IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2309.16440.html

The effect of COVID restriction levels on shared micromobility travel patterns: A comparison between dockless bike sharing and e-scooter services

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Diana
  • Andrea Chicco

Abstract

The spread of the coronavirus pandemic had negative repercussions on the majority of transport systems in virtually all countries. After the lockdown period, travel restriction policies are now frequently adapted almost real-time according to observed trends in the spread of the disease, resulting in a rapidly changing transport market situation. Shared micromobility operators, whose revenues entirely come from their customers, need to understand how the demand is affected to adapt their operations. Within this framework, the present paper investigates how different COVID-19 restriction levels have affected the usage patterns of shared micromobility. Usage data of two dockless micromobility services (bike and e-scooters) operating in Turin (Italy) are analyzed between October 2020 and March 2021, a period characterized by different travel restriction levels. The average number of daily trips, trip distances and trip duration are retrieved for both services, and then compared to identify significant differences in trends as restriction levels change. Additionally, related impacts on the spatial dimension of the services are studied through hotspot maps. Results show that both services decreased during restrictions, however e-scooters experienced a larger variability in their demand and they had a quicker recovery when travel restrictions were loosened. Shared bikes, in general, suffered less from travel restriction levels, suggesting their larger usage for work and study-related trip purposes, which is confirmed also by the analysis of hotspots. E-scooters are both substituting and complementing public transport according to restriction levels, while usage patterns of shared bikes are more independent.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Diana & Andrea Chicco, 2023. "The effect of COVID restriction levels on shared micromobility travel patterns: A comparison between dockless bike sharing and e-scooter services," Papers 2309.16440, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2309.16440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.16440
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scorrano, Mariangela & Danielis, Romeo, 2021. "Active mobility in an Italian city: Mode choice determinants and attitudes before and during the Covid-19 emergency," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Intini, Mario & Tangari, Luca, 2021. "Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    3. Schulte-Fischedick, Marta & Shan, Yuli & Hubacek, Klaus, 2021. "Implications of COVID-19 lockdowns on surface passenger mobility and related CO2 emission changes in Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    4. Eisenmann, Christine & Nobis, Claudia & Kolarova, Viktoriya & Lenz, Barbara & Winkler, Christian, 2021. "Transport mode use during the COVID-19 lockdown period in Germany: The car became more important, public transport lost ground," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-67.
    5. Mina Lee & Joseph Y. J. Chow & Gyugeun Yoon & Brian Yueshuai He, 2019. "Forecasting e-scooter substitution of direct and access trips by mode and distance," Papers 1908.08127, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    6. Alfredo Aloi & Borja Alonso & Juan Benavente & Rubén Cordera & Eneko Echániz & Felipe González & Claudio Ladisa & Raquel Lezama-Romanelli & Álvaro López-Parra & Vittorio Mazzei & Lucía Perrucci & Darí, 2020. "Effects of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Mobility: Empirical Evidence from the City of Santander (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Zheyan Chen & Dea van Lierop & Dick Ettema, 2020. "Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 333-353, May.
    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. Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "A comparative analysis of the spatial determinants of e-bike and e-scooter sharing link flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Borsati, Mattia & Nocera, Silvio & Percoco, Marco, 2022. "Questioning the spatial association between the initial spread of COVID-19 and transit usage in Italy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Krauss, Konstantin & Gnann, Till & Burgert, Tobias & Axhausen, Kay W., 2024. "Faster, greener, scooter? An assessment of shared e-scooter usage based on real-world driving data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    4. Tinessa, Fiore & Román Garcia, Concepción & Simonelli, Fulvio & Papola, Andrea & Pagliara, Francesca, 2024. "How public transport users would react to different pandemic alert scenarios in the post-vaccine era? An analysis of preferences and attitudes of the users in the metropolitan area of Naples (Italy)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Gong, Mengjie & Xin, Rui & Yang, Jian & Wang, Jiaoe & Li, Tingting & Zhang, Yujuan, 2024. "Spatio-temporal dynamics and recovery of commuting activities via bike-sharing around COVID-19: A case study of New York," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. Jin, Scarlett T. & Wang, Lei & Sui, Daniel, 2023. "How the built environment affects E-scooter sharing link flows: A machine learning approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Hector Monterde-i-Bort & Matus Sucha & Ralf Risser & Kristyna Honzickova, 2022. "A European-Wide Study on the Effects of the COVID-19 Threat on Active Transport Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Veronika Harantová & Ambróz Hájnik & Alica Kalašová & Tomasz Figlus, 2022. "The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Traffic Flow Characteristics, Emissions Production and Fuel Consumption at a Selected Intersection in Slovakia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Shuai Yu & Bin Li & Dongmei Liu, 2023. "Exploring the Public Health of Travel Behaviors in High-Speed Railway Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Perspective of Trip Chain: A Case Study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-22, January.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-04017908 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kim, Minju & Puczkowskyj, Nicholas & MacArthur, John & Dill, Jennifer, 2023. "Perspectives on e-scooters use: A multi-year cross-sectional approach to understanding e-scooter travel behavior in Portland, Oregon," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Lukas Hartwig & Reinhard Hössinger & Yusak Octavius Susilo & Astrid Gühnemann, 2022. "The Impacts of a COVID-19 Related Lockdown (and Reopening Phases) on Time Use and Mobility for Activities in Austria—Results from a Multi-Wave Combined Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    21. Juan José Vinagre Díaz & Rubén Fernández Pozo & Ana Belén Rodríguez González & Mark Richard Wilby & Bani Anvari, 2024. "Blind classification of e-scooter trips according to their relationship with public transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 1679-1700, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2309.16440. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.