IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15680-d983828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Approach to Model the Willingness to Use of E-Scooter Sharing Services in Different Urban Road Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Theodora Sorkou

    (Department of Rural Technology and Development, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece)

  • Panagiotis G. Tzouras

    (Department of Rural Technology and Development, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece)

  • Katerina Koliou

    (Department of Rural Technology and Development, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece)

  • Lambros Mitropoulos

    (LKM Consulting Engineers and Planners, 10682 Athens, Greece)

  • Christos Karolemeas

    (MoveNow Technologies P.C., 10677 Athens, Greece)

  • Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou

    (Department of Rural Technology and Development, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece)

Abstract

E-scooter sharing services been grown exponentially within the last five years. They are based on the flexibility of accessing dense urban areas without specialized infrastructure. In modern cities, there are diverse road environments that impact the comfort, and therefore the attractiveness, of micro-mobility services. This study aims to investigate the willingness to use e-scooter sharing services, while considering the road environment. To formulate area-specific pricing policies, a stated preferences experiment with 243 respondents, who can be considered as potential users, is conducted in Athens, Greece and a binary logistic regression model with random beta parameters is developed. The analysis of the model marginal effects indicates that the integration of bonus points into micro-mobility services, combined with the option of transferring these points to parking services, can compensate a non-friendly road environment, thus increasing the service demand. The existence of roads with good pavement conditions and wide sidewalks significantly increased the willingness of respondents to use e-scooter sharing services. Unexpectedly, pedestrianized zones in a buffer area of 2 km radius from the trip origin reinforce the attractiveness of shared e-scooters, while the contribution of bike lanes and traffic calming streets (or shared space) were proven to be insignificant.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15680-:d:983828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15680/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15680/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bai, Lu & Liu, Pan & Chan, Ching-Yao & Li, Zhibin, 2017. "Estimating level of service of mid-block bicycle lanes considering mixed traffic flow," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 203-217.
    2. Liu, Hung-Chi & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2022. "Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of shared scooter use: A comparison with shared bike use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 107-119.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Anne de Bortoli, 2021. "Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA," Papers 2103.04464, arXiv.org.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    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. Draženko Glavić & Marina Milenković & Aleksandar Trifunović & Igor Jokanović & Jelica Komarica, 2023. "Influence of Dockless Shared E-Scooters on Urban Mobility: WTP and Modal Shift," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Juan José Vinagre Díaz & Rubén Fernández Pozo & Ana Belén Rodríguez González & Mark Richard Wilby & Bani Anvari, 2024. "Blind classification of e-scooter trips according to their relationship with public transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 1679-1700, October.
    5. Jin, Scarlett T. & Wang, Lei & Sui, Daniel, 2023. "How the built environment affects E-scooter sharing link flows: A machine learning approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Zhu, Siying & Zhu, Feng, 2019. "Cycling comfort evaluation with instrumented probe bicycle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 217-231.
    10. Ospina, Juan P. & Duque, Juan C. & Botero-Fernández, Verónica & Montoya, Alejandro, 2022. "The maximal covering bicycle network design problem," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 222-236.
    11. Andreas Nikiforiadis & Socrates Basbas & Foteini Mikiki & Aikaterini Oikonomou & Efrosyni Polymeroudi, 2021. "Pedestrians-Cyclists Shared Spaces Level of Service: Comparison of Methodologies and Critical Discussion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Yang, Hongtai & Zhai, Guocong & Liu, Xiaohan & Yang, Linchuan & Liu, Yugang & Yuan, Quan, 2022. "Determinants of city-level private car ownership: Effect of vehicle regulation policies and the relative price," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 40-48.
    13. Xiangyang Cao & Bingzhong Zhou & Qiang Tang & Jiaqi Li & Donghui Shi, 2018. "Urban Wasteful Transport and Its Estimation Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Sun, Shan & Guo, Liang & Yang, Shuo & Cao, Jason, 2024. "Exploring the contributions of Ebike ownership, transit access, and the built environment to car ownership in a developing city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Arellana, Julián & Saltarín, María & Larrañaga, Ana Margarita & González, Virginia I. & Henao, César Augusto, 2020. "Developing an urban bikeability index for different types of cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 310-334.
    16. Hsueh, Chieh & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2023. "Influential factors of the route choices of scooter riders: A GPS-based data study," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Pol Felipe-Falgas & Cristina Madrid-Lopez & Oriol Marquet, 2022. "Assessing Environmental Performance of Micromobility Using LCA and Self-Reported Modal Change: The Case of Shared E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Mopeds in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    18. 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).
    19. Ghasri, Milad & Ardeshiri, Ali & Zhang, Xiang & Waller, S. Travis, 2024. "Analysing preferences for integrated micromobility and public transport systems: A hierarchical latent class approach considering taste heterogeneity and attribute non-attendance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. 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.

    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:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15680-:d:983828. 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.