Shared E-Scooters and the Promotion of Equity across Urban Public Spaces—A Case Study in Braga, Portugal
Source abstract
Abstract
Shared e-scooters were introduced in urban public spaces as a way to promote a modal shift from cars in short-distance trips, as well as to improve sustainability, resilience, and equity in urban transport. However, the expansion of shared e-scooter services in 2019 proved that this mode of transport, without integrated planning strategies, can bring some problems to cities, which are related to the illegal parking of e-scooters, an increase in head injuries, and the lack of population diversity among users. Regarding the latest, this research work aims at conducting a case study in the city of Braga, Portugal to reveal who the actual and potential users of shared e-scooters are and how their socioeconomic profile (e.g., gender, age, income range, literacy, occupation) and usage patterns related to the ones found in other cities. For this, a revealed preference survey was deployed on the case study site, and the respondents’ profiles were statistically correlated with the socioeconomic characteristics of the city’s general population in order to assess if this mode of transport provides an equitable service. Results show that shared e-scooters are not equally used by people of different genders, ages, and income ranges. Information on e-scooter usage inequalities across the population is useful for the city to proceed with more socially equitable mobility policies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Urban Transport and Accessibility · Transportation and Mobility Innovations · Smart Parking Systems Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centre for Territory, Environment and Construction, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
LNEC I.P., Department of Transport, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal
Funding
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
References (72)
Show source-provided references
1. (2020, May 23). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
2. The Perception of Public Spaces in Mexico City, a Governance Approach10.1016/j.jum.2021.10.002 ↗
3. Demand And/oR Equity (DARE) Method for Planning Bike-Sharing10.1016/j.trd.2021.102914 ↗
4. Dias, G., Arsenio, E., and Ribeiro, P. (2021). The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the COVID-19 Mobility Restrictions. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su13137084 ↗
5. NACTO (2019). Shared Micromobility in the US: 2018, National Association of City Transportation Officials.
6. (2023, January 10). Statista E-Scooter Sharing—Europe. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-mobility/shared-rides/e-scooter-sharing/europe.
7. Møller, T.H., Simlett, J., and Mugnier, E. (2020). Micromobility: Moving Cities into a Sustainable Future, EY.
8. Can Shared E-Scooters Reduce CO2 Emissions by Substituting Car Trips in Germany?10.1016/j.trd.2022.103328 ↗
9. Kubik, A. (2022). CO2 Emissions of Electric Scooters Used in Shared Mobility Systems. Energies, 15.10.3390/en15218188 ↗
10. Pazzini, M., Cameli, L., Lantieri, C., Vignali, V., Dondi, G., and Jonsson, T. (2022). New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’ Behaviour in Trondheim. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19.10.3390/ijerph19127374 ↗
11. The Integration of Electric Scooters: Useful Technology or Public Health Problem?10.2105/AJPH.2019.304955 ↗
12. Fang, K., Agrawal, A.W., Steele, J., Hunter, J.J., and Hooper, A.M. (2018). Where Do Riders Park Dockless, Shared Electric Scooters? Findings from San Jose, California, San Jose State University.
13. Seattle Department of Transportation (2018). 2017 Free-Floating Bike Share Pilot Evaluation Report, Seattle Department of Transportation.
14. Portland Bureau of Transportation (2019). 2018 E-Scooter Findings Report, Portland Bureau of Transportation.
15. District Department of Transportation (2018). Dockless Vehicle Sharing Demonstration.
16. Integrating E-Scooters in Urban Transportation: Problems, Policies, and the Prospect of System Change
17. Guaquelin, A. (2019, November 27). Who Are You, e-Scooter Rider ?—Shared Micromobility. Available online: https://shared-micromobility.com/who-are-you-e-scooter-rider/.
18. DuPuis, N., Griess, J., and Klein, C. (2019). National League of Cities Micromobility in Cities: A History and Policy Overview.
19. Henriksson, G., and Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2020). Guideline of Best Practices, and Results of e-Micromobile Integration Potentials, EIT Urban Mobility.
20. Boucher, D., and Kelly, P. (1998). Social Justice: From Hume to Walzer, Routledge.
21. Lucas, K., Martens, K., Di Ciommo, F., and Dupont-Kieffer, A. (2019). Measuring Transport Equity, Elsevier Inc.
22. The Effects of High-Speed Rail on Accessibility and Equity: Evidence from the Turin-Lyon Case-Study10.1016/j.seps.2022.101379 ↗
23. Spatial Justice: Derivative but Causal of Social Injustice « La Justice Spatiale: À La Fois Résultante et Cause de l’injustice Sociale », Traduction: Sonia LehmanFrisch
24. Transport Accessibility and Social Inequities: A Tool for Identification of Mobility Needs and Evaluation of Transport Investments10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.004 ↗
25. Distributive Justice and Equity in Transportation10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660 ↗
26. Di Ciommo, F. (2023, January 26). Guidelines & Roadmap for Equity Planning. Dissemination Report, TU 1209 TEA COST Action. Available online: https://www.teacost.eu.
27. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: Bridging Climate Change and Equity Targets?10.1016/j.retrec.2016.04.008 ↗
28. Rupprecht, S., Brand, L., Böhler-Baedeker, S., and Brunner, L.M. (2019). Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Eltis.
29. Litman, T. (2022). Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
30. Levinson, D., and King, D. (2020). Transport Access Manual: A Guide for Measuring Connection between People and Places, Committee of the Transport Access Manual, University of Sydney.
31. A Systematic Overview of Transportation Equity in Terms of Accessibility, Traffic Emissions, and Safety Outcomes: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies
32. Exploring Equity: How Equity Norms Have Been Applied Implicitly and Explicitly in Transportation Research and Practice
33. Assessing Social and Spatial Access Equity in Regulatory Frameworks for Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Services10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.01.002 ↗
34. Bach, X., Miralles-guasch, C., and Marquet, O. (2023). Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su15032096 ↗
35. Chavis, C., and Barnes, P. (2018). Bicycle Justice or Just Bicycles? Analyzing Equity in Baltimore’s Bike Share Program, Department of Transportation and Urban Infrastructure at Morgan State University.
36. Barriers to Bikesharing: An Analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005 ↗
37. Factors Influencing Bike Share among Underserved Populations: Evidence from Three U.S. Cities10.1016/j.trd.2022.103471 ↗
38. (2023, January 30). Mobility Makers How E-Scooters Will Shape Cities This 2022. Available online: https://mobilitymakers.co/how-e-scooters-will-shape-cities-this-2022/.
39. Arcadis (2019). How Micro-Mobility Is Transforming First/Last Mile Travel in Cities, Arcadis.
40. Populus Majority of U.S (2019, November 27). City Dwellers View E-Scooters Positively | Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/15786/public-perception-of-electric-scooters/.
41. Usage of E-Scooters in Urban Environments10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.178 ↗
42. Chang, A., Miranda-Moreno, L., Clewlow, R., and Lijun Sun, P. (2019). Trend or Fad? Deciphering the Enablers of Micromobility in the U.S., SAE International.
43. Karen, V. (2019). Macro Managing Micro Mobility Taking the Long View on Short Trips, POLIS.
44. Sönnichsen, N. (2019, December 05). Average Distance Travelled on E-Scooter in Germany in July and September 2019, by Provider (in Kilometers). Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034676/e-scooter-average-distance-travelled-provider/.
45. (2020). City of Faro Micro-Mobility Monitoring Report, Municipality of Faro, Vianova Market Insights.
46. (2020, February 06). City of Chicago E-Scooter Pilot Evaluation. Available online: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/E-Scooter-Trips-2020/3rse-fbp6.
47. (2020, September 08). City of Tucson E-Scooter Pilot Program Evaluation, Available online: tucsonaz.gov.
48. Factors Influencing the Usage of Shared E-Scooters in Chicago10.1016/j.tra.2021.10.008 ↗
49. Analysis of Recreational and Last Mile E-Scooter Utilization in Different Land Use Regions
50. E-Scooters and Sustainability: Investigating the Relationship between the Density of E-Scooter Trips and Characteristics of Sustainable Urban Development10.1016/j.scs.2020.102624 ↗
51. Planning for E-Scooter Use in Metropolitan Cities: A Case Study for Paris10.1016/j.trd.2021.103037 ↗
52. Micro-Mobility in the “Virucity”. The Effectiveness of E-Scooter Sharing10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.060 ↗
53. Who Is Using E-Scooters and How? Evidence from Paris10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708 ↗
54. 6t-Bureau de Recherche (2019). Uses and Users of Free-Floating Electric Scooters in France, 6t-Bureau de Recherche.
55. Survey of E-Scooter Users in Vienna: Who They Are and How They Ride10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874 ↗
56. Who Uses Shared Micro-Mobility Services? Empirical Evidence from Zurich, Switzerland10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803 ↗
57. Who Are the Potential Users of Shared E-Scooters? An Examination of Socio-Demographic, Attitudinal and Environmental Factors10.1016/j.tbs.2020.12.004 ↗
58. Jiao, J., and Bai, S. (2020). Understanding the Shared E-Scooter Travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf., 9.10.3390/ijgi9020135 ↗
59. Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics
60. (2023, January 16). Pordata Conheça o Seu Município. Available online: https://www.pordata.pt/municipios.
61. Câmara Municipal de Braga (2018). Estudo de Mobilidade e Gestão de Tráfego Para a Cidade de Braga. Fase I—Caraterização e Diagnóstico, Municipality of Braga.
62. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2022). Censos 2021—Divulgação Dos Resultados Definitivos, Instituto Nacional de Estatística.
63. Understanding Factors Influencing Shared E-Scooter Usage and Its Impact on Auto Mode Substitution10.1016/j.trd.2021.102991 ↗
64. Spatiotemporal Comparative Analysis of Scooter-Share and Bike-Share Usage Patterns in Washington, D.C10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007 ↗
65. Influence of the Built Environment on E-Scooter Sharing Ridership: A Tale of Five Cities10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103084 ↗
66. Spatial Associations of Dockless Shared E-Scooter Usage10.1016/j.trd.2020.102396 ↗
67. Hamburg, M. (2010). Basic Statistics: A Modern Approach, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [2nd ed.].
68. Pestana, M.H., and Gageiro, J.N. (2014). Análise de Dados Para Ciências Sociais: A Complementaridade Do SPSS, Edições Sílabo. [6th ed.].
69. Analysis of E-Scooter Trips and Their Temporal Usage Patterns
70. Analysis of Attitudes and Engagement of Shared E-Scooter Users10.1016/j.trd.2021.102790 ↗
71. 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
72. (2023, January 26). Transport for London Electric Scooters—Transport for London, Available online: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/electric-scooter-rental-trial#on-this-page-2.