AI Chat Paper
Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
{{expandStatus?'Exit ':''}}Advanced Search
• Fee reductions and subsidies increase micromobility adoption and profitability.
• Fleet expansion and strategic policies boost shared micromobility usage.
• Balancing regulations and costs are crucial for micromobility market growth.
• Sensitivity analysis identifies fleet size, user demand, and revenue allocation as key factors.
• Real-world data validates the model's emphasis on fleet expansion and strategic policies.
Rapid urbanization and shifting demographics worldwide necessitate innovative urban transportation solutions. Shared micromobility systems, such as bicycle- and scooter-sharing programs, have emerged as promising alternatives to traditional urban mobility challenges. This study delves into the complexity of shared micromobility fleet development, focusing on the interplay between fleet size, user demand, regulatory frameworks, economic viability, and public engagement. By employing a system dynamics modeling approach that incorporates causal loop diagrams (CLDs) and stock and flow models (SFMs), we explore various policy scenarios to optimize micromobility management systems. Our findings reveal that financial incentives, such as fee reductions and government subsidies, significantly increase user adoption and profitability, whereas increased operational fees necessitate a delicate balance between cost management and service attractiveness. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses highlight critical parameters for effective fleet management. This research offers actionable insights for policymakers and operators, promoting sustainable urban transport systems.
Abduljabbar, R.L., Liyanage, S., Dia, H., 2021. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: a systematic literature review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 92, 102734.
Aarhaug, J., Fearnley, N., Hartveit, K.J.L., Johnsson, E., 2023. Price and competition in emerging shared e-scooter markets. Res. Transp. Econ. 98, 101273.
Caggiani, L., Camporeale, R., Marinelli, M., Ottomanelli, M., 2019. User satisfaction based model for resource allocation in bike-sharing systems. Transp. Policy 80, 117–126.
Clark, D.J., Jørgensen, F., Mathisen, T.A., 2011. Relationships between fares, trip length and market competition. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 45, 611–624.
Ghasri, M., Ardeshiri, A., Rashidi, T., 2019. Perception towards electric vehicles and the impact on consumers' preference. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 77, 271–291.
Ghotbabadi, A.R., Rohaziat, B., 2015. Service quality measurements: a review. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., 5, 267–286.
Gössling, S., 2020. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 79, 102230.
Gu, T., Kim, I., Currie, G., 2019. To be or not to be dockless: empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 119, 122–147.
Harrison, G., Guhnemann, A., Shepherd, S., 2020. The business case for a journey planning and ticketing app—comparison between a simulation analysis and real-world data. Sustainability 12, 4005.
Hu, J.W., Creutzig, F., 2022. A systematic review on shared mobility in China. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 16, 374–389.
Jin, Z., Wang, Y., Lim, Y.F., Pan, K., Shen, Z.J.M., 2023. Vehicle rebalancing in a shared micromobility system with rider crowdsourcing. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 25, 1394–1415.
Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A.M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., González, M.J.A., Narayan, J., 2017. Mobility as a servi a critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Plan. 2, 13–25.
Kopplin, C.S., Brand, B.M., Reichenberger, Y., 2021. Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 91, 102680.
Krauss, K., Krail, M., Axhausen, K.W., 2022. What drives the utility of shared transport services for urban travellers? A stated preference survey in German cities. Travel Behav. Soc. 26, 206–220.
Laa, B., Leth, U., 2020. Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. J. Transp. Geogr. 89, 102874.
Lee, M., Chow, J.Y., Yoon, G., He, B.Y., 2021. Forecasting e-scooter substitution of direct and access 785 trips by mode and distance. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 96, 102892.
Liao, F., Correia, G., 2022. Electric carsharing and micromobility: a literature review on their usage pattern, demand, and potential impacts. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 16, 269–286.
Litman, T., 2004. Transit price elasticities and cross - elasticities. J. Public Transp. 7, 37–58.
Moran, M.E., Laa, B., Emberger, G., 2020. Six scooter operators, six maps: spatial coverage and regulation of micromobility in Vienna, Austria. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 8, 658–671.
Pande, D., Taeihagh, A., 2021. The governance conundrum of powered micromobility devices: an In-depth case study from Singapore. Sustainability 13, 6202.
Paulley, N., Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Titheridge, H., Preston, J., Wardman, M., et al., 2006. The demand for public transport: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transp. Policy, 13, 295–306.
Pfaffenbichler, P., Emberger, G., Shepherd, S., 2008. The integrated dynamic land use and transport model MARS. Netw. Spatial Econ. 8, 183–200.
Pfaffenbichler, P., Emberger, G., Shepherd, S., 2010. A system dynamics approach to land use transport interaction modelling: the strategic model MARS and its application. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 26, 262–282.
Pfaffenbichler, P., Gühnemann, A., Klementschitz, R., Emberger, G., Shepherd, S., 2020. A systemic analysis of impacts of individual and shared automated mobility in Austria. Transp. Res. Procedia 49, 6–16.
Reck, D.J., Axhausen, K.W., 2020. Subsidized ridesourcing for the first/last mile: how valuable for whom? Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res, 20, 59–77.
Riggs, W., Kawashima, M., Batstone, D., 2021. Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 151, 18–27.
Sanchez, N.C., martinex, I., Pastor, L.A., Larson, K., 2022. On the simulation of shared autonomous micro-mobility. Commun. Transp. Res. 2, 100065.
Shah, N.R., Ziedan, A., Brakewood, C., Cherry, C.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. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 178, 103878.
Shaheen, S., Chan, N., 2016. Mobility and the sharing economy: potential to facilitate the first- and last-mile public transit connections. Built. Environ. 42, 573–588.
Šucha, M., Drimlová, E., Rečka, K., Haworth, N., Karlsen, K., Fyhri, A., et al., 2023. E-scooter riders and pedestrians: attitudes and interactions in five countries. Heliyon, 9, e15449.
Vizmpa, C., Botzoris, G., Lemonakis, P., Galanis, A., 2023. Micromobility in urban trail paths: expanding and strengthening the planning of 15-minute cities. Land 12, 2181.
Wang, Y., Wu, J., Chen, K., Liu, P., 2021. Are shared electric scooters energy efficient? Commun. Transp. Res. 1, 100022.
Zagorskas, J., Burinskienė, M., 2019. Challenges caused by increased use of E-powered personal mobility vehicles in European Cities. Sustainability 12, 273.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
京公网安备11010802044758号