IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v199y2025ics0965856425001557.html

Shared e-scooter parking regulation: Effects on rider attitudes, perceptions, and use

Author

Listed:
  • Berg Wincent, Boel
  • Jenelius, Erik
  • Burghout, Wilco

Abstract

As shared e-scooter systems have been introduced globally, many cities encounter issues with clutter caused by improperly parked vehicles. In response, cities have started implementing parking regulations. Based on a user survey, this study utilizes binary and ordinal logistic regression to analyze user attitudes towards regulated parking in designated zones, changes in ridership following policy implementation, and the key factors influencing these two aspects in Stockholm and Malmö, Sweden. Users in Stockholm and Malmö showed similarly mixed attitudes towards the parking regulations, despite Stockholm having many more designated parking zones. The majority of users in both cities reported using shared e-scooters less frequently after the introduction of the parking policy. The density of parking zones was the most consistent factor across all models, influencing user attitudes and decline in ridership in both Stockholm and Malmö. Other factors influencing attitudes and declines in ridership include the ability to park close to destinations, perceived longer walking distances, multimodal trips, and ease of finding parking. Notably, users in Stockholm who combined shared e-scooters with public transportation were more negative towards the parking policy, possibly due to insufficient parking facilities near transit stops. To increase user acceptance and encourage multi-modal use, planners should ensure availability not only near public transport but also near the trip’s final destination, emphasizing the need for high overall parking density.

Suggested Citation

  • Berg Wincent, Boel & Jenelius, Erik & Burghout, Wilco, 2025. "Shared e-scooter parking regulation: Effects on rider attitudes, perceptions, and use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:199:y:2025:i:c:s0965856425001557
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425001557
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104527?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. Mix, Richard & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Raveau, Sebastián, 2022. "Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 126-142.
    2. 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).
    3. Hugo Badia & Erik Jenelius, 2023. "Shared e-scooter micromobility: review of use patterns, perceptions and environmental impacts," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 811-837, September.
    4. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:osf:socarx:su8wx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Kailai Wang & Xiaodong Qian & Dillon Taylor Fitch & Yongsung Lee & Jai Malik & Giovanni Circella, 2023. "What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 5-31, January.
    11. 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.
    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. Weschke, Jan, 2023. "Scooting when the metro arrives — Estimating the impact of public transport stations on shared e-scooter demand," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Öztürk, İbrahim & Akay, Nazlı, 2025. "Exploring attitudes and behavioural intentions towards e-scooter use in Türkiye: Differences between users and non-users," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Yang, Ying & Zhan, Jiahao & Xu, Mujian & Liu, Yang & Qu, Xiaobo, 2026. "Toward climate-neutral urban mobility: understanding shared e-scooter carbon emission patterns through multi-city evidence in Europe," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Teusch, Julian & Saavedra, Bruno Neumann & Scherr, Yannick Oskar & Müller, Jörg P., 2025. "Strategic planning of geo-fenced micro-mobility facilities using reinforcement learning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Zhang, Yuting & Nelson, John D. & Mulley, Corinne, 2024. "Learning from the evidence: Insights for regulating e-scooters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 63-74.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Rémy Le Boennec & Frédéric Salladarré, 2023. "Investigating the use of privately-owned micromobility modes for commuting in four European countries," Post-Print hal-04296400, HAL.
    15. Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T., 2024. "American Micromobility Panel (Part 2): Transit Connection, Mode Substitution, and VMT Reduction," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4qr5t2tw, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    16. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Fearnley, Nils & Johnsson, Espen, 2023. "E-scooters and public transport – Complement or competition?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    17. Elena Carrara & Rebecca Ciavarella & Stefania Boglietti & Martina Carra & Giulio Maternini & Benedetto Barabino, 2021. "Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Gardelli, Alessandro, 2024. "The contribution of e-scooters services to urban transport resilience," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. 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).
    20. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Egner, Lars Even & Fearnley, Nils, 2025. "Does e-scooter ownership matter? A comparison of usage patterns and mode replacement effects of shared vs. personal e-scooters," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    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:199:y:2025:i:c:s0965856425001557. 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.