IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p15066-d972405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Factors Influencing the Use of Shared Electric Scooters

Author

Listed:
  • Karina Hermawan

    (Hyundai Motor Group, Irvine, CA 92617, USA)

  • Diem-Trinh Le

    (Systems Science Department, Institute of High Performance Computing, Connexis, Singapore 138632, Singapore)

Abstract

Shared e-scooters have the potential to increase access, complement transit, and replace automobiles, all while reducing emissions and congestion. However, there are concerns worldwide over the mode’s safety issues and risks. In this paper, we explore both the motivations and barriers to using e-scooters. Data are collected from a stated preference survey, using a sample consisting of mostly university staff and students in Singapore. Three logit models with varying specifications of e-scooters’ speed and lane use and one’s prior experience of conflict with a personal mobility device (PMD) are estimated. Overall, the three models have a very comparable fit (adjusted R 2 of about 0.55) and consistent results. The results indicate preferences for e-scooters if they are faster and off the sidewalk. However, a bad or unsafe experience with a PMD would negatively affect use to a greater degree, although it varies across individuals. Our study suggests diverting scooters off the sidewalk and increasing the speed may not always be effective in encouraging behavioral shifts toward this alternative mode. Other solutions such as improving the services and enhancing traffic safety should be explored and considered instead.

Suggested Citation

  • Karina Hermawan & Diem-Trinh Le, 2022. "Examining Factors Influencing the Use of Shared Electric Scooters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15066-:d:972405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15066/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15066/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seebauer, Sebastian, 2015. "Why early adopters engage in interpersonal diffusion of technological innovations: An empirical study on electric bicycles and electric scooters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 146-160.
    2. Weibo Li & Maria Kamargianni, 2020. "An Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Model to Explore the Influence of Attitudinal and Perceptual Factors on Shared Mobility Choices and Their Value of Time Estimation," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 62-83, January.
    3. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah, 2019. "Gender gap generators for bike share ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike system in New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen, 2015. "Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 53-64.
    7. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    8. H. M. Abdul Aziz & Nicholas N. Nagle & April M. Morton & Michael R. Hilliard & Devin A. White & Robert N. Stewart, 2018. "Exploring the impact of walk–bike infrastructure, safety perception, and built-environment on active transportation mode choice: a random parameter model using New York City commuter data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1207-1229, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    5. Arias-Molinares, Daniela & Romanillos, Gustavo & García-Palomares, Juan Carlos & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2021. "Exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    8. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Riggs, William & Kawashima, Matt & Batstone, David, 2021. "Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 18-27.
    10. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    11. Daniela Arias-Molinares & Juan Carlos García-Palomares & Gustavo Romanillos & Javier Gutiérrez, 2023. "Uncovering spatiotemporal micromobility patterns through the lens of space–time cubes and GIS tools," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 403-427, July.
    12. Morteza Hossein Sabbaghian & David Llopis-Castelló & Alfredo García, 2023. "A Safe Infrastructure for Micromobility: The Current State of Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    14. Sherriff, Graeme & Adams, Mags & Blazejewski, Luke & Davies, Nick & Kamerāde, Daiga, 2020. "From Mobike to no bike in Greater Manchester: Using the capabilities approach to explore Europe's first wave of dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Shahram Heydari & Garyfallos Konstantinoudis & Abdul Wahid Behsoodi, 2021. "Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bike-sharing demand and hire time: Evidence from Santander Cycles in London," Papers 2107.11589, arXiv.org.
    16. Post, Alison PhD & Ratan, Ishana & Hill, Mary & Huang, Amy & Soga, Kenichi PhD & Zhao, Bingyu PhD, 2021. "Benchmarking “Smart City” Technology Adoption in California: An Innovative Web Platform for Exploring New Data and Tracking Adoption," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5mt4m51n, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    17. Franklin Oliveira & Dilan Nery & Daniel G. Costa & Ivanovitch Silva & Luciana Lima, 2021. "A Survey of Technologies and Recent Developments for Sustainable Smart Cycling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Bach, Xavier & Marquet, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2023. "Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 154-162.
    19. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    20. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15066-:d:972405. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.