IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3844-d527464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Willingness to Use Personal e-Transporters (PeTs): Results from a Cross-National Survey in Nine European Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Tim De Ceunynck

    (Vias Institute, BE-1130 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Gert Jan Wijlhuizen

    (SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 2594 The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Aslak Fyhri

    (TØI Institute of Transport Economics, 0349 Oslo, Norway)

  • Regine Gerike

    (Institute of Transport Planning and Road Traffic, Technische Universität Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany)

  • Dagmar Köhler

    (Polis, BE-1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Alice Ciccone

    (TØI Institute of Transport Economics, 0349 Oslo, Norway)

  • Atze Dijkstra

    (SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 2594 The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Emmanuelle Dupont

    (Vias Institute, BE-1130 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Mario Cools

    (Local Environment Management & Analysis (LEMA), Urban & Environmental Engineering (UEE), University of Liège, Polytech 1, BE-4000 Liège, Belgium
    Department of Informatics, Simulation and Modeling, KU Leuven Campus Brussels, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium
    Faculty of Business Economics, Hasselt University, BE-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium)

Abstract

In the last few years, there has been a strong increase in the interest in and usage of so-called “Personal e-Transporters” (PeTs), also referred to as micro-mobility devices. Empirical research on the usage of PeTs as a transport mode is virtually non-existent, especially within Europe. This paper aims to fill this gap by investigating people’s motivations and barriers to the use of PeTs. To this end, a behavioural survey was conducted in nine European cities. A representative sample of approximately 250 respondents per city was collected, resulting in a dataset, after data cleaning, of 2159 observations. Generally, respondents’ perceptions of PeTs are not (yet) very favourable. Respondents’ perceptions related to cost and safety received the lowest scores. The results from the transtheoretical model of behavioural change show that a variety of factors influence the stage of behavioural change in which the respondents can be situated. These factors include cycling norms, current walking behaviour, walking attitudes, pro-environmental orientation, gender, PeTs possession, cycling obstacles and subscription to a bicycle sharing service. An important strength of this study lies in the international nature and the size of the data collection, ensuring the reliability and transferability of the results to other cities. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first large-scale survey to investigate people’s travel behaviour related to the usage of PeTs and possibly the only large-scale investigation that took place before the deployment of shared e-scooters in many European cities. Furthermore, an explicit link is made with other modes of active transport (walking and cycling).

Suggested Citation

  • Tim De Ceunynck & Gert Jan Wijlhuizen & Aslak Fyhri & Regine Gerike & Dagmar Köhler & Alice Ciccone & Atze Dijkstra & Emmanuelle Dupont & Mario Cools, 2021. "Assessing the Willingness to Use Personal e-Transporters (PeTs): Results from a Cross-National Survey in Nine European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3844-:d:527464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3844/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3844/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scheepers, C.E. & Wendel-Vos, G.C.W. & den Broeder, J.M. & van Kempen, E.E.M.M. & van Wesemael, P.J.V. & Schuit, A.J., 2014. "Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 264-280.
    2. Tuncer, Sylvaine & Laurier, Eric & Brown, Barry & Licoppe, Christian, 2020. "Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. 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.
    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. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    6. Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & Moons, Elke & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert, 2011. "The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 779-788, October.
    7. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2016. "Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8042k3d7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Boarnet, Marlon G. & Giuliano, Genevieve & Hou, Yuting & Shin, Eun Jin, 2017. "First/last mile transit access as an equity planning issue," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 296-310.
    9. Mohammed Hamad Almannaa & Faisal Adnan Alsahhaf & Huthaifa I. Ashqar & Mohammed Elhenawy & Mahmoud Masoud & Andry Rakotonirainy, 2021. "Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. 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. Draženko Glavić & Ana Trpković & Marina Milenković & Sreten Jevremović, 2021. "The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Fitt, Helen & Curl, Angela, 2020. "The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    11. van Kuijk, Roy J. & de Almeida Correia, Gonçalo Homem & van Oort, Niels & van Arem, Bart, 2022. "Preferences for first and last mile shared mobility between stops and activity locations: A case study of local public transport users in Utrecht, the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 285-306.
    12. 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).
    13. Hossain Mohiuddin, 2021. "Planning for the First and Last Mile: A Review of Practices at Selected Transit Agencies in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Morteza Hossein Sabbaghian & David Llopis-Castelló & Alfredo García, 2023. "A Safe Infrastructure for Micromobility: The Current State of Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Sujae Kim & Sangho Choo & Gyeongjae Lee & Sanghun Kim, 2022. "Predicting Demand for Shared E-Scooter Using Community Structure and Deep Learning Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Mohammed Hamad Almannaa & Faisal Adnan Alsahhaf & Huthaifa I. Ashqar & Mohammed Elhenawy & Mahmoud Masoud & Andry Rakotonirainy, 2021. "Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    20. Elena Carrara & Rebecca Ciavarella & Stefania Boglietti & Martina Carra & Giulio Maternini & Benedetto Barabino, 2021. "Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.

    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:7:p:3844-:d:527464. 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.