The adoption of innovative urban mobility solutions from the service-dominant logic

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in European Journal of Innovation Management on 2024, August, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2024-0402.” 1 THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVE URBAN MOBILITY SOLUTIONS FROM THE SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC 1. INTRODUCTION Cities, with their high population densities, stand at the forefront of addressing global sustainability challenges. Substituting car use with individual modes of transportation is crucial for mitigating climate change, improving public health, and reducing traffic congestion (Edberg, 2023). While global CO2 emissions related to transportation are projected to increase by more than 70% by 2050 (Shen et al., 2024), shared micro-mobility systems have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from urban transportation (Shen et al., 2024). In this context, sustainable urban mobility services emerge not merely as a transportation issue but as a crucial formula for advancing broader environmental and social sustainability. Among sustainable transportation options, cycling is increasingly recognized as an environmentally friendly alternative for urban areas (Becker et al., 2022; Bhowmick et al., 2023; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2015; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2016; Cox, 2022; Pucher and Buehler, 2017). Innovations such as cycling are increasingly recognized for their potential to transform urban transport systems, contributing to reduced reliance on automobiles and enhanced urban accessibility (Canitez et al., 2020; Nikolaeva and Nelo-Deakin, 2020; Ryghaug et al., 2023; Sarasini and Linder, 2018; Schwarz et al., 2022). Bicycles are energy-efficient and sustainable, offering door-to-door connectivity and the flexibility of private vehicles without the pollution (Monga and Sadhukan, 2023). Therefore, they are considered a viable alternative to cars that can contribute to the decarbonization of urban mobility practices (Egan and Caulfield, 2024a, 2024b). This shift towards cycling is part of a broader trend in urban mobility innovations, where bicycles are seen not just as a mode of transport but as catalysts for rethinking urban spaces and mobility systems, contributing to global efforts to decarbonize mobility practices (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2016; Egan and Caufield, 2024b; Psarikidou et al., 2020; Sosa-López, 2021; Van Waes et al., 2018). Cycling represents a significant innovation within socio-technical mobility systems (Nilsson, 2019; Sosa-López, 2021), requiring conducive infrastructures and a regime to facilitate its rise as a dominant mode of urban mobility (Behrendt, 2016; Becker et al., 2022; Cox, 2022; Nikolaeva et al., 2019; Nikolaeva and Nelo-Deakin, 2020; Schwarz et al., 2022; Te Brömmelstroet et al., 2020). Policies promoting non-motorized and active transport modes often include specific measures targeting bicycle logistics, although not all measures equally impact the success of such initiatives. Variations in success are notably dependent on the type of vehicle used, with cargo bikes and tricycles typically yielding better outcomes (Giglio et al., 2021). Additionally, these modes of transport may link to innovative logistics practices like crowdshipping, potentially optimizing transportation modes and reducing emissions (Giglio and De Maio, 2022). Despite the apparent benefits, the primary challenge in the green economy concerning innovations like cycling is not their absence, but rather their limited and slow take-up. In fact, two-thirds of environmental innovations remain niche and fail to expand successfully (Clausen and Fichter, 2019). Understanding the factors that determine the diffusion and adoption of such innovations is crucial for driving sustainable development (Kristensson et 2 al., 2020). Addressing these challenges requires a framework that considers the interplay between internal, external, and interorganizational resources, something which traditional models often overlook (Gruber, 2020; Tiberius et al., 2021). Innovations, conceptualized as joint value propositions dependent on complementary services (Kristensson et al., 2020), require a promotional approach that accounts for both adopters and other agents involved in the ecosystem (Trischler et al., 2020). To explain the adoption and diffusion of innovations, this research employs the ServiceDominant Logic (SDL) framework. This is a perspective based on complex and adaptive systems (Gruber, 2020; Kristensson et al., 2020; Vargo et al., 2015; Vargo et al., 2020; Vargo and Lush, 2020), that we use to explore how the integration of technological (supply) and market (demand) aspects, along with the underlying social processes, can promote cycling as a sustainable mode of urban transportation. SDL, with its focus on service ecosystems, offers a robust lens for examining the interactions and systemic patterns that underline innovation processes and outcomes (Akaka et al., 2021; Piantoni et al., 2023; Vargo, 2022; Vargo et al., 2015; Vargo et al., 2020; Vargo et al., 2023b; Vargo and Lush, 2020). Given the urgent need to explore SDL's applicability in advancing environmental sustainability (Helmefalk et al., 2023; Vargo and Lusch, 2017), this study aims to identify the role of the service ecosystem in promoting cycling. Marketing needs to move beyond a static and linear vision of innovation, focusing instead on dynamic interactions and patterns of change linked to processes and systems (Gruber, 2020). This perspective aligns with the SDL, which emphasizes the importance of studying interactions within service ecosystems (Polese et al., 2021; Vargo and Lusch, 2017). SDL facilitates a deeper understanding of the enduring elements of institutionalized solutions (Akaka et al., 2023) and investigates how the components of innovative ecosystems interact to create shared value (Arena et al., 2022). Despite this theoretical advancement, there is a lack of empirical analysis on how the components of service ecosystems specifically contribute to sustainable urban mobility. The first research gap, therefore, addresses this shortfall: it aims to identify how the components of the service ecosystem can collaboratively support the use of the bicycle as a mode of sustainable urban mobility. This involves exploring the emergent processes and adaptation strategies within service ecosystems that facilitate cycling´s integration into urban settings. Indeed, marketing and, in particular, SDL, calls for the study of the underlying mechanisms of innovation and their emergence (Vargo and Lush, 2022; ThompsonWhiteside et al., 2023). This research is essential to increase the chances of success of these innovations (Tiberius et al., 2021). Although the perspective of mechanisms explains the interactions at different levels (Hedström and Wennberg, 2017; Johnson and Schaltegger, 2020), few studies have empirically analyzed mechanisms from a sociotechnical perspective (Simoens et al., 2022). These mechanisms may prevent stakeholders from actively participating in innovative processes and overcoming barriers created by dominant mobility regimes (Helmefalk et al., 2023; Ryghaug et al., 2023). It is crucial to identify potential "transition pathways,"-factors that either facilitate or impede this transformative process- (Ryghaug et al., 2023). Additionally, understanding how to unlock the potential of innovative ecosystems to generate shared value, especially in the context of sustainable mobility, forms a critical part of this study (Piantoni et al., 2023). Therefore, the second research gap focuses on analyzing the existence of such mechanisms that could hinder the broader adoption of bicycles as viable solutions for sustainable urban mobility. 3 Addressing this gap is essential for developing strategies that can effectively unlock the potential of urban environments to transition towards sustainable mobility solutions. To address these gaps, this study analyzed data from 60 cities indexed in the Global Bicycle Cities Index 2022 (Luko, 2023) and the Smart City Index (IMD, 2023), using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in response to the need for greater methodological adaptation in the field of marketing (Petrescu and Krishen, 2019) complemented by process-tracing to uncover causal mechanisms within these ecosystems. This methodological approach, referred to as Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research (SMMR), provides a nuanced understanding of the conditions under which cycling can serve as a viable solution for sustainable urban mobility. Since much of the work applying SDL to mobility has focused on a limited number of cities, this study focuses on a comparative analysis of a medium-sized sample. By delving deeper into these dynamics, the research contributes to the discourse on sustainable urban mobility, providing actionable insights that can help cities overcome barriers to the adoption of cycling and enhance the scalability of sustainable mobility solutions. 2. THE DIFFUSION AND ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS IN MOBILITY FROM THE SDL 2.1. THE SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC AND THE MULTIFACETED NATURE OF SERVICE INNOVATION Innovation does not emerge in isolation but rather through complex relationships among various actors (Carrizo, 2021; Gruber, 2020; Vargo et al., 2020). This is especially true for service innovations, which involve not only the utilization of resources by firms but also effective collaboration with other resource providers, such as customers and suppliers, in co-production (Sehgal and Gupta, 2020). In their 2015 work, Lusch and Nambisan created a framework that delineates service innovation through three key dimensions: the service ecosystem, value co-creation, and the service platform. This framework is instrumental in elucidating the multifaceted nature of service innovation (Zimmermann et al., 2023). SDL views the development of innovations as occurring within service ecosystems. These ecosystems are not just simple interactions but are actor-to-actor (A2A) structured networks where different actors connect directly with each other. This network setup facilitates ongoing collaboration and mutual influence among all participants (Hein et al., 2019; Vargo et al., 2015; Vargo et al., 2020). These ecosystems are characterized by continuous co-evolution of actors´ skills and roles, underpinned by mutual dependencies that strive for collective effectiveness. In such ecosystems, social practices and the integration of operant resources -skills, knowledge, and processesserve as the primary sources of competitive advantage and value creation (Polese et al., 2021; ThompsonWhiteside et al., 2023). SDL posits that actors in the ecosystem can adopt various roles, specifically, service providers and service beneficiaries in the process of value creation (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). Each role facilitates the integration of existing resources and knowledge with peers, thereby generating new service opportunities. Value co-creation in SDL is not merely about collaboration but involves structured interactions and clearly defined roles that enable all participants—firms and consumers alike—to benefit from, actively participate in, and significantly contribute to the innovation 4 process, thereby reinforcing their roles as active co-producers of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2014; Yin et al., 2019). According to SDL, innovation within these ecosystems is a co-creative process that is embedded in a relatively autonomous and self-adjusting service ecosystem, composed of service-integrating actors connected by institutional agreements and mutual value creation (Akaka et al., 2023; Vargo and Lush, 2020). This dynamic system highlights four essential elements (Akaka et al., 2023; Nenonen and Storbacka, 2021; Polese et al., 2021; Trischler et al., 2020; Vargo and Lush, 2020): (1) Relatively autonomous systems: interactions among actors occur at different levels (micro, meso, and macro) and impact each other. (2) Self-adjusting systems: resource-integrating actors remain viable only if they adapt to changes by obtaining resources from the environment, which they also help shape. (3) Shared institutional agreements: interactions among actors are conditioned by interdependent assemblages of institutions (rules, norms, and beliefs) fostering a shared institutional logic that enhances resource integration and exchange (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). And finally, (4) mutual value creation: value is co-created through the exchange of services among actors, emphasizing the reciprocal nature of value, rather than favoring one actor as an innovator and others as adopters (Carrizo, 2021; Nenonen and Storbacka, 2021; Trischler et al., 2020; Vargo et al., 2020). Within the SDL framework, value co-creation is based on the dynamic exchange of services among actors within the service ecosystem, facilitated by a service platform (Hein et al., 2019; Zimmermann et al., 2023). Service platforms act as pivotal structures within service ecosystems, with an inherently modular architecture that combines tangible and intangible resources to coordinate interactions between resources and actors (Hein et al., 2019; Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). These platforms facilitate the efficient and effective exchange of services within the service ecosystem. In addition, the governance of these platforms is critical. The rules established within a platform define the interactions in the A2A network, from open policies to more restrictive rules, which are essential to maintain the integrity and efficiency of service exchanges (Hein et al., 2016; Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). These platforms, therefore, not only facilitate interaction, but also define and enforce the rules for service exchanges, playing a central role in the functionality and innovativeness of the service ecosystem (Zimmermann et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2023). 2.2. THE APPLICATION OF SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC TO MOBILITY The transition from private car use to smart mobility involves a shift from a goodsdominant logic to a service-dominant logic, highlighting the relevance of SDL in sustainable mobility (Schulz et al., 2021a; Schulz et al., 2023; Turetken et al., 2019). According to Vargo and Lusch (2017), SDL focuses on the co-creation of value among multiple actors within a service ecosystem. These interactions go beyond buying and selling, involving the continuous integration of skills, knowledge, and other resources which are essential for sustainable mobility. Table 1 presents the studies that have applied SDL to mobility. Insert here Table 1 Actors in the mobility sector, including manufacturers, end-users, and local authorities, form an A2A network that evolves towards a more integrated and sustainable mobility model. Companies traditionally focused on car production now offer mobility services that extend beyond individual vehicles (Schulz et al., 2021). This shift means focusing on 5 delivering integrated services that provide true value-in-use for end-users (Turetken et al., 2019). For mobility providers, this includes not just transportation services but also complementary services that apply resources for the benefit of others (Schulz et al., 2023). The ecosystem includes a wide range of actors, facilitating the exchange of service-forservice through a service platform (Schulz et al., 2021a). Technological advancements have enabled service ecosystems oriented towards information technology, such as shared mobility (Schulz et al., 2023). SDL has been applied to analyze how digital innovations can optimize end-user experiences and explain the consolidation of specialized smart parking ecosystems (Zimmermann et al., 2023). Intermodal mobility systems leverage digital advancements by offering individualized, dynamic, and context-aware combinations of different mobility services to simplify doorto-door mobility and reduce private car use (Schulz et al., 2020). Increasing the number of shared bicycles has been identified as an effective way to build a sustainable urban transport system (Yin et al., 2019). Through the concept of "value formation," SDL in mobility examines both the co-creation and co-destruction of value (Schulz et al., 2021b). For example, co-creation occurs when users safely reach their destinations using bicycles, while post-use aspects such as parking and payment can influence the co-destruction of value (Yin et al., 2019). 2.3. COMPLEMENTARY THEORIES TO SERVICE DOMINANT LOGIC Various theories outside of marketing have been integrated into the application of SDL to support its development (Schulz et al., 2023). We subsequently highlight three theories which are particularly relevant to this work. Activity Theory posits that the activities of a subject (whether an individual or a collective) are directed towards an object to transform it and achieve a specific outcome (Schulz et al., 2023). This theory considers the social dimension of activities, which are often carried out in cooperation with a community organized by a division of labor and governed rules (Riss et al., 2022). It examines the cultural and technical aspects of human actions, focusing on collaboration within innovative ecosystems (Baloutsos et al., 2022; Riss et al., 2022). Activity Theory is valuable for conceptualizing innovative ecosystems and identifying critical success factors. It describes actions in socio-technical systems as interrelated activity systems (Baloutsos et al., 2022). In line with SDL, value co-creation involves two successive actions: resource integration and service exchange. Unlike SDL, which views actors as equal, Activity Theory focuses on the actor as the focal beneficiary (Riss et al., 2022). By applying Activity Theory, inhibitors of value co-creation from the perspective of mobility providers are identified, leading to the formation of value co-creating relationships (Schulz et al., 2023). Practice Theory is relevant to SDL as it posits that value emerges through social practices when resources are integrated (Yin et al., 2019). It focuses on how the socio-structural environment shapes consumer practices (Catulli et al., 2021), suggesting new practices emerge from hybrid configurations of existing elements (Camilleri et al., 2022). Practices are standardized collective behaviors involving material elements, competencies, and meanings (Edberg, 2023). These interrelated elements are present in everyday practices, and the evolution of one practice can trigger changes in related practices (Edberg, 2023; Guzel, 2023). 6 This theory helps explain how individuals behave in their interactions and how these interactions result in both positive and negative value creation (Yin et al., 2019). Practices are socially constructed ideas that have a history and can change over time (Edberg, 2023). Practice Theory has proven effective in analyzing the stability and variability of mobility practices and explaining why certain shared mobility practices proliferate more quickly than others (Mock, 2023). However, Practice Theory also suggests that consumers are "locked-in" to socio-material structures with limited degrees of freedom (Catulli et al., 2021). New forms of mobility emerge from previous mobility elements, enabling transitions as elements that are reconfigured over time (Camilleri et al., 2022). Cycling, for instance, has evolved from a leisure activity to a dominant mode of transport (Edberg, 2023). Institutional Theory views institutions as both the rules of the game and the outcome of the social context (Vargo et al., 2020). In an ecosystem, organizations share interdependencies that determine value creation or market emergence (Trischler et al., 2020). Stability derives from accepted institutional agreements that become prevalent practices (ThompsonWhiteside et al., 2023). These agreements, or institutional logics, govern service-forservice exchanges among actors within the service ecosystem, reflected in rules, norms, and beliefs (Schulz et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2023). While SDL assumes that all actors adopt service logic as their dominant institutional logic, some actors may have different logics, known as "logic multiplicity" (Schulz et al., 2020). Institutions can limit value co-creation (Schulz et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2021b). Institutional agreements are emergent social structures influencing resource integration and value co-creation (Trischler et al., 2020; Vargo and Lush, 2020; Vargo et al., 2020; Vargo et al., 2023a). Therefore, institutionalization is central to innovation (Vargo et al., 2015; Vargo and Lush, 2020; Vargo et al., 2020) with markets conceptualized as institutionalized solutions, an emergent meso-level structure built from micro-actions and macro-structures (Akaka et al., 2023; Nenonen and Storbacka, 2021; Vargo and Lush, 2020). However, diffusion implies a process of institutional change as a novel idea or technology is applied to multiple purposes, perspectives, or contexts (Vargo et al., 2020). Service ecosystems undergo processes introducing instability, requiring adaptation of institutional agreements (Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2023). SDL identifies stages within the institutionalization agreements. During stability, ecosystems adapt to disruptions without changing state, as the practices and norms are deeply rooted (Polese et al., 2021; Sprang et al., 2021), reflecting persistence over time (Akaka et al., 2023). During deinstitutionalization, disruptions destabilize the ecosystem, leading to re-institutionalization with new agreements (Polese et al., 2021). Two phenomena help understand service ecosystems dynamics: emergence and transition between phases. Diffusion is an emergent, co-created process (Vargo and Lush, 2020; Vargo et al., 2020; Vargo et al., 2023a), which is dynamic, iterative, and parallel to institutionalization, through which market niches emerge (Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2023; Vargo et al., 2023a). Systems emerge and change, with this emergence arising from interconnected elements resulting in something qualitatively different (Gruber, 2020; Polese et al., 2021; Vargo et al., 2023a). Understanding transitions is key to adopting and diffusing innovations (Keller et al., 2022; Kristensson et al., 2020). Transitions are large-scale coevolutionary processes involving numerous actors and social groups, shifting ecosystems from stability to de-institutionalization or re-institutionalization (Geels, 2012; Polese et 7 al., 2021). Major changes are categorized as socio-technical transitions (STT) (Geels, 2012; Keller et al., 2022). Sustainable socio-technical configuration depends on the interactions and interrelations among material elements, behaviors, and institutions (Simoens et al., 2022). 2.4. SERVICE ECOSYSTEMS AND ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS IN MOBILITY The socio-technical systems (STS) perspective conceptualizes mobility systems as configurations of technology, policy, markets, consumer practices, infrastructures, cultural meanings, and knowledge (Geels, 2012; Keller et al., 2022; Petzer et al., 2020; Ryghaug et al., 2023). Cycling, as a socio-technical system, includes infrastructures, regulations, markets, user characteristics, social norms, and values (Canitez, 2019; Cass et al., 2018). However, cycling is a socio-technical system in transition, where daily practice is embedded in structures (spatial, historical, social, cultural, economic, and political) that may impede significant increases in its adoption (Gössling, 2013; Te Brömmelstroet et al., 2020). Thus, transitioning to cycling involves synchronized interventions across multiple interrelated and co-evolutionary sociotechnical dimensions (Canitez, 2019). Achieving "momentum" is essential for a mobility transition; for cycling, this occurs when a critical mass normalizes it as an urban mobility mode (Gössling, 2013). Changing attitudes and preferences towards cycling compared to the dominant car regime is crucial (Pucher and Buehler, 2017). The car regime symbolizes modernity and economic progress, while cycling is sometimes linked to less privileged social classes (Mora et al., 2021; SosaLópez, 2021), it can be seen either as normal or as a nearly subversive subculture (Nilsson, 2019). In large cities, citizens access a spectrum of mobility services beyond station-based public transport (Mock, 2023; Schulz et al., 2020). Transformational changes in the transportation system are needed to make cycling safer and more accessible (Williams et al., 2023). A key component for increasing everyday cycling is redistributing space usage (Egan and Caufield, 2024b). Cities with more cycling infrastructure, integrated with other transport modes, tend to have higher cycling rates (Edberg, 2023; Williams et al., 2023). Despite cycling's lesser status compared to cars, encouraging daily cycling through bike lanes is crucial (Egan and Caulfield, 2024a); quality, proximity, and connectivity of bike lanes are important (Williams et al., 2023). While offering bike lanes is a primary formula to increase cycling (Pucher and Buehler, 2017), user profiles (including preferences and attitudes), social structure, cultural norms, perceptions, ideology, habits, traditions, and physical infrastructure and environment significantly influence cycling habits and preferences (Bhowmick et al., 2023; Buck and Nurse, 2023; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2015). The perception of cycling can discourage people from cycling (Buck and Nurse, 2023). Bike-sharing has the potential to contribute to sustainable urban mobility and the growth of a global non-motorized transport niche, including private bicycles (Van Waes et al., 2020). Bike-sharing will be part of the explanation for the increase in cycling practice, as it increases bike availability, route flexibility, and complements public transport (Pucher and Buehler, 2017). While bike-sharing companies employ similar launch strategies, they apply different institutional strategies in response to local spatial conditions, including local institutions, place-specific elements, and power issues (Van Waes et al., 2020). Public bike-sharing systems complement rather than replace private bike ownership, enriching the 8 urban cycling culture (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2015; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2016). However, shared bike users replace not only car trips but also walking, using their own bike, or taking the bus (Bösehans et al., 2024). In fact, shared micromobility usage may decrease as the number of bicycles increases (Shen et al., 2024). The rapid implementation of bike-sharing services alongside bike lanes and parking, illustrates effective strategies to promote cycling (Bhowmick et al., 2023; Buck and Nurse, 2023; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2016). In line with Activity Theory, interrelated systems must intervene, (Baloustos et al., 2022) a characteristic also found in Practice Theory elements. Therefore, bike lanes, bikesharing systems, and 'bike-friendly' infrastructures have become common features of the urban landscape (Mora et al., 2021; Sosa-López, 2021). Considering all the above, the study proposes the following propositions: Proposition 1a. The composition of the service ecosystem explains the use of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility. Proposition 1b. The composition of the service ecosystem explains the lack of use of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility. Explanatory theories of transitions consider different sources of inertia; that is, structures, elements, and forces that promote stability and resist change. Concepts such as path dependence and "lock-in" explain the stabilizing dynamics that must be overcome for sustainable transitions to occur (Geels, 2012; Sarasini and Linder, 2018; Simoens et al., 2022). Path dependence is a systemic recurring process that maintains the current configuration as a consequence of the system's own history (Klitkou et al., 2015; Simoens et al., 2022). "Lock-in" mechanisms are self-reinforcing positive feedback loops that fix a certain development path, reinforcing the persistent dominance of a particular sociotechnical configuration. These mechanisms must be overcome to move towards a more sustainable future (Klitkou et al., 2015; Simoens et al., 2022). Not all path-dependent processes require the presence of "lock-in" mechanisms, although their existence can create path dependencies over time (Simoens et al., 2022). The socio-technical regime, composed of a set of semi-coherent rules and structures governing actors, is a source of inertia (Sarasini and Linder, 2018). Its stability results from various "lock-in" processes that establish the conditions for the development of new transition pathways (Klitkou et al., 2015). Indeed, the hegemonic position achieved by automobiles as the dominant regime has hindered the advancement of other mobility systems (Cox, 2022). Despite this, although the institutional framework reflects the actions of those who resist change, multiple institutionally integrated actors in the ecosystem will try to imagine alternatives and overcome "lock-in" and path dependencies (Vargo and Lush, 2020; Vargo et al., 2020). For example, the perception of congestion as a problem, along with smart mobility innovations and bicycle rentals, explains the causal mechanisms behind MaaS usage (Medina-Molina and Rey-Moreno, 2024). In German cities, a causal mechanism for bicycle use includes bike lanes and bike-sharing systems, despite limited bike parking and low population density (Pérez Macías et al., 2024). We need to determine if mechanisms cause the emergence of new mobility elements or keep citizens locked into their daily practices, in line with Practice Theory (Camilleri et al., 2022; Catulli et al., 2021). Based on the above, the following propositions are proposed. Proposition 2a. Causal mechanisms determine the use of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility. 15 In the FC ~ROA, Istanbul and Rome are typical cases, with Washington being an IIR case. In Istanbul, the shift towards sustainable modes of transportation like bicycles is hindered by a lack of integration with other transport means, safety issues, lack of cycling culture, and topographical difficulties (Canitez et al., 2019; Canitez et al., 2020). Istanbul needs to implement bike lanes and specific signage for daily urban mobility, as it is currently in the initial phase and not well integrated with the expanding public transport network. Fragmented infrastructure investments hinder widespread adoption of cycling (Canitez, 2019). Effective integration and promotion of cycling require systemic changes in urban policies and infrastructure, adopting a service logic that prioritizes user welfare and sustainability. Rome, on the other hand, has supported micromobility by developing bicycle-related infrastructure and a bike lane around the city center (Castiglioni et al., 2022; Cerasoli et al., 2022; Medina-Molina and Rey-Moreno, 2024). However, Castiglioni et al. (2022) note that a systematic framework for bike lane planning strategies is still needed. In Washington, various types of bike lanes with separation lights have reduced road incidents, encouraging bicycle use (Cicchino et al., 2020). These infrastructure changes represent a shift towards SDL and value co-creation between urban planners and cyclists (Cicchino et al., 2020). Finally, for the FC ~STA, typical cases are Medellín and Lagos, with Melbourne as the irrelevant case. In Medellín, most shared bike stations are concentrated in specific areas, implying unequal distribution (Ospina et al., 2020). Lagos requires additional infrastructure like bike lanes and shared bike stations to promote cycling (Mogaji, 2022). Melbourne, with its extensive public transport network, has effectively integrated bike parking stations into its infrastructure, clearly showing a shift towards service-dominant logic (Laa and Emberger, 2020; Weliwitiya et al., 2019). Cities exhibiting the "lock-in" mechanism reflect the existence of self-reinforcing feedback that sets a certain development path and with it, the persistent dominance of a sociotechnical configuration that must be unlocked to advance towards sustainable mobility (Canitez et al., 2019; Klitkou et al., 2015; Mora et al., 2021; Simoens et al., 2022). In these cities, the prevailing regime results from "lock-in" processes that establish a complex scenario for the development of new "transition pathways" (Klitkou et al., 2015). In this case, a situational mechanism, in which the aforementioned contextual and environmental influences on individual behavior cause the dominant mobility regime to impede the development of sustainable urban mobility modes linked to cycling (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2020). It can be inferred that the perceived value of adopting cycling is determined by the number of previous adopters (Hedström and Wennberg, 2017). Not reaching a certain critical mass of cyclists hinders the development of such a regime, coupled with limiting the change in perception of the use of the bicycle as a mode of urban mobility. 7. CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 7.1. CONCLUSIONS Innovation as a driver of sustainable development requires an understanding of the factors that determine its diffusion and adoption (Kristensson et al., 2020). This study addresses the objective of identifying the ecosystem's role in promoting bicycle use as a sustainable mode of transport. Additionally, it responds to calls for research on applying the SDL and 16 the service ecosystem to advance environmental sustainability (Helmefalk et al., 2023; Vargo and Lusch, 2017). In addressing the first research gap, we identified the combinations of conditions that explain both the adoption and rejection of bicycles as a sustainable mobility mode. This confirms the ecosystem's role in influencing both outcomes and establishes the existence of a "lock-in" mechanism that hinders the adoption of sustainable mobility systems like bicycles in cities. This mechanism elucidates how the interaction of certain elements within the bicycle mobility regime contributes to its lack of use. 7.2. CONTRIBUTIONS This study demonstrates the suitability of SDL for explaining innovative processes, overcoming the limitations of classic models by focusing on service rather than goods. SDL emphasizes the importance of various actors in the co-creation of value and highlights the need for both deinstitutionalization and reinstitutionalization to facilitate innovation. It underscores the necessity of interaction between different elements of the ecosystem, including users and the established regime, to support innovation and the widespread adoption of bicycles. This confirms the importance of considering interactions between technological (supply) and market (demand) aspects to understand these innovative processes and their social outcomes (Gruber, 2020; Vargo et al., 2015; Vargo et al., 2020; Vargo & Lusch, 2020). Moreover, the use of STT is validated for explaining transitions in SDL and analyzing the adoption and diffusion of innovations (Geels, 2012). The findings confirm that SDL’s service ecosystem provides an appropriate framework for explaining the emergence of innovations, and STT shows potential for delving deeper into these processes. The identification of the "lock-in" mechanism is verified. Therefore, among the theoretical contributions, it is confirmed how STT, and causal mechanisms support the integration of STT and SDL approaches, as suggested by Vargo et al.(2023b). Additionally, this study confirms the suitability of Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research (SMMR), which combines QCA and Process Tracing for explaining the adoption of innovations and the use of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility. QCA demonstrates that bicycle use as an innovation is a socio-technical complex system that requires multiple explanations for both its adoption and non-use, highlighting the equifinality of outcomes. It also shows that usage or lack of use are not explained in the same way, revealing asymmetry, and confirms that a specific outcome requires a combination of different factors rather than their net effects, advancing beyond traditional methodologies such as structural equation modelling. This approach establishes the interaction between different factors that influences the choice of transportation mode (Buck and Nurse, 2023). Process Tracing further validates the existence of causality and the generalization of results. By identifying a mechanism that explains the absence of bicycle use, we can provide more precise recommendations to planners and governments on which aspects to consider and whether these can be applied to other contexts. Among the practical contributions, cities aiming to avoid the rejection of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility should prevent the simultaneous existence of a limited number of cycling-related stores, low valuation of bike lanes, and reduced satisfaction with the existing bike-sharing stations. Public managers can support the commercial cycling sector 17 in the short term while strengthening the parking station network. In the long term, the focus should be on the bike lane network to improve its valuation by citizens. Understanding the conditions that promote or hinder bicycle use allows urban planners and policymakers to design targeted interventions. For example, cities can enhance infrastructure by expanding bike lanes and integrating bike-sharing systems to reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable mobility. These findings highlight the importance of collaboration among various stakeholders, including local governments, businesses, and community organizations. This collaborative approach can foster a supportive environment for cycling, aligning with the principles of SDL and promoting cocreation of value within the urban mobility ecosystem. Moreover, it is important to emphasize the interaction between different actors. Governments, planners, and businesses can enhance infrastructures, but without greater user awareness of the benefits of bicycle use, adoption may not occur. Therefore, specific awareness programs in schools, advertising campaigns promoting bicycle use, and incentives for users who adopt these modes are necessary. A robust network of bike lanes ensuring user safety, well-distributed and well-maintained bike stations, and seamless connections between bicycles and other sustainable mobility systems are essential to encourage use. 7.3. LIMITATIONS The main limitation of this study is working with a limited sample of cities during the specific period of 2022. Additionally, the study did not consider factors such as city size or the degree to which cities are tourist destinations, which can influence individuals' attitudes toward bicycle use. Expanding the sample size to include a more diverse range of cities would address these limitations, enhancing the generalizability of the findings and providing a more holistic view of urban cycling ecosystems. Incorporating specific technological components related to cycling infrastructure, such as smart bike lanes or digital bike-sharing platforms, could offer valuable insights into how technology impacts cycling adoption and usage. Conducting a longitudinal study is also recommended to track changes over time, helping to understand the long-term effects of various interventions and policies on cycling behavior. Applying this study to cities of different sizes and varying levels of tourism could be valuable, as the strategies to promote bicycle use might differ based on these factors. Similarly, it would be interesting to explore how the use of bicycles as a mode of urban mobility occurs, particularly by examining cases with high levels of bicycle usage. This could provide deeper insights into the conditions and interventions that effectively promote cycling in urban environments. REFERENCES Afeltra, G., Alerasoul, S.A. and Strozzi, F. (2023), “The evolution of sustainable innovation: from the past to the future”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 386-421. Akaka, M.A., Koskela-Huotari, K. and Vargo, S.L. (2021), “Formalizing service-dominant logic as a general theory of markets: taking stock and moving forward”, AMS Review, Vol. 11, pp. 375-389. Akaka, M.A., Schau, H.J. and Vargo, S.L. (2022), “Practice Diffusion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 48, pp. 939-969. 18 Akaka, M.A., Vargo, S.L., Nariswari, A. and O'Brien, M. (2023), “Microfoundations for Macromarketing: Metatheoretical Lens for Bridging the Micro-Macro Divide”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 61-75. Arena, M., Azzone, G. and Piantoni, G. (2022), “Uncovering value creation in innovation ecosystems: paths towards shared value”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 432-451. Baloutsos, S., Kargiannaki, A. and Pramatari, K. (2022), “Identifying contradictions in an incumbent-startup ecosystem -an activity theory approach”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 527-548. Bazzan, G., Álamos‐Concha, P. and Rihoux, B. (2022), “Identifying diverse paths toward successful policy performance in Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) and European Union countries: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) exploitation of the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) data”, European Policy Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 178-208. Becker, S., von Schneidemesser, D., Caseiro, A., Götting, K., Schmitz, S. and von Schneidemesser, E. (2022), “Pop-up cycling infrastructure as a niche innovation for sustainable transportation in European cities: An interand transdisciplinary case study of Berlin”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 87, pp. 104168. Behrendt, F. (2016), “Why cycling matters for Smart Cities. Internet of Bicycles for Intelligent Transport”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 56, pp. 157-164. Bhowmick, D., Saberi, M., Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., Winters, M., Nelson, T., Zarpelon Leao, S., Seneviratne, S., Pettit, C., Vu, H.L., Nice, K. and Beck, B. (2023), “A systematic scoping review of methods for estimating link-level bicycling volumes”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 622-651 Bieliński, T., Kwapisz, A. and Ważna, A. (2019), “Bike-sharing systems in Poland”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp.2458. Bösehans, G., Bell, M.C. and Dissanayake, D. (2024), “Shared mobility - Novel insights on mode substitution patterns, trip and user characteristics”, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, Vol. 2, pp. 100029. Bösehans, G. and Massola, G.M. (2018), “Commuter cyclists’ risk perceptions and behaviour in the city of São Paulo”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 58, pp. 414-430. Buck, M. and Nurse, A. (2023), “Cycling in an ‘ordinary city’: A practice theory approach to supporting a modal shift”, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 65-76. Builes-Jaramillo, A. and Lotero, L. (2022), “Spatial-temporal network analysis of the public bicycle sharing system in Medellín, Colombia”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 105, pp. 103460. Camilleri, R., Attard, M. and Hickman, R. (2022), “Understanding barriers to modal shift in Malta: A practice-theoretical perspective of everyday mobility”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 104, pp. 103446. Carrizo, A. (2021), “Introduction to the Special Section: Innovation”, Management Letters, Vol. 21, pp. 79-82. Cass, N., Schwanen, T. and Shove, E. (2018), “Infrastructures intersections and societal transformations”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 137, pp. 160-167. Castiglioni, M., De Vincentis, R., Nigro, M. Rega, V. (2022), “Bike Network Design: an approach based on micro-mobility geo-referenced data”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 62, pp. 51-58. 19 Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Castro-Nuño, M. and López-Valpuesta, L. (2015), “Analyzing the transition from a public bicycle system to bicycle ownership: A complex relationship”, Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 38, pp. 15-26. Castillo-Manzano, J.I., López-Valpuesta, L. and Sánchez-Braza, A. (2016), “Going a long way? On your bike! Comparing the distances for which public bicycle sharing systems and private bicycles are used”, Applied Geography, Vol. 75, pp. 95-105. Catuli, M., Potter, S. and Cook, M. (2021), “Is it who you are or what you do? Insights for Mobility as a Service from research on a car club”, Research in Transportation & Business Management, Vol. 41, pp. 100597. Cerasoli, M., Amato, C. and Ravagnan, C. (2022), “An antifragile strategy for Rome postCovid mobility”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 60, pp. 338-345. Cicchino, J.B., McCarthy, M.L., Newgard, C.D., Wall, S.P., DiMaggio, C.J., Kulie, P.E., Arnold, B.N. and Zuby, D.S. (2020), “Not all protected bike lanes are the same: Infrastructure and risk of cyclist collisions and falls leading to emergency department visits in three US cities”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 141, pp. 105490. Canitez, F. (2019), “A socio-technical transition framework for introducing cycling in developing megacities. The case of Istambul”, Cities, Vol. 94, pp. 172-185. Canitez, F., Alpkokin, P. and Kirimetci, S.T. (2020), “Sustainable urban mobility in Istambul: Challenges and prospects”, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 11481157. Clausen, J. and Fichter, K. (2019), “The diffusion of environmental product and service innovation: Driving and inhibiting factors”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 31, pp. 64-95. Cox, P. (2022). “Vèlomobility is to degrowth as automobility is to growth: prefigurative cycling imaginaries”, Applied Mobilities, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 265-285. Edberg, K. (2023), “E-biking within a transitioning transport system: the quest for flexible mobility”, Mobilities, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2259111 Egan, R. and Caulfield, B. (2024a), “Driving as essential, cycling as conditional: how automobility is politically sustained in discourses of everyday mobility”, Mobilities, pp. 117, https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2024.2325370 Egan, R. and Caufield, B. (2024b), “There's no such thing as cycle traffic: A critical discourse analysis of public opposition to pro-cycle planning”, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, Vol. 2, pp. 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100014 Freym A., Trenz, M. and Veit, D. (2019), “A service-dominant logic perspective on the roles of technology in service innovation: uncovering four archetypes in the sharing economy”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 89 No. 8, pp. 1149-1189. Geels, F.W. (2012), “A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, pp. 471-482. Giglio, C. and De Maio, A. (2022), “A structural equation model for analysing the determinants of crowdshipping adoption in the last-mile delivery within university cities”, Int. J. Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 117-142. Giglio, C., Musmanno, R. and Palmieri, R. (2021), “Cycle Logistic Projects in Europe: Intertwining Bike-Related Success Factors and Region-Specific Public Policies with Economic Results”, Appl. Sci., Vol. 11, pp. 758. Gruber, M. (2020), “An evolutionary perspective on adoption-diffusion theory”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 535-541. Guzel, G.T. (2023), “A practice theoretic perspective on influence”, AMS Review, Vol. 13, pp. 250-261. 20 Hedström, P. and Wennberg, K. (2017), “Causal mechanism in organization and innovation studies”, Innovation, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 91-102. Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M. and Krcmar, H. (2019), “Value co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 29, pp. 503-518. Helmefalk, M., Palmquist, A. and Rosenlund, J. (2023), “Understanding the mechanisms of household and stakeholder engagement in a recycling ecosystem: The SDL perspective”, Waste Management, Vol. 160, pp. 1-11. IMD (2023). Smart City Index. Report. World Competitiveness Index. Johnson, M.P. and Schaltegger, S. (2020), “Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Review and Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1141-1173. Keller, M., Sahakian, M. and Hirt, L.F. (2022), “Connecting the multi-level perspective and social practice approach for sustainable transitions”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 44, pp. 14-28. Kemper, J.A. and Ballantine, P.W. (2017), “Socio-Technical Transitions and Institutional Change: Addressing Obesity through Macro-Social Marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 381-392. Klitkou, A., Bowling, S., Hansen, T. and Wessberg, N. (2015), “The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: The case of energy for road transport”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 16, pp. 22-37. Kristensson, P., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjorsen, H. (2020), “New perspectives on consumer adoption and diffusion of innovations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116 No. August, 522-525. Laa, B. and Emberger, G. (2020), “Bike sharing: Regulatory options for conflicting interests–Case study Vienna”, Transport Policy, Vol. 98, pp. 148-157. Lanzendorf, M. and Busch-Geertsema, A. (2014), “The cycling boom in large German cities—Empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns”, Transport Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 26-33. Luko (2022). Global Bicycle Cities Index 2022. [https://de.luko.eu/en/advice/guide/bikeindex/] Lusch, R.F. and Nambisan, S. (2015), “Service innovation: A service dominantlogic perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.39 No.1, pp.155–175. Medina-Molina, C. and Rey-Moreno, M. (2024), “The determinant conditions and causal mechanisms that explain the use of micromobility services”, Management Letters, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-20. Mock, M. (2023), “Making and breaking links: the transformative potential of shared mobility from a practice theories perspective”, Mobilities, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.374-390. Mogaji, E. (2022), “Cycling in Lagos: the challenges, opportunities, and prospects”, Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, Vol. 14, pp. 100608. Monga, M. and Sadhukan, S. (2023), “Quantifying perceived social benefit of bicyclefriendly infrastructure in Indian cities: Patna as a case study”, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, Vol. 1, pp. 100003. Mora, R., Truffello, R. and Oyarzún, G. (2021), “Equity and accessibility of cycling infrastructure: An analysis of Santiago de Chile”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 91, pp. 102964. Nenonen, S. and Storbacka, K. (2021), “Market-shaping: navigating multiple theoretical perspectives”, AMS Review, Vol. 11, pp. 336-353. Nikolaeva, A. and Nelo-Deakin, S. (2020), “Exploring velotopian urban imaginaries: where Le Corbusier meets Constant?”, Mobilities, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 309-324. 21 Nikolaeva, A., te Brömmelstroet, M., Raven, R. and Ransen, J. (2019), “Amrt cycling futures: Charting a new terrain and moving towards a research agenda”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 79, pp. 102486. Nilsson, J.H. (2019), “Urban bicycle tourism: path dependencies and innovation in Greater Copenhagen”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1648-1662. Oana, I-O., Schneider, C.Q. and Thomann, E. (2021), Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using R. A Beginner`s Guide, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Ospina, J. P., Botero-Fernández, V., Duque, J. C., Brussel, M. and Grigolon, A. (2020), “Understanding cycling travel distance: The case of Medellin city (Colombia)”, Transportation Research Part D: transport and environment, Vol. 86, pp. 102423. Pánek, J. and Benediktsson, K. (2017), “Emotional mapping and its participatory potential: Opinions about cycling conditions in Reykjavík, Iceland”, Cities, Vol. 61, pp.65-73. Perez-Macias, N., Medina-Molina, C. and Coronado-Vaca M. (2024), “To Cycle or not to Cycle. The Application of an Extended Innovation Diffusion Model for Sustainable Mobility”, Transformations in Business & Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2(62), pp.410-433. Petzer, B.J.M., Wieczorek, A.J. and Verbong, G.P.J. (2020), “Cycling as a service assessed from a combined business-model and transition perspective”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 36, pp. 255-269. Psarikidou, K., Zuev, D. and Popan, C. (2020), “Sustainable cycling futures: can cycling be the future?”, Applied Mobilities, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 225-231. Petrescu, M. and Krishen, A.S. (2019), “Strength in diversity: methods and analytics”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 7, pp. 203-204. Piantoni, G., Arena, M. and Azzone, G. (2023), “Exploring how different innovation ecosystems create shared value: insights from a multiple case study analysis”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 206-232. Polese, F., Payne, A., Frow, P., Sarno, D. and Nenonen, S. (2021), “Emergence and phase transitions inservice ecosystems”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 127, pp. 25-34. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2017), “Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 684-694. Riss, U.V., Ziegler, M. and Smith, L.J. (2022), “Value in digital technologies and services”, in International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations pp. 160-173. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Romanillos, G., Moya-Gómez, B., Zaltz-Austwick, M. and Lamíquiz-Daudén, P.J. (2018), “The pulse of the cycling city: visualising Madrid bike share system GPS routes and cycling flow”, Journal of Maps, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp.34-43. Ryghaug, M., Subotički, I., Smeds, E., von Wirth, T., Scherrer, A., Foulds, C., Robison, R., Bertolini, L., Beyazit İnce, E., Brand, R., Cohen-Blankshtain, G., Dijk, M., Freudendal Pedersen, M., Gössling, S., Guzik, R., Kivimaa, P., Klöckner, C., Lazarova Nikolova, H., Lis, A., Marquet, O., Milakis, D., Mladenović, M., Mom, G., Mullen, C., Ortar, N., Paola, P., Sales Oliveira, C., Schwanen, T., Tuvikene, T. and Wentland, A. (2023), “A Social Sciences and Humanities research agenda for transport and mobility in Europe: key themes and 100 research questions”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 755-779 Sarasini, S. and Linder, M. (2018), “Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: The example of new mobility services”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 27, pp. 16-31. Schneider, C.Q., (2024). Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research: A Guide to Combining QCA and Case Studies. Cambridge University Press. Schultz, C.J. and Wilkie, W.L. (2021), “Macromarketing, the Indispensable Discipline”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 5-9. 22 Schulz, T., Böhm, M., Grewald, H., Celik, Z. and Krcmar, H. (2020), “The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity and Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems”, Bus Inf Syst Eng, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 417-433. Schulz, T., Böhm, M., Gewald, H. and Krcmar, H. (2021a), “Smart mobilityan analysis of potential customers` preference structures”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 31, pp. 105-124. Schulz, T., Grewald, H., Böhm, M. and Kcmar, H. (2023), “Smart Mobility: Contradictions in Value Co-Creation”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 25, pp. 11251145. Schulz, T., Zimmermann, S., Böhm, M., Grewald, H. and Krcmar, H. (2021b), “Value cocreation and co-destruction in service ecosystems: The case of the Reach Now app”. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 170, pp. 120926. Schwarz, L., Keler, A. and Krisp, J.M. (2022), “Improving urban bicycle infrastructure-an exploratory study based on the effects from the COVID-19 Lockdown”, Journal of Urban Mobility, Vol. 2, pp. 100013. Sehgal, S. and Gupta, G. (2020), “Converging resources and co-producing for innovation: evidence from healthcare services”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 429-453. Shen, Y., Song, Y., Yu, Q., Luo, K., Shi, Z. and Chen, X. M. (2024), “Enhancing carbon efficiency in shared micro-mobility systems: An agent-based fleet size and layout assessment approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 443, pp. 141209. Simoens, M.C., Leipold, S. and Fuenfschilling, L. (2022), “Locked in unsustainability: Understanding lock-ins and their interactions using the case of food packaging”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 45, pp. 14-29. Sosa-López, O. (2021), “Bicycle policy in Mexico City: Urban Experiments and Differentiated Citizenship”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, pp. 477-497. Sprang, N., Driessen, P.H., Hillebrand, B. and Molner, S. (2021), “Market innovation: a literature review and new research directions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 123, pp. 450-462. Te Brömmelstroet, M., Nikolaeva, A., Nello-Deakin, S., van Waes, A., Farla, J., Popkema, M., van Wesemael, P., Liu, G., Raven, R., de Vor, F. and Bruno, M. (2020), “Researching cycling innovations: The contested nature of understanding and shaping smart cycling futures”, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 8, pp. 100247. Thompson-Whiteside, H., Fletcher-Brown, J., Middleton, K. and Turnbell, S. (2023), “Emergence in emerging: How actors adapt to service ecosystem disruption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 162, pp. 113800. Tiberius, V., Schwarzer, H. and Roig-Dobón, S. (2021), “Radical innovations: Between established knowledge and future research opportunities”, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 145-153. Torres, P. and Augusto, M. (2020), “Understanding complementarities among different forms of innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 813-834. Trischler, J., Johnson, M. and Kristensson, P. (2020), “A service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 552-560. Turetken, O., Grefen, P., Gilsing, R. and Aldali, O.E. (2019), “Service-Dominant Business Model Design for Digital Innovation in Smart Mobility”, Bus Inf Syst Eng, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 9-29. 23 Van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J.P.J. and Raven, R. (2018), “Business model innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new perspective framework with an application to bike sharing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 1300-1312. Van Waes, A., Farla, J. and Raven, R. (2020), “Why do companies` institutional strategies differ across cities? A cross-case analysis of bike sharing in Shanghai & Amsterdam”, Environmental Innovation & Societal Transitions, Vol. 36, pp. 151-163. Vargo, S.L. (2022), “Fostering scholarly discussion in marketing”, AMS Review, Vol. 23, pp. 137-138. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34, pp. 46-67. Vargo, S.L., Akaka, M.A. and Wieland, H. (2020), “Rethinking the process of diffusion in innovation: A service ecosystem and institutional perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 526-534. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2014), “Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be”, in The service-dominant logic of marketing (pp. 43-56). Routledge. Vargo, S.L., Peters, L., Kjellberg, H., Koskela-Huotari, K., Nenonnen, S., Polese, F., Sarno, D. and Vaughan, C. (2023a), “Emergence in marketing: an institutional and economic framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 51, pp. 2-22. Vargo, S.L., Wieland, H. and Akaka, M.A. (2015), “Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystem perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 44, pp. 63-72. Vargo, S.L., Wieland, H. and O´Brien, M. (2023b), “Service-dominant logic as a unifying theoretical framework for the re-institutionalization of the marketing discipline”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 164, pp. 113965. Yin, J., Qian, L. and Shen, J. (2019), “From value co-creation to value co-destruction? The case of dockless bike sharing in China”, Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 71, pp. 169-185. Yu, J., Wen, Q. and Xu, Q. (2024), “The configurational effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on firms' breakthrough innovation and strategic performance in the artificial intelligence context”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1743-1766. Weliwitiya, H., Rose, G. and Johnson, M. (2019), “Bicycle train intermodality: Effects of demography, station characteristics and the built environment”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 74, pp. 395-404. Williams, T., Whitehurst, D.G.T., Nelson, T., Fuller, D., Therien, S., Gauvin, L. and Winters, M. (2023), “All ages and abilities cycling infrastructure cycling activity, and perceived safety: Findings from a natural experiment study in three mid-sized Canadian cities”, Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, Vol. 1, pp. 100005. Zheng, S., Appolloni, A., Lin, H. and Ding, X. (2023), “Configuration analysis of the innovation pathway of gerontechnological enterprises under the market-organizationtechnology perspective”, European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2023-0209 Zimmermann, S., Schulz, T., Ikonomou, G. and Gewald, H. (2020), “Impediments of Intermodal Mobility: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”, in PACIS, pp. 223. Zimmermann, S., Schulz, T., Hein, Kaus, A.F., Gewald, H. and Kcmar, H. (2023), “Why Specialized Service Ecosystems Emerge—the Case of Smart Parking in Germany”, Inf Syst Front. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10453-y