IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13153-d689432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study

Author

Listed:
  • Fei-Hui Huang

    (Department of Marketing & Distribution Management, Asia Eastern University of Science and Technology, College of Healthcare & Management, New Taipei City 220303, Taiwan)

Abstract

This paper proposes an innovative shared scooter service whereby scooter owners can authorize the rental of their scooters to others through a mobile service platform. It constitutes a public short-distance mobility service for travelers and increases the efficient utilization of each private scooter. The study examines the adoption of scooter-sharing services by travelers and adapts the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, attitude, and user experience (UX) to investigate the factors that may influence traveler acceptance of scooter-sharing services. The data were collected from Taiwanese travelers who used the shared scooters provided in this study and completed pre- and post-use subjective ratings of the scooter-sharing service ( n = 99), analyzed using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The results indicate that the model constructs of habit, social influence, and environmental protections may positively affect users’ behavioral intentions toward shared scooters, while performance expectancy and effort expectancy may negatively affect intention to use. Attitudes and UX had no direct effect on intention to use. In light of the findings, recommendations for improving the design of scooter-sharing services, implications for service providers, and a reference basis for the development of future shared micro-mobility services are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13153-:d:689432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13153/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13153/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam & Chan, Nelson & Bansal, Apaar, 2020. "Chapter 13 - Sharing strategies: carsharing, shared micromobility (bikesharing and scooter sharing), transportation network companies, microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0z9711dw, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Shaheen, Susan, 2002. "Shared-Use Vehicle Systems," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8m2060r1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    7. Shaheen, Susan, 2002. "Shared-Use Vehicle Systems," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8m2060r1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    8. 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.
    9. Bartels, Jos & Reinders, Machiel J., 2011. "Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: A propositional inventory for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 601-609, June.
    10. Cohen, Adam & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2018. "Planning for Shared Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0dk3h89p, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    11. Fitt, Helen & Curl, Angela, 2020. "The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Katarzyna Turoń & Andrzej Kubik & Feng Chen, 2021. "Electric Shared Mobility Services during the Pandemic: Modeling Aspects of Transportation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, May.
    13. 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).
    14. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra & Sridhar Narasimhan, 2005. "Research Note—Two Competing Perspectives on Automatic Use: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 418-432, December.
    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. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    3. Andrzej Kubik, 2022. "Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-12, November.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    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. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Bach, Xavier & Marquet, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2023. "Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 154-162.
    15. 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.
    16. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    17. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.

    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:23:p:13153-:d:689432. 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.