How does the Berlin government collaborate with private actors to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations and what barriers, if any, hinder their implementation?

Master Thesis

How does the Berlin government collaborate with private actors to promote

sustainable urban mobility innovations and what barriers, if any, hinder

their implementation?

Author: Lorenz Honig Student number: 11786140 Supervisor: Philip Schleifer Second reader: John Grin Date of Submission: 22.06.2018 Email address: Lorenzhonig@gmail.com

Word count: 23.127

List of abbreviations

BVG Berlin Public Transport Company CsgG Law for the Prioritization of Carsharing eMO Berlin Agency for Electromobiliy EmoG Electromobility Law

EU European Union

EStG Income Tax Law GHG greenhouse gas PBefG Public Transport Act

SenF Senate Department of Finance

SenSW Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing

SenUVK Senate Department for the Environment, Transport and Climate Protections StVO Road Traffic Regulations

Table of Contents

1. Introduction... 1

1.1 Problem statement... 2

2. Motivation and contribution ... 3

2.1 Academic relevance ... 3

2.2 Social relevance ... 4

3 Literature Review ... 5

3.1 Urban environmental governance ... 6

3.2 Cities and their mobility systems ... 7

3.3 New modes of governance for sustainable urban mobility... 9

3.4 Research gap ... 11

4. Theoretical framework ... 12

4.1 Innovation drivers and their relations ... 12

4.2 Product innovations... 13

4.2.1 Electric mobility ... 14

4.2.2 Autonomous vehicles... 14

4.3 New mobility concepts ... 15

4.3.1 Carsharing ... 15

4.3.2 Bikesharing... 16

4.3.3 Ridesharing ... 16

4.4 Collaboration ... 16

4.5 Multi-level governance ... 20

4.6 Experiments and the transition management approach ... 23

5. Research Design and methods ... 27

5.1 Research design ... 27

5.2 Variables ... 28

5.3 Selection and identification of the case ... 28

5.4.2 Semi-structured interviews ... 31

5.5 Data analysis ... 32

5.6 Quality of the research ... 33

6. Case study Berlin and hypothesis testing ... 33

6.1 Background information ... 34 6.2 Collaboration ... 36 6.2.1 Electric mobility ... 37 6.2.2 Autonomous Driving ... 40 6.2.3 Carsharing ... 42 6.2.4 Bikesharing... 45 6.2.5 Ridesharing ... 47 6.3 Multi-level governance ... 49 6.4 Transition management ... 52

7. Discussion and conclusion ... 56

7.1 First hypothesis ... 57 7.2 Second hypothesis ... 58 7.3 Third hypothesis ... 59 7.4 Conclusion... 59 8. References ... 62 9. Appendices ... 75

Appendix A – Semi-structured interview protocol for public sector officials... 75

Index of tables & figures

Table 1 – Overview of analysed innovations p. 13

Figure 1 – Parameters of collaboration, own research p. 20

Figure 2 – Multi-level governance and possible interactions, adapted by Jänicke (2015) p. 21

Figure 3 – Multi-level model of transitions, adapted by Pel (2012) p. 24

Figure 4 – Transition management cycle, adapted by Nagorny-Koring & Nochta (2018) p. 25

Figure 5 – Collaboration and influencing factors p. 26

Table 2 – Selected stakeholders and rationale p. 32

Figure 6 – Berlin and surrounding areas, adapted by Rode et al. (2015) p. 34

Table 3 – Key projects and actors of mobility innovations p. 36

1. Introduction

During the last 50 years, dimensions of cities worldwide have been increasing and by 2050 approximately 70% of the population will live in urban areas. Cities have a dual character as they are places of opportunity where people live and meet, companies are settled, and universities are most present. But they are also responsible for a large share of pollution, traffic and waste production (Benevolo, Dameri & D´Auria 2016). Against the background of growing speed and scale of urbanization around the world, mobility forms the backbone of the urban form (UNHSP 2013). The evolution of urban mobility is the result of multifaceted and shifting set of interactions. On the demand side, this includes demographic patterns like societal change and economic growth and on the supply side, it consists of major changes in the provision of infrastructure. In more advanced economies the urban form and the provision of infrastructure was highly influenced by the explosive growth of cars since the mid twentieth century (Jones 2014, 7). But due to increasing global mobility, many cities worldwide face challenges in regard to their mobility systems (UNHSP 2013). Today, cities already account for more than 70% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consume over two-thirds of the world´s energy (C40 2018). Especially the mobility sector largely contributes to that as mobility accounts for more than 40% of all CO2 emissions and for more than 70% of other pollutants in the European

Union (EU) (European Commission 2016).

In larger European cities with advanced sustainable urban mobility policies it is assumed that ongoing increases in employment and population will lead to a further increase in congestion and overcrowding. This applies not only to the general road network, but also to walking, cycling and public transport networks (Jones 2014, 12). These developments along with the accompanying rise in global temperatures highlight the need for innovation in the mobility sector in order to create sustainable urban mobility “…that satisfies current mobility needs of cities without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs…” (UNHSP 2013). The urgency to address current challenges in combination with advances in information and communication technology like mobile communications, energy storage, artificial intelligence and data collection have led to the emergence of cleaner transport modes and new transport choices in urban areas (Bouton et al., 2017). This includes new technologies in particular battery electric vehicles and self-driving cars (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8), as well as organizational innovations such as car- and bike-sharing schemes which can have different forms and business models (Berger et al., 2014, 308). Furthermore, local authorities

put greater emphasis on cities as centres of activities and on related urban quality of life issues. This results in cutbacks of space and capacity provision for private motorized transport and encouragement of cleaner modes of transport (Jones 2014, 9).

1.1 Problem statement

In order to translate visions about sustainable urban mobility into reality and implement sustainable urban mobility innovations, creative supportive and nurturing governance in combination with regulatory and sound institutional structures is needed. Nevertheless, institutional fragmentation and the division of responsibility between national and local levels of governance often hinder the implementation. Furthermore, path dependencies, local transport systems and governance structures reinforce these developments (UNHSP 2013). As such, it is the aim of this research to investigate the collaboration of local authorities by answering the following research question: How does the Berlin government collaborate with private actors to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations and what barriers, if any, hinder their implementation?

To answer this question, three hypotheses are developed which are tested by means of five innovations in the mobility sector in Berlin. In doing so, the collaborations with private actors are elucidated. The findings show that Berlin´s city government enters different collaborations with varying roles of the city government. They are mostly characterised by public governance and formal arrangements. It seems that the overall aim of the city government is the integration these innovations in the existing public transport system. The research is divided into seven sections. First, in section two the motivation behind the thesis as well as the academic and social relevance of the topic are stated. This is followed by a literature review covering the development of urban environmental governance and the expansion of mobility in urban areas. Furthermore, it gives an overview of current innovations in the mobility sector and processes that influence these innovations. The fourth section will introduce the theoretical framework of the thesis. This is based on a typology of collaborations and theories about multi-level governance as well as transition management. The methodology is outlined in the fifth section before the collaborations of the local government in Berlin are being investigated. A discussion and recommendations for future research will follow in the last section of the thesis.

2. Motivation and contribution

This section elaborates on the academic and social relevance of the topic and highlights the contributions that will be made.

2.1 Academic relevance

Through the evaluation of collaborations between the city government of Berlin and other actors in the implementation of mobility innovations to improve its sustainability, various contributions to academia will be made. This is of great relevance as there is a clear need to mainstream environmental interests in governance and institutional frameworks for urban mobility and reframe urban mobility practices and policies (UNHSP 2013, 58ff.).

Firstly, it addresses the way in which urban authorities enter collaborations to test and implement different urban mobility innovations. There are multiple potential innovative possibilities to reconfigure current urban mobility which may produce co-existing, complimentary and competing relationships (Hodson Geels & McMeekin 2017, 9f.). Rather than following the diffusion of one single technology, as it has been done by variety of scholars, the unit of analysis is shifted to the emergence of different innovations and how these reconfigure the existing urban mobility system (Geels et al. 2017, 29). As there are a wide range of possible mobility innovations that are tested, not every innovation will be implemented on a large scale.

Secondly, the research will contribute to the debate concerning place and geography of sustainable mobility innovations and the role of local institutions, policies and forms of governance in the development and diffusion of innovations, a field that needs academic attention to deepen insights into the local factors contributing to the scalability and potential transferability of innovations (Geels et al. 2018, 27).

Thirdly, the thesis investigates the barriers that hinder the implementation of sustainable urban mobility innovations. According to Docherty et al. (2017), the state will remain a central actor in the governance of urban mobility, although its role as provider and funder of services and knowledge source is diminishing and replaced by an increasingly complex network of actors at multiple scales. City authorities are influenced by regional, national or supranational authorities and that in turn affects the implementation of innovations in the mobility sector. What is so far lacking in academic research is the influence of the multi-level governance on transportation policies (Docherty et al. 2017, 9) and if it may constitute a barrier for the implementation of sustainable mobility innovations. The same applies to the role of EU legislation as the

expansion of the EU has transferred decision-making power to supranational bodies. Today, EU strategies, regulations and initiatives influence the delivery of transport services in urban areas (Stead 2016 41). As such, this research seeks to engage with multiple tiers of governance and government which are mentioned for example by Bulkely and Betsill (2005).

Fourthly, possible policies to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations and to overcome current barriers will be investigated. It is clear that incentives are needed to make new mobility services, public transit and non-motorized modes of transport more attractive and available (Bouton et al. 2015). Experimental processes represent a possibility to assemble configurations of new technologies and social interests and to learn from these processes. By that, urban governance strategies to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations may be derived (Hodson et al. 2017, 4). Therefore, this research can contribute to academia by investigating experimental processes and its consequences as transport policies may also cause negative side effects resulting in induced travel, problem shifting or system overload (Pel 2012, 58).

2.2 Social relevance

The societal relevance of the research question lies in the importance of mobility and mobility systems for the functionality of urban areas, as well as for the attraction of investments and the creation of jobs. Current mobility systems are unsustainable and produce several serious negative impacts that influence life in urban areas, particularly street congestion, traffic, pollution and excessive consumption of fossil fuels (Benevolo, Dameri & D´Auria 2016, 14). On the one hand, these environmental challenges in the urban mobility sector are grounded in its dependence on non-renewable energy sources. Increasing global temperatures underscore the urgency to break away from this dependence (UNHSP 2013, 5). Since urban areas are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions with the transport sector accounting for 23% of

these emissions, urban transport will play a significant role in reducing emissions in the upcoming decades. This is specifically relevant as CO2 emissions and transport energy use are

not decreasing, but instead are projected to increase by more than 80% by 2050 (IEA 2009, p.29). It is assumed that road congestion in the EU is mostly located around and in urban areas generating costs of approximately €100 billion per year, which accounts for 1% of the EU´s annual gross domestic product (ERTRAC 2017, 9).

On the other hand, these problems are rooted in the increasing urbanization of the world. Whereas today more than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas, this number is

expected to rise to 75% by 2055 (de Andrade Guerra et al. 2016, 681). Therefore, the urban mobility systems have to be transformed as many public transport systems already struggle to keep pace with spatial and urban developments (Berger et al. 2014, 303). The transformation of current mobility systems towards low-emission mobility has already started in all parts of the world and its pace is accelerating. International agreements like the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development acknowledge the importance of sustainable transport (European Commission 2016, 2). Within the latter one, it is mainstreamed across several Sustainable Development Goals, especially those related to infrastructure and cities (United Nations 2018). Additionally, technological trends and advancements are becoming an integral part of future mobility reconfiguring urban mobility systems. This includes new technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles and advancements due to information and communication technology (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8). The transformational change towards higher efficiency of the transport sector, low- and zero emission vehicles and low-emission alternative energy for transport has to be supported by a variety of measures at all levels of policy-making (European Commission 2016).

Nevertheless, it became clear that institutional fragmentation and bloated bureaucracies undermine the ability to coordinate urban transport in a desirable manner (UNHSP 2013). Modes of governing by the state are substituted by alternative public and private actors which results in increasing complexity and diversity. Public administrators are enabling corporate and private actors to offer transport services and private actors are operating new innovative mobility services (Stead 2016, 40). The local context of a city and its path dependencies as well as its existing transport sector and its governance system are essential in shaping processes of embedding new technologies and actors and by that reconfiguring the prevailing organization of the urban mobility system (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 9). Therefore, the contribution of the research is to illustrate to what extent local governments are collaborating with other actors to implement sustainable mobility innovations.

3 Literature Review

The following literature review is conducted to identify and summarize the existing debate relating to sustainable urban mobility and associated governance challenges. The debate is concerned with the evolution and current processes around urban environmental governance as

well as the ongoing discussion about urban mobility and how sustainable mobility may look like.

3.1 Urban environmental governance

Traditionally perceived as a global problem, the growing importance of municipal governments to tackle climate change was one of the most surprising developments in the last decades in attempts to reduce the emission of GHGs (Bulkeley 2010, 230). In 1987, the Brundtland Report was the first document that suggested action at the local level and emphasized the significance of city governments for sustainable development. Since then, events like the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and Agenda 21 stressed the role of local governments (Fuhr/Hickmann/Kern, 2018, 1), but were seen as delinked from the attention to local action (Castán Broto 2017, 1). During the 1990s some pioneering cities developed climate change policies and the first transnational climate change networks were founded, which has helped the discourse of sustainable development to become more relevant (Bulkeley 2010, 247). Whereas international negotiations have normally been focused on financing mechanisms and the economics of climate change mitigation, the discussions at the local level were more concerned with the capacity and competence of city governments to address these problems (Castán Broto 2017, 1ff.). Nevertheless, the ability of cities to implement policies that reduce the emissions of GHG emissions has been limited and the impact of cities in their reduction ambitions remained unclear (Bulkeley 2010, 248).

The spectacular failure of the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen marked a turning point in climate politics moving away from multilateralism and a series of reports, published afterwards, emphasized the possibilities for cities to mitigate climate change (Castán Broto 2017, 1ff.). Furthermore, in 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Development Agenda which “comprises the goal of building inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities (Sustainable Development Goal 11)” (Fuhr, Hickmann & Kern, 2018, 1).In view of the above, urban governance refers to the way in which local, regional and national governments as well as stakeholders plan, manage and finance urban areas. It involves processes about the allocation of material and social resources as well as political power and is affected by the way political institutions work and the capacity of governments to implement decisions (GSDRC 2018). The growing interest in local action in combination with voluntary approaches to climate change mitigation have resulted in multiple forms of climate change

governance, rather than a regulatory understanding of governance (Newell et al., 2012, cited by: Castán Broto 2017, 1).

Today, a multitude of non-state and state actors interact in the governance of climate change with 1. state actors at the national level that work together with local governments, 2. international organizations at the supranational level that inform regulation and 3. a variety of non-state actors including businesses, communities and networks that play crucial roles in urban climate change governance (Castán Broto 2017, 4). According to Newell et al., this development is not surprising as environmental problems are connected to daily life actions and embedded in structures that cover a wide range of public and private actors (Newell, Pattberg & Schroeder 2012, 367). This includes interactions between different government levels, political parties, special interest groups, private businesses as well as non-governmental organizations and civil society (Frollmann 2011, 2). Consequently, the vertical relation between the international, national, regional and local sphere and the horizontal relations have become a focus of analysis. A large number of existing studies have examined the vertical relations with the concept of multilevel governance (Bulkeley 2010; Newell/Pattberg/Schroeder, 2012) and in regard to the horizontal relations between cities, the concept of network governance has attracted attention (Bansard, Pattberg & Widerberg 2017). Bansard et al. for example have analysed various transnational municipal networks with the result that these are not always the ambitious player they are thought to be (Bansard, Pattberg & Widerberg 2016). Nevertheless, it became clear from a governance perspective that contemporary processes of urbanization do not correspond to existing governance structures and that in turn leads to questions about the adequate provision of transport to the needs of the municipal population (Castán Broto 2017, 4). The following section will discuss this situation and present current developments.

3.2 Cities and their mobility systems

Since the second half of the 20th _{century, mobility has become an increasingly more important}

part of our lives and the distance a person travels on average per day increased by 45% between 1982 and 2008 (Le Jeannic et al., cited in Brimont et al. 2016, 8). Nowadays, mobility is a key component for the functioning of an urban area and constitutes the backbone of the urban form. Despite increasing levels of urban mobility worldwide, many cities face unprecedented challenges to their mobility systems (UNHSP 2013, 1). Due to the pace of increasing urban population (75% by 2055) there is a need to take into account forecasts of climate change and its negative consequences with the aim to make mobility more sustainable (de Andrade Guerra

et al. 2016, 681) and to guarantee the functioning of an urban area. This is a result of socio-economic changes for example growing labour force and urban sprawl, but also of technological advances that resulted in the proliferation of private cars (Brimont et al. 2016, 8). It is a matter of common knowledge that motorized travel modes and the proliferation of the automobile are among the major problems on the way to sustainable urban mobility, resulting in traffic congestion restricting access in cities and air pollution (Stead & Pojani, 2015). The high rates of car ownership have been supported by heavy investments in infrastructure, urban sprawl and rising per capita income and in 2005, almost half of the trips in urban areas were made by private motorized modes. These developments are even expected to further increase, as the number of light-duty vehicles consisting of SUVs, mini vans, light trucks and cars will reach 1.6 billion by 2035 worldwide (UNHSP 2013).

Taking these developments into consideration, there is an urgency in tackling current urban mobility challenges and several authors have suggested various possibilities for more sustainable urban mobility options. These can be put down to four actions that are required to make urban mobility more sustainable, as proposed by Banister: 1. reduction in the need to travel, 2. encouragement of modal shift, 3. reduction in trip lengths and 4. encouragement of greater efficiency in the transport sector (Banister 2008, 75). These four goals are strongly interconnected as they mutually influence each other and require diversified measures for implementation (Kemp, Avelino & Bressers 2011, 33). The encouragement of modal shift and the encouragement of greater efficiency require a multiplicity of measures as the mobility of services and goods within a city includes multiple transport systems, in particular automobile, rail, bus and cycling systems. These systems differ in their relationship with the city, which is based on “relationships of stronger and weaker correspondence where the ability of system interests to intervene, govern and shape systems at the level of the city are variable” (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8). The passenger car is characterized by a weak correspondence with the city as a scale of organization, as the automobile system is governed by automobile regimes made up by corporate manufacturers within global supply chains and physical infrastructure is often coordinated within national space. The rail system has some correspondence with the city, but it is normally also influenced by a national rail system. A much greater correspondence relates to the relationship of the city with the bus, cycling and light rail system, because these systems are organized as part of the local transport system (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8f.).

The multiplicity of measures that are needed and visions about sustainable urban mobility have led to the emergence of concepts like green mobility (World Bank 2017), smart city (Nam & Pardo 2011; Benevolo, Dameri & D´Auria 2016) and smart mobility (Wolter 2012; Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017; Benevolo, Dameri & D´Auria 2016). These visions are mainly triggered by the growing digitization in combination with a demand for more flexible mobility choices and the need to reduce the GHG emissions. This has empowered the rise of a variety of new mobility innovations (Manders, Wieczorek & Verbong 2018, 90). There are a multitude of possible innovations to reconfigure urban mobility. Mobility innovations include new types of underground transport and novel mobility concepts such as customized mobility (e.g. the selective use of cars, individualized public transport and sharing schemes). Additionally, there are new technologies namely battery electric vehicles (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8f.), intelligent infrastructure and automated vehicles (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 5). In that sense, innovations can be differentiated as product innovations, process innovations or organizational innovations and they may differ in their magnitude ranging from incremental to radical (Schreurs & Steuwers 2015, 150).

3.3 New modes of governance for sustainable urban mobility

Innovation processes in turn are shaped by a variety of influencing factors within the city among which are institutional frameworks, actors involved, general technological developments, co-evolutionary developments of technological innovations and political intervention (Schreurs & Steuwers 2015, 150). Through the proliferation of technological innovations and new mobility services, cites have the opportunity to combine those two with the existing mobility system through partnerships (Bouton, Canales & Trimble 2017). Although it is obvious that urban governance and related regulatory and institutional frameworks are essential in order to react to current advancements in sustainable urban mobility, formal institutions in many cities still work in a less desirable manner, as it was pointed out by the Global Report on Human Settlements by the United Nations in 2013 (UNHSP 2013). These problems increase as the relationship between public and private actors gets blurred. Public-private partnerships or networks are an example for such a development (Hysing 2009, 650). Moreover, hierarchical modes of governance, where the state is acting alone, are replaced by alternative modes of governance which is described by a shift from government to governance (Stead 2016, 40). That leads to changes in the way society is governed, the role of the state and the ability of the

state to articulate and pursue collective action. The latter decreases as governing challenges become too dynamic, diverse and complex (Hajer & Wagenaar; Kooiman, cited by Hysing 2009, 647). Apart from that, sustainable development is a complex topic which requires the consideration of the economic, environmental and social context of policymaking and policymakers to integrate them into their decisions (Griffin 2010, 365f.).

In addition, wider trends in government and governance influence urban transport development. This includes a strengthening of lower levels of self-government, an increasing diversity, variation and asymmetry of governance, the changing role of Europe, increasing marketization and the changing nature of the urban policy agenda (Stead 2016, 41). It became clear from the previous sections, that urban mobility systems face a number of challenges with the result that a diverse number of innovations are introduced to tackle them. The launch of these innovations in turn is influenced by local governance structures. In accordance with Treib, Bähr and Falkner, the term governance in the present research describes the “steering and co-ordination of interdependent actors based on a institutionalized rule system” (Treib, Bähr & Falkner 2007, 3). This includes two relevant dimensions. Firstly, the development and deliverance of policy is shaped by a growing network of actors. Secondly, laws and regulations as well as formal and informal practices influence its implementation (Marsden & Reardon 2018, 142). There is no single strategy or instrument to promote more sustainable mobility, however a variety of instruments and approaches are available.

Stead has identified and discussed five different instruments that indicate a shift from government to governance and promote more sustainable transport policies in urban areas: 1. policy indicators and targets, 2. benchmarking, 3. policy transfer and best practices, 4. policy experimentation/innovation, and 5. visioning/envisioning (Stead 2016). Nevertheless, academic literature reveals various shortcomings with these strategies. Stead argues that indicators as well as targets may influence policies and policy processes, especially due to new information and knowledge-support tools (Stead 2016). A closer look on the literature on urban mobility indexes confirms that they are useful for analysis and monitoring, although authors tend to use different types and choose the most feasible approach to their region, which can have an influence on the proper application of these methods (Costa, Morais Neto & Bertolde 2016). According to Stead, benchmarking, policy transfer and best practices are generally increasing and can indirectly trigger policy change (Stead 2016). However, recent evidence

demonstrates that it is not easy to compare different measures and their results, as there is no globally applicable set of indicators that facilitate replicability of best practices (Gillis, Semanjski & Lauwers 2015) and cities differ due to their environment and local factors. A similar trend was shown in the analysis of transnational city networks, as these networks differ notably in their mitigation ambitions and often lack monitor and reporting mechanisms (Bansard, Pattberg & Widerberg 2016).

Policy experimentation may be a helpful tactic to make urban mobility more sustainable. The local government can for example promote certain mobility modes and concepts such as cycling lanes or bike hire schemes (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8f.). Furthermore, policies may address the mobility patterns of users by restricting parking spaces, utilizing norms requiring fuel efficiency and emission standards or implementing traffic management systems supported by information and communication technology (Berger et al. 2014, 310f.). According to Castán Broto, experimentation combined with unclear visions about innovation and alternative urban futures are the prevalent mode of urban environmental governance (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, cited by Castán Broto 2017, 10). Nevertheless, policy experimentation and visions about sustainable urban mobility require new governing arrangements (Griffin 2010, 365f.). This is also supported by the resolution on sustainable urban mobility by the European Parliament from December 2015, which aims to encourage a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach in order to strengthen experimentation and innovation for sustainable mobility (European Parliament 2015). With reference to policy experimentation, innovation and the process of envisioning, research still needs to uncover “how successful sustainable urban transport policy experiments can be mainstreamed” (Stead 2016, 43) and has to define the role of local policies, forms of governance and institutions (Geels et al. 2018, 27). The new modes of urban governance include a variety of experimental urban governance forms that have resulted in fragmented and distributed governance capacity (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 14).

3.4 Research gap

The current change in governing urban areas which is often referred to as a shift from government to governance includes a multitude of public and private actors (Stead 2016) which is influenced by path dependencies in existing politics, governance and transport systems (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 8f.). However, the existing body of literature is so far

lacking an understanding on the collaboration of local authorities with private actors to promote sustainable mobility innovations. As there are multiple possibilities to reconfigure the current urban mobility system, tensions may arise during the implementation of those and the local government has to decide what actors to collaborate with and what innovations to mainstream. Although, a variety of academic papers have analysed current transformations of mobility systems and others have studied the topic of urban environmental governance, a gap exists in regard to the consequences for political authority of public actors due to current mobility challenges. This also applies to the way they enter collaborations to respond to ongoing challenges. Furthermore, it remains unclear in what way governance structures may represent barriers to the implementation of innovations and how these barriers can be overcome.

This research seeks to fill this gap in the existing literature by investigating how the city government of Berlin is collaborating with private actors in the mobility sector to implement sustainable mobility innovations. The city of Berlin is a typical case at the international level and an influential case at the national level. This will be explained in detail in section five. Moreover, the depth of collaboration and degree of involvement will be analysed. Thus, this research aims to answer the following research question: How does the Berlin government collaborate with private actors to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations and what barriers, if any, hinder their implementation?

4. Theoretical framework

In this section the theoretical framework will be established which will be used to analyse the collaboration between Berlin´s city government and other actors. For this purpose, relevant innovations in the mobility sector will be presented and a typology of collaboration will be introduced. This typology is based on the role of the government, the integration of concerned actors in governance processes and the degree of institutionalization of the collaboration. Afterwards the concepts of multi-level governance and transition management are explained as it is assumed that both concepts exert influence on collaborations.

4.1 Innovation drivers and their relations

The emergence of new modes of governance to deliver sustainable urban mobility has resulted in a variety of old and new social and institutional interests at different policy and political scales (Griffin; Skelcher, cited by Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 14). The transition to

sustainable mobility calls for far-reaching modifications in the governance of mobility towards “approaches to governing through an increasingly complex network of actors at a range of scales” (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 9). In accordance with McKinsey and the United Nations, modes of urban mobility can be divided in three groups: 1. non-motorized transport (walking and cycling), 2. formal public transport, and 3. private motorized transport (UNHSP 2013; Bouton et al 2015). These modes form a mobility system that consists of technical aspects (vehicles and infrastructure), organizational models (ticketing schemes and car ownership), as well as a regulatory framework and user habits. They form interactive dynamics which in turn creates path dependencies.

Given that the aim of the research is the examination of collaborations to deliver sustainable urban mobility, a categorization of urban mobility innovations is needed. This is necessary as the term is polysemic with distinct meanings to different people under various circumstances (Schwanen 2015, 7091). Moreover, novelties that are radical in one city may already be the norm in other cities (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 9). An overview of the selected innovations is shown in table 1. Throughout this research they will be divided in new technologies that carry great potential namely electric mobility and autonomous driving as well as new organizational concepts which include carsharing, bikesharing and ridesharing (Berger et al. 2014, 306ff.). The following section briefly introduces each of the innovations before the typology of collaboration is outlined. This is followed by an explanation of the multi-level governance concept and the transition management approach.

New Technologies New Mobility Concepts

Electric mobility Carsharing

Autonomous driving Bikesharing

Ridesharing

Table 1: Overview of analysed innovations

4.2 Product innovations

At present, there are four major technological trends that may transform the way mobility is being delivered and blur the lines between formal public transport and private motorized transport, namely in-vehicle connectivity, electrification, car sharing and autonomous driving. These technologies are mostly introduced in affluent countries, but they are also relevant for

emerging economies. These trends are mainly influencing the use of privately owned vehicles (Bouton et al. 2015), but also the use and deliverance of public transport as car producers, tech companies and other stakeholders pilot new services that mix different mobility offerings (Shared Use Mobility Center 2018). Furthermore, the rapidly increasing adoption of smartphones is a major driver of current changes in urban mobility. It is predicted that the number of smartphones globally will triple by 2019 and reach 5.6 billion by 2019 (Ericsson, cited by He & Shen 2015, 93).

4.2.1 Electric mobility

Electric vehicle batteries, whether for cars or other vehicles, can significantly affect the transition to sustainable urban mobility and is linked to tremendous potential. This is particularly true for the case that electricity from renewable energy sources can be cached and fed back into the electricity grid. Additionally, intelligent control of charging processes can reduce the costs related to the building-up and extension of the electricity grid (eMO 2018e). There are different kinds of electrically powered vehicles that differ in the extent to which the electric motor replaces the conventional combustion engine. These range from hybrid electric vehicles (electric motor supplements conventional combustion engine), over plug-in hybrids (which can be recharged at a power base) to battery-operated electric vehicles (which is solely powered electric motors that get energy from a battery) (Siemens 2018). The positive effects of electric mobility still have to be tested in a variety of projects in order to secure the successful broader implementation of the new technology. The technical interplay between the various components (charging infrastructure and vehicle batteries) have to be tested, business models have to be developed and economic aspects have to be studied in order to benefit owners of electric vehicles as well as operators of electricity grids and electricity power plants (eMO 2018a).

4.2.2 Autonomous vehicles

Current innovation processes in the automobile industry has led to increasing vehicle automation, which will likely result in semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles which are increasingly regarded an important component of future mobility systems (Schreurs & Steuwer 2015, 150ff). The term autonomous driving describes the “driving of a vehicle to a specific target in real traffic without the intervention of a human driver” (Daimler 2018). The emergence of autonomous driving technology is closely associated with the appearance of new

stakeholders, as the technologies involved have extended the field of actors (Schreurs & Steuwer 2015, 150ff.). Current speed and quality of advancements in the field of autonomous driving technologies influence the demands for political intervention and steering which include licensing decisions, incremental regulatory adjustments and increases or decreases in financial and political support. Furthermore, it is highly influenced by regulations at a city, state, national and international level (Bouton et al. 2015). Further visions about autonomous driving combine the technology with public transport and other mobility concepts like carsharing. By that, the technology may enable public transport operators to supplement fixed routes through flexible services and the ability of an autonomous vehicle to move to the user and vice versa on existing infrastructure (Lenz & Fraedrich 2015, 181).

4.3 New mobility concepts

Due to technological advancements, new mobility services have begun to proliferate in cities worldwide. These services offer the opportunity to make urban transportation more efficient and by that more sustainable and they support cleaner modes of transport. Furthermore, the new mobility services may be combined with the technologies presented in the previous section.

4.3.1 Carsharing

Carsharing is a service that offers members access to an automobile, normally for short-term use, that can be accessed and reserved at any time and which is charged by distance or time (Shared Use Mobility Center 2018). According to Lenz and Fraedrich, carsharing is at the heart of new mobility concepts, whose development is inconceivable without the availability of devices with access to mobile internet and communications applications (Lenz & Fraedrich 2015, 174ff.). There are two different kinds of carsharing: 1. station-based carsharing which means that the car is borrowed and returned at the same location; 2. free-floating carsharing which means that the car can be picked up and dropped off at different locations (Shared Use Mobility Center 2018). In the course of this research, both categories are analysed together. The use of carsharing is defined by its social and environmental purpose, rather than financial and business objectives. It associated with a variety of benefits, particularly the reduction of the number of personal car ownership, the improvement of urban land development and use, the reduction of GHG emissions, the cutback of vehicle distance travelled and the provision of affordable vehicle access to all constituencies (Carsharing Association 2018). In order to be environmentally friendly, carsharing has to be complementary to environmentally friendly

solutions e.g. walking, cycling and public transport (Nenseth, Julsrud & Hald 2012, 1). 4.3.2 Bikesharing

The concept of bikesharing works in a similar way as the concept of carsharing. Bicycles are picked up at one location and returned either at the same location or a different one. They make use of different business models and have proliferated significantly in recent years due to advances in applied technology. Bikesharing schemes can be designed as part of the local public transport system and may provide the missing link between existing points of public transport and desired destinations. By that, they may offer a new form of urban mobility and may complement the existing public transport system (Midgley 2009, 23). Apart from the improved first/last mile connection to other travel modes, bikesharing programs are associated with its sustainability, namely reduced transport congestion and energy consumption, improved public health and reduced environmental impacts (Qiu & He 2018, 2).

4.3.3 Ridesharing

Ridesharing focuses on filling empty seats in a vehicle in order to increase the vehicle occupancy rate and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. This is seen as necessary to tackle problems of emission and fuel dependency and congestion. It includes different concepts like carpooling (travellers are grouped in a privately-owned vehicle for commuting), vanpooling (commuters travelling in the same direction share a ride) and real-time ridesharing (matching of travellers and drivers through the use of smartphone applications) (Shared Use Mobility Center 2018). The model of ridesharing may also result in a hybridization of public transport as it has the potential to redesign intermodality and lead to a more flexible form of public transportation. Public transport agencies can offer more individualized forms of public transport and through that expand their public transportation service options (Lenz & Fraedrich 2015, 185).

4.4 Collaboration

As described in the section 3.3, there is an apparent shift in the coordination of public services as these are being provided by a wider range of actors (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 9). This section provides an overview of three parameters relating to collaboration that are later be used to analyse the collaboration between the city government and private actors in regard to each of the five innovations described in the previous section. City governments enter collaborations with private actors for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is likely that the outcome

improves when actors with different resources, ideas and competences are brought together to solve a problem (Sörensen & Torfing 2018, 391). In collaborating with other actors, the municipality draws on expertise of private, public and not-for-profit organizations as well as funding opportunities and resources (Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren 2018, 990f.) Furthermore, the integration of new and creative ideas through collaboration may enable the revision of others and the selection of the most promising one. Lastly, municipalities can share the risks and benefits through collaboration, mitigate the resistance to the implementation of an innovation and diffuse innovative concepts (Sörensen & Torfing, cited by Sörensen & Torfing 2018, 393).

Roberts (2000) compared three different problem-solving strategies, namely authoritative, competitive and collaborative problem-solving strategies and concluded that collaborative strategies are the most suitable ones when it comes to the production of innovative solutions. The author also emphasizes the share of benefits and costs as the main advantage (Roberts 2000). Although collaboration is a promising strategy in delivering mobility, its governance may sometimes face challenges as skills among people in a traditional bureaucracy are limited and the outcomes are not always satisfactory to everyone (Roberts 2000). According to Stewart, good local governance is marked by the coherence between these different sectors (private, public, community, voluntary), which in turn makes it necessary to develop structures and processes that support collaborative arrangements. Nevertheless, the establishment of robust structures has turned out to be difficult as interests are often conflicting and differing, resulting more frequently in fragmentation than in integration (Stewart 2005, 149). Theories on collaboration and governance have acknowledged a variety of roles within these arrangements that range from different forms of collaboration to extensive discussions about the role of cities in the face of sustainability issues. Although the institutional context in which municipalities are positioned vary between countries and regions, they have in common that there is an increasing involvement of municipalities in local networks and collaborations (Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren 2018, 990f.).

With respect to the research question, collaboration is characterized as “a process in which two or more actors aim to establish common ground for solving multiparty problems” (Gray, cited by Sörensen & Torfing 2018, 394) and “cooperate out of necessity and/or with common goals or interests” (Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren 2018, 991). In order to analyse the distinctive

types of collaboration between the Berlin government and private actors to implement innovative mobility solutions, three parameters will be introduced, that are analysed in the following sections. This is necessary as it became quite common in the literature to characterize relationships between private and public actors under the umbrella term of public private partnerships. However, the increasing number of public-private collaborations led to a diffuse connotation as they vary from well-defined forms to loosely connected forms between the public and private sector (Fisher & Surminski 2012, 8).

The government can play different roles in the collaboration, namely as a regulator, a facilitator or an enabler, an integrator, a collaborator or an investor. As a regulator, the local government defines policies, regulations and rules across different sectors and may revisit laws that are not in line with current developments (World Economic Forum 2017, 15). This includes financial instruments such as fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, road charges, public transport fares or land taxes (Zegras 2017, 235). Moreover, it includes instruments that help to integrate new mobility services and organize the access of these different services to public spaces for example dedicated parking areas for new services, the restriction of car use or the creation of new lanes for different transport modes (Brimont et al. 2016, 26). In the role of a facilitator, the municipality provides a medium to promote innovations and encourages citizens and communities to participate. Furthermore, it can increase the awareness of the sustainability aspect of new mobility concepts. By taking the role as an integrator, the municipality creates marketplaces or platforms to engage in new concepts including civic spaces, material goods and skills or implements initiatives to address civic challenges with low private sectors interests. In the role of a collaborator, the municipality works together with other actors in the development of a concept with the objective of positive economic, social and environmental impacts to the city (World Economic Forum 2017, 15). Furthermore, the local government can act like an investor in the way that it supports projects financial resources.

Overall, the practice of planning and policymaking for urban mobility is established by institutions at the level of an urban area. The institutional and regulatory frameworks are crucial for the development of sustainable urban mobility systems and for the way new services are integrated in the urban infrastructure (UNHSP 2013, 54). In combination with the role of the local government in a collaborative arrangement the integration of the actors in the governance of urban mobility is the second parameter. A typology will be used that differentiates between

four types of influence: 1. public governance, 2. consultation and co-option of private actors, 3. co-governance of public and private actors and 4. delegation to private actors. Public governance is characterized by no private involvement in the establishment of regulations, whereas consultation and co-option of private actors already includes the use of expertise of the private sector. Co-governance of public and private actors describes a joint decision-making over an issue and the fourth type, the delegation to private actors, describes the assignment of responsibility for specific functions to private actors (Fisher & Surminski 2012, 9). The integration of those in the governance of urban mobility is associated with the autonomy of the actors to develop and offer their services.

The third parameter is the degree of institutionalization of the collaboration. On the two extremes, it can be distinguished between institutionalized and non-institutionalized interactions (Treib, Bähr & Falkner 2007, 9). A local government creates formal and informal networks because it has to some extent overlapping interests with other actors and there are benefits in working together toward shared objectives (Loorbach 2010, 165). This distinction becomes important as some of the new modes of governance are marked by less institutionalized procedures as the implementation and decision-making procedures are not constitutionally specified, which in turns results in increased flexibility (Treib, Bähr & Falkner 2007, 9). Institutionalized interactions between the local government and private actors include formal partnerships, coalitions or alliances based on the principle of contract compliance (Stewart 2005, 152) or other formal arrangements for instance joint power agreements, service sharing contracts or participatory planning (Scott & Thomas 2017, 192).

The development of informality in the process of policy-making exemplifies the reaction to the increasing complexity of contemporary political systems. It became popular in the course of the shift from hierarchical modes of governance to more co-operative instruments that has already been described in previous sections and represents processes of bargaining and the involvement of affected actors (Peters 2006, 27ff.). By that, informal governance can assist in solving political and policy problems contributing to more effective and innovative decision-making (Ayres 2017, 90). In practice, informal collaborations can take different forms. Networks which are the most common type in the EU, informal bargaining relationships between governments, soft law that permits some latitude for actors involved as a means to create compliance, the open method of co-ordination which relies on benchmarking and best

practices and committees by which actors can influence policy choices (Peters 2006, 31f.). Both, formal and informal collaboration arrangements are the result of the visibility of problematic issues of urban life and the dismantling of long-standing institutions (Stewart 2005, 151). Figure 1 summarizes the possible specifications of the three parameters.

Figure 1: Parameters of collaboration, own research

On the basis of the elaborations about collaborations between local authorities and private actors, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 1: The type of collaboration the city government of Berlin implements, influences the success of sustainable urban mobility innovations.

4.5 Multi-level governance

The previous section has shown that collaboration between the local government and private actors may take different forms and may differ in regard to the role of the city government within the collaboration, the integration of the private actors in governance processes and the degree of institutionalization. Another factor that is influencing these collaborations is multi-level governance which will be presented in this section. Urban mobility governance is complex because it is not only full of interactions between its different components like pedestrians, buses, cars and infrastructure (Gershenson, 2018) but the governance is also influenced by decisions taken by individuals and institutions at different levels (Cascetta, Pagliara & Papola

2007, 352). During the last years, the increasing use of new mobility concepts and improvements in digital technology have resulted in further complexity of the urban mobility system. Therefore, the confrontation of urban governance with technological change necessitates new institutional frameworks in order to deal with the emergent patterns of sharing economy, as well as automation and digitalization in urban areas. Besides that, climate change and the environmental agenda call for combined efforts, but it became clear that current arrangements appear to be unable to deliver the desired results and as opposed to that, a lot of current arrangements are seen as substantial barriers to vertical and horizontal planning and policy integration (Rode & da Cruz 2018, 2ff.). The concept of multi-level governance, which is illustrated in figure 2, describes the vertical governmental tiers and horizontally organized forms of governance, which was originally developed in the face of regional policy development within the EU (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006, 149).

Figure 2: Multi-level governance and possible interactions, adapted by Jänicke (2015)

As argued by Geels et al., the vertical and horizontal tensions and alignments between local, national and supranational policies are crucial for the failure or success of low carbon innovations in the mobility sector (Geels et al. 2018, 31). Therefore, agency at the city level should not be reduced to actors and their coalitions such as local authorities, universities, local economic actors or mayors. Rather the involvement and influence of actors at the national and supranational scale also affects, intentionally or through unintended actions, city-scale action by producing new state spaces (Brenner, cited by Hodson & Marvin 2010, 481). The vertical perspective of the multilevel governance framework stresses governance processes that are fundamentally influenced by a hierarchical set of governance institutions and formal

jurisdictions. Analysing these processes is helpful in order to reveal the inadequacy of interactions between the distinct levels which in turn may be responsible for creating barriers to effective governance (Haarstad 2016, 5).

Whereas the multilevel governance framework in its original composition was only concerned with the diminishing role of national governments within the EU in the vertical perspective, scholars today distinguish between two types of approaches. The first type analyses the competencies between different levels of government, as already described above. Adding up to that, the second type scrutinizes the interactions between non-state actors and state actors, as well as new emerging forms of governance. It puts the focus on the complex relations between distinctive spheres of authority and the proliferation of networks on the horizontal scale (Betsill 2003, 3). Hooghe and Marks have pointed out that these forms of governance between state and non-state actors together with national and international politics are at the boundaries of formal politics (Hooghe & Marks, cited by Betsill 2003, 3). In that way, the multilevel governance perspective leads to an engagement with the multiple tiers of government and spheres of governance that are critical in the construction and contestation of urban sustainable mobility (Bulkeley & Betsill 2005, 48).

Nevertheless, contemporary multilevel governance structures in the EU may create various barriers to more strategic approaches of urban transitions that may influence the implementation of urban sustainable mobility innovations. According to Docherty, Marsden and Anable (2017), the national government remains a central actor in the governance of urban mobility for various reasons. The state manages monopoly infrastructure providers and limits service competition in order to prevent collusion. It ensures the standardization of laws and enforcement alongside basic standards of operation and rules of movement. Furthermore, the state establishes general taxes and mobility related charges as well as charges at various levels of government to subsidy some services and finance the upkeep of infrastructure. Ultimately, the state remains the guarantor in the case that private provision of public services is unsuccessful and retains accountability via the ballot box (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 4). This can have decisive consequences as various studies have examined conflicts of interests between the States in Germany and the central government when it comes to sustainable mobility which is part of the climate policy and energy transition (Ohlhors, Tews & Schreur, cited by Jörgensen, Jogesh & Mishra 2015, 240). Therefore, it is important to clarify the overall local, regional and national priorities and policy goals “against which the benefits or disbenefits of specifics or

combinations of innovations will be assessed” (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 9). Due to the large volume of theoretical evidence describing the interactions between different levels of government in the implementation of innovations at the local scale, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 2: The multi-level governance system influences the ability of Berlin´s city government to promote sustainable urban mobility innovations.

After introducing the concept of multi-level governance and the ways in which it impacts politics at the local level, the transition management approach will be described in the following section.

4.6 Experiments and the transition management approach

The division of governance structures between horizontal and vertical multi-scalar structures influences collaboration between local governments and private actors and by that the ability of a local government to respond at the strategic level and in practice. This has given ground to the increasing use of experimental processes “through which configurations of technologies and social interests are assembled, experimented with and learned from in a place” (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 4). Experiments in that sense are purposive interventions with a more or less clear aim to learn, gain experience and innovate. Bulkeley and Castán Broto have distinguished between three kinds of experiments: 1. governance experiments, 2. socio-technical experiments and 3. strategic urban experiments.

The first group, governance experiments, are concerned with innovation of policy at the subnational level (Bulkeley & Castán Broto 2012, 363ff.) which are set up to drive and get formed by a variety of urban experiments (Swilling & Hajer 2017, 5).

The second category, socio-technical experiments, is concerned with niche innovation and regime transformation which are mainly regarded in market or technology terms with the intention to protect new forms of innovation. Those niches are considered as being decisive for the socio-technical change process and may take the form of test beds such as pilot and demonstration plants with innovations tested for the first time in a societal setting.

The third category, strategic urban experiments, often take place in living laboratories and locate experimentation in the city. These experiments serve as means to render discourses and

visions about the future of cities in a practical and governable way (Bulkeley & Castán Broto 2012, 363ff.).

Furthermore, the development of experiments with novel technologies and practices is a central element of the transition management approach (Meadowcroft, cited by Stead, 2016, 45) and programs for system innovation as well as the use of strategic experiments form the basis for sustainable urban mobility innovations. In that way, the model of transition management forms a new mode of governance grounded in the assumption that transitions are required to achieve sustainable development (Kemp, Avelino & Bressers 2011, 26). It is important to broaden the knowledge about urban transition approaches in order to connect experimentation with multi-level processes of urban governance and visions of urban sustainability (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 15f.). Literature on transitions are typically concerned with elements that may fundamentally change a system for example the automobile system from a socio-technical perspective (Elzen, Geels & Green; Markard, Raven, & Truffer, cited by Manders, Wieczorek & Verbong 2018, 92). Due to co-evolutionary processes of urban sprawl and mass automobility, the current situation can be described as a car-dependent lock-in (Rotmans; Loorbach, cited by Pel 2012, 64). Shifts to a new system are multi-decade shifts and can be divided in three interrelated multi-level analytical concepts: the socio-technical landscape, the regime and the niche, that can be seen in figure 3 (Hodson, Geels & McMeekin 2017, 2).

Figure 3: Multi-level model of transitions, adapted by Pel (2012)

The landscape level is the level where general changes in society for example changes in oil supply occur (Pel 2012, 65) and contains structural power, in particular legitimization and economic capital (Grin 2012, 4). The next level, the regime, is the level of dominant practices, e.g. mobility policy, spatial planning or taxation policy (Pel 2012, 65). Furthermore, it embodies

dispositional power which is manifested in rules, actor configurations, dominant images and resources (Grin 2012, 3). Lastly, the niche level comprises new practices like technological innovations that challenge the regime (Pel 2012, 65).

Novelties that are developed in niches have to compete with well-developed alternatives and the competition can be described as a niche-regime interaction process. The successful implementation of niche products and the following pressure on product regimes is highly influenced by learning economies, processes of alignment and support from different actors for instance civil society, companies and politicians (Kemp, Avelino & Bressers 2011, 31). Although, the dispositional power of the regime privileges established practices, it is confronted with innovative practices like transition experiments, which can lead to changes in some elements of the regime. Following changes in dispositional power in turn may stimulate these and further innovative practices (Grin 2012, 4).

Transitions are realized by a multitude of stakeholders, that embody different values, goals and ambitions when facing processes of change. These different participants realize system innovations that are required for transitions, which can fundamentally change the structure of the system and the relation between the participants (Loorbach & Rotmans 2006, 1ff.).

The transition management cycle can be seen in figure 4.

Figure 4: Transition Management Cycle, adapted by Nagorny-Koring & Nochta (2018)

In transition management, long-term goals are established through envisioning activities at the strategic level including the establishment of transition arenas and visions about sustainable mobility. In the following, and in order to achieve short-term goals, transition pathways are

established on the tactical level. These in turn act as guidelines for the experiments at the operational level and experiments are selected in regard to their potential to fit in the transition pathways. Finally, feedback loops and monitoring mechanisms reflect on the experiments and their fit for the overall strategic goals (Nagorny-Koring & Nochta 2018, 61f.). It is unlikely that transitions result from traditional and democratically legitimated government actions, but from frontrunners that generate dissipative structures (Grin 2012, 4ff.). This owes to the fact that development and implementation processes of innovations are normally characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and associated with political struggles as different actors represent different interests and understandings (Geels et al. 2018, 32). Therefore, the level of adaptive capacity to adjust the prevailing system of governance to changing circumstances is essential in order to manage transitions successfully (Docherty, Marsden & Anable 2017, 3). This planning through institutional adaption from agents at the regime level becomes even more effective by the engagement in innovative processes which results in institutional capacity building (Grin 2012, 15). As such, the following proposition is developed:

Hypothesis 3: The collaboration of Berlin´s city government in transition experiments improves the promotion of sustainable urban mobility innovations.

Taken together, there are five parameters influencing the collaboration of the city government and private actors and anoverview of the factors can be seen in figure 5.