Elektrikli Skuterlerin Şehir Ekosistemine Katkısı: Bulanık AHP Perspektifi

Öz

Bu çalışma, elektrikli skuterlerin şehir ekosistemine katkılarını değerlendirmek amacıyla Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) yöntemini kullanarak e-skuterlerin; çevresel etkileri, şehir yaşamına katkıları, güvenlik, sağlık, ekonomi ve kentsel peyzaj kriterleri çerçevesinde analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada öncelikle literatür taraması yapılarak e-skuterlerin şehir ekosistemine etkilerini belirleyen kriterler ve alt kriterler tespit edilmiştir. Bu kriterler Bulanık AHP yöntemi kullanılarak sistematik ve analitik bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, çevresel etkiler ve şehir yaşamına katkılar kriterlerinin en yüksek ağırlık değerlerine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. E-skuterlerin karbon emisyonlarını azaltarak hava kalitesini iyileştirme ve trafik yoğunluğunu azaltma potansiyeline sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, e-skuterlerin fiziksel aktiviteyi teşvik ederek bireylerin sağlığını olumlu yönde etkilediği ve şehir estetiğine katkı sağladığı ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları, e-skuterlerin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve şehir yaşamına olan olumlu katkılarının önemli olduğunu göstermektedir. Şehir plancıları ve karar alıcılar için e-skuterlerin kullanımının teşvik edilmesi, şehirlerin daha yaşanabilir, sürdürülebilir ve sağlıklı hale gelmesine yardımcı olabilir. Çalışma, elektrikli skuterlerin uzun vadeli etkilerini ve kullanımını optimize edecek politikaların geliştirilmesine yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bulanık AHP
• E-Skuter
• Mikromobilite
• Şehir Ekosistemi

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

1919B012321344

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma TÜBİTAK 2209-A Üniversite Öğrencileri Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı tarafından finansal olarak desteklenmiştir (TÜBİTAK, Proje No; 1919B012321344). Yazarlar finansal destek için teşekkür eder.

The Contribution of Electric Scooters to Urban Ecosystems: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective

Öz

This study aims to analyze e-scooters within the framework of environmental impacts, contributions to urban life, safety, health, economy and urban landscape criteria by using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to evaluate the contributions of electric scooters to the urban ecosystem. In the research, first of all, the criteria and sub-criteria that determine the effects of e-scooters on the urban ecosystem were determined by reviewing the literature. These criteria were evaluated from a systematic and analytical perspective using the Fuzzy AHP method. The findings of the study show that the environmental impacts and contributions to urban life criteria have the highest weight values. E-scooters have the potential to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion by reducing carbon emissions. In addition, e-scooters are found to positively affect individuals' health by encouraging physical activity and contribute to urban aesthetics. The results of the study show that the positive contributions of e-scooters to environmental sustainability and urban life are significant. For urban planners and decision makers, promoting the use of e-scooters can help cities become more livable, sustainable and healthy. The study provides recommendations for the development of policies to optimize the long-term impacts and use of electric scooters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fuzzy AHP
• E-Scooter
• Micromobility
• Urban Ecosystem

Proje Numarası

1919B012321344

Kaynakça

1. Abouelela, M., Al Haddad, C. ve Antoniou, C. (2021). Are Young Users Willing to Shift From Carsharing to Scooter–Sharing?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 95: 102821.
2. Aguilera-García, Á., Gómez, J. ve 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
3. Almannaa, M. H., Ashqar, H. I., Elhenawy, M., Masoud, M., Rakotonirainy, A. ve Rakha, H. (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.
4. Ashrafzadeh, M., Rafiei, F. M., Isfahani, N. M. ve Zare, Z. (2012). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS Method For The Selection Of Warehouse Location: A Case Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 655-671.
5. Ayhan, M. B. (2013). A Fuzzy AHP Approach For Supplier Selection Problem: A Case Study in A Gear Motor Company. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, 4(13).
6. Badeau, A., Carman, C., Newman, M., Steenblik, J., Carlson, M. ve Madsen, T. (2019). Emergency Department Visits For Electric Scooter-Related Injuries After Introduction of An Urban Rental Program. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 37(8), 1531-1533.
7. Baek, K., Lee, H., Chung, J. H. ve Kim, J. (2021). Electric Scooter Sharing: How Do People Value It As A Last-Mile Transportation Mode?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 90: 102642.
8. Binbin (2024). Ulaşımın Eğlenceli Hali, https://www.binbin.tech/ adresinden 22.03.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.

9. Bortoli, A. (2021). Environmental Performance of Shared Micromobility and Personal Alternatives Using Integrated Modal LCA. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93: 102743.
10. Bortoli, A. ve Christoforou, Z. (2020). Consequential LCA For Territorial and Multimodal Transportation Policies: Method and Application to The Free-Floating E-Scooter Disruption in Paris. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273: 122898.
11. Bozzi, A. D. ve Aguilera, A. (2021). Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of A New Micro-Mobility Service. Sustainability, 13(16): 8676.
12. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17(1): 233–247.
13. Buehler, R., Broaddus, A., Sweeney, T., Zhang, W., White, E. ve Mollenhauer, M. (2021). Changes in Travel Behavior, Attitudes, and Preferences Among E-Scooter Riders and Nonriders: First Look at Results From Pre and Post E-Scooter System Launch Surveys at Virginia Tech. Transportation Research Record, 2675(9): 335-345.
14. Cano-Moreno, J. D., Islán, M. E., Blaya, F., D’Amato, R., Juanes, J. A. ve Soriano, E. (2021). E-scooter Vibration Impact on Driver Comfort and Health. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 1-15.
15. Chang, C. C., Wu, F. L., Lai, W. H. ve 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.
16. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of The Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
17. Chen, C. ve Huang, J. (2019). Deriving Fuzzy Weights of The Fuzzy Analytic Network Process Via Fuzzy Inverse Matrix. Mathematics, 7(10): 914.
18. Chou, C. ve Yu, K. (2013). Application of A New Hybrid Fuzzy AHP Model to The Location Choice. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013: 1-12.
19. Cicchino, J. B., Kulie, P. E. ve McCarthy, M. L. (2021). Severity of E-Scooter Rider Injuries Associated With Trip Characteristics. Journal of Safety Research, 76: 256-261.
20. Davies, N., Blazejewski, L. ve Sherriff, G. (2020). The Rise of Micromobilities at Tourism Destinations. Journal of Tourism Futures, 6(3): 209-212.
21. della Mura, M., Failla, S., Gori, N., Micucci, A. ve Paganelli, F. (2022). E-Scooter Presence in Urban Areas: Are Consistent Rules, Paying Attention and Smooth Infrastructure Enough for Safety?. Sustainability, 14(21): 14303.
22. Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Pamucar, D., Chen, Y. ve Coffman, D. M. (2023). Sustainable E-scooter Parking Operation in Urban Areas Using Fuzzy Dombi Based RAFSI Model. Sustainable Cities And Society, 91: 104426.
23. Dias, G., Arsenio, E. ve Ribeiro, P. (2021). The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience During The Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions. Sustainability, 13(13): 7084.
24. Dias, G., Ribeiro, P. ve Arsenio, E. (2024). Determinants of Shared E-Scooter Usage and Their Policy Implications. Findings From A Survey in Braga, Portugal. European Transport Research Review, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00642-4.
25. DuPuis, N., Griess. J. ve Klein, C. (2019). Micromobility in Cities: A History And Policy Overview, https://trid.trb.org/View/1603755 adresinden 29.03.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
26. Duran-Rodas, D., Chaniotakis, E. ve Antoniou, C. (2019). Built Environment Factors Affecting Bike Sharing Ridership: Data-Driven Approach For Multiple Cities. Transportation Research Record, 2673(12), 55-68.
27. Fang, K., Agrawal, A. W., Steele, J., Hunter, J. J. ve Hooper, A. M. (2018). Where Do Riders Park Dockless, Shared Electric Scooters? Findings From San Jose, California. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=mti_publications adresinden 23.03.2024 tatihinde alınmıştır.
28. Félix, R., Orozco-Fontalvo, M. ve Moura, F. (2023). Socio-Economic Assessment of Shared E-Scooters: Do The Benefits Overcome The Externalities?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 118, 103714.
29. Gioldasis, C., Christoforou, Z. ve Katsiadrami, A. (2024). Usage Factors Influencing E-Scooter Energy Consumption: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 452: 142165.
30. Glavić, D., Trpković, A., Milenković, M. ve Jevremović, S. (2021). The E-Scooter Potential To Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study. Sustainability, 13(11): 5948.
31. Glenn, J., Bluth, M., Christianson, M., Pressley, J., Taylor, A., Macfarlane, G. S. ve Chaney, R. A. (2020). Considering The Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6344.
32. Gössling, S. (2020). Integrating E-Scooters in Urban Transportation: Problems, Policies, and The Prospect of System Change. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 79: 102230.
33. Hardt, C. ve Bogenberger, K. (2019). Usage of E-scooters in Urban Environments. Transportation Research Procedia, 37: 155-162.
34. Hollingsworth, J., Copeland, B. ve Johnson, J. X. (2019). Are E-Scooters Polluters? The Environmental Impacts of Shared Dockless Electric Scooters. Environmental Research Letters, 14(8): 084031.
35. hop (2024). Şehrin Keyfini Sür, https://hoplagit.com/ adresinden 11.04.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
36. Horrigmo, A. M. J. (2012). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Stat &Amp; Styring, 22(4): 57-58.
37. Hosford, K. ve Winters, M. (2018). Who Are Public Bicycle Share Programs Serving? An Evaluation of The Equity of Spatial Access To Bicycle Share Service Areas in Canadian Cities. Transportation Research Record, 2672(36), 42-50.
38. Hosseinzadeh, A., Algomaiah, M., Kluger, R. ve Li, Z. (2021). Spatial Analysis of Shared E-Scooter Trips. Journal of Transport Geography, 92: 103016.
39. Huang, F. H. (2022). Influence of Reduced Air Pollution Source Emission Information on User Behavioural Intention Towards E-Scooter Products. Promet-Traffic & Transportation, 34(1): 53-67.
40. Huo, J., Yang, H., Li, C., Zheng, R., Yang, L. ve Wen, Y. (2021). Influence of The Built Environment on E-Scooter Sharing Ridership: A Tale of Five Cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 93: 103084.
41. Ishaq, M., Ishaq, H. ve Nawaz, A. (2022). Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Scooters For Mobility Services: A Green Mobility Solutions. International Journal of Energy Research, 46(14): 20339-20356.
42. James, O., Swiderski, J. I., Hicks, J., Teoman, D. ve Buehler, R. (2019). Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look At E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions By Riders And Non-Riders. Sustainability, 11(20): 5591.
43. Jijo, MK., Liu, M., Seeder, S. ve Li, H. (2019). Analysis of E-Scooter Trips And Their Temporal Usage Patterns. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 89(6): 44-49.
44. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. ve Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382-394.
45. Kazmaier, M., Taefi, T. T. ve Hettesheimer, T. (2020). Techno-Economical and Ecological Potential of Electric Scooters: A Life Cycle Analysis. European Journal of Transport And Infrastructure Research, 20(4): 233-251.
46. Krier, C., Chrétien, J., Lagadic, M. ve Louvet, N. (2021). How Do Shared Dockless E-Scooter Services Affect Mobility Practices in Paris? A Survey-Based Estimation of Modal Shift. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(11), 291-304.
47. Laa, B. ve Leth, U. (2020). Survey of E-Scooter Users in Vienna: Who They Are and How They Ride. Journal of Transport Geography, 89: 102874.
48. Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J. H. ve Kim, J. (2021). Factors Affecting Heterogeneity in Willingness To Use E-Scooter Sharing Services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92: 102751.
49. Lentzen, M. P., Grandoch, A., Buller, J., Kreppel, M., Zöller, J. E. ve Zirk, M. (2021). Mandible Fractures Associated With The Introduction of An E-Scooter-Sharing System. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 32(4): 1405-1408.
50. Leurent, F. (2022). What Is The Value of Swappable Batteries For A Shared E-Scooter Service?. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 45: 100843.
51. Mayhew, L. J. ve Bergin, C. (2019). Impact of E‐Scooter Injuries on Emergency Department Imaging. Journal of Medical Imaging And Radiation Oncology, 63(4), 461-466.
52. Milakis, D., Gedhardt, L., Ehebrecht, D. ve Lenz, B. (2020). Is Micro-Mobility Sustainable? An Overview of Implications For Accessibility, Air Pollution, Safety, Physical Activity and Subjective Wellbeing. Handbook of Sustainable Transport, 180-189.
53. Moftakhar, T., Wanzel, M., Vojcsik, A., Kralinger, F., Mousavi, M., Hajdu, S., … ve Starlinger, J. (2020). Incidence And Severity of Electric Scooter Related Injuries After Introduction of An Urban Rental Programme in Vienna: A Retrospective Multicentre Study. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 141(7), 1207-1213.
54. Moreau, H., de Jamblinne de Meux, L., Zeller, V., D’Ans, P., Ruwet, C. ve Achten, W. M. (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.
55. Namiri, N. K., Lui, H., Tangney, T., Allen, I. E., Cohen, A. J. ve Breyer, B. N. (2020). Electric Scooter Injuries and Hospital Admissions in The United States, 2014-2018. JAMA Surgery, 155(4), 357.
56. Neven, A., Verstrael, A., Janssen, A. ve Dendale, P. (2020). Transport As A New Avenue For CV Prevention in City Dwellers: How To Kill Two Birds With One Stone?. European Heart Journal, 41(7),816–817.
57. Nikiforiadis, A., Paschalidis, E., Stamatiadis, N., Raptopoulou, A., Kostareli, A. ve Basbas, S. (2021). Analysis of Attitudes and Engagement of Shared E-Scooter Users. Transportation Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 94: 102790.
58. Oeschger, G., Carroll, P. ve Caulfield, B. (2020). Micromobility and Public Transport Integration: The Current State of Knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89: 102628.
59. Öztaş Karlı, R. G. ve Çelikyay, S. (2022). Current trends in smart Cities: Shared micromobility. In The Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart City Applications, Castelo Branco, pp. 187-198.
60. Öztaş Karlı, R. G., Karlı, H. ve Çelikyay, H. S. (2022). Investigating The Acceptance of Shared E-Scooters: Empirical Evidence From Turkey. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(2): 1058-1068.
61. Park, S. Y., Ham, S. W. ve Kim, D. K. (2023). User Segmentation Based on Travel Regularity in E-Scooter Sharing Service. Transportation Research Record, 2677(7): 290-306.
62. Reck, D. J., Haitao, H., Guidon, S. ve Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Explaining Shared Micromobility Usage, Competition and Mode Choice By Modelling Empirical Data From Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 124: 102947.
63. Saaty TL. (2000). Fundamentals of Decision Making And Priority Theory With The Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications.
64. Sanders, R. L., da Silva Brum-Bastos, V. ve Nelson, T. A. (2022). Insights From A Pilot Investigating The Impacts of Shared E-Scooter Use on Physical Activity Using A Single-Case Design Methodology. Journal of Transport & Health, 25: 101379.
65. Santos, G. (2018). Sustainability and Shared Mobility Models. Sustainability, 10(9): 3194.
66. Severengiz, S., Finke, S., Schelte, N. ve Forrister, H. (2020). Assessing The Environmental Impact of Novel Mobility Services Using Shared Electric Scooters As An Example. Procedia Manufacturing, 43, 80-87.
67. Severengiz, S., Schelte, N. ve Bracke, S. (2021). Analysis of The Environmental Impact of E-Scooter Sharing Services Considering Product Reliability Characteristics and Durability. Procedia CIRP, 96: 181-188.
68. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan N. ve Bansal, A. (2020). Sharing Strategies: Carsharing, Shared Micromobility (Bikesharing and Scooter Sharing), Transportation Network Companies, Microtransit, and Other Innovative Mobility Modes, E. Deakin (Ed.), In Transportation, Land Use, And Environmental Planning (237-262), Elsevier.
69. Singh, P., Jami, M., Geller, J., Granger, C., Geaney, L. ve Aiyer, A. (2022). The Impact of E-Scooter Injuries: A Systematic Review of 34 Studies. Bone & Joint Open, 3(9): 674-683.
70. Smith, C. S. ve Schwieterman, J. P. (2018). E-scooter Scenarios: Evaluating The Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago. https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-development/research-and-publications/Documents/E-ScooterScenariosMicroMobilityStudy_FINAL_20181212.pdf adresinden 29.03.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
71. Speak, A., Taratula-Lyons, M., Clayton, W. ve Shergold, I. (2023). Scooter Stories: User and Non-User Experiences of A Shared E-Scooter Trial. Active Travel Studies, 3(1).
72. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... ve Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries Associated With Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA Network Open, 2(1), e187381-e187381.
73. Uchida, K., Blakey, R. V., Burger, J. R., Cooper, D. S., Niesner, C. A. ve Blumstein, D. T. (2021). Urban Biodiversity and The Importance of Scale. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(2): 123-131.
74. Uluk, D., Lindner, T., Dahne, M., Bickelmayer, J. W., Beyer, K., Slagman, A., ... ve Gerlach, U. A. (2021). E-scooter Incidents in Berlin: An Evaluation of Risk Factors and Injury Patterns. Emergency Medicine Journal, 39(4): 295-300.
75. Van Laarhoven, P. J. ve Pedrycz, W. (1983). A Fuzzy Extension Of Saaty's Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets And Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241.
76. Wang, K., Qian, X., Fitch, D. T., Lee, Y., Malik, J. ve Circella, G. (2023). What Travel Modes Do Shared E-Scooters Displace? A Review of Recent Research Findings. Transport Reviews, 43(1): 5-31.
77. Wang, Y., Wu, J., Chen, K. ve Liu, P. (2021). Are Shared Electric Scooters Energy Efficient?. Communications in Transportation Research, 1: 100022.
78. Weschke, J., Oostendorp, R. ve Hardinghaus, M. (2022). Mode Shift, Motivational Reasons, and Impact on Emissions of Shared E-Scooter Usage. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 112: 103468.
79. White, E., Guo, F., Han, S., Mollenhauer, M., Broaddus, A., Sweeney, T., ... ve Buehler, R. (2023). What Factors Contribute To E-Scooter Crashes: A First Look Using A Naturalistic Riding Approach. Journal of Safety Research, 85: 182-191.
80. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Inform Control, 8: 338-353.
81. Zakhem, M. ve Smith-Colin, J. (2021). Micromobility Implementation Challenges and Opportunities: Analysis of E-Scooter Parking and High-Use Corridors. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 101: 103082.
82. Zuniga-Garcia, N., Juri, N. R., Perrine, K. A. ve Machemehl, R. B. (2021). E-Scooters in Urban Infrastructure: Understanding Sidewalk, Bike Lane, and Roadway Usage From Trajectory Data. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(3): 983-994.