Cities & Transition Towards Electric Mobility: The Role of the City-level Social System in Accelerating the Socio-technical Transition Towards Electric Mobility
(Sidransky, 2016)
Master's thesis Author: Kristin Stensland
Student number: 11088575 Supervisor: Sebastian Krapohl
Second reader: Jasper Blom Date of Submission: 23062017
e-mail address: kristinstensland92@gmail.com
MSc Political Science: Political Economy The political Economy of Energy
Abstract:
In response to the increased attention to electric mobility and city-level environmental governance, this research seeks to investigate why cities with similar approaches to sustainability and carbon neutrality perform differently with regards to their success in transition towards electric mobility. This study differentiates itself from current literature in the field as it seeks to explore how the city-level social system accelerates the socio-technical transition towards electric mobility. It is anticipated that the success of the city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on the how the city-level social system responds to the technical system of electric vehicles. Based on literary evidences, four vital factors of the city-level social system are identified: governance & policy, multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue, experimental governance and transnational networks of cities. It is anticipated that each of these factors carry explanatory power in the city-level socio-technical regime to determine the city’s performance in electric mobility transition. Through an investigation of three capital cities; Oslo in Norway, Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Copenhagen in Denmark, a qualitative study is undertaken to investigate the proposed relationship. Semi-structured interviews and document analysis is performed in order to test the proposed relationship. The results of this analysis suggests that governance and policies carries the strongest explanatory power in determining the city’s performance in electric mobility transition, that being both national and local governance schemes. Furthermore, multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue carry some explanatory strength in determining the city’s performance in electric mobility. The role of experimental governance schemes and transnational networks is found to only indirectly contribute to explain the city’s performance in electric mobility transition. The results of this research emphasize the importance of understanding electric mobility transition as embedded within multiple systems, requiring systems interaction and collaboration to successfully occur. Through the interaction with key stakeholders in the field, this study uncovers vital aspects of the city-level mobility transition offering key insights to the development of future city-level mobility strategies.
_______________________________________________________________________________ Keywords: Energy transition, electric mobility, electric vehicles, governance, public policy,
multi-List of abbreviations
ASC Amsterdam Smart city CSC Copenhagen Smart city CS Charging stations EV Electric Vehicle FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ICEV Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle TNC Transnational Network of Cities
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 Problem statement ... 10
2. Motivation & contribution of research ... 12
2.1 Academic relevance ... 12
2.2 Social relevance ... 13
3. Literature review ... 15
3.1 Energy transition & transition towards electric mobility ... 15
3.2 Cities & environmental governance ... 16
3.3 Cities and electric mobility ... 17
3.4 Research gap ... 18
4. Theoretical framework ... 19
4.1 Theory of social systems ... 19
4.2 Socio-technical regimes ... 21
4.3 Conceptual model ... 24
4.4 Governance & policy for electric mobility ... 25
4.5 Transition management & Experimental governance ... 27
4.6 Transnational networks between cities ... 30
5. Research design & methods ... 32
5.1 Research design ... 32
5.2 Variables ... 33
5.3 Selection and identification of cases ... 34
5.3.2 Case 2- Amsterdam, The Netherlands ... 36
5.3.3 Case 3 – Copenhagen, Denmark ... 37
5.4 Data collection ... 38
5.4.1 Archival data & document analysis ... 39
5.4.2 Semi-structured interviews ... 40
5.5 Data analysis ... 42
5.6 Quality of the research design ... 43
6. Empirical findings & hypothesis testing ... 44
6.1 Technical system: Uncertainty costs of e-mobility ... 44
6.2 Social system ... 46
6.2.1 Governance and policies ... 46
6.2.1.1Oslo ... 47
6.2.2.2 Amsterdam ... 50
6.2.2.3 Copenhagen ... 52
6.2.2 Multi-stakeholder involvement: Collaboration & dialogue ... 57
6.2.2.1 Oslo ... 57
6.2.2.2. Amsterdam ... 58
6.2.2.3 Copenhagen ... 60
6.2.3 Experimental governance: Bridging the social & the technical systems ... 61
6.2.3.1 Oslo ... 62
6.2.3.2 Amsterdam ... 64
6.2.3.3 Copenhagen ... 67
6.2.4 Transnational networks of cities ... 69
6.2.4.2 Amsterdam ... 70
6.2.4.3 Copenhagen ... 71
7. Conclusions & recommendations ... 74
7.1 Key contributions ... 74
7.2 Policy contribution ... 77
7.3 Limitations & future research ... 79
8.References ... 81
9. Appendices ... 91
Appendix A - Semi-structured interviews protocol ... 91
Appendix B - Interview transcript – Petter Haugneland ... 93
Appendix C - Interview transcript – Sture Portvik ... 98
Appendix D - Interview transcript – Jak Vlasveeld, Julie Chenadec ... 102
Appendix E - Interview transcript – Geert Wijnen ... 113
Appendix F - Interview transcript – Kåre Albrechtsen ... 115
Appendix G - Interview transcript – Kasper Isbrand ... 120
Index of tables & figures
Table 1 – Selected cases & research puzzle p. 11
Figure 1 – The relationships of the socio-technical system p. 22
Figure 2 – Conceptual model p. 24
Table 2 – Selected stakeholders & rationale p. 41
Table 3 – Governance & Policy schemes for Oslo p. 50
Table 4 – Governance and policy schemes for Amsterdam p. 52
Table 5 – Governance and policy schemes for Copenhagen p. 56
Table 6 – Overview of case findings p. 72
Table 7 – Degree of advancement of component in the city-level social system p.73
1. Introduction
To facilitate a transition towards electric mobility based on clean, reliable and affordable energy is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Some solutions are already found and in use today, but many more needs to be created by entrepreneurs, governments, engineers and scientists. In assessing the challenges of green house gas emissions, road transportation and mobility amounts to 22% and is increasing, making transition towards sustainable means of transportation increasingly vital (Banister, 2011). Despite the well-documented environmental advantages of electric vehicles (EVs), a wide introduction has been slow to emerge and policy makers, researchers and industries are faced with the challenges on how to accelerate a transition towards all-electric vehicle fleets (Banister, 2008).
Cities have often been blamed for contributing disproportionately high to the global carbon emissions and studies have shown that there is a strong mismatch between urbanization and levels of green house gas emissions (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2007). Nevertheless, other studies have shown that cities creates unique solutions to promote a good quality of life with quite low levels of green house gas emissions per person (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2007). Furthermore, as the urbanization and increasing urban prosperity experienced in many parts of the world today continue to drive growth in energy demand, strategic behavioral and technological changes in cities can achieve long-term sustainability in energy consumption (International energy agency, 2016). In fact, many cities are said to hold the key to the future of low carbon emissions, and have already developed the most extensive frameworks to promote electric mobility (Horbach, 2014). As argued by Carlino et al. (2006) the most densely populated areas play a highly important role in creating flows of ideas and generating innovation, and the urban capitals of many European cities are the key drivers of electric mobility transition.
the focus on transition towards electric mobility has heavily increased over the last years in most European cities. While most studies predict a strong growth in electric vehicle markets in the coming decades, there is still uncertainty prevailing as to how this should be optimally done (Kleiwegt, 2011). Competitively, the electric vehicle still carries many uncertainty costs, related to battery capacity and storage, charging and grid capacity (S. Portvik, Personal communication, 11/5/2017).
Yet, it has become clear that the uncertainty is not only related to technology, but also to how the social system and governance should co-evolve around the technological status of the electric vehicle, to accelerate the electric mobility transition that is needed. In Europe, local, national and international governing bodies have come to realize that they need to initiate policies, activities and projects to accelerate the transition towards electric mobility. Many cities and regions attempt to make the electric vehicle market-competitive by offering tax reductions, free parking and priority lane driving among other initiatives (S. Portvik, Personal communication, 11/5/2017). However, consensus on how the social system should respond to the uncertainty of the electric vehicle technology, specifically regarding policy, has been hard to establish in many cases (K. Albrechtsen, Personal communication, 18/5/2017). Furthermore, regional and national governing bodies struggle to reach consensus on whether or not to incentivize and push a technology upon the consumer that is still in development, and may become independently market competitive in a matter of decades (Representative of the ministry of economic affairs NL, Personal communication, 11/5/2017).
Many capital cities have set ambitious goals for sustainability and carbon-neutrality, and transition towards clean mobility is often a vital goal within this (McKinsey, 2016). Yet, while many cities have ambitious targets to accelerate energy transitions, their performance tends to vary with regards to electric mobility. In light of the increased focus on the city as the driver for
environmental governance (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2007), this research seeks to investigate why cities perform differently in terms of their electric mobility transition in spite of their similarly ambitious approach to sustainability and carbon neutrality. As such, this study seeks to elucidate the complexity of the transition towards this new mobility system, and the challenges that impede transition on a city-level. In answering this question this thesis seeks to bring forth valuable insights for future city-level strategies for electric mobility transition.
1.1 Problem statement
Because of the immense impact on air quality and carbon emissions from the traditional mobility systems, local governments are pushing to stimulate growth in the EV markets. Perhaps the greatest challenge for contemporary mobility research is how, and if, a socio-technical transition towards electric mobility is possible (Tyfield, 2014). The advanced frameworks for electric mobility developed in many capital cities may serve as some of the strongest contributors to the transition towards electric mobility, yet, large city-level differences are observed even between cities that have similar approaches to sustainability and carbon neutrality (McKinsey, 2016). Through an investigation of three cases; Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Oslo in Norway and Copenhagen in Denmark, this research seeks to investigate why these three cases of capital cities perform differently in transitioning towards electric mobility, in spite of, as can be seen in table 1, their strong focus on sustainability and carbon neutrality.
Table 1 – Selected cases & research puzzle
Case Carbon goal Sustainability
index EV fleet (2016) Electric vehicle share of new sales (2016) Oslo 2030 (100% neutrality) 3 (score 83,98) 16773 26.6% Amsterdam 2025 (a 40% reduction since 1990), emission free transport by 2025 5 (score 83,03) 6645 9.7% Copenhagen 2025 (100% neutrality) 1 (score 87,31) 2793 3.7%
Data from: Hall et al. (2017), Sustainablecitybnechmark (2017)
As can be seen in table 1, Oslo has the largest EV market share of new sales (26,6%), yet performs second best on sustainability and does not have the most ambitious goal with regards to carbon neutrality. Amsterdam has the second largest EV market share with (9.7%), yet scores lowest of the three on sustainability and only seeks to reach a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. On the other hand, Amsterdam seeks to only allow emission free transport by 2025. Finally, Copenhagen has the most ambitious approach to carbon neutrality, and seeks to become the world’s first carbon-neutral city. Furthermore, they score the highest on the sustainable city index in the world. Nevertheless, their EV market share is a mere (3.7%) of new sales for the year of 2016. In the discovery of this research puzzle this research seeks to investigate why there is an apparent difference in the performance of the electric mobility performance of the three cities by answering the proposed research question;
1) Why do capital cities, in spite of similar performance and ambition of sustainability and carbon-neutrality, perform differently with regards to their success in transitioning towards electric mobility?
In answering the proposed research question, it is assumed that the transition towards electric mobility is a socio-technical transition, deemed to be highly complex and multi-layered (Tyfield, 2014). Yet, while acknowledging the immense importance of investigating the technical elements of electric vehicles, the researcher leaves this part of the puzzle to students of electric and mechanical engineering. Rather, as a contribution to social science, this thesis seeks to investigate the city-level social system surrounding the transition towards electric mobility, and how it responds to, and co-evolves with, the current technological uncertainties surrounding electric vehicles.
2. Motivation & contribution of research
2.1 Academic relevance
Through the evaluation of the city-level social system surrounding the transition towards electric mobility, several important contributions to academia are made. Firstly, this research contributes to the field of energy transition, a field that sorely needs academic attention to
follow the contemporary processes of energy transition that are encouraged globally (Geels, 2013).
Secondly, this research seeks to contribute to the field of investigating the role of subnational actors
in environmental governance and climate change. The field of electric mobility transition is highly
complex on a technical level, but also on a relational level as it involves a large web of actors from both the public and the private sphere (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). As such, this research seeks to
interaction between these, as argued important by authors such as Betsill & Bulkeley (2004).
Thirdly, this thesis contributes to investigate the role of transnational networks in non-state
governance. While the primary emphasis of research has been on the state as the vital national
entity or the role of non-state actors, academia has often overlooked the role of transnational
networks of subnational governments, specifically relevant in relation to environmental governance
(Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). Further, this research can further contribute to academia by investigating how policy diffusion may spur from transnational networks of cities. While policy
diffusion has gained increased academic attention over the last decades, research still needs to
uncover under which circumstances it may occur (Shipan & Volden, 2008).
Fourthly, this thesis investigates experimental governance in the form of smart city
initiatives on a city-level to accelerate transition towards electric mobility. As such, this research
responds the call by researchers such as Mosannenzadeh et al. (2017) who argues that research
needs to investigate smart city strategies in a systemic way, to determine their role and efficacy as
an embedded part of the city’s governance and strategic progress. Sixthly, this research responds to
the call by authors such as Raaijmakers (2014) who encourages research on electric mobility to
investigate different policies across countries and regions, to provide a more robust analysis on
effectiveness and causal relationships. Lastly, in its essence, this research also seeks to put forth the
immensely important notion that electric mobility transition is a process embedded in multiple
systems, and that only through successful interaction between these, can a holistic transition take
place.
2.2 Social relevance
The threat of climate change on a global level stands as one of the greatest challenges of our time. Current mobility systems are unsustainable and carry great social costs in the sense that they are
primarily based on fossil fuels, contribute greatly to Co2 emissions and a large degree of air pollution, noise pollution and a high level of oil dependency. Thus, the transition away from the traditional systems of mobility is of vital social importance. The transition towards electric mobility stands as a significant challenge, and technologies have proven slow to diffuse (Heemstra, 2015). Since road transportation amounts to about 22% of green house gas emissions globally, accelerating a transition towards electric mobility and understanding how the social system should optimally respond in intersection with this new technology has great social importance. This is specifically relevant as the global demand for transport is not decreasing; in fact it is expected to increase by almost 40% up until 2035 (WEO, 2013).
As required by the international energy agreements, governments on a global scale are expected to be substituting their existing traditional mobility systems within in few years, thus this research can give useful insights on how to successfully reach these goals. Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that nation-states are unable to address the issues of climate change alone, thus research needs to uncover the role of non-state actors and points of interaction between those (True & Mintrom, 2001). Importantly, the transition towards electric mobility on a city-level includes the efforts of myriad of actors on an international, national, local, public and private level. This research can further contribute to highlight the complexity of this multileveled collaboration, to give insights on how to improve the collaboration processes. As argued by Banister (2011) the transition towards electric mobility is one of the most important tasks of our time, yet has proven to be immensely challenging, with most success stories seen from more urbanized areas. This investigation has great social value as it gives insight into how a transition can be more successfully enforced, by depicting the role of the city-level social system in this, useful for mapping future strategies. By adopting a novel subnational perspective on the topic of electric mobility transition, it
is the hope of the researcher that this study can contribute to unlock the door to an emission-free future.
3. Literature review
This section will elaborate on the key literary contributions in the field, which led to the discovery of the existing research gap that is filled with the current research. Firstly, this section will elaborate on the key literature in the field of electric mobility transition in energy transition. Secondly, the role of cities in environmental governance and climate change is elaborated on. Finally, this section discusses the literature on cities in transition towards electric mobility to emphasize the vital importance of this research’s contribution to academia.
3.1 Energy transition & transition towards electric mobility
As a part of the increased focus on energy transition, the transition towards electric mobility has gained increased momentum in academia and policy-making (Dijk et al., 2013). According to Dijk et al. (2013) a successful transition towards electric mobility is not driven by a single factor, but rather by the co-evolution of multiple developments. Furthermore, an actor-based interactive perspective is important as the interaction between car drivers, industrial players, policy-makers and public opinion is driving the transition (Dijk et al., 2013). According to Geels & Schot (2007), there are various manners in which a possible transition can occur, which are described as ‘transition pathways’. These include transformation, reconfiguration, technological substitutions, de-alignment and re-alignment. These pathways are described as differing in combinations, and focusing on a multi-leveled perspective on transition (Geels & Schot, 2007).
The public interest in transition towards electric mobility increased in 1980-90s through environmental pressures and technological improvements. In a European context, the
transition towards electric mobility originated from the main engineering schools, where Germany, Denmark and Switzerland led the way (Geels & Schot, 2007). However, the transition towards electric mobility in Europe has been slow to increase and the larger successes have been seen with the introduction of hybrid technology (Dijk et al., 2013). Yet, after 2005 the transition towards electric mobility gained increased momentum through emerging climate concerns, specifically pushed by perceived climate disasters such as the Hurricane Katrina of 2005 (Dijk et al, 2013). Dijk et al. (2013) also argues that policy-makers wanting to gain popularity through increased green credentials drive the transition towards electric mobility. The EU seeks to stimulate the transition towards an all-electric fleet by supporting R&D programs, and national success stories have come from large subsidies and policy incentives such as tax exemption (Dijk et al., 2013). Dijk et al. (2013) further argue that the future growth in e-mobility comes from developments in infrastructure, mobility technology, and global car manufacturing regimes, energy prices and developments in the energy sector. Yet, these factors cannot be successful in driving transition without the support of policy-makers and leaders. This notion is supported by Leurent & Windisch (2011) who conclude that policy approaches to accelerate electric mobility transition are promising, yet they need to be co-developed with improvements on an economic, technical and industrial level for large-scale conversion to take place.
3.2 Cities & environmental governance
Traditionally, research has relied on the core assumption that transition towards sustainable energy and electric mobility relies on the state as a singular sovereign and national unit (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). Increasingly, the importance of local action has been highlighted with regards to sustainability and climate change, and an adoption of a ‘think global – act local’ approach has been
environmental performance of cities must necessarily be improved, as there is a need to reduce the transfer of environmental costs to other areas. Considerable attention has been given to the progressively urban nature of consumption and production, and as such attention has since been given to what urban sustainability entails and how it may have influences largely outside the borders of the city (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2007). Although it is a common view that cities for the most part contribute to resource waste, pollution and green house gas emissions, this is only a limited view (McGranahan & Satterwaite, 2003). Cities are key locations for economies and most economic activities are undertaken in large cities, both industrial production and service industries (McGranahan & Satterwaite, 2003). The cities and largest urbanized areas are closely intertwined with the economic prosperity of a country (McGranahan & Satterwaite, 2003). Moreover, higher levels of urbanization are correlated with higher wages, stable institutions and economic stability (McGranahan & Satterwaite, 2003). As argued by Carlino et al. (2006), the most densely populated area plays a highly important role in creating flows of ideas and generating innovation, and the urban capitals of many European cities are the key drivers of electric mobility transition.
3.3 Cities and electric mobility
As argued by Tcholtchev et al. (2012) the quality of life in an urbanized area depends on ecological, social and mobility factors. While contemporary research has increasingly discussed the importance of cities in climate change, the topic of cities and transition towards electric mobility has been less discussed. Horbach (2014) investigates the role of cities with regards to electric mobility to identify the policy diffusion from the city of Amsterdam to the European Union. The findings reveal that the close collaboration between stakeholders such as national government, municipality, industries and NGOs facilitates the growth in the EV fleet of Amsterdam. Furthermore, his research reveals that the initiatives of Amsterdam are indeed very area-specific, encouraging research to consider as to
what extent policy diffusion in electric mobility on a global level is effective in other cities and regions. Authors have discussed how electric mobility development can be improved through multileveled smart city initiatives, combining the efforts of many urban players such as local governments, industries, network providers and utility providers. Heuvelhof et al. (2011) make an important contribution to the field by identifying and discussing what political challenges lie in encouraging a transition towards electric mobility. Issues of stop-and-go political support, vested interests from petroleum and automotive industries and ambiguity on what the role of the government should be are crucial challenges to the transition towards electric mobility. As such, national and local governments are still struggling to find the appropriate approach. Banister (2008) argues that improvements in mobility and technology in cities can only accelerate transition to a certain extent, and that it needs thorough support in political leadership and urban planning in order to follow such a path (Banister, 2011). His research encourages further research to consider the role of the city-level system responding to the electric vehicle technology in order to properly evaluate the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the two systems.
3.4 Research gap
While researchers have touched upon the energy transition and the transition towards electric mobility in various ways, research still needs to advance to keep up with these contemporary processes. In the recent decades the role of cities in climate change has been discussed, yet academia has ceased to investigate why cities with seemingly similar approaches to sustainability and carbon neutrality perform vastly different in the transition towards electric mobility. This research seeks to fill this gap in the existing literature by investigating three distinct European cities. By investigating the complex social systems, distinct to each city, and how the social systems
research gap. Through a multiple case study of the city of Oslo in Norway, Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Copenhagen in Denmark, this research seeks to give insights as to why they differ in performance in transitioning towards electric mobility on a city-level. The subsequent section will elaborate on the theoretical foundations of the proposed research.
4. Theoretical framework
This section elaborates on the theoretical framework underlying this research, to give a solid understanding on the foundation and concepts needed for providing answers to the proposed research question and to develop testable hypotheses.
4.1 Theory of social systems
One of the most influential theorists of social systems is Niklas Luhman, who developed the theory of autopoietic social systems. The term autopoiesis as derived from Greek is used to describe the ability of self- (re) production of a system from within (Seidl, 2004). While originally explaining reproduction in biologic systems, Luhman argues that autopoietic systems also appear in the domain of social systems. An autopoietic social system is one that reproduces itself continuously on the basis of its proprietary elements. Luhman identifies three types of systems that are autopoietic: the living, the social and the psychic systems. Furthermore, within the sphere of social systems three distinct types of autopoietic systems can be identified; societies, organizations and interactions (Seidl, 2004). While living systems reproduce themselves on the basis of life and psychic systems reproduce themselves on the basis of conscious thoughts, social systems typically reproduce themselves on the basis of communication (Seidl, 2004).
Within the social system, Luhmann argues that communication (or the communicative event) is the key element. Here, the element of communication refers to 1) information, 2) utterance
and 3) understanding. Within the social system, the social system itself creates an image of itself as a ‘nexus of actions’. In contemporary societies, a diverse net of systems function autonomously and as they undergo the autopoietic process, a specialization and functional differentiation occur (Seidl, 2004). Importantly, systems cannot explore a particular problem without the interaction with other systems. For example, the political system cannot solve a particular problem purely on the basis of political implications (Seidl, 2004). Because of the limitations of the systems due to their autopoitic nature, the relationship between functional systems has utmost important (Mattheis, 2012).
As argued by Geels (2012), by undertaking a sociological perspective on technology, the technology itself has no power to influence change. Only, when the technology is interacting with human agency, social structures and organizations, the technology comes to life and functions in society. In determining how the social system impacts the transition towards electric mobility, the theory of social systems is important, as it emphasizes the significance of cross-system interaction in driving transition (Steinhbiller et al., 2013). In electric mobility, the social systems theory does not imply that the social system alone can drive city-level transition towards electric mobility, yet neither can the technical system autonomously. As such, driving a transition towards electric mobility requires a functioning social system that co-evolves with the current technical system, referring to a socio-technical regime.
In undertaking Luhman’s definition of the factors within the sphere of social systems to determine the relevant social system factors in the field of electric mobility, this thesis investigates four vital elements of the social systems surrounding an e-mobility transition on a city-level: governance and policies for electric mobility of the cities, the Multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration to drive progress in transition, the experimental governance to find solutions to the uncertainty around electric mobility, as well as the transnational networks of cities that have emerged to encourage knowledge sharing and best practice exchange in accelerating an electric
vehicle transition on a city-level. As such, it is argued that the aspects of societies, organizations and interactions within electric mobility social system are all included in the analysis, in alignment with Seidl (2004)’s analysis of Luhman’s social systems.
4.2 Socio-technical regimes
The transition towards electric mobility is of an urgent and globally significant nature, yet a highly complex and multi-layered problem (Tyfield, 2014). In technology research, there is strong emphasis on the linkages between social and technical elements as vital means to provide stability to innovation (Geels, 2013). This multi-layered perspective belongs to a larger tradition of the innovation studies, which has become relevant over the last decades, mostly influential to explain the management of socio-technical transitions (Geels & Schot, 2007; Tyfield, 2014). This multi-leveled perspective pose that the socio-technical regime consists of a varied set of social, regulatory, technical and economic structures that together constitute a dominant system (Tyfield, 2014). This dominant regime is consistently challenged by emerging ‘niches’, most of which fail to make a systemic impact (Tyfield, 2014). Yet, certain ‘niches’ may be nurtured to create consistent continuity with the existing system, creating a ‘systems transition’ (Tyfield, 2014).
Common in the literature of socio-technical regimes, is the notion that transition towards electric mobility is not purely and primarily driven by technological advancement alone. Oppositely, it needs to be enforced in the context of innovation throughout the entire socio-technical system (Arent et al., 2012). The promotion of electric mobility differentiates itself from other types of product innovation in the sense it has large network externalities (Arent et al., 2012). These network externalities exist because the value and the utility of the electric vehicle for the consumer is necessarily dependent on who(m) else, and how many, have also bought an electric vehicle – a problem also referred to as a bandwagon effect (Arent et al., 2012). As such, Geels et al.
(2007) argue that the transition towards electric mobility is a complex process, where the transition on the social and governmental level is just as important as the technological changes and advances. The term socio-technical system alone emphasizes the strong connection between the social and technical components to drive successful transition towards electric mobility (Arent et al., 2012). In this research, this theory is applied to identify the factors of the social system on a city-level to drive the transition towards electric mobility and how well they manage to respond the technical system to induce a ‘systems transition’.
Figure 1. - The relationships of the socio-technical system (Kull et al. 2013)
As shown from Figure 1, transition of a socio-technical system is often initiated from external changes and pressures that forces change upon the prevailing system. It is then the
dynamics between the social system and the technical system that determines the success of the transition. This dependence is important to analyze, as it pinpoints how the cities’ manage their transition towards electric mobility through mobilization of the social systems in response to the current technical system of electric mobility, which carry substantial uncertainty costs1
. As a contribution to social science, this thesis assumes the immensely important role of the social systems surrounding electric mobility and the socio-technical relations on a city-level, thus the following overarching hypothesis is developed;
H1: The success of the city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on the social system’s response to the current technical system of electric vehicles
4.3 Conceptual model
Figure 2: City-level socio-technical regime for the transition towards electric mobility
Based on the theoretical framework as will be explained in the following sections, the subsequent model for explaining the city-level differences in electric mobility performance is proposed:
As proposed in the conceptual model, differences between cities’ performance may be explained in how the social system co-evolves alongside the technological innovation and the existing electric mobility technology. The current state of EV technology carries significant uncertainty costs for the consumer (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). In the proposed model, four variables of the social system are identified. The following theories have led to the discoveries of these variables, and the
development of four hypotheses that supports the proposed model and the role of the social system in accelerating the city-level transition towards electric mobility.
4.4 Governance & policy for electric mobility
The introduction of new mobility products brings a variety of obstacles to adoption. As argued by authors such as Leurent & Windisch (2011), governments play a key role in developing a functioning electric mobility system and are in a dominant position to shape the market. The International Energy Agency argues that for the deployment of new technological vehicles, the governmental usage of policy instruments to influence the market should far exceed traditional regulations and financial incentives (Leurent & Windisch, 2011). Leurent & Windisch (2011) state that governments can use economic instruments, procurement instruments, collaborative instruments and communication and diffusion instruments to encourage adoption to electric vehicles. Economic instruments can be used to overcome the current financial barrier to EV adoption, and give financial incentives to potential buyers. Additionally, a government typically wants to create scale economies for the production of electric vehicles, and to be able to purchase them at reduced prices and thus use procurement instruments. Furthermore, government procurement is an important strategy as it also has a marketing element, where the government can convey its “greenness” by taking leadership in the transition with a completely electrified public fleet (Leurent & Windisch, 2011). To encourage collaboration between key stakeholders, a government can use collaborative instruments. Also, a government can make use of communication and diffusion instruments. This includes educating the general public on the benefits of EV driving to develop acceptance and grow public interest (Leurent & Windisch, 2011). The government can also develop electric car sharing projects and the necessary charging infrastructure to encourage transition (Leurent & Windisch, 2011). Typically, local governments create a policy package for
electric mobility transition based on their existing frameworks, competencies and financial resources. Importantly, such policy packages need to include a wide variety of instruments to be successful (Leurent & Windisch, 2011).
According to Bakker & Trip (2013) cities have three major options to support citizens and businesses to move to electric means of transportation. Firstly, direct subsidies for purchases of private and commercial vehicles create strong incentives for adoption. Yet, these measures can be expensive and in fact be ineffective if the vehicle still exist in a price range too high for most consumers (Bakker & Trip, 2013). Furthermore, such incentives may not give car manufacturers the right incentive to lower the prices of their electric vehicles. Secondly, a city can opt to support local businesses to encourage them to understand the business case in changing to electric vehicles, perhaps specifically through the positive marketing that comes from environmental leadership (Bakker & Trip, 2013). Thirdly, the city can encourage electric-car sharing initiatives, and encourage car-sharing organizations to convert their existing fleets (Bakker & Trip, 2013).
Importantly, electric vehicle adoption does not only respond to financial incentives (Hall et al., 2013). For many cities, the market uptake in electric mobility has been followed by non-financial incentives such as free parking, priority lane driving and free electricity (Hall et al., 2013). Hall et al. (2013) argue that both financial and non-financial incentives should be in place on a governance level in order to encourage a successful transition towards electric means of transportation. As argued by Heuvelhof et al. (2011), the usage of policy to stimulate an electric mobility transition is a strong and effective mean of intervention, achieving quick results, increased attention to the topic and direct the progress of the transition. Due to the large volume of theoretical evidence arguing for the role of governance and policy in directing the transition towards electric mobility, the following hypothesis is developed;
H2: The success of a city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on the development of financial and non-financial policy incentives to encourage increased electric vehicle adoption.
4.5 Transition management & Experimental governance
Focusing on the social aspect of the socio-technical systems, local transition management theory carry important implications to this research. Transition management as a concept has emerged over recent years in academia, to describe the conscious steering towards (sustainable) development. According to this theory, transitions should be seen as “transformation processes in which society changes in a fundamental way over a generation or more” (Rotmans et al., 2001, p.1). Although the goal of the transition is commonly formed by the society itself, governments can play a fundamental role in accelerating structural changes by applying a step-wise approach (Rotmans et al., 2001). Transition management theory posits that transition management must work within three separate levels in order to be successful. These levels are often referred to as landscape, regime and niche. The landscape is the macro level that refers to the overall socio-technical setting encompassing intangible aspects such as social values, political beliefs, and worldviews. Landscape also focuses on tangible assets such as the institutions and the different functions of a marketplace. The level regime refers to the dominant practices, rules and technologies- functions that aim to provide stability and reinforcement to the socio-technical systems in which they prevail. The last level refers to niche, which is typically the area where space is provided for experiments and innovation. Typically, radical innovation occurs at the niche level, before they are diffused and enforced through the other levels, where the last level, the landscape, often is the one that is slow to change and “sticky” in nature. As with the theory of socio-technical regimes, the transition management theory poses that successful transition can only take place if it incurs in a multi-leveled
manner including a myriad of actors both from the private and the public sphere (Rotmans et al., 2001). As such, the following hypothesis is developed;
H3: The success of a city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on the success in creating multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue on the topic of electric mobility
To turn the city-level transition towards electric mobility into a success requires a consistent bridging of the technical and social systems (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). The niche category explains a key feature of successful transition management: The transition is not primarily driven by established actors (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). As such, the role of the government in facilitating the transition towards electric mobility must also focus on opening up governance for experimentation and innovation (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). This is specifically important, as the transition towards electric mobility requires experimental collaboration and projects to encourage innovation in policy as well as in technology (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). This paradigm of transition management theory is very much in line with the paradigm of smart city strategies, where the smart city constitutes an area where innovation is encouraged to spur a ‘systems transition’ (Chourabi et al., 2011). Over recent years we have seen an abundance of smart city initiatives emerge all over Europe to encourage the transition towards sustainability (Chourabi et al., 2011). Smart city strategies are developed to mitigate the problems emerging from urbanization and urban population growth (Chourabi et al., 2011). The concept of smart cities normally focus on eight critical areas of innovation; management and organization, technology, governance, policy context, people and communities, economy, infrastructure and natural environment (Chourabi et al., 2011). The importance of smart city strategies is evident in a global context, as the urgency around urbanization challenges are accelerating quickly, triggering cities around the globe to adapt smarter
ways to innovate, adapt and manage (Chourabi et al., 2011). As urged by Nam & Pardo (2011), smart city developments are ultimately concerning the city’s innovation in technology, management and policy to make itself smart. Smart city initiatives, such as acceleration in e-mobility, are a result of external pressures, such as policy agendas, as well as internal pressures and challenges such as pollution and urban population growth. Typically, smart city initiatives include a wide variety of stakeholders such as local governments, research institutions, grassroots movements, technology vendors and property developers among others (Angelidou, 2014). Based on the notion that technological development and innovation is the key driver in making a city smart, the smart city is seen as an accelerator and a catalyst to sustainable initiatives on a city-level (Angelidou, 2014). Most smart city initiatives emerge on a micro-level, as location-specific knowledge can spur more effective innovation when applied to local areas (Angelidou, 2014). Nevertheless, the successes from local projects can often be decontextualized and transferred or scaled up to other areas. While it is clear that smart city strategies are an important part of cities’ strategies towards energy transition and electric mobility, there is a need to connect and align the smart city strategies with the local government’s policy agenda to ensure effectiveness (Angelidou, 2014). Smart city strategies can be important independent vehicles in promoting innovation, clear connection with local government and alignment are vital for their effectiveness in promoting and diffusing smart city solutions (Angelidou, 2014). As argued by Angelidou (2014) there is a mutual interdependence between the smart city strategies and the local government’s transition management: One the one hand the local government’s planning has significant impact on the smart city’s development, yet the smart city in turn creates innovation and conducts smart city pilots for the accomplishment of larger-level sustainability goals.
Smart city strategies carry relevance for this research as they contribute to explain how innovation in technology and policy to accelerate an e-mobility transition can be developed
through smart city initiatives. Smart city strategies are considered to work as experimental governance areas of the cities and works as platforms for conducting pilots to observe best practices in electric mobility. On the basis of the transition management theory encouraging the development of experimental governance schemes for innovation such as smart city strategies, the following hypothesis is developed;
H4: The success of a city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on their ability to encourage innovation through experimental governance schemes such as smart city strategies.
4.6 Transnational networks between cities
Another important factor determining the city-level transition in electric mobility is the embeddedness of the city in an international network for best practice exchange and collaboration possibilities (Heuvelhof et al., 2011). The emergence of global cities is an essential part of globalization (Curtis, 2011). In the last decades, the role of transnational networks between cities in environmental governance has gained increasing academic ground (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). As defined by Risse-kappen (1995) transnational networks between cities encompass “Regular interaction across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non-state agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or intergovernmental organization” (Risse-kappen, 1995, p.3). Such networks are built on interaction, best practices, knowledge and value sharing. These networks show the ability of non-state actors, such as local cities, in successfully driving change and environmental governance without the steering from a nation-state level (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). As argued by Angelidou (2014) cities have international peers, i.e. cities that carry
become smarter. These networks are seen as a consequence of increasing global issues and the need for global connections to address these issues (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004).
Transnational networks further encourage policy diffusion (True & Mintrom, 2001). Through the globalization experienced over the last decades, cities and regions are pulled closer together (Shipan & Volden, 2008). Typically, policy diffusion between cities is common and local governments rely on the experiments of other cities to create their own policy framework (Shipan & Volden, 2012). As argued by True & Mintrom (2001) actors involved in transnational networks carry significant impact on local and domestic political processes and policy-making. In recent decades, we have experienced policy diffusion between regions and areas to a much higher degree than before, and inspiration and imitation are common practices (Shipan & Volden, 2008). As argued by Shipan & Volden (2008), policy diffusion is based on several different mechanisms, such as learning; when a government learns about the effective policies elsewhere to implement themselves, and imitation when governments simply copy the policies that may result in inadequate policy for the area. As found by True & Mintrom (2001), transnational networks are the primary explanatory variable in global policy diffusion. In terms of investigating a given city’s success in accelerating the transition towards electric mobility, transnational networks and global policy diffusion are important, as they may contribute to explain why certain global cities are able to learn and exchange knowledge and best practices as well as gain insights on other cities’ policy frameworks for electric mobility. This in turn, can increase their ability to accelerate a transition towards electric mobility on a city-level. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed;
H5: The success of a city’s performance in the transition towards electric mobility depends on their embeddedness in transnational networks of cities for electric mobility governance
5. Research design & methods
This section will give an overview of the methodological choices made for the current study. Firstly, the research design of the current study will be elaborated on. Secondly, the case selection and case justification are explained. Thirdly, the data collection methods of the current study are discussed to highlight their appropriateness with the regards to the presented research puzzle. Fourthly, the data analysis methods are discussed in detail. Lastly, the validity and reliability of the chosen methods are discussed to emphasize the robustness of the findings of this research and the quality of the chosen research design.
5.1 Research design
The purpose of this study is to investigate why capital cities, that have seemingly similar approaches to sustainability and carbon neutrality, perform largely differently with regards to electric mobility. This question is researched by investigating three cases: Oslo, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. This research is carried out as an explanatory study, through the formulation of a research question to the development of a testable hypothesis (Saunders, 2011). This approach is chosen as this research intends to go beyond a descriptive analysis, and seek explanations behind observed occurrences, namely the large variation in the EV performance of cities (Saunders, 2011).
For the current study, a qualitative research approach is deemed appropriate. As research on city-level electric mobility transition is a relatively underexplored and novel field, a qualitative research approach is applicable (Eisenhardt, 1989). The chosen research design in line with the arguments of Huberman & Miles (2002), who argues that qualitative research should be used to explore and understand a broad range of social and public policy issues. The usage of qualitative research for investigating such topics is specifically relevant as there is a persistent
requirement in social science research to understand the context and the complexity of behaviors, systems, needs and policies (Huberman & Miles, 2002) Typically used methods for qualitative research includes document analysis, interviews as well as observations (Eisenhardt, 1989). For the current study these three approaches of qualitative research are all in use simultaneously, as argued important by Eisenhardt (1989).
For this investigative analysis a multiple case-study design is deemed appropriate. As argued by Yin (2002) a multiple case study design is suitable in evaluation of contemporary phenomena and processes. The overarching framework of the current study will be a qualitative multiple case study, where the cities’ social system is the unit of analysis. In order to collect appropriate data for the chosen research design, secondary archival data gathering as well as semi-structured interviews is chosen to test the posed propositions and seek answers to the research questions.
5.2 Variables
The dependent variable of the proposed research is the city-level performance in transition towards electric mobility. The independent variables of this research are discovered through the social system analysis. Due to the identification of four vital factors of the social system with regards to electric mobility, these four factors are considered to carry explanatory power in determining the city-level performance in electric mobility and are as such identified as the independent variables of this research. These independent variables are: 1) Governance & policy, 2) Multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue , 3) Experimental governance and 4) Transnational networks. Through semi-structured interviews and document analysis on the basis of the discovered independent variables, the explanatory capacity of each factor in the social system in determining the city-level performance in electric mobility is exposed.
5.3 Selection and identification of cases
The cases selected for this research consist of three different capital cities in Europe. The chosen cases are Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Copenhagen in Denmark and Oslo in Norway. It is argued that the selection of these three cities is in line with the most similar systems design, commonly used in comparative politics (Guy et al, 1998). This approach is undertaken in support of the view of Guy (1998), who argues that cases should be as similar as possible in order to control for concomitant variation. The case selection is based on the following rationale. Firstly, these are all capitals situated in constitutional monarchies in northwestern Europe. In terms of population size, the cities are relatively similar: Oslo (645,000), Amsterdam (810,909) and Copenhagen (562,253) (Eurostat, 2015). Furthermore, the cities are situated in countries with traditionally strong welfare states, focused on benefits and providing good quality of life for its residents (Blomgren, 2013). The cities are all situated in countries with low levels of inequality, and focus on universal access to education (Blomgren, 2013). In terms of local governance, Oslo is governed through a coalition of the Labor party, the socialistic left party and the green party (Oslo municipality, 2017). In Copenhagen, the social democrats party governs the city (City council of Copenhagen, 2017), and in Amsterdam, the Labor party governs only through the mayor; the rest of the municipal government consists of a coalition between the liberal-democratic party, the People’s party for Freedom and Democracy and the socialist party (iamsterdam, 2017). As aforementioned, the three cities all score relatively high in terms of sustainable development, such as on the Sustainable city index (Sustainablecitiesbenchmark, 2017). According to this index based on Co2 emissions, energy usage, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air quality and environmental governance, Copenhagen is the overall best performing city (score 87,31/100), Oslo is the third best performing city (83,98/100) and Amsterdam is the fifth on the list (83,03/100). While these three cities are
determined to have strong similarities, it is important to mention certain aspects of differentiation between the cases. Importantly, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are both cities integrated in the European Union, while Oslo is not. Nevertheless, since Norway is participating in the single market through their membership in the European Economic Area, it is argued that this case selection still qualifies for a most similar system design.
Due to the large set of similarities between the chosen cases, it is argued that some extraneous variance has been excluded by the case selection itself (Guy, 1998). Nevertheless, differences are seen in the cities performance in transition towards electric mobility. Since it is discovered that the performance in transition towards electric mobility is superior in Oslo and Amsterdam relative to Copenhagen, this specific case selection allows for a variation in the dependent variable.
5.3.1 Case 1 – Oslo, Norway
Firstly, the city of Oslo is identified as a case. Oslo is considered a frontrunner in electric mobility, with a cumulative EV market share of 26,6% (McKinsey, 2016). Due to a high level of incentivizing schemes, the market for EVs is blossoming in Norway, yet we see that the expansion is first and foremost concentrated around the city of Oslo (Haugneland, 2016). It is argued that due to the strong market in specifically this region, Norway is now considered the first mass market for EVs in the world (Oslo municipality, 2017). Furthermore, the city of Oslo is strongly trying to preserve its image of being a green capital. It sees a large need in cutting the emissions from transportation as this sector alone is estimated to be responsible for about 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the area. The strategy towards EV transition in Oslo entails a large package of local initiatives (Oslo municipality, 2017). Due to a large success in the private market, Oslo now strives to become a leader in commercial EVs such as freight, taxies and service EVs (Haugneland, 2016). The city has relied heavily on partnerships to drive the transition, focusing on
stakeholders such as EV industry associations, environmental NGOs, universities and research institutes as well as partnering with different EU projects. Further adding to the success of Oslo in driving the EV transition is the abundance of hydropower energy readily available, making the EV fleet one of the cleanest in the world (Dorigo, 2017). The city has focused heavily on the development of public charging stations with over 700 municipal stations in use, to increase the convenience for electric mobility (Dorigo, 2017). Yet, while Oslo is seen as a case of success in terms of electric mobility transition, it is important to mention that EVs do not tend to replace traditional vehicles in the Norwegian market. While being seen as the world leader in clean transportation, 71% of the owners of an EV also own an ICE vehicle (Dorigo, 2017). Oslo is chosen as a case in this study as it seen as one of the leading cities in the world in terms of electric mobility. By investigating of the city-level social system in Oslo and contrasting and comparing the findings to the other cases in this analysis the proposed hypotheses will be tested to seek answers to the discovered research puzzle of the current research.
5.3.2 Case 2- Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Secondly, the city of Amsterdam is identified as a case. Amsterdam is also pioneering in the transition towards electric mobility in Europe, with a cumulative EV market share of 9,7% (Hall et al., 2017). Amsterdam has an old city center, primarily covered by narrow cobblestone streets, canals and bridges (Horbach, 2014). Naturally, these city characteristics does not allow for transportation of heavy trucks going through the city center. Yet, small distances, the narrowness and the many angles in the city’s infrastructure characterize the city, and this is enforcing vehicles to brake and accelerate often leading to increased pollution (Horbach, 2014). Transportation carries huge environmental costs in Amsterdam, which are carried by a large population in a densely populated area (Horbach, 2014). At the moment, close to 50% of the city’s air pollution comes from transportation, emphasizing the huge possibilities for improvement in environmental performance
through a transition towards electric mobility. Amsterdam is renowned worldwide for its dense population yet wealth of green spaces, and is often seen as “a thriving and pleasant city to live in” (Giessen & van der Linden, 2016). Due to the many undesirable consequences of the traditional mobility system in Amsterdam, the city has enforced several strategies putting them in a leading position in the field of electric transport (Giessen & Van der Linden, 2016). Together with its network of both public and private partners, the city has taken strong actions to the eradication of polluting vehicles (Giessen & Van der Linden, 2016). Due to the threats of poor air quality, the city’s strategies towards electric mobility entails a focus on creating more space for cyclists and pedestrians and promote clean means of transportation (Giessen & Van der Linden, 2016). The city of Amsterdam has further offered purchase subsidies, meaning that fully electric taxis, company cars and delivery vans receive 5,000 euros per vehicle. Yet, while it is clear that the municipality of Amsterdam has identified the transition towards electric mobility as a focal point in their sustainable city planning, the usage of most vehicles including ICE mopeds and cars has increased (Giessen & Van der Linden, 2016). Amsterdam is chosen as a case in this study as it is seen, in company of Oslo, as one of the leading cities in the world in terms of electric mobility. This is proven by achievements such as the world’s highest density of charging stations (iamsterdam.com, 2017) and agreements with industry actors to make electric cars publicly available. Based on the proposed theoretical framework of this research, this research will investigate the social system of the city of Amsterdam in accelerating the transition towards electric mobility, to contrast and compare to the systems in Oslo and Copenhagen.
5.3.3 Case 3 – Copenhagen, Denmark
Thirdly, Copenhagen is identified as an important case in the current research. While culturally and socially sharing many similarities with both Oslo and Amsterdam, Copenhagen and
Denmark as a whole has experienced a lower growth in their EV markets and transition towards electric mobility. In 2016, there were about 8677 EVs sold in Denmark, and in Copenhagen the market share of new EVs amounted to 3,7% (Hall et al., 2017). According to the city of Copenhagen’s climate plan, the city should have 20-30% of its fleet on electricity within 2025, constituting a far less ambitious approach than Oslo and Amsterdam (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2017). Copenhagen is an interesting case to use in this research, in spite of the fact that they score higher than Amsterdam and Oslo through the sustainable city index (sustainablecitiesbenchmark, 2017) and have ambitious goals of being the world’s first carbon neutral city within 2025, they perform far lower in terms of transition towards electric mobility. In researching the initiatives of Copenhagen in accelerating a transition towards electric mobility, far less and more ambiguous information is available, and initiatives are generally vague and lacking clear goal-setting. Thus, Copenhagen becomes an interesting case as it, in spite of its role as the world’s greenest city (sustainablecitiesbenchmark, 2017), performs far less ambitious in transition towards electric mobility.
5.4 Data collection
This research will make use of triangulation in order to secure the reliability and validity of this research (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Through the usage of multiple sources, higher construct validity is achieved. The first data collection approach entails document analysis of secondary data. Following this, primary empirical data is gathered through semi-structured interviews with chosen stakeholders from each city.
5.4.1 Archival data & document analysis
The secondary archival data of this research is gathered through different sources of an academic nature as well as published media articles and reports. The data published from the local governments are analyzed to obtain information on how the capital cities are accelerating the transition towards electric mobility in terms of policy, technological diffusion, smart charging infrastructure, networks and relationships to strengthen the transition efforts. This type of information could be perceived as an inside-out type of information (internal initiators-public), which also serves to enlighten the researcher on how the cities and stakeholders wants to be perceived in terms of electric mobility focus (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). External documents will be scrutinized so as to contrast and compare with the findings from the inside-out documents available. By analyzing this outside-in approach (public-internal initiators) in comparison to the inside-out approach, a higher validity and credibility of the gathered secondary data is procured, leading to a higher robustness of findings (Saunders & Lewis, 2014).
Through this work, several sources of secondary data have proven vital to the analysis. Firstly, the international council of clean transportation (ICCT) recently published a paper on the electric vehicle capitals of the world, written by Hall et al. (2017). In this report the city-level statistics on policies and EV markets were elaborated on for each of the cases used in this report. These statistics have been key to discover the research puzzle of this research. Furthermore, McKinsey’s report from 2016 about the EVolution: Electric vehicles in Europe: Gearing up for a new phase, served highly inspirational and gave vital insights to the development of this report. Lastly, Heuvelhof et al. (2011) published a report in 2011: Governing the transition to e-mobility: small steps towards a giant leap, that gave fruitful insights to the development of the social system analysis for city-level socio-technical transition towards electric mobility. The report succeeds to depict the multileveled landscape of electric mobility as well as highlighting the key development
