IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6886-d577217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro Aguilera-García

    (Transport Research Centre (TRANSyT), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Juan Gomez

    (Transport Research Centre (TRANSyT), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Natalia Sobrino

    (Transport Research Centre (TRANSyT), Department Civil Engineering, Construction, Infrastructure and Transportation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28014 Madrid, Spain)

  • Juan José Vinagre Díaz

    (Group Biometry, Biosignals, Security, and Smart Mobility, Departamento de Matemática Aplicada a las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

In recent years, moped-style scooter sharing is gaining increasing attention in many urban areas worldwide. Nevertheless, research contributions are still limited, unlike other shared mobility systems. This paper is aimed at providing a first insight on moped sharing demand by exploring the usage and opinions towards this new mobility alternative. To that end, the research exploits the data from a web-based survey conducted in Spain, one of the countries with the largest implementation around the world in terms of the shared e-mopeds fleet. Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to identify the segment of the urban population that is more likely adopted moped sharing, and additional statistical mean differences in specific variables concerning moped sharing were carried out. The paper also provides a better understanding of the shared mopeds market and some implications for urban mobility, such as the potential role of shared mopeds in reducing vehicle ownership and its effect on urban modal shift. Furthermore, two discrete choice models were developed to (i) analyze the key drivers determining the willingness to use moped sharing, and (ii) explore individuals’ opinions on whether owning a private vehicle will not be a need in the future. The results indicate that age, occupation, income, and environmental awareness seem to be among the main reasons behind the potential use of these services in the future. The results may be useful for both operators and transport planners when designing actions and policy efforts addressing this mobility option and urban mobility in general.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6886-:d:577217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6886/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6886/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey & Thomas, Isabelle, 2017. "Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 202-214.
    2. Anastasia Roukouni & Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia, 2020. "Evaluation Methods for the Impacts of Shared Mobility: Classification and Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    3. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt2f5896tp is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt1kq5d07p is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Yanyong Guo & Jibiao Zhou & Yao Wu & Zhibin Li, 2017. "Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt8042k3d7 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David Tyfield, 2014. "Putting the Power in 'Socio-Technical Regimes' - E-Mobility Transition in China as Political Process," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 585-603, September.
    8. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    9. Mishra, Gouri Shankar & Clewlow, Regina R. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Widaman, Keith F., 2015. "The effect of carsharing on vehicle holdings and travel behavior: A propensity score and causal mediation analysis of the San Francisco Bay Area," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 46-55.
    10. Cláudia A. Soares Machado & Nicolas Patrick Marie De Salles Hue & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilha, 2018. "An Overview of Shared Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Tyndall, Justin, 2019. "Free-floating carsharing and extemporaneous public transit substitution," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 21-27.
    12. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt00k897b5 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Kwapisz & Agnieszka Ważna, 2019. "Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, April.
    14. Efthymiou, Dimitrios & Antoniou, Constantinos & Waddell, Paul, 2013. "Factors affecting the adoption of vehicle sharing systems by young drivers," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 64-73.
    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. Chen, Ching-Fu & Lee, Chia-Han, 2023. "Investigating shared e-scooter users’ customer value co-creation behaviors and their antecedents: Perceived service quality and perceived value," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 147-154.
    2. Xavier Bach & Carme Miralles-Guasch & Oriol Marquet, 2023. "Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Karol Żarski, 2021. "Bicycle Traffic Model for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-36, September.
    5. 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).
    6. Feifei Xin & Yifan Chen & Yitong Ye, 2022. "Understanding Electric Bicycle Users’ Mode Choice Preference under Uncertainty: A Case Study of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, January.

    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. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    2. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Alessio Guandalini & Francesca Romana Mallamaci & Vincenzina Vitale & Laura Bocci, 2021. "To Share or not to Share? Determinants of Sharing Mobility in Italy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 647-692, April.
    3. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Kwapisz & Agnieszka Ważna, 2019. "Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    5. 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.
    6. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Golalikhani, Masoud & Oliveira, Beatriz Brito & Carravilla, Maria Antónia & Oliveira, José Fernando & Antunes, António Pais, 2021. "Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. Eva Malichová & Ghadir Pourhashem & Tatiana Kováčiková & Martin Hudák, 2020. "Users’ Perception of Value of Travel Time and Value of Ridesharing Impacts on Europeans’ Ridesharing Participation Intention: A Case Study Based on MoTiV European-Wide Mobility and Behavioral Pattern ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    10. An, Ran & Zahnow, Renee & Pojani, Dorina & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2019. "Weather and cycling in New York: The case of Citibike," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-112.
    11. Mariana de Oliveira Lage & Cláudia Aparecida Soares Machado & Cristiano Martins Monteiro & Clodoveu Augusto Davis & Charles Lincoln Kenji Yamamura & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilh, 2021. "Using Hierarchical Facility Location, Single Facility Approach, and GIS in Carsharing Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Silvestri, Alessandro & Foudi, Sébastien & Galarraga, Ibon & Ansuategi, Alberto, 2021. "The contribution of carsharing to low carbon mobility: Complementarity and substitution with other modes," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Jian-gang Shi & Hongyun Si & Guangdong Wu & Yangyue Su & Jing Lan, 2018. "Critical Factors to Achieve Dockless Bike-Sharing Sustainability in China: A Stakeholder-Oriented Network Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Zhao, Chunkai & Wang, Yuhang & Ge, Zhenyu, 2023. "Is digital finance environmentally friendly in China? Evidence from shared-bike trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 129-143.
    15. Riccardo Ceccato & Marco Diana, 2021. "Substitution and complementarity patterns between traditional transport means and car sharing: a person and trip level analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1523-1540, August.
    16. Anaya-Boig, Esther & Douch, Jenny & Castro, Alberto, 2021. "The death and life of bike-sharing schemes in Spain: 2003–2018," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 227-236.
    17. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Cai, Xiao & Gu, Xinyue & Silm, Siiri & Hadachi, Amnir & Jin, Tanhua & Witlox, Frank, 2025. "Differences in bike-sharing usage and its associations with station-surrounding characteristics: A multi-group analysis using machine learning techniques," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Fanchao Liao & Eric Molin & Harry Timmermans & Bert van Wee, 2020. "Carsharing: the impact of system characteristics on its potential to replace private car trips and reduce car ownership," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 935-970, April.
    20. Craig Standing & Ferry Jie & Thi Le & Susan Standing & Sharon Biermann, 2021. "Analysis of the Use and Perception of Shared Mobility: A Case Study in Western Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6886-:d:577217. 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.