free-float mobility and its global roll-out provides a unique opportunity to study how regulation that is created differs between local contexts. It can provide insight about the process of developing policy and regulations, thereby finding out how priorities emerge, what approach is taken and what outcome is produced.

The findings of this research can contribute to a better understanding of decision-making processes surrounding (free-float) mobility and help substantiate them in the future. The goal of this study then, is to provide insight in the rationalising process behind the regulation surrounding free-float mobility.

In line with the way Rutland & Aylett (2008) look at how policy comes into being, the rationalising process will be interpreted as the process through which a government selects and weighs ways of governing, different political interests and ways of representing these to come to a specific regulatory outcome. 3. Research question To reach the aforementioned goal, an attempt will be made to answer the following research question:

“How does the emergence of free-float mobility in an urban context lead to the formulation of policy and regulations?”

The next chapter will elaborate on the theoretical framework that supports the main question. In chapter 5, with the help of the theoretical framework the main question will be divided into sub-questions.

11 4. Theoretical framework In this chapter, the theoretical basis for the research at hand will be determined and explained. The goal of this is to determine a theory that can help conceptualise and later on operationalise the research topic. Because the first examples of the current wave of free-float mobility only appeared in cities in 2016, the academic response so far has been relatively limited. To define an appropriate theory, we will look at literature both within and outside the field of free-float mobility.

4.1 Searching for a theory Ma et al. (2018) have studied governance surrounding free-float mobility in Shanghai and propose the use of a Collaborative Governance (CG) framework to study the interaction between commercial, political and social actors. While their study does show some overlap with the goals of this study (i.e. researching the formulation of policy and regulations will most likely involve scrutiny of interactions between aforementioned actors), the proposed framework is not deemed applicable for the current study. The focus within CG is placed on the working relationship between the three actor groups, also some key characteristics and problems of free-float mobility are briefly mentioned as having an impact on the working relationship. This focus is seemingly too narrow for a research that attempts to map the policy process and factors that influence it, as the policy process is expected to also include factors outside of this working relationship. Examples of such factors could be actors sharing knowledge and experiences with other actors outside of the working relationship, newly emerging academic research, technological development or certain materialities within the urban context. In addition, factors that might not have an influence on the working relationship between commercial, political, and social actors might still have an influence on policy that is put into place. The aforementioned materialities could serve as an example of this: On-the- ground experience could teach both political and commercial actors that there is an optimum number of vehicles for a certain city. This realisation would not necessarily have consequences for the working relationship but could lead to a city capping the number of allowed vehicles and writing this up in policy. We need to work on a theoretical framework that can account for this, and that is more reactive to the multitude of factors that can influence policy-making.

Gu et al. (2019) provide an empirical analysis of free-float bike sharing in China, focusing on the general development and market penetration of bike sharing. They briefly touch on the topic of policy but remain descriptive while doing so. A list of Chinese regulations is given, stating the scale level on which it was implemented, a summary of the contents and an indication of its attitude towards free-float bike sharing on a scale ranging from neutral- negative to neutral-positive. While the study does not provide literal recommendations on theory, some recommendations are given pointing towards the importance of regulation on a national (thus more general) level, and a local (thus more specific) level. Additionally, Gu et al. (2019) stress the importance of paying attention to materialities such as the provision of appropriate infrastructure, and the avoidance of ‘congestion’ (e.g. vehicles blocking footpaths and entrances).

Another strand within the free-float mobility literature is focusing on the business models of operators. Van Waes et al. (2018) describe the problems that free-float mobility causes or encounters from an operator-perspective, thus labelling it as ‘barrier to upscaling’. They state that an innovative business model (like free-float bicycle sharing) “may align with and reproduce existing regulations, norms and/or beliefs already in place or, alternatively, challenge and depart from them” (p. 1302). Their approach can be seen as part of the transitions approach, in the paper a ‘prospective transition framework’ is used. Karvonen,

12 Evans, & van Heur (2014) describe this approach and come up with a similar description of how a regime may be reproduced or transformed:

“’Fit and conform’ empowerment produces innovation that leaves the regime selection environment untouched and actually adapts to this regime (…). In contrast, ‘stretch and transform’ empowerment undermines regimes by creating opportunities for wider participation in political debates” (p. 112).

Van Waes et al. (2018) mention that current formal institutions in place are not yet optimised or updated to take into account free-float mobility, “which made [free-float systems], at least temporarily, illegal” (p. 1307). If these business models want to succeed in the upscaling of their business, according to van Waes et al. (2018), institutional work such as lobbying and campaigning is required. They note that institutional actors such as city governments are currently developing regulatory frameworks, while Karvonen et al. (2014) add that “the radical potential of many niches is diluted in the process of its institutionalisation” (p. 111). They speak of an “agglomeration of social, political and economic actors” (p. 112) through which a niche can eventually be institutionalised. While the transitions approach provides multiple leads and insights that might be used in the research at hand, it cannot directly be applied. The reason for this is that the transitions approach focuses on the scaling of a niche or innovation towards an institutionalised regime. In other words, the approach would require an operator- perspective and would outline how the innovation free-float mobility is scaling. When using this approach, eventually policy would become one of the factors that needed to be considered, while in the current research the creation of policy is the main research subject. Still, the transitions approach has been helpful in highlighting some aspects that our own prospective theoretical framework needs to be attentive to. In short, current institutions are working to adapt regulations to free-float mobility, and operators are expected to try to influence this process. The theoretical framework needs to be able to take this expected influencing into account.

The literature on free-float mobility has not yet been able to give a conclusive answer on what theory should be used. That is why we will now turn our attention towards studies on policy and regulations.

Rutland & Aylett (2008) delve into the work that was done to create and implement policy on climate change in Portland, Oregon. They attempt to frame how conflicting interests and various governing methods were settled behind a specific policy and use actor-network theory (ANT) to look at the period leading up to the adoption of a specific strategy. The theory is called unique because it urges the researcher to look at how actors are reshaped by working together. Furthermore, it is praised for its attention to both human and non-human actors, placing material conditions at the same level of importance as human actors. These are some of the factors that the earlier paragraphs have shown to be necessary for our theoretical framework. Rutland & Aylett (2008) go on to present governmentality as a conceptual supplement to ANT, but this is specifically aimed at analysing the period after policy implementation. Because that period is beyond the goal of the current study, governmentality is not seen as a relevant addition to our theoretical framework.

Wood (2016) outlines a theoretical and methodological framework for the studying of policy mobilities and provides several points that can help establish a theoretical framework. She mentions three procedures, namely following the people, following the materials and following the meetings to help uncover how policy comes into being. To be able to follow the materials, she calls for the application of actor-network theory. Moreover, she states that it is necessary to look at “the connections between people and objects that interpret policy flows upon

13 arrival” (p. 395). This way it becomes possible to find out how certain travelling policy ideas can materialise in a specific locality.

It seems that actor-network theory is attentive to both human actors and materialities, to actors that try to influence the policy process and to links that might exist between policies and localities in an international context. In addition, at first glance it seems reactive enough to include any influences on the policy process that might surface in a later stage of the research. We will now further scrutinize actor-network theory to see how it can help in reaching the research goal.

4.2 What is ANT? Callon (1986) describes his framework as a way to perform analysis on scientific and technical controversies while considering the society in which the analysis takes place as uncertain and disputable. He states that this is necessary because actors that intervene in these controversies can hold contradictory positions, give contradictory arguments and as a result give a different representation of the social and natural worlds. If one of these representations would be selected and used throughout the analysis, the researcher risks painting a skewed picture of the controversy. For example, if the perspective of free-float mobility operators on the need for policy and regulations would be utilized as the starting point to approach the other actors, there is a risk of presupposing or taking for granted certain elements in the policy network.

4.3 What does ANT do? Instead of making statements about how the world is operating, ANT helps in tracing activities of certain actors in order to reveal how worlds are made (Rutland & Aylett, 2008). This tracing starts with the envisioning of a network of actors around the research subject, each of these actors can influence the shape of the network. An important aspect of the theory is that it “emphasizes how particular social situations and human actors ‘enrol’ pieces of technology, machines, as well as documents, texts and money, into ‘actor-networks’” (Graham, 1998, p. 178). It is highly relational, meaning that it is concerned with how all sorts of components (such as humans, vehicles, texts, et cetera) are coming together in attempts to build order. This relational view is a key aspect as to why ANT is a fitting technology to study governance surrounding free-float mobility. As the first chapter of this research pointed out, there is a myriad of reasons being used for and against the introduction of free-float mobility, in social, societal, and technological contexts. Many of these reasons can be embedded in regulation, such as the use of public space, maximum capacity of a certain area, the way user data is dealt with, what the vehicles look like, safety equipment the user needs to wear and much more. Which of these elements eventually will be used to regulate free-float mobility depends on the entire network around it. Therefore, a relational and encompassing perspective such as the one provided by ANT is needed to answer the research question.

Within ANT, the term actor is sometimes replaced by the term actant in order to suggest acting power is not inherent to certain entities, but must continuously be achieved (Rutland & Aylett, 2008). When projected onto a policy process, one can imagine a civil servant having certain acting powers, such as informing, researching, decision-making, et cetera. This acting power is not absolute and infinite but must always be achieved in concert with other actants which can either be human or nonhuman. It means that agency “is acquired and relational, rather than inherent and individually possessed” (Rutland & Aylett, 2008, p. 632). This agency can be acquired by cooperating with other actants or working through them.

14 4.4 ANT and the introduction of new technologies Graham (1998) employs ANT in order to determine how new technologies are enrolled in specific social contexts. First of all, he stresses that each technology itself is enrolled in many networks, technological or otherwise. The functioning of the technology is contingent on the functioning of those other networks. This becomes clear when looking at the current wave of free-float mobility. These are often equipped with various ICTs for localization, securitization, and operation. The functioning then becomes dependent on e.g. telecommunications networks, GPS networks, payment networks (such as credit card operators) and the functioning of users’ smartphones.

For Graham (1998), the specific benefit of the actor-network perspective is the way it maps human-technological relations without essentializing sociotechnical relations. It helps demonstrate the complexity and exhibit the multiple relational worlds that surround the technology. In addition, he states that there is no simple technological cause-and-effect following implementation but the new social ordering that follows is an outcome of multiple configuration processes. These configuration processes again differ between actor-networks.

4.5 ANT and the formulation of policy and regulations Rutland & Aylett (2008) give several reasons how and why ANT can be used to analyse the development and implementation of policy. They state that ANT can be helpful to “examine the work entailed in developing new policies, paying close attention to how governing priorities emerge, how objects of government are constituted, and how different actants are involved in establishing both” (p. 631). The theory is then used specifically to analyse the period prior to the actual adoption of the policy, to witness how the policy comes into being.

Rutland & Aylett (2008) stress the lack of a central authority in ANT, there is not one dominant actor that decides the outcome of a process. This means that actors need to work together, which sometimes happens because of a natural alignment of interest. In other cases, to move forward a translation of interests is needed. Within ANT, translation stands for the creation of an alignment in interests, which can happen for example by making compromises or by persuading certain actants with diverse interests that working together with others benefits them (Rutland & Aylett, 2008). Following an alignment of interest, usually order is created in shapes such as policy documents, working groups or a representative board. Rutland & Aylett (2008) state that this order is always precarious, it takes effort to keep the order alive.

4.6 Translation and its stages Now that the basic principles of ANT have been established, we can move to the way ANT will structure the underlying research. As mentioned before, the formulation of policy and regulations can be seen as a process of translation. Governing priorities emerge, objects of government are constituted, and various actors are involved in every step. To reach the goal of policy, interests of these actors need to be aligned to a certain extent. The vocabulary of translation as proposed by Callon (1986) will be used as the guiding framework when analysing the formulation of policy and regulations. It consists of four ‘moments’, which will be elaborated on below. During the translation process, the “identity of actors, the possibility of interaction and the margins of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited” (p. 201).

4.6.1 Problematisation During this stage, a certain situation or state is being problematised by one or more actors. These actors determine other actors that can or should be involved in the network, where after they define their own identities ‘to establish themselves as an obligatory passage point in the network of relationships they were building’ (Callon, 1986, p. 201). When the outline of this stage is applied to the main research question, the problematisation stage entails the

15 stage in which a lack of policy around free-float mobility is increasingly seen as a problem by one or more actors. These actors will then attempt to build a network around what they see as the problem and try to attribute to themselves an indispensable role in that same network.

4.6.2 Interessement Interessement is defined by Callon (1986) as “the group of actions by which an entity attempts to impose and stabilize the identity of the other actors it defines through its problematization” (p. 203). The identities of other actors can be defined through a multitude of methods, strategies, and mechanisms. Some options that are named by Callon (1986) are force, seduction, or solicitation. In this research, interessement is seen as the stage in which the actor or group of actors attempts to engage other parties behind the problem ‘lack of policy and regulations surrounding free-float mobility’. This interessement is usually based on interpretations of what the potential actors are, what their interests and goals are and what other parties they are associated with (Callon, 1986). The stage of interessement helps prepare potential actors for enrolment, in order to effectively turn them into actors.

4.6.3 Enrolment The stage enrolment can be seen as a period during which roles are defined that are then attributed to certain actors that accept these roles. Like the interessement stage, the negotiation of roles can happen through a multitude of ways. The example that Callon (1986) gives shows physical violence, seduction, transaction and consent without discussion, but many other ways can be devised and used. In this research, enrolment can be seen as the way actors are attributing roles to other actors in order to reach a formulation of policy.

4.6.4 Mobilisation In the final stage of mobilisation, the actors have reached a point where the aforementioned enrolment is transformed into some form of active support. If this stage is successful, the actors that have been enrolled have now formed an order in which the identity of each actor is established, the roles are described, the types of interaction and margins of manoeuvre have been defined (Callon, 1986).

4.7 Methodological principles of ANT To ensure the research remains structured and does not end with chaotic results, Callon (1986) has established three methodological principles which will be shortly introduced below. A further elaboration on how these principles will be applied in the research at hand can be found in chapter 7. The first principle is that of agnosticism. Self-evidently the researcher is impartial towards scientific and technological arguments made by actors, but this argument is extended towards arguments made about the social environment. No judgment is made by the researcher about the way in which actors analyse the society they find themselves in. Additionally, the researcher keeps an open mind towards identities of actors involved while this identity is still being negotiated.

The second principle is known as generalized symmetry. The goal of this principle is to use a single repertoire or vocabulary when describing ‘Society’ and ‘Nature’. This way, simply repeating the analysis and vocabulary of the actors under research is avoided.

The third and last principle is called free association. This principle signifies that all a priori distinctions between natural and social events must be abandoned. The categories that the researcher uses, the entities and actors that are described and the relations between them are all points of discussion and analysis. There is no pre-established grid of analysis, instead

16 the actors need to be followed in order to establish a method to define and associate the studied elements used by the actors. 5. Sub-questions In order to be relevant for the goal of this research, every sub-question must help provide insight in the rationalising process behind the regulation surrounding free-float mobility. The combined answers to the sub-questions must be able to answer how the emergence of free- float mobility in an urban context leads to the formulation of policy and regulations. The theoretical basis as laid out in the previous chapter provides guidelines that can assist in the formulation of sub-questions.

First of all, the specific way a lack of policy and regulations is problematized can lead to the involvement of a specific set of actors and a specific outcome. That is why the following question will be asked: - In what way and by whom is a lack of policy and regulations problematized?

The next sub-question focuses on the middle part of the policy-making process and the actors that are participating in it. As outlined in the previous chapter, actors can either be human or nonhuman and can either involve themselves in the process or be involved in it. This can happen in various ways such as the aforementioned physical violence, seduction, transaction and consent without discussion. In addition, the involvement itself can take on various shapes such as cooperation, consultation, support, et cetera. That is why the following question will be asked:

- What actors are (being) involved in the policy-making process and by which means does this happen?

Cities around the world are working on regulation, and as will be demonstrated in the next chapter, many are choosing to let free-float mobility remain in their city under certain conditions. Conditions here can be interpreted broadly, they can take the form of rules and regulations such as: the vehicles need to be parked in an orderly manner. Conditions can also take the form of broader assumptions or expectations, for example that free-float mobility can be good for the city. That is why the following question will be asked:

- What conditions does the actor-network shape for free-float mobility to remain in an urban context?

17 6. Research context As the research goal, questions and theory have now been established, the current chapter will outline in what context the research will be executed. The introduction of this research has shown that the majority of the research available on free-float mobility has taken place in China. This is understandable given China was the first country where free-float mobility emerged, however since then the phenomenon has spread over the globe and academic attention hasn’t followed. Studies that have taken place in other contexts concern free- floating car sharing, which is outside the scope of the current research, or focus on the business model of free-floating bicycle sharing (van Waes et al., 2018). As demonstrated in section 1.8, this means that a research gap exists on the topic in contexts outside of China. Mobility services on offer, attitudes towards them and regulations around them differ from city to city, and from country to country. An international comparative perspective will yield insight in approaches taken and can show how local context can influence preferred and realized outcomes.

Flyvbjerg (2006) provides several strategic sampling methods that can be used for the selection of cases to study. He points to strategic sampling methods in favour of a representative case or random sampling because average cases might not be able to deliver the (depth of) information required. The first strategy is to focus on extreme cases, whereby the focus is on unusual situations in either a positive or negative way. The next strategy, maximum variation, selects cases that are different on a specific aspect and can be used “to obtain information about the significance of various circumstances for case process and outcome” (p. 230). The third strategy selects a critical case which allows for deductions such as “If this is (not) valid for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases.” (p. 230). The fourth and last strategy finds paradigmatic cases of which the results can be used to make more general statements about e.g. the society in which the research is taking place. As described in section 1.8, the case of ‘free-float mobility’ could be seen as paradigmatic for the way governments and societies deal with increasingly digitized and shared services. These sampling methods will be used below in order to select cases where free-float mobility policy and regulations can be researched.

To see if the approaches taken by operators and resulting policy and regulations are similar or different depending on the context, it is considered useful to look at operators that are active in multiple cities and countries. International free-float mobility operators such as Bird and Lime are available in North, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East, South- East Asia, Australia and New Zealand (Bird, 2019; Lime, 2019). Due to time and resource constraints, the research context will need to be found within Europe. A broad overview of free-float mobility in Europe will be presented, from which cities will be selected where the research will take place.

In Europe, the first free-float mobility (aside from previous generations such as the white bicycle plan and smaller pilots) arrived in Manchester in June 2017 (Polis Network, 2017). While this happened in concurrence with the local transport authority, in other cities operators often rolled out without permission or even the knowledge of local authorities. This was the case in for example London, Paris and Brussels (Paton, 2018; Le Monde, 2018; Poppelmonde, 2017). As mentioned before, lack of regulations has led to a situation where operators could quickly expand their services to cities and countries. When consulting newspapers, several different responses can be seen. In Munich, authorities reacted somewhat positively when the first operator arrived, but became more worried when several other operators also wanted to start in their city (Mania-Schlegel, 2017). Amsterdam decided to ban all bicycle share systems that did not have fixed parking spots while working on new

18 policy (Teuling, 2017). The British Department for Transport started looking into possibilities to license and penalise operators (Paton, 2018).

Because the regulatory responses can differ starkly from city to city, the aim is to select cities where the responses are unique or first of their kind. These can be considered ‘extreme’ cases. Multiple cities have shown interest in attracting a free-floating bicycle scheme to their city. Next to Manchester, also Milan and Florence invited free-floating operators to their cities and cooperatively launched bicycle sharing services (Polis Network, 2017). A comparative case study into 51 docked bicycle share systems across Europe shows that for large-scale systems, it is usually an advertising company, street furniture provider or transport company that operates the service through a contract with the municipality (OBIS, 2011). This means that while the tender or concession approach taken by Milan and Florence shows a positive stance towards free-float bicycle share systems, it does not differ from a ‘traditional’ approach of a contract between municipality and mobility company. The regulation gap as described in section 1.7 arises specifically when operators roll out their service without permission or cooperation of the municipality. The research thus needs to be aimed at cities that are crafting regulation to prevent that situation from occurring.

In addition, to research the introduction of free-float mobility in an urban context, more than one modality should be or have been available in the respective cities. This can prevent a skewed image if a city turns out to be prejudiced in favour of or against a single modality.

One city that took a strong position against free-floating bicycles is Amsterdam. The municipality announced it would start to remove bicycles off the streets in August 2017, several weeks after their arrival. It then announced it started working on policy (Couzy & Cornelissen, 2017). After the announcement that free-floating bicycles would be banned, electric scooters arrived to the city of Amsterdam (Koops, 2017). While initial reports indicated that these scooters would also be banned, eventually these were allowed to stay while policy was being made (Kruyswijk, 2019). Next to being the first European city that banned free- floating bicycles, clear differences can be seen in the way the municipality treats the different modalities. This means that Amsterdam can be considered an ‘extreme’ case.

Several cities around Europe have issued documents that outline some requirements for free- float mobility operators. While London’s code of practice “applies to all Operators and sets out the operational and safety standards that Operators are expected to adhere to”, it mainly points to already existing laws and may be revised or expanded at any time (Transport for London, 2018). Paris’ charter of good conduct “sets rules for a good cooperation between the city and the operators”, asks operators to make respectful use of the city and respect existing rules. It can also be updated regularly to meet changing contexts and goals (Marie de Paris, 2019). While these documents ask operators to act according to existing law, the documents themselves have not yet been formalised in law meaning their legal status remains unclear. This is underlined by Transport for London, stating in their code of practice that “the introduction of Dockless Bike sharing will be closely monitored as appropriate governance and regulatory controls are explored” (2018, p. 13). The situation is different in Brussels, being the first city in Europe to have a legislative framework for free-float mobility in place (Smet, 2018). The framework was written by the mobility cabinet and administration, and later approved by the Brussels Capital Region’s parliament. It is legally enforceable and can only be changed by passing through several layers of government and with the approval of the parliament. By being the first city that formalised the regulation for free-float mobility, Brussels makes another ‘extreme’ case. In addition, it has multiple free-floating modalities such as scooters, kickscooters and bicycles (Ville de Bruxelles, 2019).

19 While free-float mobility spread to cities all over Europe, many governments worried about the number of operators that would come to their city. Amsterdam issued the temporary ban when there were six operators active in the city and its policy proposal that foresaw 9.000 free-floating bicycles in the city was revised after heavy critique from citizens (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019). Munich wanted to become a cycling capital but started to worry when four operators wanted to start and when Brussels’ legal framework went into effect a total of four kickscooter operators were active (Bruzz, 2019; Couzy & Cornelissen, 2017; Mania- Schlegel, 2017). A city that took a more unusual approach is Madrid, where permits were issued to a total of 18 kickscooter operators, thereby allowing a total of 8.610 kickscooters into the streets (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2019). Because Madrid’s approach seems to differ starkly from other cities observed, it makes another ‘extreme’ case for research. Next to kickscooters, several free-floating scooter operators are active in Madrid (Acciona, 2019; ioscoot, 2019).

The three selected cities, Amsterdam, Brussels and Madrid, are all interesting cases in their own respect. In each of the cities, multiple free-float modalities are or were active, and several operators such as Lime and oBike are or were active in multiple of these cities. When combined, they can also be seen as ‘maximum variation’ cases because the regulatory outcomes are very different from one another. As mentioned before, the outcome of the combined study also has the potential to be paradigmatic for services that operate in a similar fashion.

In addition, all three of the selected cities are large capital cities and are members of various networks that aim to share knowledge and expertise within the area of mobility. One organisation that has issued a position paper on ‘dockless bike sharing’ is the International Association of Public Transport, or UITP (UITP, ECF, & PEBSS, 2017). Its members include transport authorities of Amsterdam and Madrid, and the Brussels Ministry of Mobility (UITP, 2019). Another network focusing on research and innovation within mobility is the Polis Network. It represents approximately 80 cities and regions throughout Europe, among which Amsterdam, Brussels and Madrid and facilitates research and knowledge exchange on mobility topics (Polis, 2019). It hosts a working group specifically focusing on governance and integration. With the three cities all being members of these knowledge exchange networks, it becomes possible to look into the role of these networks in the creation of policy and regulations, which is seen as an added benefit.

20 7. Methodology In this chapter, the methods that are used in this research will be explained. The methodology follows out of a combination of the theoretical framework and the sub-questions. The theory can be seen as the ‘lens’ that is used to look at the research subject and question. That leads to a certain set of sub-questions, the methodology elaborates on how these sub-questions will be answered and can be seen as the toolbox of the research.

7.1 Application of ANT principles The methodological principles of ANT have shortly been introduced in chapter 4. In this paragraph, the principles and their application in this research will be discussed.

According to the first principle of agnosticism the researcher is impartial towards scientific, technological and social arguments made by the actors. The researcher needs to keep an open mind towards the identities of actors. This will be brought into practice by refraining from bringing in any ‘objective’ knowledge to judge the content of the translation process, while the image of the process is still incomplete. The image of the process will only be drawn using information that is provided by the actors within the actor-network. Furthermore, the selection of actors will not be set in stone but will be allowed to evolve according to insights gathered. Additionally, during the process the researcher will refrain from making personal statements or judgments on the value or desirability of both free-float mobility and the governance around it. The only way this should and will be done is within the framework of the actors themselves: is the outcome aligned or not aligned with their interests and goals? It is inevitable that the perspective of the researcher is somewhat reflected in the final picture, however by being critical and self-reflective towards this the intention is to keep it to a minimum.

The second principle of generalized symmetry will be reflected in both the research and the reporting process. The vocabulary of ‘translation’ as set out by Callon (1986) will be used throughout the research, in order to avoid the adoption of the actors’ vocabularies. The vocabularies of the actors will only be adopted in a describing manner when they reveal the attitudes towards other actors. One such example can be witnessed in the municipality of Amsterdam where free-float bikes have been called ‘strooifietsen’, which roughly translates to ‘scatter bikes’ or ‘sprinkle bikes’.

The last principle of free association holds that no a priori distinctions between natural and social events will be made. In order to establish a method to define elements used by the actors, the actors themselves need to be followed. Within the context of this research, the actor(s) will be followed from the phase of problematisation. By tracing the actors using these phases, the expectation is that any tools, methods or otherwise they use to associate themselves with other actors will become clear.

7.2 Research strategy As the theory and sub-questions show, the goal is to obtain a clear picture of the policy and regulations process from problematisation until mobilisation. Some of these steps will be publicly documented, for example in news reports or scientific articles. Other factors of the translation process will not be publicly documented, such as actors that influenced the process, attitudes, interests and goals. That is why a mixed methods strategy has been selected in order to conduct the research.

A review of scientific literature has been conducted at the start of the research to reveal earlier research on free-float mobility, governance processes or other relevant topics. This has been be done by narrowing in on the three cities. Then, during the research itself scientific literature

21 was constantly consulted in order to help explain actors, interests, goals and other phenomena. In order to comply with the principle of agnosticism, external knowledge has been confirmed with the actors in question. Does actor x indeed have the same motivations for performing action x as stated in the scientific literature?

Additionally, a review of public media has been conducted in order to reveal the outline of the translation process. The expectation is that many of the steps of the translation process will have had some public exposure. In addition, interviews and public statements can reveal the attitudes of actors to one another. How the media helps in tracing the translation process becomes clear from the following example of free-float scooters in Amsterdam: In October 2017, the news outlet RTL Z reports “Amsterdam also wants to get rid of Felyx’s shared scooters, entrepreneurs surprised” (RTL Z, 2017). Then, in March 2019 Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool reports “Shared bikes? No, Amsterdam is betting on the shared scooter” (Kruyswijk, 2019). In roughly one and a half years, the position of Amsterdam towards free-float scooters fundamentally changed. But what where the tactics used to interesse the actors? What are the interests and goals, and how did they become aligned? To reveal this, we will move to the next step of the research.

A review of policy documents and related materials has been conducted, through an approach that Wood (2016) calls ‘following the materials’. She refers to the actor-network theory and states that the materials through which policy circulates need to be reviewed. While this might happen through countless ways and materials such as “technical guides, promotional pamphlets, academic assessments and newspaper exposés”, the current research focused on documents actually published by governments and guidelines published by supranational organisations. It was expected that a potential line of influence between these documents can be established more clearly.

Interviews have been conducted with relevant actors in each of the cities. The intention was to use the interviews in order to obtain all information for answering the sub-questions that could not be obtained in the previous steps. Such information can be opinions, interests, goals, tactics, assumptions and more. These interviews were semi-structured, which increases the probability that all information needed is effectively obtained from the respondents. By not taking on a rigid structure, there is still room for sidesteps and unexpected turns within the conversation. On using interviews to study policy movements, Wood (2016) notes that it is a method “especially useful for probing beneath the socio-political exterior of the decision-making process” (p. 397). This means that while one image of the policy-making process might be created in the media or publications of the actors, another image might surface when talking face-to-face. The interviews have been used to collect information retrospectively by looking back at the policy process, but also to reflect on the current situation and discuss a future outlook. As mentioned before, the interviews have also been used to confirm externally gathered information with the actors.

Lastly, the interviews have helped in uncovering additional actors within the actor-network that might not have been clear from the outside. Who has consulted on the final outcome, what were explicit or implicit influences on the problematisation? For example, it is possible that not only local factors were taken into account but that lessons were learned from international events.

It is important to note that the overall research strategy is designed from the belief that the involved actors will at least display some level of transparency. The policy and regulations under research are all enforced by democratically elected governments, who are generally expected to give accountability about the creation process. However, the degree to which this applies relies on the final form of the regulation. In addition, actors might not be willing to

22 share information they consider to be sensitive or might give a representation of the truth that is in their best interest. This is why not only externally collected information has been verified during interviews, but also information gathered during interviews has been verified and triangulated externally where possible.

7.3 Analysing and processing the findings This section will describe how the interviews have been analysed and the way in which the results have been processed. At the start of the interview, the aim of the research and the interview have been explained to the respondents. They have been asked for permission to record the audio of the interview on a recording device, to which all of the respondents agreed. These audio files have then been transcribed word for word, which was done in order to ease the analysis of the interview contents. In addition, literally transcribing adheres to the ANT principle of agnosticism. Summarising the interview before analysis would have required an a priori assessment by the researcher of which contents and statements are significant and which aren’t. Statements that at first seem trivial might turn out important after comparing them to statements from other actors.

After transcribing, the interviews have been coded with the coding software ATLAS.TI. This was done to make information from the transcripts easily retrievable. The first interviews have been coded using open coding, this was done to find recurring subjects in the interviews and has mostly been descriptive in nature. The codes resulting from the first interviews have then been used to code the resulting interviews. Throughout the coding process, sometimes new codes emerged, codes were dropped or refined. This resulted in a total number of 99 codes. By consequently coding fragments of text based on their contents, cross-analysis between interviews and cities was facilitated which contributed to the ANT principle of free association.

The results from the interviews have mainly been processed in the form of quotes, to achieve a narrative style. According to Flyvbjerg (2006), using a narrative style in describing case studies can help “approach the complexities and contradictions of real life” (p. 237). It helps display the many dimensions, social aspects and peculiarities that were found surrounding the policy process. Presenting the results in the own words of the actors also helps prevent reflecting the opinion and views of the researcher, thus contributes to the principle of agnosticism. After every quote there is a reference containing the year and ‘personal interview’, the exact dates on which the interviews took place can be found in the bibliography.

All the interviews concerning Amsterdam and Brussels were conducted in Dutch, the native language of the researcher and the respective respondents. The interviews concerning Madrid and supranational organisations were conducted in English. For the legibility of the research all the quotes from interviews conducted in Dutch have been translated to English. In translating, the author has attempted to stay as close to the original meaning of the quote as possible. In addition, all quotes used in the research have been sent to the respondents before publishing, in order for them to review the translation when applicable and to give final permission for publishing their statements. As a result of this, one respondent indicated that he did not want his quotes to be translated into English. Subsequently, the quotes have been removed from the research and the findings have been written up in the own words of the author, with reference to the interview as a source. Some respondents wished to clarify or partially redact their original quotes. While redacting quotes was not an option because it would damage the integrity of the research, sometimes a clarification has been added before or after the original quote. In these cases, the sources are referenced to as ‘personal communication’. In doing this final check with respondents, the researcher has made sure the statements as written up did indeed reflect the views of the respondents.

23 7.4 Case selection for interviews The case selection for interviews starts with some obvious actors. As the research looks into urban policy and regulations surrounding free-float mobility, the actors responsible for formulating this will be interviewed. For this, government officials on local or regional scale have been selected in each city.

Then, actors responsible for offering free-float mobility have been selected. These offer the services that in one way or another are leading (or have led) to the formulation of policy and regulations. The aim was to interview at least two actors from different operators in each city, that are or have been active within the boundaries of that respective city. It is possible that multiple operators have diverging views on how the city is operating, which is why it is important to engage more than a single operator. Some operators are active in more than one of the cities under research, in which case the results of one interview can apply to multiple cities.

In addition, two supranational organisations have been selected for an interview. These organisations in one way or another have goals that could entice them to influence the policy process surrounding free-float mobility in the respective cities. Furthermore, the municipal organisations of the selected cities are members of said supranational organisations. Some mutual influencing is expected to take place.

Finally, some space in the research schedule has been left blank at the start of the research. This was done to allow for interviews with potentially unexpected actors that could be introduced through the first set of interviews.

7.4.1 Amsterdam Vera van den Bos – Policy Advisor on cycling and traffic safety at the municipality of Amsterdam Vera van den Bos works at the department of Infrastructure, Traffic and Mobility at the municipality of Amsterdam. In this role, she has worked on policy aimed at free-float mobility starting in 2016, advising and guiding the process until the new policy took effect in 2019.

Daan Wijnants – Manager Government Relations & Public Affairs at Felyx Felyx is a company that operates free-floating scooters in several cities in the Netherlands, among which Amsterdam. At the time of the interview, Felyx was only active in the Netherlands. Since the interview, it has expanded to Brussels (De Waard, 2019). Daan Wijnants works at Felyx and is based in Amsterdam. It is his task “to make sure governments domestically and abroad cooperate with our expansion ambitions, that we get permission to place our scooters there or to expand if they are partly there already. And, for a part also media influencing and such” (Wijnants, 2019, personal interview). Daan Wijnants is also a so-called ‘duo’-councillor at the municipality of Amsterdam, with focus areas being Public Space, Greenery and Cleaning (VVD Amsterdam, 2019; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).

Ronald Haverman – Strategy & Government Affairs at Mobike Mobike is an operator of free-floating bicycles and is active worldwide. In the Netherlands, it is active in Rotterdam, Delft and The Hague. While not active in Amsterdam, it was still selected for an interview because it has been active in the Netherlands during the policy- making process in Amsterdam. In the draft version of policy that the municipality presented, 9000 bicycles were envisioned to be allowed in the city. In the next version, the bicycles were no longer given a place in the city. For this reason, it was seen useful to include Mobike in order to reveal their view on the place of free-floating shared bicycles in the country with the highest bicycle ownership in the world and the process in Amsterdam.

24 Ronald Haverman works at Mobike, is hired to advance the development of their free-float cycling service and to ensure optimum cooperation with governments. He works on various locations throughout the Netherlands, among which the cities where Mobike is active (2019, personal interview).

Robin Cats – Former Partnership and Government Relations Manager at oBike oBike was the first company through which many European cities got to know free-float mobility. It placed thousands of bicycles in these cities, often without contacting authorities first, or without authorisation of these parties. It led newspapers to talk about ‘the invasion of the China bicycles’ or ‘scatter bicycles’ (Bruzz, 2017; Mania-Schlegel, 2017). It has been selected for an interview to find out what led to this approach and to hear about the responses of the cities. Robin Cats was responsible for the Benelux area as a “partnership manager at oBike, which means I looked for all the partners, hotels, that sort of things, to see if we were allowed to place [our vehicles, red.] in front of them. And next to that I did (…) government which kind of means I contacted municipalities to open up gaps through which we would be allowed to place bicycles there” (Cats, 2019, personal interview).

Bart de Liefde – Head of EU Policy at Bird Bird is an operator of kickscooters that is active worldwide. It is active in more than ten cities across Europe, among which Brussels and Madrid. While its European headquarters is located in Amsterdam, the service is not active in the city. It has been selected for an interview because while kickscooters are not allowed on public roads in the Netherlands, the company does strive to operate the service in Amsterdam and is working to achieve it. Bart de Liefde is “head of policy for the EU, that means all the Brussels’ work, and the Benelux, and for the Nordics, meaning all Scandinavian countries. I maintain all contacts with governments, national, local, regional, politicians on all those levels, and with branch organisations, third parties, network organisations such as a Polis, UITP, and I also do that on all levels”. “I make sure together with our launchers that we can go there, they the operational preparation, I the political and regulatory preparation. And after that I maintain the contacts with governments, to keep the relationship in good shape” (De Liefde, 2019, personal interview).

7.4.2 Brussels Floris Tack – Deputy Director Legal Affairs & Social Policy at the Cabinet of Brussels Minister Pascal Smet In Brussels, mobility and the related policy is a shared responsibility between the mobility administration and (at time of writing) the cabinet of Brussels Minister Pascal Smet. The initiative to draft policy for free-float mobility was taken by the cabinet, additionally it helped write it and supervised the political process of putting the policy into place. Floris Tack has worked on “social subjects, mobility subjects, public works, so that’s a lot”. The regulation of free-float mobility in Brussels “started with a strategic paper I wrote, three years ago” (Tack, 2019, personal interview).

Jan-Albrecht Jost – Co-founder at Scooty Scooty was the first company in Brussels to start operating free-floating scooters, and at time of writing the only one active in Brussels. While Scooty was an independent company when it was founded, later it has been acquired by Ubeeqo. Ubeeqo is a branch of Europcar Mobility Group. Jan-Albrecht Jost co-founded Scooty in 2016 and is currently still active in the company. He and Camille Callens have been interviewed together.

25 Camille Callens – Government Relations and Corporate Communications at Ubeeqo As mentioned in the previous section, Scooty is a subsidiary of Ubeeqo. While Camille Callens works at Ubeeqo, her activities focus mainly on Scooty. She is responsible for “everything on government relations and communications” (Callens, 2019, personal interview). She has been interviewed together with Jan-Albrecht Jost.

Robin Cats – see paragraph 7.3.1. oBike has been active in Brussels since September 2017, until approximately June 2018. As with other cities, the relevant authorities weren’t informed of their arrival (Bruzz, 2017). Because Robin Cats was responsible for the Benelux area, the results of the interview held can also be applied to Brussels’ context.

Bart de Liefde - see paragraph 7.3.1. Bird has started operating its free-floating kickscooters in Brussels in the Fall of 2018 but is no longer active in the city at the time of writing. Because Bart de Liefde is head of policy for the EU, the results of the interview held can also be applied to Brussels’ context.

7.4.3 Madrid Ignacio Ramos Soriano – Department of Communications and Consulting at EMT Madrid Ignacio Ramos Soriano works at the Empresa Municipal de Transportes or municipal transport company (EMT) in Madrid. He is “the responsible of, we are calling it innovation and mobility”. In addition, he is “managing the project of mobility as a service”. He contacts bicycle, car and scooter companies, with them he develops joint proposals for public and private transport operators “all together looking for a common vision” (Soriano, 2019, personal interview).

María Urrea López – Operations manager & launcher at VOI Technology María Urrea López works at VOI in Madrid, when she started in August 2018 she was “the first Spanish person to join the company”. She is responsible for finding cities in Spain where VOI can launch its service. She “launched” VOI in Madrid, Málaga, Zaragoza and Murcia and was managing operations and public affairs when she started (López, 2019, personal interview).

Jorge Magaña – Co-owner and former CEO at ioscoot Jorge Magaña founded ioscoot and was working at the company when it launched in Madrid in 2016. He quit working at the company in 2018 but remains co-owner of ioscoot (Magaña, 2019, personal interview).

Angelo delle Piane – Country Manager at CityBee, former Head of Operations at Koko Angelo delle Piane “was the head of operations [at Koko], and I launched their operations in Zaragoza and then Madrid. And after that, like a couple months ago I joined CityBee (…). So right now I’m opening the market here in Spain, initially with scooters but we’re also bringing like new services into the market, like moped sharing, car sharing, et cetera” (Delle Piane, 2019, personal interview).

Bart de Liefde - see paragraph 7.3.1. Bird is operating its free-floating kickscooters in Madrid with a total of approximately 800 vehicles (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2019). Because Bart de Liefde is head of policy for the EU, the results of the interview held can also be applied to Brussels’ context.

26 7.4.4 Supranational Caroline Cerfontaine – Senior Manager & Unit Leader Urban Mobility Governance at International Association of Public Transport (UITP) The UITP has the mission to “enhance quality of life and economic well-being by supporting and promoting sustainable transport in urban areas worldwide” (UITP, 2019). It attempts to do so by bringing together around 1600 public transport stakeholders and companies that offer (services related to) sustainable transport from all over the world. Amongst these 1600 members are members from each of the selected cities, namely the Vervoerregio Amsterdam, the Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale and the Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid (UITP, 2019). The UITP has published a position paper in cooperation with the European Cyclists’ Federation and the Platform for European Bicycle Sharing & Systems (UITP, ECF, & PEBSS, 2017). It problematizes a lack of policy around free-float mobility in cities worldwide and proposes a policy framework that cities can use as a guideline to establish policy themselves. This raises the question if and how the (situation in the) three selected cities has had an influence on the position paper, and in turn if the position paper had an influence on the three selected cities. This is the reason that the UITP has been selected for an interview.

Within the UITP, Caroline Cerfontaine is leading the Urban Mobility Governance Unit, that oversees UITP activities related to strategy and governance not only related to new mobility services but for urban mobility in general. She is in charge of managing and coordinating different expert groups on these topics and writing the official positions of UITP together with these experts. At UITP she is the only one in charge of new mobility services (Cerfontaine, 2019, personal communication).

Luana Bidasca – Policy and Project Manager at Polis Network (www.polisnetwork.eu) Polis is “a network of European cities and regions working together to develop innovative technologies and policies for local transport” (Polis, 2019). It brings together local and regional government authorities on topics that are deemed relevant. One of these topics is the regulating of new and shared mobility services, on which Polis hosted a workshop in February 2019. This raises similar questions to those at the UITP: What were the circumstances or motivations that led to the organisation of this workshop, and (how) did it influence the members? Amongst these members are the Municipality of Amsterdam, the Brussels Ministry of Mobility and the Municipality of Madrid (Polis, 2019).

At the time of writing, Luana Bidasca was Coordinator of the Polis Working Group on governance and integration. Polis represents almost 80 cities and regions from across Europe at EU level. The Brussels based secretariat actively takes part in EU research and innovation projects facilitating partnerships and access to Horizon and Interreg funded projects (Bidasca, 2019, personal communication).

27 8. Problematisation The first phase in the translation process described by actor-network theory is the problematisation. This section will outline how ‘a lack of policy and regulations’ is problematised and which actors were involved in this. It is assumed that a lack of policy and regulations for free-float mobility has not been an issue until approximately 2017, because there were no problems resulting from this lack of policy. It is when free-float mobility emerged and problems started to occur, that actors started to realise that the lack of policy and regulations might be an issue. For each of the selected cases, this stage might follow a different path, which will be outline below.

8.1 Amsterdam 8.1.1 Bicycles The city of Amsterdam can be considered ground zero for free-float mobility. As mentioned in the introduction, Amsterdam was the first city that introduced a form of free-float mobility in 1965. The so-called wittefietsenplan was introduced by the provo’s, a movement that wanted to provoke the establishment through organising all kinds of happenings and protests. The provo’s proposed to make the many ‘orphan bikes’ that Amsterdam had available to the public. These bicycles were to be painted white in order to improve the recognizability. Ten bicycles were painted white and placed in the city in order “to provoke” ('t Hart, 2001). These first bicycles were confiscated by police officers because they didn’t have locks, it was against the law to leave bicycles unlocked in the public sphere (de Wildt, 2015). This shows that public servants quickly problematised the initiative thus were not convinced by potential benefits the plan could offer. In addition, the plan failed because too many bicycles were stolen and repainted by their new owners (Het Parool, 2008).

In the decades that followed, the government’s position towards bicycle sharing became positive. Several government-approved successors were piloted in Amsterdam, such as the so-called ‘witfiets’ or whitebike in 2000. The model was no longer free-floating, the user had to cycle from one depot to another (De Volkskrant, 1999). The national newspaper The Volkskrant noted in true Amsterdam fashion: “The white bikes can be used free of charge during the introductory weeks. After that it will become clear if people prefer to rent a ‘witfiets’ or buy a wreck from a junkie” (1999, translation by author).

The witfiets scheme was discontinued due to theft and several mechanical failures (Het Parool, 2008). It took more than a decade before the next free-float bicycles became available in Amsterdam. Vera van den Bos indicates that in 2016, the city of Amsterdam stated it wanted to start experimenting with shared bicycles at public transport hubs but that they had not expected the events that followed (2019, personal interview). Several operators such as FlickBike, oBike and DonkeyRepublic placed thousands of their bicycles in the city around July 2017 (Kruyswijk, 2017; Cats, 2019, personal interview). According to several sources, the arrival of the operators was not immediately problematised by the local authorities. The free- float operator FlickBike noted in an interview with Van Waes et al. (2018) that the municipality of Amsterdam told them that because of a lack of rules, they could operate in the city. Robin Cats, responsible for government relations at oBike, also states that the municipality told them “yeah, there is no law for that, so go ahead and start” (2019, personal interview).

Vera van den Bos states that the department was indeed contacted by several operators but said that the operators were told to hold off their operations until an appropriate policy framework was made (2019, personal interview). This means that the municipality and the operators are telling two different stories, which makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact moment that the free-floating bicycles’ presence was problematised. On the period after the bicycles were problematised, Robin Cats notes that “the municipality of Amsterdam (…), it is

28 acting as if they knew nothing [about the roll-out] (…). We made the beginner mistake once, not to have it put in writing by the municipality of Amsterdam” (2019, personal interview).

An argument frequently used against free-floating bicycles was that they would use scarce public space. Vera van den Bos describes that during the past five years she worked for the municipality, its position changed from a preference for bicycle parking in the streets towards a preference to take bicycles off the streets into dedicated bicycle parking garages. This was heavily influenced by an increasing pressure on public space due to large numbers of visitors and tourists (van den Bos, 2019, personal interview). The municipality wasn’t the only actor that problematised the presence of the bicycles in public space. As Robin Cats describes, there was quite some protest from citizens as well: “[oBike was] becoming a sort of outcast, people started throwing our vehicles in canals, at one point ten bicycles were piled on top of each other” (Cats, 2019, personal interview).

However, operators often propagate that their bicycles could actually reduce the total amount of bicycles in public space. Because of their shared nature, they could be used more frequently than individually owned bicycles. Ronald Haverman explained that the optimum shared bicycle is one that will only be parked for very short periods of time and is used many times a day. When bicycles are moving, they can help solve mobility issues and form a net benefit to society. When bicycles are parked, they take up scarce inner-city space and form a net cost to society (2019, personal interview). This means that theoretically, cities where public space is scarce would be in favour of shared bicycles because they could help decrease the number of parked bicycles. However, as described this was not the case in Amsterdam. Purely looking at the pressure on public space in Amsterdam doesn’t give us a concluding answer why the bicycles have been problematised.

Another factor that might be at play is the culture of bicycle ownership in the Netherlands. Daan Wijnants notes: “We simply have our own bicycles in Amsterdam. I mean, I believe there are on average 1.4 bicycles per citizen of Amsterdam. (…) It is simply too typically Dutch to have your own bicycle.” (2019, personal interview). Official countrywide numbers confirm this, with 17 million inhabitants and 23 million bicycles the average ownership amounts to 1.35 per person, hereby wrongfully assuming that every inhabitant of the Netherlands owns a bicycle. This means that the actual number of bicycles owned per bicycle user might even be higher (Harms & Kansen, 2018).

The citizens of Amsterdam thus are accommodated to their own bicycles and are used to park and see these bicycles in public space. The free-floating bicycles then were seen as intruders in this space (Haverman, 2019, personal interview). A factor that contributed to this was the colour of the bicycles. Without stations in fixed locations, operators need to find ways to make sure potential users are able to find the vehicles. Next to localisation via GPS, van Waes et al. (2018) state that strong brand visibility is a key resource in crowded streets. Mobike, oBike and FlickBike respectively have bright orange, yellow and lime green accents thus standing out from the average bicycle.

The colour was not the only design aspect that contributed to the problematisation of free- floating bicycles. The overall quality of the first wave of oBikes wasn’t up to Dutch standards, and Cats realised this: “We’re in the Netherlands, we’re used to good quality bicycles and we’re just not going to use these. It’s just not going to happen” (2019, personal interview).

Vera van den Bos states that the way in which oBike rolled out its service, and the associated numbers were the drops that made the cup run over. Summing up, the launch, “the quality of the bicycles and that it was very visible, it wasn’t Amsterdam-like” (2019, personal interview). As a result, in August 2017, using both media announcements and official letters to operators,

29 the municipality declared that it would start removing the free-floating bicycles in September 2017 (Cats, 2019, personal interview; van Unen & van der Meijden, 2017). The operators were given the possibility to respond, after which the bicycles had to be removed.

As noted before, the municipality of Amsterdam did not yet have regulations in place that specifically concerned free-floating vehicles. This means that initially a legal basis to remove the vehicles was lacking. A solution was found in the application of a century-old article in the APV (local bylaws) of Amsterdam, article 2.50. This article states that it is forbidden to offer paid services on the road or at the roadside without an official exemption (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2008). As Vera van den Bos mentions, at the time of creation this article was intended for shoeshine boys and photographers but was argued to apply to free-float vehicles as well, because their paid services are offered on roadsides in public space (2019, personal interview).

8.1.2 Kickscooters Nationally, kickscooters have not been approved for public road use by the RDW, the Vehicle Authority of the Netherlands. Vera van den Bos thinks “that it is the reason why we don’t have them yet” (2019, personal interview).

As Bart de Liefde describes, to be admitted on Dutch roads, a new vehicle must receive an authorisation from the competent minister. “Then you’re not there yet, then the vehicle is admitted on the road but you don’t yet have permission from the municipality of Amsterdam to drive for example” (2019, personal interview).

In September 2018, a tragic accident happened with a non-free-floating vehicle that was admitted under a special authorisation. In this accident, four children passed away and two people were heavily injured. As a result, the rules under which a special authorisation can be issued were tightened. De Liefde notes: “the current rules are so strict that as far as we know, none of the current models of electric kickscooters comply with the Dutch rules”. He believes that under the old rules, their vehicles could have already been allowed on the roads but because of the current rules, “the Netherlands will be the last country in Europe where electric kickscooters hit the road” (2019, personal interview).

8.1.3 Scooters For free-floating scooters, a somewhat similar pathway was followed. The first, and at the time of writing only free-floating scooters in Amsterdam were introduced by Felyx in August 2017, when 108 scooters were placed in public space (Koops, 2017).

Whereas the municipality ordered the free-floating bicycles to be removed weeks after their arrival, this public statement initially was only aimed at bicycles and not at scooters. One political party argued in city council that the municipality should also prevent that free-float scooters remain parked in public space (Koops, 2017). However, Daan Wijnants affirms that when the bicycles were ordered off the streets, the same was going to apply to the scooters. However, he explains his company discussed the situation with the city council, during which it turned out that there was much more public support for the scooters than for the bicycles. To sum it up, he argues: “We offer added value, and those bicycles don’t” (2019, personal interview). Vera van den Bos states that the numbers were completely different, there were approximately 7000 free-floating bicycles and only 108 scooters. Because of the smaller numbers, the degree of nuisance was found to be lower. In addition, political support for the scooters was higher than for the bicycles. According to Vera van den Bos, “those are circumstances through which (…) a situation of tolerance has arisen” (2019, personal interview). As a result, the scooters were not subjected to article 2.50 of the APV and were allowed to stay while awaiting more specific regulation.

30 8.2 Brussels 8.2.1 Bicycles The first time free-float mobility made its entry in Brussels was in September 2017, when around 500 yellow bicycles from a company called oBike were placed in the public space of the city (Poppelmonde, 2017). As Floris Tack describes, free-float operators that wanted to start offering their services in the city were often unsure which governmental institutions to approach (2019, personal interview). The first operators active in Brussels originated from Asia and didn’t have sufficient knowledge of the local governmental context. If they did approach governments, they often approached the municipality of Brussel-Stad (Brussels- City), which is in turn only a neighbourhood of the Brussels Capital Region in which the operators wanted to offer their service. However, according to Floris Tack, asking governments for permission was not on top of the operators’ priority lists (2019, personal interview).

Despite an initial lack of communication between government and operator, Floris Tack states that their initial stance towards these services was positive. He indicated that he had already written a ‘strategic note’ for the ministry of Mobility in 2016, describing the rise of free-floating bicycles in Asia (2019, personal interview). The sudden roll-out of these services in Brussels had not been expected. He notes that Brussels was usually not the first in line to receive new investments “from whichever sector”. In addition, he argues: “all possible initiatives for people who currently own a car or multiple cars, which can convince those people to get rid of that car, or own less cars, are good for us” (2019, personal interview).

A reason that the operators weren’t problematised at arrival is that a regulatory framework was lacking. Both Floris Tack and Camille Callens indicate that there were only general rules such as the Belgian ‘Wegcode’ or road legislation which orders bicycles to carry lights, have brakes, not to park in car parking spots, et cetera (2019, personal interview).

In Brussels, the problematisation of the bicycles’ presence happened much softer than in Amsterdam. The government did not issue a notification towards the operators that they had to remove their vehicles off the streets, instead it announced that it would start working on a regulatory framework (Bruzz, 2017). Caroline Cerfontaine confirms that “Brussels at first didn't know how to react, so they adopted a wait and see attitude” (2019, personal communication).

When asked about this, Floris Tack noted that the Brussels ministry didn’t think that banning and then gradually admitting would be the right approach for Brussels. This belief was supported by the already positive impact of the bicycles that they were seeing at the time: “[the bicycles] were free-to-use for several months (…), as a result many youngsters were using the bicycle. Especially in the poorer neighbourhoods” (2019, personal interview).

One factor that contributed to the problematisation of oBike’s presence in Brussels was design. Robin Cats mainly criticises the foam tires on oBike: “cycling on it was so tiring, if you had to cycle on it for a kilometre you’d be broken” (2019, personal interview). A Brussels Capital Region member of Parliament additionally criticised the lack of gears on the oBikes, making them unfit for the hilly landscape in Brussels (Bruzz, 2017). In comparison, the bicycles from local government-supported bike share system ‘Villo’ are equipped with seven gears. Floris Tack notes on this: “If you’re going to allow very bad bicycles [in Brussels] that don’t have gears then you won’t be able to use that bicycle for many trajectories in Brussels” (2019, personal interview).

31 8.2.2 Kickscooters In Brussels, kickscooters were introduced approximately one year after the free-floating bicycles. Bart de Liefde states that he approached Pascal Smet, the mobility minister of the Brussels Capital Region, and was allowed to launch Bird’s service. Additionally, they approached all the communes where they planned to launch their service (2019, personal interview). This seems to confirm Caroline Cerfontaine’s statement that “you can see also now that the e-scooters have learned that you cannot just enter a city without asking, before or without talking to the relevant authorities in place” (2019, personal interview).

8.2.3 Scooters The first free-floating scooters appeared in Brussels during the summer of 2016 and were introduced by Scooty. Before the company started, they were invited to the mobility cabinet, recalls Jan-Albrecht Jost. He says that the cabinet wanted to prevent the pressure on public space from becoming too high, but with a total of 25 scooters at the time of introduction this risk was limited. He had the impression that Brussels found the service they were offering quite interesting, “undoubtedly from the assertion that it would be hard for the government to do it themselves. That they had serious limitations with the public transport to what they could offer” (2019, personal interview).

Floris Tack affirms the positive position of the cabinet: “there was a minister who was very willing, who strongly wanted to push for alternatives to the car” (2019, personal interview). This means that similar to the other free-floating vehicles, scooters weren’t problematised from the start. Brussels took a more liberal approach, as Floris Tack indicates: “We’re not going to start banning everything. We will need to learn which place these vehicles [have] in public space” (2019, personal interview).

However, while allowing the presence of the vehicles for the moment, Floris Tack admitted there was a need for more regulation. He states that the rules that were there only held the user responsible for faults, defects and accidents but not the operators: “the rules were all aimed at bicycles, kickscooters or scooters in private property”. The impact on public space was another reason to start a regulation process, according to Tack: “a scooter you own, you won’t leave in public space. A bicycle you own, you might take more care of. So on certain points we need to make sure that there is strict regulation” (2019, personal interview).

Additionally, Jan-Albrecht Jost stated that based on the Belgian road legislation “it was unclear where exactly the scooters could be parked. And that we even feared for a while that we wouldn’t be allowed to park on the sidewalk” (2019, personal interview).

Summing up, Tack named four points why regulation was needed in the eyes of the cabinet. Firstly, the service should operate in a correct way, and there should be maximum mobility impact. Secondly, to ensure an open competition, so every operator could theoretically apply for a license. Thirdly, with regulation the reputation of the sector can be guarded, operators that misbehave too much and tarnish the reputation of the sector will be “bonjoured” out of Brussels. Fourthly, it ensures a level playing field and gives the sector some long time security (Tack, 2019, personal interview).

8.3 Madrid 8.3.1 Bicycles In Madrid, the first free-floating bicycles appeared in September 2017. At this time, the city council was already aware of the potential downsides the bicycles might bring, however they stated to be “open to new models of sustainable mobility” (Medina & León, 2017). At the time

32 of introduction, Madrid did not have regulation that was tailored to free-floating bicycles, the city council announced to be working on a framework (Medina & León, 2017).

The municipal transport company EMT Madrid operates its own docked electric bike sharing system called biciMAD. When the free-floating bicycles were introduced within the city limits, the city council stated not to be worried about potential competition with biciMAD (Medina & León, 2017). Ignacio Ramos Soriano confirms that in the city centre, biciMAD is more popular than free-floating alternatives. The presence of the free-floating bicycles was not immediately problematised. Soriano stated that the city council was studying if the operators should be allowed to establish their services in the city centre when elections came in June 2019 (2019, personal interview). This means that for the moment it is unsure if the bicycles will be allowed to stay.

8.3.2 Scooters Jorge Magaña was the first operator to launch free-floating scooters in Madrid, which happened in 2016 through his company ioscoot. When asked what the municipality thought of his scooters, he answers “I think they don’t mind”, and goes on to tell the municipality offered his scooters free parking because they had an electrical drivetrain. The same policy applies citywide for electric cars. In general, he believes that the municipality “[doesn’t] know what to regulate, and why they are going to do anything. They don’t know what to think of all of this. They don’t know if they want to give something to the citizens, or to take care of the companies” (2019, personal interview). As a result of the introduction of free-floating scooters in Madrid, no specific regulatory action had been taken. María Urrea López confirms that Madrid already had dedicated parking for scooters, meaning that the introduction of free- floating scooters didn’t lead to parking problems (2019, personal interview).

8.3.3 Kickscooters Approximately one year after the bicycles, in October 2018, multiple free-floating kickscooter companies arrived to the city of Madrid. As with the bicycles, there was no clear regulatory framework that applied to the service. As María Urrea López puts it: “[there] was a legal gap. Like, it wasn’t legal but it wasn’t illegal either. So it seemed like a good moment to launch in Spain”. In addition, VOI “is a company that is coming from Sweden. So we thought that once the temperature in Sweden is like minus 10 degrees people wouldn’t ride the scooter”. In order to keep growing, Spain seemed to have a favourable meteorological and regulatory climate to launch the service (2019, personal interview).

She states VOI launched the day after Madrid published a mobility ordinance that stipulated the need to provide legal protection to users in case of accidents. At that time, the municipality hadn’t started the authorization process for operators yet (2019, personal communication). She describes that the municipality “seemed like they were okay with it, and we explaining them that once the economic [authorization, red.] part of the regulation were approved, we were definitely willing to collaborate with them” (López, 2019, personal interview). Ignacio Ramos Soriano states that “when they came to Madrid, the first companies, Bird, Lime, five or six more. The city council want to see what happened. And let them to stay” (2019, personal interview).

Next to the economic part, other parts of the regulation also remained unclear according to Delle Piane (2019, personal interview):

“When you present a [kick]scooter to a town hall, they’re like, okay, but what the fuck is this? Is it a toy, is it a vehicle? Do you need to have a plate on it? Does it need to have speed limits? What about safety?”

33 When Angelo delle Piane’s company approached the city council to ask permission to run a pilot, it was authorised. Initially, the city council took a passive approach. When kickscooters were stolen and vandalised, Delle Piane describes the position of the municipality when kickscooters were stolen and vandalised: “They’re like, it’s your problem, it’s not my problem. You were the one that wanted to deploy here, so it’s your problem” (2019, personal interview).

Then, at the end of 2018 it seemed like the presence of the kickscooters was going to be problematised by the municipality. Ignacio Ramos Soriano describes that “from the different channels of communication with citizens, the complaints started to come, more and more”. The main reason for this was that the vehicles were placed on already crowded curbs and became obstacles for people with disabilities. In addition, Ignacio Ramos Soriano mentions road safety: “accidents with pedestrians but [also] accidents with other vehicles in the street” (2019, personal interview).

María Urrea López indicated that there was another reason the kickscooters were problematised. The municipality asked their company to “identify the areas where a scooter cannot park” and draft a map of this. According to López (2019, personal interview):

“I guess they didn’t have technical information about this, so they (…) [made] us kind of create this map. We asked for this map several times but there was no way for them to provide it to us. So after that, they decided to kind of ban the scooters, maybe not ban the scooters but like, yeah, for a certain amount of time”.

She adds that in many cities, VOI uses technical measures to limit parking in certain areas such as pedestrian areas, cemeteries and parks, and that these areas need to be large enough to take into account GPS accuracy limitations. The city council asked operators Lime, Wind and VOI to create a map with fine-grained and detailed exclusions, which according to these operators could lead to situations where users couldn’t lock the vehicles because GPS indicated they were in an excluded zone while they were actually in an adjacent street. The scooters were temporarily banned in December 2018, because the operators didn’t provide a map with the level of detail that the council required (López, 2019, personal communication).

8.4 Synthesis Looking back, we can see several differences in initial regulation levels between the cities. In addition, the responses also differ starkly depending on local factors. Still, some overarching conclusions can be drawn.

In general, operators have shown insufficient attention for the local context of the cities where they were operating. This is reflected in many ways; the bicycles weren’t adapted to local taste and landscape or the operators weren’t aware of which authorities they should have approached to ask for permission. It indicates that the operators didn’t fully know which factors to take into account when expanding their service to new countries.

María Urrea López (2019, personal interview) describes that:

“we thought that the weather would be something very important to take into account into the use of the e-scooters. After several months (…) we realised that actually, the weather conditions aren’t that important. There are many variables that are more important, like (…) the culture, or, yeah, the income of the people, these kinds of things”

VOI realised this because user numbers in Nordic countries remained very successful throughout the winter of 2018: “people are just riding a scooter with minus 10 degrees. As

34 long as it is not snowing, or heavy rain or something like that, people keep using scooters” (2019, personal interview).

Operators that are local to the cities where they are operating seem to be more successful in this aspect. They are embedded in local networks from the start of their service, such as working groups from the chamber of commerce. Camille Callens (2019, personal interview) notes that this allows them:

“to share best practices, to constantly see what’s going on in the Brussels market, but we only rarely see international players there. For example Lime, Bird, Uber, they are usually not there. Because they don’t have time, or they have to manage all of Europe instead of just Brussels. And I think it’s to their disadvantage, but also understandable”

Another recurring issue that led to the problematisation of the services is the way they were often launched in cities. In the case of the free-floating bicycles, this often happened without the permission or even knowledge of local authorities. The interview with Robin Cats shows that oBike felt compelled to roll out before their competitors, and only contacted the relevant governments afterwards. Robin Cats describes that Mobike was the largest operator in Asia, and oBike thought “we need to be everywhere in Europe as fast as possible. Because then we’re ahead of Mobike there, and will be the biggest player [in Europe]” (2019, personal interview). Vera van den Bos adds an extra dimension to this: “I don’t think they thought we would make the decision to start enforcing the rules. I think it surprised them” (2019, personal interview). This indicates that the operators not only launched in this fashion to be ahead of their competitors, but also because they expected it would play to their advantage when eventually regulation would be made. Instead, the strict enforcement turned out to be a turning point in the tactics of free-float operators. Bart de Liefde states: “we always launch in cities where we have a mutual understanding”, Daan Wijnants engages into dialogue and tries to reach agreements with municipalities, and Ronald Haverman explained Mobike only wants to roll out its service if the government is eager to have it (2019, personal interviews). Operators that still employ ‘traditional’ launch tactics are sharply condemned by others in the sector: “then you’re legally right but you totally and completely fuck up the relationship. Not just for yourself but also for the entire sector” (De Liefde, 2019, personal interview).

Summing up, Luana Bidasca advises the operators “to come and to be proactive and to talk with the cities well in advance, and really understand the situation there before you launch an operation” (2019, personal interview). She adds that ideally, operators should shape their business model and operations according to the cities’ needs (2019, personal communication).

35 9. Interessement During the interessement stage, one actor attempts to interesse others in the actor-network of policy and regulations surrounding free-float mobility. This chapter will discuss what actors were interessed in this network and how this happened. In addition, the chapter will outline based on what assumptions of interests and goals the actors were interessed.

9.1 Amsterdam In Amsterdam, the free-floating bicycles were quickly interessed in the policy-making process. As the problematisation has shown, the bicycles were the reason the process was initiated in the first place. In the perception of the municipality of Amsterdam, the bicycles would not be of much use and would mainly form an obstruction in the already crowded public space. This conflicted with the operators’ views, who state that the use of shared bicycles can actually increase the available public space in a city. The perception of the municipality will be leading throughout the policy process.

The scooters on the other hand were perceived as more useful to the city. Vera van den Bos states that scooters are hoped to become an alternative to car rides, and that eventually the parking pressure in the city might decrease through the use of shared scooters “if it would be a replacement for an individually owned scooter” (2019, personal interview). The assumptions connected to the vehicles will be shown to have their impact on the policy process.

Robin Cats describes that during the presence of oBike and other free-floating bicycles in Amsterdam, several meetings between operators and municipality took place on “what we do exactly and what we want, and how we make sure it doesn’t become a mess”. He continues telling that the municipality only wanted to work with the operators if they adapt their service to work with dedicated zones (2019, personal interview). The user then would only be able to cycle from zone to zone, akin to the station-based bicycles the municipality piloted in the beginning of the 2000s. This option wasn’t seen as satisfactory by the operators, shortly after which the problematisation of their presence happened with the government issuing a notice that all bicycles were to be taken off the streets. Through this notice, the municipality de facto interessed the operators to engage with them: if they wouldn’t engage with the municipality, they would lose the possibility of operating their service in Amsterdam in the future. Vera van den Bos confirms that all parties obeyed the notice while the municipality started working on policy “where [the operators] wanted to be a part of. I think that’s why it went in an orderly manner” (2019, personal interview). After the ban on the free-floating bicycles, the municipality held a market consultation before starting to draft policy. This was done to learn more about the sector they were dealing with and “to engage in a dialogue with those market parties” (van den Bos, 2019, personal interview). Vera van den Bos states they “spoke to a lot of free-floating bicycle operators”, in addition they worked with “written surveys, we had quite a large response on those” (2019, personal interview).

After the initial meetings and contact with the operators, the municipality of Amsterdam started drafting policy. When the first version of this policy was finished, it was published on the website of the municipality for public consultation and participation. This way, everyone that wanted to could take part in the policy process. Vera van den Bos describes that in this stage, operators that originated from Amsterdam became interessed, “but of course also operators from outside [of Amsterdam], and regarding citizens also commuters, but mainly inhabitants of Amsterdam” (2019, personal interview).

Another group that got interessed were politicians. As Vera van den Bos describes, possibilities and opportunities were seen to connect the services to policy goals Amsterdam already had in place, such as the reduction of cars in the city. Authorities in the various

36 boroughs wanted to have a say in what happened on their streets, and the municipality wanted to provide market parties with clarifications as soon as possible. The combination of these factors resulted in political pressure to quickly come up with policy (van den Bos, 2019, personal communication).

Next to local actors, other cities were interessed in the policy-making process of Amsterdam. The municipality engaged with the so-called ‘G5’ network, the five largest municipalities in the Netherlands, and contacted international cities as far as New York. Vera van den Bos indicates that from the contact with these cities the municipality learned the situation in Amsterdam was unique (2019, personal interview). This means that lessons from other cities couldn’t directly be applied and Amsterdam had to find out the appropriate regulation on its own. Other cities thus weren’t enrolled in the policy process in a later stage.

A last group that was interessed in the process is a group that by definition is not from Amsterdam, namely tourists visiting the city. In recent years, measures that can be best described as anti-tourism have been gaining support in Amsterdam. The most visible (or rather; now invisible) countermeasure was the removal of giant ‘I Amsterdam’ letters that used to be located in front of the Rijksmuseum and that were considered a main attraction for tourists (Niemantsverdriet, 2018). Vera van den Bos describes that there was a “fear that [the free-floating bicycles] would be more for tourists” (2019, personal interview). Bart de Liefde describes that the same fear applied towards kickscooters: “in city council last year a motion was filed to ban electric kickscooters (…) because it would only be used by tourists” (2019, personal interview).

9.2 Brussels The most obvious actor to be interessed in the regulation network is the free-floating vehicle. It is the reason the entire regulation process started, the assumptions under which the vehicles were interessed can reveal insights about the rest of the process. One of the reasons that the vehicles weren’t strongly problematised was that the minister of mobility wanted to support alternatives to the car. In this reasoning, the assumption is hidden that free-floating bicycles and (kick)scooters can actually be alternatives of the car. This is somewhat nuanced by Floris Tack: “we see it as one of the alternatives, not as the alternative. The only thing we see as a solution is a wide spectrum of possibilities that gives people the feeling that for every type of movement they have a solution which is not the car” (2019, personal interview). It is also hoped that usage of the vehicles will nudge citizens and visitors of Brussels towards other forms of sustainable transport, shared or privately owned: “suppose they enjoy [the usage of free-floating vehicles], (…) maybe in their free time they will sooner buy bicycles, or company bicycles” (2019, personal interview). In short, the vehicles are interessed in the policy process under the assumption they can help decrease the dominance of the car.

The mobility cabinet took a proactive position while interessing actors: “if we hear about a company in the media we automatically contact them” (Tack, 2019, personal interview). This is confirmed by Camille Callens, who states that “at the start, effectively before we launched, we were invited to the cabinet of the minister of mobility” (2019, personal interview). This works two ways, the cabinet is also often contacted by operators: “meanwhile we’re well known within the sector, so often companies contact us first” (Tack, 2019, personal interview). This is again confirmed by Bart de Liefde: “we spoke to Pascal Smet and his cabinet (…) we passed by all the authorities” (2019, personal interview).

In Brussels, the mobility cabinet aimed not just to create regulation but wanted to set up a legal framework. This means that many more actors had to be interessed in the process. Floris Tack summed up that the regional government was consulted, both a socio-economic

37 and a mobility advisory council were involved, and finally the State Council. Next to all the formal actors, cyclists’ associations and citizens with physical disabilities were involved. Because a legal framework was set up, political parties could have their say about it (Tack, 2019, personal interview).

To engage the general public, the regulatory document was published on a website, after which a public working group was organised where “everyone that wanted, could provide input” (Tack, 2019, personal interview). In addition, every citizen that contacted the cabinet with complaints or suggestions was directed towards an online form where the input could be structured.

In hindsight, Floris Tack thinks that they “could’ve invited more people, we could’ve engaged even better, but it was also a balance that you needed to reach within the time pressure” (2019, personal interview).

9.3 Madrid In Madrid, first of all the free-floating bicycles and kickscooters were interessed in the policy making process. As mentioned in the problematisation phase, the assumption was that the vehicles would block sidewalks and become an issue for road safety. This was influenced by the citizens of Madrid, who started complaining about the presence of kickscooters in their public space. While complaints from citizens have contributed to the problematisation of a lack of policy and regulations, there are no indications that citizens have been interessed in the policy-making process.

Meanwhile, Ignacio Ramos Soriano states that the idea is to manage the services “as complement of the public transport” (2019, personal interview). María Urrea López (2019, personal interview) agrees with this perspective:

“it would be great if all of us have a metro station just like when we go downstairs in our house, but that’s just not possible. So you need to provide another solution, in order to encourage many people to use public transport, and micromobility [such as kickscooters, red.] is one of the solutions”.

This means the main assumptions under which the free-floating vehicles are interessed in the network are that they could form an obstruction in public space and a road safety issue and could serve to optimise public transport. When the first version of the policy document was finished, Ignacio Ramos Soriano indicates that it “circulate[d] all around the different departments in the city, one of them the EMT, our company” (2019, personal interview).

Angelo delle Piane states that the operators weren’t being asked for input by the municipality: “they were saying, this is what we want to have and this is what we’re going to have, and that’s it” (2019, personal interview). It seems like there were not many parties interessed in the policy making process.

9.4 Synthesis Within the interessement stage, stark differences can be seen between the different cities. One convergence that can be witnessed is that in every city, the policy making process was accelerated by the presence of the vehicles in public space. Amsterdam and Brussels’ municipalities admitted to be already working on some form of policy or official opinion of the vehicles, when the vehicles arrived to their cities. In Amsterdam and Brussels, we see that the operators were interessed proactively by the municipality, while in Madrid this barely happened at all. In all three cities the public became an actor in the policy making process,

38 for example through complaining over various channels or by the municipality actively asking the citizens for their involvement and opinion.

Next to direct citizen involvement, citizens were also secondarily involved through democratic processes. Because in Brussels the services were regulated in a legal framework, the democratic process was the most extensive with every political party being able to share their views and eventually vote on the final framework.

While tourists are not unique to Amsterdam, we see that given the locally growing resistance against them, they are explicitly interessed in the policy process.

This means that every city interessed a different amount of actors and chose different means to do so. It becomes clear from this stage that supranational organisations were not explicitly interessed. Although representatives from the studied cities were members of these organisations, a direct line of influence between organised working groups, published documents and the policy process of respective cities could not be established. As Vera van den Bos mentions, situations between cities differed, meaning knowledge that was exchanged could serve as inspiration but could not directly be applied. The specific constellation of actors that was interessed will be reflected in the final policy outcome.

39 10. Enrolment During the enrolment, the actors that were interessed in the previous stage are given roles in the actor-network. The assumptions and methods based on which these roles are distributed, result from the previous stages.

10.1 Amsterdam In Amsterdam, the vehicles were given passive roles based on assumptions of their use value for the city of Amsterdam and its inhabitants. The bicycles were seen as troublemakers, they would take up the already limited space and additionally clutter it. They would not be of much use to the inhabitants because virtually every inhabitant of Amsterdam would already own a bicycle. Based on these initial perceptions the bicycle was temporarily banned, through which the assumptions became the recorded truth. This means that the role of the free-floating bicycle became fixed, it would not be able to defend itself for example by showing that the sharing of bicycles would lead to less bicycles in the streets.

The scooter was given a more positive position, as the assumptions mentioned in chapter 9 show. The perceived use value was higher, it was hoped to become a replacement for car rides and eventually might replace individually owned scooters, thus decreasing the amount of scooters in public space. The scooters were given the chance to prove the assumptions, as opposed to the bicycles they were allowed to stay on the road during the policy making process. During the consultation period that the municipality of Amsterdam arranged for its policy concept, 200 out of 424 comments from inhabitants concerned statements of support towards the scooters of Felyx. This has helped establish the role of scooters as part of the final regulation.

Before the bicycle ban, operators were given a passive role. They were accepting this role because they believed it would be in their benefit to roll out their service as fast as possible to be ahead of competitors. When the bicycles were problematized, this perception changed, and the operators took a more cooperative attitude. They were given and accepted an advisory role, according to Vera van den Bos they accepted this role because they wanted to be included in the outcome of the process (2019, personal interview).

Inhabitants initially acquired an informal role by voicing their opinions using various channels such as social media, or even physically demonstrating their opinions by vandalising the free- floating bicycles in various ways.

When the first version of the regulation was presented by the municipality of Amsterdam, the inhabitants were given the possibility to formally respond to it, which 424 inhabitants did. In 2019 the municipality of Amsterdam published a so-called note of response, in which it listed what was done with all the inhabitants’ comments. This formalised the role of the inhabitants as advisors and shows their influence on the final policy: many of the comments were adopted in policy. If this was not the case, the government substantiated its decision (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).

Finally, the tourists were given a passive role closely related to the perceived use value of the free-floating bicycles. Because the use value for inhabitants of Amsterdam was perceived to be low, it was assumed to be a vehicle aimed at tourists visiting the city. This meant that tourists would reap the benefits of the vehicles’ presence, and the inhabitants would experience only downsides. Daan Wijnants is actively countering the potential perception that their scooters would be used by tourists: “With us, as a tourist you can’t actually drive, because you need to have a Dutch bank account, almost no tourist has one” (2019, personal interview). Bart de Liefde states that if Bird’s kickscooters were to operate in Amsterdam, he

40 would be willing to exclude certain zones from the service to assure the kickscooter will not become a “tourist vehicle”, additionally indicating that in other cities where the service is active “the vast majority consists of locals, inhabitants of the city using it” (2019, personal interview). The tourists’ role remains quite abstract, no tourists seem to be directly consulted and their role is mainly based on assumptions. In addition, the actual ratio of tourists and inhabitants amongst the users can only become clear by allowing the services into the city and monitoring the usage.

10.2 Brussels In Brussels, the vehicles were given a prominent role based on the expectation they could eventually reduce car usage. As in Amsterdam, there was an expectation that the vehicles could lead to a more cluttered public space. However, instead of banning the vehicles for this reason, it was regarded as “collateral damage, for a part. And with our regulation we want to limit that collateral damage as much as possible, but of course we realise there will always be some” (Tack, 2019, personal interview).

Operators were actively involved by the ministry, this was most likely done because Brussels usually wasn’t the first in line to receive investments, as described in the previous chapter. This means the ministry aimed to keep these investments in Brussels. The operators were given an advisory position, in which they could comment on the policy draft. As Jan-Albrecht Jost describes, the ministry “made a rough proposal of what they wanted to introduce, and we were allowed to comment if it was realistic or not” (2019, personal interview). Floris Tack gives another reason that helps explain the interest of the companies: ”they wanted to make sure it isn’t too strict here, some points they will find too strict, at others they will agree with our approach. Because they were afraid that other cities would copy it” (2019, personal interview).

Because in Brussels the goal was to establish a legal framework for free-float mobility, a predefined path was followed and all political actors took on their usual predefined roles. As Floris Tack outlines, the administration and cabinet draft a legislative proposal, the government votes on it after which it passes on to the socio-economic councils and the mobility council (2019, personal interview). With these two consultations, the administration and cabinet go back to work on the document and try to respond to all remarks. When this is finished, the government votes once again and if the proposal passes, it is checked for final remarks by the State Council. All the remarks, questions and alterations are published alongside the final document (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement, 2018).

As mentioned before, the general public was informed every step along the way, all inhabitants or other actors that wanted to share their opinions could take on an advisory role. Floris Tack states that “everyone could give input, from cycling associations to environmental associations, to the sector, and we have taken many of those comments into account” (2019, personal interview).

10.3 Madrid As became clear from the interessement stage, in Madrid not many actors were formally interessed in the process. The vehicles were enrolled based on the assumption that too many of them could block sidewalks, could become a safety issue or that they in some cases could supplement the public transport. Ignacio Ramos Soriano explains the role that was seen for free-floating vehicles: “The car is the very best way of transport, because you have solution in every moment of the day, for every travel (…). But we need that the alternative system, with public transport and sharing, is able to get a solution for every need of the user” (2019,

41 personal interview). In other words, the free-floating vehicles aren’t seen as a direct competitor to the car but are meant to become a reasonable alternative.

The operators were given an unclear role. In some cases they were contacted by the government to supply information that the government itself wasn’t capable of acquiring or producing, such as a map of where the kickscooters would be allowed to circulate: “I guess they didn’t have technical information about this, so they, yeah, they make you, make us kind of create this map. We asked for this map several times but there was no way for them to provide it to us” (López, 2019, personal interview). But other times the government was less transparent about input from the operators:

“they’re really responsive. Like if you call, you can probably speak with them most of the time. (…) they’re open for conversation, meetings, talking about this stuff. But then in the end you need to know exactly how they’re going to react regarding regulation or things that you requested” (Delle Piane, 2019, personal interview).

10.4 Synthesis Actors were enrolled in policy processes based on both positive and negative assumptions. Various roles were distributed, both active and passive and the way these were distributed differs between the cities. Meetings were organised and actors were reached through various channels of communication. In Brussels, the enrolment followed a somewhat predefined pathway for a legal framework was to be established. Because of the novel nature of the services, new ways of enrolment were also set up in the various cities. Online surveys were conducted in Amsterdam and citizens using social media complaining about the services were redirected to structured forms in Brussels. The statement of Delle Piane on the situation in Madrid was indicative for the enrolment process in other cities, governments are not always transparent about the exact role of the actors and what is done with the input they delivered. Amsterdam was the most transparent about this, publishing its considerations and answers on questions of citizens. The next chapter will delve deeper into what aspects from the enrolment made it into the final policy or fell out.

42 11. Mobilisation In this chapter, the mobilisation of the actor-network will be described. With the actors enrolled, the mobilisation into policy becomes a fact. The results show that in each of the three cities, the unique processes and actor-networks have led to three different outcomes. In the outcomes, the interests and characteristics of the local context are reflected.

11.1 Amsterdam On the 20th of June, approximately two years after the arrival of the first free-floating vehicles, city council decided that the policy note ‘Deelmobiliteit Kansen voor de Stad’ or ‘Shared Mobility, opportunities for the city’ could go into effect. The policy note and changes to the local bylaws were published on the 4th of July 2019, and officially went into effect on the 5th of July 2019. With this, the official policy direction became established and article 2.50 in the APV (local bylaws) received the addendum 2.50A aimed specifically at “offering vehicles for use on the road or at the roadside” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019). The new bylaws explicitly state that it is forbidden to offer vehicles for use if the operator hasn’t received an exemption from the municipality and applies to all shared vehicles with the exception of cars.

In the policy, the maximum number of scooters that is allowed in the streets is established at 700, which will be operated by a maximum of two operators. While Felyx has been allowed to operate extralegally until the policy was established, Vera van den Bos states it now will need to apply for one of two permits if it wants to keep operating in Amsterdam but is not guaranteed to receive one upfront (2019, personal interview). Daan Wijnants admits that there is a chance Felyx won’t receive a permit but that he doesn’t expect it, because the company already had the time to become embedded and optimise their service to Amsterdam (2019, personal interview). As Vera van den Bos describes, Felyx “thought a lot about what rules to set for [their] users, they themselves have chosen areas where the scooters can’t be offered. So, some things we partially adopted into our policy” (2019, personal interview). She adds that most operators thought about similar aspects, but Felyx’s were seen as a better match to the city of Amsterdam (2019, personal communication). This again emphasizes the need for operators to study and become embedded in the local context of cities where they want to operate.

As shown from the problematisation stage on, Felyx took a more gradual approach than some bicycle operators. The number of vehicles was smaller and wasn’t increased during the extra- legal period, Vera van den Bos noted that Felyx stopped taking on new members in anticipation of the issuing of permits (2019, personal interview). When the presence of the scooters in public space was first problematised, Felyx responded arguing their added value to the city. Vera van den Bos states that “in numbers the real difference was, because 7000 [bicycles] versus 100 [scooters]. And also the degree of nuisances is a wholly different story”, which allowed Felyx to keep operating before regulation was completed (2019, personal interview). In addition, it cooperated with the municipality in the policy making process and enjoyed political support. All these factors contributed to this specific policy outcome.

When turning our attention to bicycles, the mobilisation into policy shows a different path. Their presence was problematised for multiple reasons, and while operators tried to convince the municipality of their viewpoints, this didn’t materialise in the policy that was produced. The document states that at least until 2021, no permits will be issued for the city-wide operating of free-floating bicycles. In the policy that was established in Amsterdam, some small and local experiments with bicycles can still be allowed in areas that have ‘mobility problems’. Vera van den Bos states that the way oBike rolled out its service “led to a lot of resistance, also in public media, pictures of oBike in the trash” (2019, personal interview).

43 Vera van den Bos states that under the current policy, an experiment with kickscooters would theoretically also be possible. However, she underlines that for this to be possible, the kickscooters first need to be authorised for road use by the Dutch Vehicle Authority meaning that the experiment would only be authorised if legally possible (2019, personal interview).

By being able to give input during the process, operators seem to be understanding of the outcome. For example, Daan Wijnants notes that some of the points that Felyx contributed have been implemented, while others haven’t made it into the policy. He also indicated that it is understandable a permit system is introduced and while there are some aspects they would have liked to see different, they are happy there is a possibility to increase the number of scooters (2019, personal interview).

With the policy and bylaws in place, the position of free-float mobility within the city of Amsterdam has become clearer. The policy is only aimed at the period until 2021 so it still remains unclear what will happen after that. When asked about the perspective after 2021, Vera van den Bos states “I find that one difficult. We are going to learn (…). A period of 2-3 years seemed reasonable (…) you can’t promise an operator that they can operate longer than that, there’s also competition and a free market and a transparent government” (2019, personal interview). This indicates that while the policy took almost two years of deliberation and work, there are still aspects that need to be learned by putting the policy into practice.

11.2 Brussels On the 22th of October 2018, the parliament of the Brussels Capital Region voted on an ordonnance concerning ‘free-float bicycle sharing’, slightly more than a year after the first free-floating vehicles were introduced to Brussels’ streets. An ordonnance has a legal status similar to a law. It was decided that the ordonnance would go into effect on the 1st of February 2019. While the name of the ordonnance seems to suggest otherwise, the contents also apply to vehicles such as scooters, kickscooters, motorbikes and hoverboards.

Following this new ordonnance, operators will need a permit to be allowed to offer their services within Brussels’ territories. While the ordonnance went into effect at the time of writing, a transitional period has been established meaning operators active before the 1st of February 2019 have time to acquire a permit until the 1st of September 2019. The transitional period resulted in two operators deploying their service on the 31st of January, starting after this date would result in an obligation to complete the entire permit procedure before being allowed to launch (Bruzz, 2019).

The regulation that was established is a clear result of the previous stages. Floris Tack outlined the intention to maximise the mobility impact of the vehicles, minimise the collateral damage while simultaneously keeping the private sector interested. This is reflected in the final regulation: “We’ve said we’re not going to be too strict too quickly, we’re going to establish a basic framework (…), every year we’re going to tighten the screws” (Tack, 2019, personal interview).

As mentioned before, the ordonnance applies to multiple types of vehicles and is in its application non-discriminatory towards the type of vehicle an operator wants to offer. All vehicles have to comply to the same rules, except with respect to potential fines and fees where the amount due falls within a set range depending on the type of vehicle.

Floris Tack (2019, personal interview) notes that the regulation has some other features with which the government can stay in control:

44 “Six out of ten measures are waiting dormant in the law, which means that we can activate every measure in about 1.5 month. Which is usually enough of a threat (…). [Companies] say, yeah but it isn’t prohibited? No, but I can prohibit it. So if you do it you give me a bit more work and we come back in two months’ time and it is prohibited”

Floris Tack describes that many operators speak positively about the cabinet, there is a positive response from the press and many people are using the free-floating vehicles (2019, personal interview). Jan-Albrecht Jost arguments that the regulation shows free-float mobility can be seen as a serious alternative for cars and shows consumers that the services and the operators behind it can be trusted (Jost, 2019, personal interview).

The permits are issued for periods of three years but can theoretically be renewed an unlimited amount of times for the same period. While Floris Tack states it is possible that new administrations will attempt to change the legislation through democratic processes, the chances are relatively slim because the ordonnance was accepted unanimously by all political parties (2019, personal interview). This means that unless involved actors do not live up to their obligations, the policy framework is expected to stay in place.

11.3 Madrid On the 12th of February 2019, approximately three years after the introduction of the first free- floating vehicles in Madrid, a regulatory framework was presented applying to kickscooters. Free-floating bicycles remain unregulated for the moment, and “for the scooter, for the motorcycles, you do not need any permission” (Magaña, 2019, personal interview). The framework outlined that operating a kickscooter service in Madrid would require a permit, while at the same time distributing 18 of these permits to operators. After the distribution of these permits, the operators were given two months to launch: “they put us a date, where we have to put the, all the vehicles in the street. And if the vehicles are not in the street, you lose your license” (Magaña, 2019, personal interview).

The 18 permits were distributed to operators that had already been active in other countries, but also to entrepreneurs with no previous experience in mobility at all. Several respondents indicated that one of the applicants applied for a permit with the sole purpose of selling the permit to another operator after issuance (Delle Piane, 2019, personal interview; Soriano, 2019, personal interview). Angelo delle Piane indicated that the municipality thus “created a black market from the beginning” (2019, personal interview). Another respondent stated that he heard about this ‘speculation’ with permits but that he didn’t believe it had actually happened. However, he then went on to explain that simply selling the permit was forbidden by the municipality, but that it wasn’t forbidden to sell the entire company that received a permit to a competitor (Magaña, 2019, personal interview). This situation has led to several smaller operators being bought up and absorbed by competitors, while remaining to operate under their own name because of legal requirements. For example, operator Koko has been acquired by Flash, leading to the kickscooters being labelled with ‘Koko by Flash’ (Delle Piane, 2019). According to Angelo delle Piane (2019, personal interview) the operators need to become and stay active in the neighbourhoods that were assigned to them, with the numbers of vehicles that were assigned to them:

“regarding of the neighbourhoods where we have to deploy, and it’s mandatory for us to deploy. If not, you lose your license (…) you can lose the whole authorisation for operating. If you do not fulfil, let’s say, the minimum amount of scooters in a certain area”

45 In the previous stages Madrid mainly seemed to focus on road safety and the issue of free- floating vehicles blocking sidewalks. This has materialised in the regulatory outcome, which has divided Madrid into 21 zones overlapping with the districts. For each of the districts, a maximum number of kickscooters was determined, after which this number was distributed over the operators interested in operating in that district. While one of the intentions was to manage the services as a complement to public transport, this hasn’t made it into the regulation yet. The maximum number was set as a result of a “combination of extension and population (…), the density, but without [analysing] possible combination for public transport for example” (Soriano, 2019, personal interview).

The vehicles are allowed to move outside of ‘their’ neighbourhoods, but “what the authorisation actually said is that the e-scooter needs to be at the neighbourhood they gave to us, one time a day. It doesn’t say when. So it’s a bit complicated” (López, 2019, personal interview). This means that the operators need to redistribute the kickscooters to the corresponding districts at least once a day. The responses to the mobilisation shows that the interessement and enrolment remained limited in Madrid. Ignacio Ramos Soriano indicates that “[kick]scooter sharing companies are not very happy” and that they don’t like the zones system very much, which in turn is confirmed by these companies (2019, personal interview). Angelo delle Piane (2019, personal interview) thinks that:

“they kind of created a little bit of a mess, letting so many companies getting authorisations (…) having a small fleet and so dispersed among the neighbourhoods it’s difficult for users to identify a brand, or understand or see which brand is the best for them”

María Urrea López confirms that the way the regulation is set up is “not good for the business but is not good for the users either” (2019, personal interview). In Sol, an area in the district Centro, eighteen operators are active with the maximum number of two vehicles per operator (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2019). López (2019, personal interview) describes a situation in which someone is staying or living in that area:

“Probably if you’re a super fan, lover of e-scooters you might have two or three apps. Like, maybe four. I have, I think I have seven, but like, I don’t even have twenty-two, you know. So, maybe you have that four, and it’s like, it’s pretty easy that eight scooters, that is the total amount if you have four applications, is pretty easy that eight scooters are gone”

With four applications and a total of eighteen operators, on average the user can only access 20% of the kickscooters in a certain area. While the operators are expressing their discontent over the current regulation, it is unlikely that the situation will stay the same for a long time. Ignacio Ramos Soriano states that “it’s an authorisation, an administrative authorisation that is very easy to change. It’s a rule for one year. But the next year you can change it”. He later adds that he indeed thinks “that for the next year the solution is going to be different” (2019, personal interview).

The operators are hoping for this, as Maria Urrea López is “pretty sure that scooters are going to be successful eventually, they are successfully now, but they are not as successfully as we would like to be, due to this barriers that I’m telling to you” (2019, personal interview). Ignacio Ramos Soriano “suppose[s] that [the operators] are waiting for the new city council thing, to start again negotiations, looking for a solution” (2019, personal interview). This means that it is likely the policy process as described in this research will start over again until a common understanding is reached.

46 11.4 Synthesis Amsterdam, Brussels and Madrid all have produced very different policy and regulations during the mobilisation stage. By zooming in at this stage it becomes clear that the contents of previous stages heavily influenced the final outcome. In general, we see that the more actors that are interessed and enrolled, the more satisfied these are with the final outcome. This doesn’t mean that all actors necessarily agree with all aspects of this final outcome but taking part in the process has contributed to an increased understanding. The opposite is also proved to be true, the outcome in Madrid led to dissatisfied operators complaining about the intransparency of the process.

An additional result from interessing and enrolling many actors is that their assumptions and expectations are brought along in the mobilisation. Examples are the hopes that (kick)scooters can replace car rides and that vehicles won’t be used by tourists. The more assumptions that are integrated, the bigger the risk that one or more assumptions aren’t fulfilled, possibly leading to dissatisfaction amongst actors. This in turn could lead to new actor-networks forming, to change (parts of) the policy and regulations in place. It must be noted that this risk is also present when there are not enough actors integrated. Ignacio Ramos Soriano indicated that he expected operators to restart negotiations with the new city council. These two observations raise questions about the precariousness of the order that has been created, which only the coming months or years will be able to answer.

Some governments were aware of these risks and have attempted to make their policy and regulations reactive and adaptive. Brussels has adopted several sleeping measures in its ordonnance, which can be activated if and when necessary. In Amsterdam and Brussels, the regulation has been labelled as experiment or pilot, which also allows for adaptation if needed. This means that with governments leaving regulatory level open to change, they are thankfully providing the researcher with the possibility for future follow-ups to this work.

47 12. Discussion 12.1 On policy goals When looking back at the four stages of translation, it has become clear that all three studied cities have chosen to craft some sort of regulation for free-float mobility. This was to be expected, because from the introduction of this research it became evident a regulatory gap led to several negative consequences. However, while it would have been possible to outright ban all forms of free-float mobility, all three cities decided to permit the vehicles in one way or another. An explanation for this can be found in the expectations that surround the vehicles. They were often proposed as an alternative to the car, solving congestion, freeing up valuable inner-city space, reducing local air pollution and relieving parking pressure. These perceived benefits seamlessly integrate with existing policy goals the three cities had established, such as reducing car usage, the amount of cars in the city and CO2 emissions (Soriano, 2019, peronal interview; Tack, 2019, personal interview; van den Bos, 2019, personal interview). The potential alignment of the services with existing government goals is named by Ma et al. (2018) as a factor that can help operators in the upscaling of their service. In other words, by trying to enrol themselves in actor-networks surrounding topics such as congestion and air pollution, the operators have increased their upscaling potential. Monitoring the services in the coming years will be required to see if they can live up to their promises.

12.2 On balancing the old and the new The previous paragraph has shown that the presence of free-float mobility in cities has been justified by linking it to broadly formulated policy goals. However, this was done ‘after the fact’, while operators were already active in the cities. Caroline Cerfontaine (2019, personal interview) would advise city governments to ask themselves:

“does a new solution actually contribute to the policy goals that you have set, or does it not? If it contributes to your goals, then encourage it, try to help it. (…) If it’s not, then you should think twice about if you want to encourage it”

As actual effects are often still unclear, it is difficult for governments to estimate if and how much free-float mobility contributes to their policy goals. That is why governments should not only consider how they can fit free-float mobility experiments into existing policy goals, but also how it weighs up to existing solutions. For example, if an operator of free-floating bicycles claims to be able to help with the policy goal of increasing bicycle usage, a government could investigate if the main barrier to bicycle usage is indeed a lack of available bicycles. It is possible that main barriers turn out to be a lack of cycling infrastructure or feelings of unsafety, as is the case in Brussels (Pro Velo, 2017). Still, experiments could go hand in hand with the application of existing solutions. While improving cycling infrastructure, an attractive bicycle share offer could help increasing bicycle usage. It is up to city governments to find the balance that is right for their city.

12.3 On reverse technological assessment As outlined in the first paragraph of this chapter, the expectations that came along with the vehicles have not yet been proven. This implies that a large part of the reasoning that allowed them into the city is based on hopeful expectations and wishful thinking, and that the effects the services cause in local contexts are largely unknown. Frenken & Schor (2017, p. 8) state that before food, toys or a public service such as a bus line is introduced or altered, they are usually “subject to detailed scientific analysis and normative deliberation before new products are allowed to enter the market”. However, because now the services enter without prior consultation, this causes ad-hoc decision-making on the government side. Frenken (2016) calls this reverse technology assessment, where the results of a new technology only become

48 clear after the introduction. Cities seem to be somewhat aware to this, labelling policy as a pilot or experiment while closely monitoring the actual results, but also admit that for example the relieving of parking pressure would mainly manifest itself in the long term (van den Bos, 2019, personal interview). It is up to each city government to consider if the expected benefits weigh up to unexpected downsides of a pilot, as long as this consideration is based on realistic estimates of both.

12.4 On the public or private character of free-float mobility Traditional docked bicycle share systems often came with high costs for the municipalities that wanted them. London’s cycle hire scheme was funded for a total amount approximately 63,43 million pounds by Transport for London since its launch in 2010. Over this same period, an additional 34,72 million pounds was sponsored by two banks (Transport for London, 2017). In Brussels, the bicycle share system Villo is run by JCDecaux, which is operating the concession without any direct financial government support. About 30-40% of the revenue is generated by users, the rest is generated by income from advertisements (Europese Commissie, 2015). The European Commission notes that JCDecaux does still receive state aid in the shape of the “exemption from certain fees and cancellation of certain taxes at municipal or regional level” which adds up to around 435.000 euros a year (2015). This shows that while the amount and way of government support varies, “in the past it was the government that had to come, because there were too many costs involved, and that there was still too little market awareness on the part of the private sector” (Tack, 2019, personal interview). Without docks, Ronald Haverman indicated that the costs of a bicycle share system have approximately decreased by a factor of 10 (2019, personal interview). Following a report by OBIS, implementation costs of station-based bicycle share systems were approximately €2500-3000 per bicycle, of which the implementation of the stations makes up 70% and the cost of the bicycle only 17% (2011). When stations are no longer needed, the cost reduction described seems right. This cost reduction has caused municipalities to think bicycle share systems can be had for free, Vera van den Bos states that “parties have already shown they can do it themselves, without our support” (2019, personal interview).

While it is true that none of the cities studied are directly subsidizing the free-float operators, none of the operators currently have to pay for the commercial use of public space. In Amsterdam, in the draft policy a fee of €30,- per m2 per year was envisioned, based on the price that owners of bars and restaurants have to pay in order to use the public space in front of their establishments. While the municipality of Amsterdam states it wants holders of permits to “pay a fair price for the usage of public space”, this fee didn’t make it into the final policy because the municipality currently doesn’t have any instruments to ask for a compensation (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019). In Brussels, the possibility to ask for an annual fee per vehicle is foreseen in the ordonnance but is not yet activated (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement, 2018). In Madrid, parking for electric vehicles such as scooters and kickscooters is currently free (Magaña, 2019, personal interview). Ignacio Ramos Soriano thinks that “if the activity is good for the city”, they shouldn’t have to pay for the use of public space (2019, personal interview). As outlined before, the exemption of fees and taxes for the use of public space can actually be seen as a form of government support.

While this government support to private services could be justified if these bring positive effects to the city, paragraph 12.2 has shown that these effects have not yet been proven. Again, the experimentation vocabulary is used to circumvent inquiries into the fairness of the support. One citizen of Amsterdam criticized the €30/m2/year for too low, and found that “permit holders for shared bicycles will get a favoured position because they can commercially exploit the public space for relatively low costs”, to which the municipality responded that the

49 possibilities to ask a fair price will be explored in the evaluation of the experiment (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019).

As soon as the positive and negative effects on aforementioned policy goals are clear, the government should decide whether it wants to treat the free-floating services as a public or a private service. If it is to be seen as a form of public transport, governments can justify facilitating the service through for example infrastructural modifications, direct financial support or indirect support through the exemption of fees and taxes. In turn, operators can then be asked to open up their books and conform to the same principles as other operators of public transport, such as a capped profit margin (Europese Commissie, 2015). Jorge Magaña seemed to be in favour of this: “It should be a service, a governmental service, I think” (2019, personal interview). Angelo delle Piane also stated that the Madrilean government is “treating it as a public service, and they’re not giving us any support or help, as they should be doing since it’s a public service from their perspective, right?” (2019, personal interview).

If the operators want to remain private, the benefits and downsides should be critically weighed in order to determine an appropriate (if any) compensation for the commercial use of public space.

12.5 On free-float mobility’s target audience When estimating the potential effects of free-float mobility as a government or considering if the service should be treated as public or private, it is essential to know the target audience. For whom is it meant and what is the size of this audience? Leister et al. (2018) argue that the use of these services can be more affordable than the total cost of owning, maintaining and storing a bike in the city. Cohen & Kietzmann (2014) also position bike-sharing as affordable access to a bike on demand. However, when positioned against existing docked bike share systems, usage costs for free-floating systems are often higher. Docked bike share systems generally offer some free cycling time (e.g. the first 30 minutes of every use) whereas free- float systems don’t offer this and maintain higher usage fees (Gu et al., 2019). Understandably, because of added convenience and material cost, scooters and kickscooters maintain a higher price level than bicycles. This means that the cost of using the service can be a limiting factor to segments of the population. In addition, private services are often administered according to economic interests, meaning access to the service depends on how lucrative one is to serve (Graham, 2000). In Brussels, questions were raised on the geographic coverage of the service but currently no enforceable criteria for this have been established (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement, 2018). One could argue that a concentration of these vehicles in areas with the highest number of potential users is desirable, this way the nuisance for non-users is limited. However, such an argument bypasses the potential of affluent commuters using the vehicles, with local citizens experiencing the cluttering of their public space.

Additionally, the digital foundations of the service might pose problems for some. Gu et al. (2019) argue that user access to the mobility service is easier with innovative free-float models than with older docked services. One ‘only’ needs an internet-connected smartphone, an account and a connected payment service, following which “a new … user could easily complete registering in a few minutes and the renting/returning process in a few seconds” (p. 134). However, as the authors themselves also note, not everyone has access to a smartphone or a credit account. Sutko & De Souza e Silva (2010) describe how digital interfaces create a potential for a new type of social divide, those who have access to the interfaces and those who don’t. On top of that, an empty phone battery means access to mobility is no longer possible. Graham (1998) broadens this by stating that “some groups, areas and interests may benefit from the effects of new technologies, while others actually

50 lose out” (p. 176). When stimulating free-floating services, governments should pay close attention to the target audience of operators. This way, governments can more consciously consider if the benefits for users and the associated effects weigh up to the downsides for non-users. While due to the novel character of these services accurate estimations might be difficult, the above paragraphs provide an extra incentive for closely monitoring user characteristics if the services are admitted into the city.

12.6 On pre-launch cooperation As we can see in the introduction of this research and the later described problematisation stage, initially operators used aggressive launch tactics. Operators believed this approach was necessary in order to gain a head start on their competitors, or as Floris Tack puts it, the operators “attempted to place a claim on public space in Uber-style” (2019, personal interview). While operators initially did not expect that municipalities would start ordering and taking the vehicles off the streets, it did happen (although temporarily) in Amsterdam and Madrid. As Robin Cats describes for Amsterdam, “we’ve got so many bicycles, we’re just going to place them and then we’ll see (…). Hopefully we’ll be able to talk ourselves out of it” (2019, personal interview).

This often did not go as planned and led to firm responses from governments. After this, free- float mobility operators have shown a steep learning curve. Virtually all operators now commit themselves to pre-launch cooperation with governments and try to conform with government demands. Luana Bidasca states that “for most e-scooter companies for example, their corporate social responsibility programmes are interlinked with their marketing strategies” (2019, personal communication). She adds that:

“They are aware of their [newcomer] position. They also realise that (…) they don’t want to be seen as disruptors, they want to be seen as a valuable contributor to the inter- modal and multi-modal offer of a city” (2019, personal interview).

Caroline Cerfontaine (2019, personal interview) described that “the e-scooters have learned that you cannot just enter a city without asking, before or without talking to the relevant authorities in place”, and while one could question the motives behind this newfound cooperative attitude, the outcome is nonetheless positive for cities.

12.7 On the development of digital skills and ICT provisions The emergence of free-float mobility has shown that governments constantly need to adapt and evolve in order to stay relevant. Regulations were outdated and did not take into account services that were enabled by the development of ICTs. As outlined before, current tax instruments in Amsterdam are not yet fitted to accommodate a use of public space that is constant in pressure but simultaneously shifting from place to place. Municipalities did not know what effects to expect and what aspects of free-float mobility they could and should regulate: “what can you ask, what can you demand, how can you regulate it?” (van den Bos, 2019, personal interview). Access to operator data is crucial, if this is restricted it “hampers the enforcement of regulations and, consequently, policy evaluation” (Frenken & Schor, 2017, p. 8). In addition, the digital aspects of services led to difficulties at municipalities. María Urrea López outlined that the municipality of Madrid was unable to provide a digital map of where kickscooters would be allowed, and Jorge Magaña stated that the municipality didn’t have ICT provisions in place to work with the data that operators supply to them (2019, personal interviews). This is confirmed by Luana Bidasca: “the capacity sometimes is missing, with all this digitalization and wave of innovation. (…) sometimes [the municipalities] don’t have a way to aggregate all the data they could receive from e-scooter companies” (2019, personal interview). This means that next to knowing what aspects of the service can be regulated and

51 knowing what data can and should be asked, governments need to build platforms and provisions to manage the data they receive. If free-float mobility has provided even a glimpse of the future of digitalised and shared services, governments would do well to invest in skills that can make them future-proof.

52 13. Conclusions 13.1 Conclusions While the emergence of free-float mobility might have happened almost simultaneously across Europe, the paths that followed in the three studied cities were far from parallel. The problematisation was heavily influenced by local context, preferences and problems and the type and intensity of the problematisation varied greatly. One common aspect is that governments didn’t appreciate being bypassed or ignored, and all started working to regain control. Another commonality for this stage is that the introduction of free-float mobility caused existing regulation to be outdated: it was ill-adapted to the shared and flexible nature of the new mobility offer. Governments were not the only parties problematising the sudden rise of free-float mobility, citizen protest was common, as well as vandalization and theft. The policy-making phase that followed demonstrated large differences in the number of actors that were engaged and the way that this happened. This has led to different outcomes, generally the process that involved more actors managed to please more parties with the final outcome of the process. However, it is noted that involving actors can take a lot of time and effort. Finally, we see that the outcomes produced by the city governments differ in size and shape. The services were often believed to contribute to existing policy goals, which is why regulation was crafted that allowed free-float mobility to stay in the city to various extents. Because not all of the effects of free-float mobility are clear yet, regulatory frameworks hold provisional clauses, meaning they can be adapted when consequences are clear. However, uncertainty about effects can lead to reverse technological assessment, optimistic depictions of benefits can then overshadow potential downsides. Governments also still seem unsure if the newly emerged mobility services should be treated as public or private transport, decisions on government support and requirement to pay taxes or other fees seem to be made rather arbitrarily.

When looking at the policy process from beginning to end, a steep learning curve for all actors involved becomes clear. Operators have learned they cannot enter a city without contacting and cooperating with the relevant authorities. Governments have learned how to regulate services that are increasingly flexible and are still learning how to assess the effects of these services. In addition, governments are learning digital skills and are putting digital facilities in place to be able to govern free-floating vehicles. The results of this research have shown multiple stress points in the actions of operators and governments when trying to fit free-float mobility into an urban context. The research has highlighted various aspects that should be considered when forming an opinion on previously unseen services, and in doing so can hopefully contribute into the evaluation of the past policy processes and into the assessment of new services that the coming years will undoubtedly bring.

13.2 Critical reflection When looking back at the research, it is important to not only critically scrutinize free-float mobility and the policy process around it but also the choices that have been made in the process of researching it. The research has made unique contributions in a formerly unresearched field. Most of the respondents that were contacted seemed willing or even enthusiastic about participating, sometimes indicating a knowledge gap themselves. Many of the respondents held a public function, such as within government relations, public relations or communications. This raises the question if respondents spoke freely during interviews or if they felt compelled to give socially or professionally desirable answers. The researcher has tried to mitigate this risk as much as possible by triangulating the statements with external sources or with other respondents. When doubts existed or if multiple respondents gave conflicting answers, this has been indicated in the research results.

53 Another critical note on the conducted research is that a direct citizen perspective is lacking. To gain a representative perception of citizens’ opinions on free-float mobility, a sizeable survey would have been required. While no direct perspective is included, the views of citizens are being reflected in the policies of both Amsterdam and Brussels. Deepening the knowledge on citizens’ opinions is offered as a recommendation for further research in section 13.3.

Despite numerous attempts at contact from various angles (such as LinkedIn, email, references by other respondents) it has not been possible to interview actors in Madrid that directly worked on the policy. This has been mitigated by interviewing someone at the municipal transport company of Madrid (EMT), who did not create the policy but was still able to provide an insider perspective.

In addition, the research was conducted in a fast-changing environment. During the research, modalities were banned, admitted, operators started and sometimes stopped their operations, mergers between operators were taking place, et cetera. In addition, new policy and regulations thus new interesting cases were emerging across Europe. The researcher has attempted to document these changes as well as possible and has closely followed all developments within the field. While new interesting cases emerged, the case choice of the current research was well substantiated and has provided numerous insights. Other cases might have produced other insights, this is not seen as a weakness of the current research but should be seen as an invitation to conduct more studies on similar topics.

13.3 Suggestions for further research While the current research made some unique contributions to the field, generalising the findings from the three studied cities to other cities should be done with care. To gather more knowledge on the formation of policy and regulations and deepen the already acquired knowledge, it is advised to conduct similar research in more cities that have formed policy and regulations. In addition, while the current cases were all European capital cities, research on free-float mobility could also focus on different contexts. Kickscooter operator Lime is operating on a multitude of university campuses in the United States. Research could reveal if and how regulation is formed when free-float mobility is operating in semi-public and private areas.

As emphasized in chapter 12, many of the mid- to long-term effects of free-float mobility in an urban context are still unclear. Governments have often included various monitoring mechanisms in their policy, it is to be desired and expected that they live up to their commitments. Nonetheless, academic research into effects of free-float mobility and effects of the specific policy that was created is indispensable in obtaining a complete image.

Section 1.8 highlighted that many services are emerging that show similarities with free-float mobility. Often, problems arise when ICTs enable previously unthinkable situations. An example is the surge in food delivery services. A decade ago, freelancers making deliveries to consumers for multiple restaurants in one night would have been unthinkable and unworkable. Now, facilitated by ICT platforms this way of working has become the industry standard, leading to loitering food deliverymen and women crowding curbs with their vehicles. Councils in London plan to introduce policy to reduce nuisances (Makortoff, 2017; Marsh & Boswell, 2016). Many more examples of these phenomena can be found and while often recognized in public media, an academic response hasn’t always followed. This means similar research into (a lack of) regulations around these services could fill an academic gap while providing societal relevance in assisting governments to deal with them.

Another area of interest is the potential of self-regulation by the sector. As shown in the thesis, kickscooter operators have shown a much more cooperative stance than their preceding

54 bicycle operators. Next to this, they attempt to demonstrate their value to the wider society and some of the studied companies try to limit their business to areas where they can be of most value and cause the least nuisances. More research could reveal if these need to be seen as acts of self-preservations, or if there are more general adaptation mechanisms within these companies that solely need time to take effect. Such research could help cities to determine the appropriate level of regulation.

Finally, the research has shown that the unrestrained launch of operators has led to intense citizen protests. This ranges from vandalization and theft of vehicles to complaining to governments. Academic research into this response could reveal the mechanisms at work. Should we see these responses as protests into the commercialisation of public space or do citizens simply need to get used to an increase of shared vehicles with eye-catching colours in their streetscape? What can and should operators and governments do if a segment of the urban population keeps problematising the vehicles, even after policy and regulations legitimised their presence? What is the size of this segment? The answers to these questions can assist operators in tailoring their services to the demands of citizens and assist governments in doing the same with their policy and regulations.

13.4 Personal reflection During the first months of my studies in Brussels, yellow bicycles appeared around the city. Later on, I started seeing them in other cities that I visited, sometimes vandalised or abandoned in remote locations. It is remarkable to see how the questions that these vehicles raised in me back then have resulted in the above work, presented roughly one and a half years later. The research process has hardly followed a straight line and is also best described as floating. For example, the focus of this research changed several times, it took quite a long time to pin down the right research angle. A factor that added to this problem is that the phenomenon was so novel, it felt like entering a new area and pioneering while doing so. The research has made me a kind of floating as well, interviews needed to be conducted across Europe. Some respondents proved to be very willing to help me, while others remained elusive and didn’t respond to my (many) emails. Some interviews were cancelled last-minute while others were planned last-minute if and when people I contacted responded. The language barrier in Madrid turned out to be more present than I had thought, thankfully some of the people I contacted referred me to colleagues that I then could interview. Some moments aside, I truly enjoyed the research process and am grateful for the help and cooperation of all parties that were involved in this process. If you’re reading this, thank you for sticking with me throughout this entire document. I hope I was able to provide you with some new insights. The next time you see one of these vehicles, I hope you’ll take a moment to realise all the complexities behind them. There’s more than meets the eye!

55 Bibliography Acciona. (2019). How it works. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from Acciona: https://www.acciona- motosharing.com/en/madrid/#howdoesitwork Audouin, M., & Finger, M. (2018). The development of Mobility-as-a-Service in the Helsinki metropolitan area: A multi-level governance analysis. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 27, 24-35. Ayuntamiento de Madrid. (2019, 02 12). El Ayuntamiento concede 18 autorizaciones a servicios de patinete eléctrico compartido. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from Diario de Madrid: https://diario.madrid.es/blog/notas-de-prensa/el-ayuntamiento-concede-18- autorizaciones-a-servicios-de-patinete-electrico-compartido/ Ayuntamiento de Madrid. (2019, 07 11). Número de patinetes concedidos. Retrieved 07 22, 2019, from Sede electrónica del Ayuntamiento de Madrid: https://sede.madrid.es/portal/site/tramites/menuitem.1f3361415fda829be152e15284 f1a5a0/?vgnextoid=5aea9050ed0e8610VgnVCM1000001d4a900aRCRD&vgnextcha nnel=23a99c5ffb020310VgnVCM100000171f5a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default Beyer, S. (2017, 11 17). An Interview With Toby Sun, Co-Founder Of LimeBike. Retrieved 01 28, 2019, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/11/17/an- interview-with-toby-sun-co-founder-of-limebike/#484398991075 Bidasca, L. (2019, 05 09). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Bird. (2019). Cities. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Bird: https://www.bird.co/map/ Bouma, H. (2019, 01 17). Quinten Selhorst verbetert het leven in de stad. Retrieved 01 28, 2019, from Financieel Dagblad: https://fd.nl/fd-persoonlijk/1281000/quinten- selhorst-verbetert-het-leven-in-de-stad Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement. (2018). Ontwerp van Ordonnantie betreffende vrije vloot fietsdelen. Brussels, Belgium: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement. Bruzz. (2017, October 16). Deelfietsen oBikes werden zomaar neergepoot in Brussel. Retrieved June 13, 2018, from Bruzz: https://www.bruzz.be/samenleving/deelfietsen-obikes-werden-zomaar-neergepoot- brussel-2017-10-16 Bruzz. (2019, 01 31). Alweer twee nieuwe spelers op de deelstepmarkt. Retrieved 07 21, 2019, from Bruzz: https://www.bruzz.be/mobiliteit/alweer-twee-nieuwe-spelers-op- de-deelstepmarkt-2019-01-31 Callens, C., & Jost, J.-A. (2019, 05 07). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law, Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-223). London: Routledge. Cannegieter, B., Huysmans, S., & van Boggelen, O. (2018). Leidraad Gemeentelijk Deelfietsbeleid Versie 1.1. Utrecht: CROW-Fietsberaad. Car2Go. (2019). What is car2go? Retrieved 03 04, 2019, from car2go: https://www.car2go.com/NL/en/#227090 Cats, R. (2019, 06 26). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Cerfontaine, C. (2019, 05 09). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) CIA. (2019, 07 11). The World Factbook: Brazil. Retrieved 07 23, 2019, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/br.html Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279-296. Couzy, M., & Cornelissen, J. (2017, 08 02). Deelfietsen zijn big business, en Amsterdam is het beloofde land. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Het Parool: https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/deelfietsen-zijn-big-business-en-amsterdam-is-het- beloofde-land~b3260e5e/ De Liefde, B. (2019, 05 29). (R. Jonker, Interviewer)

56 De Volkskrant. (1999, 09 10). En opnieuw zijn daar de witte fietsen. De Volkskrant. De Waard, P. (2019, 06 07). Quinton Selhorst focust zich op zijn bedrijf, Felyx, Alexander Klöpping op zijn televisie-optredens. Retrieved 07 29, 2019, from De Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/quinton-selhorst-focust-zich-op-zijn-bedrijf- felyx-alexander-klopping-op-zijn-televisie-optredens~b2453289/ de Wildt, A. (2015, 05 05). Witte Fietsenplan. Retrieved 07 01, 2019, from Het Hart: https://hart.amsterdam/nl/page/49069/witte-fietsenplan Delle Piane, A. (2019, 06 26). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Diario de Madrid. (2019, 02 12). El Ayuntamiento concede 18 autorizaciones a servicios de patinete eléctrico compartido. Retrieved 02 28, 2019, from Diario de Madrid: https://diario.madrid.es/blog/notas-de-prensa/el-ayuntamiento-concede-18- autorizaciones-a-servicios-de-patinete-electrico-compartido/ European Commission. (2015, 06 19). Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 58, 12-44. Europese Commissie. (2015, 03 24). Steunmaatregel SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) – België. Brussels, Belgium: Europese Commissie. Faghih-Imani, A., Eluru, N., El-Geneidy, A. M., Rabbat, M., & Haq, U. (2014). How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal. Journal of Transport Geography, 306-314. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Frenken, K. (2016, 02 12). Deeleconomie Onder één Noemer (The Sharing Economy Under One Heading, in Dutch). Retrieved 01 29, 2019, from Utrecht University: https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/20160211-uu_oratie-frenken.pdf Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3-10. Gemeente Amsterdam. (2008). Retrieved 07 01, 2019, from Decentrale Regelgeving: http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Amsterdam/CVD R72510/CVDR72510_32.html Gemeente Amsterdam. (2019). Deelmobiliteit, kansen voor de stad. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Gemeente Amsterdam. (2019). Inspraak en consultatie Concept Nota Kansen voor deelfietsen. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Gemeente Amsterdam. (2019). Raadsleden en fracties. Retrieved 07 17, 2019, from Gemeente Amsterdam: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur- organisatie/gemeenteraad/raadsleden-fracties/#h2bfda728-95e7-460a-ac13- a82ac99f9d50 Gemeente Amsterdam. (2019, 07 04). Vaststellen van de beleidsnota Deelmobiliteit Kansen voor de Stad en het wijzigen van de Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening 2008, gemeente Amsterdam. Gemeenteblad(165525), pp. 1-5. Graham, S. (1998). The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 165-185. Graham, S. (2000). Constructing Premium Network Spaces: Reflections on Infrastructure Networks and Contemporary Urban Development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(1), 183-200. Gu, T., Kim, I., & Currie, G. (2019). To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China. Transportation Research Part A, 119, 122-147. Harms, L., & Kansen, M. (2018). Fietsfeiten. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. Haverman, R. (2019, 05 15). (R. Jonker, Interviewer)

57 Hendrickx, K. (2019, 01 29). Dott is alweer nieuwe stepaanbieder in Brussel. Retrieved 02 28, 2019, from Bruzz: https://www.bruzz.be/mobiliteit/dott-alweer-nieuwe- stepaanbieder-brussel-2019-01-29 Het Parool. (2008, 07 21). De witte fiets komt alsnog, maar via Parijs. Het Parool. ioscoot. (2019). ioscoot. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from ioscoot: https://ioscoot.com/en/ Karvonen, A., Evans, J., & van Heur, B. (2014). The politics of Urban Experiments. In S. Marvin, & M. Hodson, After Sustainable Cities? (pp. 104-115). Abingdon: Routledge. Koops, R. (2017, 08 11). Na ophef over deelfiets komt binnenkort de deelscooter. Het Parool. Kruyswijk, M. (2017, 07 09). 'Bicycle-shaped objects' overspoelen de stad. Het Parool. Kruyswijk, M. (2019, 03 22). Deelfietsen? Nee, Amsterdam zet in op de deelscooter. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from Het Parool: https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/deelfietsen-nee-amsterdam-zet-in-op-de- deelscooter~a4624810/ Lamb, K. (2019, 04 30). Goodbye, Jakarta? Indonesia's president suggests new capital. Retrieved 07 23, 2019, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/30/goodbye-jakarta-indonesia- president-suggests-new-capital Le Monde. (2018, January 11). L'aventure des vélos " flottants " tourne au fiasco. Retrieved June 08, 2018, from ProQuest: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1986334836?accountid=9769 Leister, E. H., Vairo, N., Sims, D., & Bopp, M. (2018). Understanding bike share reach, use, access and function: An exploratory study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 191-196. Lime. (2019). Locations. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Lime: https://www.li.me/locations López, M. U. (2019, 06 19). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Ma, Y., Lan, J., Thornton, T., Mangalagiu, D., & Zhu, D. (2018). Challenges of collaborative governance in the sharing economy: The case of free-floating bike sharing in Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 356-365. Magaña, J. (2019, 06 19). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Makortoff, K. (2017, December 11). London council threatens crackdown on restaurants using food delivery apps. Retrieved June 08, 2018, from ProQuest: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1975452509?accountid=9769 Mania-Schlegel, J. (2017, 08 02). Die Invasion der China-Räder. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Zeit Online: https://www.zeit.de/2017/32/mietrad-china-muenchen-yobike Marie de Paris. (2019, 03 14). Charte de bonne conduite relative à la location de trottinettes électriques en libre-service. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from Mairie de Paris: https://www.api-site.paris.fr/paris/public/2019%2F4%2FCharte%20trottinettes- VDEFmodif.pdf Marsh, G., & Boswell, J. (2016, June 05). Deliveroo cyclists accused of causing mayhem riding against the clock. Retrieved June 13, 2018, from ProQuest: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1793800316?accountid=9769 Massey, D. (1991, 06). A Global Sense of Place. Marxism Today. Medina, M. Á., & León, P. (2017, 09 03). Un polémico sistema de alquiler llega a Madrid con miles de bicicletas. El País. Mooney, S. J., Hosford, K., Howe, B., Yan, A., Winters, M., Bassok, A., & Hirsch, J. A. (2019). Freedom from the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike share. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 91-96. Niemantsverdriet, T. (2018, 10 10). Hoofdstad wil af van letters ‘I amsterdam’. Retrieved 07 12, 2019, from NRC: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/10/10/hoofdstad-wil-af-van- letters-i-amsterdam-a2417538 OBIS. (2011). Optimising Bike Sharing in European Cities. OBIS. Otero, I., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Rojas-Rueda, D. (2018). Health impacts of bike sharing systems in Europe. Environment International, 115, 387-394.

58 Paton, G. (2018, January 04). Bike hire schemes that litter cities to face penalties. Retrieved June 08, 2018, from ProQuest: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1984291704?accountid=9769 Polis. (2019). About Us. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from Polis: https://www.polisnetwork.eu/about/about-polis Polis. (2019). Polis Members. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from Polis: https://www.polisnetwork.eu/members/members-2 Polis Network. (2017, 09 04). Milan and Florence launch free floating bicycles. Retrieved from Polis Network: https://www.polisnetwork.eu/publicnews/1470/45/Milan-and- Florence-launch-free-floating-bicycles Polis Network. (2017, 07 04). Mobike launches dockeless bikes in Manchester. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Polis Network: https://www.polisnetwork.eu/publicnews/1440/45/Mobike-launches-dockeless- bikes-in-Manchester Poppelmonde, J. (2017, December 10). Brussel bindt strijd aan met ‘strooifietsen’. Retrieved June 09, 2018, from De Standaard: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20171208_03232482 Pro Velo. (2017). Nieuwe Fietsers in Brussel sinds 2015. Brussel: Pro Velo. RTL Z. (2017, 10 16). Amsterdam wil ook af van deelscooters Felyx, ondernemers verbaasd. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from RTL Z: https://www.rtlz.nl/business/ondernemen/artikel/3698856/amsterdam-wil-ook-af- van-deelscooters-felyx-ondernemers Rutland, T., & Aylett, A. (2008). The work of policy: actor networks, governmentality, and local action on climate change in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 627-646. Si, H., Shi, J.-g., Wu, G., Chen, J., & Zhao, X. (2019). Mapping the bike sharing research published from 2010 to 2018: A scientometric review. Journal of Cleaner Production. Smet, P. (2018, 10). Ontwerpkader voor vrije vloot fietsdelen goedgekeurd. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from Pascal Smet: https://pascalsmet.brussels/nl/vrije-vloot-fietsdelen/ Soriano, I. R. (2019, 06 17). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Streeck, W. (2012). Citizens as Customers: Considerations on the New Politics of Consumption. New Left Review, 76, 27-47. Sutko, D. M., & De Souza e Silva, A. (2010). Location-aware mobile media and urban sociability. new media & society, 13(5), 807-823. 't Hart, J. (2001, 10 31). 'Maar we zijn er nu dicht bij'. De Volkskrant. Tack, F. (2019, 05 06). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Teuling, I. (2017, 08 02). Amsterdam gaat deelfietsen weren die geen vaste stallingsplek hebben. Retrieved 07 25, 2019, from De Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/amsterdam-gaat-deelfietsen-weren-die-geen- vaste-stallingsplek-hebben~b2b28b74/ Transport for London. (2017, 07). Santander Cycles: Frequently Requested Statistics. Retrieved 07 24, 2019, from Transport for London: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/santander-cycles-transparency-to-end-of-june-2017.pdf Transport for London. (2018, 09). Dockless bike share code of practice For Operators in London. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from Transport for London: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/dockless-bike-share-code-of-practice.pdf UITP. (2019). Our Members. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from UITP: https://www.uitp.org/all- members UITP. (2019). Vision & Mission. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from UITP: https://www.uitp.org/vision-mission UITP, ECF, & PEBSS. (2017, 07 17). Unlicensed Dockless Bike Sharing: Common position paper. Retrieved 05 01, 2019, from UITP:

59 https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers- files/Dockless_bikesharing_position_ECF_UITP_.pdf UN-Habitat. (2016). Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. Nairobi, Kenya: UN- Habitat. van den Bos, V. (2019, 05 27). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) van Unen, D., & van der Meijden, N. (2017, 08 01). Gemeente gaat deelfietsen verwijderen. Het Parool. van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J. P., & Raven, R. (2018). Business model innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application to bike sharing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1300-1312. Ville de Bruxelles. (2019). Mobilité alternative. Retrieved 07 26, 2019, from Ville de Bruxelles: https://www.bruxelles.be/mobilite-alternative VVD Amsterdam. (2019). Mensen: Daan Wijnants. Retrieved 07 17, 2019, from VVD Amsterdam: https://www.vvdamsterdam.nl/mensen/4662/daan-wijnants Wijnants, D. (2019, 05 27). (R. Jonker, Interviewer) Wood, A. (2016). Tracing policy movements: Methods for studying learning and policy circulation. Environment and Planning A, 48(2), 391-406. Yakowicz, W. (2018). 14 Months, 120 Cities, $2 Billion: There's Never Been a Company Like Bird. Is the World Ready? Retrieved 01 28, 2019, from Inc.: https://www.inc.com/magazine/201902/will-yakowicz/bird-electric-scooter-travis- vanderzanden-2018-company-of-the-year.html Zhang, Y., & Mi, Z. (2018). Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis. Applied Energy, 220, 296-301.

60