Possibilities of the reduction of commuting related ecological footprint with the spread of sharing economy in the metropolitan region of Budapest

  • Cecília Szigeti Széchenyi István Egyetem Nemzetközi és Elméleti Gazdaságtan Tanszék
  • Zoltán Kovács MTA CSFK Földrajztudományi Intézet; Szegedi Tudományegyetem Gazdaság- és Társadalomföldrajz Tanszék
  • Tamás Egedy MTA CSFK Földrajztudományi Intézet
  • Balázs Szabó MTA CSFK Földrajztudományi Intézet
Keywords: suburbanization, commuting, ecological footprint

Abstract

Suburbanization, the concomitant urban sprawl, and the growing concentration of new jobs in suburban centres have inevitably led to increasing commuting in the metropolitan region of Budapest since the change of regime. In the study we aim to answer the question: to what extent alternative means of transport providers of the sharing economy (car-sharing and carpooling) could contribute to lower levels of ecological footprint caused by commuting. Firstly, we summarize the most important experiences of sharing economy related to transport at the national and international levels. Secondly, we present the most important destinations of commuting in the metropolitan region of Budapest and their contribution to the ecological footprint. Finally, we analyse the spatial and temporal characteristics of advertisements gathered from the leading car-pooling platforms and we try to draw the actual role of car-sharing and carpooling in reducing environmental loads. 

References

Anielski, M. (2010): Edmonton’s Ecological Footprint. The Edmonton Sustainability Papers 12.

Bálint, D. – Trócsányi, A. (2016): New ways of mobility: the birth of ridesharing. A case study from Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65(4): 391–405. DOI: http://doi.org/c2gt

Becker, H. – Loder, A. – Smid, B. – Axhausen, K-W. (2017a): Modeling carsharing membership as a mobility tool:

A multivariate Probit approach with latent variables. Travel Behaviour and Society 8():26-36. DOI: http://doi.org/c28d

Belk, R. (2014): You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business

Research 67(8):1595–1600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001

Bessenyei, Gy (2014): Városi mobilitás - Közösségi megoldások. Közlekedéstudományi Szemle. 54 (1) 24-28.

Botsman, R. – Rogers, R. (2010): What's mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. First edition, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

Braun, A. (2017): Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households. Transport Policy 60.():152-159. DOI: http://doi.org/gcpcfm

BSDC (2017): Better Business Better World. The report of the Business & Sustainable Development Commission. http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/BetterBiz-BetterWorld_170215_012417.pdf

Conner-Simons, A. (2016): Study: Carpooling apps could reduce taxi traffic 75%. News. Retrieved from https://www.csail.mit.edu/ridesharing_reduces_traffic_300_percent

Deloitte (2017): Car Sharing in Europe – Business Models, National Variations and Upcoming Disruptions. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/consumer-industrial-products/CIP-Automotive-Car-Sharing-in-Europe.pdf

Deloitte (2016): Economic effects of ridesharing in Australia. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com

Felländer, A. – Ingram, C. – Teigland, R. (2015): Sharing economy — Embracing change with caution. Näringspolitiskt Forum Rapport 11. 70 p. http://eng.entreprenorskapsforum.se/2015/08/21/sharing-economy-embracing-change-withcaution

Ferrero, F. – Perboli, G. – Rosano, M. – Vesco, A. (2018): Car- sharing sevices. An annoted review. Sustainable Cities and Society 37():501-518. DOI: http://doi.org/c28f

Friedman, G. (2014): Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian Economics, 2 (2) 171-188.DOI: http://doi.org/gckft5

Frost & Sullivan (2010): Car sharing: Driving the way to a greener future. http://www.frost.com/sublib/display-report.do?id=MB41-01-00-00-00

Kiss J. P. – Szalkai G. (2018): Az ingázás mobilitási jellemzői a legutóbbi népszámlálások adatai alapján. Területi Statisztika 58(2): 177–199.

Kovács Z. – Szigeti C. – Egedy T. – Szabó B. – Kondor A. Cs. (2017): Az urbanizáció környezeti hatásai - az ingázás ökológiai lábnyomának változása a budapesti várostérségben. Területi Statisztika 57 (5): 469-494.

Marteen, E. – Shaheen, S. (2011): Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America IEEE Trans.

Intell. Transp. Syst. 12. 1074–1086. DOI: http://doi.org/cn2s4n

MIT (2016): https://www.csail.mit.edu/ridesharing_reduces_traffic_300_percent

MIT (2009): „Real-Time" Rideshare Research 2009: http://ridesharechoices.scripts.mit.edu/home/histstats/

Perboli, G. – Ferrero, F. – Musso, S. – Vasco, A. (2017): Business modell and tariff simulation in carsharing services.

Transportation Research.Part A 115():32-48 DOI: http://doi.org/gcsjsm

Petrini, M. – Freitas, C. S. de. – Silveira, L. M. da S. 2017: A Proposal for a Typology of Sharing Economy. Revista de

Administração Mackenzie, 18(5):39-62.

PWC (2016): Shared benefits. https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/future-of-the-sharingeconomy-in-europe-2016.html

Richardson, L. (2015): Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum, 67: 121-129.

Rinne, A. (2017): What exactly is the sharing economy? World Eocnomic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/when-is-sharing-not-really-sharing

Santoso, A.S. – Nelloh, L.A.M. (2017): User Satisfaction and Intention to Use Peer-to-Peer Online Transportation: A Replication Study. Procedia Computer Science 124():379–387. DOI: http://doi.org/c28g

Schmöller, S. – Weikl, S. – Müller, J. – Bogenberger, K. (2015): Empirical analysis of free-floating carsharing usage: The Munich and Berlin case. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 56():34-51. DOI: http://doi.org/f7hr8m

Schor, J. B. (2014): Great Transition Iniciative. www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy

Szabó, T. – Szabó, B. – Kovács, Z. (2014): Polycentric urban development in postsocialist context: the case of the Budapest Metropolitan Region. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 63 (3): 287–301. DOI: http://doi.org/9bq

Wallenstein, J. – Shelat, U. (2017): What’s next for the sharing economy? BCG Henderson Institute. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/strategy-technologydigital-whats-next-for-sharing-economy.aspx

Wilson J. – Anielski, M. (2015): Saskatoon Ecological Footprint. City of Saskatoon Ecological Footprint Report 2014 https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/documents/corporate-erformance/environmentalcorporate-initiatives/communityenvironmental-programs/saskatoon_ef_city_report_2015_feb_28_2016_final.pdf

How to Cite
SzigetiC., KovácsZ., EgedyT., & SzabóB. (1). Possibilities of the reduction of commuting related ecological footprint with the spread of sharing economy in the metropolitan region of Budapest. Scientific Review of Transport, 69(2), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.24228/KTSZ.2019.2.5
Section
Transport safety - Environmental protection in Transport