Collaborative Consumption and Shifting Perceptions in Cities

Jun 23, 2015 | Smart Cities | 0 comments

What will the future hold for the sharing economy and how are cities responding to the current shifts taking place? 

When I want something I don’t want to wait. I want it now and more often than not I share this thought with millions of other city dwellers. We are in luck, because with the tap of my smartphone a car is on its way or a room is rented halfway around the globe. Data is a key ingredient making this happen and cities make the sharing economy work.
 
The on-demand economy feeds our wants and needs and reacts to and has helped drive a fundamental shift in our culture. Early on, the disruptive and abrupt approach many rapidly growing sharing economy companies took as they entered cities created consternation and concern. Over time, the desires of people and the goals of cities have coalesced and become clearer and confrontation has moved more toward collaboration.
 
City leaders want to capitalize on the new opportunities and innovation the sharing economy can bring to cities. This isn’t to say for a minute that the challenges have disappeared, and in fact there are still some significant issues to address. However, we are observing in our work that the sentiment of cities on the sharing economy is shifting.
 
We identified three key benefits and concerns that are at the top of the list for cities in our new research survey. This is the first national level analysis of local elected officials’ views on the sharing economy, and this data can help us all further the larger ongoing conversation on how this new economy is affecting cities.
 
Cities view improved services as the primary benefit, with 22% identifying this as important. The next most vital area is increased economic activity at 20%. Rounding out the top three benefits is increased entrepreneurial activity at 16%. These numbers are a reflection of the economic activity afoot in cities as a result of collaborative consumption.
 
When we examined the concerns that cities had with the sharing economy, the primary issue that rose to the fore is public safety, and specifically the lack of comparable insurance and general safety concerns, with 61% identifying this as the top priority. The numbers two and three concerns are protection of traditional service providers and industry participants at 10% and non-compliance with current standards at 9%. 
 
These numbers reflect many conversations we have had with city officials. We have held in-depth interviews with city leaders in a dozen cities and performed a sentiment analysis on large cities throughout America. This research identified and reinforced the notion that there is no one way for cities to approach the sharing economy. One of the beautiful things about urban areas everywhere is the inventiveness and uniqueness of place.
 
That earlier research identified a clear need for quantitative data. This Survey on the Sharing Economy approaches the data question and allows for a clearer, macro-level understanding of what cities are experiencing and what they hope to see from the sharing economy. 
 
There is no doubt that collaborative consumption thrives in cities and brings value to residents. And, of course no city leader wants to stand against the steady drumbeat of progress and innovation. But just as cities make the sharing economy work the sharing economy needs to work with cities.
 
The growth of the sharing economy has been enormous and quick. The current valuation of just Uber and AirBnB reaches over $50 billion. All of this has taken place startlingly fast. And, over half, or 55%, of cities in our sample reported some growth in the sharing economy with 16% reported experiencing rapid growth.
 
The sharing economy is expanding far beyond transportation and short-term rentals, with myriad companies taking on peer-to-peer business models. While ridesharing and homesharing represent just a segment of the sharing economy, these two types of services are top of mind in cities. This is reflected in our numbers, which show that 53% of cities reported growth in ridesharing and 46% saw growth in homesharing. 
 
Cities are more open to ridesharing than homesharing. 66% of respondents indicated that their local government is supportive of ridesharing, while only 44% indicated that their local government is supportive of homesharing. However, when asked whether these local governments are supportive of rapid sharing economy growth more broadly, nearly 71% of city leaders responded that indeed they were.
 
At the end of the day sharing economy businesses are flourishing and sentiment is shifting for the simple fact that sharing represents value on the ground now. While challenges persist, the benefits are very real, and the pace of change continues to accelerate as we enter the sharing city of the future together.

About the Authors :

DuPuisNicole DuPuis is the Senior Associate for Infrastructure in the City Solutions and Applied Research Center at the National League of Cities. Her areas of expertise include transportation, telecommunications, public works, and urban innovation. Throughout her career in urban policy she has published several articles and contributed to numerous research reports on these topics. She is also a regular contributor to NLC’s blog, CitiesSpeak, on a variety of infrastructure issues. Follow Nicole on Twitter @nicolemdupuis.

brooks-rainwaterBrooks Rainwater is the Director of the City Solutions and Applied Research Center at the National League of Cities. The Center strengthens the capacity of municipal leaders to create strong local economies, safe and vibrant neighborhoods, world-class infrastructure, and a sustainable environment. As a strong advocate for vibrant and successful cities, Brooks frequently speaks and writes on the subject, and has published numerous research reports and articles on the creation of innovative, sustainable, and livable communities.Follow Brooks on Twitter @BrooksRainwater.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

Balancing Data Privacy and Data Sharing Between TNCs and Cities

Balancing Data Privacy and Data Sharing Between TNCs and Cities

Data concerns are not going away. Data sharing and open data initiatives will likely become even more important as the transportation industry grows more interdependent among citizens, public agencies, cities, and private companies. In an internal context, de-identification of data allows data to be shared across an organization, allowing all users to access insights, and a common picture of demand and service performance across the network. This allows marketing, planners, and operations teams within transit agencies to access the same secure data when doing short term and long term planning. This also enables data sharing between agencies and transit operators which have adjacent service areas, and allows them to optimize timetables and typical transfer points. In an external context, de-identification allows for safe data sharing across different public, private, and community stakeholders, and lays the foundation for collaboration, interoperability, and common understanding, while putting privacy first.

Optimization Tools to Help Transit Agencies Recover

Optimization Tools to Help Transit Agencies Recover

I spoke last week with Krishna Desai from Cubic Transportation, and we discussed three big problems facing transportation, and the ways that Cubic is approaching these challenges:

1) If (or when) more workers return to traditional on-location jobs, but feel a lingering distrust of crowded spaces, people who can afford it may opt for private cars instead of using public transit for their commute. This will create a massive influx of cars on roads that were already crowded, and more financial woes for transit agencies already dealing with budget shortfalls. Krishna told me about a suite of optimization tools Cubic is deploying in places like Mexico and San Francisco to make public transit more efficient, more transparent, and, overall, more attractive to riders.

2) For the time being, though, we’re dealing with the opposite problem. How can transit agencies find ways to influence user behavior in a way that complies with social distancing and capacity requirements? How can you incentivize riders to wait for the next bus? (In a way that doesn’t alienate them forever – see #1). Cubic has deployed a loyalty/advertising program in Miami-Dade County that was originally intended to increase ridership, but is now being used to help control crowding and social distancing on transit.

3) Transportation infrastructure, in generally, was not built to accomodate 6-feet of separation between riders – or between workers. Little things like, for example, opening gates, requires workers to be closer than 6-feet to riders, and there are examples like that throughout every transit hub. Technology can help, but creating and implementing software/hardware solutions quickly and efficiently requires experience with innovation, deployment, maintenance and more. Cubic has a program called Project Rebound that shows the possibilities.

Need to Improve Your Transportation Plans? Try Inverting the Order of Planning

Need to Improve Your Transportation Plans? Try Inverting the Order of Planning

Advanced Urban Visioning offers a powerful tool for regions that are serious about achieving a major transformation in their sustainability and resilience. By clarifying what optimal transportation networks look like for a region, it can give planners and the public a better idea of what is possible. It inverts the traditional order of planning, ensuring that each mode can make the greatest possible contribution toward achieving future goals.

Advanced Urban Visioning doesn’t conflict with government-required planning processes; it precedes them. For example, the AUV process may identify the need for specialized infrastructure in a corridor, while the Alternatives Analysis process can now be used to determine the time-frame where such infrastructure becomes necessary given its role in a network.

The Future of Cities

Mayors, planners, futurists, technologists, executives and advocates — hundreds of urban thought leaders publish on Meeting of the Minds. Sign up below to follow the future of cities.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This