Transports are among the major sources of atmospheric pollution, causing climate change and public health damage. Public transportation is a well-known, recognized solution to greatly decrease transport emissions, especially when making use of zero emissions buses in the fleet, such as buses driven by batteries or by hydrogen. However, cost imposes a large barrier on zero emissions buses. The transition to the use of such buses is expensive, and it must be driven by several stakeholders, thus motivating service providers to make efforts towards zero emissions buses implementation strategies. In this study, citizens from a Russian district capital city were questioned on their potential role as contributors to the zero emissions buses transition, by studying their willingness and attitudes to pay a premium for the bus fares, in order to supplement the public transport agencies revenues. It was found that environmental concern and air pollution concern can be critical factors driving consumers into paying premium, but not noise pollution. Based on this study, there are several recommendations proposed for practitioners, as well as several future research avenues. In this article we seek to investigate how the consumers' attitudes and concerns over the environment and city pollution could influence their willingness to play a role as supporters of the introduction of zero emissions buses in the public transportation fleet, since understanding the consumer attitudes is essential to perform and run an efficient public system.
Purpose
This paper aims to analyse the technological, economic and environmental impacts of disruptive innovations in the transportation mobility market.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper gathered data from World Bank and 13 open sources in an exploratory, descriptive and applied investigation on potentially disruptive transport innovations outcomes in G7 and BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa) economies, businesses and societies.
Findings
The results suggest positive implications for technological leapfrogging of electric vehicles (EV), autonomous vehicles (AVs) and electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOLs), such as gains in energy consumption, infrastructure improvement, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, economic growth and the opportunity for new disruptive technologies to improve or even revolutionize the transportation ecosystem.
Research limitations/implications
This study has clear limitations as it compares G7 and BRICS hypothetical scenarios where internal combustion vehicles were replaced by new technologies, ceteris paribus. Even so, as theoretical implications, the study presents market scenarios for EVs, AVs and eVTOLs technologies, bringing benefits to the disruptive innovation theory by expanding the understanding of the subject and also opening avenues of investigation by exploring new technological, economic and environmental possibilities.
Practical implications
This study emphasises potentially disruptive technologies’ technological, economic and sustainable benefits to countries through technological leapfrogging. The organizations can delve into results to investigate forthcoming markets and seek advantageous positions. Economic and social gains from leapfrogging could motivate government bodies to finance research focusing on EVs, AVs and eVTOLs diffusion.
Originality/value
The paper’s originality resides in aggregating multiple data sources to compare technological leapfrogging in G7 and BRICS transportation. The different views allowed for exploring the potential outcomes of EVs, AVs and eVTOLs on economic, sustainability and market dimensions in developed and developing countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.