Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method
(This article belongs to the Section E: Electric Vehicles)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Scientific Literature Review
- Safety matters, accidents, injuries;
- Energy efficiency, environmental impact;
- Electric scooter systems planning, design, and development issues, especially product design, innovations, infrastructure and equipment issues (battery), relocation strategies for shared e-scooters, problem of vandalism;
- Use, market, forecasting the demand for electric scooters, spatial analysis;
- Acceptance and motivation to use electric scooter systems;
- Business models and sharing economy of electric scooter systems;
- Characteristics of system users;
- Use of the system during and after the COVID pandemic in a post-COVID world.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Area
- Warsaw—more than 15,000 vehicles and 21% market share;
- Tricity—over 10,000 vehicles and 14% market share;
- Kraków—more than 7000 vehicles and 10% market share;
- Poznań—nearly 5000 vehicles and 7% market share;
- Wrocław—nearly 4500 vehicles and 6% market share.
3.2. Research Methodology
- Phase 1—Building the table of actors (this is done using the mapping method;
- Phase 2—Identifying strategic issues and the related objectives of the actors related to e-scooter sharing services;
- Phase 3—Positioning actors against their objectives by identifying similarities/differences (single positions);
- Phase 4—Prioritizing the objectives for each actor (valued positions);
- Phase 5—Evaluating the power relationships and formulating strategic recommendations for each actor;
- Phase 6—Integrating power relations in the analysis of convergence and divergence between actors;
- Phase 7—Formulating policy recommendations and key issues for the future.
4. Stakeholder Analysis of Polish E-Scooter Sharing Services
4.1. Identification and Characteristics of the Stakeholders
4.2. Identification of Key Stakeholders with the Mapping Method
4.3. Key Stakeholder Strategic Recommendations Based on MACTOR Method
- 0—If actor i has little or no influence on actor j;
- 1—If actor i can influence in a limited way the operating procedures of e-scooter sharing services of actor j;
- 2—If actor i can influence the success of the e-scooter sharing service projects of actor j;
- 3—If actor i can influence the fulfillment of missions related to the e-scooter services of actor j;
- 4—If actor i can influence the existence of actor j.
- 0—If the objective is of little consequence for the actor;
- 1—If the objective jeopardizes the actor’s operating procedures or is vital for its operating procedures;
- 2—If the objective jeopardizes the success of the actor’s projects or is vital for the success of its projects;
- 3—If the objective jeopardizes the accomplishment of the actor’s mission or is indispensable for its missions;
- 4—If the objective jeopardizes the actor’s existence or is indispensable for its existence.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- The identification of stakeholders in the sharing of e-scooter services;
- The classification of stakeholders in e-scooter sharing services;
- The identification of key stakeholders and their roles in business creation;
- Understanding convergences and divergence between actors, related to their different attitudes toward the objectives.
- Safety matters, accidents, and injuries;
- Energy efficiency and environmental impact;
- Electric scooter system planning, design, and development issues, especially related to product design, innovations, infrastructure, and equipment issues (battery), as well as relocation strategies for shared electric scooters and problems with vandalism;
- The use of electric scooters, the marketing strategies, and forecasting of the demand for electric scooters, as well as spatial analyses;
- Acceptance and motivation to use electric scooter systems;
- Business models and the sharing economy of electric scooter systems;
- The characteristics of system users;
- The use of the system during and after the COVID pandemic in a post-COVID world.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hall, M. Bird Scooters Flying around Town; Santa Monica Daily Press: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.smdp.com/bird-scooters-flying-aroundtown/162647 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Ukaszewicz, A. Elektryczne Hulajnogi Jak Rowery—Nowe Przepisy. Rzeczpospolita. 2019. Available online: https://www.rp.pl/Prawo-drogowe/306079955-Elektryczne-hulajnogi-jakrowery---nowe-przepisy.html (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Mobilne Miasto/Smart Ride. Available online: https://smartride.pl/Strefa_Danych/e-hulajnogi-sharing-polska-drugi-kwartal-2022-roku/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
- Macioszek, E.; Kurek, A. Extracting Road Traffic Volume in the City before and during covid-19 through Video Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macioszek, E.; Iwanowicz, D. A Back-of-Queue Model of a Signal-Controlled Intersection Approach Developed Based on Analysis of Vehicle Driver Behavior. Energies 2021, 14, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macioszek, E.; Sierpiński, G.; Czapkowski, L. Problems and Issues with Running the Cycle Traffic through the Roundabouts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transport Systems Telematics, Ustron, Poland, 20–23 October 2010; Volume 104, pp. 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latinopoulos, C.; Patrier, A.; Sivakumar, A. Planning for e-scooter use in metropolitan cities: A case study for Paris. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 100, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azimian, A.; Jiao, J. Modeling factors contributing to dockless e-scooter injury accidents in Austin, Texas. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2022, 23, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuniga-Garcia, N.; Tec, M.; Scott, J.G.; Machemehl, R.B. Evaluation of e-scooters as transit last-mile solution. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2022, 139, 103660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altintasi, O.; Yalcinkaya, S. Siting charging stations and identifying safe and convenient routes for environmentally sustainable e-scooter systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 84, 104020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liazos, A.; Iliopoulou, C.; Kepaptsoglou, K.; Bakogiannis, E. Geofence planning for electric scooters. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 102, 103149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javadinasr, M.; Asgharpour, S.; Rahimi, E.; Choobchian, P.; Mohammadian, A.K.; Auld, J. Eliciting attitudinal factors affecting the continuance use of E-scooters: An empirical study in Chicago. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 87, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlı, R.G.; Karlı, H.; Çelikyay, H.S. Investigating the acceptance of shared e-scooters: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 1058–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scorrano, M.; Rotaris, L. The role of environmental awareness and knowledge in the choice of a seated electric scooter. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 160, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, F.; Correia, G. Electric carsharing and micromobility: A literature review on their usage pattern, demand, and potential impacts. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2020, 16, 269–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamerska, M.; Ziółko, M.; Stawiarski, P. Assessment of The Quality of Shared Micromobility Services on the Example of the Electric Scooter Market in Poland. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2022, 16, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruszyna, M. Investment challenges pertaining to the achievement of the goals of the Mobility Policy based on the analysis of the results of traffic surveys in Wroclaw. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2021, 67, 505–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemzadeh, K.; Sprei, F. Towards an electric scooter level of service: A review and framework. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 29, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useche, S.A.; O’Hern, S.; Gonzalez-Marin, A.; Gene-Morales, J.; Alonso, F.; Stephens, A.N. Unsafety on two wheels, or social prejudice? Proxying behavioral reports on bicycle and e-scooter riding safety—A mixed-methods study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 89, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahluwalia, R.; Grainger, C.; Coffey, D.; Malhotra, P.-S.; Sommerville, C.; Tan, P.S.; Johal, K.; Sivaprakasam, M.; Almousa, O.; Janakan, G.; et al. The e-scooter pandemic at a UK Major Trauma Centre: A cost-based cohort analysis of injury presentation and treatment. Surgeon 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leone, E.; Ferrari, R.; Trinci, M.; Cingolani, E.; Galluzzo, M. Imaging features of electric scooter trauma: What an emergency radiologist needs to know. La Radiol. Medica 2022, 127, 872–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, C.; Morgan, R.; Cruz, N.J.M.V.D.; Sun, S.N.M.; Sarraf, K.M. Pediatric electric scooter injuries in the UK: Case series and review of literature. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2022, 23, 369–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stray, A.V.; Siverts, H.; Melhuus, K.; Enger, M.; Galteland, P.; Næss, I.; Helseth, E.; Ramm-Pettersen, J. Characteristics of Electric Scooter and Bicycle Injuries After Introduction of Electric Scooter Rentals in Oslo, Norway. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2226701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ptak, M.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; Dymek, M.; Welter, C.; Brodziński, K.; Chybowski, L. Analysis of electric scooter user kinematics after a crash against SUV. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, D.; Ryan, A.D.; Craig, C.M.; Sievert, K.; Morris, N.L. Characteristics and Risk Factors for Electric Scooter-Related Crashes and Injury Crashes among Scooter Riders: A Two-Phase Survey Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neuroth, L.M.; Humphries, K.D.; Wing, J.J.; Smith, G.A.; Zhu, M. Motor vehicle-related electric scooter injuries in the US: A descriptive analysis of NEISS data. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2022, 55, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gebhardt, L.; Ehrenberger, S.; Wolf, C.; Cyganski, R. Can shared E-scooters reduce CO2 emissions by substituting car trips in Germany? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 109, 103328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, R.; Kondor, D.; Cheng, C.; Zhang, X.; Santi, P.; Wong, M.S.; Ratti, C. Solar photovoltaic generation for charging shared electric scooters. Appl. Energy 2022, 313, 118728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thekkan, M.J.; Alkka, P.S.; Ardra, V.S.; Saji, T.M.; Shajan, A. Low power electric two-wheller with intelligent cooling technology. Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2022, 7, 291–295. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Choo, S.; Lee, G. Predicting Demand for Shared E-Scooter Using Community Structure and Deep Learning Method. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ham, S.W.; Cho, J.-H.; Park, S.; Kim, D.-K. Spatiotemporal Demand Prediction Model for E-Scooter Sharing Services with Latent Feature and Deep Learning. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2021, 2675, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phithakkitnukooon, S.; Patanukhom, K.; Demissie, M.G. Predicting Spatiotemporal Demand of Dockless E-Scooter Sharing Services with a Masked Fully Convolutional Network. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Chen, K.; Liu, P. Are shared electric scooters energy efficient? Commun. Transp. Res. 2021, 1, 100022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leurent, F. What is the value of swappable batteries for a shared e-scooter service? Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 45, 100843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rettig, R.; Mustafa, L.; Nourmofidi, O.; Steffens, F.; Splieth, O. Future Semiconductor Architecture for Safe, Sustainable and Energy Efficient Electric Mocto Mobility. Paper ID 491. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rasmus-Rettig/publication/355904272_Future_Semiconductor_Architecture_for_Safe_Secure_Sustainable_and_Energy_Efficient_Electric_Micro_Mobility/links/6183a993eef53e51e12841f4/Future-Semiconductor-Architecture-for-Safe-Secure-Sustainable-and-Energy-Efficient-Electric-Micro-Mobility.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022).
- Hosseinzadeh, A.; Algomaiah, M.; Kluger, R.; Li, Z. Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 92, 103016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, J.; Bai, S. Understanding the Shared E-scooter Travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caspi, O.; Smart, M.J.; Noland, R.B. Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 86, 102396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ratan, R.; Earle, K.; Rosenthal, S.; Chen, V.H.H.; Gambino, A.; Goggin, G.; Stevens, H.; Li, B.; Lee, K.M. The (digital) medium of mobility is the message: Examining the influence of e-scooter mobile app perceptions on e-scooter use intent. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2021, 3, 100076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, F.-H. Adapting UTAUT2 to assess user acceptance of an e-scooter virtual reality service. Virtual Real. 2020, 24, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putri, B.A.I.; Atha, F.; Rizka, F.; Amalia, R.; Husna, S. Factors Affecting E-Scooter Sharing Purchase Intention: An Analysis Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Int. J. Creative Bus. Manag. 2021, 1, 58–73. Available online: https://akvirtual.id/storage/collectionsAttachment/81928fa9ddc87a5cf3f8d086cb0e0626.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022). [CrossRef]
- Feng, C.; Jiao, J.; Wang, H. Estimating E-Scooter Traffic Flow Using Big Data to Support Planning for Micromobility. J. Urban Technol. 2020, 29, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazio, M.; Giuffrida, N.; Le Pira, M.; Inturri, G.; Ignaccolo, M. Planning Suitable Transport Networks for E-Scooters to Foster Micromobility Spreading. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akova, H.; Hulagu, S.; Celikoglu, H.B. Effects of energy consumption on cost optimal recharging station locations for e-scooters. In Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Heraklion, Greece, 16–17 June 2021; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rechkemmer, S.K.; Zhang, W.; Sawodny, O. Modeling of a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor of an E-Scooter for Simulation with Battery Aging Model. IFAC-Papersonline 2017, 50, 4769–4774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laa, B.; Leth, U. Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 89, 102874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pazzini, M.; Cameli, L.; Lantieri, C.; Vignali, V.; Dondi, G.; Jonsson, T. New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’ Behaviour in Trondheim. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grill, F.D.; Roth, C.; Zyskowski, M.; Fichter, A.; Kollmuss, M.; Stimmer, H.; Deppe, H.; Wolff, K.-D.; Nieberler, M. E-scooter-related craniomaxillofacial injuries compared with bicycle-related injuries—A retrospective study. J. Cranio-Maxillof. Surg. 2022, 50, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cicchino, J.B.; Kulie, P.E.; McCarthy, M.L. Severity of e-scooter rider injuries associated with trip characteristics. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 76, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tischler, E.H.; Tsai, S.H.L.; Wolfert, A.J.; Suneja, N.; Naziri, Q.; Tischler, H.M. Orthopedic fracture hospitalizations are revving up from E-Scooter related injuries. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2021, 23, 101607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OpenStreetMap Project. Available online: https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 14 January 2019).
- Act of June 20, 1997—Road Traffic Law. OJ 1997 No. 98 Item 602 with Upgrades. In Polish: Ustawa z Dnia 20 Czerwca 1997 roku—Prawo o Ruchu Drogowym. Dz.U. 1997 nr 98 poz. 602 z Uaktualnieniami. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19970980602 (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Mendelow, A. Stakeholder mapping. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems, Cambridge, MA, USA, 7–9 December 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, G.; Scholes, K. Exploring Corporate Strategy; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Godet, M. La Méthode MACTOR. Stratégique, Revue de la Fondation Pour Etudes de la Défense Nationale, Numéro de Juin 1990. Available online: https://www.lescahiersdelinnovation.com/la-methode-mactor-l-analyse-des-strategies-d-acteurs/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
- Godet, M. Actors’ moves and strategies: The mactor method: An air transport case study. Futures 1991, 23, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godet, M. Scenarios of air transport development to 1990 by SMIC 74—A new cross-impact method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1976, 9, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godet, M.; Monti, R.; Meunier, F.; Roubelat, F. Scenarios and Strategies. A Toolbox for Problem Solving; Cahiers du LIPSOR: Paris, France, 2004; Available online: http://en.laprospective.fr/dyn/anglais/articles/bo-lips-en.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Godet, M. The Crisis in Forecasting and the Emergence of the “Prospective” Approach with Case Studies in Energy and Air Transport; Pergamon Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Civera, C.; Freeman, R.E. Stakeholder Relationships and Responsibilities: A New Perspective. Symphonya. Emerg. Issues Manag. 2019, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Pronello, C.; Grau, J.M.S. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Urban Transport: State-of-the-Art and Research Opportunities. Transport 2018, 33, 1079–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Morana, J. Collaborative transportation sharing: From theory to practice via a case study from France. In Technologies for Supporting Reasoning Communities and Collaborative Decision Making: Cooperative Approaches; Yearwood, J., Stranieri, A., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2011; pp. 252–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standing, C.; Standing, S.; Biermann, S. The implications of the sharing economy for transport. Transp. Rev. 2018, 39, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Gupta, A.; Parida, M.; Chauhan, V. Service quality assessment of ride-sourcing services: A distinction between ride-hailing and ride-sharing services. Transp. Policy 2022, 127, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamerska, M.; Ziółko, M.; Stawiarski, P. A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izdebski, M.; Jacyna, M. An Efficient Hybrid Algorithm for Energy Expenditure Estimation for Electric Vehicles in Urban Service Enterprises. Energies 2021, 14, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacyna, M.; Wasiak, M.; Kowalski, M.; Gołębiowski, P. Modelling of Bicycle Traffic in the Cities Using VISUM. Procedia Eng. 2017, 187, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barchański, A.; Żochowska, R.; Kłos, M.J. A Method for the Identification of Critical Interstop Sections in Terms of Introducing Electric Buses in Public Transport. Energies 2022, 15, 7543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cieśla, M. Modern Urban Transport Infrastructure Solutions to Improve the Safety of Children as Pedestrians and Cyclists. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cieśla, M.; Kuśnierz, S.; Modrzik, O.; Niedośpiał, S.; Sosna, P. Scenarios for the Development of Polish Passenger Transport Services in Pandemic Conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzimski, A.; Dzięcielski, M. Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 145, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeneman, W. Public transport in a sharing environment. In Advances in Transport Policy and Planning; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 4, pp. 39–57. [Google Scholar]
- Lindholm, M.; Browne, M. Local authority cooperation with urban freight stakeholders: A comparison of partnership approaches. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2013, 13, 20–38. [Google Scholar]
- Macioszek, E.; Cieśla, M. External Environmental Analysis for Sustainable Bike-Sharing System Development. Energies 2022, 15, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kao, P.J.; Busquet, C.; Lubello, V.; Meta, M.; Heuvel, C. Review of Business Models for New Mobility Services. 2019. Available online: https://h2020-gecko.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/GECKO_D1.2_Review_of_business_models_for_new_mobility_services.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Lazarus, J.; Shaheen, S.; Young, S.E.; Fagnant, D.; Voege, T.; Baumgardner, W.; Fishelson, J.; Lott, J.S. Shared Automated Mobility and Public Transport. In Road Vehicle Automation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 4, pp. 141–161. [Google Scholar]
- Kamargianni, M.; Li, W.; Matyas, M.; Schäfer, A. A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 3294–3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bıyık, C. Smart Cities in Turkey: Approaches, Advances and Applications with Greater Consideration for Future Urban Transport Development. Energies 2019, 12, 2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wróblewski, P.; Lewicki, W. A Method of Analyzing the Residual Values of Low-Emission Vehicles Based on a Selected Expert Method Taking into Account Stochastic Operational Parameters. Energies 2021, 14, 6859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wróblewski, P.; Drozdż, W.; Lewicki, W.; Miązek, P. Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Aperiodic Phenomena on the Energy Balance of Propulsion Engines in Vehicle Electromobility Systems for Given Areas. Energies 2021, 14, 2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wróblewski, P.; Kupiec, J.; Drozdż, W.; Lewicki, W.; Jaworski, J. The Economic Aspect of Using Different Plug-in Hybrid Driving Techniques in Urban Conditions. Energies 2021, 14, 3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Research Group | Year | Key Research Works | Research Location | Data | Research Description | Key Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predicting demand | 2019–2021 | S. Kim et al. [30] | Seoul, Korea | Trip data | Development of a model to forecast demand for shared use. | The demand for shared e-scooters can be influenced not only by time and weather but also by many regional features and special events. |
2021 | S.W. Ham et al. [31] | South Korea | The total number of e-scooters used and the users | A search was conducted for a methodology to predict the demand for electric scooters with high spatial resolution. | A new algorithm for the e-scooter research methodology was formed by establishing the network architecture and correctly considering the unmet demand. | |
2021 | S. Phithakkitnukoon et al. [32] | Calgary, Canada | Dataset for e-scooter usage | A model was built for predicting the demand for e-scooters without a docking station based on deep learning techniques. | A model was made considering the day of the week or holiday for which various sets of influential features may be utilized. | |
Energy efficiency | 2021 | Y. Wang et al. [33] | Gothenburg, Sweden | The geolocation and battery state of charge data for each available scooter | Studies of energy consumption during individual journeys and studies of factors that affect energy consumption. | Using a regression model, a Monte Carlo simulation framework was proposed to estimate the fleet’s energy consumption in different scenarios, considering both journey-related energy consumption and idle energy loss. The results indicated that in current practice, 40% of the energy from an e-scooter battery was wasted while idle, mainly due to the relatively low utilization rate (0.83) of e-scooters. If the average utilization rate falls below 0.5, the wasted energy can reach 53%. |
2022 | F. Laurent [34] | France | - | Modeling of the operation, replacement, and consumption of electric batteries depending on the depth of discharge. | Equations were established for the optimal cost of a battery replacement, depth of discharge, battery energy capacity, scooter life, and energy consumption rate. | |
2021 | R. Rettig et al. [35] | Germany | Open data source | Based on vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V) and a time-of-flight camera (TOF), automated platooning has been implemented and tested for e-scooters. | The results presented the potential of electronic architectures for e-scooters in the context of safety, security, sustainability, and energy efficiency. | |
Spatial analysis | 2021 | A. Hosseinzadeh et al. [36] | Louisville, USA | E-scooter trip data | The study aimed to determine how factors related to demographics, density, diversity, design, urban performance, distance from the subway, and other transport-related variables affect the travel of an e-scooter. | The results of the analysis indicated that factors such as the land use, age distribution, gender distribution, gait rating, and parking rating influenced the density of the e-scooter travel. |
2020 | J. Jiao, and S. Bai [37] | Austin, Texas, USA | E-scooter trip data | The journey samples of 1.7 million e-scooter trips were studied. | More trips came from the city center than were completed. Zones with a dense population and more educated residents were interdependent with more e-scooter trips. | |
2020 | O. Caspi et al. [38] | Austin, Texas, USA | E-scooter trip data | An analysis of the use of e-scooters. | The analysis showed that people use e-scooters almost exclusively in the city center. Commuting to work does not appear to be the main purpose of travel, and the use of e-scooters is associated with areas with high employment rates and areas with cycling infrastructure. People use e-scooter sharing services regardless of the neighborhood affluence, although less affluent areas with high usage rates have large student populations, suggesting that students are using this mode of travel. | |
E-scooter technology | 2021 | R. Ratan et al. [39] | USA | Survey study | The research examined how perceptions of mobile apps, i.e., communication technologies, influence the intent to use e-scooters (i.e., transportation technology), while considering other perceptions specific to e-scooters, such as the usefulness, environmental impact, ease of use, safety, enjoyment, context of use (geographic landscape), and demographic factors (sex and age). | The results indicated that the perceived ease of use of the mobile app is related to the intention to use an e-scooter. |
2020 | F. H. Huang [40] | New Taipei, Taiwan | Experimental and survey data | Investigated factors that may influence user acceptance of fully immersive virtual reality versus desktop virtual reality. | The results indicated that the model constructs of expected performance, hedonic motivation, and facilitating conditions are useful predictors of the behavioral intention to use virtual reality systems. Although these factors were significantly higher for fully immersive virtual reality systems, both virtual reality systems can have positive effects on behavioral intentions. Based on these findings, several implications for developers and suggestions for future research were presented. | |
2021 | B. Azzahra et al. [41] | Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia | Survey data | The study used the UTAUT2 framework (Universal Principle of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2) to identify and build a quantitative approach to identify factors related to the intention of purchasing an e-scooter. | The use of e-scooters is shaped by seven main factors. They are the expected performance, expected effort, social impact, improvements in fitness, hedonic motivation, price, and habits. | |
E-scooter planning | 2021 | Ch. Latinopoulos et al. [7] | Paris, France | An online survey of potential users | Information was collected on the current state of the e-scooter market. A proposal was made for an e-scooter assessment framework that classifies all aspects of interest to planners and decision makers. | The results are intended to provide researchers and stakeholders with insights related to the design of new e-scooter systems or the optimization of the performance of existing ones. |
2020 | Ch. Feng et al. [42] | Texas, USA | Origin and destination trip data | The planning and estimation of e-scooter flow patterns were performed without knowing the actual routes taken by e-scooter drivers. | A tool for planning in cities for the emerging joint micromobility services. | |
2021 | M. Fazio et al. [43] | Catania, Italy | Geographic data | A GIS-based multicriteria analysis to prioritize e-scooter networks focusing on safety, transportation, and land use characteristics. | The methodology was developed to prioritize the road network elements better suited to the needs of the e-scooter, for the design of appropriate infrastructure, and for the planning of the transport network. | |
Energy consumption | 2021 | Y. Wang et al. [33] | Göteborg, Sweden | Geolocation and battery status data for each available scooter | A multi-logarithmic regression model was built to study energy consumption on single trips and factors affecting energy consumption. | Here, 40% of the energy for the electric scooter battery was wasted while idle, mainly due to the relatively low utilization rate (0.83) of the electric scooters. If the average utilization rate falls below 0.5, the wasted energy can reach 53%. |
2021 | H. Akova et al. [44] | Turkey | - | A search was conducted for locations of cost-effective charging stations for electric scooters, emphasizing the importance of calculating battery energy consumption as accurately as possible. | For e-scooters, the distance-based energy consumption approach overstates or underestimates the requirements for charging stations and the locations of charging stations. | |
2017 | S. K. Rechkemmer et al. [45] | Stuttgart, Germany | Theoretical data | A model of an aging e-scooter drivetrain. | The developed models make it possible to evaluate the long-term behavior or aging of the powertrain in realistic driving cycles. | |
E-scooter users | 2020 | B. La, and U. Leth [46] | Vienna, Austria | Online survey | An evaluation of socioeconomic profiles and usage patterns of e-scooter users. | E-scooter users are more often young men, well educated, and residents. |
2022 | M. Pazzini et al. [47] | Trondheim, Norway | Hidden observer | An analysis of the speed and behavior of e-scooter drivers in a city to support local authorities in managing this mode of transport. | The choice of the type of infrastructure for movement depends mainly on the road environment; often e-scooters users chose a bicycle path to move around. | |
2022 | K. Kazemzadeh, and F. Sprei [18] | - | Open-source data from e-scooter companies | The quantification of user experiences. | The results confirmed the lack of previous research available in this area and that e-scooters are rarely included with the level of services of other modes of transport. | |
E-scooter related injuries | 2022 | F.D. Grill et al. [48] | Germany | Data on victims of electric scooter accidents | An analysis of the frequency and types of injuries sustained in accidents on electric scooters and a comparison of the results with accidents on bicycles. | Helmets were not recorded among e-scooter users. In addition, e-scooter accidents showed higher rates of facial soft tissue injuries, facial fractures, and tooth injuries than cyclists. Accidents among e-scooters usually occurred on weekends. |
2021 | J.B. Ciccchino et al. [49] | Washington, USA | Data on adults injured while riding e-scooters | An analysis of the severity of e-scooter rider injuries associated with trip characteristics. | The electric scooter users were the most injured on the pavement (58%) and the road (23%). Furthermore, e-scooter users on the road were approximately twice as likely to be injured as those riding elsewhere. The greater severity of injuries for cyclists injured on the road may reflect higher speeds. | |
2021 | E.H. Tischler et al. [50] | USA | Electronic database of injuries | An evaluation of orthopedic fracture patterns related to the use of electronic scooters and an evaluation of risk factors related to direct hospital admission. | Fractures of the upper extremities were the most common (25.4%), followed by fractures of the upper arm, metacarpal bones, skull, and related internal organs. The greatest associations with direct admission to the hospital were for fractures of the upper leg and lower trunk and related damage to the internal organs. |
Stakeholder Group | Stakeholder Characteristics |
---|---|
Clients | c1—individual clients c2—institutional/business clients c3—municipal guards and other services |
Competitors | t1—competitive service operators (bike-sharing and car-sharing operators, etc.) t2—public transport providers |
Investors | i1—operators of e-scooter sharing services (Bolt, Lime, Dott, etc.) i2—electronic shared mobility platforms (e.g., FreeNow) i3—administrative representatives |
Employees | e1—full- and part-time employees e2—potential employees |
Suppliers | s1—e-scooter manufacturers s2—e-scooter spare parts distributors s3—energy supplier s4—e-scooter shared mobility software and hardware suppliers |
Shareholders | h1—transportation authorities and policymakers h2—land owners or administrators |
Financial institutions | f1—Ministry of Finance f2—National Bank of Poland f3—Polish Financial Supervision Authority |
Media | m1—Urban Mobility Association m2—web portals on shared mobility issues m3—non-governmental organizations m4—advertisers |
Actors | Objectives |
---|---|
c1—individual clients i1—e-scooter operators i2—application operators e1—employees t1—competitive service operators s1—e-scooters manufacturers s4—software and hardware suppliers h1—transportation authorities | o1—ensuring the availability of e-scooters and applications o2—increasing the number of e-scooters o3—sharing mobility popularization o4—maintaining the ease of use o5— ensuring the stability of the shared mobility system o6—strengthening public transport o7—ensuring transport safety o8—establishing the sustainability of the transport system o9—increasing the quality of sharing services o10—increasing effectiveness of e-scooters sharing system o11—stabilizing the regulations related to the operation of e-scooter sharing systems o12—integration of shared mobility systems o13—traffic reduction o14—integration of mobility applications |
MID | A1 (c1) | A2 (i1) | A3 (i2) | A4 (e1) | A5 (t1) | A6 (s1) | A7 (s4) | A8 (h1) | ∑ Aj |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 (c1) | - | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 |
A2 (i1) | 4 | - | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 21 |
A3 (i2) | 3 | 3 | - | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 12 |
A4 (e1) | 2 | 4 | 4 | - | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 16 |
A5 (t1) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 |
A6 (s1) | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | - | 4 | 0 | 12 |
A7 (s4) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 4 | - | 0 | 16 |
A8 (h1) | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | - | 10 |
∑ Ai | 17 | 24 | 21 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 113 |
2MAO | o1 | o2 | o3 | o4 | o5 | o6 | o7 | o8 | o9 | o10 | o11 | o12 | o13 | o14 | ∑ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 (c1) | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | −1 | 4 | −1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 32 |
A2 (i1) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | −3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | −2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 41 |
A3 (i2) | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 34 |
A4 (e1) | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | −4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | −2 | 0 | 2 | 38 |
A5 (t1) | −4 | −4 | 4 | −2 | 3 | −3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | −4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 47 |
A6 (s1) | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
A7 (s4) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 25 |
A8 (h1) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 40 |
Number of agreements | 12 | 13 | 24 | 15 | 19 | 4 | 19 | 14 | 28 | 20 | 16 | 21 | 11 | 20 | |
Number of disagreements | −4 | −7 | 0 | −2 | 0 | −13 | 0 | −1 | 0 | −6 | −4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | |
Number of positions | 16 | 20 | 24 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 15 | 28 | 26 | 20 | 23 | 11 | 20 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Macioszek, E.; Cieśla, M.; Granà, A. Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method. Energies 2023, 16, 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010554
Macioszek E, Cieśla M, Granà A. Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method. Energies. 2023; 16(1):554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010554
Chicago/Turabian StyleMacioszek, Elżbieta, Maria Cieśla, and Anna Granà. 2023. "Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method" Energies 16, no. 1: 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010554
APA StyleMacioszek, E., Cieśla, M., & Granà, A. (2023). Future Development of an Energy-Efficient Electric Scooter Sharing System Based on a Stakeholder Analysis Method. Energies, 16(1), 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010554