IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v86y2020ics096669232030106x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach

Author

Listed:
  • Fitt, Helen
  • Curl, Angela

Abstract

Urban mobility may be entering a period of substantive changes as new transport technologies (facilitated by developments in electrification, automation, and web 2.0 technologies for distributed, real-time transactions) provide new possibilities for movement. The recent arrival of shared electric scooters in some cities has been the topic of much conversation, particularly in relation to appropriate spaces for e-scooter use, and the safety of e-scooter users and pedestrians. This paper, however, takes a wider look at the early days of shared micromobility in New Zealand cities. Mobility is intricately connected to the wider social and cultural configurations of daily life, including its power relations, equalities and inequalities, and the spatial relations between people, places and opportunities. This paper draws on an online survey completed by residents of four New Zealand cities in which shared electric scooters became available in late 2018 or early 2019. Using a social practices approach, it explores early changes in the materials, competencies, and meanings associated with urban mobility as a response to the electric scooter trial. It discusses the disruptive potential of these changes, both for urban transport and for wider social relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Fitt, Helen & Curl, Angela, 2020. "The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s096669232030106x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096669232030106X
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102779?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Normark & Franck Cochoy & Johan Hagberg & Hélène Ducourant, 2018. "Mundane intermodality: a comparative analysis of bike-renting practices," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 791-807, November.
    2. Daley, Michelle & Rissel, Chris, 2011. "Perspectives and images of cycling as a barrier or facilitator of cycling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 211-216, January.
    3. Tuncer, Sylvaine & Laurier, Eric & Brown, Barry & Licoppe, Christian, 2020. "Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Cass, Noel & Faulconbridge, James, 2016. "Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-14.
    5. 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.
    6. Rachel Aldred, 2013. "Incompetent or Too Competent? Negotiating Everyday Cycling Identities in a Motor Dominated Society," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 252-271, May.
    7. Owain James & J I Swiderski & John Hicks & Denis Teoman & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Groth, Sören, 2019. "Multimodal divide: Reproduction of transport poverty in smart mobility trends," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 56-71.
    9. Dowling, Robyn & Kent, Jennifer, 2015. "Practice and public–private partnerships in sustainable transport governance: The case of car sharing in Sydney, Australia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 58-64.
    10. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    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. 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).
    2. LE BOENNEC, Rémy & SALLADARRE, Frédéric, 2023. "Investigating the use of privately-owned micromobility modes for commuting in four European countries," MPRA Paper 119202, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Sunio, Varsolo & Fillone, Alexis & Abad, Raymund Paolo & Rivera, Joyce & Guillen, Marie Danielle, 2023. "Why does demand-based transport planning persist? Insights from social practice theory," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Monika Hamerska & Monika Ziółko & Patryk Stawiarski, 2022. "A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Sweet, Matthias N. & Scott, Darren M., 2021. "Shared mobility adoption from 2016 to 2018 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Demographic or geographic diffusion?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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).

    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. Tim De Ceunynck & Gert Jan Wijlhuizen & Aslak Fyhri & Regine Gerike & Dagmar Köhler & Alice Ciccone & Atze Dijkstra & Emmanuelle Dupont & Mario Cools, 2021. "Assessing the Willingness to Use Personal e-Transporters (PeTs): Results from a Cross-National Survey in Nine European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Tiziana Campisi & Anastasios Skoufas & Alexandros Kaltsidis & Socrates Basbas, 2021. "Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Rybarczyk, Greg & Gallagher, Laura, 2014. "Measuring the potential for bicycling and walking at a metropolitan commuter university," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Aldred, Rachel & Woodcock, James, 2015. "Reframing safety: An analysis of perceptions of cycle safety clothing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 103-112.
    11. Draženko Glavić & Ana Trpković & Marina Milenković & Sreten Jevremović, 2021. "The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    12. 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).
    13. 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).
    14. Kent, Jennifer & Dowling, Robyn & Maalsen, Sophia, 2017. "Catalysts for transport transitions: Bridging the gap between disruptions and change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 200-207.
    15. Sujae Kim & Sangho Choo & Gyeongjae Lee & Sanghun Kim, 2022. "Predicting Demand for Shared E-Scooter Using Community Structure and Deep Learning Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Eccarius, Timo & Leung, Abraham & Shen, Chung-Wei & Burke, Matthew & Lu, Chung-Cheng, 2021. "Prospects for shared electric velomobility: Profiling potential adopters at a multi-campus university," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Sunio, Varsolo & Fillone, Alexis & Abad, Raymund Paolo & Rivera, Joyce & Guillen, Marie Danielle, 2023. "Why does demand-based transport planning persist? Insights from social practice theory," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Osborne, Natalie & Grant-Smith, Deanna, 2017. "Constructing the cycling citizen: A critical analysis of policy imagery in Brisbane, Australia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 44-53.
    20. Waitt, Gordon & Stanes, Elyse, 2022. "Reactivating commuter cycling: COVID-19 pandemic disruption to everyday transport choices in Sydney, Australia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jotrge:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s096669232030106x. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    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.