Expectations, impacts, and contradictions of e-scooters from a social exclusion perspective: Reflections from London's rental trial

Daniel Oviedo, Carolina Moore, Anastasia Trofimova
{"title":"Expectations, impacts, and contradictions of e-scooters from a social exclusion perspective: Reflections from London's rental trial","authors":"Daniel Oviedo,&nbsp;Carolina Moore,&nbsp;Anastasia Trofimova","doi":"10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There are few attempts at introducing new personal transport technologies have made as much noise as the relatively recent appearance of electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities as an on-demand shared mobility service supported by digital platforms. In London, United Kingdom, urban pilots for shared e-scooter services have been met with significant disruptions stemming from issues that range from the pandemic to regulatory uncertainty, recent political shifts, and slow legislative processes. This paper seeks to address gaps in reliable evidence about e-scooters’ positive and negative contributions to social and environmental development goals using a qualitative approach grounded in a framework of transport-related social exclusion. The framework comprises of eight dimensions linked with usage of new modes of personal transport technologies: 1) geographic, 2) spatial, 3) from facilities, 4) economics, 5) time-based, 6) physical, 7) fear-based, and 8) discrimination. The paper builds on semi-structured interviews with 27 stakeholders representing diverse organisations in the public, private, and third sectors, and an online survey with over 1000 respondents, including users and non-users of private and shared e-scooters. We interrogate the practices, experiences, and expectations of stakeholders within London’s, as well as the United Kingdom’s urban micro-mobility landscape. The paper expands on current research efforts that are concerned almost exclusively with the environmental, road traffic safety, and reductionist interpretations of ‘inclusion’ and ‘accessibility’, adding depth and nuance to discussions on intersectionality, deprivation, as well as social and cultural values in the planning of on-demand shared mobility services.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100771,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100053"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are few attempts at introducing new personal transport technologies have made as much noise as the relatively recent appearance of electric scooters (e-scooters) in cities as an on-demand shared mobility service supported by digital platforms. In London, United Kingdom, urban pilots for shared e-scooter services have been met with significant disruptions stemming from issues that range from the pandemic to regulatory uncertainty, recent political shifts, and slow legislative processes. This paper seeks to address gaps in reliable evidence about e-scooters’ positive and negative contributions to social and environmental development goals using a qualitative approach grounded in a framework of transport-related social exclusion. The framework comprises of eight dimensions linked with usage of new modes of personal transport technologies: 1) geographic, 2) spatial, 3) from facilities, 4) economics, 5) time-based, 6) physical, 7) fear-based, and 8) discrimination. The paper builds on semi-structured interviews with 27 stakeholders representing diverse organisations in the public, private, and third sectors, and an online survey with over 1000 respondents, including users and non-users of private and shared e-scooters. We interrogate the practices, experiences, and expectations of stakeholders within London’s, as well as the United Kingdom’s urban micro-mobility landscape. The paper expands on current research efforts that are concerned almost exclusively with the environmental, road traffic safety, and reductionist interpretations of ‘inclusion’ and ‘accessibility’, adding depth and nuance to discussions on intersectionality, deprivation, as well as social and cultural values in the planning of on-demand shared mobility services.
社会排斥视角下电动滑板车的期望、影响与矛盾:来自伦敦租赁试点的反思
在引入新的个人交通技术方面,很少有尝试像最近在城市中出现的电动滑板车(e-scooters)那样引起如此大的轰动,因为电动滑板车是一种由数字平台支持的按需共享出行服务。在英国伦敦,共享电动滑板车服务的城市试点遇到了严重的中断,原因包括大流行、监管不确定性、最近的政治转变和立法进程缓慢等问题。本文试图利用基于交通相关社会排斥框架的定性方法,解决电动滑板车对社会和环境发展目标的积极和消极贡献的可靠证据的差距。该框架包括与个人交通技术新模式使用相关的八个维度:1)地理,2)空间,3)设施,4)经济,5)基于时间,6)物理,7)基于恐惧,8)歧视。该报告基于对27名代表公共、私营和第三部门不同组织的利益相关者的半结构化访谈,以及对1000多名受访者的在线调查,包括私人和共享电动滑板车的用户和非用户。我们调查了伦敦以及英国城市微交通景观中利益相关者的实践、经验和期望。本文扩展了目前几乎只关注环境、道路交通安全以及“包容性”和“可达性”的简化主义解释的研究成果,增加了对按需共享移动服务规划中的交叉性、剥夺以及社会和文化价值的讨论的深度和细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信