Kicksharing in a Big City: Play, Identity, and the Struggle for Space
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2025.5.3002Keywords:
kicksharing, game, identity, modern post-industrial city, big city, urban environments, urban spaceAbstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of a relatively new and highly debatable phenomenon of the modern big city ― kikshering (sharing of scooters). Ontologically (objectively), the problem is the lack of solidarity of the kikshering environment with other urban environments. The epistemological side of the problem is the incompleteness of the theoretical model of sharing in general and kikshering in particular, and the theoretical underestimation of its role in the game identity of the big city.
The literature presents various approaches to the analysis of the sharing model, in which sharing is viewed as an activity driven by diverse economic, social, and ideological demands of society, which complement and compete. The authors, focusing on kicksharing, propose to view it as a game, an accessible urban entertainment that plays a significant role in shaping new identities among urban residents, and support the hypothesis of sharing consumption as a form of play and game identity. The epistemological solution to supplement the theoretical model of sharing with an assessment of its role in the gaming activities and gaming identity of a large city contributes to solving the ontological problem of the lack of solidarity between urban environments and the struggle of different activities for urban space.
The empirical basis of the study is the results of focus group surveys of active kicksharing users in St. Petersburg between June and November 2024, including observations of kicksharing users, surveys of passers-by near bike parking lots, and focus group interviews with active kicksharing users, which allowed us to conclude the demand for kicksharing as a game and its potential for shaping nominal and actual identities, as well as the risks of everyday competition for urban space between pedestrians and scooter riders. It is noted that the city's street and digital infrastructure retain the potential for developing kicksharing and reducing associated risks. It is concluded that kicksharing is important as a game and entertainment activity in a modern city, as a source of new identities that are resourceful for living in various environments, including non-gaming environments. The prospects for the development of kicksharing in the city are highlighted, as new kicksharing scenarios and the involvement of new participants can bring the game identity out of the periphery and increase the applicability and prospects for the development of kicksharing in the city.
Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge Saint-Petersburg State University for a research project 124032600013-2.
References
Вершинина И. А., Лядова А. В. Города ― острова экологической надежды? Рец. на кн.: Jon I. Cities in the Anthropocene: New Ecology and Urban Politics. London: Pluto Press, 2021 // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2022. № 4. С. 354—363. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2022.4.2285.
Vershinina I. A., Liadova A. V. (2022) Are Cities Islands of Ecological Hope? Book Review: Jon I. Cities in the Anthropocene: New Ecology and Urban Politics. London: Pluto Press, 2021. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 4. P. 354—363. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2022.4.2285. (In Russ.)
Вершинина И. А. Социальные отношения в большом городе. М.: АНО Центр этнических и международных исследований, 2024.
Vershinina I. A. (2024) Social Relations in the Big City. Moscow: ANGO “Center for Ethnic and International Studies”. (In Russ.)
Вирт Л. Урбанизм как образ жизни // Вирт Л. Избранные работы по социологии / пер. с англ. Николаева В. Г.; отв. ред. Гирко Л. В. М.: ИНИОН РАН, 2005. С. 89—113.
Wirth L. (2005) Urbanism as a Way of Life. Moscow: INION RAN. P. 89—113. (In Russ.)
Гейл Я. Города для людей / пер. с англ. Токтонова А. М.: Крост, 2012.
Gehl J. (2012) Cities for People. Moscow: Crost. (In Russ.)
Глазков К. П. Игровая концепция повседневности И. Гофмана: между символическим интеракционизмом и этнометодологией // Социологические обозрение. 2016. Т. 15. № 2. C. 167—191. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2016-2-167-191.
Glazkov K. (2016) Erving Goffman’s Gaming Concept of Everyday Life: Between Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology. Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 167—191. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2016-2-167-191. (In Russ.)
Гостилович А. О., Лапидус Л. В., Давыдкин В. В., Юрьев Г. А. Оценка зрелости шеринг-экономики в россии: рынок аренды потребительских товаров // Ars Administrandi (Искусство управления). 2024. Т. 16. № 1. С. 79―97. https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-9173-2024-1-79-97.
Gostilovich A. O., Lapidus L. V., Davydkin V. V., Yuriev G. A. (2024) Assessment of the Sharing Economy’s Maturity in Russia: The Market for Renting Consumer Goods. Ars Administrandi. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 79—97. https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-9173-2024-1-79-97. (In Russ.)
Зиммель Г. Большие города и духовная жизнь / пер. с нем. Левинсон К. М.: Strelka Press, 2018.
Simmel G. (2018) Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben. Moscow: Strelka Press. (In Russ.)
Исмагилова С. Х., Горшкова Е. Д., Залетова Е. А. Развитие инфраструктуры микромобильности в городе Казани // Вестник Томского государственного архитектурно-строительного университета. 2023. Т. 25. № 4. С. 57—70. https://doi.org/10.31675/1607-1859-2023-25-4-57-70.
Ismagilova S. Kh., Gorshkova E. D., Zaletova E. A. (2023) Development of Micromobility Infrastructure in the City of Kazan. Bulletin of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 57—70. https://doi.org/10.31675/1607-1859-2023-25-4-57-70. (In Russ.)
Колотаев В. А. Драматургия нулевой идентичности: феноменология лишнего человека в отечественном киноискусстве // Артикульт. 2020. № 4. С. 138—151. https://doi.org/10.28995/2227-6165-2020-4-138-151.
Kolotaev V. A. (2020) Zero Identity Drama: The Phenomenology of the Superfluous Person in Russian Cinema. Articult. No. 4. P. 138—151. https://doi.org/10.28995/2227-6165-2020-4-138-151. (In Russ.)
Коновалова Т. В., Котенкова И. Н., Сенин И. С. Микромобильность как элемент системы городского транспорта // Транспорт и информационные технологии. 2022. Т. 12. № 4. С. 27—40. https://doi.org/10.12731/2227-930X-2022-12-4-27-40.
Konovalova T. V., Kotenkova I. N., Senin I. S. (2022) Micromobility as an Element of the Urban Transport System. Transportation and Information Technologies in Russia. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 27—40. https://doi.org/10.12731/2227-930X-2022-12-4-27-40. (In Russ.)
Лапидус Л. В., Гостилович А. О., Трофимов И. С. Драйверы лояльности и потребительской удовлетворенности шеринговыми сервисами городской мобильности: каршеринг, райдшеринг, байкшеринг, кикшеринг // Экономика и управление. 2024. Т. 30. № 3. С. 321—335. https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2024-3-321-335.
Lapidus L. V., Gostilovich A. O., Trofimov I. S. (2024) Drivers of Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction with Sharing Services for Urban Mobility: Carsharing, Ride-Sharing, Bike-Sharing, and Kick-Sharing. Economics and Management. Vol. 30. No. 3. P. 321—335. https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2024-3-321-335. (In Russ.)
Парк Р. Город как социальная лаборатория / пер. с англ. Баньковской С. П. // Социологическое обозрение. 2002. Т. 2. № 3. С. 3—12.
Park R. (2002) The City as a Social Laboratory. Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 3—12. (In Russ.)
Парк Р. Городское сообщество как пространственная конфигурация и моральный порядок / пер. с англ. Николаева В. Г. // Социологическое обозрение. 2006. Т. 5. № 1. C. 11—18.
Park R. (2006) The Urban Community as a Spatial Configuration and Moral Order. Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 11—18. (In Russ.)
Соколов Н. В., Рехтина Л. С. Пробки вместо хобби: синхронизация и концентрация повседневности в современном обществе // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2019. № 3. С. 286—305. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.3.16.
Sokolov N. V., Rekhtina L. S. (2019) Traffic Jams Instead of Hobby: Synchronization and Concentration of Everyday Life in Contemporary Society. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 3. P. 286—305. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.3.16. (In Russ.)
Шилкина Н. Е. Чем «карьерист» отличается от «киллера»? социальная адаптация в компьютерно-моделируемом виртуальном мире // Казанская наука. 2014. № 1. С. 266—268.
Shilkina N. E. (2014) What Distinguishes a “Careerist” from a “Killer”? Social Adaptation in a Computer-Simulated Virtual World. Kazanskaya Nauka. No. 1. P. 266—268. (In Russ.)
Юрков А. А. Типологизация пользователей онлайн-игр и их мотивация // Знание. Понимание. Умение. 2012. № 3. С. 301—304.
Yurkov A. A. (2012) Typology of Online Game Users and Their Motivation. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. No. 3. P. 301—304. (In Russ.)
Alharthi M., Alamoudi H., Shaikh A., Bhutto M. (2021) “Your ride has arrived” ― Exploring the Nexus Between Subjective Well-Being, Socio-Cultural Beliefs, COVID-19, and the Sharing Economy. Telematics and Informatics. Vol. 63. Art. 101663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101663.
Bhat A. (2018) The Sociology of Central Asian Youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chuah S. H. W., Tseng M. L., Wu K. J., Cheng C. F. (2021) Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sharing Economy in B2B Context in China: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Vol. 175. Art. 105892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105892.
Claudelin A., Tuominen K., Vanhamäki S. (2022) Sustainability Perspectives of the Sharing Economy: Process of Creating a Library of Things in Finland. Sustainability. Vol. 14. No. 11. Art. 6627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116627.
Gofman E. (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis. Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill company.
Govindan K., Shankar K., Kannan D. (2020) Achieving Sustainable Development Goals through Identifying and Analyzing Barriers to Industrial Sharing Economy: A Framework Development. International Journal of Production Economics. Vol. 227. Art. 107575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107575.
Hawlitschek F., Notheisen B., Teubner T. (2018) The Limits of Trust-Free Systems: A Literature Review on Blockchain Technology and Trust in the Sharing Economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. Vol. 29. P. 50—63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005.
Jenkins R. (2004) Social Identity. London and New York: Routledge.
Kimura R., Nakajima T. (2020) Collectively Sharing Peoples Visual and Auditory Capabilities: Exploring Opportunities and Pitfalls. SN Computer Science. Vol. 1. Art. 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00313-w.
Kolade O., Adepoju D., Adegbile A. (2022) Blockchains and the Disruption of the Sharing Economy Value Chains. Strategic Change. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 137—145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2483.
Lho L. H., Quan W., Yu J., Han H. (2022) The Sharing Economy in the Hospitality Sector: The Role of Social Interaction, Social Presence, and Reciprocity in Eliciting Satisfaction and Continuance Behavior. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 9. Art. 362. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01379-y.
Li Y., Song D., Dang P., Wei L., Qin X., Siddique K. (2019) The Effect of Tillage on Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Maize (Zea Mays L.) in a Ridge–Furrow Plastic Film Mulch System. Soil and Tillage Research. Vol. 195. Art. 104409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104409.
Liu Y., Kim D. (2022) Why Did Uber China Fail? Lessons from Business Model Analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. Vol. 8. No. 2. Art. 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020090.
Marcia J. E., Waterman A. S., Matteson D. R., Archer S. L., Orlofsky J. L. (1993) Ego Identity. A Handbook for psychosocial research. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. URL: https://archive.org/details/egoidentityhandb0000unse/page/n5/mode/2up (дата обращения 22.03.2025)
Mitake Y., Nagayama A., Tsutsui Y., Shimomura Y., (2022) Exploring Motivations and Barriers to Participate in Skill-Sharing Service: Insights from Case Study in Western Part of Tokyo. Sustainability. Vol. 14. No. 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094996
Mondal S., Samaddar K. (2020) Issues and Challenges in Implementing Sharing Economy in Tourism: a Triangulation Study. Management of Environmental Quality. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 64—81. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2020-0054 .
Nastase I. A., Negrutiu C., Felea M., Acatrinei C., Cepoi A., Istrate A. (2022) Toward a Circular Economy in the Toy Industry: The Business Model of a Romanian Company. Sustainability. Vol. 14. No. 1. Art. 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010022.
Oberg C. (2021) Disruptive and Paradoxical Roles in the Sharing Economies. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 25. No. 4. Art. 2150045. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919621500456.
Rathnayake I., Ochoa J. Jorge, Gu N., Rameezdeen R., Statsenko L., Sandhu S. (2024) A Critical Review of the Key Aspects of Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Framework. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 434. Art. 140378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140378.
Su B.C., Lin H., Wang Y.M. (2022) The Business Model of Digital Platforms for the Sharing Economy: Intensive Case Study Methodology for Rover.com Pet Boarding Platform. Sustainability. Vol. 14. No. 23. Art. 16256. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316256.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
