Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy

The recent invasion of electric-powered personal mobility vehicles (e-PMVs) in many cities worldwide has disputed the transport sector and captured the attention of academics, practitioners, and public administrators. Indeed, these vehicles are believed to be sustainable transport alternatives. Therefore, understanding how to evaluate and monitor the related performance is crucial and may be addressed by suitable key sustainable parameters (KSPs) to inform on the excellences and criticalities of e-PMVs. Previous research has focused largely on “how to measure and manage” KSPs rather than “what to measure”. Conversely, as far as the authors know, no study investigated objective methods for identifying and selecting top KSPs. This paper covers this gap by proposing a cohesive approach, which identifies a long list of KSPs, defines their properties, involves experts to elicit judgments for each KSP, evaluates the long list, and returns the most promising set. This approach is demonstrated with an application based on an Italian survey. A circumscribed and relevant set of six overlapping KSPs is derived by merging two different approaches. These results may support the opportunity to assess the performance of e-PMVs among cities according to a common set of KSPs.

[1]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[2]  Jeremiah X. Johnson,et al.  Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[3]  Tien-Chin Wang,et al.  Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[4]  Prashant Kumar,et al.  Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of Delhi , 2014 .

[5]  Zhixia Li,et al.  Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips , 2021 .

[6]  Johan Springael,et al.  PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Claudio Conversano,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Select Key Quality Indicators in Transit Services , 2020 .

[8]  David Pitfield,et al.  ELASTIC – A methodological framework for identifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators , 2010 .

[9]  Z. Christoforou,et al.  Consequential LCA for territorial and multimodal transportation policies: method and application to the free-floating e-scooter disruption in Paris , 2020, 2103.00680.

[10]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Explaining shared micromobility usage, competition and mode choice by modelling empirical data from Zurich, Switzerland , 2021, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies.

[11]  T. Saaty.  Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[12]  George G. Earl,et al.  Public transport service quality and sustainable development: A community stakeholder perspective , 2010 .

[13]  Ralph Buehler,et al.  Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders , 2019, Sustainability.

[14]  Kanok Boriboonsomsin,et al.  Consideration of exposure to traffic-related air pollution in bicycle route planning , 2017, Journal of Transport & Health.

[15]  William C. Wedley,et al.  Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytic hierarchy process , 2002 .

[16]  Jenn-Jiang Hwang.  Sustainable transport strategy for promoting zero-emission electric scooters in Taiwan , 2010 .

[17]  C. Kopplin,et al.  Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility , 2021 .

[18]  Ram M. Shrestha,et al.  MULTI-CRITERIA APPROACH FOR THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM IN DELHI , 2003 .

[19]  Qing Chang,et al.  How Low Should You Go? Low Response Rates and the Validity of Inference in IS Questionnaire Research , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  T. Madsen,et al.  Emergency department visits for electric scooter-related injuries after introduction of an urban rental program. , 2019, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[21]  Shaoli Wang,et al.  Evaluating Performance of Public Transport Networks by Using Public Transport Criteria Matrix Analytic Hierarchy Process Models—Case Study of Stonnington, Bayswater, and Cockburn Public Transport Network , 2021, Sustainability.

[22]  R. Noland,et al.  Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage , 2020, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.

[23]  Richard Valliant,et al.  Internet Surveys: Can Statistical Adjustments Eliminate Coverage Bias? , 2008 .

[24]  Alberto Colorni,et al.  E-bikes and e-scooters for smart logistics: environmental and economic sustainability in pro-e-bike Italian pilots , 2016 .

[25]  S. Gössling.  Why cities need to take road space from cars - and how this could be done , 2020 .

[26]  Matthew Leach,et al.  Bridging the gaps between theory and practice: a service niche approach to urban sustainability indicators , 2008 .

[27]  Z. Christoforou,et al.  Who is using e-scooters and how? Evidence from Paris , 2021 .

[28]  B. Barabino,et al.  Survey on e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles: Exploring Current Issues towards Future Developments , 2021 .

[29]  Milan Zelany,et al.  A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal , 1974, Comput. Oper. Res..

[30]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[31]  R. W. Saaty,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used , 1987 .

[32]  V. Gitelman.  Alternative transport means in city centers: exploring the levels of use, typical behaviours and risk factors , 2020 .

[33]  M. Ramachandran,et al.  Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review , 2004 .

[34]  A. Schwartz,et al.  Electric Scooter Orthopaedic Injury Demographics at an Urban Level I Trauma Center. , 2020, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[35]  Luc Hens,et al.  The development of indicators and core indicators for sustainable development: a state of the art review , 2003 .

[36]  Jinhuan Zhao,et al.  E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case , 2021 .

[37]  Rusul L. Abduljabbar,et al.  The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review , 2021 .

[38]  S. Siri,et al.  Optimal design of electric mobility services for a Local Energy Community , 2021 .

[39]  Rui Qiu,et al.  Electric Vehicle Charging Station Location towards Sustainable Cities , 2020, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[40]  Vanessa Zeller,et al.  Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters , 2020, Sustainability.

[41]  Impacts of E-Micromobility on the Sustainability of Urban Transportation—A Systematic Review , 2021 .

[42]  Saul I. Gass,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process - An Exposition , 2001, Oper. Res..

[43]  A. El-geneidy,et al.  Scoot over: Determinants of shared electric scooter presence in Washington D.C , 2021, Case Studies on Transport Policy.

[44]  Prashant C. Palvia,et al.  Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[45]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1980 .

[46]  Nora Estgfaeller,et al.  A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility , 2020, Sustainability.

[47]  J. Jiao,et al.  Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments: A comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN , 2020 .