IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9226-d615997.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Carrara

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Rebecca Ciavarella

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Stefania Boglietti

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Martina Carra

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Giulio Maternini

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Benedetto Barabino

    (Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

Abstract

The recent invasion of electric-powered personal mobility vehicles (e-PMVs) in many cities worldwide has disputed the transport sector and captured the attention of academics, practitioners, and public administrators. Indeed, these vehicles are believed to be sustainable transport alternatives. Therefore, understanding how to evaluate and monitor the related performance is crucial and may be addressed by suitable key sustainable parameters (KSPs) to inform on the excellences and criticalities of e-PMVs. Previous research has focused largely on “how to measure and manage” KSPs rather than “what to measure”. Conversely, as far as the authors know, no study investigated objective methods for identifying and selecting top KSPs. This paper covers this gap by proposing a cohesive approach, which identifies a long list of KSPs, defines their properties, involves experts to elicit judgments for each KSP, evaluates the long list, and returns the most promising set. This approach is demonstrated with an application based on an Italian survey. A circumscribed and relevant set of six overlapping KSPs is derived by merging two different approaches. These results may support the opportunity to assess the performance of e-PMVs among cities according to a common set of KSPs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9226-:d:615997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9226/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9226/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Gössling, 2020. "Why cities need to take road space from cars - and how this could be done," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 443-448, June.
    2. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Gang Lin & Shaoli Wang & Conghua Lin & Linshan Bu & Honglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluating Performance of Public Transport Networks by Using Public Transport Criteria Matrix Analytic Hierarchy Process Models—Case Study of Stonnington, Bayswater, and Cockburn Public Transport Netw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M., 2003. "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 717-729, October.
    8. Benedetto Barabino & Nicola Aldo Cabras & Claudio Conversano & Alessandro Olivo, 2020. "An Integrated Approach to Select Key Quality Indicators in Transit Services," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 1045-1080, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    12. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    13. Luc Hens & Julie De Wit, 2003. "The development of indicators and core indicators for sustainable development: a state of the art review," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(4), pages 436-459.
    14. 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.
    15. Hwang, Jenn Jiang, 2010. "Sustainable transport strategy for promoting zero-emission electric scooters in Taiwan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1390-1399, June.
    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. Catalin Vrabie, 2022. "Electric Vehicles Optimism versus the Energy Market Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Andrzej Kubik, 2022. "The Energy Consumption of Electric Scooters Used in the Polish Shared Mobility Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-15, November.

    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. 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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Georgia Ayfantopoulou & Josep Maria Salanova Grau & Zisis Maleas & Alexandros Siomos, 2022. "Micro-Mobility User Pattern Analysis and Station Location in Thessaloniki," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Gang Lin & Shaoli Wang & Conghua Lin & Linshan Bu & Honglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluating Performance of Public Transport Networks by Using Public Transport Criteria Matrix Analytic Hierarchy Process Models—Case Study of Stonnington, Bayswater, and Cockburn Public Transport Netw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    15. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Coker, Alexander D., 2018. "Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-296.
    16. 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.
    17. Chao, Ching-Cheng & Yu, Po-Cheng, 2013. "Quantitative evaluation model of air cargo competitiveness and comparative analysis of major Asia-Pacific airports," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 318-326.
    18. Sobczyk, Eugeniusz J. & Kicki, Jerzy & Sobczyk, Wiktoria & Szuwarzyński, Marek, 2017. "Support of mining investment choice decisions with the use of multi-criteria method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 94-99.
    19. 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.
    20. Aertsen, Wim & Kint, Vincent & van Orshoven, Jos & Özkan, Kürşad & Muys, Bart, 2010. "Comparison and ranking of different modelling techniques for prediction of site index in Mediterranean mountain forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(8), pages 1119-1130.

    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:16:p:9226-:d:615997. 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.