Uneven development in market-based supplies of new micromobility services: the case of new e-scooter services

0
Uneven development in market-based supplies of new micromobility services: the case of new e-scooter services
  • Geels, F. W. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems. A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 17, 445–476 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions. Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 471–482 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Cult. Soc. 21, 25–39 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. Uneven development. Nature, capital, and the production of space (Verso, 2010).

  • Reckwitz, A. End of Illusions. Politics, economics and culture in late modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2021).

  • Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S. & Dia, H. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities. A systematic literature review. Transp. Res. Part D 92, 102734 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gössling, S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation. Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D79, 102230 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Laa, B. & Leth, U. Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna. Who they are and how they ride. J. Transp. Geogr. 89, 102874 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, S. ’a & Brown, A. Docked vs. dockless equity. Comparing three micromobility service geographies. J. Transp. Geogr. 96, 103185 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N. Platform capitalism (Polity, 2017).

  • Nyblom, Å. Making plans or “just thinking about the trip”? Understanding people’s travel planning in practice. J. Transp. Geogr. 35, 30–39 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitt, H. & Curl, A. The early days of shared micromobility. A social practices approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 86, 102779 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaheen, S. & Cohen, A. Shared micromobility. Policy and practices in the United States. In A Modern Guide to the Urban Sharing Economy (eds, Sigler, T. & Corcoran, J.) 166–180 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021).

  • Foissaud, N., Gioldasis, C., Tamura, S., Christoforou, Z. & Farhi, N. Free-floating e-scooter usage in urban areas. A spatiotemporal analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 100, 103335. (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, A. et al. Comprehensive comparison of e-scooter sharing mobility. Evidence from 30 European cities. Transp. Res. Part D 105, 103229 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Reck, D. J., Martin, H. & Axhausen, K. W. Mode choice, substitution patterns and environmental impacts of shared and personal micro-mobility. Transp. Res. Part D 102, 103134 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H. et al. Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago. Transp. Res. Part A 154, 23–36, (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting (Basic Books, 1976).

  • Docherty, I., Marsden, G. & Anable, J. The governance of smart mobility. Transp. Res. Part A 85, 114–125 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Firnkorn, J. & Müller, M. Selling mobility instead of cars. New business strategies of automakers and the impact on private vehicle holding. Bus. Strategy Environ. 21, 264–280 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. The age of access. The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-for experience (Tarcher/Putnam, 2000).

  • Shaheen, S. A. & Chan, N. Mobility and the sharing economy. Potential to facilitate the first- and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ. 42, 573–588 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chlond, B. Making people independent from the car – multimodality as a strategic concept to reduce CO2-emissions. In Cars and carbon (ed. Zachariadis, T. I.) 269–293 (Springer, 2012).

  • Groth, S. & Kuhnimhof, T. Multimodality in transportation. In International Encyclopedia of Transportation, 5 (ed. R. Vickerman, R.) 118–126 (Elsevier, 2021).

  • Huang, E., Yin, Z., Broaddus, A. & Yan, X. Shared e-scooters as a last-mile transit solution? Travel behavior insights from Los Angeles and Washington D.C. Travel Behav. Soc. 34, 100663 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobis, C. Multimodality. Facets and causes of sustainable mobility behavior. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 35–44 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Firnkorn, J. & Müller, M. Free-floating electric carsharing-fleets in smart cities. The dawning of a post-private car era in urban environments?. Environ. Sci. Policy 45, 30–40 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, J., Gerike, R. & Axhausen, K. W. Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car-sharing members. Transportation 42, 449–469 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeschger, G., Carroll, P. & Caulfield, B. Micromobility and public transport integration. The current state of knowledge. Transp. Res. Part D 89, 102628 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Z. et al. Shared micromobility as a first- and last-mile transit solution? Spatiotemporal insights from a novel dataset. J. Transp. Geogr. 114, 103778 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Badia, H. & Jenelius, E. Shared e-scooter micromobility. Review of use patterns, perceptions and environmental impacts. Transp. Rev. 43, 811–837 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornet, Y., Lugano, G., Georgouli, C. & Milakis, D. Worthwhile travel time. A conceptual framework of the perceived value of enjoyment, productivity and fitness while travelling. Transp. Rev. 42, 580–603 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., van Lierop, D. & Ettema, D. Dockless bike-sharing systems. What are the implications?. Transp. Rev. 40, 333–353 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Groth, S., Klinger, T. & Otsuka, N. Geographies of new mobility services. The emergence of a premium mobility network space. Geoforum 144, 103765 (2023).

  • Stehlin, J. G. & Payne, W. B. Mesoscale infrastructures and uneven development. Bicycle sharing systems in the United States as “already splintered” urbanism. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geographers 112, 1065–1083 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannotti, M. et al. Inequalities in transit accessibility. Contributions from a comparative study between Global South and North metropolitan regions. Cities 109, 103016 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Aberle, C. Who benefits from mobility as a service? A GIS-based investigation of the population served by four ride-pooling schemes in Hamburg, Germany. J. Cartogr. Geographic Inf. 70, 25–33 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall, J. Where no cars go. Free-floating carshare and inequality of access. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.11, 433–442 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Groth, S. Multimodal divide. Reproduction of transport poverty in smart mobility trends. Transp. Res. Part A 125, 56–71 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. Uneven regional development. In International Encyclopedia of Geography (ed. Richardson, D. et al.) 1–13 (Wiley, 2017).

  • Harvey, D. The condition of postmodernity (Blackwell, 1989).

  • Wissen, M. & Naumann, M. Die Dialektik von räumlicher Angleichung und Differenzierung: Zum uneven-development-Konzept in der radical geography. ACME 7, 377–406 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, S. Uneven public transportation development in neoliberalizing Chicago, USA. Environ. Plan. A 43, 1154–1172 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Groth, S., Hunecke, M. & Wittowsky, D. Middle-class, cosmopolitans and precariat among millennials between automobility and multimodality. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 12, 100467 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, D. Uneven mobilities, uneven opportunities. Social distribution of public transport accessibility to jobs and education in Montevideo. J. Transp. Geogr. 67, 119–125 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kębłowski, W. & Bassens, D. All transport problems are essentially mathematical”. The uneven resonance of academic transport and mobility knowledge in Brussels. Urban Geogr. 39, 413–437 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Petkov, D. The uneven development path of Bulgarian trolleybus transport – Leading back to the future?. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 8, 1383–1392 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigner, H. & Brenac, T. Safe, sustainable… but depoliticized and uneven – a critical view of urban transport policies in France. Transp. Res. Part A 121, 218–234 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemiatycki, M. Urban transportation public–private partnerships. Drivers of uneven development?. Environ. Plan. A 43, 1707–1722 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehlin, J. G. Cyclescapes of the unequal city. Bicycle infrastructure and uneven development (University of Minnesota Press, 2019).

  • Stehlin, J. G. & Tarr, A. R. Think regionally, act locally? Gardening, cycling, and the horizon of urban spatial politics. Urban Geogr. 38, 1329–1351 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodel, M. & Hernandez, D. Smarter but more unequal transport? How socioeconomic and digital inequalities hinder adoption of mobility apps in the Global South. Travel Behav. Soc. 38, 100911 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M. Bike lanes are white lanes. Bicycle advocacy and urban planning (University of Nebraska Press, 2016).

  • Lucas, K., Mattioli, G., Verlinghieri, E. & Guzman, A. Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 169, 353–365 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattioli, G., Lucas, K. & Marsden, G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK. From analogy to comparison. Transp. Policy 59, 93–105 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, M. Mobilitätsarmut – ein Thema für die bundesdeutsche Raumentwicklung?. Standort 111, 1833 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A., Frost, M. & Sullivan, K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transp. Policy 7, 195–205 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K. Transport and social exclusion. Where are we now?. Transp. Policy 20, 105–113 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc, A. & Currie, G. Transport problems that matter – social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 170–178 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc, A. & Currie, G. The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 1130–1137 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauriedl, S. & Wiechers, H. Konturen eines Plattform-Urbanismus. Sub Urban Z. f.ür. Kritische Stadtforsch. 9, 93–114 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Verlinghieri, E. & Schwanen, T. Transport and mobility justice. Evolving discussions. J. Transp. Geogr. 87, 102798 (2020).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, K. Transport justice. Designing fair transportation systems (Routledge, 2016).

  • Sheller, M. Theorising mobility justice. Tempo Soc. 30, 17–34 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K., Martens, K., Di Ciommo, F. & Dupont-Kieffer, A. Measuring transport equity (Elsevier, 2019).

  • Litman, T. Evaluating transportation equity (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2017).

  • Manderscheid, K. The movement problem, the car and future mobility regimes. Automobility as dispositif and mode of regulation. Mobilities 9, 604–626 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, N. A Thousand leaves. Notes on the geographies of uneven spatial development. In Leviathan undone? Towards a political economy of scale (eds, Keil, R. & Mahon, R.) 27–49 (University of British Columbia Press, 2009).

  • Omstedt, M. & Ebner, N. Introduction. Uneven development and social difference in capitalism. Environ. Plan A 56, 1298–1303 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Luxemburg, R. Die Akkumulation des Kapitals. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus (Vorwärts-Verlag, 1913).

  • Tristl, C. Turning water into a commodity. Digital innovation and the private sector as development agent (Bristol University Press, 2025).

  • Castells, M. The rise of the network society. The information age: economy, society, and culture volume I, with a new preface with a new preface (John Wiley & Sons, 2001).

  • Castells, M. The internet galaxy. Reflections on the internet, business, and society (Oxford University Press, 2003).

  • Brezovec, P. & Hampl, N. Electric vehicles ready for breakthrough in MaaS? Consumer adoption of E-car sharing and E-scooter sharing as a part of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). Energies 14, 1088 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Seebauer, S. Why early adopters engage in interpersonal diffusion of technological innovations. An empirical study on electric bicycles and electric scooters. Transp. Res. Part A 78, 146–160 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, G. & Reardon, L. (eds). Governance of the smart mobility transition (Emerald Publishing, 2018).

  • Kesselring, S. Global transfer points: the making of airports in the mobile risk society. In Aeromobilities (eds. Cwerner, S., Kesselring, S. & Urry, J.) 51–72 (Routledge, 2009).

  • Clark, J. & Curl, A. Bicycle and avel? A socio-spatial analysis in Glasgow, UK. Soc. Incl. 4, 83 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, A. & Cheshire, J. Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited. Impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. J. Transp. Geogr. 41, 272–279 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • McKane, R. G. & Hess, D. J. Ridesourcing and urban inequality in Chicago. Connecting mobility disparities to unequal development, gentrification, and displacement. Environ. Plan A 2, 0308518X2110478 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. The spatial fix – Hegel, von Thunen, and Marx. Antipode 13, 1–12 (1981).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. & Marvin, S. Splintering urbanism. Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition (Routledge, 2001).

  • Graham, S. & Marvin, S. Splintering Urbanism at 20 and the “Infrastructural Turn”. J. Urban Technol. 29, 169–175 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, P. The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto. Urban Aff. Rev. 33, 228–264 (1997).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, M. Drawing the map. The creation and regulation of geographic constraints on shared bikes and e-scooters in San Francisco, CA. J. Transp. Land Use 14, (2021).

  • Moran, M. E., Laa, B. & Emberger, G. Six scooter operators, six maps. Spatial coverage and regulation of micromobility in Vienna, Austria. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 8, 658–671 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. Bundesländer mit Hauptstädten nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Bevölkerungsdichte. (2023).

  • Landesbetrieb IT.NRW. In NRW lebte Ende 2020 fast die Hälfte der Bevölkerung in Großstädten. (2022).

  • Statista GmbH. Anzahl der Großstädte nach Bundesländern in Deutschland am 31. Dezember 2022. (2023).

  • Küpper, P. Abgrenzung und Typisierung ländlicher Räume. Thünen Working Paper 68 (Thünen, 2016).

  • Holz-Rau, C., Schultewolter, M., Aertker, J., Wachter, I. & Klinger, T. Eine Verkehrstypologie deutscher Großstädte. Raumforschung und Raumordnung Spatial Research and Planning; (2021).

  • Huo, J. et al. Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership. A tale of five cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 93, 103084 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, S. & Jiao, J. Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments. A comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN. Travel Behav. Soc. 20, 264–272 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinzadeh, A., Algomaiah, M., Kluger, R. & Li, Z. Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips. J. Transp. Geogr. 92, 103016 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazzini, M. et al. New micromobility means of transport. An analysis of E-scooter users’ behaviour in Trondheim. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 7374 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimpour, A., Hosseinzadeh, A. & Kluger, R. A data-driven approach to estimating dockless electric scooter service areas. J. Transp. Geogr. 109, 103579 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimpton, A. et al. Weather to scoot? How weather shapes shared e-scooter ridership patterns. J. Transp. Geogr. 104, 103439 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R., Zhang, X., Kondor, D., Santi, P. & Ratti, C. Understanding spatio-temporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 81, 101483 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fina, S. et al. OS-WALK-EU. An open-source tool to assess health-promoting residential walkability of European city structures. J. Transp. Health 27, 101486 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung ARE. ÖV-Güteklassen – Berechnungsmethodik ARE (Grundlagenbericht, 2022).

  • Anselin, L. Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Anal. 20, 1–17 (1988).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 236–244 (1963).

    Article 
    MathSciNet 

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, T., Kenworthy, J. R. & Lanzendorf, M. Dimensions of urban mobility cultures – a comparison of German cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 31, 18–29 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S. & Nielsen, T. A. S. European mobility cultures. A survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries. J. Transp. Geogr. 54, 173–180, (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J. Statistik. für Sozialwissenschaftler. 5th ed. (Springer-Verlag, 1999).

  • Ruhrort, L. Reassessing the role of shared mobility services in a transport transition. Can they contribute the rise of an alternative socio-technical regime of mobility?. Sustainability 12, 8253 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  • König, A., Gebhardt, L., Stark, K. & Schuppan, J. A multi-perspective assessment of the introduction of E-scooter sharing in Germany. Sustainability 14, 2639 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnimhof, T., Buehler, R. & Dargay, J. A new generation. Travel trends for young Germans and Britons. Transp. Res. Rec. 2230, 58–67 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. Paris bans shared e-scooters after a public consultation. Available at (2023).

  • Madrid Metropolitan. Madrid city council to ban E-scooters over safety concerns. Available at (2024).

  • Giddens, A. The consequences of modernity (Polity Press, 1992).

  • Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15, 73–80 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzler, W. & Knie, A. Mobility in the age of digital modernity. Why the private car is losing its significance, intermodal transport is winning and why digitalisation is the key. Appl. Mobilities 1, 56–67 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüdiger, D. Der Erfolg von strengen Regeln für E-Scooter ist messbar. Nahverkehrspraxis 7/8, 24–26 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *