Top

Published in:

Open Access 16-05-2023 | Public Health | Review

Public Health-Led Insights on Electric Micro-mobility Adoption and Use: a Scoping Review

Authors: Alexandra Bretones, Oriol Marquet, Carolyn Daher, Laura Hidalgo, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Carme Miralles-Guasch, Natalie Mueller

Published in: Journal of Urban Health | Issue 3/2023

Abstract

The advent of electric micro-mobility (EMM) has transformed the urban mobility landscape, with projections indicating a 5–10% increase in its modal share in European cities by 2030. In this scoping review, we aimed to comprehensively examine the key determinants of EMM adoption and usage from a public health perspective. Sixty-seven articles were included in the analysis, primarily covering e-bikes and e-scooters. The determinants were categorised into two broad categories: (1) contextual determinants that encompass enabling and hindering factors related to legal frameworks, transportation systems and infrastructure, and technology, and (2) individual-level determinants that pertain to intrinsic motivations and deterrents of individuals. Our findings reveal that EMM vehicles are widely perceived as a cost-effective, flexible, ad hoc, and fast mode of transportation within urban areas, augmenting accessibility and connectivity. Additionally, the lightweight, foldable, and transportable nature of these vehicles is highly appreciated by users. However, several barriers have also been identified, including inadequate infrastructure and end-of-trip facilities, limited capability to traverse diverse terrains and trip scenarios, acquisition and maintenance costs, limited carrying capacities, technical failures, and accident risks. Our results suggest that the interplay of contextual enablers and barriers and personal motivations and deterrents drive the emergence, adoption, and usage of EMM. Hence, a comprehensive understanding of both contextual and individual-level determinants is crucial for ensuring a sustainable and healthy uptake of EMM.

Hwang JJ. Sustainable transport strategy for promoting zero-emission electric scooters in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14(5):1390–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2010.01.014.CrossRef

Noland RB. Trip patterns and revenue of shared e-scooters in Louisville, Kentucky. Transp Find. Published online April 1, 2019. https://doi.org/10.32866/7747

Requia WJ, Mohamed M, Higgins CD, Arain A, Ferguson M. How clean are electric vehicles? Evidence-based review of the effects of electric mobility on air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions and human health. Atmos Environ. 2018;185:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.040.CrossRef

Johnson R. Mobility scooters in the UK: public perception of their role. 2018;171(4):207-215. https://doi.org/10.1680/JTRAN.16.00140

May E, Garrett R, Ballantyne A. Being mobile: electric mobility-scooters and their use by older people. Ageing Soc. 2010;30(7):1219–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000334.CrossRef

Metz D. Future transport technologies for an ageing society: practice and policy. Transp Sustain. 2017;10:207–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120170000010009.CrossRef

Shaheen S, Zhang H, Martin E, Guzman S. China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle: understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing. Transp Res Rec. 2011;2247:33–41. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-05.CrossRef

Shaheen S, Chan N. Mobility and the sharing economy: potential to overcome first-and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ Published online. 2016. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2862DN3.CrossRef

Shaheen S, Chan N. Mobility and the sharing economy: potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ. 2016;42(4):573–88. https://doi.org/10.2148/BENV.42.4.573.CrossRef

10.

Pettersson I, Hagberg L, Fredriksson C, Hermansson LN. The effect of powered scooters on activity, participation and quality of life in elderly users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(7):558–63. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2015.1027301.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Porcelli P, Ungar M, Liebenberg L, Trépanier N. (Micro)mobility, disability and resilience: exploring well-being among youth with physical disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(6):863–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.902360.CrossRef

12.

Jones T, Harms L, Heinen E. Motives, perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. J Transp Geogr. 2016;53:41–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.04.006.CrossRef

13.

Milakis D, Gedhardt L, Ehebrecht D, Lenz B. Is micro-mobility sustainable? An overview of implications for accessibility, air pollution, safety, physical activity and subjective wellbeing. Handb Sustain Transp. Published online December 18, 2020:180–189. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900477.00030

14.

Yanocha D, Allan M. Maximizing micromobility: unlocking opportunities to integrate micromobility. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy; 2021. https://www.itdp.org/publication/maximizing‐micromobility/. Accessed 22 Oct 2021

15.

European Parliament and the European Council. Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European parliament and of the council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Published online 2013.

16.

Christoforou Z, Gioldasis C, de Bortoli A, Seidowsky R. Who is using e-scooters and how? Evidence from Paris. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2021;92:102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708.

17.

McKinsey & Company. The future of micromobility: ridership and revenue after a crisis. Published 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-future-of-micromobility-ridership-and-revenue-after-a-crisis. Accessed 21 Oct 2021

18.

Agrawal AW, Fang K, Hooper AM, Board TR. Electric kick scooters on sidewalks in Virginia but Not in California? A review of how states regulate personal transportation devices. Published online 2018:17p. https://trid.trb.org/view/1572886

19.

Sikka N, Vila C, Stratton M, Ghassemi M, Pourmand A. Sharing the sidewalk: a case of e-scooter related pedestrian injury. Vol 37. Elsevier Inc.; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.017

20.

Berge SH. Kickstarting micromobility – a pilot study on e-scooters. TØI Rep. Published online September 2019:68p. https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/1350932/Publikasjoner/TØIrapporter/2019/1721–2019/1721–2019-elektronisk.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2021

21.

McQueen M, Abou-Zeid G, MacArthur J, Clifton K. Transportation transformation: is micromobility making a macro impact on sustainability? J Plan Lit. 2021;36(1):46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220972696.CrossRef

22.

Bjornara HB, Berntsen S, te Velde SJ, et al. From cars to bikes - the effect of an intervention providing access to different bike types: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2019;14(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219304

23.

Rérat P. The rise of the e-bike: towards an extension of the practice of cycling? Mobilities. 2021;16(3):423–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2021.1897236.CrossRef

24.

Söderberg A, Adell E, Hiselius LW. What is the substitution effect of e-bikes? A randomised controlled trial. Transp Res PART D-TRANSPORT Environ. 2021;90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102648

25.

MacArthur J, Harpool M, Scheppke D, et al. A North American Survey of Electric Bicycle Owners. Published online 2018:67p. http://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC_RR_1041_North_American_Survey_Electric_Bicycle_Owners.pdf%0Ahttps://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37442%0Ahttps://trid.trb.org/view/1506600. Accessed 27 Oct 2021

26.

Bozzi AD, Aguilera A. Shared e-scooters: a review of uses, health and environmental impacts, and policy implications of a new micro-mobility service. Sustain. 2021;13(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168676

27.

Glavić D, Trpković A, Milenković M, Jevremović S. The e-scooter potential to change urban mobility—belgrade case study. Sustain. 2021;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115948

28.

Almannaa MH, Alsahhaf FA, Ashqar HI, Elhenawy M, Masoud M, Rakotonirainy A. Perception analysis of e-scooter riders and non-riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: survey outputs. Sustain. 2021;13(2):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020863.CrossRef

29.

Bateman LB, Fouad MN, Sullivan A, Heider L, Oates GR. Barriers and facilitators to bikeshare programs: a qualitative study in an urban environment. J Transp Heal. 2021;21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101062

30.

Cao Z, Zhang X, Chua K, Yu H, Zhao J. E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: a Singapore case. Transp Res PART A-POLICY Pract. 2021;147:177–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.03.004.CrossRef

31.

Nikiforiadis A, Paschalidis E, Stamatiadis N, Raptopoulou A, Kostareli A, Basbas S. Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2021;94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102790

32.

Campbell AA, Cherry CR, Ryerson MS, Yang X. Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2016;67:399–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRC.2016.03.004.CrossRef

33.

Bielinski T, Dopierala L, Tarkowski M, Wazna A. Lessons from implementing a metropolitan electric bike sharing system. Energies. 2020;13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236240

34.

Wikstrøm RD, Böcker L. Changing suburban daily mobilities in response to a mobility intervention: a qualitative investigation of an E-bike trial. Sustain. 2020;12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062413

35.

Edge S, Dean J, Cuomo M, Keshav S. Exploring e-bikes as a mode of sustainable transport: a temporal qualitative study of the perspectives of a sample of novice riders in a Canadian city. Can Geogr. 2018;62(3):384–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12456.CrossRef

36.

Bourne JE, Cooper AR, Kelly P, et al. The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: a scoping review. J Transp Heal. 2020;19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100910

37.

Ognissanto F, Hopkin J, Stevens A, Millard K, Jones M. Innovative active travel solutions and their evaluation. Published.; 2018. https://trl.co.uk/publications/an-evaluation-of-innovative-active-travel-solutions. Accessed 25 Oct 2021

38.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach Zachary. BMC Med Res Methodol Published online. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.CrossRef

39.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Khreis H. Transport and health; an introduction. Adv Transp Heal Tools, Technol Policies, Dev. Published online January 2020:3–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819136-1.00001-2

41.

Bjørnarå HB, Berntsen S, te Velde SJ, et al. From cars to bikes - the feasibility and effect of using e-bikes, longtail bikes and traditional bikes for transportation among parents of children attending kindergarten: design of a randomized cross-over trial. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):9p. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4995-z.CrossRef

42.

Bourne JE, Sauchelli S, Perry R, et al. Health benefits of electrically-assisHealth benefits of electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0751-8

43.

Chapman D, Larsson A. Practical urban planning for winter cycling; lessons from a Swedish pilot study. J Transp Heal. 2021;21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101060

44.

De Geus B, Hendriksen I. Cycling for transport, physical activity and health: what about pedelecs? In: Cycling Futures: From Res Into Practice. 2016:17–31. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315575742-9

45.

Dill J, Rose G. E-bikes and transportation policy: insights from early adopters. Transp Res Rec. 2012;2314:1–11.CrossRef

46.

Johnson M, Rose G. Extending life on the bike: electric bike use by older Australians. J Transp Heal. 2015;2(2):276–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2015.03.001.CrossRef

47.

Møller TH, Simlett J. Micromobility: moving cities into a sustainable future. Ernst & Young Global Limited (UK Company); 2020. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey‐sites/eycom/en_gl/topics/automotive‐and‐transportation/automotive‐transportation‐pdfs/ey‐micromobility‐movingcities‐into‐a‐sustainable‐future.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2021

48.

Fearnley N, Berge SH, Johnsson E, et al. Shared e-scooters in Oslo. TØI Rep. 2020;(1748/2020):116p. https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/1352254/Publikasjoner/TØIrapporter/2020/1748–2020/1748–2020-elektronisk.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2012

49.

Oeschger G, Carroll P, Caulfield B. Micromobility and public transport integration: the current state of knowledge. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020;89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628

50.

Zagorskas J, Burinskiene M. Challenges caused by increased use of e-powered personal mobility vehicles in European cities. Sustain. 2020;12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010273

51.

Arsenio E, Dias J V, Lopes SA, Pereira HI. Assessing the market potential of electric bicycles and ICT for low carbon school travel: a case study in the smart city of Agueda. In: Coppola P, ed. Emerging technologies and models for transport and mobility. Vol 26. Transp Res Procedia. 2017:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.07.013

52.

Severengiz S, Schelte N, Bracke S. Analysis of the environmental impact of e-scooter sharing services considering product reliability characteristics and durability. Procedia CIRP. 2020;96:181–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.072.CrossRef

53.

Fyhri A, Heinen E, Fearnley N, Sundfør HB. A push to cycling—exploring the e-bike’s role in overcoming barriers to bicycle use with a survey and an intervention study. Int J Sustain Transp. 2017;11(9):681–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302526.CrossRef

54.

Kjærup M, Skov MB, van Berkel N. E-scooter sustainability – a clash of needs, perspectives, and experiences. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2021;12934 LNCS:365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85613-7_26

55.

Gössling S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020;79(January):102230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230

56.

Berntsen S, Malnes L, Langåker A, Bere E. Physical activity when riding an electric assisted bicycle. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-017-0513-Z

57.

Glenn J, Bluth M, Christianson M, et al. Considering the potential health impacts of electric scooters: an analysis of user reported behaviors in Provo, Utah. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176344

58.

Gojanovic B, Welker J, Iglesias K, Daucourt C, Gremion G. Electric bicycles as a new active transportation modality to promote health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(11):2204–10. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821cbdc8.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Dias G, Arsenio E, Ribeiro P. The role of shared e-scooter systems in urban sustainability and resilience during the covid-19 mobility restrictions. Sustain. 2021;13(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137084

60.

Alessio HM, Reiman T, Kemper B, von Carlowitz W, Bailer AJ, Timmerman KL. Metabolic and cardiovascular responses to a simulated commute on an e-bike. Transl J Am Coll Sport Med. 2021;6(2).

61.

Teixeira JF, Silva C, e Sá F. The motivations for using bike sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from Lisbon. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2021;82:378–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.09.016

62.

Hoj TH, Bramwell JJ, Lister C, et al. Increasing active transportation through e-bike use: pilot study comparing the health benefits, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding e-bikes and conventional bikes. JMIR Public Heal Surveill. 2018;4(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/10461

63.

Félix R, Cambra P, Moura F. Build it and give ‘em bikes, and they will come: the effects of cycling infrastructure and bike-sharing system in Lisbon. Case Stud Transp Policy. 2020;8(2):672–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.03.002.CrossRef

64.

Mildestvedt T, Hovland O, Berntsen S, Bere E, Fegran L. Getting physically active by e-bike: an active commuting intervention study. Phys Act Heal. 2020;4(1):120–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/paah.63.CrossRef

65.

Glavic D, Trpkovic A, Milenkovic M, Jevremovic S. The e-scooter potential to change urban mobility-Belgrade case study. Sustainability. 2021;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115948

66.

Campisi T, Akgün-Tanbay N, Md Nahiduzzaman K, Dissanayake D. Uptake of e-scooters in Palermo, Italy: do the road users tend to rent, buy or share? Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2021;12953 LNCS:669–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86976-2_46

67.

Weiss M, Dekker P, Moro A, Scholz H, Patel MK. On the electrification of road transportation - a review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2015;41:348–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007.CrossRef

68.

Bielinski T, Wazna A. Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability. 2020;12(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640

69.

Kwiatkowski MA, Grzelak-Kostulska E, Biegańska J. Could it be a bike for everyone? The electric bicycle in Poland. Energies. 2021;14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164878

70.

Boland P, Connell L, Thetford C, Janssen J. Exploring the factors influencing the use of electrically assisted bikes (e-bikes) by stroke survivors: a mixed methods multiple case study. Disabil Rehabil Published online. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1817986.CrossRef

71.

Van Cauwenberg J, de Geus B, Deforche B. Cycling for transport among older adults: health benefits, prevalence, determinants, injuries and the potential of e-bikes.; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76360-6_6

72.

Yin Y, Yu Z, Wang H, Ye J. Sharing transport in high education area of Ningbo: examining users’ characteristics and driving determinants. J Clean Prod. 2021;306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127231

73.

Felipe-Falgas P, Madrid-Lopez C, Marquet O. Assessing micromobility environmental performance using LCA and self-reported modal change. The case of shared e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-mopeds in Barcelona. Sustainability. 2022;14:4139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074139

74.

de Bortoli A. Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2021;93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102743

75.

Kroesen M. To what extent do e-bikes substitute travel by other modes? Evidence from the Netherlands. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2017;53:377–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.036.CrossRef

76.

Fyhri A, Heinen E, Fearnley N, Sundfor HB. A push to cyclingexploring the e-bike’s role in overcoming barriers to bicycle use with a survey and an intervention study. Int J Sustain Transp. 2017;11(9):681–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302526.CrossRef

Title: Public Health-Led Insights on Electric Micro-mobility Adoption and Use: a Scoping Review
Authors: Alexandra Bretones
Oriol Marquet
Carolyn Daher
Laura Hidalgo
Mark Nieuwenhuijsen
Carme Miralles-Guasch
Natalie Mueller
Publication date: 16-05-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Public Health
Published in: Journal of Urban Health / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1099-3460
Electronic ISSN: 1468-2869
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-023-00731-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Public Health-Led Insights on Electric Micro-mobility Adoption and Use: a Scoping Review

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Temporal and Spatial Trends of Adverse Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes in a Sample of Births from a Public Hospital in Chile

How Can We Measure Alcohol Outlet Density Around Schools? A Comparison Between Two Buffer-Based Methods

Examining Increasing Racial Inequities in Opioid Overdose Deaths: a Spatiotemporal Analysis of Black and White Decedents in St. Louis, Missouri, 2011–2021

Patient Characteristics Associated with Telehealth Scheduling and Completion in Primary Care at a Large, Urban Public Healthcare System

Playground Location and Patterns of Use

Racial Discrimination and Sleep Quality during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the Health, Ethnicity, and Pandemic (HEAP) Study