Understanding the Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Building Mobility of a Service Transportation Models

Authors: Liam Fassam, Pouria Liravi, Jacquie Bridgman

Abstract:

Introduction: The way we travel is rapidly changing, car ownership and use are declining among young people and those residents in urban areas. Also, the increasing role and popularity of sharing economy companies like Uber highlight a movement towards consuming transportation solutions as a service [Mobility of a Service]. This research looks to bridge the knowledge gap that exists between city mobility, smart cities, sharing economy and social entrepreneurship business models. Understanding of this subject is crucial for smart city design, as access to affordable transport has been identified as a contributing factor to social isolation leading to issues around health and wellbeing. Methodology: To explore the current fit vis-a-vis transportation business models and social impact this research undertook a comparative analysis between a systematic literature review and a Delphi study. The systematic literature review was undertaken to gain an appreciation of the current academic thinking on ‘social entrepreneurship and smart city mobility’. The second phase of the research initiated a Delphi study across a group of 22 participants to review future opinion on ‘how social entrepreneurship can assist city mobility sharing models?’. The Delphi delivered an initial 220 results, which once cross-checked for duplication resulted in 130. These 130 answers were sent back to participants to score importance against a 5-point LIKERT scale, enabling a top 10 listing of areas for shared user transports in society to be gleaned. One further round (4) identified no change in the coefficient of variant thus no further rounds were required. Findings: Initial results of the literature review returned 1,021 journals using the search criteria ‘social entrepreneurship and smart city mobility’. Filtering allied to ‘peer review’, ‘date’, ‘region’ and ‘Chartered associated of business school’ ranking proffered a resultant journal list of 75. Of these, 58 focused on smart city design, 9 on social enterprise in cityscapes, 6 relating to smart city network design and 3 on social impact, with no journals purporting the need for social entrepreneurship to be allied to city mobility. The future inclusion factors from the Delphi expert panel indicated that smart cities needed to include shared economy models in their strategies. Furthermore, social isolation born by costs of infrastructure needed addressing through holistic A-political social enterprise models, and a better understanding of social benefit measurement is needed. Conclusion: In investigating the collaboration between key public transportation stakeholders, a theoretical model of social enterprise transportation models that positively impact upon the smart city needs of reduced transport poverty and social isolation was formed. As such, the research has identified how a revised business model of Mobility of a Service allied to a social entrepreneurship can deliver impactful measured social benefits associated to smart city design existent research.

Keywords: social enterprise, collaborative transportation, new models of ownership, transport social impact