IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i11p9045-d1163174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Shiva Pourfalatoun

    (Department of Systems Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

  • Jubaer Ahmed

    (Department of Systems Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

  • Erika E. Miller

    (Department of Systems Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

Abstract

Shared electric scooters (e-scooters) offer a potential strategy to mitigate environmental concerns and congestion. However, successfully addressing these issues with e-scooters requires adoption across a diverse array of consumers. Understanding the differences between users and non-users can improve shared e-scooter appeal, operation and safety. The objective of this paper is to compare shared e-scooter users and non-users in terms of their perceptions on safety, trip behaviors, other shared modes, risk propensity and willingness to adopt technology. A survey was conducted involving 210 (51.3%) users and 199 (48.7%) non-users of shared e-scooters. Binary logistic regression and chi-squared tests were performed. The results reveal that users demonstrated a higher risk propensity and were more likely to be early adopters of new technologies. Non-users tended to place higher importance on helmet use, while users have an overall increased feeling of safety associated with riding e-scooters in vehicle lanes, on sidewalks and being passed by e-scooters as a pedestrian. Overall, users also have a more positive perception of e-scooter sanitary levels than non-users, and a more positive perception on the sanitary levels and usability of e-scooters over e-bicycles. These findings can provide guidance to urban planners, municipal authorities and micromobility providers in developing infrastructure and policies to better support micromobility adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiva Pourfalatoun & Jubaer Ahmed & Erika E. Miller, 2023. "Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:11:p:9045-:d:1163174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/11/9045/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/11/9045/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margherita Pazzini & Leonardo Cameli & Claudio Lantieri & Valeria Vignali & Giulio Dondi & Thomas Jonsson, 2022. "New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’ Behaviour in Trondheim," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Lisa Ruhrort, 2020. "Reassessing the Role of Shared Mobility Services in a Transport Transition: Can They Contribute the Rise of an Alternative Socio-Technical Regime of Mobility?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Matteo della Mura & Serena Failla & Nicolò Gori & Alfonso Micucci & Filippo Paganelli, 2022. "E-Scooter Presence in Urban Areas: Are Consistent Rules, Paying Attention and Smooth Infrastructure Enough for Safety?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-36, November.
    4. Kelsey Sievert & Madeleine Roen & Curtis M. Craig & Nichole L. Morris, 2023. "A Survey of Electric-Scooter Riders’ Route Choice, Safety Perception, and Helmet Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Disi Tian & Andrew D. Ryan & Curtis M. Craig & Kelsey Sievert & Nichole L. Morris, 2022. "Characteristics and Risk Factors for Electric Scooter-Related Crashes and Injury Crashes among Scooter Riders: A Two-Phase Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Ruhrort, Lisa, 2020. "Reassessing the Role of Shared Mobility Services in a Transport Transition: Can They Contribute the Rise of an Alternative Socio-Technical Regime of Mobility?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(19), pages 1-1.
    7. Mina Lee & Joseph Y. J. Chow & Gyugeun Yoon & Brian Yueshuai He, 2019. "Forecasting e-scooter substitution of direct and access trips by mode and distance," Papers 1908.08127, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    8. Barajas, Jesus M. & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Not minding the gap: Does ride-hailing serve transit deserts?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    11. 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.
    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. Kang, Seongmin & Chung, Yongjin & Yang, Byungsoo & Lee, Hyukseong & Lee, Jun & Kim, Jinhee, 2024. "User preference and willingness-to-pay for operation strategies that enhance safety and convenience of E-scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-41.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ruhrort, Lisa & Allert, Viktoria, 2021. "Conceptualizing the Role of Individual Agency in Mobility Transitions: Avenues for the Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12, pages 1-1.
    5. Remme, Devyn & Sareen, Siddharth & Haarstad, Håvard, 2022. "Who benefits from sustainable mobility transitions? Social inclusion, populist resistance and elite capture in Bergen, Norway," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    6. Monika Hamerska & Monika Ziółko & Patryk Stawiarski, 2022. "A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Paula Quentin & Jost Buscher & Thomas Eltner, 2023. "Transport Planning beyond Infrastructural Change: An Empirical Analysis of Transport Planning Practices in the Rhine-Main Region in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, June.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Cayetano Medina-Molina & María de la Sierra Rey-Tienda & Eva María Suárez-Redondo, 2022. "The Transition of Cities towards Innovations in Mobility: Searching for a Global Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    11. Sweet, Matthias N. & Scott, Darren M., 2021. "Shared mobility adoption from 2016 to 2018 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Demographic or geographic diffusion?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Jurgis Zagorskas & Marija Burinskienė, 2019. "Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. 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).
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. Almudena Sanjurjo-de-No & Ana María Pérez-Zuriaga & Alfredo García, 2023. "Factors Influencing the Pedestrian Injury Severity of Micromobility Crashes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Marc Schabka & Aurelia Kammerhofer & Valerie Batiajew & Maria Juschten, 2022. "Driving Forces and Barriers for the Implementation of Mobility Services in Austria—A Practitioner Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    19. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    20. 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).

    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:15:y:2023:i:11:p:9045-:d:1163174. 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.