IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v136y2023icp70-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?

Author

Listed:
  • Samadzad, Mahdi
  • Nosratzadeh, Hossein
  • Karami, Hossein
  • Karami, Ali

Abstract

Since their introduction in 2017, Electric Scooter Sharing systems (ESSs) are shown to provide numerous benefits for both individuals and society, including convenient green mobility particularly over short to medium distances, increased access to other modes of transportation, and lower cost of travel. Nevertheless, several barriers still hinder the widespread acceptance of ESSs which can be categorized according to their level of impact as macro (infrastructure), meso (community), and micro (individual/perceptions). The acceptance of ESSs as a critical factor at an individual level seems to be the first obstacle to their widespread use. Previous studies have proposed strategies to encourage the use of ESSs, but little information is available concerning how end-users perceive this innovative technology. In this regard, a comprehensive conceptual framework is developed based on the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that incorporates system characteristics, social influence, and individual acceptance of the ESSs to assess individuals' intentions. The Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model framework is used to analyze the conceptual model and 22 hypotheses. An online survey with 560 participants is used. The findings indicate that perceived usefulness, trust, and subjective norms are the most important factors determining the willingness to use ESSs. According to our analysis, the conceptual model provides an effective theoretical framework for identifying factors influencing individuals’ acceptance of ESSs, enabling the identification of appropriate policies to improve ESSs operations. Accordingly, ESSs integration into a comprehensive and user-friendly platform, accessibility planning, favorable depiction of ESSs and their advantages in media advertisements, and publicity campaigns to promote e-scooters as a sustainable mode of transportation are the most important policies to attract attention to e-scooters.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:136:y:2023:i:c:p:70-82
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X23000598
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.03.006?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. Ma, Liang & Zhang, Xin & Ding, Xiaoyan & Wang, Gaoshan, 2018. "Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: An empirical study in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 14-24.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Peng Shao & Jie Liang, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Sustainable Use Intention of Urban Shared Bicycles in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Hsueh-Ying Wu & Chun-Chun Lin & Cheng-Lung Li & Hsing-Hui Lin, 2010. "A Study Of Bank Customers’ Perceived Usefulness Of Adopting Online Banking," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 4(3), pages 101-108.
    7. 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).
    8. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2019. "Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt00k897b5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    12. Cheng, Peng & OuYang, Zhe & Liu, Yang, 2019. "Understanding bike sharing use over time by employing extended technology continuance theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 433-443.
    13. 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.
    14. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    15. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    16. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    18. Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian & Vrotsou, Katerina, 2016. "Car dependent practices: Findings from a sequence pattern mining study of UK time use data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 56-72.
    19. Dirsehan, Taşkın & Can, Ceren, 2020. "Examination of trust and sustainability concerns in autonomous vehicle adoption," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Jinyoung Min & Byoungsoo Kim, 2015. "How are people enticed to disclose personal information despite privacy concerns in social network sites? The calculus between benefit and cost," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(4), pages 839-857, April.
    21. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    22. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2017. "Not fearless, but self-enhanced: The effects of anxiety on the willingness to use autonomous cars depend on individual levels of self-enhancement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 40-52.
    23. Midgley, David F & Dowling, Grahame R, 1993. "A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innovation: The Interaction between Predispositions and Social Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(4), pages 611-625, March.
    24. Rob Eisinga & Manfred Grotenhuis & Ben Pelzer, 2013. "The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(4), pages 637-642, August.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Azim Shariff & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2017. "Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 694-696, October.
    28. Al Haddad, Christelle & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Straubinger, Anna & Plötner, Kay & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2020. "Factors affecting the adoption and use of urban air mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 696-712.
    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. 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.
    2. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Gartner, Johannes & Fink, Matthias & Maresch, Daniela, 2022. "The Role of Fear of Missing Out and Experience in the Formation of SME Decision Makers’ Intentions to Adopt New Manufacturing Technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Simarpreet Kaur & Sangeeta Arora, 2023. "Understanding customers’ usage behavior towards online banking services: an integrated risk–benefit framework," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 74-98, March.
    6. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    8. 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).
    9. Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Marinkovic, Veljko & Ramos de Luna, Iviane & Kalinic, Zoran, 2018. "Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 117-130.
    10. Chen Wei, 2021. "The influence of Consumers’ Purchase intention on Smart Wearable Device: A study of Consumers in East China," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 5(8), pages 46-72.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    14. Jing, Peng & Wang, Baihui & Cai, Yunhao & Wang, Bichen & Huang, Jiahui & Yang, Chenglu & Jiang, Chengxi, 2023. "What is the public really concerned about the AV crash? Insights from a combined analysis of social media and questionnaire survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    16. Iviane Ramos-de-Luna & Francisco Montoro-Ríos & Francisco Liébana-Cabanillas, 2016. "Determinants of the intention to use NFC technology as a payment system: an acceptance model approach," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-314, May.
    17. Wajeeha Aslam & Marija Ham & Imtiaz Arif, 2017. "Consumer Behavioral Intentions towards Mobile Payment Services: An Empirical Analysis in Pakistan," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 29(2), pages 161-176.
    18. Cansu TÜRKER & Abdullah OKUMUŞ, 2019. "Mobil Ödeme Kullanımına Yönelik Niyet ve Algıların SosyoDemografik Özelliklere Göre Farklılıklarının İncelenmesi," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(87), pages 111-139, December.
    19. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    20. Schmidthuber, Lisa & Maresch, Daniela & Ginner, Michael, 2020. "Disruptive technologies and abundance in the service sector - toward a refined technology acceptance model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(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:eee:trapol:v:136:y:2023:i:c:p:70-82. 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/30473/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.