IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6202-d566396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Governance Conundrum of Powered Micromobility Devices: An In-Depth Case Study from Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Devyani Pande

    (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469B Bukit Timah Road, Li Ka Shing Building, Level 2, #2-10, Singapore 259771, Singapore)

  • Araz Taeihagh

    (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469B Bukit Timah Road, Li Ka Shing Building, Level 2, #2-10, Singapore 259771, Singapore)

Abstract

With the widespread adoption of powered micromobility devices like e-scooters for transportation in recent times, there have been many associated and potentially unknown risks. While these devices have been beneficial for commuters, managing these technological risks has been a key challenge for governments. This article presents an in-depth case study of Singapore, where these devices were adopted but were eventually banned from footpaths and public paths. We focus on identifying the technological risks and the governing strategies adopted and find that the Singaporean government followed a combination of governing strategies to address the risks of safety, liability, and switching to another transportation mode. The strategy of banning the devices was undertaken after active regulation and prudent monitoring. Based on the Singapore case, we offer policy recommendations for robust infrastructure and policy capacity, government stewardship and inclusive participatory policymaking for safe deployment, and simultaneous adoption of governing strategies to adopt these devices. The regulatory lessons from the case of Singapore can be insightful for policy discussions in other countries that have already adopted or are considering the introduction of powered micromobility devices.

Suggested Citation

  • Devyani Pande & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "The Governance Conundrum of Powered Micromobility Devices: An In-Depth Case Study from Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6202-:d:566396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6202/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6202/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    2. 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.
    3. Araz Taeihagh & Hazel Si Min Lim, 2019. "Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 103-128, January.
    4. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin De Jong, 2018. "The Governance of Risks in Ridesharing: A Revelatory Case from Singapore," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Crowdsourcing: a new tool for policy-making?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 629-647, December.
    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. Charles David A. Icasiano & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Governance of the Risks of Ridesharing in Southeast Asia: An In-Depth Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, June.
    2. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    3. Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Governance of artificial intelligence [Application of artificial intelligence for development of intelligent transport system in smart cities]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 137-157.
    4. Aarthi Raghavan & Mehmet Akif Demircioglu & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Public Health Innovation through Cloud Adoption: A Comparative Analysis of Drivers and Barriers in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Tan, Si Ying & Taeihagh, Araz & Tripathi, Abhas, 2021. "Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Bo Zou & Pooria Choobchian & Julie Rozenberg, 2021. "Cyber resilience of autonomous mobility systems: cyber-attacks and resilience-enhancing strategies," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 137-155, December.
    9. Shixingyue Hu & Yazao Yang, 2024. "Safety of female ride-hailing passengers: Perception and prevention," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Pashchenko Yana & Ye Chengang & Zhu Yue, 2022. "Organizational Ambidexterity and Crowdsourcing Through the Lens of Open Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 8(1), pages 95-111.
    13. Certomà, Chiara & Corsini, Filippo & Frey, Marco, 2020. "Hyperconnected, receptive and do-it-yourself city. An investigation into the European “imaginary” of crowdsourcing for urban governance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Inga Ulnicane & William Knight & Tonii Leach & Bernd Carsten Stahl & Winter-Gladys Wanjiku, 2021. "Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy [The next space race is Artificial Intelligence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 158-177.
    16. Yanwei Li & Genea Canelles, 2021. "Governing Airbnb in Amsterdam and Singapore: A Comparative Study on Governance Strategies and Styles," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    17. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Paul Lindhout & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "Involving Moral and Ethical Principles in Safety Management Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-15, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6202-:d:566396. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.