Oksana Mont_Sustainable Mobility


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Oksana Mont_Sustainable Mobility

  1. 1. course/learning collection L. THEMATIC CLUSTERS subject L2. Mobility learning resource Sustainable Mobility contributors: Associate Prof. Oksana Mont Lund University / International Institute for Environmental Economics / Sweden LeNS, the Learning Network on Sustainability: Asian-European multi-polar network for curricula development on Design for Sustainability focused on product service system innovation. Funded by the Asia-Link Programme, EuroAid, European Commission.
  2. 2. EEA 2005 Transport is responsible for 13.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (WRI 2004). Focus area: Mobility
  3. 3. <ul><li>public and private transportation, </li></ul><ul><li>freight transportation, </li></ul><ul><li>railway service, </li></ul><ul><li>aviation, </li></ul><ul><li>alternative vehicles and fuels, </li></ul><ul><li>emissions during use, </li></ul><ul><li>disposal of vehicles, </li></ul><ul><li>safety </li></ul><ul><li>etc. </li></ul>Mobility: aspects
  4. 4. Mobility: trends All images are from Wikimedia Commons
  5. 5. Mobility: trends
  6. 7. Loan in 5 min Apply easy and fast here. And 10 – 35 000 Euro will be on the way to you!!!
  7. 8. Actions – addressing impacts of increasing transport volume from personal mobility <ul><li>Technological optimism: robotisation of production </li></ul><ul><li>Technological pessimism: only improving production efficiency will not do </li></ul><ul><li>Product innovation is vital – 80% of env. impact </li></ul><ul><li>Service innovation is almost untouched in real terms </li></ul><ul><li>Selling value is a marketing terms rather than innovation at product, service or system level </li></ul><ul><li>Globalisation vs. localisation/distributed economies </li></ul>
  8. 9. Fussler (1996) Product innovation is vital ! Exhaust 35% Rolling resistance 4.2% Air resistance 10.5% Accelerate and climb 4.3% Fuel energy 100% Radiation 20% Cooling water 20% Movement 19% Deadweight 17% Personal mobility ? % Bearings 6% Is that what I pay my money for???
  9. 10. <ul><li>Average European car is used for 29 min a day </li></ul><ul><li>In 12 years of car life it is used in total for 3 month, after which it is discarded </li></ul><ul><li>Average speed of cars in centers of European cities is 17 km/hour => it is faster to take a bike </li></ul>Service innovation is vital !
  10. 12. Importance of systems thinking
  11. 13. Mobility: different scale <ul><li>Urban – countryside </li></ul><ul><li>Large city – small city </li></ul><ul><li>Long-distances – short distances </li></ul><ul><li>Types of trips: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>city to city, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>city to suburbs/suburbs to city, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>suburbs to suburbs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual vs. collective </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 14. Mobility: different modes
  13. 15. Mobility: different target groups
  14. 16. PSS in mobility <ul><li>Run by car manufacturers as pilot projects, side activities or as test ground for new vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Profit and growth oriented car sharing organisations, started and managed by third parties </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperatives to serve the needs of members – not oriented on growth and profit, organised and managed by people themselves </li></ul>
  15. 17. 1. Automotive industry: lease, servicing <ul><li>Flexible lease plans e.g. long-term leases allowing different vehicles to be driven for normal/city use, for a family holiday/tour, during the summer etc. so that the vehicle fits the lifestyle of the user at any given time, e.g. Mercedes-Benz </li></ul><ul><li>Global, lifetime servicing of the vehicle, e.g. Rolls-Royce </li></ul><ul><li>Honda Motor Co., Japan – test ground for EVs </li></ul>
  16. 18. 2. Car sharing organisations <ul><li>Manufacturer-controlled car-sharing schemes, e.g. Volkswagen Mietermobil </li></ul><ul><li>Independently-controlled car-sharing schemes: vehicles than can only be leased and not bought by the user, e.g. Ford Think CityKa. </li></ul>
  17. 19. 3. Citizens-run car sharing cooperatives <ul><li>Sweden – first in 1978 </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural differences: Norway vs. Turkey </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Norway: formal car sharing organisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Turkey: informal sharing of car among family members </li></ul></ul>
  18. 20. Car sharing <ul><li>Regulatory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dutch Policy Plan on the Environment and the Economy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EC Green Paper “Citizens’ Networks” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Road Administrations – research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of parking places for CSO Stattauto (G), Helsinki municipality - City Car Sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Normative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion as part of the total mobility solution - Bremer Karte plus AutoCard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extension with food delivery services* </li></ul></ul>
  19. 21. A new target group of car sharing <ul><li>People who do not use the car often – food shopping => need for solution </li></ul><ul><li>Food delivery subscription </li></ul>
  20. 22. http://www.siemens.nl/hdb/ Siemens HomeDeliveryBox
  21. 23. Car sharing <ul><li>Product </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design is not adapted, test ground for E v s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CS cars are  22% lighter & 24% more fuel efficient than average car in the Netherlands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Booking, choice of vehicles, one for all card, ICT </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Parking spaces </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation with railways, rental, network of CSOs </li></ul></ul>
  22. 24. Car sharing <ul><li>Customer acceptance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Factors affecting: savings, no initial investment, various models, flexibility of use, no maintenance, free parking places, insurance and environmentally sound image </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing customer profile, subsidise driving lessons for young people </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Business viability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperatives vs. commercial companies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appeal to other players: public transportation companies & car manufacturers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Environmental soundness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>N of cars ⇓ by 44%, distances ⇓ by 30-60%, more selective use of cars, cost transparency </li></ul></ul>
  23. 25. <ul><li>Job-place swaping </li></ul><ul><li>Teleworking & videoconferencing </li></ul><ul><li>Ordering food and its delivery online </li></ul><ul><li>Re-invention of city centres </li></ul><ul><li>But what about holiday trips to Tailand once a year? </li></ul>Other ways of reducing travel
  24. 28. <ul><li>September 22 </li></ul><ul><li>Car free cities </li></ul>http://www.worldcarfree.net/wcfd/ Car free day
  25. 30. City of Göteborg: mobility management
  26. 31. Objective Trips with Public Transport & Bicycle should increase compared to singel car use
  27. 32. Potential 1100 trips per person and year to influence
  28. 33. Car trips 50 % of them are shorter than 5 km
  29. 34. Car Sharing Bike Sharing Public Transport Multimodal Travel Pattern
  30. 35. Public Transport
  31. 36. Cycling
  32. 37. Car-sharing
  33. 38. Exercise: mobility need of babies <ul><li>Develop a product-service system for B2C (business-to-consumer) market that satisfies “mobility need of babies” based on the following steps: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current system to satisfy the need and its environmental impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Innovative approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actors involved </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Present the new PSS according to the PSS framework: products and services involved, networks of actors, needed infrastructures </li></ul><ul><li>Audience: what are the strong and weak sides of the suggested solution? </li></ul>
  34. 39. Present and comment! Think critically and creatively!
  35. 40. Mobility of babies
  36. 41. <ul><li>Mature product & market </li></ul><ul><li>High quality/exclusive </li></ul><ul><li>25-35% of market turnover - from new prams </li></ul><ul><li>Big second hand market : 65-75% - second-hand products </li></ul><ul><li>Prams go out of fashion, not out of shape </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 in 1 – convertible (s+s+l), 36 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 in 1 – convertible (s+s), 36 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conventional sleeping - 8-12 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conventional sitting stroller - 6-12 months </li></ul></ul>Pram market
  37. 42. <ul><li>Designed to serve 4 babies </li></ul><ul><li>The chassis will last for at least 8 users </li></ul><ul><li>Suitable design: 118 textiles and 4 chassis colours (clothing fashion vs. timeless design) </li></ul><ul><li>Manufactured and sold once, but… sold several times at the second-hand market. </li></ul>William Kent, a garden architect from England, designed the first known baby carriage for the third Duke of Devonshire in 1733. Why baby pram?
  38. 43. Prams world: depreciation rate The depreciation of the prams after the first user is 35-50% depending on model, use and maintenance.
  39. 44. x 8 (Leasing) From 4 owners to 8 users
  40. 45. <ul><li>Higher end market => high recovery value </li></ul><ul><li>Mature products </li></ul><ul><li>Standardisation of chassis and textiles </li></ul><ul><li>Shift to aluminium tubes – no welding </li></ul><ul><li>Direct link between producer and retailers </li></ul><ul><li>Chassis could serve at least 50% > time, as well as the basket </li></ul>Suitability for refurbishing
  41. 46. <ul><li>Producers are better suited for remanufacturing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>full information on design, construction, expected durability and reliability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>established distribution network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>established supplier network for spare parts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>general knowledge of consumers, use patterns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>potential to generate synergy with original production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>possibility to improve remanufacturability of product at the design stage </li></ul></ul>Who is to remanufacture?
  42. 47. <ul><li>Retailers are better suited for refurbishing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Situated closer to customers & established contacts with customers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic information on design, construction, expected durability and reliability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Established distribution network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential to reduce transportation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But, problems with refurbishing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Labour intensity of inspection, disassembly and upgrading </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Producers are moving to cheaper labour markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantial refurbishing is unfeasible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sufficient to “as new condition” </li></ul></ul>Who is to refurbish?
  43. 48. <ul><li>Need to change the design of the basket to allow for easy upgrading (worn out or fashion) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interior lining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind stopper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hood (outer lining) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Side pockets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wheels </li></ul>How to make the system work? Producer Retailer Customer New pram New pram Return used pram Refurbished pram
  44. 49. Jacobsson, 2000 Material and information flows Reprocessing feedback & need for exchange parts, plus leasing contract data Producer Retailer Customer New Pram New Pram Return Used Pram Reconditioned Pram Return exchange parts New exchange parts Reprocessing updates & Expected returns User feedback & estimated remaining period of usage User instructions, periodic invoice w. company and product information Material Flows Information Flows
  45. 50. <ul><li>Leasing has higher profits than sales (18-35 Euro/month, estimated for 4 years), highest – 4 times – need to share between 2 actors </li></ul><ul><li>Producers need to account for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transport of parts – small part of pram transportation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retailer education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial flow is different – need to finance first years, deposition charge may help </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For retailers: 30 min for refurbishing – labour costs & administration of the system, revenues: % of leasing fee & indirect revenues </li></ul>Financial analysis
  46. 51. <ul><li>Leasing fee </li></ul><ul><li>Selling the pram after its leasing time </li></ul><ul><li>Interest </li></ul><ul><li>Indirect revenues (auxiliary & other products) </li></ul><ul><li>Depend on: </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of manufacturing </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of reconditioning </li></ul><ul><li>Cost for handling invoices etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Depreciation (tax rules) </li></ul><ul><li>Interest </li></ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul>Revenue
  47. 52. <ul><li>Regulatory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Since 1920s, Swedish Housewives' Association, governmental reports, guides on equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Normative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards of cleanliness, wash more often, less amount/time, but increasing total volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Built in communities – standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Raising prestige </li></ul></ul>Washing centres
  48. 53. <ul><li>Product </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Smaller models, suited for fractions, semi-prof., more efficient </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>25-30 flats, booking, opening hours, payment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Part of community planning (in Sweden, link to mobility? ) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Producers, service provider, real estate company or housing association </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support from producers to providers </li></ul></ul>Washing centres
  49. 54. <ul><li>Customer acceptance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Households are satisfied with the distance to the washing centre (70%), with the availability of washing time (50%), with the quality of equipment (76%), and with the cleanliness of the centre (40%). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Business viability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For producers, housing association: economics vs. environmental parameters. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Environmental soundness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase of laundry: 290 kg in 1930s to 700 kg in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1980s. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dubious result: due to the use of driers </li></ul></ul>Washing centres
  50. 55. Thank you for your attention …