The Role of Micromobility in Mobility as a Service in Future Cities

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3259840/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Role of Micromobility in Mobility as a Service in Future Cities

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3259840/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

With urbanization expansion, transportation, and traffic and pollution in cities have increased, which has necessitated the need for a more sustainable urban transportation system. Micro-mobility programs have been proposed worldwide. Despite various previous literature, a comprehensive conceptualization has not been accomplished. Therefore, with a qualitative Meta-Synthesis; we re-introduce and define this style of transportation and answer questions about the criteria for determining micro-mobility, types of micro-mobility, its applications in cities, and its advantages and disadvantages, its main role in urban transportation in future cities and the current market, and its future forecast. The results showed that there is no specific and comprehensive definition to explain micro-mobility and its determining indicators are different and their value is changing according to technological changes. micro-mobility plays a unique role in future cities under the livable city concept with a predicted exponential usage growth, as it has a complementary role to public transportation.

Micro-Mobility

Mobility as a Service (MaaS)

Urban Transportation System

Future Cities

Meta-Synthesis

The expansion of urbanization is one of the most important events of the last few centuries, so that it is called as the urban revolution in the world. This expansion has occurred both through the development of existing cities and the emergence of new cities. (Coretti Sanchez et al., 2022) Statistics show that the proportion of urbanization in the world has been increasing in recent decades. In 2008, for the first time, global urban transition took place, in other words, more than half of the world's population (3 billion and 300 million people) lived in urban areas, based on this, the United Nations named 2008 the year of urbanization. According to the World Bank report, in 2022, about 56% of the world's population (4.4 billion people) live in cities, this trend is expected to continue until 7 out of 10 people live in cities in 2050. (World Bank, 2022)

The expansion of urbanization has various advantages and disadvantages. Cities generate more than 80% of the world's GDP, which, if well managed, contribute to the sustainable growth of societies through increased productivity and innovation. (World Bank, 2022)

On the other hand, urbanization and its rapid rate lead to challenges such as imbalance in the landscape and body of cities, lack of housing and its price increase, lack of viable infrastructure including transportation systems, basic services and jobs and rise in social injustice, population density and related issues. Among them are the increase in traffic, climate change and environmental pollution and environmental destruction, variety of social pathological issues, and challenges in providing urban services including electricity, water, health facilities and waste management. (Kolomak, 2012; Tan, Yang & Niu, 2022; World Bank, 2022) For example, cities produce approximately 78% of carbon emissions and significant air pollutants, which has caused about 90% of the world's citizens to live in areas that exceed safe levels in the World Health Organization's air quality guidelines. (Liang & Gong, 2020)

As mentioned, one of the problems of urbanization in the world is the increase in population and traffic, which studies show that population and traffic are two major factors that affect air quality in the process of urbanization. The increase in the population of cities has increased the movement of citizens in the city to access urban facilities and receive urban services, and the increase in movement by private car has caused negative side effects such as pollution in different cities of the world (Todd, O'Brien, & Cheshire, 2019). Zhang et al. (2022) state that every one percent increase in population density causes a 0.019 percent decrease in air quality. Public transportation such as the subway plays an important role in improving air quality. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that with the development of cities, the importance of transportation increases, and as a result, the existing transportation problems show themselves more and more. These problems include significant public transportation infrastructure costs, raising costs of using public transportation, as well as lack of accessibility and structural problems in the urban transportation network, increase in personal transportation, and its subsequent issues like, inefficient fuel consumption, pollution, parking problems, increase in accidents and time wasted in traffic jams. (Omayer, 2022; Masood, Khan, Naqvi, 2011) On the other hand, various initiative and concepts have been formalized regarding the future of cities, such as smart, innovative, sustainable, livable, environmentally friendly, green, competent, etc., and transportation plays an essential role in each of these types of cities.

Therefore, due to the emergence of complications caused by the expansion of cities as well as the diversity of cities' missions, city managers have sought a more sustainable urban transportation system. For this purpose and based on the emergence of new methods and emerging technologies, the paradigm of urban transportation is changing from transportation by vehicle to transportation as a service. (Medina-Molina et al., 2022) In this context, the new modes of personal transportation that have been proposed under the name of micro0mobility deal with the use of small and light vehicles such as electronic scooters and electric bicycles. Because this mode of urban transportation is new and has different effects and applications, and it can help reduce the problems caused by traffic and air pollution as a new method along with other urban transportation methods and plays an important role in creating a sustainable urban transportation system in future cities, it is practically necessary to pay attention to this transportation and on the other hand, despite the fact that various studies have explained this phenomenon, but a comprehensive conceptualization has not been achieved in the theoretical foundations of this field, therefore, understanding this concept in the scientific community is also a theoretical necessity. Therefore, the main goal of this article is to introduce micro-mobility and explain its role in the urban transportation systems in future cities. In this regard, understanding the concept of micro-mobility in the scientific literature along with its advantages and disadvantages and its role in the future of cities is of significant importance, which is discussed in this article.

Although the term micro-mobility has been mentioned in the scientific literature since 2017, many articles have been compiled about it, and as shown in Figure 1, the number of articles that use the term micro-mobility in its title has been increasing.

Some studies have focused more on the introduction of micro-mobility, its history and its potential in cities. (Reed, 2019) and others have examined the applications and benefits by focusing on one type of this transportation, for example, a bicycle or a scooter, and then discussed the features of shared plans in this type of transportation. For example, various studies including Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet et al. (2022) They have stated the applications and benefits of micro-mobility. Other studies have investigated the disadvantages and factors affecting the use and type of use of these devices. Articles such as Aguilera-García et al. (2020), Fishman et al. (2014; 2015), Serra et al. (2021) and Fonseca-Cabrera et al. (2021) have addressed the disadvantages of this mode of transportation. Also, in this regard, several articles have reviewed the literature on micro-mobility. These researches, while stating that valuable research studies have been conducted in the field of micro-mobility, but the body of the conducted researches are considered to be completely scattered. (Abduljabbar et al., 2021) And they have tried to integrate each part of it. In this context, Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020) with a systematic review of the literature related to the bicycle sharing systems, by reviewing the articles until August 2020, state that Micro-mobility is a means of access to public transportation, if micro-mobility is integrated with public transportation; It has the potential to replace private cars. Abduljabbar et al. (2021) reviewed articles from the Scopus database between 2000 and 2020 and found that studies in this field are on the rise, showing micro-mobility as a transformative and sustainable low-carbon urban transportation mode. They have examined the benefits, technology, policy, and categories of behavioral mode selection in studies. Liao and Correi (2022) reviewed the literature related to electronic shared transportation to examine the usage pattern, demand estimation and their potential effects. Bretones and Marquet et al. (2022) have reviewed the related literature by focusing on socio-psychological factors affecting people's intention to use electronic transportation mode. Elmashhara et al. (2022) have also investigated the factors influencing the behavior of users of shared micro-mobility systems with a systematic literature review. Other articles have different opinions regarding the effects of micro-mobility. Bozzi and Aguilera (2021) have done a systematic review of the current knowledge about uses and users, health and environmental effects and policy issues in the field of micro-mobility. Their results showed that the use of electronic scooters has a high risk of accidents in the eyes of people, and there are also conflicting opinions regarding the environmental effect of these devices, so that although these devices reduce pollution, they are polluting in terms of production and materials, especially battery and charging.

Examining the review articles in this field show that, firstly, these articles mostly focused on a specific type of micro-mobility (generally shared bicycle) or examined a specific function of it (such as integration with the public transportation system). On the other hand, although the advantages and effects of this mode of transportation have been investigated, it has different and sometimes conflicting opinions, so the present study, explains the definitions of micro-mobility, its criteria and its variations, its advantages and disadvantages, its effects and functions, and it analyzes its market and the different roles of this type of urban mobility, especially in different types of future cities. Although, the previous studies, both review and non-review studies, have clarified aspects of micro-mobility, but there is no particular coherence between the studies in relation to the mentioned cases, so the Meta-Synthesis method has been used to interpret and combine the findings of these studies.

Research Methodology

The nature of this and its purpose is practical as it seeks to provide suggestions and guidelines for the use of micro-mobility in urban transportation. In terms of strategy and method, qualitative (library study) and Meta-Synthesis methods have been used in this article. In terms of the subject area of the research, the articles related to all types of micro-mobility in the city are targeted, and in terms of time, the articles from 2017 onwards have been examined because the term micro-mobility was first expressed in 2017 (Liao and Correi,2022).

As mentioned in this article, the Qualitative Meta-Synthesis method has been used. This method analyzes the data, theories and research method of the subject literature (Paterson et al., 2001) and It seeks to build a new theory, develop a conceptual model, identify existing gaps, integrate findings, provide a new explanation of the studied phenomenon, and expand the understanding of new knowledge. (Atkins et al., 2008) In other words, Meta-Synthesis is done in order to combine past studies (combination of previous combinations). This method includes 6 steps: stating the problem and setting research questions, searching for sources, evaluating quality, analyzing studies, combining findings, and validating findings. (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007) Figure 2 shows the research framework. In general, this research was done in 4 general stages and 6 steps. In the first stage, the main problem and research questions were defined. Then search and resource selection was performed, and in the next step, the data was obtained from the selected sources were examined and analyzed. In the final stage, the results were summarized.

mentioned in the following are the summary of research framework, introduction each step of the Meta-Synthesis method, the work done in each step and their results and findings.

1. The first step: statement of the problem and formulation of research questions:

In this step, along with defining and stating the problem, the research questions related to the stated problem and the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the articles in the review are also determined. As mentioned earlier, various articles have been done in the field of micro-mobility and review articles have also been done in this field, but each one focuses on a part of micro-mobility and the comprehensive definition, functions and benefits of this method of transportation have not been properly explained, although Due to the expansion of urbanization and the increase in the population of cities and consequently traffic and air pollution, there is a need to design new transportation systems whose function and advantage is to reduce traffic and air pollution and develop the use of public transportation. Therefore, this article seeks a clearer and comprehensive understanding of micro-mobility and providing a general picture of it by answering the central question (the main question) "What type of transportation is micro-mobility and what is its place in the urban transportation system?" and the following sub-questions are:

What is the comprehensive definition of micromobility?
What are the criteria for determining micromobility?
According to the comprehensive definition, what are the types of micromobility?
What are the uses of micromobility in cities?
What will be the advantages and disadvantages of micromobility in cities?
What is the main role of micromobility in urban transportation in future cities?
What place will micromobility have in the future of cities?

2. The second step: search for sources:

At this stage, the search for resources in databases is done by determining keywords, databases and time period, language, etc. In this study, Google Scholar and Elsevier database were searched for articles that include Mictomobility, Micro-mobility in their title, abstract and/or keywords. Search criteria includes: 1. Articles that have been published in ISI's indexed prestigious journals. 2. Articles that have Micromobility and/or Micro-mobility in the title, abstract and keywords. 3. Articles that have mentioned in their findings the definition of micro-mobility, the expression of advantages or disadvantages, its applications, its market and its relationship with other transportation systems. Search resulted in 477 articles that were entered the next stage to determine suitable articles for evaluation.

3. The third step: quality assessment: After searching and selecting the desired sources, at this stage, the articles were examined individually by the research team and initially evaluated (Figure 3), finally 198 articles were selected for analysis.

According to Figure 4, the reviewed articles have been published in various journals, they were in the fields of transportation, fuel, and environment.

4. Fourth step: analysis of studies: At this stage, the reviewed articles and primary data were extracted and analyzed and categorized. The table below is an example of gathering information from an article.

Table 1. Sample Descriptive Table of Primary Data Extracted from Articles

Idea and main findings of the article	Name of authors (year of publication)	Article code
The rapid expansion of micromobility has forced both urban planners and transport planners to deal with the presence of a large number of new vehicles of different sizes and technologies compared to the traditional vehicles in circulation. In urban areas in particular, the widespread use of e-scooters makes technicians and administrations think about how to redesign urban spaces to accommodate the new form of mobility. Many European countries have started to introduce rules for new users, some of which equate e-scooters with bicycles. However, it is necessary to focus on some specific aspects of this mode of transport, namely safety, access to main points of interest and integration with public transport.	Ignaccolo et al. (2022)	1

5. The fifth step: combination of findings: At this stage, based on the non-linear process of thinking, interpretation, creation, theorizing and feedback; Findings are combined (Paterson et al., 2001). This step is explained in detail in the research findings and discussion and conclusion section.

6. The sixth step: validation of findings:

The validation process continues from the beginning to the end of the research process. Sandelowski & Barroso (2007) introduce four types of validation for meta-synthesis: 1) Descriptive validation: identifying all related reports and identifying the characteristics of each report, 2) Interpretive validation: presenting the full understanding and point of view of researchers from the reports, 3) Theoretical Validation: the validity of the methods developed and used by the Meta-Synthesis in order to integrate and interpret research findings, and 4) pragmatic validation: in the sense of the usefulness, transferability of knowledge, applicability and appropriateness of the Meta-Synthesis methodology.

In this research, validating findings were performed by using the independent search of sources by two people (descriptive method), consultation of the project team and combination of opinions (interpretive method), consultation with Meta-Synthesis expert (theoretical method) and consultation with the urban transportation official (pragmatic method). (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007).

After identifying and extracting the primary data, the research questions have been answered.

Question 1: Comprehensive definition of micro-mobility

Although various definitions of micromobility have been presented, the focus of most articles is based on the definition of The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020), which also defined micromobility based on the kinetic energy of vehicles as follows: "vehicles with a mass of no more than 350 kg (771 lb) and a design speed no higher than 45 km/h". This definition limits the kinetic energy of the micro mobility vehicle to 27 kJ, which is one hundredth of the kinetic energy of a compact car at maximum speed (The International Transport Forum (ITF), 2020). In other definitions, either the type of driving force of these devices, including electric or human power, has been discussed (Sanjaya et al., 2020) or it has been described qualitatively (Bozzi and Aguilera (2021); Fonseca-Cabrera et al. (2021)) or the type of device in it is specified (O'Hern and Estgfaeller (2022); Shaheen et al. (2020)). The table below shows the different definitions of micro-mobility. Although there are many similarities between the definitions, there is no inclusive and exclusive definition among these definitions that can clearly define micro-mobility.

Table 2. Definitions of Micromobility

No.	Definition	Reference
1	vehicles with a mass of no more than 350 kg (771 lb) and a design speed no higher than 45 km/h	The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020)
2	Micromobility is defined as a small means of transportation that fully or partially uses human power, such as shared bicycles with and without stations (including e-bikes) and shared scooters	National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) (2019)
3	Micromobility refers to small and light modes of transportation (less than 500 kg) with a speed of less than 25 km/h, most of which are used individually, such as using a bicycle, and in a standing position, such as a scooter.	Şengül and Mostofi (2021)
4	Micromobility is defined as a human-powered or electric vehicle with a maximum speed of 25 km/h and a weight of less than 500 kg. Hospital trolleys for delivering medical supplies are one of the examples of micromobility	Sanjaya et al. (2020)
5	Micromobility refers to vehicles that are low speed, small, lightweight and usually used for short trips	Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2021)
6	Micromobility includes all vehicles that are easy to carry or ride and increase pedestrian traffic.	Fonseca-Cabrera et al. (2021)
7	Micromobility refers to trips made by a wide range of small vehicles. Micro-vehicles include traditional and emerging types of light vehicles, from conventional bicycles and mopeds to e-bikes and e-scooters, e-skateboards and hoverboards.	O’Hern and Estgfaeller (2022)
8	The word micro can refer to both the type of vehicle (light, with a small footprint) and the distance traveled (usually short). The term micromobility covers a range of personal, light and low-speed vehicles	Bozzi and Aguilera (2021)
9	Using bicycles, scooters or small vehicles for usually short urban trips	Shaheen et al. (2020)
10	Micromobility is small transportation devices designed for human-scale movement	Bao & Lim (2022)

Question 2: Micro-mobility determination criteria

The review of articles shows that just as there is no comprehensive definition and barrier for micro-mobility, there is no agreement on the criteria for determining micromobility and its amount, and even some criteria are dependent on other factors. While the International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020) emphasizes the amount of kinetic energy, weight, speed and driving force, in the classification of The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), there are four criteria for classifying micro-mobility vehicles: Weight up to 227 kg, maximum width of 1.5 meters, maximum speed of 48 km/h and electric or combustion engine power source. Using a four-factor classification, the American Society of Automotive Engineers distinguishes six types of electric micro-mobility: electric bicycles, electric stand-up scooters, electric sit-down scooters, electric self-balancing boards, electric non-self-balancing boards, and electric skates (The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 2018). Other studies have also considered the criteria of distance, place of use and type of device while paying attention to the above criteria (Shaheen et al. (2020)). There is no consensus on the value of these criteria and various factors that affect it. For example, the type of vehicle is related to the distance. In this context, Schwinger et al. (2022) and Şengül and Mostofi (2021) and Vetturi et al. (2023) state that e-bike trips are significantly longer than e-scooters. E-scooters are mainly used for trips shorter than 2 km and e-bikes are often used for trips of 4 km. Moinse (2022) estimated the distance from the home or workplace to the public transportation station, i.e., the distance that is suitable for using micro-mobility, to be 3 to 4 kilometers and states that proper planning of the transportation network is necessary to achieve and maintain this distance and the existence of suitable parking for micro-mobility. Şengül and Mostofi (2021) state that micro-mobility should be used for all trips with different travel purposes that are less than 8 km, which accounts for 50-60% of all trips in China, the EU and the United States. Therefore, it can be assumed that micro-mobility may replace the majority of car trips, since it is known that most car trips are made for a distance of less than 8 km. They also state that a review of micro-mobility regulations and restrictions shows that various countries are seeking to legalize the use of this device by limiting age and speed. Regarding speed regulations for these vehicles, the limit in Poland is 25 km/h. The speed limit in Chicago and Oregon is approximately 24 km/h, with the exception that in Oregon there is a contradiction, as micromobility vehicles must not travel slower than traffic speed (approximately 40 km/h) (Şengül and Mostofi., 2021). Kazemzadeh & Sprei (2022) state that the type of vehicle is effective in determining the speed and the speed varies from 15 to 45 km/h depending on the vehicle. It should also be said that technology and the use of electric propulsion has changed the value of the criteria. For example, the increase in distance and speed has been due to the increase in the level of technology and the emergence and expansion of the use of electronic devices (Schwinger et al. (2022)). As it is clear from Table 3, 8 criteria have been specified for determining micro-mobility, but based on different definitions, the amount of these criteria is different and there is no consensus in this field.

Table 3. Micromobility Determination Criteria

No.	Criteria	Value	Reference
1	The amount of kinetic energy	Less than 27 KJ	The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020)
2	Weight	<227 Kg	The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2018)
		<350 Kg (771 lbs.)	The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020)
		<500 Kg	Sanjaya et al. (2020), Şengül and Mostofi (2021)
3	Width	<1.5 Meters	The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2018)
4	Speed	<48 Km/h	The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2018)
		<45 Km/h	The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022)
		<25 Km/h	Sanjaya et al. (2020), Bozzi and Aguilera (2021), Şengül and Mostofi (2021)
5	Distance	3 Km up to 15 Km	Shaheen et al. (2020), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Fan and Harper (2022), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Liao and Correi (2022), Moinse (2022), Vetturi et al. (2023)
6	Place of Use	City/ Urban	Shaheen et al. (2020)
7	Vehicle Type	Bicycles and scooters	Shaheen et al. (2020)
8	Power	Human or electrically powered	The International Transport Forum (ITF) (2020), Sanjaya et al. (2020)
8	Power	Internal Combustion or electric	The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2018)

Question 3: Types of micro-mobility

In order to identify the types of micro-mobility based on the identified definitions and criteria, it can be said that in most studies, the articles have focused on a specific type of micro-mobility, especially shared systems and on bicycles and scooters. While micro-mobility devices can be classified based on different types, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Diversity of Micromobility

No.	Diversity in/ Based on	Description	Examples
1	Propulsion Type	Human Powered	one-wheeled balancing boards, pedal bikes, kick scooters, skateboards, wheelchairs.
		Electrically Powered	E-unicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, hoverboards, small electric four-wheeled vehicles.
2	Ownership	Private	Variety of Vehicles and Devices
		Shared
3	Docking/Station	Docked (Station-Based (
		Dock-Less
4	Historical perspective	Traditional Vehicles	Ordinary bicycles and two-wheeled motorbikes
		New and Emerging Devices	Electric bicycles, electronic scooters and electric skateboards and hoverboards
5	Seated/standing	Seated (having a chair to sit on)	Sitting scooter, bicycle
		Standing	Standing scooter, boards and...
6	Self-Balancing capability	Having a self-balancing board	Electric self-balancing board, hoverboard, electric caster board
		Not having a self-balancing board	Non-self-balancing electric board, electric skateboard
7	Vehicle type based on wheel configuration	Unicycle	Single wheel balance boards, electronic unicycle
		Two-wheeler	Bicycles (e-bikes and pedal bikes), scooters (e-scooters and kick scooters), skateboards
		Other	Four-wheel small electric cars, wheelchairs, hospital trolleys, roller skates, Segway, tricycles, quadracycles, etc.

Schomakers et al. (2022) state that Ducktrains, which are autonomous light electric vehicles for delivering cargo in the city, are a type of micro-mobility.

Question 4: Reasons for and applications of using micro-mobility

Micro-mobility has two main applications, entertainment and need based (to reach entertainment centers, workplaces and schools, public transportation and to meet personal needs and make purchases). These needs are mostly personal and few studies have been done on its application to businesses and organizations. Ducktrains et al. (2022) mentioned crowdshipping through micromobility. They state that due to the growth of e-commerce, new options for delivery of goods (such as mass transit) and small electric transportation or micromobility (e-bikes and e-scooters) have been expanded which causes sustainable transportation, replacing personal cars with micromobility while delivering goods in a short time. An important factor affecting the use of micromobility is the level of infrastructure safety by ensuring the existence of bicycle lanes that are either physically or temporarily separated. They also refer to generating income through mass transportation by micromobility. The reasons for using micromobility in the subject literature are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Main applications of Micromobility

Reasons or Applications	Name of authors (year of publication)
For entertainment and to reach entertainment centers	Štefancová et al. (2022), Caspi et al. (2020), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Chang et al. (2019), Hardt and Bogenberger (2019), Li et al. (2020), Pimentel and Lowry (2020), Leger et al. (2018), Dibaj et al. (2021), Li et al. (2021), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Almannaa et al. (2021), Qian, Jaller, & Circella (2023)
Reaching public transportation (bus, subway, and train stations)	Štefancová et al. (2022), Leger et al. (2018), Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020), Liao and Correi (2022), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Moinse (2022), Ignaccolo et al. (2022), Orozco-Fontalvo et al. (2022), Nigro et al. (2022), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Chicco & Diana (2022), Li et al. (2022), Yang et al. (2020), Liu & Miller (2022), Diallo, Gloriot, & Manout (2023), MacKenzie (2020), Latinopoulos, Patrier, & Sivakumar (2021), Latinopoulos, Patrier, & Sivakumar (2021), Akova, Hulagu, & Celikoglu (2022), Cheng et al. (2023), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Luo et al. (2021), Baek et al. (2021), Zhang, Guo, & Feng (2022), Truden et al. (2022), Abduljabbar, Liyanage, & Dia (2022), Bai & Jiao (2020)
To meet personal and shopping needs	Štefancová et al. (2022), Hardt and Bogenberger (2019), Leger et al. (2018), Li et al. (2021), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Qian, Jaller, & Circella (2023)
Going to work and school	Štefancová et al. (2022), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Chang et al. (2019), Hardt and Bogenberger (2019), Li et al. (2020), Nigro et al. (2022), Li et al. (2021), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Qian, Jaller, & Circella (2023), Almannaa et al. (2021), Bai & Jiao (2020)
Transporting goods (Cargo) in the form of crowdshipping (urban logistics)	Castiglione et al. (2022), He et al. (2021), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Schomakers et al. (2022)

As it is clear from Figure 5, the use of micromobility to reach public transportation such as bus, taxi, subway and train is the most frequent among the micromobility applications mentioned in the literature.

Question 5: Advantages and disadvantages of micromobility

The review of the literature showed that the benefits of micromobility can be divided into two categories: direct and indirect benefits. Direct benefits are benefits that affect transportation, such as easier access to public transportation, less use of private vehicles, and sustainable transportation. Indirect benefits are benefits that result from the effects of using this type of transportation on citizens, such as increasing access to services and opportunities in the city, reducing travel time and cost, reducing energy and fuel consumption, and improving health.

It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions in the articles regarding the benefits of micromobility. Some studies have pointed out the effects of micromobility on reducing pollution and improving health. For example, Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020) state that the combination of micromobility and public transportation; Along with the current benefits of public transportation results in increased access, speed and convenience, and provides “Door to Door” that will significantly enhance accessibility. Also, Liao and Correi (2022) state that micromobility has positive effects on transportation and the environment (such as reducing car use, car ownership and greenhouse gas emissions). Dias and Ribeiro (2021) state that micromobility in cities has been strongly associated with environmental, social and economic benefits. Its use is mostly to connect to public transport to promote first and last miles of the trips. Their results show increased health and time saving. Martínez et al. (2019) have estimated the total value of socio-economic effects (impact on the economy and health benefits) for each euro invested in shared bike programs between 1.37 and 1.72 euros. Peng et al. (2022) state that shared micromobility systems are new and more convenient travel options while reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Their results show that these systems have positive environmental effects and have the potential to facilitate the decarbonization of urban transportation. The results of Sun et al. (2021) shows that shared micromobility can reduce energy consumption by 1% at the national level and 2.6% at the city level, therefore micromobility is known as the biggest factor in energy consumption reduction. On the other hand, Sun and Ertz (2022) state that unlike previous studies, micromobility including types of free-floating bike-sharing (FFBS), free-floating e-bike sharing (FFEBS), and free-floating e-scooter sharing (FFESS) except station-based bike-sharing (SBBS) have not achieved the desired benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is due to excessive commercialization and low usage. In addition, regional differences in mode choice, operational efficiency, fleet scale and market potential of shared micromobility and related greenhouse gas emission impacts vary widely. Therefore, the authorities should formulate appropriate shared micromobility programs based on the current conditions and objectives of the region. The results of Bozzi and Aguilera (2021) showed that electronic scooters are often associated with a high perception of risk by people and an increase in the occurrence of road accidents. Regarding the environmental effect of these devices, there are conflicting opinions so that although these devices reduce air pollution, they are polluting in terms of production and materials, especially battery charging related pollutions (Echeverría-Su et al., 2023). Integrating shared e-scooters into existing transportation systems requires policy changes, both at the local and national levels, including traffic regulations, safety laws, and physical infrastructure. They determined health and hygiene effects in three domains of injury (loss of balance or falls, upper extremity and head injury), perceived safety, and physical activity (reduced activity compared to walking). In addition, they stated that physical injuries were caused by the lack of helmet-related laws, but even in countries where the use of helmets is mandatory, e-scooter riders rarely use protective equipment, and risky behavior is especially harmful in young men. In relation to the perceived safety, there is a need for the existence of infrastructure and the separation of the paths of these devices from other devices and pedestrians, as well as the maneuverability of the devices, including the amount of their braking power. In summary, it can be said that the main potential of micromobility in the urban context is in solving the problem of First- and Last-Mile and access to public transportation. In Table 6, the advantages of micromobility are presented in an integrated manner.

Table 6. Advantages of micromobility

No.	Type	Advantages	Name of authors (year of publication)
1	Direct	Convenience, flexibility and access to public transportation	Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Nigro et al. (2022), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Fazio et al. (2021), Chicco & Diana (2022), Li et al. (2022), Yang et al. (2020), Liu & Miller (2022), Diallo, Gloriot, & Manout (2023), MacKenzie (2020), Latinopoulos, Patrier, & Sivakumar (2021), Abouelela, Al Haddad, & Antoniou (2021), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Kazemzadeh & Sprei (2022), Sanders, Branion-Calles, & Nelson (2020), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Zhang, Guo, & Feng (2022), Bergantino, Intini, & Tangari (2021), Truden et al. (2022), Abduljabbar, Liyanage, & Dia (2022), Qian, Jaller, & Circella (2023), Bai & Jiao (2020)
2		Helping to change mobility patterns and behaviors, including less use of car-based urban mobility systems and moving towards mobility as a service instead of vehicle ownership	Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020), Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Cardell & Moller (2020), Fan and Harper (2022), Orozco-Fontalvo et al. (2022), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Fazio et al. (2021), Reck, Martin, & Axhausen (2022), Comi, Polimeni, and Nuzzolo (2022), Eccarius & Lu (2020), MacKenzie (2020), Kazemzadeh & Sprei (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Krauss, Reck, & Axhausen (2023), Turoń & Kubik (2022), Bai & Jiao (2020)
3		Sustainable transportation	Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Eccarius & Lu (2020), Ecer et al. (2023), Fistola, Gallo, & La Rocca (2022), Choi, Kim, & Seo (2023), Kazemzadeh, Haghani, & Sprei (2023), Diallo, Gloriot, & Manout (2023), Savastano et al. (2023), Abduljabbar, Liyanage, & Dia (2022), Luo et al. (2021), Deveci et al. (2022)
4	Indirect	Increasing access to services and opportunities	Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Hamari et al. (2015), Reck & Axhausen (2021)
5		Reduce travel time and cost	Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Castiglione et al. (2022), MacKenzie (2020), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Hamari et al. (2015), Bullock et al. (2017), Qiu & He (2018), Gao et al. (2021), Liu & Miller (2022), Adjei, Cimador, & Severengiz (2022), Öztaş Karlı, Karlı, & Çelikyay (2022), Peters & MacKenzie (2019), Bergantino, Intini, & Tangari (2021)
6		Reducing energy and fuel consumption	Fan and Harper (2022), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Reck, Martin, & Axhausen (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Bergantino, Intini, & Tangari (2021), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Peng et al. (2022), de Bortoli (2021), Sun et al. (2021), Li et al. (2022), Dozza et al. (2023), Echeverría-Su (2023), Reis, Baptista, & Moura (2023), Mitra & Hess (2021), Coretti Sanchez, Alonso Pastor, & Larson (2022), Wilkinson & Badwan (2021), Zhang, Guo, & Feng (2022), Truden et al. (2022), Abduljabbar, Liyanage, & Dia (2022)
7		Improving health	Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Fan and Harper (2022), Orozco-Fontalvo et al. (2022), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Bergantino, Intini, & Tangari (2021), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Abduljabbar et al. (2021), Bretones and Marquet (2022), Peng et al. (2022), de Bortoli (2021), Mitra & Hess (2021), Martinez et al. (2019), Sareen, Remme and Haarstad (2021), Sanders, Branion-Calles, & Nelson (2020), Posirisuk, Baker, & Ghajari (2022)

The factors that hinder the wider acceptance of micromobility, or in other words, the disadvantages of micromobility, can also be classified into two categories: infrastructural barriers and social-natural barriers. Infrastructural barriers mean lack of suitable infrastructure (Mayhew and Bergin, 2019) (Gössling, 2020) (Zhang et al., 2021), lack of sufficient number of devices at the right time and place (geographical and temporal distribution), non-separation of the usage path and parking place (Gehrke, Sadeghinasr, Wang, & Reardon, 2021). For example, bicycle infrastructure factors such as good road quality and separate bicycle lanes play an important role in accelerating public bicycle adoption (Abolhassani, Afghari, & Borzadaran, 2019) (Hess & Schubert, 2019). Yang et al. (2022) state that sections with sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities, lower speed limits, street lights, and more trees have higher trip volumes. Second category barriers include privacy concerns (Aguilera-García et al., 2020), safety concerns and perceived difficulty or inconvenience of use for example; The need for helmets and the increase in accidents (Fishman et al., 2014; Fishman et al., 2015; Serra et al., 2021; Fonseca-Cabrera et al. (2021)) and lack of rules. To reduce these obstacles, especially in the field of accidents and security, solutions such as the establishment of related laws, the separation of micromobility paths from riders and pedestrians have been proposed (Fonseca-Cabrera et al. (2021); Pazzini et al. (2022)). In addition, people who are more concerned about the environment are more likely to use shared bicycles or shared electric scooters (Aguilera-García et al., 2020; Eccarius & Lu, 2020). Also, the environment and climate play a stronger role in influencing a person's intention to use micromobility. This argument is not surprising given the characteristics of most micromobility devices, such as lower speed (20 mph or less), shorter distance (1.5-2.9 km) and no canopy, and therefore proximity to shared bicycles is an important factor (Abolhassani, Afghari, & Borzadaran, 2019; de Chardon et al., 2017; Fishman et al., 2015). Temperature, weather and air quality factors also have a great impact on people's intention to use micromobility. For example, precipitation, wind and heat, and poor air quality are factors that prevent greater adoption of shared bicycles (Campbell et al., 2016; de Chardon et al., 2017). Hosseinzadeh et al. (2021) have investigated the effect of factors such as weather, day of the week, holidays and special events on the travel frequency of electronic scooters and shared bicycles. According to their study, rain reduced trips for shared bikes by 17% and shared e-scooters by 16%. Table 7 lists the disadvantages or concerns related to micromobility that have been emphasized in the literature.

Table 7. Disadvantages of micromobility

No.	Type	Disadvantages	Name of authors (year of publication)
1	Infrastructural	Demanding proper infrastructure	Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Fazio et al. (2021), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Deveci et al. (2022), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Dozza et al. (2023), Moinse (2022), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Nigro et al. (2022), Abolhassani, Afghari & Borzadaran (2019), Hess & Schubert (2019), Karpinski, Bayles & Sanders (2022), Zakhem and Smith-Colin (2020), Lanza, Burford, and Ann Ganzar (2022), Mayhew and Bergin (2019), Gössling (2020), Zhang et al. (2021), Bozzi and Aguilera (2021), Dozza, Violin, and Rasch (2022), Vetturi et al. (2023), Jiao, Lee, & Choi (2022), Kutela et al. (2022), Cheng et al. (2023), Yang et al. (2022), Abdelfattah, Deponte, & Fossa (2022), Useche et al. (2022)
2		Parking spaces and parking concerns	Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Moinse (2022), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Zakhem and Smith-Colin (2020), Tice (2019), Medina-Molina et al. (2022), Abouelela, Al Haddad, & Antoniou (2021)
3		The need for the availability of vehicles (the existence of service providers, the variety of vehicles and geographical coverage, the issue of lack of vehicles and dissatisfaction)	Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Krauss, Reck, & Axhausen (2023), Gao et al. (2021), Liu & Miller (2022), Adjei, Cimador, & Severengiz (2022), Peters & MacKenzie (2019), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Cheng et al. (2023), Tice (2019), Medina-Molina et al. (2022), Sun and Ertz (2022), Ignaccolo et al. (2022), Zhao et al. (2021), Sunio, Laperal, & Mateo-Babiano (2020), Frias-Martinez, Sloate, Manglunia, & Wu (2021), Loudon et al. (2023), Akova, Hulagu, & Celikoglu (2022), Gehrke, Sadeghinasr, Wang, & Reardon (2021), Qian, Jaller, and Niemeier (2020), D’Andreagiovanni, Nardin, & Carrese (2022)
4		The path of movement and the possibility of conflict with pedestrians or cars	Castiglione et al. (2022), Kazemzadeh, Haghani, & Sprei (2023), Deveci et al. (2022), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Moinse (2022), Abolhassani, Afghari & Borzadaran (2019), Hess & Schubert (2019), Karpinski, Bayles & Sanders (2022), Zhang et al. (2023), Dozza, Violin, and Rasch (2022), Cubells, Miralles-Guasch, Marquet (2023), Fitt and Curl (2020), Latinopoulos, Patrier, & Sivakumar (2021), Kutela & Mwekh'iga (2023), Tuncer et al. (2020), Boglietti et al. (2022)
5	Social-natural	Security issues (theft, etc.) and safety (increasing accidents, etc.) and the need for appropriate regulations	Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Kazemzadeh, Haghani, & Sprei (2023), Deveci et al. (2022), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Dozza et al. (2023), Mitra & Hess (2021), Truden et al. (2022), Sanders, Branion-Calles, & Nelson (2020), Posirisuk, Baker, & Ghajari (2022), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Karpinski, Bayles & Sanders (2022), Lanza, Burford, and Ann Ganzar (2022), Mayhew and Bergin (2019), Gössling (2020), Zhang et al. (2021), Zhang et al. (2023), Bozzi and Aguilera (2021), Dozza, Violin, and Rasch (2022), Vetturi et al. (2023), Yang et al. (2020), Useche et al. (2022), Tice (2019), Abouelela, Al Haddad, & Antoniou (2021), Ignaccolo et al. (2022), ), D’Andreagiovanni, Nardin, & Carrese (2022), Fitt and Curl (2020), Kutela & Mwekh'iga (2023), Tuncer et al. (2020), Boglietti et al. (2022), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Aguilera-García, Gomez & Sobrino (2020), Serra et al. (2021), Pazzini et al. (2022), Fearnley (2020), Martin (2022), He et al. (2021), Ferreira Serra et al. (2022), Ma et al. (2021), López-Dóriga et al. (2022), Mehdizadeh, Nordfjaern, & Klöckner (2023), Zhu et al. (2020), Haworth, Schramm, & Twisk (2021), Ma, Yang, Ma (2021), Wang et al. (2021), Almannaa et al. (2021)
6		Issues in bad weather conditions	Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Sanders, Branion-Calles, & Nelson (2020), Zhu et al. (2020), Noland (2021)
7		Cultural-social Issues	Eccarius & Lu (2020), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Esztergár-Kiss and Lopez Lizarraga (2021), Dozza, Violin, and Rasch (2022), Fitt and Curl (2020), Tokey, Shioma, & Jamal (2022), Alharthi et al. (2021)

Figure 6 shows the frequency distribution of advantages and disadvantages of micromobility. In the literature, more attention is paid to the advantage of replacing use of personal cars with micromobility and increasing the use of public transportation and, as a result, reducing energy consumption and pollution. Safety issues caused by shared paths with other transportation and pedestrians and the lack of proper infrastructure are among the most important disadvantages.

Question 6: The main role of micromobility in relation to other modes of urban transportation

Regarding the main role of micromobility in relation to other modes of urban transport such as public and personal transport; More studies have studied its complementary role. For example, Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020) state that micromobility is a means of accessing public transportation that has the potential to replace private cars if this integration is established. Liao and Correi (2022) state that the impact of each shared e-transportation mode is expected to be influenced by other e-sharing modes due to their complementarity. Schwinger et al. (2022) showed that micromobility services are especially used in situations where public transport is not a good substitute, so they often complement public transport. This ambivalent relationship between micromobility and public transport emphasizes the need for appropriate regulations and policies to ensure the sustainability of micromobility services. They state that micromobility infrastructure usually should be near public transport stations. For example, for e-bikes and e-scooters, the nearest public transport station is often no more than 350 meters from the origin or destination of micromobility trips. Luo et al. (2021) state that in the city center about 27% of e-scooter trips can potentially compete with the bus system, while outside the city center where bus coverage is low, e-scooters can complement the bus in about 29%. In other words, changing the position of electronic scooters in areas with limited bus services can better promote the synergistic connection between these two systems. However, based on the various applications of micromobility, it can be said that micromobility is a complement to public transportation. Although it can be used independently for entertainment and doing personal and business affairs. Fan and Harper (2022) state that micromobility represents a significant opportunity to replace short trips with personal vehicles (0-3 miles) and reduce pollution in the transportation sector. They estimate that up to 18% of short car trips could be replaced by micromobility. Micromobility can reduce traffic on congested roads, and large-scale bikeway deployments can maximize traffic benefits, but their impacts on energy consumption and emissions are disproportionately small. Sanders and Karpinski (2023) investigate the interactions and potential effects between autonomous vehicles and micromobility and state that these two can complement and replace the current personal cars. Table 8 shows the different roles of micromobility.

Table 8. Roles of Micromobility

No.	Role	Name of authors (year of publication)
1	Complementary to and or replacing public transportation	Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020), Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), MacKenzie (2019), MacKenzie (2020), Kazemzadeh & Sprei (2022), Bai & Jiao (2020), Ecer et al. (2023), Diallo, Gloriot, & Manout (2023), Luo et al. (2021), Liu & Miller (2022), Li et al. (2022), Coretti Sanchez, Alonso Pastor, & Larson (2022), Zhang, Guo, & Feng (2022), Truden et al. (2022), Abduljabbar, Liyanage, & Dia (2022), Moinse (2022), Nigro et al. (2022), Jiao, Lee, & Choi (2022), Yang et al. (2022), Ignaccolo et al. (2022), Qian, Jaller, and Niemeier (2020), Latinopoulos, Patrier, & Sivakumar (2021), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Ma et al. (2022), Baek et al. (2021), Liao and Correi (2022), Chicco & Diana (2022)
2	Alternative to personal vehicle	Dias and Ribeiro (2021), Cardell & Moller (2020), Fan and Harper (2022), Orozco-Fontalvo et al. (2022), Zhang & Kamargianni (2022), Castiglione et al. (2022), Reck, Martin, & Axhausen (2022), Comi, Polimeni, and Nuzzolo (2022), MacKenzie (2020), Kazemzadeh & Sprei (2022), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Krauss, Reck, & Axhausen (2023), Turoń & Kubik (2022), Bai & Jiao (2020), Diallo, Gloriot, & Manout (2023), Mitra & Hess (2021), Coretti Sanchez, Alonso Pastor, & Larson (2022), Şengül and Mostofi (2021), Kutela & Mwekh'iga (2023), Aman and Smith-Colin (2021), Hardt and Bogenberger (2019), Sanders and Karpinski (2023), Van Den Heuvel, Kao, & Matyas (2020)
3	Independently as a means of private or public (shared) transportation	Štefancová et al. (2022), Almannaa et al. (2021),
4	As a means of crowdshipping	Castiglione et al. (2022), He et al. (2021), Carracedo & Mostofi (2022), Schomakers et al. (2022)

In Figure 7, it is clear that the biggest role of micromobility in cities is as a supplement to public transportation and then as a substitute for public transportation or by car.

In explaining the position of micromobility in future cities, 4 types of cities are mentioned in the studies, which are: livable city, sustainable and environmentally friendly city, economic and competent city and smart and innovative city. According to Figure 8, micromobility have been mostly associated with livable city, a city that provides comfort and flexibility for humans and their movement with the least pollution. On the other hand, less studies have paid attention to the technological dimension and smartness of micromobilities.

Question 7: Current market trend and its future forecast

In relation to the current market trend and its future forecast, although most of the articles have used the reports of various organizations such as The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Precedence Research based in Canada and India, Allied Market Research, etc. but some articles such as Oeschger, Carroll, and Caulfield (2020) and Huo et al. (2021) state that micromobility has exponential growth in urban mobility. Galatoulas et al. (2020) showed that Bicycle Sharing Systems in the world have increased from 17 programs in 2005 to more than 2900 programs in 2019. Since the emergence of the term micromobility, the trend of these programs is exponential. According to chart 9 and based on the report of The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), the number of scooter and bicycle sharing trips in the United States grew by 286% between 2018 and 2019. In 2018, people took 84 million shared micromobility trips in the United States, more than double the number of trips taken in 2017. According to Figure 10, most of the growth in micromobility has been due to the growth in the use of shared scooters that started in 2018 (Report The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), 2018).

Analyzing the use of micromobility by days of the week and hours of the day shows that annual subscription holders are more likely to use micromobility during busy hours, which indicates that they use this system for business trips (commuting). People who bought one-day or one-day tickets, as well as scooter riders, use this device more in the middle of the day and on weekends and for a longer period of time, which indicates social use, shopping use and recreational purposes (Figure 11). Hosseinzadeh et al. (2021) state in their study that Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays increased the use of e-scooters and bike sharing, although Tuesdays and Wednesdays only saw a significant increase in bike sharing.

The micromobility market forecast shows that the largest market for this device is the Asia Pacific market and the fastest growing market is North America (precedenceresearch site). According to chart 12, the compound annual growth rate of this market is projected to be 17% until 2030.

According to the forecast, bicycles will have the largest market share and young people aged 15 to 34 will be the most users of micromobility (Figure 13).

To summarize, as the results of Choi, Kim, & Seo (2023) showed, the use of micromobility has had a relatively stable travel pattern despite the Covid-19 pandemic, which indicates the possibility of micromobility being accepted as the future urban transportation.

As mentioned, historical review shows rapid growth of urbanization, that besides urban advantages, has led to population density related challenges and subsequent problems, such as increased traffic congestion, climate change, environmental pollution, and environmental destruction. Urban managers have sought to use new approaches and technological tools to meet these challenges. As future cities are targeted to be as pollution-free and environmentally friendly as possible, transportation systems are significantly important in these cities. One of the increasingly useful systems that has been implemented in recent years and its growth is projected to be high in the future is micromobility. Although various studies have been conducted in this field, the findings were not consistent and each study focused on a part of it. Therefore, in this study, using a Meta-Synthesis method, a comprehensive definition of micromobility, types of micromobility, advantages and disadvantages of micromobility, its applications in cities, its current market and its future forecast, and its main role in relation to other modes of urban transportation such as public and personal transportation were explained.

In line with the synthesis of the findings based on the research questions and since there was no comprehensive, exclusive and inclusive definition of micromobility based on different definitions of micromobility and according to its indicators, the comprehensive definition of micromobility is suggested as: micromobility is a transportation by light individual vehicles, foot or electronic operated, that are small, low-speed, with low energy consumption and is easy to carry, which are used for short urban trips privately or shared.

In explaining the place of micromobility in the cities of the future, 4 types of cities have been mentioned in the studies. Micromobility is mostly associated with livable cities as it provides flexibility and accessibility in mobility with lower pollutions.

Figure 14 also shows the findings of the articles in an integrated manner, including the criteria for determining micromobility, its types of devices, its advantages, disadvantages and applications.

Studies show that micromobility will be the basis for transitioning from movement as a means to movement as a service in future cities. While micromobility can function independently for leisure or work, it can help the development of public transportation by integrating with the public transportation system.

What is certain is that for the development of micromobility, it is necessary to examine the factors affecting micromobility from different social, cultural, political, economic, etc. dimensions. Therefore, it is suggested to study the following topics in future research:

• Investigating the economic, cultural, social, environmental, etc. effective factors on micromobility through Meta-Synthesis as well as field method.

• Identification of stakeholders effective on the expansion of micromobilities

• Prioritizing and analyzing the economic, cultural, social, environmental, and other effective factors and the strength of the stakeholders in the use of micromobilities.

Abduljabbar, Rusul L., Liyanage, Sohani, & Dia, Hussein. (2021). The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 92 (February), 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734
Abolhassani, L., Afghari, A. P., & Borzadaran, H. M. (2019). Public preferences towards bicycle sharing system in developing countries: The case of Mashhad, Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.032
Abouelela, Mohamed, Al Haddad, Christelle, & Antoniou, Constantinos. (2021). Are young users willing to shift from carsharing to scooter–sharing? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 95, 102821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102821.
Ad، jei, Frederick, Cimador, Tanja, & Severengiz, Semih. (2022). Electrically powered micro mobility vehicles in Ghana: transition process with a focus on social acceptance. Procedia CIRP, 105, 764-769. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.127.
Aguilera-García, Á, Gomez, J., & Sobrino, N. (2020). Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities, 96, 102424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424
Akova, Hazal, Hulagu, Selin, & Celikoglu, Hilmi Berk. (2022). Static bike repositioning problem with heterogeneous distribution characteristics in bike sharing systems. Transportation Research Procedia, 62, 205-212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.02.026.
Almannaa, M. H., Alsahhaf, F. A., Ashqar, H. I., Elhenawy, M., Masoud, M., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2021). Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: EUROPEAN TRANSPORT CONFERENCE 2021 Survey Outputs. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020863
Aman, Javad J. C., and Smith-Colin, Janille. (2021). Leveraging Social Media to Understand Public Perceptions toward Micromobility Policies: The Dallas Scooter Ban Case. Findings, March. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.21328.
Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. (2008). Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol; 8:21.
Baclija, Irena. (2011). Urban management in a European context, December 2011, Urbani Izziv, 22(2):137-146
Bao, Helen X. H., & Lim, Yi. (2022). Behavioural interventions for micro-mobility adoption: Low-hanging fruits or hard nuts to crack? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 84, 423-441. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.12.011.
Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640
Boonsiripant, Saroch, Jittrapirom, Peraphan, Phamornmongkhonchai, Monthira, Khankhokkruad, Worakanya. (2022). Successes, Failures, and Futures of Shared Micro-Mobility Services in Bangkok. Inception Report, Asian transportation research society.
Bozzi, Alberica Domitilla, and Aguilera, Anne. (2021). "Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168676.
Bretones, lexandra, Marquet, Oriol, (2022), Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review, Transport Policy, Volume 127, Pages 230-249, ISSN 0967-070X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.008.
Bullock, C., Brereton, F., & Bailey, S. (2017). The economic contribution of public bike-share to the sustainability and efficient functioning of cities. In Sustainable Cities and Society (Vol. 28, pp. 76–87). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.024
Campbell, A. A., Cherry, C. R., Ryerson, M. S., & Yang, X. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004
Cardell, M., & Moller, T. H. (2020, August 14). How micromobility is moving cities into a sustainable future. EY Global. https://www.ey.com/en_gl/automotive-transportation/how-micromobility-is-moving-cities-into-a-sustainable-future
Caspi, O., Smart, M. J., & Noland, R. B. (2020). Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102396
Castiglione, Marisdea, Antonio Comi, Rosita De Vincentis, Andreea Dumitru, and Marialisa Nigro. (2022). "Delivering in Urban Areas: A Probabilistic-Behavioral Approach for Forecasting the Use of Electric Micromobility" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159075.
Castiglione, Marisdea, Vincentis, Rosita De, Nigro, Marialisa, & Rega, Vittorio. (2022). Bike Network Design: an approach based on micro-mobility geo-referenced data. Transportation Research Procedia, 62, 51-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.02.007.
Cazzola, P., & Crist, P. (2020). Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility. 1–88. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf
Chang, A.; Miranda-Moreno, L.; Clewlow, R.; Sun, L. (2019). TREND OR FAD? Deciphering the Enablers of Micromobility in the U.S.; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2019.
Chang, C. C., Wu, F. L., Lai, W. H., & Lai, M. P. (2016). A cost-benefit analysis of the carbon footprint with hydrogen scooters and electric scooters. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(30), 13299–13307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.168
Cheng, Long, Huang, Jie, Jin, Tanhua, Chen, Wendong, Li, Aoyong, & Witlox, Frank. (2023). Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro. Journal of Transport Geography, 107, 103545. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103545.
Chicco, Andrea, & Diana, Marco. (2022). Understanding micro-mobility usage patterns: a preliminary comparison between dockless bike sharing and e-scooters in the city of Turin (Italy). Transportation Research Procedia, 62, 459-466. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.02.057.
Choi, Seung Eun, Kim, Jinhee, & Seo, Dayoung. (2023). Travel patterns of free-floating e-bike-sharing users before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Cities, 132, 104065. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104065.
Clewlow, R., Foti, F., & Shepard-Ohta, T. (2018). Measuring Equitable Access to New Mobility: A case study of shared bikes and electric scooters.
Cohen, A., & Shaheen, S. (2016). Planning for shared mobility. APA Planning Advisory Service Reports, 2016-July(583), 1–106.
Comi, Antonio, Polimeni, Antonio, & Nuzzolo, Agostino. (2022). An Innovative Methodology for Micro-Mobility Network Planning. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 20-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.004.
Coretti Sanchez, Naroa, Alonso Pastor, Luis, & Larson, Kent. (2022). Can autonomy make bicycle-sharing systems more sustainable? An environmental impact analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 113, 103489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103489.
Coretti Sanchez, Naroa, Martinez, Iñigo, Alonso Pastor, Luis, & Larson, Kent. (2022). On the simulation of shared autonomous micro-mobility. Communications in Transportation Research, 2, 100065. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.10006.
Coretti Sanchez, Naroa, Martinez, Iñigo, Alonso Pastor, Luis, & Larson, Kent. (2022). On the performance of shared autonomous bicycles: A simulation study. Communications in Transportation Research, 2, 100066. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commtr.2022.100066.
Cubells, Jerònia, Miralles-Guasch, Carme, Marquet, Oriol, (2023), Gendered travel behaviour in micromobility? Travel speed and route choice through the lens of intersecting identities, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 106, 2023, 103502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103502.
D’Almeida, L., Rye, T., & Pomponi, F. (2021). Emissions assessment of bike sharing schemes: The case of Just Eat Cycles in Edinburgh, UK. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71(April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103012
de Bortoli, Anne, (2021). Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 93, 2021, 102743, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102743.
de Chardon, C. M., Caruso, G., & Thomas, I. (2017). Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 100, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.020
Degele, J., Gorr, A., Haas, K., Kormann, D., Krauss, S., Lipinski, P., Tenbih, M., Koppenhoefer, C., Fauser, J., & Hertweck, D. (2018). Identifying e-scooter sharing customer segments using clustering. IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1–8 Jun, 2018.
Diallo, Azise Oumar, Gloriot, Thibault, & Manout, Ouassim. (2023). Agent-based simulation of shared bikes and e-scooters: the case of Lyon. Procedia Computer Science, 220, 364-371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.03.047.
Dias, G., Arsenio, E., & Ribeiro, P. (2021). The role of shared e-scooter systems in urban sustainability and resilience during the covid-19 mobility restrictions. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 13, Issue 13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137084
Dias, Gabriel José Cabral, Ribeiro, Paulo Jorge Gomes. (2021). micro mobility: a systematic literature review on the measurement of its environmental, social, and economic impacts on urban sustainability. European transport conference 2021.
Dibaj, Samira, Aryan Hosseinzadeh, Miloš N. Mladenović, and Robert Kluger. (2021). "Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas" Sustainability 13, no. 21: 11792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111792.
Dozza, Marco, Li, Tianyou, Billstein, Lucas, Svernlöv, Christoffer, & Rasch, Alexander. (2023). How do different micro-mobility vehicles affect longitudinal control? Results from a field experiment. Journal of Safety Research, 84, 24-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.10.005.
Dozza, Marco, Violin, Alessio, & Rasch, Alexander. (2022). A data-driven framework for the safe integration of micro-mobility into the transport system: Comparing bicycles and e-scooters in field trials. Journal of Safety Research, 81, 67-77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.01.007.
Duran-Rodas, D., Wright, B., Pereira, F. C., & Wulfhorst, G. (2021). Demand And/oR Equity (DARE) method for planning bike-sharing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 97(June), 102914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102914
Eccarius, Timo, & Lu, Chung-Cheng. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility – Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 84, 102327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327.
Ecer, Fatih, Küçükönder, Hande, Kayapınar Kaya, Sema, & Faruk Görçün, Ömer. (2023). Sustainability performance analysis of micro-mobility solutions in urban transportation with a novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-CoCoSo framework. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 172, 103667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103667.
Echeverría-Su, Mario, Huamanraime-Maquin, Esteffany, Cabrera, Félix Israel, & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian. (2023). Transitioning to sustainable mobility in Lima, Peru. Are e-scooter sharing initiatives part of the problem or the solution? Science of The Total Environment, 866, 161130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161130.
Elmashhara, Maher Georges, Silva, Joaquim, Sá, Elisabete, Carvalho, Ana, Rezazadeh, Arash, (2022), Factors influencing user behaviour in micromobility sharing systems: A systematic literature review and research directions, Travel Behaviour and Society, Volume 27, 2022, Pages 1-25, ISSN 2214-367X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.10.001.
Esztergár-Kiss, Domokos, Lopez Lizarraga, Julio C., (2021), Exploring user requirements and service features of e-micromobility in five European cities, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 1531-1541, ISSN 2213-624X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.08.003.
Fan, hufeng, Harper, Corey D., (2022). Congestion and environmental impacts of short car trip replacement with micromobility modes, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 103 (2022), 103173, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103173.
Fazio, Martina, Nadia Giuffrida, Michela Le Pira, Giuseppe Inturri, and Matteo Ignaccolo. (2021). "Planning Suitable Transport Networks for E-Scooters to Foster Micromobility Spreading" Sustainability 13, no. 20: 11422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011422.
Fearnley, N. (2020), "Micromobility – Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities", Paulsson, A. and Sørensen, C.H. (Ed.) Shaping Smart Mobility Futures: Governance and Policy Instruments in times of Sustainability Transitions, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-650-420201010
Feng, Chen, Jiao, Junfeng & Wang, Haofeng (2022) Estimating E-Scooter Traffic Flow Using Big Data to Support Planning for Micromobility, Journal of Urban Technology, 29:2, 139-157, DOI: 1080/10630732.2020.1843384
Feng, Y.; Zhong, D.; Sun, P.; Zheng, W.; Cao, Q.; Luo, X.; Lu, Z. (2020). Micromobility in Smart Cities: A Closer Look at Shared Dockless E-Scooters via Big Social Data. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.15203.
Ferreira Serra, Gabriel, Fernandes, Fábio A. O., J. Alves de Sousa, Ricardo, Noronha, Eduardo, & Ptak, Mariusz. (2022). New hybrid cork-STF (Shear thickening fluid) polymeric composites to enhance head safety in micro-mobility accidents. Composite Structures, 301, 116138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116138.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Fishman, E. (2016). Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., & Mazzei, A. (2014). Barriers to bikesharing: An analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., & Watson, A. (2015). Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 71, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.021
Fistola, Romano, Gallo, Mariano, & La Rocca, Rosa Anna. (2022). Micro-mobility in the “Virucity”. The Effectiveness of E-scooter Sharing. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 464-471. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.060.
Fitt, Helen, Curl, Angela, (2020). The early days of shared micromobility: A social practices approach, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 86, 2020, 102779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102779.
Fonseca-Cabrera, Alejandra Sofía, David Llopis-Castelló, Ana María Pérez-Zuriaga, Carlos Alonso-Troyano, and Alfredo García. (2021). "Micromobility Users’ Behaviour and Perceived Risk during Meeting Manoeuvres" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 23: 12465. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312465.
Frias-Martinez, Vanessa, Sloate, Elliott, Manglunia, Himanshi, & Wu, Jiahui. (2021). Causal effect of low-income areas on shared dockless e-scooter use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 100, 103038. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103038.
Galatoulas, Nikolaos-Fivos, Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis, and Christos S. Ioakimidis, (2020), Spatio-temporal trends of e-bike sharing system deployment: A review in Europe, North America and Asia, Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (11), 10.3390/su12114611.
Gao, Kun, Yang, Ying, Li, Aoyong, Li, Junhong, & Yu, Bo. (2021). Quantifying economic benefits from free-floating bike-sharing systems: A trip-level inference approach and city-scale analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 144, 89-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.12.009.
Gardner, C., & Gaegauf, T. (2014). The Impact of Bikesharing: White Paper on the Social, Environmental, and Economic Effects of Bikesharing.
Gehrke, Steven R., Sadeghinasr, Bita, Wang, Qi, & Reardon, Timothy G. (2021). Patterns and predictors of dockless bikeshare trip generation and duration in Boston’s suburbs. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(2), 756-766. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.03.012.
Gössling, S. (2020). Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 79, 102230.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
Hardt, C.; Bogenberger, K. (2019). Usage of E-scooters in Urban Environments. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 37, 155–162.
Haworth, Narelle, Schramm, Amy, & Twisk, Divera. (2021). Changes in shared and private e-scooter use in Brisbane, Australia and their safety implications. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 163, 106451. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106451.
He, Yi, Sun, Changxin, Huang, Helai, Jiang, Liang, Ma, Ming, Wang, Pei, & Wu, Chaozhong. (2021). Safety of micro-mobility: Riders’ psychological factors and risky behaviors of cargo TTWs in China. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 80, 189-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.04.001.
Hess, A.-K., & Schubert, I. (2019). Functional perceptions, barriers, and demographics concerning e-cargo bike sharing in Switzerland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.013
Hollingsworth, J., Copeland, B., & Johnson, J. X. (2019). Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters. Environmental Research Letters, 14(084031), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8
Holm Moller, T., & Simlett, J. (2020). Micromobility: moving cities into a sustainable future.
Hosseinzadeh, Aryan, Karimpour, Abolfazl, Kluger, Robert, (2021), Factors influencing shared micromobility services: An analysis of e-scooters and bikeshare, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 100, 2021, 103047, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103047.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?end=2021&start=1961&view=chart
https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/
https://tnmt.com/infographics/the-micromobility-winners-and-losers-in-2021/
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/micromobility-revolution/
https://www.eltis.org/el/node/49712
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview#1.
Ignaccolo, Matteo, Inturri, Giuseppe, Cocuzza, Elena, Giuffrida, Nadia, Le Pira, Michela, Torrisi, Vincenza, (2022). Developing micromobility in urban areas: network planning criteria for e-scooters and electric micromobility devices, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 60, 2022, Pages 448-455, ISSN 2352-1465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.058.
International Transport Forum - ITF. (2020). Safe Micromobility. 97.
(2021). Maximizing micromobility. https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ITDP_MaximizingMicromobility_2021_singlepage.pdf
Jiao, Junfeng, Lee, Hye Kyung, & Choi, Seung Jun. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on bike-sharing usages in Seoul, South Korea. Cities, 130, 103849. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103849.
Karpinski, E., Bayles, E., & Sanders, T. (2022). Safety Analysis for Micromobility: Recommendations on Risk Metrics and Data Collection. Transportation Research Record, 2676(12), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221095523.
Kazemzadeh, Khashayar, & Sprei, Frances. (2022). Towards an electric scooter level of service: A review and framework. Travel Behaviour and Society, 29, 149-164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.06.005.
Kazemzadeh, Khashayar, Haghani, Milad, & Sprei, Frances. (2023). Electric scooter safety: An integrative review of evidence from transport and medical research domains. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104313.
Kutela, Boniphace, & Mwekh'iga, Rafael John. (2023). A multi-criteria approach to prioritize electric-scooters ordinances. A case of Bloomington City, Indiana. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 11, 100959. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.100959.
Kutela, Boniphace, Mbuya, Christian, Swai, Suleiman, Imanishimwe, Delphine, & Langa, Neema. (2022). Associating stated preferences of emerging mobility options among Gilbert City residents using Bayesian Networks. Cities, 131, 104064. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104064.
Lanza, Kevin, Burford, Katie, Ann Ganzar, Leigh, (2022), Who travels where: Behavior of pedestrians and micromobility users on transportation infrastructure, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 98, 2022, 103269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103269.
Latinopoulos, Charilaos, Patrier, Agathe, & Sivakumar, Aruna. (2021). Planning for e-scooter use in metropolitan cities: A case study for Paris. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 100, 103037. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103037.
Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J. H., & Kim, J. (2021). Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102751
Leger, S.; McLaughlin, D.; Tracksdorf, K. Leading the Charge on the Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility; WSP Global: Monteral, QC, Canada, 2018.
Li, A.; Zhao, P.; He, H.; Axhausen, K. (2020).Understanding the variations of micro-mobility behavior before and during COVID-19 pandemic period. ETH Zur. Res. Collect. 2020.
Li, Aoyong, Zhao, Pengxiang, Haitao, He, Mansourian, Ali, & Axhausen, Kay W. (2021). How did micro-mobility change in response to COVID-19 pandemic? A case study based on spatial-temporal-semantic analytics. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 90, 101703. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101703.
Li, Hao, Yuan, Zhendong, Novack, Tessio, Huang, Wei, & Zipf, Alexander. (2022). Understanding spatiotemporal trip purposes of urban micro-mobility from the lens of dockless e-scooter sharing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 96, 101848. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101848.
Li, X., Zhang, Y., Du, M., & Yang, J. (2019). Social factors influencing the choice of bicycle: Difference analysis among private bike, public bike sharing and free-floating bike sharing in Kunming, China. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(5), 2339–2348.
Liang, Lu, & Gong, Peng (2020). Urban and air pollution: a multi-city study of long-term effects of urban landscape patterns on air quality trends. Sci Rep 10, 18618 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74524-9.
Liao, Fanchao, Correia, Gonçalo, (2022), Electric carsharing and micromobility: A literature review on their usage pattern, demand, and potential impacts, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16:3, 269-286, DOI: 1080/15568318.2020.1861394.
Liu, Luyu, & Miller, Harvey J. (2022). Measuring the impacts of dockless micro-mobility services on public transit accessibility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 98, 101885. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101885.
López-Dóriga, Inés, Vich, Guillem, Koch, Sarah, Khomenko, Sasha, Marquet, Oriol, Roig-Costa, Oriol, . . . Mueller, Natalie. (2022). Health impacts of electric micromobility transitions in Barcelona: A scenario analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, 106836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106836.
Loudon, Eveline, Geržinič, Nejc, Molin, Eric, & Cats, Oded. (2023). Determinants of shared moped mode choice. Journal of Urban Mobility, 3, 100053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100053.
Luchs, M., Naylon, R. W., Rose, R. L., Catlin, J. R., & Gau, R. (2011). Toward a Sustainable Marketplace: Expanding Options and Benefits for Consumers. Journal of Research for Consumers, 19(1), 1–12. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/mospub.6.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/mospub/6 EUROPEAN TRANSPORT CONFERENCE 2021
Luo, H., Kou, Z., Zhao, F., & Cai, H. (2019). Comparative life cycle assessment of station-based and dock-less bike sharing systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.003
Ma, Qingyu, Xin, Yanan, Yang, Hong, & Xie, Kun. (2022). Connecting metros with shared electric scooters: Comparisons with shared bikes and taxis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 109, 103376. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103376.
Ma, Qingyu, Yang, Hong, Mayhue, Alan, Sun, Yunlong, Huang, Zhitong, & Ma, Yifang. (2021). E-Scooter safety: The riding risk analysis based on mobile sensing data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 151, 105954. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105954.
Martin, Peter W. (2022). S. Micromobility Law (Major Road Work Ahead), The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 4037752.
Martínez, S., Tapia, A., Bernardo, V., Ricart, J. E., & Planas, M. R. (2019). The Economic impact of Bike sharing in European cities. SSRN Electronic Journal, May.
Mason, J., Fulton, L., & McDonald, Z. (2015). A Global High Shift Scenario: the potential for dramatically increasing bicycle and e-bike use in cities around the world, with estimated energy, CO2, and cost impacts. In Intitute for Transportation & Development Policy and the University of California, Davis (Issue November). https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A-Global-High-Shift-Cycling-Scenario_Nov-2015.pdf
Mayhew, L.J.; Bergin, C. (2019). Impact of e-scooter injuries on Emergency Department imaging. J. Med Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 63, 461–466.
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007.
McKenzie, Grant. (2020). Urban mobility in the sharing economy: A spatiotemporal comparison of shared mobility services. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 79, 101418. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101418.
McQueen, M., Abou-Zeid, G., MacArthur, J., & Clifton, K. (2021). Transportation Transformation: Is Micromobility Making a Macro Impact on Sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature, 36(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220972696
Medina-Molina, Cayetano, Pérez-Macías, Noemí, Gismera-Tierno, Laura, (2022), The multi-level perspective and micromobility services, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Volume 7, Issue 2, 100183, ISSN 2444-569X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100183.
Mehdizadeh, Milad, Nordfjaern, Trond, & Klöckner, Christian A. (2023). Drunk or Sober? Number of alcohol units perceived to be safe before riding e-scooter. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 181, 106930. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106930.
Meng, Si'an, Brown, Anne, (2021). Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 96, 2021, 103185, ISSN 0966-6923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103185.
Micromobility Market Report, https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/micro-mobility-market-A11372.
Micro-mobility Market Report, https://www.precedenceresearch.com/micro-mobility-market.
Mitra, Raktim, & Hess, Paul M. (2021). Who are the potential users of shared e-scooters? An examination of socio-demographic, attitudinal and environmental factors. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23, 100-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.12.004.
Moinse, Dylan. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review on Station Area Integrating Micromobility in Europe: A 21 st Century Transit-Oriented Development. 2022. halshs-03857389.
Moreau, H., de Jamblinne de Meux, L., Zeller, V., D’Ans, P., Ruwet, C., & Achten, W. M. J. (2020). Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters. Sustainability, 12(5), 1803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051803
(2019). Shared Micromobility in the US: 2018.
Nigro, Marialisa, Castiglione, Marisdea, Maria Colasanti, Fabio, De Vincentis, Rosita, Valenti, Gaetano, Liberto, Carlo, Comi, Antonio, (2022), Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 157, 2022, Pages 78-93, ISSN 0965-8564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.01.008.
Noland, Robert B. (2021). Scootin’ in the rain: Does weather affect micromobility?, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 149, 2021, Pages 114-123, ISSN 0965-8564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.05.003.
O’Hern, Steve, and Estgfaeller, Nora. (2020). "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229505.
Oeschger, Giulia, Carroll, Páraic, Caulfield, Brian, (2020), Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 89, 102628, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628.
Orozco-Fontalvo, Mauricio, Llerena, Luis & Cantillo, Victor. (2022). Dockless electric scooters: A review of a growing micromobility mode. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2022.2044097.
Öztaş Karlı, Rukiye Gizem, Karlı, Halil, & Çelikyay, Hatice Selma. (2022). Investigating the acceptance of shared e-scooters: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(2), 1058-1068. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.03.018.
Paterson, B. L., Throne, S. E., Canam, C., Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pazzini, Margherita, Leonardo Cameli, Claudio Lantieri, Valeria Vignali, Giulio Dondi, and Thomas Jonsson. (2022). "New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’ Behaviour in Trondheim" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 12: 7374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127374.
Peng, Helinyi, Nishiyama, Yuuki, Sezaki, Kaoru, (2022). Assessing environmental benefits from shared micromobility systems using machine learning algorithms and Monte Carlo simulation, Sustainable Cities and Society, 87 (2022), 104207, ISSN 2210-6707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104207.
Peters, Luke, & MacKenzie, Don. (2019). The death and rebirth of bikesharing in Seattle: Implications for policy and system design. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 130, 208-226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.012.
Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Simpson, B., & Weaver, T. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.016
Pimentel, R.; Lowry, M. (2020). If You Provide, Will They Ride? Motivators and Deterrents to Shared Micro-Mobility. Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium; USDOT University Transportation Center for Federal Region 10, University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 2020.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.30.1.31
Qiu, L. Y., & He, L. Y. (2018). Bike sharing and the economy, the environment, and health-related externalities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041145
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004). Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30(5), 701–720.
Reck, Daniel J., & Axhausen, Kay W. (2021). Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803.
Reck, Daniel J., Martin, Henry, & Axhausen, Kay W. (2022). Mode choice, substitution patterns and environmental impacts of shared and personal micro-mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102, 103134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103134.
Reis, Ana Filipa, Baptista, Patrícia, & Moura, Filipe. (2023). How to promote the environmental sustainability of shared e-scooters: A life-cycle analysis based on a case study from Lisbon, Portugal. Journal of Urban Mobility, 3, 100044. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.10004.
SAE International. J3163 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling Technologies; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2018.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company.
Sanders, T. and Karpinski, E., (2023). Implications for Interactions between Micromobility and Autonomous Vehicles," SAE Intl. J CAV 6(2):2023, https://doi.org/10.4271/12-06-02-0012.
Sanjaya, K. H., Sya’Bana, Y. M. K., Widiyanto, P., Saputra, H. M. and Baskoro, C. H. A. H. B., (2020). Conceptual Design of Universal Autonomous Platform for Micromobility and Delivery System in the Hospital," 2020 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application (ICSEEA), Tangerang, Indonesia, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICSEEA50711.2020.9306126.
Sareen, iddharth, Remme, Devyn, Haarstad, Håvard, (2021), E-scooter regulation: The micro-politics of market-making for micro-mobility in Bergen, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Volume 40, 2021, Pages 461-473, ISSN 2210-4224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.009.
Schomakers, Eva-Maria, Klatte, Marcus, Lotz, Vivian, Biermann, Hannah, Kober, Fabian, & Ziefle, Martina. (2022). Analysis of the potential of a new concept for urban last-mile delivery: Ducktrain. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 14, 100579. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100579.
Schwinger, Felix, Tanriverdi, Baran, Jarke, Matthias, (2022), Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis, Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8247. https://org/10.3390/su14148247.
Şengül, Buket, and Hamid Mostofi. (2021). Impacts of E-Micromobility on the Sustainability of Urban Transportation—A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 11, no. 13: 5851. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135851.
Serra, Gabriel F., Fernandes, Fábio A.O., Noronha, Eduardo, Alves de Sousa, Ricardo J., (2021), Head protection in electric micromobility: A critical review, recommendations, and future trends, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 163, 2021, 106430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106430.
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan, N., & Bansal, A. (2020). Sharing strategies : carsharing , shared micromobility ( bikesharing and scooter sharing ), transportation network companies , microtransit , and other innovative mobility modes. In Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning (Issue 2010). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815167-9/00013-X
Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record, 2143, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.3141/2143-20
Six, H. (2019). A shared belonging: designing for equitable micromobility in Portland, Oregon.
Song, Minli, Meng, Meng, Zhou, Li, Ieromonachou, Petros, (2022). Developing a conceptual business model framework for shared electric-micro-mobility services: a systematic literature review, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Volume 55, Issue 10, 2022, Pages 139-144, ISSN 2405-8963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.629.
Štefancová, Vladimíra, Kalašová, Alica, Čulík, Kristián, Mazanec, Jaroslav, Vojtek, Martin, Mašek, Jaroslav, (2022), Research on the Impact of COVID-19 on Micromobility Using Statistical Methods, Applied Sciences 12, no. 16: 8128. https://org/10.3390/app12168128.
Sun, Bingrong, Garikapati, Venu, Wilson, Alana, Duvall, Andrew, (2021), Estimating energy bounds for adoption of shared micromobility, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 100, 2021, 103012, ISSN 1361-9209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103012.
Sun, Shouheng, Ertz, Myriam, (2022). Can shared micromobility programs reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from urban transportation big data, Sustainable Cities and Society, 85 (2022), 104045, ISSN 2210-6707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104045.
Sunio, Varsolo, Laperal, Miguel, & Mateo-Babiano, Iderlina. (2020). Social enterprise as catalyst of transformation in the micro-mobility sector. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138, 145-157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.027.
Tice, P. C. (2019). Micromobility and the Built Environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 929–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631430.
Todd, James, O'Brien, Oliver, & Cheshire, James. (2021). A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 94, 103119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103119.
Tokey, Ahmad Ilderim, Shioma, Shefa Arabia, & Jamal, Shaila. (2022). Analysis of spatiotemporal dynamics of e-scooter usage in Minneapolis: Effects of the built and social environment. Multimodal Transportation, 1(4), 100037. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.multra.2022.100037.
Trivedi, T.; Liu, C.; Antonio, A.; Wheaton, N.; Kreger, V.; Yap, A.; Schriger, D.; Elmore, J. Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Netw Open. 2019, 2.
Van Wee, B., & Banister, D. (2016). How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
Vetturi, David, Tiboni, Monica, Maternini, Giulio, Barabino, Benedetto, & Ventura, Roberto. (2023). Kinematic performance of micro-mobility vehicles during braking: experimental analysis and comparison between e-kick scooters and bikes. Transportation Research Procedia, 69, 408-415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.02.189.
Woods, J. (2019, April 22). Small is beautiful Making micromobility work for citizens, cities, and service providers. Eukalypton. https://eukalypton.com/fr/2019/04/22/explore-the-future-of-mobility/
Yang, Hong, Ma, Qingyu, Wang, Zhenyu, Cai, Qing, Xie, Kun, & Yang, Di. (2020). Safety of micro-mobility: Analysis of E-Scooter crashes by mining news reports. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 143, 105608. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105608.
Yang, Hongtai, Bao, Yongxing, Huo, Jinghai, Hu, Simon, Yang, Linchuan, & Sun, Lijun. (2022). Impact of road features on shared e-scooter trip volume: A study based on multiple membership multilevel model. Travel Behaviour and Society, 28, 204-213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.04.005.
Zakhem, Myriam, Smith-Colin, Janille, (2021). Micromobility implementation challenges and opportunities: Analysis of e-scooter parking and high-use corridors, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 101, 2021, 103082, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103082.
Zhang, Cheng, Du, Bo, Zheng, Zuduo, & Shen, Jun. (2023). Space sharing between pedestrians and micro-mobility vehicles: A systematic review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 116, 103629. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.10362.
Zhang, Li, You, Shibing, Zhang, Miao, Zhang, Shiwen, Yi, Shuaixiang, Zhou, Baokang (2022). The effects of urbanization on air pollution based on a spatial perspective: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, Volume10, DOI=10.3389/fenvs.2022.1058009.
Zhang, W.; Buehler, R.; Broaddus, A.; Sweeney, T. (2021). What type of infrastructures do e-scooter riders prefer? A route choice model. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 94, 102761.
Zhang, Yuerong, & Kamargianni, Maria. (2022). A review on the factors influencing the adoption of new mobility technologies and services: autonomous vehicle, drone, micromobility and mobility as a service, Transport Reviews, DOI: 1080/01441647.2022.2119297.
Zhao, Pengxiang, Haitao, He, Li, Aoyong, & Mansourian, Ali. (2021). Impact of data processing on deriving micro-mobility patterns from vehicle availability data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 97, 102913. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102913.
Zhu, Rui, Zhang, Xiaohu, Kondor, Dániel, Santi, Paolo, & Ratti, Carlo. (2020). Understanding spatio-temporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 81, 101483. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101483.
Huo, Jinghai, Yang, Hongtai, Li, Chaojing, Zheng, Rong, Yang, Linchuan, & Wen, Yi. (2021). Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 93, 103084. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103084.
Sanders, Rebecca L., Branion-Calles, Michael, & Nelson, Trisalyn A. (2020). To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, 217-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009.
Ma, Qingyu, Yang, Hong, Ma, Yifang, Yang, Di, Hu, Xianbiao, & Xie, Kun. (2021). Examining municipal guidelines for users of shared E-Scooters in the United States. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102710. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102710.
Carracedo, Diego, & Mostofi, Hamid. (2022). Electric cargo bikes in urban areas: A new mobility option for private transportation. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 16, 100705. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100705.
Savastano, Marco, Suciu, Marta-Christina, Gorelova, Irina, & Stativă, Gheorghe-Alexandru. (2023). How smart is mobility in smart cities? An analysis of citizens' value perceptions through ICT applications. Cities, 132, 104071. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104071.
Gao, Kun, Yang, Ying, Li, Aoyong, & Qu, Xiaobo. (2021). Spatial heterogeneity in distance decay of using bike sharing: An empirical large-scale analysis in Shanghai. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102814. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102814.
Luo, Hao, Zhang, Zimo, Gkritza, Konstantina, & Cai, Hua. (2021). Are shared electric scooters competing with buses? a case study in Indianapolis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 97, 102877. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102877.
Baek, Kwangho, Lee, Hyukseong, Chung, Jin-Hyuk, & Kim, Jinhee. (2021). Electric scooter sharing: How do people value it as a last-mile transportation mode? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 90, 102642. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102642.
Alharthi, Majed, Alamoudi, Hawazen, Shaikh, Aijaz A., & Bhutto, Maqsood H. (2021). “Your ride has arrived” – Exploring the nexus between subjective well-being, socio-cultural beliefs, COVID-19, and the sharing economy. Telematics and Informatics, 63, 101663. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101663.
Wilkinson, Samantha, & Badwan, Khawla. (2021). Walk this way: the rhythmic mobilities of university students in Greater Manchester, UK. Mobilities, 16(3), 373-387. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2020.1833565.
Zhang, Ze, Guo, Yuchen, & Feng, Li. (2022). Externalities of dockless bicycle-sharing systems: Implications for green recovery of the transportation sector. Economic Analysis and Policy, 76, 410-419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.08.009.
Li, Aoyong, Zhao, Pengxiang, Liu, Xintao, Mansourian, Ali, Axhausen, Kay W., & Qu, Xiaobo. (2022). Comprehensive comparison of e-scooter sharing mobility: Evidence from 30 European cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 105, 103229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103229.
Van Den Heuvel, Christopher, Kao, Ping-Jen, & Matyas, Melinda. (2020). Factors driving and hindering business model innovations for mobility sector start-ups. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 37, 100568. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100568.
Krauss, Konstantin, Reck, Daniel J., & Axhausen, Kay W. (2023). How does transport supply and mobility behaviour impact preferences for MaaS bundles? A multi-city approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 147, 104013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2023.104013.
Bergantino, Angela Stefania, Intini, Mario, & Tangari, Luca. (2021). Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: an empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in Transportation Economics, 86, 101028. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.101028.
Truden, Christian, Kollingbaum, Martin J., Reiter, Cornelia, & Schasché, Stephanie E. (2022). A GIS-based analysis of reachability aspects in rural public transportation. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(3), 1827-1840. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.07.012.
Turoń, Katarzyna, & Kubik, Andrzej. (2022). Open Innovation—Opportunities or Nightmares for the Shared Transport Services Sector? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 101. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020101.
Abduljabbar, Rusul L., Liyanage, Sohani, & Dia, Hussein. (2022). A systematic review of the impacts of the coronavirus crisis on urban transport: Key lessons learned and prospects for future cities. Cities, 127, 103770. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103770.
Deveci, Muhammet, Gokasar, Ilgin, Pamucar, Dragan, Coffman, D'Maris, & Papadonikolaki, Eleni. (2022). Safe E-scooter operation alternative prioritization using a q-rung orthopair Fuzzy Einstein based WASPAS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 347, 131239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131239.
Tuncer, Sylvaine, Laurier, Eric, Brown, Barry, & Licoppe, Christian. (2020). Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. Journal of Transport Geography, 85, 102702. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102702.
Almannaa, Mohammed Hamad, Ashqar, Huthaifa I., Elhenawy, Mohammed, Masoud, Mahmoud, Rakotonirainy, Andry, & Rakha, Hesham. (2021). A comparative analysis of e-scooter and e-bike usage patterns: Findings from the City of Austin, TX. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(7), 571-579. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1833117.
Boglietti, Stefania, Ghirardi, Andrea, Zanoni, Chiara Turri, Ventura, Roberto, Barabino, Benedetto, Maternini, Giulio, & Vetturi, David. (2022). First experimental comparison between e-kick scooters and e-bike’s vibrational dynamics. Transportation Research Procedia, 62, 743-751. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.02.092.
Wang, Xuesong, Chen, Jiawen, Quddus, Mohammed, Zhou, Weixuan, & Shen, Ming. (2021). Influence of familiarity with traffic regulations on delivery riders’ e-bike crashes and helmet use: Two mediator ordered logit models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 159, 106277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106277.
Abdelfattah, Lamia, Deponte, Diego, & Fossa, Giovanna. (2022). The 15-minute city: interpreting the model to bring out urban resiliencies. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 330-337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.043.
Qian, Xiaodong, Jaller, Miguel, & Niemeier, Debbie. (2020). Enhancing equitable service level: Which can address better, dockless or dock-based Bikeshare systems? Journal of Transport Geography, 86, 102784. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102784.
Qian, Xiaodong, Jaller, Miguel, & Circella, Giovanni. (2023). Exploring the potential role of bikeshare to complement public transit: The case of San Francisco amid the coronavirus crisis. Cities, 137, 104290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104290.
Useche, Sergio A., O'Hern, Steve, Gonzalez-Marin, Adela, Gene-Morales, Javier, Alonso, Francisco, & Stephens, Amanda N. (2022). Unsafety on two wheels, or social prejudice? Proxying behavioral reports on bicycle and e-scooter riding safety – A mixed-methods study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 89, 168-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.06.015.
D’Andreagiovanni, Fabio, Nardin, Antonella, & Carrese, Stefano. (2022). An Analysis of the Service Coverage and Regulation of E-Scooter Sharing in Rome (Italy). Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 440-447. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.057.
Bai, Shunhua, & Jiao, Junfeng. (2020). Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments: A comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN. Travel Behaviour and Society, 20, 264-272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.04.005.
Posirisuk, Pasinee, Baker, Claire, & Ghajari, Mazdak. (2022). Computational prediction of head-ground impact kinematics in e-scooter falls. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 167, 106567. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106567.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Role of Micromobility in Mobility as a Service in Future Cities

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature Review

Results

Conclusion

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1