IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v196y2025ics0965856425000965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring attitudinal group differences in preferences for shared e-scooter use and its integration with public transit

Author

Listed:
  • Chae, Kyung Soo
  • Kim, Sung Hoo
  • Yan, Xiang

Abstract

With increasing interest in the potential of shared e-scooters to enhance urban travel, this paper examines mode choice behavior related to shared e-scooters and the integration of e-scooter with public transit (i.e., scoot-N-ride). We collected stated choice experiments data from two cities in the US, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. Attitudinal groups were identified by distinguishing attitudinal factors through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and applying k-means clustering. Clustering results identify four attitudinal clusters with meaningful heterogeneity: pro-cars & against e-scooters, tech-savvy & pro-cars, e-scooter enthusiasts, and pro-noncar-modes. To investigate sensitivities to e-scooter attributes by attitudinal groups, we applied a multinomial logit model (MNL) with interaction terms, enabling a comparison of the potential for shared e-scooter or scoot-N-ride to serve as substitutes for previously used modes. Using the model results, we computed the value of travel time (VOT) for each group, an indirect measure of people’s sensitivity to travel time. By definition, VOT was derived from the coefficients of travel time and cost to assess sensitivities for shared e-scooter and scoot-N-ride. We also conducted mode-specific scenario analysis based on travel distance using the model. Through the analysis process, we were able to specifically identify groups with favorable, moderate, and unfavorable attitudes toward shared e-scooter and scoot-N-ride. These findings contribute to identifying people’s attitudes toward shared e-scooter or scoot-N-ride as well as understanding their preferences. From a policy perspective, understanding the characteristics of groups with moderate attitudes toward e-scooters and adopting tailored strategies could improve e-scooter operations, making them more favorable toward e-scooter adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Chae, Kyung Soo & Kim, Sung Hoo & Yan, Xiang, 2025. "Exploring attitudinal group differences in preferences for shared e-scooter use and its integration with public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:196:y:2025:i:c:s0965856425000965
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425000965
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104468?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Amery Wu & Bruno Zumbo, 2008. "Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 367-392, July.
    3. Cristina Pronello & Cristian Camusso, 2011. "Travellers’ profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables," Post-Print halshs-01084027, HAL.
    4. 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.
    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. Mina Lee & Joseph Y. J. Chow & Gyugeun Yoon & Brian Yueshuai He, 2019. "Forecasting e-scooter substitution of direct and access trips by mode and distance," Papers 1908.08127, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    7. Kang, Seongmin & Chung, Yongjin & Yang, Byungsoo & Lee, Hyukseong & Lee, Jun & Kim, Jinhee, 2024. "User preference and willingness-to-pay for operation strategies that enhance safety and convenience of E-scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-41.
    8. Su, Lin & Yan, Xiang & Zhao, Xilei, 2024. "Spatial equity of micromobility systems: A comparison of shared E-scooters and docked bikeshare in Washington DC," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 25-36.
    9. Cohen, Adam & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2018. "Planning for Shared Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0dk3h89p, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Ghasri, Milad & Ardeshiri, Ali & Zhang, Xiang & Waller, S. Travis, 2024. "Analysing preferences for integrated micromobility and public transport systems: A hierarchical latent class approach considering taste heterogeneity and attribute non-attendance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    12. Laa, Barbara & Leth, Ulrich, 2020. "Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Patricia L Mokhtarian & David T Ory & Xinyu Cao, 2009. "Shopping-Related Attitudes: A Factor and Cluster Analysis of Northern California Shoppers," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(2), pages 204-228, April.
    14. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Totte, Hannah & Stocker, Adam, 2018. "Future of Mobility White Paper," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt68g2h1qv, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    15. Pronello, Cristina & Camusso, Cristian, 2011. "Travellers’ profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1294-1308.
    16. 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.
    17. Tilahun, Nebiyou & Thakuriah, Piyushimita (Vonu) & Li, Moyin & Keita, Yaye, 2016. "Transit use and the work commute: Analyzing the role of last mile issues," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 359-368.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Cloud, Cannon & Heß, Simon & Kasinger, Johannes, 2023. "Shared e-scooter services and road safety: Evidence from six European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Krauss, Konstantin & Gnann, Till & Burgert, Tobias & Axhausen, Kay W., 2024. "Faster, greener, scooter? An assessment of shared e-scooter usage based on real-world driving data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Alonso-González, María J. & Hoogendoorn-Lanser, Sascha & van Oort, Niels & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "Drivers and barriers in adopting Mobility as a Service (MaaS) – A latent class cluster analysis of attitudes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 378-401.
    6. Mohammed Hamad Almannaa & Faisal Adnan Alsahhaf & Huthaifa I. Ashqar & Mohammed Elhenawy & Mahmoud Masoud & Andry Rakotonirainy, 2021. "Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Psarrou Kalakoni, Anna Mariam & Christoforou, Zoi & Gioldasis, Christos, 2024. "The ambivalent relationship of e-scooters and public transport: Evidence from France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 215-229.
    8. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Wu, Yuhang & Liu, Tao & Du, Bo, 2024. "Fleet sizing and static rebalancing strategies for shared E-scooters: A case study in Indianapolis, USA," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Tang, Wei & Mokhtarian, Patricia L, 2009. "Accounting for Taste Heterogeneity in Purchase Channel Intention Modeling: An Example from Northern California for Book Purchases," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9mg5s5g8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    15. 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.
    16. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Thomas Klinger & Martin Lanzendorf, 2016. "Moving between mobility cultures: what affects the travel behavior of new residents?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 243-271, March.
    18. Ghadir Pourhashem & Christina Georgouli & Eva Malichová & Milan Straka & Tatiana Kováčiková, 2024. "Factors influencing the perceived value of travel time in European urban areas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1525-1545, August.
    19. Bartkowiak Paweł & Michalak Szymon & Młodzik Maciej, 2021. "Motives for and Barriers to the Use of Electric Moped Scooter Sharing Services," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 42(4), pages 17-34, December.
    20. Jurgis Zagorskas & Marija Burinskienė, 2019. "Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:transa:v:196:y:2025:i:c:s0965856425000965. 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.