IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v165y2022icp395-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the perception of E-scooters as a practical and equitable first-mile/last-mile solution

Author

Listed:
  • McQueen, Michael
  • Clifton, Kelly J.

Abstract

E-scooters have disrupted and altered the urban mobility landscape. During their introductory period, they have been commonly touted as part of a larger micromobility solution that erases equity barriers and solves the first-mile/last-mile problem. However, few studies in the nascent e-scooter literature have considered these claims. In this study, we used a d-efficient method to design and administer a stated choice experiment (SCE) to students at Portland State University (PSU) (n = 1,968). In the SCE, students were given a three-mode labelled choice set consisting of three travel modes: car, bike, and e-scooter + MAX light rail. (The e-scooter + MAX light rail choice is multimodal, with the e-scooter acting as the first-mile access mode). We generated attitudinal indices using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in order to control for mode perception. To demonstrate the relationship of travel time and cost in addition to other covariates on mode choice, we estimated a mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) model. We performed elasticity and sensitivity analyses to uncover factors that encouraged first-mile/last-mile e-scooter usage. We then used the model to generate catchment area maps for multimodal trips in the Portland area.

Suggested Citation

  • McQueen, Michael & Clifton, Kelly J., 2022. "Assessing the perception of E-scooters as a practical and equitable first-mile/last-mile solution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 395-418.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:165:y:2022:i:c:p:395-418
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.09.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856422002579
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2022.09.021?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. 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.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Hélie Moreau & Loïc de Jamblinne de Meux & Vanessa Zeller & Pierre D’Ans & Coline Ruwet & Wouter M.J. Achten, 2020. "Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    5. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    6. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    7. Arentze, Theo A. & Molin, Eric J.E., 2013. "Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-28.
    8. Wayne Velicer, 1976. "Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 41(3), pages 321-327, September.
    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. Nikiforiadis, Andreas & Paschalidis, Evangelos & Stamatiadis, Nikiforos & Paloka, Ntonata & Tsekoura, Eleni & Basbas, Socrates, 2023. "E-scooters and other mode trip chaining: Preferences and attitudes of university students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Fearnley, Nils & Hartveit, Knut Johannes Liland & Johnsson, Espen, 2023. "Price and competition in emerging shared e-scooter markets," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Fearnley, Nils & Johnsson, Espen, 2023. "E-scooters and public transport – Complement or competition?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(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. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    2. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Ryosuke Abe & Yusuke Kita & Daisuke Fukuda, 2020. "An Experimental Approach to Understanding the Impacts of Monitoring Methods on Use Intentions for Autonomous Vehicle Services: Survey Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Schakenbos, Rik & Paix, Lissy La & Nijenstein, Sandra & Geurs, Karst T., 2016. "Valuation of a transfer in a multimodal public transport trip," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 72-81.
    5. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    6. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    7. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Acceptance of national wind power development and exposure. A case-control choice experiment approach," Discussion Papers 933, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Ogoudélé S. Codjo & Alvaro Durand‐Morat & Grant H. West & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Eric J. Wailes, 2021. "Estimating demand elasticities for rice in Benin," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 343-361, March.
    9. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2020. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany—A latent class analysis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    11. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    13. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    14. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    17. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    19. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    20. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.

    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:165:y:2022:i:c:p:395-418. 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.