IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i17p6344-d406831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey Glenn

    (Department of Public Health, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

  • Madeline Bluth

    (Department of Public Health, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

  • Mannon Christianson

    (Department of Public Health, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

  • Jaymie Pressley

    (Department of Public Health, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

  • Austin Taylor

    (Community and Neighborhood Services Department, City of Provo, Provo, UT 84601, USA)

  • Gregory S. Macfarlane

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

  • Robert A. Chaney

    (Department of Public Health, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA)

Abstract

Electric scooters (e-scooters) are an increasingly popular form of transportation in urban areas. While research on this topic has focused primarily on injuries, there are multiple mechanisms by which e-scooter share programs may impact health. The aim of this study is to explore the health-related behaviors of e-scooter users and to discuss their implications for public health. Data were collected using an online survey emailed to registered e-scooter users. A total of 1070 users completed the survey. Descriptive variable statistics and chi-squared analysis were performed to determine variable dependent relationships and equality of proportions. The most common destinations reported were “just riding around for fun”, home, and dining/shopping. The two most common modes of transportation that would have been used if e-scooters were not available were walking (43.5%) and using a personal vehicle (28.5%). Riding behavior was equally mixed between on the street, on the sidewalk, and equal amounts of both. e-Scooters in Provo are likely having both positive (e.g., air pollution) and negative impacts on health (e.g., injuries, physical inactivity). Future research should further explore patterns of e-scooter use and explicitly examine the linkages between e-scooters and areas of health beyond just injuries.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey Glenn & Madeline Bluth & Mannon Christianson & Jaymie Pressley & Austin Taylor & Gregory S. Macfarlane & Robert A. Chaney, 2020. "Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6344-:d:406831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6344/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6344/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Schwanen, Tim & Lucas, Karen & Akyelken, Nihan & Cisternas Solsona, Diego & Carrasco, Juan-Antonio & Neutens, Tijs, 2015. "Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage through the lens of social capital," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 123-135.
    3. Hélie Moreau & Loïc de Jamblinne de Meux & Vanessa Zeller & Pierre D’Ans & Coline Ruwet & Wouter M.J. Achten, 2020. "Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, February.
    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. Roig-Costa, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme & Marquet, Oriol, 2024. "Shared bikes vs. private e-scooters. Understanding patterns of use and demand in a policy-constrained micromobility environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 116-125.
    2. Theodora Sorkou & Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Katerina Koliou & Lambros Mitropoulos & Christos Karolemeas & Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou, 2022. "An Approach to Model the Willingness to Use of E-Scooter Sharing Services in Different Urban Road Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-15, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Shiva Pourfalatoun & Jubaer Ahmed & Erika E. Miller, 2023. "Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Lambros Mitropoulos & Katerina Koliou & Eirini Stavropoulou & Christos Karolemeas & Eleni Antoniou & Antonis Karaloulis & Konstantinos Mitropoulos & Eleni I. Vlahogianni & Kons, 2023. "Describing Micro-Mobility First/Last-Mile Routing Behavior in Urban Road Networks through a Novel Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Juan Pablo Montero-Salgado & Jose Muñoz-Sanz & Blanca Arenas-Ramírez & Cristina Alén-Cordero, 2022. "Identification of the Mechanical Failure Factors with Potential Influencing Road Accidents in Ecuador," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, 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. 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.
    2. 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).
    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. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Duvarci, Yavuz & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Mizokami, Shoshi, 2015. "Transportation disadvantage impedance indexing: A methodological approach to reduce policy shortcomings," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-75.
    7. 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.
    8. Fuller, Sam & Fitch, Dillon & D'Agostino, Mollie C., 2021. "Local Policies for Better Micromobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mw5j82x, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Virginie Boutueil & Luc Nemett & Thomas Quillerier, 2021. "Trends in Competition among Digital Platforms for Shared Mobility: Insights from a Worldwide Census and Prospects for Research," Post-Print hal-03388213, HAL.
    10. Ying Ni & Jiaqi Chen, 2020. "Exploring the Effects of the Built Environment on Two Transfer Modes for Metros: Dockless Bike Sharing and Taxis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Haseeb, Attiya & Mitra, Raktim, 2024. "Travel behaviour changes among young adults and associated implications for social sustainability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. 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).
    13. Abouelela, Mohamed & Durán-Rodas, David & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2024. "Do we all need shared E-scooters? An accessibility-centered spatial equity evaluation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    14. Rémy Le Boennec & Frédéric Salladarré, 2023. "Investigating the use of privately-owned micromobility modes for commuting in four European countries," Post-Print hal-04296400, HAL.
    15. Kandt, Jens & Leak, Alistair, 2019. "Examining inclusive mobility through smartcard data: What shall we make of senior citizens' declining bus patronage in the West Midlands?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Cohen-Blankshtain, Galit, 2021. "On another track: Differing views of experts and politicians on rail investments in peripheral localities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Hamidi, Zahra, 2021. "Decomposing cycling potentials employing the motility framework," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Chen, Peng & Yang, Xiankui, 2023. "Revisit employer-based travel demand management: A longitudinal analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 22-31.
    19. Chen, Chialin & Achtari, Guyves & Majkut, Kevin & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2017. "Balancing equity and cost in rural transportation management with multi-objective utility analysis and data envelopment analysis: A case of Quinte West," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 148-165.
    20. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local perception and attitude toward community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6344-:d:406831. 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.