IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p5948-d561694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Draženko Glavić

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ana Trpković

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Marina Milenković

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Sreten Jevremović

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

As we witness a global change occurring with the advent of e-scooters (electric scooters), it is clear that adequate measures need to be taken for the implementation of this means of transport. Bearing in mind that the user should be the focus of the proposed measures, the aim of this paper encompasses the analysis of e-scooter users’ travel patterns, as well as standard scooter users’ willingness to switch to e-scooters for different hypothetical scenarios, and the determination of factors that have an influence on the users’ willingness to switch. The scenarios include the availability of various infrastructure capacities for the city of Belgrade, namely, a separate infrastructure for e-scooters, or sharing the existing infrastructure with cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. Standard methods of descriptive statistics, the McNemar–Bowker test of paired samples, and multinomial logistic regression were used in this paper. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in users’ willingness to use an e-scooter, depending on the available infrastructure. The results of multinomial logistic regression showed that the mode of transport used before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the average distance traveled, had a statistically significant impact on the users’ willingness to switch to e-scooters if they were allowed to use the cycling infrastructure. This paper also identifies additional factors that have a positive (environmental benefits, congestion avoidance) and negative (safety issues, lack of infrastructure, etc.) impact on users’ willingness to switch, which can be of use to decision-makers as a basic guideline for the adequate implementation of e-scooters in transport systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:5948-:d:561694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/5948/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/5948/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mehrdad Bagheri & Miloš N. Mladenović & Iisakki Kosonen & Jukka K. Nurminen, 2020. "Analysis of Potential Shift to Low-Carbon Urban Travel Modes: A Computational Framework Based on High-Resolution Smartphone Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Demetrio Carmine Festa & Carmen Forciniti, 2019. "Attitude towards Bike Use in Rende, a Small Town in South Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    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. 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.
    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. Medina-Molina, Cayetano & Pérez-Macías, Noemí & Fernández-Fernádez, José Luis, 2023. "The use of micromobility in different contexts. An explanation through the multilevel perspective and QCA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Anna E. Wolnowska & Lech Kasyk, 2021. "Ways Residents of Large Cities in Poland, Commute before and during the Covid-19 Pandemic," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3B), pages 749-768.
    4. 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.
    5. Ann Kathrin Stinder & Nora Schelte & Semih Severengiz, 2022. "Application of Mixed Methods in Transdisciplinary Research Projects on Sustainable Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-25, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    7. 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).
    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. 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. 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.
    11. Elena Carrara & Rebecca Ciavarella & Stefania Boglietti & Martina Carra & Giulio Maternini & Benedetto Barabino, 2021. "Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Zhang, Yuting & Nelson, John D. & Mulley, Corinne, 2024. "Learning from the evidence: Insights for regulating e-scooters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 63-74.
    13. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Cloud, Cannon & Heß, Simon & Kasinger, Johannes, 2023. "Shared e-scooter services and road safety: Evidence from six European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Felix Schwinger & Baran Tanriverdi & Matthias Jarke, 2022. "Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-27, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. 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).
    19. 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).
    20. Kimpton, Anthony & Loginova, Julia & Pojani, Dorina & Bean, Richard & Sigler, Thomas & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2022. "Weather to scoot? How weather shapes shared e-scooter ridership patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:5948-:d:561694. 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.