IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/mosaro/v42y2021i4p17-34n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motives for and Barriers to the Use of Electric Moped Scooter Sharing Services

Author

Listed:
  • Bartkowiak Paweł

    (Poznań University of Economics and Business, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań)

  • Michalak Szymon

    (Poznań University of Economics and Business, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań)

  • Młodzik Maciej

    (Piasecki University of Physical Education in Poznań, Królowej Jadwigi 27/39, 61-871 Poznań)

Abstract

In line with the concept of sustainable development, changes in various forms of urban transport have been observed over the past few years, and the implementation of low-emission transport solutions is becoming a priority for local government. One of the key changes observed worldwide taking place on the urban transport market is the dynamic development of various forms of shared micro-mobility. One of these forms are electric moped scooter sharing services and despite their rapid growth in popularity, the existing research contributions on determinants of the use of this micro-mobility mode are limited to only a few studies. The goal of this paper is to advance knowledge regarding the motives and barriers to the use of electric moped scooter sharing services. The paper discusses the results of a study that was carried out in 2021 on a sample of 352 Polish users of electric moped scooter sharing services. The most important reasons for using these services included the convenience of this mobility mode and no city parking costs. The biggest barriers in choosing this micro-mobility mode for Polish consumers were those related to the safety of use.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:mosaro:v:42:y:2021:i:4:p:17-34:n:2
    DOI: 10.2478/minib-2021-0019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/minib-2021-0019
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/minib-2021-0019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanders, Rebecca L. & Branion-Calles, Michael & Nelson, Trisalyn A., 2020. "To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 217-227.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Karol Żarski, 2021. "Bicycle Traffic Model for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-36, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Sohani Liyanage & Hussein Dia & Rusul Abduljabbar & Saeed Asadi Bagloee, 2019. "Flexible Mobility On-Demand: An Environmental Scan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-39, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Maleki Vishkaei, Behzad & De Giovanni, Pietro, 2025. "A smart mobility game with blockchain and hardware oracles," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    13. Loes M. Derikx & Dea van Lierop, 2021. "Intentions to Participate in Carsharing: The Role of Self- and Social Identity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-31, February.
    14. José Alberto Molina & J. Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & Jorge Velilla, 2020. "Sustainable Commuting: Results from a Social Approach and International Evidence on Carpooling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-12, November.
    15. Fumiko Ogushi & Chandreyee Roy & Kimmo Kaski, 2025. "Differences of communication activity and mobility patterns between urban and rural people," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 1-25, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Papaix, Claire & Eranova, Mariya & Zhou, Li, 2023. "Shared mobility research: Looking through a paradox lens," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 156-167.
    18. Erling Holden & Geoffrey Gilpin & David Banister, 2019. "Sustainable Mobility at Thirty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Sangveraphunsiri, Tawit & Cassidy, Michael J. & Daganzo, Carlos F., 2022. "Jitney-lite: a flexible-route feeder service for developing countries," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-13.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:vrs:mosaro:v:42:y:2021:i:4:p:17-34:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.