Active transport modes; E-scooters; Personal e-transporters; Pets; Travel behaviour; Urban mobility; Geography, Planning and Development; Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment; Environmental Science (miscellaneous); Energy Engineering and Power Technology; Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Abstract :
[en] In the last few years, there has been a strong increase in the interest in and usage of so-called “Personal e-Transporters” (PeTs), also referred to as micro-mobility devices. Empirical research on the usage of PeTs as a transport mode is virtually non-existent, especially within Europe. This paper aims to fill this gap by investigating people’s motivations and barriers to the use of PeTs. To this end, a behavioural survey was conducted in nine European cities. A representative sample of approximately 250 respondents per city was collected, resulting in a dataset, after data cleaning, of 2159 observations. Generally, respondents’ perceptions of PeTs are not (yet) very favourable. Respondents’ perceptions related to cost and safety received the lowest scores. The results from the transtheoretical model of behavioural change show that a variety of factors influence the stage of behavioural change in which the respondents can be situated. These factors include cycling norms, current walking behaviour, walking attitudes, pro-environmental orientation, gender, PeTs possession, cycling obstacles and subscription to a bicycle sharing service. An important strength of this study lies in the international nature and the size of the data collection, ensuring the reliability and transferability of the results to other cities. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first large-scale survey to investigate people’s travel behaviour related to the usage of PeTs and possibly the only large-scale investigation that took place before the deployment of shared e-scooters in many European cities. Furthermore, an explicit link is made with other modes of active transport (walking and cycling).
Disciplines :
Special economic topics (health, labor, transportation...)
Author, co-author :
De Ceunynck, Tim; Vias Institute, Brussels, Belgium
Wijlhuizen, Gert Jan; SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague, Netherlands
Fyhri, Aslak; TØI Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway
Gerike, Regine ; Institute of Transport Planning and Road Traffic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Köhler, Dagmar; Polis, Brussels, Belgium
Ciccone, Alice; TØI Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway
Dijkstra, Atze ; SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague, Netherlands
Dupont, Emmanuelle; Vias Institute, Brussels, Belgium
Cools, Mario ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département ArGEnCo > Transports et mobilité ; Department of Informatics, Simulation and Modeling, KU Leuven Campus Brussels, Brussels, Belgium ; Faculty of Business Economics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
Language :
English
Title :
Assessing the willingness to use personal e-transporters (PeTs): Results from a cross-national survey in nine European cities
Agarwal, A.; Ziemke, D.; Nagel, K. Bicycle superhighway: An environmentally sustainable policy for urban transport. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 137, 519-540.
United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision; Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
Boarnet, M.G.; Giuliano, G.; Hou, Y.; Shin, E.J. First/last mile transit access as an equity planning issue. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 296-310.
Bird. A look at E-Scooter Safety-Examining Risks, Reviewing Responsibilities, and Prioritizing Prevention. 2019. Available online: https://www.bird.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bird-Safety-Report-April-2019.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2021).
Krümmel, K.; Gernant, E.; Stolt, R.; Stolze, B.; Moschner, H. Deconstructing the Micromobility Phenomenon-A Strategic Analysis of Crucial Success Factors; Porsche Consulting: Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany, 2019.
Hitchings, J.; Weekley, J.; Beard, G. Review of Current Practice and Safety Implications of Electric Personal Mobility Devices; TRL Limited: Crowthorne, UK, 2019.
O’Hern, S.; Estgfaeller, N. A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9505.
Hollingsworth, J.; Copeland, B.; Johnson, J.X. Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 084031.
Smith, C.S.; Schwierterman, J.P. E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago; Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018.
Shaheen, S.; Chan, N. Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Facilitate the First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections. Built Environ. 2016, 42, 573-588.
Bai, S.; Jiao, J. Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments: A comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 20, 264-272.
Degele, J.; Gorr, A.; Haas, K.; Kormann, D.; Krauss, S.; Lipinski, P.; Tenbih, M.; Koppenhoefer, C.; Fauser, J.; Hertweck, D. Identifying E-Scooter Sharing Customer Segments Using Clustering. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart, Germany, 17-20 June 2018; pp. 1-8.
Caspi, O.; Smart, M.J.; Noland, R.B. Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 86, 102396.
Almannaa, M.H.; Alsahhaf, F.A.; Ashqar, H.I.; Elhenawy, M.; Masoud, M.; Rakotonirainy, A. Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 863.
McKenzie, G. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 19-28.
Fitt, H.; Curl, A. E-Scooter Use in New Zealand: Insights around Some Frequently Askede Questions; University of Canterbury:Christchurch, New Zealand, 2019; Available online: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/16336 (accessed on 9 March 2021).
James, O.; Swiderski, J.I.; Hicks, J.; Teoman, D.; Buehler, R. Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5591.
Berge, S.H. Kickstart for Mikromobilitet-En pilotstudie om Elsparkesykler; TØI Institute of Transport Economics: Oslo, Norway, 2019. (In Norwegian)
Bamberg, S. Is a Stage Model a Useful Approach to Explain Car Drivers’Willingness to Use Public Transportation? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1757-1783.
Prochaska, J.O.; Velicer, W.F. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997, 12, 38-48.
Dunlap, R.E.; Liere, K.D.V.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425-442.
Cools, M.; Brijs, K.; Tormans, H.; Moons, E.; Janssens, D.;Wets, G. The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 779-788.
Cools, M.; Declercq, K.; Janssens, D.;Wets, G. Onderzoek Verplaatsingsgedrag Vlaanderen 4.2 (2009-2010); Transportation Research Institute, Hasselt University: Hasselt, Belgium, 2011.
Kutner, M.H.; Nachtsheim, C.J.; Neter, J.; Li, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th ed.; Mc Graw Hill India: Nodia, India, 2013; ISBN 978-1-259-06474-6.
Verplanken, B.; Wood, W. Interventions to Break and Create Consumer Habits. J. Public Policy Mark. 2006, 25, 90-103.
Bieliński, T.;Wazna, A. Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9640.
Abay, K.A.; Mannering, F.L. An empirical analysis of risk-taking in car driving and other aspects of life. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 97, 57-68.
De Ceunynck, T.; Daniels, S.; Vanderspikken, B.; Brijs, K.; Hermans, E.; Brijs, T.; Wets, G. Is there a spillover effect of a right turn on red permission for bicyclists? Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 36, 35-45.
Palamara, P.; Molnar, L.; Eby, D.; Kopinanthan, C.; Langford, J.; Gorman, J.; Broughton, M. Review of Young Driver Risk Taking and Its Association with other Risk Taking Behaviours; Curtin-Monash Accident Research Centre: Bentley, Australia; Michigan Center for Advancing Safe Transportation throughout the Lifespan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2012.
Boniface, K.; McKay, M.P.; Lucas, R.; Shaffer, A.; Sikka, N. Serious Injuries Related to the Segway® Personal Transporter: A Case Series. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2011, 57, 370-374.
Xu, J.; Shang, S.; Qi, H.; Yu, G.;Wang, Y.; Chen, P. Simulative investigation on head injuries of electric self-balancing scooter riders subject to ground impact. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 89, 128-141.
Xu, J.; Shang, S.; Yu, G.; Qi, H.;Wang, Y.; Xu, S. Are electric self-balancing scooters safe in vehicle crash accidents? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 87, 102-116.
De Ceunynck, T.; Slootmans, F.; Daniels, S. Characteristics and profiles of moped crashes in urban areas: An in-depth study. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 85-95.
Tuncer, S.; Laurier, E.; Brown, B.; Licoppe, C. Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 85, 102702.
Scheepers, C.E.;Wendel-Vos, G.C.W.; den Broeder, J.M.; van Kempen, E.E.M.M.; van Wesemael, P.J.V.; Schuit, A.J. Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 70, 264-280.
Krier, C.; Chrétien, J.; Louvet, N. Usages et Usagers de Services de Trottinettes Electriques en Free-Floating en France; 6t: Paris, France, 2019. (In French)
Portland Bureau of Transportation. 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report; Portland Bureau of Transportation: Portland, OR, USA, 2019.
Yang, H.; Ma, Q.; Wang, Z.; Cai, Q.; Xie, K.; Yang, D. Safety of micro-mobility: Analysis of E-Scooter crashes by mining news reports. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 143, 105608.
De Ceunynck, T.; De Smedt, J.; Daniels, S.;Wouters, R.; Baets, M. “Crashing the gates”-Selection criteria for television news reporting of traffic crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 80, 142-152.
Schepers, P.; Agerholm, N.; Amoros, E.; Benington, R.; Bjørnskau, T.; Dhondt, S.; de Geus, B.; Hagemeister, C.; Loo, B.P.Y.; Niska, A. An international review of the frequency of single-bicycle crashes (SBCs) and their relation to bicycle modal share. Inj. Prev. 2014, 21, e138-e143.
