Shared Mobility in Rural Contexts: Organizational Insights from Five Mobility-as-a-Service Pilots in Sweden

Abstract

Despite a growing interest in using Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) as a tool to address rural transport problems, the question of how to organize such a concept remains unanswered. To address this knowledge gap, this article explores organizational elements of rural MaaS pilots. The analysis, which is based on participatory observation and interviews with actors involved in five pilots in rural areas of Sweden, reveals that the motives of the actors involved in rural MaaS both overlap with and diverge from the frequently stated objectives of urban MaaS developments. Both concepts center on complementing and extending public transport, but while urban MaaS is underpinned by the fight against climate change, congestion, and local pollution, the main objective of rural MaaS is to reduce transport poverty. The analysis, moreover, illustrates that despite the geographic differences, actors involved in rural MaaS pilots face similar organizational challenges as have been reported from urban MaaS developments. In both cases, actors struggle with finding their roles, mitigating uncertainties, distributing responsibilities, and negotiating business models. Finally, the analysis finds that rural MaaS puts higher expectations on user involvement than urban MaaS and identifies a risk that rural MaaS developments might contribute to spatial injustice since the studied pilots only supported rural communities with high social capital.

Implications of COVID-19 for future travel behaviour in the rural periphery

“…Furthermore, the pandemic may result in changes both in citizen’s attitudes towards passenger transport and in the willingness of transport operators to invest in new solutions. Experiences are similar in Sweden [ 35 ].…”

“…Such a scheme could work well in a Rural/Regional setting where having public transport as the centre of an eMaaS offering is less likely. In a similar vein, [ 35 ] describe recent experience from 5 rural MaaS pilots in Sweden noting the prevalence of car-based modes in the offer (three of the pilots were disrupted or paused because of COVID-19).…”

The Disparity Between Urban andRural Areas in Citizen Satisfaction with Local Public Services

“…Several studies analyze the disparity between urban parish and rural parish, in issues related to health [2], employ [3], voting intention [1], transport [4], land use [5], sports services [6], economic growth [7], life satisfaction [8].…”

The Implications of a Co-Created Software Solution for Mobility in Rural Areas

“…Moreover, the digital divide between urban and rural areas compounds the limited transport options available, especially in relation to mobility providers that rely extensively on digital tools. This situation exacerbates car dependency and restricts access to mobilitysharing services, which are predominantly concentrated in urban areas [19][20][21]. Due to the increased emphasis on volunteerism in rural areas [22], self-help initiatives tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the region can be crucial in addressing these challenges and providing viable solutions for the future.…”

“…Furthermore, rapid access to transportation during emergencies is crucial for those residing in rural areas; hence, personal mobility is highly favored by the majority of individuals in these areas [34]. Additionally, a study conducted in rural Sweden revealed persistent problems with limited public acceptance and use, highlighting the difficulty of establishing successful and widely accepted ridesharing initiatives in such regions [21]. These challenges are not unique to rural areas; even in urban regions, similar obstacles hinder the adoption of alternatives.…”