Investigation of the Shared Electric Scooter System Usage: A Case Study in İstanbul

Abstract

Shared electric scooters, also known as e-scooters, were introduced to Turkey in 2019, following their worldwide usage since 2017 as a form of micro-mobility. Literature studies conducted at the national level on e-scooters, which are a new type of transportation, are relatively inadequate. In this regard, it is aimed to conduct a detailed research on shared e-scooter usage in order to achieve optimal benefits. In this study, an online survey was carried out in Istanbul, which has the highest population in Turkey. Two types of methods were used in the analysis of the obtained data set: chi-square and weighting. Firstly, the significance of the relationship between the participants' categorically organized socio-economic characteristics and their shared e-scooter usage status was examined. The results showed that men (38%), young people (43%), with high levels of education (38%), and with high monthly transportation expenses (45%) had a higher preference for e-scooters. Secondly, significant correlations were found between usage characteristics such as travel distance, frequency of usage, average monthly transportation expense, and preferred second mode of transportation. Lastly the primary reasons for e-scooter usage were presented through the weighting method. Specifically, it was found that the preference of e-scooter users was due to its fun mode of transportation (30%). On the other hand, non-users did not prefer e-scooters due to safety concerns (14%). Additionally, the primary improvement necessary for wider adoption was the provision of dedicated e-scooter lanes (35%).

Keywords

• Shared e-scooter
• dockless e-scooter
• electric scooter
• micromobility
• transportation

Paylaşımlı Elektrikli Skuter Kullanımının Araştırılması: İstanbul İli Örneği

Abstract

Dünyada 2017 yılından beri kullanılan ve mikromobilite araçlarından biri olan paylaşımlı elektrikli skuterler (e-skuter), Türkiye’de 2019 yılında hayatımıza girmiştir. Yeni bir ulaşım türü olan e-skuterlerin incelendiği ulusal düzeydeki literatür çalışmaları nispeten yetersiz görülmüştür. Bu doğrultuda optimum fayda sağlamak için paylaşımlı e-skuter kullanımının detaylı şekilde araştırılması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında, Türkiye’nin nüfusu en yüksek ili olan İstanbul’da çevrimiçi anket yapılmış, elde edilen veri setinin analizinde ki kare ve ağırlıklandırma olmak üzere iki tür yöntem kullanılmıştır. İlk olarak katılımcıların kategorik olarak düzenlenen sosyo ekonomik özellikleri ile paylaşımlı e-skuter kullanım durumları arasındaki ilişkilerin anlamlılığı incelenmiştir. Buna göre paylaşımlı e-skuteri tercih etme eğiliminin erkeklerde (%38), gençlerde (%43), yüksek eğitim seviyesinde (%38) ve aylık ulaşım gideri fazla olan kişilerde (%45) daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. İkinci olarak kullanım özelliklerine ait değişkenlerin birbirleri ile olan ilişkileri istatistiksel açıdan sorgulanmıştır. Buna göre yolculuk mesafesi, kullanım sıklığı, ortalama aylık skuter ulaşım gideri ve tercih edilen ikinci ulaşım türü parametrelerinin birbirleri ile ilişkilerinin anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür. Son olarak e-skuter kullanan katılımcıların tercih etmelerinin (eğlenceli bir ulaşım türü olması-%30), e-skuter kullanmayan katılımcıların kullanmamalarının (güvenli bulunmaması-%14) ve kullanımlarını sağlayacak iyileştirmelerin (kendine ait yolunun olması-%35) ağırlıklandırma yöntemi ile birincil çıktıları sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Paylaşımlı elektrikli skuter
• e-skuter
• paylaşımlı elektrikli scooter
• mikromobilite
• ulaştırma

References

1. [1] A. D. Bozzi and A. Aguilera, “Shared e-scooters: A review of uses, health and environmental impacts, and policy implications of a new micro-mobility service,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 8676, August 2021. doi:10.3390/su13168676
2. [2] Collins, “Definition of e-scooter,” collinsdictionary.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/ english/e-scooter. [Accessed: Dec. 27, 2022].
3. [3] H. Güldür, F. Karaçor, S. Hatipoğlu, and K. Çubuk, "Yeni bir kent içi ulaşım türü: E-scooter," Gazi Journal of Engineering Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 60-73, April 2022. doi:10.30855/gmbd.2022.01.04
4. [4] S. Tuncer and B. Brown, “E-scooters on the ground: lessons for redesigning urban micro-mobility,” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14, April 2020. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376499
5. [5] T. C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Resmi Gazete, “Elektrikli skuter yönetmeliği,” resmigazete.gov.tr, April 14, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2021/04/20210414-3.htm. [Accessed: Dec. 27, 2022].
6. [6] J. K. Mathew, M. Liu, S. Seeder, H. Li, and D. M. Bullock, “Analysis of e-scooter trips and their temporal usage patterns,” ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 44–49, June 2019.
7. [7] J. Jiao and S. Bai, “Understanding the shared e-scooter travels in Austin, TX,” ISPRS, International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 135, February 2020. doi:10.3390/ijgi9020135
8. [8] R. L. Sanders, M. Branion-Calles, and T. A. Nelson, “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, vol. 139, pp. 217–227, September 2020. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009

9. [9] Z. Christoforou, A. de Bortoli, C. Gioldasis, and R. Seidowsky, “Who is using e-scooters and how? Evidence from Paris,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 92, pp. 102708, March 2021. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708
10. [10] M. C. Bölen and O. Çeliker, “Paylaşımlı elektrikli scooter hizmetlerini kullanma niyetinde etkili olan faktörler,” Atatürk University, Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1101–1123, July 2021. doi:10.16951/atauniiibd.898594
11. [11] H. Fitt and A. Curl, “E-scooter use in New Zealand: Insights around some frequently asked questions,” University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, June 2019, https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/16336.
12. [12] B. Laa and U. Leth, “Survey of e-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride,” Journal Transport Geography, vol. 89, pp. 102874, December 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874
13. [13] Á. Aguilera-García, J. Gomez, and N. Sobrino, “Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas,” Cities, vol. 96, pp. 102424, January 2020. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424
14. [14] M. Branis, G. Balint, J. Takacs, M. Sulik, and A. Galkin, “Shared electric scooters like a tool of a micro-mobility in cities,” 20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Proceedings, SGEM 2020, Albena, Bulgaria, August 16-25, 2020. doi:10.5593/sgem2020/6.1/s27.082
15. [15] J. Degele, A. Gorr, K. Haas, D. Kormann, S. Kraus, P. Lipinski, M. Tenbih, C. Koppenhoefer, J. Fauser, and D. Hertweck, “Identifying e-scooter sharing customer segments using clustering,” 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart, Germany, June 17-20, 2018. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/ICE.2018.8436288
16. [16] T. Eccarius and C.-C. Lu, “Adoption intentions for micro-mobility – Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 84, pp. 102327, July 2020. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327
17. [17] K. Fang, A. W. Agrawal, J. Steele, J. J. Hunter, and A. M. Hooper, “Where do riders park dockless, shared electric scooters? Findings from San Jose, California,” San Jose State University, Mineta Transportation Institute, Project 1713, November 2018. [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/mti_publications/251/. [Accessed: Dec. 27, 2022].
18. [18] K. C. English, J. R. Allen, K. Rix, D. F. Zane, C. M. Ziebell, C. V. R. Brown, and L. H. Brown, “The characteristics of dockless electric rental scooter-related injuries in a large U.S. city,” Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 476–481, August 2020. doi:10.1080/15389588.2020.1804059
19. [19] Q. Ma, H. Yang, A. Mayhue, Y. Sun, Z. Huang, and Y. Ma, “E-Scooter safety: The riding risk analysis based on mobile sensing data,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 151, pp. 105954, March 2021. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2020.105954
20. [20] J. K. Mathew, M. Liu, and D. M. Bullock, “Impact of weather on shared electric scooter utilization,” 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, October 27-30, 2019. pp. 4512–4516. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917121
21. [21] Y. C. Yavuz, “İstanbul’da mikro hareketlilik: Paylaşımlı e-skuter kullanıcı özellikleri ve karşılaşılan zorluklar,” M. Sc. dissertation, İstanbul Technical University, Graduate School, İstanbul, Turkey, 2021.
22. [22] B. Moralıoğlu, Ş. Cenani, and G. Çağdaş, “A decision support system for placing shared e-scooters: A case study for Istanbul,” Journal of Computational Design, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 127–148, September 2021. doi:10.53710/jcode.978704 [23] D. Glavić, A. Trpković, M. Milenković, and S. Jevremović, “The e-scooter potential to change urban mobility-Belgrade case study,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 5948, May 2021. doi:10.3390/su13115948
23. [24] T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı, “Haberler,” uab.gov.tr, September 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.uab.gov. tr/haberler/e-scooter-yonetmeligi-nde-ilk-adim-atildi. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
24. [25] İ. Seyrek, “Yeni bir kentsel hareketlilik modu ve neoliberal öznenin kendisine yatırım aracı olarak paylaşımlı e-scooter sistemleri: İstanbul örneği,” M. Sc. dissertation, Marm ara University, Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey, 2022.
25. [26] TÜİK, “Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları,” Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, tuik.gov.tr. [Online]. Available: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
26. [27] W. G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1963.
27. [28] A. Curl and H. Fitt, “Same same, but different? Cycling and e‐scootering in a rapidly changing urban transport landscape,” New Zealand Geographer, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 194–206, September 2020. doi:10.1111/nzg.12271
28. [29] S. Rejali, K. Aghabayk, A. Mohammadi, and N. Shiwakoti, “Assessing a priori acceptance of shared dockless e-scooters in Iran,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 100, pp. 103042, November 2021. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.103042
29. [30] A. Speak, M. Taratula-Lyons, W. Clayton, and I. Shergold, “Scooter stories: User and non-user experiences of a shared e-scooter trial,” Active Travel Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2023, doi:10.16997/ats.1195
30. [31] ESRI, “ArcGIS Pro 3.0,” Environmental Systems Research Institute, esri.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
31. [32] M. Güngör, “Ki-kare testi üzerine,” Fırat Üniversitesi Doğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 84–89, November 2008. [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/fudad/issue/47171/593924. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
32. [33] A. Nikiforiadis, E. Paschalidis, N. Stamatiadis, N. Paloka, E. Tsekoura, and S. Basbas, “E-scooters and other mode trip chaining: Preferences and attitudes of university students,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 170, pp. 103636, April 2023. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2023.103636
33. [34] N. Haworth, A. Schramm, and D. Twisk, “Changes in shared and private e-scooter use in Brisbane, Australia and their safety implications,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 163, pp. 106451, December 2021. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106451
34. [35] K. Baek, H. Lee, J.-H. Chung, and J. Kim, “Electric scooter sharing: How do people value it as a last-mile transportation mode?,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 90, pp. 102642, January 2021. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102642
35. [36] IBM, “SPSS Statistics” ibm.com. [Online]. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
36. [37] E. Cevahir, SPSS ile Nicel Veri Analizi Rehberi. Kibele Yayınları, 2020.
37. [38] R. A. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1925.
38. [39] G. H. Freeman and J. H. Halton, “Note on an exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance,” Biometrika, vol. 38, no. 1/2, pp. 141–149, June 1951. doi:10.2307/2332323
39. [40] Y. Karagöz, “İlişki katsayıları ile öğrenci başarısını etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi,” Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 9, no. 32, pp. 425–446, June 2010. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6146/82522. [Accessed: Mar. 31, 2023].
40. [41] R. M. Dawes and B. Corrigan, “Linear models in decision making,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 95–106, 1974. doi:10.1037/h0037613
41. [42] M. Durmuş, “Kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması,” M. Sc. dissertation, Uşak University, Institute of Social Sciences, Uşak, Turkey, 2015.
42. [43] C. Hardt and K. Bogenberger, “Usage of e-scooters in urban environments,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 37, 2018, pp. 155–162, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.178
43. [44] T. Eccarius and C.-C. Lu, “Exploring consumer reasoning in usage intention for electric scooter sharing,” Transportation Planning Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 271–295, December 2018. doi:10.6402/TPJ