Abstract

The business models of sharing economy services can differ from each other in different-sized cities. This paper provides a deeper understanding of the implementation of locally operating services for car, bicycle and office sharing in the urban environment. Our goal is to reveal the differences between the capital city and an economically well-developed city in order to provide beneficial findings to the development of the presently operating services, or to the possible implementation of future services. Methodology of the paper applies the Business Model Canvas approach (BMC). We introduce a comparative analysis using data from the Hungarian database, which records details of all the publicly visible sharing economy services countrywide. The results show that BMC can reflect the main differences, constraints and key elements in the business models of sharing economy services. We can say that, in the case of a bike sharing service operated in the non-capital city, there is more segmentation than seen in the same service in the capital. There are significant price differences, especially in the case of long-term tickets. The number of inhabitants and private capital remain the biggest constraints in the case of car-sharing services, but there is also a possibility of implementation in the non-capital cities by applying small-scale services with a good value proposition and segmentation.

Highlights

  • The rationale of this research is to highlight the importance of supporting the currently increasing trend in sharing economies

  • We formulate the comparative analysis of some local cases around three research questions: (Q1) What are the main differences in the business models of those sharing economy services which are represented in both the capital and in the chosen city?

  • As we focused on recovering the main differences and constraints of the implementation of sharing services, we did not involve social media-based sharing activities or movements

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The rationale of this research is to highlight the importance of supporting the currently increasing trend in sharing economies. (Q1) What are the main differences in the business models of those sharing economy services which are represented in both the capital and in the chosen city?. (Q2) Besides the number of inhabitants, what are the main constraints in implementing a sharing economy service in a chosen city, which is operating well in the capital?. Hungary is an interesting case for analyzing sharing economy services, because the sharing economy services in Budapest (the capital) are in their upcoming trend. In this paper we analyze local sharing economy services: Only those ones that have no national, European or worldwide coverage This step contributes to the comparative analysis, in which we focus on services which are represented both in the capital and in the chosen city, and services which are presented only in the capital.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call