IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v166y2022icp389-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of travel behavior related to e-scooters using a stated preference experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Esztergár-Kiss, Domokos
  • Tordai, Dániel
  • Lopez Lizarraga, Julio C.

Abstract

Micromobility is an alternative that can contribute to the change of urban transportation. Although its emergence is often seen positive because it provides a sustainable way to commute for short trips, conditions for serious market penetration are not currently present. This study aims to support policymakers and service providers with evidence on individualś preferences towards e-scooters and its potential in five different locations (Copenhagen, Munich, Barcelona, Tel Aviv, Stockholm). The basis of the assessment was a Stated Preference (SP) experiment designed to extract individualś utility for e-scooters usage, supported by multinomial logit (MNL), mixed logit (ML) and nested logit (NL) models for the analysis process. The modeling was used to estimate unobserved attributes related to e-scooters, cost and time sensitivity, and the probability of its selection. The study was built on 790 completed responses that highlighted each location's preference towards e-scooters. Results show that there is a higher degree of expected e-scooters usage in Barcelona and Tel Aviv, while in Munich, Stockholm, and Copenhagen users showed less interest. If an increase in income occurred, e-scooters would be still preferred in Barcelona, while car would be more appealing in Munich. Overall, Munich, Tel Aviv, and Barcelona are more price-sensitive than Scandinavians, and all cities have low time sensitivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Esztergár-Kiss, Domokos & Tordai, Dániel & Lopez Lizarraga, Julio C., 2022. "Assessment of travel behavior related to e-scooters using a stated preference experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 389-405.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:166:y:2022:i:c:p:389-405
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.11.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856422002932
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2022.11.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fitt, Helen & Curl, Angela, 2020. "The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Cao, Zhejing & Zhang, Xiaohu & Chua, Kelman & Yu, Honghai & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 177-196.
    3. Leger, Samantha J. & Dean, Jennifer L. & Edge, Sara & Casello, Jeffrey M., 2019. "“If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to support active living and independent mobility among older adults in Waterloo, Canada," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 240-254.
    4. McKenzie, Grant, 2019. "Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-28.
    5. Sanders, Rebecca L. & Branion-Calles, Michael & Nelson, Trisalyn A., 2020. "To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 217-227.
    6. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    7. Tolley, George S & Olson, E, 1971. "The Interdependence between Income and Education," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(3), pages 460-480, May-June.
    8. Hensher, David A. & Greene, William H., 2002. "Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalisations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Kolarova, Viktoriya & Steck, Felix & Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J., 2019. "Assessing the effect of autonomous driving on value of travel time savings: A comparison between current and future preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 155-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ecer, Fatih & Küçükönder, Hande & Kayapınar Kaya, Sema & Faruk Görçün, Ömer, 2023. "Sustainability performance analysis of micro-mobility solutions in urban transportation with a novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-CoCoSo framework," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    2. Samira Dibaj & Aryan Hosseinzadeh & Miloš N. Mladenović & Robert Kluger, 2021. "Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    3. Alberica Domitilla Bozzi & Anne Aguilera, 2021. "Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Stefania Boglietti & Benedetto Barabino & Giulio Maternini, 2021. "Survey on e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles: Exploring Current Issues towards Future Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Maximilian Heumann & Tobias Kraschewski & Tim Brauner & Lukas Tilch & Michael H. Breitner, 2021. "A Spatiotemporal Study and Location-Specific Trip Pattern Categorization of Shared E-Scooter Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    9. Shah, Nitesh R. & Guo, Jing & Han, Lee D. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Why do people take e-scooter trips? Insights on temporal and spatial usage patterns of detailed trip data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.
    12. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Draženko Glavić & Marina Milenković & Aleksandar Trifunović & Igor Jokanović & Jelica Komarica, 2023. "Influence of Dockless Shared E-Scooters on Urban Mobility: WTP and Modal Shift," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Kalouptsidis, N. & Koutroumbas, K. & Psaraki, V., 2007. "Classification methods for random utility models with i.i.d. disturbances under the most probable alternative rule," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1778-1794, February.
    15. Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Lambros Mitropoulos & Katerina Koliou & Eirini Stavropoulou & Christos Karolemeas & Eleni Antoniou & Antonis Karaloulis & Konstantinos Mitropoulos & Eleni I. Vlahogianni & Kons, 2023. "Describing Micro-Mobility First/Last-Mile Routing Behavior in Urban Road Networks through a Novel Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    16. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Zhu, Rui & Kondor, Dániel & Cheng, Cheng & Zhang, Xiaohu & Santi, Paolo & Wong, Man Sing & Ratti, Carlo, 2022. "Solar photovoltaic generation for charging shared electric scooters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    18. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    19. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    20. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:166:y:2022:i:c:p:389-405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.