Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background on Micro Mobility Development in Europe
2.1. The Spread of Micromoblity on Italy
2.2. Gender Gap on Sustainable Mobility Choices
- Equal is defined as the same or exactly the same;
- Fair is defined as just or appropriate under the circumstances;
- Equity is defined as the quality of being just and impartial.
3. Methodology
- n: the sample size
- N: the population size of the Palermo and Catania Provinces
- z: the z-statistic for a level of confidence
- p: the expected population proportion
- ε: the margin of error
- N = 2,281,056 (City Population)
- z = 1.96 (since a = 5%)
- p = 0.5
- ε = 0.032
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Correlation Matrix
4.3. Gender Equality Estimation by Ordinal Regression Modeling
5. Interpretation
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Abduljabbar, Rusul L., Sohani Liyanage, and Hussein Dia. 2021. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 92: 102734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almannaa, Mohammed Hamad, Alsahhaf Faisal Adnan Alsahhaf, Huthaifa I. Ashqar, Elhenawy Mohammed, Masoud Mahmoud, and Rakotonirainy Andry. 2021. Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs. Sustainability 13: 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rashid, Muhammad A., Kh M. Nahiduzzaman, Sohel Ahmed, Tiziana Campisi, and Nurten Akgün. 2020. Gender-Responsive Public Transportation in the Dammam Metropolitan Region, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 12: 9068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, Gordon, Teng Wah Leo, and Robert Muelhaupt. 2009. Qualified Equal Opportunity and Conditional Mobility: Gender Equity and Educational Attainment in Canada. Available online: https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-368.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Avineri, Erel, and Fiona Steven. 2013. Has the Introduction of the Cycle-to-Work Scheme Increased Levels of Cycling to Work in the UK? Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1241308 (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Bastian, Anne, and Maria Börjesson. 2018. The city as a driver of new mobility patterns, cycling and gender equality: Travel behaviour trends in Stockholm 1985–2015. Travel Behaviour and Society 13: 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beecham, Roger, and Jo Wood. 2014. Exploring gendered cycling behaviours within a large-scale behavioural data-set. Transportation Planning and Technology 37: 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boglietti, Stefania, Benedetto Barabino, and Giulio Maternini. 2021. Survey on e-powered micro personal mobility vehicles: Exploring current issues towards future developments. Sustainability 13: 3692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, Tiziana, Kh Md Nahiduzzaman, Dario Ticali, and Giovanni Tesoriere. 2020a. Bivariate Analysis of the Influencing Factors of the Upcoming Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMVs) in Palermo. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Cham: Springer, pp. 868–81. [Google Scholar]
- Campisi, Tiziana, Nurten Akgün, Dario Ticali, and Giovanni Tesoriere. 2020b. Exploring Public Opinion on Personal Mobility Vehicle Use: A Case Study in Palermo, Italy. Sustainability 12: 5460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, Tiziana, Kh Md Nahiduzzaman, Nurten Akgün, Dario Ticali, and Giovanni Tesoriere. 2021a. Gender equality on developing transport system in sicily: A consideration on regional scale. In AIP Conference Proceedings. New York: AIP Publishing LLC. [Google Scholar]
- Campisi, Tiziana, Socrates Basbas, Anastasios Skoufas, Giovanni Tesoriere, and Dario Ticali. 2021b. Socio-Eco-Friendly Performance of E-Scooters in Palermo: Preliminary Statistical Results BT -Innovation in Urban and Regional Planning. Edited by D. La Rosa and R. Privitera. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 643–53. [Google Scholar]
- Campisi, Tiziana, Socrates Basbas, Anastasios Skoufas, Giovanni Tesoriere, and Dario Ticali. 2021c. Socio-Eco-Friendly Performance of E-Scooters in Palermo: Preliminary Statistical Results. Innovation in Urban and Regional Planning, 643–53. [Google Scholar]
- Carrese, Stefano, Fabio D’Andreagiovanni, Tommaso Giacchetti, Antonella Nardin, and Leonardo Zamberlan. 2021. A beautiful fleet: Optimal repositioning in e-scooter sharing systems for urban decorum. Transportation Research Procedia 52: 581–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cinti, di Giulia. The Space of Women in the City: How the Gender Data Gap Has Eliminated It. Available online: https://www.treccani.it/magazine/chiasmo/diritto_e_societa/Spazio/SSSGL_Cinti_Trip-Chaining.html (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Curreli, di Alessandra. Monopattino re della Mobilità. Available online: https://www.trend-online.com/risparmio/monopattino-re-della-mobilita/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Damyanovic, Doris, Florian Reinwald, and Angela Weikmann. 2013. Manual for Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development. Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008358.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Daniel, Wayne W., and Chad L. Cross. 1999. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, 7th ed. Hoboken John: Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- De Ceunynck, Tim, Gert J. Wijlhuizen, Aslak Fyhri, Regine Gerike, Dagmar Köhler, Alice Ciccone, Atze Dijkstra, Emmanuelle Dupont, and Mario Cools. 2021. Assessing the Willingness to Use Personal e-Transporters (PeTs): Results from a Cross-National Survey in Nine European Cities. Sustainability 13: 3844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission Women in Transport–EU Platform for Change. n.d. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) Covid-19 and Gender Equality. n.d.-a. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) Covid-19 and Gender Equality (Italy). n.d.-b. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/countries/italy (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Färber, Christine. 2011. Gender in local public transport planning. In Gender in Mainstreaming Urban Development. Available online: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/berlin_gender_mainstreaming_0.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Georgiou, Aggelos, Anastasios Skoufas, and Socrates Basbas. 2021. Perceived Pedestrian Level of Service in an urban central network: The case of a medium size Greek city. Case Studies on Transport Policy 9: 889–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glavić, Draženko, Ana Trpković, Marina Milenković, and Sreten Jevremović. 2021. The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study. Sustainability 13: 5948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Sánchez, Guadalupe, María Isabel Olmo-Sánchez, and Elvira Maeso-González. 2021. Challenges and Strategies for Post-COVID-19 Gender Equity and Sustainable Mobility. Sustainability 13: 2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grudgings, Nick, Alex Hagen-Zanker, Susan Hughes, Birgitta Gatersleben, Marc Woodall, and Will Bryans. 2018. Why don’t more women cycle? An analysis of female and male commuter cycling mode-share in England and Wales. Journal of Transport & Health 10: 272–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habitat, Un. 2018. Report on Gender Equity Assessment of Nairobi’s Public Minibus Transport Services. Available online: https://floneinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GEA-Report.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Hail, Yvonne, and Ronald McQuaid. 2021. The Concept of Fairness in Relation to Women Transport Users. Sustainability 13: 2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, Susan. 2010. Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender Place & Culture 17: 5–23. [Google Scholar]
- Hardt, Cornelius, and Klaus Bogenberger. 2019. Usage of e-Scooters in Urban Environments. Transportation Research Procedia 37: 155–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Yi, Ziqi Song, Zhaocai Liu, and N.N. Sze. 2019. Factors Influencing Electric Bike Share Ridership: Analysis of Park City, Utah. Transportation Research Record 2673: 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heesch, Kristiann C., Shannon Sahlqvist, and Jan Garrard. 2012. Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: A cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9: 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrera, Lázaro Moreno. 2007. Equity, equality and equivalence: A contribution in search for conceptual definitions and a comparative methodology. Revista Española de Educación Comparada 13: 319–40. [Google Scholar]
- Hosseinzadeh, Aryan, Majeed Algomaiah, Robert Kluger, and Zhixia Li. 2021. E-scooters and sustainability: Investigating the relationship between the density of E-scooter trips and characteristics of sustainable urban development. Sustainable Cities and Society 66: 102624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Transport Forum. 2020. Safe Micromobility. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/safe-micromobility (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- James, Owain, J I. Swiderski, John Hicks, Denis Teoman, and Ralph Buehler. 2019. Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders. Sustainability 11: 5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jennings, Gail, Rahul Jobanputra, Cpnstant Cap, Genevivie Ankunda, and S. Mugume. 2021. Learning from COVID-19 Pop-Up Bicycle Infrastructure: An Investigation into Flexible and User-Led Bicycle Planning in Cape Town, Nairobi, and Kampala. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349806055_FINAL_REPORT_Learning_from_COVID-19_pop-up_bicycle_infrastructure_an_investigation_into_flexible_and_user-led_bicycle_planning_in_Cape_Town_Nairobi_and_Kampala (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Jiao, Junfeng, and Shunhua Bai. 2020. Understanding the Shared E-scooter Travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9: 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kostareli, Athanasia, Socrates Basbas, Nikiforos Stamatiadis, and Andreas Nikiforiadis. 2020. Attitudes of E-Scooter Non-users towards Users. In Advances in Mobility-as-a-Service Systems. New York: Springer, pp. 87–96. ISBN 978-3-030-61074-6. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus, Sebastian, and Nicolas Koch. 2021. Provisional COVID-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronsell, Annica, Lena Smidfelt Rosqvist, and Lena Winslott Hiselius. 2016. Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: The Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 10: 703–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laa, Barbara, and Ulrich Leth. 2020. Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. Journal of Transport Geography 89: 102874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecompte, María Carolina, and Bocarejo S. Juan Pablo. 2017. Transport systems and their impact con gender equity. Transportation Research Procedia 25: 4245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, Tak Yan, Piyush Sharma, Pattarin Adithipyangkul, and Peter Hosie. 2020. Gender equity and public health outcomes: The COVID-19 experience. Journal of Business Research 116: 193–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madapur, Bhagyalaxmi, Shilpa Madangopal, and M. N. Chandrashekar. 2020. Micro-Mobility Infrastructure for Redefining Urban Mobility. European Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 3: 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marzulli, M. The Impressive Numbers of Micro-Mobility in Italy. Available online: https://www.fleetmagazine.com/numeri-micromobilita-italia/ (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- McKenzie, Grant. 2019. Shared micro-mobility patterns as measures of city similarity. Paper presented at the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computing with Multifaceted Movement Data—MOVE’19, Chicago, IL, USA, November 5. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, Grant. 2019. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. Journal of Transport Geography 78: 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milan, Blanca Fernandez, and Felix Creutzig. 2017. Lifting peripheral fortunes: Upgrading transit improves spatial, income and gender equity in Medellin. Cities 70: 122–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, Anurag, Priya Nanda, Ilene S. Speizer, Lisa M. Calhoun, Allison Zimmerman, and Rochak Bhardwaj. 2014. Men’s attitudes on gender equality and their contraceptive use in Uttar Pradesh India. Reproductive Health 11: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Mitra, Raktim, and Paul M. Hess. 2021. Who are the potential users of shared e-scooters? An examination of socio-demographic, attitudinal and environmental factors. Travel Behaviour and Society 23: 100–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morley, Louise. 2005. Gender equity in Commonwealth higher education. In Women’s Studies International Forum. Pergamon: Elsevier, vol. 28, pp. 209–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukaka, M. M. 2012. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal: The Journal of Medical Association of Malawi 24: 69–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naing, L., T. Winn, and B. N. Rusli. 2006. Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44372553/09_14_Ayub-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1634535280&Signature=L~HYlCfV2TDXWUB~ptOzABP-Rn3HTVD-1HlDIbSV8RmB8aH2F3ibdgJDIT~VAmOZlij9Dbt0robpVH3NW5tuOwJuMvfJNKG~0C6AMGmoRsHnA7WmBrrf6brPLTqo3LNEp932r9usITBC5foL7kBstqg9uTWui5MH~6iUKtffJrn9916lTg6nZc8xuXIF4xMNOg5OBJyNwrnW-BnctCeYa1ldWDDs0n8hH7t4ZjPUyQnKgA0r~GwK6K0DSxRZVqHjRgVV97f8aojDQcbK35rvlzmNttw5K2Eda2eMpO14wwzlLvRCPzP2bBQU5ncdldT3Wyx3~Ea9m6MEUDms0rNz7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Nerén, Dan. n.d. Swedish Cities Would Benefit from Clearer Micro-Mobility Rules. Available online: https://www.tier.app/swedish-cities-would-benefit-from-clearer-micro-mobility-rules/ (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Nikiforiadis, Andreas, and Socrates Basbas. 2019. Can pedestrians and cyclists share the same space? The case of a city with low cycling levels and experience. Sustainable Cities and Society 46: 101453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikiforiadis, Andreas, Evangelos Paschalidis, Nikiforos Stamatiadis, Alexandra Raptopoulou, Athanasia Kostareli, and Socrates Basbas. 2021. Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 94: 102790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oeschger, Giulia, Páraic Carroll, and Brian Caulfield. 2020. Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 89: 102628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orozco-Fontalvo, Mauricio, José Soto, Andrea Arévalo, and Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios. 2019. Women’s perceived risk of sexual harassment in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: The case of Barranquilla, Colombia. Journal of Transport & Health 14: 100598. [Google Scholar]
- Ouali, Laila Ait Bihi, Daniel J. Graham, Alexander Barron, and Mark Trompet. 2020. Gender differences in the perception of safety in public transport. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 183: 737–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirra, Miriam, Sofia Kalakou, Angela Carboni, Mariana Costa, Marco Diana, and Ana R. Lynce. 2021. A preliminary analysis on gender aspects in transport systems and mobility services: Presentation of a survey design. Sustainability 13: 2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozoukidou, G., and Z. Chatziyiannaki. 2021. 15-Minute City: Decomposing the New Urban Planning Eutopia. Sustainability 13: 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raptopoulou, Alexandra, Socrates Basbas, Nikiforos Stamatiadis, and Andreas Nikiforiadis. 2020. A First Look at E-Scooter Users. In Advances in Mobility-as-a-Service Systems. New York: Springer, pp. 882–91. ISBN 978-3-030-61074-6. [Google Scholar]
- Sagaris, Lake, and Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken. 2018. Walking and Gender Equity: Insights from Santiago Chile (No. 18-05195). Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1496637 (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Sallah, Cynthia Ayorkor, and Livingstone Divine Caesar. 2020. Intangible resources and the growth of women businesses: Empirical evidence from an emerging market economy. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scorrano, Mariangela, and Romeo Danielis. 2021. The characteristics of the demand for electric scooters in Italy: An exploratory study. Research in Transportation Business & Management 39: 100589. [Google Scholar]
- Shaheen, Susan, and Adam Cohen. 2020. Mobility on demand (MOD) and mobility as a service (MaaS): Early understanding of shared mobility impacts and public transit partnerships. In Demand for Emerging Transportation Systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–59. [Google Scholar]
- Sharp, Sonja. 2019. Cities Use Invisible Geofencing to Control Use of E-Scooters. Available online: https://www.govtech.com/transportation/cities-use-invisible-geofencing-to-control-use-of-e-scooters.html (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Sokolowski, M.M. 2020. Laws and Policies on Electric Scooters in the European Union: A Ride to the Micromobility Directive? European Energy and Environmental Law Review 29. [Google Scholar]
- Statistica, I.N. 2021. di The Permanent Census of the Population in Sicily. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/253856#:~:text=LapopolazionecensitainSicilia,anno)rispettoalCensimento2011 (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Tomassi, Federico. 2018. Il Trasporto Pubblico Locale: Confronto tra Roma. Milano: Napoli e Torino. [Google Scholar]
- Tuncer, Sylvaine, and Barry Brown. 2020. E-scooters on the ground: Lessons for redesigning urban micro-mobility. Paper presented at the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, April 25–30; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Tuncer, Sylvaine, Eric Laurier, Barry Brown, and Christian Licoppe. 2020. Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. Journal of Transport Geography 85: 102702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twisse, Fiona. 2021. Overview of Policy Relating to E-Scooters in European Countries. Available online: https://www.eltis.org/resources/case-studies/overview-policy-relating-e-scooters-european-countries (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Umaña-Barrios, Nancy, and Andrea San Gil. 2017. How Can Spatial Design Promote Inclusivity, Gender Equality and Overall Sustainability in Costa Rica’s Urban Mobility System? Procedia Engineering 198: 1018–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. n.d. Goal 5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower All Women and Girls. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- Uteng, Tanu Priya. 2012. Gender and Mobility in the Developing World. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9111 (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Vecchio, Giovanni, Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken, and Ricardo Hurtubia. 2020. Transport and equity in Latin America: A critical review of socially oriented accessibility assessments. Transport Reviews 40: 354–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinreich, Marianne. 2021. Ramboll Smart Mobility Gender and (Smart) Mobility. Available online: https://barracudaex.aub.aau.dk/index.php/td/article/view/6929 (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Yatskiv, Irina, and Nadezda Spiridovska. 2013. Application of ordinal regression model to analyze service quality of Riga coach terminal. Transport 28: 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zagorskas, Jurgis, and Marija Burinskienė. 2020. Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities. Sustainability 12: 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Country | Period | Reference |
---|---|---|
Commonwealth countries | 2005 | (Morley 2005) |
Columbia (Bogotà) | 2005 | (Lecompte and Pablo 2017). |
Canada | 2009 | (Anderson et al. 2009) |
Columbia (Medellin) | 2009–2012 | (Milan and Creutzig 2017). |
India (Uttar Predesh) | 2014 | (Mishra et al. 2014) |
North America (Costa Rica) | 2017 | (Umaña-Barrios and San Gil 2017). |
Chile (Santiago) | 2018 | (Sagaris and Tiznado-Aitken 2018). |
Africa (Nairobi) | 2018 | (Habitat 2018). |
Swedish (Stockholm) | 2018 | (Bastian and Börjesson 2018). |
Latin America (Curitiba, Medellin and Bogotá) | 2020 | (Vecchio et al. 2020) |
Sweden | 2020 | (Kronsell et al. 2016) |
Saudi Arabia (Damman) | 2020 | (Al-Rashid et al. 2020) |
Code | Description | Measure | Values | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Age of participant | Ordinal | 0: 18–30 | 25.1 |
1: 31–45 | 52.2 | |||
2: 46–65 | 18.1 | |||
3: >65 | 4.6 | |||
Educational_Level | Educational Level of participant | Ordinal | 0: Diploma | 56.8 |
1: Degree | 35.9 | |||
2: PhD | 7.3 | |||
Job_Occupation | Job or occupation of participant | Nominal | 0: Student | 19.5 |
1: Freelancer | 14.8 | |||
2: Employee | 42.3 | |||
3: Retired | 5.7 | |||
4: Unemployed | 17.7 | |||
Reason_Sharing_Mobility | Main reason for moving by sharing mobility vehicles | Nominal | 0: Work | 3.4 |
1: Accompanying children to school | 2.3 | |||
2: Accompanying someone to shopping or processing paperwork | 3.7 | |||
3: Leisure | 30.5 | |||
4: Other | 60.1 | |||
Frequency_Sharing_Mobility | How often do the participant move by sharing mobility vehicles | Ordinal | 0: Once or several times/day | 0.0 |
1: Once or several times/week | 1.4 | |||
2: Once or several times/month | 7.7 | |||
3: Never | 88.9 | |||
4: I don’t know | 2.0 | |||
Problem_Micromobility | The main problem that holds participants back from using micromobility vehicles | Nominal | 1: Problems related to the transport of children | 5.1 |
2: Problems related to the transport of shopping or bags | 25.1 | |||
3: Problems related to clothing | 6.3 | |||
4: Problems related to makeup removal | 0.0 | |||
5: Possible collisions with pedestrians and car/bike | 27.6 | |||
6: Possible violence action | 19.6 | |||
7: Health and/or posture problems | 16.3 | |||
Ownership_Micromobility | Participant owns micromobility vehicle | Nominal | 0: No | 95.8 |
1: Yes | 4.2 | |||
Safety_Micromobility | Perception of safety feeling linked to the micromobility vehicles’ use | Ordinal | 1: Strongly Disagree | 30.8 |
2: Disagree | 47.9 | |||
3: Uncertain | 19.8 | |||
4: Agree | 1.5 | |||
5: Strongly Agree | 0.0 | |||
Safety_Sharing_Mobility | Perception of safety feeling linked to the sharing mobility vehicles’ use | Ordinal | 1: Strongly Disagree | 29.1 |
2: Disagree | 40.4 | |||
3: Uncertain | 23.3 | |||
4: Agree | 7.2 | |||
5: Strongly Agree | 0.0 | |||
Gender_Equality_Passenger_Micromobility | Perception of gender equality feeling linked to the micromobility vehicles’ use | Ordinal | 1: Strongly Disagree | 43.0 |
2: Disagree | 45.8 | |||
3: Uncertain | 11.2 | |||
4: Agree | 0.0 | |||
5: Strongly Agree | 0.0 | |||
Gender_Equality_Driver_Sharing_Mobility | Perception of gender equality feeling linked to the sharing mobility vehicles’ use | Ordinal | 1: Strongly Disagree | 2.7 |
2: Disagree | 5.1 | |||
3: Uncertain | 90.5 | |||
4: Agree | 1.3 | |||
5: Strongly Agree | 0.4 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Age | 1 | ||||||||||
2 | Educational_Level | −0.102 ** | 1 | |||||||||
3 | Job_Occupation | 0.484 ** | 0.027 | 1 | ||||||||
4 | Reason_Sharing_Mobility | −0.027 | 0.029 | −0.212 ** | 1 | |||||||
5 | Frequency_Sharing_Mobility | 0.030 | 0.066 * | 0.091 ** | −0.057 | 1 | ||||||
6 | Problem_Micromobility | −0.016 | -0.035 | −0.039 | −0.019 | −0.001 | 1 | |||||
7 | Ownership_Micromobility | −0.057 | 0.022 | −0.130 ** | 0.039 | −0.045 | −0.016 | 1 | ||||
8 | Safety_Micromobility | 0.012 | −0.042 | 0.004 | −0.059 | 0.036 | −0.066 * | −0.044 | 1 | |||
9 | Safety_Sharing_Mobility | −0.010 | 0.028 | −0.037 | −0.074 * | 0.033 | −0.016 | 0.002 | 0.021 | 1 | ||
10 | Gender_Equality_Passenger_Micromobility | −0.031 | 0.011 | −0.035 | 0.044 | −0.004 | 0.004 | 0.033 | 0.001 | −0.003 | 1 | |
11 | Gender_Equality_Driver_Sharing_Mobility | −0.015 | 0.076 * | 0.002 | 0.058 | −0.032 | −0.061 | 0.018 | –0.043 | 0.024 | 0.068 * | 1 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | [Gender_Equality_Passenger_Micromobility = 1] | 0.855 | 0.577 | 2.195 | 1 | 0.138 | −0.276 | 1.986 |
[Gender_Equality_Passenger_Micromobility = 2] | 3.237 | 0.586 | 30.516 | 1 | <0.001 | 2.089 | 4.386 | |
Location | [Age = 0] | 0.529 | 0.564 | 0.879 | 1 | 0.348 | −0.576 | 1.633 |
[Age = 1] | 0.031 | 0.242 | 0.017 | 1 | 0.898 | −0.443 | 0.505 | |
[Age = 2] | 0.384 | 0.203 | 3.581 | 1 | 0.058 | −0.014 | 0.781 | |
[Age = 3] | 0 | 0 | ||||||
[Job_Occupation = 0] | 0.533 | 0.253 | 4.453 | 1 | 0.035 | 0.038 | 1.028 | |
[Job_Occupation = 1] | −0.100 | 0.215 | 0.214 | 1 | 0.643 | −0.521 | 0.322 | |
[Job_Occupation = 2] | −0.039 | 0.172 | 0.051 | 1 | 0.821 | −0.377 | 0.299 | |
[Job_Occupation = 3] | 0.093 | 0.492 | 0.035 | 1 | 0.851 | −0.871 | 1.057 | |
[Job_Occupation = 4] | 0 | 0 | ||||||
[Safety_Micromobility = 2] | 0.839 | 0.548 | 2.343 | 1 | 0.126 | −0.235 | 1.914 | |
[Safety_Micromobilit = 3] | 0.770 | 0.544 | 2.005 | 1 | 0.157 | −0.296 | 1.837 | |
[Safety_Micromobility = 4] | 1.037 | 0.555 | 3.486 | 1 | 0.062 | −0.052 | 2.125 | |
[Safety_Micromobility = 5] | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Link function: Logit. |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Intercept Only | 297.242 | |||
Final | 279.196 | 18.046 | 10 | 0.050 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 95.342 | 92 | 0.385 | |
Deviance | 84.460 | 92 | 0.699 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.018 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.021 | |||
McFadden | 0.009 |
Predicted | Observed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Uncertain | Total | |
Strongly Disagree | 152 | 138 | 21 | 311 |
Disagree | 278 | 320 | 91 | 689 |
Total | 430 | 458 | 112 | 1000 |
Variables | Intervals | Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|
Age | 31–45 18–30 (Reference category) | 1.467 |
Job_Occupation | Retired Unemployed (Reference category) | 1.704 |
Safety_Micromobility | Uncertain Agree (Reference category) | 2.819 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Campisi, T.; Skoufas, A.; Kaltsidis, A.; Basbas, S. Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100403
Campisi T, Skoufas A, Kaltsidis A, Basbas S. Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy. Social Sciences. 2021; 10(10):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100403
Chicago/Turabian StyleCampisi, Tiziana, Anastasios Skoufas, Alexandros Kaltsidis, and Socrates Basbas. 2021. "Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy" Social Sciences 10, no. 10: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100403
APA StyleCampisi, T., Skoufas, A., Kaltsidis, A., & Basbas, S. (2021). Gender Equality and E-Scooters: Mind the Gap! A Statistical Analysis of the Sicily Region, Italy. Social Sciences, 10(10), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100403