IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9640-d447434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Tomasz Bieliński

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk, Armii Krajowej 119/121, 81-824 Sopot, Poland)

  • Agnieszka Ważna

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk, Armii Krajowej 119/121, 81-824 Sopot, Poland)

Abstract

New, shared mobility modes, including dockless e-scooters and e-bikes, were recently introduced to many cities around the world. The aim of this article is to determine the differences between the users of e-bike sharing, and e-scooter sharing systems, and the characteristics of their travel behaviour. This study is based on the survey of the citizens of Tricity in northern Poland. We find that e-bicycles are predominantly used as first and last mile transport and to commute directly to various places of interest, whereas e-scooters are more often used for leisure rides. Survey respondents that adopted shared micromobility are generally young, and e-scooter users are on average younger than e-bike users. Although all shared vehicles in Tricity are electrically assisted, this did not allow for the elimination of the gender gap, or help retired and disabled people in the adoption of shared micromobility services. We have also identified factors discouraging people from the usage of e-bike and e-scooter sharing and found them to be different for both types of services. Finally, we investigated the issue of using shared e-bikes for urban logistics.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9640-:d:447434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9640/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9640/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen, 2015. "Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 53-64.
    3. Lu-Yi Qiu & Ling-Yun He, 2018. "Bike Sharing and the Economy, the Environment, and Health-Related Externalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Kyle Gebhart & Robert Noland, 2014. "The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, DC," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1205-1225, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Kwapisz & Agnieszka Ważna, 2019. "Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Mingyang Du & Lin Cheng, 2018. "Better Understanding the Characteristics and Influential Factors of Different Travel Patterns in Free-Floating Bike Sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Plazier, Paul A. & Weitkamp, Gerd & van den Berg, Agnes E., 2017. "“Cycling was never so easy!” An analysis of e-bike commuters' motives, travel behaviour and experiences using GPS-tracking and interviews," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 25-34.
    12. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah & Chen, Yu-Jen, 2018. "Bike sharing differences among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: Lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-14.
    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. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    3. Xiaojia Guo & Chengpeng Lu & Dongqi Sun & Yexin Gao & Bing Xue, 2021. "Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Kwapisz & Agnieszka Ważna, 2019. "Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Shah, Nitesh R. & Guo, Jing & Han, Lee D. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Why do people take e-scooter trips? Insights on temporal and spatial usage patterns of detailed trip data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Hu, Songhua & Xiong, Chenfeng & Liu, Zhanqin & Zhang, Lei, 2021. "Examining spatiotemporal changing patterns of bike-sharing usage during COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah, 2019. "Gender gap generators for bike share ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike system in New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-9.
    16. Renata Żochowska & Marianna Jacyna & Marcin Jacek Kłos & Piotr Soczówka, 2021. "A GIS-Based Method of the Assessment of Spatial Integration of Bike-Sharing Stations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-29, April.
    17. Tyndall, Justin, 2022. "Complementarity of dockless mircomobility and rail transit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Wang, Kailai & Chen, Yu-Jen, 2020. "Joint analysis of the impacts of built environment on bikeshare station capacity and trip attractions," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. 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.

    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:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9640-:d:447434. 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.