CC BY
68
Sergey V. ILKEVICH
UDC / yflK 338.48+334.78
DOI: 10.24411/1995-0411-2019-10402
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia);
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor; e-mail: ilkevich83@mail.ru
MICRO-MOBILITY BUSINESS MODEL FOR ALLEVIATING OVERTOURISM PROBLEMS IN EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN URBAN AREAS
At the current stage of the development of micro-mobility technologies and business models, especially scooter sharing that appeared in North America and Europe in the last two years, it is already possible to consider with a high degree of certainty at least some mobility transformation opportunities for the tourism sector. The widespread use of electric scooter sharing can be instrumental and very efficient in alleviating problems of overtourism, as new configurations are emerging in terms of the coverage (catchment) area and thematic combinatorics of tourist and excursionist visitations, and, quite apparently, better accessibility of secondary and tertiary attractions of cities.
Micro-mobility, which includes different types of means of individual mobility, becomes not only an additional transportation factor of tourist visits, but also a fundamentally innovative and progressive "transformer of experiences", which allows efficiently disperse tourist and excursionist flows across wider areas of tourist destinations. The article suggests central aspects of comparative analysis of quite different practices of European urban areas in the development and regulation of micro-mobility and the capabilities of Russian cities in the long-term deployment and scaling up of micro-mobility technologies and business models. The article proposes the consideration of three possible configurations for electric scooter sharing models in the context of scaling up operations within the tourism and excursion sector. The first model implies serving tourists and excursionists within mass sharing of electric scooters for local population. The second model suggests prospects of emergence of separate operators in mass tourism destinations with more adaptive interfaces, platforms and packaging modules aimed at tourists and sightseers. The third model is a mixed, hybrid form of organizing services by operators, with the more defined positioning of mobility devices and modules of platform programs for the needs of tourists and excursionists.
Keywords: sharing economy, digital platform, digital transformation, sharing, business model, electric scooter, micro-mobility, means of individual mobility, uberization, sustainable tourism, responsible tourism, overtourism, sightseeing route, urban mobility
Introduction: Micro-Mobility as an efficient tool for alleviating overtourism problems
In recent years, the transformation of business models in urban mobility has become one of the most noticeable and interesting phenomena in terms of sharp reformatting among all economic sectors. Transformations started with replacing traditional taxi services with taxi aggregators. Along that many large and medium-sized cities across the world have been developing bicycle sharing networks. And then car-sharing schemes have been launching for the last 3-5 years.
And in addition to all this, a new transformative impulse has appeared which can become a real tsunami in terms of deep restructuring of the understanding of urban
mobility - electric scooter sharing. The first startups in this new industry were launched in the U.S. West Coast in November 2017, but now, just within two years the business model scaled throughout North America and Europe. And right at the time of submitting this publication, there is news about the first Russian project of decentralized electric scooter sharing in Moscow. The new rental service operator is called Whoosh, and its initial plan is to offer just 1200 electric scoters only in the central district of Moscow.
A big question arises: how the emergence of new industries within the framework of urban mobility will most certainly affect the tourism industry in cities. That may be of particular relevance in the context of seeking solutions for the expanding complex problem
of the so-called excessive tourism, overtour-ism. The complexity of the problem in urban areas is related to the double pressure issue: excessive car-ownership problems and over-tourism itself, when the entire tourist region (destination) or some parts are vulnerable and susceptible to excessive and concentrated tourist influx. Electric scooter sharing seems to be a double-sided solution to that two-facet problem.
The problems of excessive car ownership in urban areas are widely covered in the literature. Suffice it to recall that the proportion of urban spaces allocated to car usage, according to experts in the fleld of urban studies, is about 25-30%. However, transformations in urban mobility are already starting to bring some noticeable results in alleviating problems. For example, car sharing technologies allow the use of one car for up to 10-15 passengers per day. But even car sharing in many situations is not as a progressive, simple and convenient option as electric scooter sharing is.
Another very important factor here is an acute need for more community-related transformations of the classical model of tourism destination marketing aimed at tourism growth through active promotion of key tourism products. This model should be replaced by a model of the territorial organization of tourism activities focused on quality development. That in turn is possible under rapidly improving conditions for new business-models which facilitate not concentration, but, conversely, a better and more evenly spreading of tourist flows across primary, secondary and tertiary tourist sites of the location. And electric scooter sharing looks increasingly as the nice remedy for dispersing tourist flows using all the productive and efficient MaaS shifts and developments.
With the acronym MaaS (Mobility as a Service), researchers and analysts emphasize a quite different stance of all types of mobility (including micro-mobility) in comparison to the more product-centered concept of the classical perception of moving from point A to point B as a transport system (consisting of factors and technologies on the supply side). An innovative interpretation of mobility within MaaS [6] puts into the focus to a greater extent the consumer side of mobility, it turned out to be very pro-
ductive in the context of digital transformations of urban mobility. Researchers emphasize the need for even more holistic and flexible design approaches to mobility for MaaS proposals and platform development [8].
The network rental scheme (sharing) is already well understood, but just in case, it is worth emphasizing its key convenience for consumers. The way arrangements work, it is enough for a mobility consumer to take the nearest free device (in Europe more often within just two hundred meters), drive a few or more kilometers, then leave it in any position which is correct and responsible with respect to pedestrians and traffic. Now all this has become possible due to the combination of technical, informational and organizational innovations for residents of many cities in Europe and North America, as well as for tourists as part of the evolutionary transitions of innovation and business processes.
Another important trend that should be noted from the point of view of the background shift of the consumption paradigm, which is already evident and can be expected to intensify in the urban mobility sector is lean, cost and frugal innovations [4], after which there could be a need on emphasizing a broader notion -sustainable innovations.
Micro-mobility, along with community-tourism, stakeholder approaches, and social entrepreneurship schemes, can be regarded among key components in sustainable innovations with regards to the tourism industry for the last two decades. Fig. 1 illustrates major shifts for the last several decades, which lead to the rise of micro-mobility's importance and relevance in the contexts of sustainable tourist experiences production and consumption.
Tourists and sightseers on electric scooters are, on average, more mobile, dynamic, energetic consumers of experiences. And they will transform their mobility potential into visiting wider areas of tourist attractions. For the tourist region (destination), electric scooter sharing becomes a technocratic and instrumental approach to solving the problems of overconcentration, excessive burden and externalities of tourists and sightseers. And at the same time electric scooter sharing also becomes a viable tool for new opportunities in increasing the popularization and fast-
• Low-cost
• Low waste and reuse
•TQM
Stage 1. Economical and cost innovations
1980s-1990s
• Lean echnologies improvements
• Frugal innovations: maintaining the quality of impressions and experiences, good-enough innovations
• Greening
• Community management •Stakeholder approaches •Social entrepreneursBip
• Mipro-mobility
J
Fig. 1 - Positioning Micro-Mobility within theframework of evolutionary transitions of economical, cost, lean, frugal, and sustainable innovations
er development of periphe ral andsecondary attractions. /pe d tine pnoblemr ef rnprovrng chances ef low-via|fad senondara and terttary attractions of the destination are universal. Sharing sconterr ara vera unefni lerec siene they can peeviSp naw flexibilities aad combination sindisaerslng aonrist flawn apatialle, thematicoNy ond In terms nst csambr^atoad al matchea, whinh wpte previousle Oesonl organizatienai ^r^^ te^netopcs1 priodplos of tourist ane exeur^ap1 roefe The genera1 |lluttrctianof wnyspow ateotrin scooter sharing is positioned to disperse tourist and excursionist flows and widen catch-up areas for visiting is depicted at Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 - Positioning of electric scooter sharing as an efficienttoolindispersingtouristandexcursionist flows and widening catch-up areas for visiting
But the iss ue of w°y ely ctric scooters and especially geft/voek arrangement for rental sen/ices (seeing) s^e so pre mmynt: s nd well positioned to disrupt and even revolutionize oebao mebility foe s nod exesraionists
demandf Costber detailed elaOoration o the nrxt seationr a
Advaxheges oiF hhe ereo nb loosmess model of olexfric ao(sgtuc ¡^hoi^i^^ for serving hourigtseo d exhossion)uns
Gwen e0ic articular speed of the development of electric scooter sharing and the clear determination of investors who make big bets on the prospects of this emerging industry, the concept of the Micro-Mobility Revolution for the urban environment has already been voiced with an emphasis on the new and burgeoning economy of electric scooter sharing. And what is remarkable, it was put even as decisively as Micro-Mobility Revolution in urban mobility in the official position of the Standing Committee on Forecasting Demand for US Transportation Services [3]. And, noteworthy, this Committee includes experts who rarely make not exact assumptions and medium-term forecasts regarding transformations in the organization of transport services and, more broadly, integrated mobility models.
Why the new technology has so many supporters and why it is perceived as very progressive and most viable for purposes of micro-mobility in urban and near suburban environment? This question can be answered by demonstrating quite obvious, mostly self-evident and intuitive advantages of electric scooters as a technology and business model compared to other alternatives in micro-mobility: network bike rental, as
well as in comparison with segways. Where for the "segway" stands as a category of urban mobility means where a two-wheeled motorized personal vehicle consisting of a platform for the feet mounted above an axle and an upright post surmounted by handles. A tentative, generalized comparison for relative features and properties of electric scooters, bicycles and segways is systematized in Table 1.
Table 1 - The comparative properties of the three main types of devices for urban micro mobility of tourists and excursionists
Significant properties in the context of commercialization of urban micro mobility of tourists and excursionists Clectric scooters Bicyclec, eiectríc bicycles Segways
No need for fixed parking + + + + -
Compact devices in urban space + + + + + + +
Ease of hand-carrying and overcoming obstacles + + + + + +
Maneuverability of the device + + + + + +
Ease of travelling on sidewalks + + + +
Low cost of the device + + + + +
Uberization potential and possibilities for platform solutions + + + + + -
Breadth of packaging opportunities for rental service providers + + + + + +
Embedding in other business models (e.g. delivery, courier services) + + + + + +
Potential for mass use by local residents of tourist destinations + + + + + + -
Compatibility with organizational and technological features of the tourism and hospitality industry + + + + + +
Potential impact on sustainable and responsible development of the tourism industry + + + + + +
It could be noteworthy to remind that when segways first appeared in 2003-2004, some investors and specialists in urban studies and urban transport already had relatively high expectations that even this type of micro-mobility device (with all its imperfections) would be able to radically and massively change urban mobility. Even then there were optimistic assumptions that consumers in significant segments would abandon cars and switch to this technology. However, in the end, due to the lack of manufacturability, low-cost solutions and poor maneuverability the segway was in a sense a false start in what is now called "micro-mobility revolution".
And now electric scooters have much better initial and prospective chances as a second attempt to disrupt the urban mobility sector for both local population and tourists.
Not only by the relative advantages of this transportation technology but also by relying on all opportunities of using platforms and compatible business models.
As a result of the discussed factors and influence, in the context of complex transportation situations, when previously the choice situation for the mass tourist was mostly limited to four options - either walking and hiking, or taxi, or public transport or using a rental car - the appearance of a more flexible and technologically intermediate option in the format of a network rental (sharing) of electric scooters is a fundamentally new opportunity and the so-called game changer. The approximately three-fold speed difference between hiking and tourism using micro-mobility technologies is very significant from the point of view of organizational and technological prin-
ciples of tourist and excursion routes. That is why it is completely appropriate and timely to think properly about how to use the speed and flexibility of electric scooter sharing from the point of view of consumer experiences within the tourism and hospitality industry.
And also the issue arises on how to integrate the micro-mobility business model into the tourism and hospitality industry from the position of sustainable development of the entire industry in terms of the distribution of roles of various interest groups within the framework of the stakeholder concept [2]. Additionally, there might be high importance of the joint demand of tourists for longer trips and local population needs, in the context the so-called transport poverty of transport con-ditionality and the reproduction of inequality of opportunities for the local population [1].
Early and late adopters of electric scooter sharing in urban mobility in the European Union
Of particular interest from the point of view of the micro-mobility sector's perspectives could be comparative studies of adaptive behavior at different levels of regulative authorities: regional, city and municipal administrations, and how their approaches can influence urban mobility planning for the tourism sector. European Union suggests a big variety of urban area planner strategies and approaches to micro-mobility. A comparative analysis of the practices and policies of regulating micro-mobility in Europe is also highly relevant to future practices and policies of Russian cities, since the contexts of European areas are more understandable, familiar and applicable in Russia. There are many obvious reasons for this, including the aspects of high density, compactness and high-rise urban housing, the features which are in quite obvious commonalities between Europe and Russia, compared to, for example, different approaches in urban planning in North America.
As of the fall of 2019, the situation with the network rental of electric scooters and overall efficiencies of sharing business models in Europe looks twofold. It turns out that in adopting the new industry of electric sharing by individual cities two strategies have emerged and are being formed. They can be
neutrally described as progressive and conservative, and are very distinctive, remarkable and indicative. And both have their own strengths and weaknesses.
As a case study, the example of five cities is especially indicative right now in the European Union: Paris, Marseille, Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, how this cities acutely differentiate in adopting and regulating the electric scooter sharing business model. First of all, it could be argued that each of these cities, by a combination of their specific favorable factors (economic, climatic, tourist, developed habits for scooters) would become highly advanced in terms of quickly scaling up the business model of electric scooter sharing.
But a lot depends on the city authorities, and that is the key part. Everything turned out to be difficult with the rental of electric scooters, for example, in the context of Barcelona, where the city authorities began to implement a tough and strict policy of limiting electric access of electric scooter sharing devices in the city centre. And for this reason, the main players in the region (Reby and Bird) cannot have any parking places in the central parts of the city. The same policy has been enforced in Madrid. But in Paris, Marseille and Lisbon, they took the path of early adoption of innovation, suggesting that many aspects would be balanced and self-regulating. It is also noteworthy that electric scooters of all operators (Lime, Bird, Circ, Tier) are placed and left there in general in orderly manners and ways.
It is worthwhile to analyze some key detailed consideration of the opponents of the free and unregulated rental of electric scooters. Indeed, one can agree that the e-scooters left carelessly at least by some users create a sense of disorder and negligence in an urban environment. However, Barcelona is known as one of the most developed cities in Europe in terms of scooters, classic scooters with an internal combustion engine. And the owners leave their vehicles on the sidelines and sidewalks. And that is perceived as a normal urban routine, unlike e-scooters, which regarded as too alien according to the current perception of things. And the paradox so far is that for managers of urban areas, the compact form of electric scooter devices and shared format
of their use are, for some irrational considerations, are alarming attributes. Probably, they might be considered as too "capitalistic" in the ways how electric scooter service operators are arranging their business models. And micro-mobility, thus, due to a whole complex of errors and inertia of thinking, is populistly interpreted in a quite distorted context. As something alien and harmful to the true fabric of the city community.
Overall, in the perspective of one or two years in Europe there will be possible to make better generalizations on which of the two main paths will turn out to be more productive and sustainable, self-regulation or the more regulated approach. At the same time there is no need to contrast two ways, there could be some convergence of the two approaches. Stricter cities, realizing the fundamental pro-gressiveness of micro-mobility technology, may begin to mitigate the requirements at later stages of rental services' scaling up. And the most progressive cities, faced to some extent with the negative external effects of the unregulated development of micro-mobility, will probably begin to streamline the sphere to a greater extent, but with better accumulated understanding on how everything works in practice and without hindering the initial deployment of electric scooter rental operators, without creating an additional burden for the economics of projects.
That is very similar to how in relation to each new wave of uberization and structuring of relationships transactions in transformed industries; city administrations and urban planners develop their policies. For example, in Amsterdam, Airbnb was ordered to offer housing properties for renting out no more than two months a year in order to avoid crowding out local residents from the city center with excessive tourist flows.
There is also a realistic hope that it would be possible to count on growth to improve the environmental awareness of tourists in the framework of multimodal urban mobility. The closest example and analogy here is what is happening over the past year in Scandinavia, where the stagnation of the air passenger transportation market is caused by a sharp improvement in the enlightenment and feelings of responsibility on the part of tourists.
And that is happening according to the concept of David Weaver about the potential for the formation of the so-called "enlightened mass tourism" [9; 10]. Recently, a new term has been coined within ethical considerations of the environmental and wider social consequences of air travel - flight-shaming. It is descended from the Swedish "flygskam" and is used for people who are concerned about the environment and are calling for reducing the number of flights or even abandoning them in order to reduce CO2 emissions. The processes of accentuation of ethical aspects in tourism consumption in Scandinavia allow us to take a fresh look at attitude-behavior gap [5].
Of course, it is important not to overdo it with the so-called "green washing". At the bottom line, since consumers are reacting en masse to new greening values even in aviation, the progressive public will be able to effectively conduct an educational campaign in the context of strengthening the micro-mobility sector in the urban environment. Electric scooters are almost the most effective "tool" and "showcase of achievements" for eco-activists in the modern era in any country, in any system or regime, because here general progressive emotions and calls for environmental friendliness become more visible and more instrumental from the point of view of the technical and technological parameters and obvious strengths of sharing business model approaches.
Specific advantages and challenges for the deployment of micro-mobility in Russian cities
Russian cities at the current stage are noticeably late with the development of micro-mobility. And the first Russian startup Whoosh in the sharing of electric scooters, it just coincided so, that it starts in Moscow at the moment this publication is completed. The start-up is organized by the top managers of S7 Siberian Airlines, which in a sense is a certain additional marker of its progressive-ness, given the widely recognized effectiveness of the airline's business model, which in many respects is considered the best airline company in the country.
Among the advantages of the Russian urban environment, we can separately distinguish
cheap, versatile, capacious and modernizing public transport (including places for bicycles). Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg and Sochi in this regard can become the basis for systematizing and scaling up the best Russian urban practices of combining public transport and micro-mobility. It can be assumed that in the long run it would be the effective combination of public transport and micro-mobility that will serve up to 95-97% of the passenger flow. At least, many foresight forecasts focus on such levels of automobile displacement in urban environments. In this case, at least certain Russian parameters from the viewpoint of path dependence in the development of urban mobility configurations turn out to be more favorable for the integration of micro-mobility than the world average and even European average parameters.
However, from the point of view of regulation and political prioritization of micro-mobility in Russia there are still more problems. Conclusions about the need to minimize private car ownership in the urban environment are for the most part made and, for example, in European countries over the past decade have already been embodied in political priorities, industry and city policies, as well as in specific targets. In Russia, for the time being, problems are only accumulating due to a more archaic perception of cars: status, wealth, prosperity, masculinity, and other socially controlled associations, which were abandoned in Europe more quickly both in terms of the socio-economic situation and mentality transformations. And due to the fact that many people in Russia still see in car ownership a generally favorable socio-economic balance, as well as a special, "locomotive" significance for the economy, therefore the situation even reaches such grotesque forms when parents with strollers encounter difficulties maneuvering among the "wild" car parks in the yards just when walking next to their high-rise buildings.
It is also worth emphasizing that in recent years, big hopes from businesses, government and the academic communities have been placing on the development of car tourism and caravanning in its various formats. Ex-pectedly, car tourism and caravanning turned out to be among the priorities of the Federal
Target Program "Development of Domestic and Inbound Tourism in the Russian Federation (2011-2018)", then these priorities were reiterated in the new FTP of the same name for the new seven-year period 2019-2025, as well as in many regional (constituent entities of the Russian Federation) programs and strategies for tourism development. According to classical theoretical frameworks [7], as well as many practitioners and experts' views, car tourism and caravanning are designed to perform an important "locomotive" industry-wide function for the tourism and hospitality industry.
In addition, many experts have a feeling that since Russian approaches in the sphere of car tourism are somewhat behind international practices, then there is an evident need to somehow catch up, including by relying on the best international practices for the development of value propositions and business models caravanning, car routes, service environment, road infrastructure, caravanning and campsites.
But at the same time in Russian federal and regional programs and strategies for the development of tourism and hospitality there is an almost complete lack of consideration of the transformation of tourist mobility in urban areas. Additionally, there is an apparent lack of many elements of broader legislation and regulations in the fields of transportation. For instance, in Russia, unfortunately, they still no basic legislation on the fundamental economic and legal aspects of regulating taxi aggregators in the most critical areas, including even the safety of passengers and drivers (due to chronic driver fatigue and excessive working hours). Today, legislators, transportation departments and authorities, taxi aggregators, taxi companies, drivers are stuck in a tangle of contradictions, interests, lobbying balances and conflicts. While in Europe, many aspects were regulated already in 2014-2017. And, in the field of digital mobility transformations, there can be no serious reference and condolence that Russia is somewhat overall special, specific (developing, catching up) economy, as large Russian cities, especially Moscow and St. Petersburg, deserve to be regarded at the same stage of implementing information technologies and building business models of taxis and car sharing as the OECD countries.
And as for the new opportunities for micro-mobility, they can be considered as a new round of in a way a historical battle for progressive mobility formats in urban areas. At the same time with regards to fast shifts towards micro-mobility, certain and clear rules must be introduced for bicycles and individual electric vehicles. And for the new means of individual mobility it is necessary to adapt infrastructure, include new road signs and markings. The Moscow Public Chamber plans to develop recommendations on the basis of which further on the rules for the movement of electric scooters, seg-ways, gyro scooters and mono-wheels will subsequently be developed with recommendations for the introduction of speed limits, restrictions on the permitted areas for the use of a particular type of micro-mobility.
European experiences could be very edifying in the circumstances of unregulated micro-mobility development in Russia. Among main aspects of regional and city authorities actions in North America and Europe are regulations: speed limits of 15 miles (23 km/h), wearing a helmet, riding without headphones, pedestrian priority, etc., but the problem is that the possibility of enforcement are quite limited, and rental operators avoid themselves being anyhow involved in direct imposing health and safety measures. But some countries try to impose clearer and more efficient rules by the force of direct legislation sanctioning. For instance, in France, the widespread use of electric scooters required the rapid introduction of appropriate regulations. Particularly acute was the problem in Paris, where the number of electric scooters had already reached around 30 thousand by the end of summer 2019. In March 2019, the movement of electric scooters along pedestrian paths and sidewalks was prohibited. From July 1, 2019 speed limits were lowered to 20 km / h (previously there was a 25 km / h restriction) and to 8 km / h on streets with active pedestrian traffic, as well as a ban on parking electric scooters on sidewalks outside specially designated places. The most stringent rules among major European countries apply in the UK due to fairly conservative legislation. There, on electric scooters, as well as on other similar vehicles like gyro scooters, one can ride only in private territory, and riding on roads, on sidewalks, and even in parks
is prohibited. At the same time, the UK Department of Transportation has already announced its intention to revise these standards as they increasingly deemed as completely out of touch with realities and practicalities of present and moreover prospective urban mobility.
In Russia, it is planned to introduce in traffic rules a new term - "means of individual mobility" (SIM). Electric scooters, mono-wheels, segways, gyro scooters, as well as skateboards, roller skates and traditional scooters will be equated to that category. As the prospective regulation is still being discussed with experts, the most likely outcome could be as follows. Typically, SIM users must travel along bike lanes. But in those situations where there is no track, it would be suggested to move by electric scooter or a unicycle on the sidewalks, but not faster than 20 km / h. In the absence of either bicycle path or sidewalk, riders would be allowed to drive onto the roadway, but with an obligation to keep the right side of the road in all circumstances (and the same rule applies to cyclists).
Three possible models for organizing electric scooter sharing to serve tourists and excursionists
Aspects of packaging scooter sharing services are also related to a more general question: what could be the model of scooter sharing for tourism and excursions over the next few years. Depending on the combination of various factors within the cities popular with tourists and excursionists, one can assume a choice between the following three models of mobility organization.
Model 1. Integration of tourism and complimentary formats of excursions into the mass rental models of electric scooters for the local population.
Model 2. The emergence in destinations of mass tourism of individual operators with more adaptive interfaces, platforms and packaging modules focused on tourists and excursionists. This can be progressively positioned, if considerations of the specificity of navigation, services, complementarity and packaging of services outweigh the universal principles of the general model of mass service for the local population.
Model 3. A mixed, hybrid form of organizing a service for the operator of a network
rental of electric scooters, in the framework of which the positioning of mobility devices and platform programs allows tourists and sightseers to choose a more relevant service module for them.
Conclusions
The MaaS concept both in the interests of the local population and tourists and excursionists was implemented initially in aggregating taxi service orders, as well as network bike rentals with hundreds of distributed rental points distributed in large cities approximately at the same time of early uberization of urban mobility. Then car sharing was the next big thing, and now, in a sense, as the English proverb says, "the cherry on the cake" is electric scooter sharing comes at the centre of stage with its unique propositions for enhanced mobility. Which could not at a better time than the current stage of saturating tourism markets with more and more destinations falling into the category of overused. As micro-mobility is such an elegant remedy for overtourism.
As the European and Russian experience of digital transformations of urban mobility shows, stakeholder and inclusive approaches are realistically allowed to achieve a favorable vector of changes in the industry, taking into account public good. With addition of micro-mobility things may improve massively. Although micro-mobility indeed brings its own challenges and some specific problems. But the influence on the urban areas from the services of electric scooter rental services is a substitutive one: if someone took advantage of the sharing micro-mobility, this consumer
dropped out (at least temporarily and partially) from private car enthusiasts.
It seems to be a very logical and even obvious consideration, but in a fit of emotion for individual civic activists and city authorities in Europe who are not satisfied with the format of rolling electric scooters located in the city center for free use, it is easy to overlook this huge positive side of the development of electric scooter sharing in the scale of the outgoing "clutter" in the public areas: parking lots and cars themselves. When the first cars appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, they shared the roadway with horse carts, and there were no rules of the road in the initial phase of the development of motor vehicles; everything once starts relatively spontaneously and then scales, is ordered and, of course, is regulated within reasonable boundaries.
Electric scooter sharing is one of the most productive areas of modernization in tourism in terms of the transition from general theses on the need for sustainable tourism development to real transformations. The field of comparative analysis of approaches and best practices for the development of micro-mobility, including the comparison of European and Russian approaches, will become more and more significant, since the digital transformations of urban mobility themselves require the exchange of experience and taking into account some prominent "trial and error" results, especially in those situations when the contexts of changes are objectively close among particular cities in a number of key parameters. And this is very relevant to comparative studies of European and Russian cities.
References
1. Barton, M. S., & Gibbons, J. (2017). A stop too far: How does public transportation concentration influence neighborhood median household income. Urban Studies, 54(2), 538-554. doi: 10.1177/0042098015593462.
2. Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, 62(2), 6-13. doi: 10.1108/16605370780000309.
3. Clewlow, R. (2019). The Micro-Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States. In coll.: Transportation Research Board 98th Annual Meeting (Conference). Washington, 13-17 Jan.
4. Hossain, M. (2017). Mapping the frugal innovation phenomenon. Technology in Society, 51, 199-208. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.006.
5. Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude-behavior gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76-95. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.012.
6. Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A.-M., Embrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso Gonzalez, M. J., & Narayan, J. (2017). Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Planning, 2(2), 13. doi: 10.17645/up.v2i2.931.
7. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390-407. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(79)90003-3.
8. Sochor, J., Karlsson, I. C. M.-A., & Stromberg, H. (2016). Trying Out Mobility as a Service: Experiences from a Field Trial and Implications for Understanding Demand. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2542(1), 57-64. doi: 10.3141/2542-07.
9. Weaver, D. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1030-1037. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.011.
10. Weaver, D. B. (2014). Asymmetrical Dialectics of Sustainable Tourism: Toward Enlightened Mass Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 131-140. doi: 10.1177/0047287513491335.
ИЛЬКЕВИЧ Сергей Викторович
Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации (Москва, РФ); кандидат экономических наук, доцент; e-mail: ilkevich83@mail.ru
БИЗНЕС-МОДЕЛЬ МИКРОМОБИЛЬНОСТИ ДЛЯ СМЯГЧЕНИЯ ПРОБЛЕМ СВЕРХТУРИЗМА В ЕВРОПЕЙСКИХ И РОССИЙСКИХ
ГОРОДАХ
На текущем этапе формирования технологий и бизнес-моделей микромобильности, особенно появившегося в последние два года шеринга электросамокатов в Северной Америке и Европе, уже можно с высокой степенью достоверности рассмотреть контуры трансформации туристско-экскурсионного сектора. В условиях массовости использования прокатных электросамокатов можно надеяться на сглаживание проблем сверхтуризма, поскольку появляются новые возможности с точки зрения зоны охвата и тематической комбинаторики туристских и экскурсионных посещений, лучшей доступности вторичных и третичных аттракций городов.
Микромобильность, средства индивидуальной мобильности становятся не просто дополнительным фактором удобств и комфорта туристских посещений, но и принципиально инновационным и прогрессивным «трансформатором впечатлений», позволяющим эффективно рассредоточить туристские и экскурсионные потоки. В статье предложены аспекты сравнительного анализа практик европейских городов в развитии и регулировании микромобильности и возможностей российских городов в перспективном разворачивании и масштабировании технологий и бизнес-моделей микромобильности.
В статье предложено рассмотрение трех возможных конфигураций моделей шеринга электросамокатов в контексте масштабирования операций в секторе туризма и экскурсий. Первая модель - встраивание туристских и экскурсионных опций в модели массового проката электросамокатов для местного населения. Вторая модель - появление в дестинациях массового туризма отдельных операторов с более адаптивными интерфейсами, платформами и модулями пакетирования, ориентированными на туристов и экскурсантов. Третья модель - смешанная, гибридная форма организации обслуживания оператором, с позиционирование устройств мобильности и модулей платформенных программ на потребности туристов и экскурсантов.
Ключевые слова: экономика совместного пользования, цифровая платформа, цифровая трансформация, шеринг, бизнес-модель, электросамокат, микромобильность, средство индивидуальной мобильности, уберизация, устойчивый туризм, ответственный туризм, сверхтуризм, овертуризм, экскурсионный маршрут, городская мобильность.
Илькевич С.В. Бизнес-модель микромобильности для смягчения проблем сверхтуризма в европейских и российских городах // Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма. 2019. Т.13. №4. С. 17-26. DOI: 10.24411/1995-04112019-10402.
Received October 10, 2019
Ilkevich, S. V. (2019). Micro-mobility business model for alleviating overtourism problems in European and Russian urban areas. Sovremennye problemy servisa i turizma [Service and Tourism: Current Challenges], 13(4), 17-26. doi: 10.24411/1995-04112019-10402.
Received October 10, 2019
