5.1 Descriptive analysis
As illustrated in Fig. 1, overall satisfaction with electric vehicle use was relatively high, 40.1% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with overall e-moped scooter use, while a significant proportion of 37.2% reported being strongly satisfied. Among the various factors, the convenience of parking electric moped scooters garnered the highest satisfaction, with approximately 85% expressing their contentment, followed by travel time reliability and flexibility. In comparison to other aspects, satisfaction with driving speed was comparatively lower, as less than 30% of individuals reported feeling satisfied. Furthermore, a notable 22.2% expressed strong dissatisfaction with it.
The distribution of the reasons for individuals' selection of an e-moped scooter is illustrated in Fig. 2. As can be seen, a large percentage of people (70.4%) chose electric moped scooters as a transportation mode due to their competitive price in comparison to private cars and taxis. Moreover, 62.3% of users assumed that the utilization of an electric moped scooter facilitates seamless transportation to destinations without transferring between different transportation modes. Regrettably, only approximately 20% of respondents opt for electric moped scooters as their preferred mode of transportation due to their consideration for environmental friendliness. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the disadvantages of choosing electric moped scooters as a mode. As can be observed, the disadvantages most highly appreciated when choosing electric moped scooters are low comfort (70.4%), driving safety hazards (59.7%), and limited travel distance (58.1%). Thus, the popularity of electric moped scooters necessitates addressing the aforementioned challenges to enhance user experience and promote their wider application in urban travel.
The distribution of travel purposes for e-moped scooter trips is shown in Fig. 4. A large proportion (82.4%) of users ride e-moped scooters more than twice a day, highlighting the pivotal role that electric vehicles play in their daily commuting routines. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that a majority of travelers utilize electric moped scooters for recreational activities or for shopping on more than five times per day. However, in regard to work-related travel purposes, the frequency of usage is moderate. The majority of respondents (72.6%) stated that they employ their e-scooters for work-related activities an average of 1–4 times per day.
5.2 Results of the generalized ordered logit model
After conducting a preliminary data analysis, this section employs a generalized ordered logit model to investigate the impact of various factors on the frequency of electric moped scooter usage. Moreover, this study differentiates travel purposes into work, shopping, and recreational activities in order to examine variations in the influence of different factors on the frequency of electric moped scooter usage for different travel purposes. We categorized the dependent variable "frequency of electric moped scooter usage" into three groups: 1 = frequent use (above 5 times per day), 2 = occasional use (2–4 times per day), and 3 = seldom use (less than 2 times per day). The modelling results are shown in Table 3.
In terms of user satisfaction with electric moped scooters, reliable performance and fast speed are considered two key factors that influence the frequency of use. The findings indicate that user satisfaction with the reliability of electric moped scooters significantly impacts frequent work-oriented usage. This indicates that for regular users of electric moped scooters, the paramount concern lies in the ability of the scooter to function steadily, thereby ensuring a controlled and dependable commuting experience. Additionally, user satisfaction with the reliability of electric moped scooters does not significantly impact the use frequency of e-moped scooters for shopping and entertainment purposes. This implies that users prioritize alternative factors when selecting electric moped scooters. It is plausible that due to the time-unconstrained feature of shopping and entertainment activities, users may allocate less attention towards evaluating the reliability of electric scooters. When considering the satisfaction with driving speed, research has indicated that for frequent users, their satisfaction with the speed of scooters positively impacts their frequency of usage for commute. This is because a higher speed of electric scooters can significantly reduce commuting time, which is crucial in mitigating the already tight and compressed schedules associated with commuting. However, in terms of shopping or recreational activities, the high speed of e-moped scooters does not significantly contribute to an increase in their frequency of use. This can be attributed to the fact that when employing electric moped scooters for shopping or recreational purposes, time is often not urgent and the user is in a more comfortable and relaxed state. Users may prioritize other factors such as comfort and flexibility over driving speed as the primary determining factor.
With respect to personal attitudes and perception towards electric moped scooters, the findings reveal that the perception of time-saving has a detrimental impact on the frequency of utilizing electric moped scooters for commute. Despite the significant advantages of electric assisted bicycles in terms of facilitating seamless travel and providing direct routes, which also contribute to congestion reduction compared to private cars, time-sensitive individuals may opt for alternative modes of transportation in order to minimize their commuting time. Compared to shopping and recreational activities, commuting for work entails longer travel distances. Given that electric moped scooters are suitable for medium to short-distance trips but are not ideal for long-distance travel, individuals with lengthier commutes may opt for private cars or public transportation such as the subway in order to save valuable commuting time. However, when it comes to shopping and recreational activities, there is no significant correlation between the usage of electric moped scooters and time savings.
What is more, e-moped usage duration exhibits a positive correlation with the frequency of electric moped scooter usage. The frequency of electric moped scooter usage is higher among individuals with long-term ownership of electric moped scooters. This phenomenon remains consistent across various travel purposes, including work, shopping, and recreational activities. This can be interpreted as individuals increasingly relying on electric moped scooters over time, developing a habitual preference for their use as the primary mode of transportation in daily commuting. Moreover, the study revealed that the duration of e-moped usage influences work-related travel most compared to other purposes.
In terms of demographics, age significantly influences the frequency of electric moped scooter usage. Among individuals under 35 years old, there is a greater inclination to frequently use electric bicycles for commuting purposes due to their good physical condition, coupled with relatively limited finances. During this life stage, they prefer a convenient and cost-effective mode of transportation to meet their daily work needs. However, as individuals age, middle-aged individuals increasingly utilize electric moped scooters for shopping purposes. Compared to young singles, middle-aged individuals typically have already established families, thereby increasing their need and frequency for household shopping. Opting for electric moped scooters as a means of transportation for shopping not only caters to daily life necessities but also ensures efficiency and convenience. Consequently, this has led to the growing popularity and widespread utilization of electric moped scooters among the middle-aged demographic in the realm of shopping. It is worth noting that across age groups under 50 years old, electric scooters are widely used and favored for frequent recreational activities. However, as individuals age further, there is a significant decline in the utilization of electric moped scooters among older adults (aged 50 and above) for various travel purposes due to age-related physical limitations. The physical limitations faced by elderly individuals may pose challenges to their safe operation of an electric moped scooter. Consequently, they may opt to reduce or refrain from using electric scooters after carefully considering potential safety risks.
Additionally, occasional male users of electric moped scooters predominantly employ scooters for the purpose of commuting and shopping. Their intermittent usage suggests that they do not rely heavily on electric moped scooters in their daily routines. Income has a significant impact on the frequency of electric moped scooter usage. For individuals from middle and lower income brackets (below 20,000 yuan per month), they are more inclined to utilize electric moped scooters for work and shopping. This can be attributed to the fact that when choosing modes of transportation for commuting purposes, individuals from the middle and low-income groups take into account the potential for reducing travel costs. The use of electric moped scooters, in comparison to cars, eliminates the need for expensive fuel consumption and only requires charging for daily commuting needs. This significantly reduces costs and presents a financially advantageous alternative for individuals from low- and middle-income backgrounds who face economic pressures. In terms of shopping, consumers from the middle and low-income groups exhibit a greater propensity to utilize electric moped scooters in comparison to high-income individuals (exceeding 20,000 yuan per month). Given the thriving development of urban infrastructure, grocery stores are situated within a 10 or 15-minute radius from residential areas, thereby ensuring relatively close proximity between living spaces and shopping destinations. In this context, employing an electric moped scooter as a mode of transportation for nearby shopping endeavors can effectively cater to the daily requirements of middle and low-income consumers. However, high-income individuals may exhibit a comparatively lower frequency of shopping activities in contrast to middle- and low-income individuals. Moreover, their shopping patterns diverge from those of middle- and low-income individuals as they tend to favor weekly visits to large-scale retail centers. Consequently, they may be inclined to opt for private vehicles as a means of transportation for shopping purposes in order to accommodate their higher volume requirements. In terms of education, there exists a significant positive correlation between low-educated individuals and their frequency of utilizing electric scooters for diverse purposes. Furthermore, middle-educated individuals tend to frequently employ electric moped scooters for shopping and recreational activities, while occasionally utilizing them for work-related tasks. Conversely, individuals with a high level of education exhibit less inclination towards using electric mopeds for shopping and recreational purposes. The findings reveal that middle- or high-educated individuals enjoy a broader and more diverse array of choices when it comes to working transportation tools. Electric moped scooters do not constitute the primary preference for this particular demographic.
Residing in densely populated city centers is positively correlated with the frequency of electric moped scooter use. In comparison to private cars, electric moped scooters possess the advantages of compactness and flexibility, rendering them more suitable for utilization on congested urban roads characterized by high population density. Consequently, electric moped scooters effectively mitigate time wastage caused by traffic congestion. The findings indicate that in the context of urban expansion and rapid population density increase, actively promoting and encouraging widespread adoption of electric moped scooters can effectively address the conflicting issues between people's travel needs and sustainable urban development, thereby enhancing its potential to alleviate traffic congestion. In addition, the findings suggest that as the number of cars ownership increases, individuals' inclination towards using electric moped scooters as a means of shopping and leisure activities transportation also grows. This unexpected finding may be due to the fact that with escalating issues such as heavy road traffic and limited parking space, many areas are implementing restrictive measures to alleviate congestion. In this context, electric moped scooters are poised to emerge as one of the ideal travel modes for shopping due to their compact and flexible size, enabling them to swiftly reach destinations through specific routes or dedicated lanes. Simultaneously, electric moped scooters have the potential to circumvent parking difficulties and high fees, thereby offering certain economic benefits. In terms of recreational activities, individuals who frequently utilize electric moped scooters tend to prefer them as transportation modes despite owning private cars. This inclination may stem from the distinct applicability and advantages offered by private cars and electric moped scooters, enabling individuals to flexibly choose their preferred travel modes based on varying travel distances and circumstances. Compared to driving a private car, utilizing an electric moped scooter on urban roads grants greater maneuverability, allowing individuals to fully enjoy the surrounding scenery and natural beauty. Moreover, whether amidst bustling city centers or serene suburban landscapes, an electric moped scooters can effortlessly be parked at optimal locations. Finally, the results demonstrate that no significant effect is found between individual health condition and the frequency of electric moped scooter usage. Despite suggestions positing that electric moped scooters may be more suitable for individuals with compromised health status (Pettersson et al., 2016), this survey does not yield this conclusion.
Table 3
Explanatory model (gologit) for frequency to use electric moped scooters in different purposes.
| Use for work | Use for shopping | Use for recreational activities |
Independent variables | Frequent | Occasional | Frequent | Occasional | Frequent | Occasional |
Coeff. | Std-E | p | Coeff. | Std-E | p | Coeff. | Std-E | p | Coeff. | Std-E | p | Coeff. | Std-E | p | Coeff. | Std-E | p |
Satisfaction with reliable performance | 1.80*** | 0.77 | 0.02 | 0.52 | 0.82 | 0.53 | 0.39 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.90 | 1.22 | 0.46 | -0.05 | 0.63 | 0.93 | 0.25 | 1.16 | 0.83 |
Satisfaction with driving speed | 0.74*** | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.81 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.15 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.56 | -0.20 | 0.54 | 0.71 |
Perception of time-saving | -1.92*** | 0.84 | 0.02 | -0.26 | 0.89 | 0.77 | -0.23 | 0.71 | 0.74 | -0.37 | 1.33 | 0.78 | 0.23 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.52 | 1.27 | 0.68 |
E-moped usage duration | 0.49*** | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.40*** | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.19*** | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.47*** | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.18*** | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.22** | 0.12 | 0.06 |
Age (< 35) | 0.84** | 0.51 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.52 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 1.46*** | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.66 | 0.93 |
Age (35–50) | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.50 | 0.60 | 1.06*** | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.92 | 0.69 | 0.18 | 1.24*** | 0.47 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.63 | 0.80 |
Gender (Male) | -0.13 | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.64*** | 0.30 | 0.04 | -0.11 | 0.24 | 0.65 | 0.74** | 0.43 | 0.09 | -0.01 | 0.24 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.29 |
Monthly income (Less than 5,000 CNY) | 1.49*** | 0.52 | 0.01 | 1.30*** | 0.67 | 0.05 | 0.99*** | 0.50 | 0.05 | -1.23** | 0.75 | 0.10 | 0.92** | 0.51 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.80 | 0.88 |
Monthly income ( 5,000–10,000 CNY) | 1.59*** | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.38 | 0.92** | 0.50 | 0.07 | -1.50*** | 0.75 | 0.05 | 0.74 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.80 | 0.97 |
Monthly income ( 10,000–20,000 CNY) | 1.70*** | 0.59 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.32 | 0.95** | 0.56 | 0.09 | -1.69** | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.75 | 0.57 | 0.19 | -1.33 | 0.99 | 0.18 |
Education (High school and below) | -0.23 | 0.37 | 0.53 | 0.59** | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.44 | 0.31 | 0.16 | 0.95** | 0.51 | 0.07 | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.80** | 0.47 | 0.09 |
Education ( College diploma) | -0.10 | 0.37 | 0.78 | 0.66** | 0.37 | 0.08 | 0.90*** | 0.32 | 0.01 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.61*** | 0.31 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.30 |
Household structure | -0.09 | 0.45 | 0.84 | -0.13 | 0.53 | 0.81 | -0.25 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.25 | -0.62 | 0.43 | 0.15 | -0.60 | 0.82 | 0.46 |
Place of residence | -0.08 | 0.29 | 0.79 | 0.62*** | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.81 | 0.87*** | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 1.00 | 0.57 | 0.38 | 0.13 |
Health status ( Poor health and not bad) | 0.61 | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 0.42 | 0.90 | 0.22 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.52 | -0.28 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
Health status ( Fairly healthy) | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.84 | -0.06 | 0.32 | 0.86 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.16 | -0.10 | 0.26 | 0.71 | -0.15 | 0.40 | 0.70 |
Car ownership | -0.31 | 0.24 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.49*** | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.84*** | 0.38 | 0.03 | 0.42*** | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.46 | 0.34 | 0.17 |
Log-likelihood | -307.72 | -290.00 | -294.30 |
R-squared | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.11 |
LR chi2 | 102.14 | 84.61 | 70.01 |
Note: ***, **, * represent statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. |