IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i10p403-d659499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziana Campisi

    (Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Kore University of Enna, Cittadella Universitaria, 94100 Enna, Italy)

  • Anastasios Skoufas

    (School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 11428 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Alexandros Kaltsidis

    (School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 11428 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Socrates Basbas

    (Department of Transportation and Hydraulic Engineering, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

Abstract

Mobility since 2000 has undergone enormous changes due to new modes of transport and related technologies as well as catastrophic and pandemic events. Several strategies have been implemented by European states to mitigate impacts and assess possible risks in a preventive way. Today, mobility pursues the objectives of sustainability and resilience through a series of short-, medium- and long-term strategies that encourage the collaboration of the population to the choices of urban planning and design. Among the different modes of transport that have had a rise in recent years are scooters. Such modes are well suited to connecting spaces within the first and last mile. Similar to other modes of transportation, scooters are also characterized to date by reduced gender equity. The present work investigates through the administration of an online survey the participants’ perceptions concerning the factors that most affect this gender balance considering the metropolitan areas of Catania and Palermo in Sicily. The development of an ordinal regression model revealed the most influential factors of the gender equality variable. Specifically, age, job occupation and perceived safety level of micromobility modes play the most important role. The present findings can be effectively utilized in the planning stage of e-scooter services towards the bridging of the gender gap.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:403-:d:659499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/10/403/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/10/403/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leung, T.Y. & Sharma, Piyush & Adithipyangkul, Pattarin & Hosie, Peter, 2020. "Gender equity and public health outcomes: The COVID-19 experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-198.
    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. Laila Ait Bihi Ouali & Daniel J. Graham & Alexander Barron & Mark Trompet, 2020. "Gender differences in the perception of safety in public transport," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 737-769, June.
    4. Roger Beecham & Jo Wood, 2014. "Exploring gendered cycling behaviours within a large-scale behavioural data-set," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 83-97, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Miriam Pirra & Sofia Kalakou & Angela Carboni & Mariana Costa & Marco Diana & Ana Rita Lynce, 2021. "A Preliminary Analysis on Gender Aspects in Transport Systems and Mobility Services: Presentation of a Survey Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Muhammad Ahmad Al-Rashid & Kh Md Nahiduzzaman & Sohel Ahmed & Tiziana Campisi & Nurten Akgün, 2020. "Gender-Responsive Public Transportation in the Dammam Metropolitan Region, Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    13. Shaheen, Susan & Cohen, Adam, 2020. "Chapter 3 - Mobility on demand (MOD) and mobility as a service (MaaS): early understanding of shared mobility impacts and public transit partnerships," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5030f0cd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    14. Giovanni Vecchio & Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken & Ricardo Hurtubia, 2020. "Transport and equity in Latin America: a critical review of socially oriented accessibility assessments," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 354-381, May.
    15. Yvonne Hail & Ronald McQuaid, 2021. "The Concept of Fairness in Relation to Women Transport Users," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Mary Rachelle R Wapaño, 2023. "Exploring the Determinants of Resilience and Hope in the Medical Field: The Role of Age, Gender, and Job Occupation," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(10), pages 1480-1491, October.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Fitt, Helen & Curl, Angela, 2020. "The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. Lejsková Pavla & Pojkarová Kateřina & Kudláčková Nina & Becková Helena & Čubranić-Dobrodolac Marjana, 2023. "Gender Differences in Transport Behaviour Patterns," LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 329-340, January.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Yang, Hongtai & Zheng, Rong & Li, Xuan & Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Linchuan & Zhu, Tong, 2022. "Nonlinear and threshold effects of the built environment on e-scooter sharing ridership," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. 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.

    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:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:403-:d:659499. 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.