IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11422-d657557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning Suitable Transport Networks for E-Scooters to Foster Micromobility Spreading

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Fazio

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Nadia Giuffrida

    (School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, University College Richview Campus, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Michela Le Pira

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Inturri

    (Department of Electric Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Matteo Ignaccolo

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy)

Abstract

Micromobility has a high potential to change mobility habits towards the use of sustainable transport modes. The shared mobility paradigm encourages the development of new mobility services, such as bike and e-scooter sharing, potentially reducing the need of car ownership, enlarging the accessibility of public transport and enriching the transport options needed to exploit Mobility as a Service solutions. While bike-sharing services have been used in urban areas for many years, shared e-scooter services (and private e-scooters) have been spreading only in the last few years. Due to the novelty of this mode, few attempts have been made for proper micromobility network planning. This paper proposes a multicriteria GIS-based analysis aimed at planning priority networks for e-scooters, focusing on safety, transport and land use characteristics. The case study is Catania, a medium-sized city in southern Italy, which suffers from a lack of adequate infrastructures for such sustainable modes of transport. By applying the methodology, it is possible to prioritise the road network elements that better fit the needs of e-scooters, thus paving the way for suitable infrastructures and network planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Fazio & Nadia Giuffrida & Michela Le Pira & Giuseppe Inturri & Matteo Ignaccolo, 2021. "Planning Suitable Transport Networks for E-Scooters to Foster Micromobility Spreading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11422-:d:657557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11422/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11422/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefania Boglietti & Benedetto Barabino & Giulio Maternini, 2021. "Survey on e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles: Exploring Current Issues towards Future Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-34, March.
    2. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt0z9711dw is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Qian, Xiaodong & Jaller, Miguel & Niemeier, Debbie, 2020. "Enhancing equitable service level: Which can address better, dockless or dock-based Bikeshare systems?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Jessica Schoner & David Levinson, 2013. "Which Station? Access Trips and Bike Share Route Choice," Working Papers 000117, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    5. 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.
    6. Peraphan Jittrapirom & Valeria Caiati & Anna-Maria Feneri & Shima Ebrahimigharehbaghi & María J. Alonso González & Jishnu Narayan, 2017. "Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 13-25.
    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. Colovic, Aleksandra & Prencipe, Luigi Pio & Giuffrida, Nadia & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2024. "A multi-objective model to design shared e-kick scooters parking spaces in large urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Elżbieta Macioszek & Maria Cieśla & Anna Granà, 2023. "Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Pietro Folco & Laetitia Gauvin & Michele Tizzoni & Michael Szell, 2023. "Data-driven micromobility network planning for demand and safety," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(8), pages 2087-2102, October.
    6. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. Mohiuddin, Hossain & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan L., 2023. "Does bike-share enhance transport equity? Evidence from the Sacramento, California region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Luca D’Acierno & Matteo Tanzilli & Chiara Tescione & Luigi Pariota & Luca Di Costanzo & Salvatore Chiaradonna & Marilisa Botte, 2022. "Adoption of Micro-Mobility Solutions for Improving Environmental Sustainability: Comparison among Transportation Systems in Urban Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Georgia Ayfantopoulou & Josep Maria Salanova Grau & Zisis Maleas & Alexandros Siomos, 2022. "Micro-Mobility User Pattern Analysis and Station Location in Thessaloniki," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Laura Mariana Reyes Madrigal & Isabelle Nicolaï & Jakob Puchinger, 2023. "Pedestrian mobility in Mobility as a Service (MaaS): sustainable value potential and policy implications in the Paris region case," Post-Print hal-04085604, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Chien, Yu-Shyun & Lu, Chung-Cheng, 2025. "Investigating users’ intention to re-use shared electric scooters through a combined behavioral model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 533-544.
    13. Liu, Jianing & Wen, Xiao & Jian, Sisi, 2024. "Toward better equity: Analyzing travel patterns through a neural network approach in mobility-as-a-service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 110-126.
    14. Ruhrort, Lisa, 2020. "Reassessing the Role of Shared Mobility Services in a Transport Transition: Can They Contribute the Rise of an Alternative Socio-Technical Regime of Mobility?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(19), pages 1-1.
    15. Chenhao Zhu & Jonah Susskind & Mario Giampieri & Hazel Backus O’Neil & Alan M. Berger, 2023. "Optimizing Sustainable Suburban Expansion with Autonomous Mobility through a Parametric Design Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Shah, Nitesh R. & Ziedan, Abubakr & Brakewood, Candace & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Shared e-scooter service providers with large fleet size have a competitive advantage: Findings from e-scooter demand and supply analysis of Nashville, Tennessee," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Benjamin Maas, 2022. "Literature Review of Mobility as a Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-28, July.
    19. Lopez-Carreiro, Iria & Monzon, Andres & Lopez-Lambas, Maria E., 2021. "Comparison of the willingness to adopt MaaS in Madrid (Spain) and Randstad (The Netherlands) metropolitan areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 275-294.
    20. Felix Schwinger & Baran Tanriverdi & Matthias Jarke, 2022. "Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-27, July.

    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:20:p:11422-:d:657557. 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.