共享电动滑板车何时与公共交通形成互补或竞争?混合方法对共享单车的回顾与比较

Mahesha Jayawardhena, Alexa Delbosc, Graham Currie, Geoff Rose
{"title":"共享电动滑板车何时与公共交通形成互补或竞争?混合方法对共享单车的回顾与比较","authors":"Mahesha Jayawardhena,&nbsp;Alexa Delbosc,&nbsp;Graham Currie,&nbsp;Geoff Rose","doi":"10.1016/j.jcmr.2025.100057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>E-scooters are one of the latest additions to transport networks in many countries and their popularity is increasing rapidly. A range of studies have been conducted to understand the relationship between e-scooters and public transport. Some found that e-scooters complement public transport, serving as a first mile/last mile access mode, whereas others found that they compete by taking riders away from public transport. The contradictory results of studies in different contexts make it unclear whether results in one city are transferrable to another. This study aims to explore the definitions of ‘complement’ and ‘compete’ in literature and to identify the circumstances where e-scooters complement or compete with public transport using a mixed-method literature review. We combine a systematic literature review of e-scooter papers with a scoping review of bike-share studies to see if the two modes act in a similar manner. Most researchers found that e-scooters tend to complement rail but are more likely to compete with buses. Bike-share behaves in a similar manner, but the competing effect with buses is higher with bike-share than shared e-scooters. Both shared e-scooters and bike-share have a complementary relationship with public transport for commuting and longer trips. Moreover, shared e-scooters have the potential to promote public transport when deployed thoughtfully, but further investigation is needed given the novelty of the field. Further research should focus on a wider variety of cities (particularly outside of Europe and the USA), the reasons behind rider behavior and different ridership patterns and characteristics of personally owned e-scooters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100771,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100057"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When do shared e-scooters complement or compete with public transport? A mixed-method review and comparison with bike sharing\",\"authors\":\"Mahesha Jayawardhena,&nbsp;Alexa Delbosc,&nbsp;Graham Currie,&nbsp;Geoff Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcmr.2025.100057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>E-scooters are one of the latest additions to transport networks in many countries and their popularity is increasing rapidly. A range of studies have been conducted to understand the relationship between e-scooters and public transport. Some found that e-scooters complement public transport, serving as a first mile/last mile access mode, whereas others found that they compete by taking riders away from public transport. The contradictory results of studies in different contexts make it unclear whether results in one city are transferrable to another. This study aims to explore the definitions of ‘complement’ and ‘compete’ in literature and to identify the circumstances where e-scooters complement or compete with public transport using a mixed-method literature review. We combine a systematic literature review of e-scooter papers with a scoping review of bike-share studies to see if the two modes act in a similar manner. Most researchers found that e-scooters tend to complement rail but are more likely to compete with buses. Bike-share behaves in a similar manner, but the competing effect with buses is higher with bike-share than shared e-scooters. Both shared e-scooters and bike-share have a complementary relationship with public transport for commuting and longer trips. Moreover, shared e-scooters have the potential to promote public transport when deployed thoughtfully, but further investigation is needed given the novelty of the field. Further research should focus on a wider variety of cities (particularly outside of Europe and the USA), the reasons behind rider behavior and different ridership patterns and characteristics of personally owned e-scooters.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100057\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"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/S2950105925000014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105925000014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

电动滑板车是许多国家交通网络的最新成员之一,其受欢迎程度正在迅速增加。为了了解电动滑板车和公共交通之间的关系,已经进行了一系列的研究。一些人发现,电动滑板车是对公共交通的补充,作为第一英里/最后一英里的出行方式,而另一些人则发现,电动滑板车的竞争方式是把乘客从公共交通中夺走。不同背景下的研究结果相互矛盾,这使得一个城市的结果是否可以转移到另一个城市变得不清楚。本研究旨在探索文献中“补充”和“竞争”的定义,并使用混合方法文献综述确定电动滑板车与公共交通互补或竞争的情况。我们将对电动滑板车论文的系统文献综述与对共享单车研究的范围综述结合起来,看看这两种模式是否以相似的方式起作用。大多数研究人员发现,电动滑板车往往是对铁路的补充,但更有可能与公共汽车竞争。共享单车的行为方式与此类似,但共享单车与公交车的竞争效应要高于共享电动滑板车。共享电动滑板车和共享单车都与通勤和长途旅行的公共交通有着互补关系。此外,如果部署得当,共享电动滑板车有可能促进公共交通,但考虑到该领域的新颖性,还需要进一步调查。进一步的研究应该集中在更广泛的城市(特别是欧洲和美国以外的城市),骑行者行为背后的原因,以及个人拥有的电动滑板车的不同骑行模式和特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When do shared e-scooters complement or compete with public transport? A mixed-method review and comparison with bike sharing
E-scooters are one of the latest additions to transport networks in many countries and their popularity is increasing rapidly. A range of studies have been conducted to understand the relationship between e-scooters and public transport. Some found that e-scooters complement public transport, serving as a first mile/last mile access mode, whereas others found that they compete by taking riders away from public transport. The contradictory results of studies in different contexts make it unclear whether results in one city are transferrable to another. This study aims to explore the definitions of ‘complement’ and ‘compete’ in literature and to identify the circumstances where e-scooters complement or compete with public transport using a mixed-method literature review. We combine a systematic literature review of e-scooter papers with a scoping review of bike-share studies to see if the two modes act in a similar manner. Most researchers found that e-scooters tend to complement rail but are more likely to compete with buses. Bike-share behaves in a similar manner, but the competing effect with buses is higher with bike-share than shared e-scooters. Both shared e-scooters and bike-share have a complementary relationship with public transport for commuting and longer trips. Moreover, shared e-scooters have the potential to promote public transport when deployed thoughtfully, but further investigation is needed given the novelty of the field. Further research should focus on a wider variety of cities (particularly outside of Europe and the USA), the reasons behind rider behavior and different ridership patterns and characteristics of personally owned e-scooters.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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