Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions

and Adoption on Campus

Maryna Pobudzei

, Ilona Wichmann

and Silja Hoffmann

Professorship for Intelligent, Multimodal Transportation Systems, University of the Bundeswehr Munich,

Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85577 Neubiberg, Germany

Keywords: Shared Micromobility, Campus Sharing, Bike Sharing, E-Bike Sharing, E-Cargo Bike Sharing, E-Scooter

Sharing, E-Moped Sharing, E-Cabin Scooter Sharing, Micromobility Sharing System, Acceptance, Intention

to Use Shared Micromobility.

Abstract: Prior to implementing a shared micromobility system, it is crucial to carefully consider its design and features.

Through consulting with stakeholders, system designers must determine the types of vehicles to be included

in the shared fleet, which should align with local usage patterns. Additionally, shared micromobility planners

must develop an operational concept that reflects local application scenarios. This study examines attitudes

and opinions towards shared micromobility, as well as usage intentions and purposes for different types of

shared micromobility vehicles such as pedal bikes, e-bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-scooters, e-mopeds, and e-cabin

scooters. Additionally, we investigate preferences for free-floating and station-based shared mobility systems.

This research links these findings to demographic characteristics, attitudes, and travel behavior. The analysis

contributes to the field by understanding perceptions towards shared micromobility, characterizing potential

users and non-users, and identifying preferences for certain operational concepts and types of shared vehicles.

These insights can be used to design and implement a customized and user-centered shared micromobility

system.

1 INTRODUCTION

Shared micromobility (SM) plays an increasingly

important role in urban environments, with their

usage accelerating rapidly since the COVID-19

pandemic (Li et al., 2022; Pobudzei, Sellaouti, et al.,

2022; VEO, 2022; Zhang & Song, 2022). They offer

access to “vehicles with a mass of no more than 350

kg and a design speed no higher than 45 km/h”

(International Transport Forum, 2020). SM providers

distribute their fleets at multiple locations, giving

users the benefit of increased accessibility and more

options to satisfy mobility needs. The offers range

from station-based to free-floating bikes, scooters,

mopeds, and cargo bikes with or without electric

engines (Pobudzei, Wegner, et al., 2022).

There are several reasons why SM might be an

appropriate transportation option in environments

such as university campuses. Firstly, universities are

often remote from the city centers, and public

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3219-9144

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4645-027X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0499-0342

transport rarely serves large-scale campus areas

(McLoughlin et al., 2012). Secondly, there are many

regular inside short-distance trips (Moosavi et al.,

2022; Noor et al., 2021), and most people drive

private cars, even for short distances (Moosavi et al.,

2022; Nobis & Kuhnimhof, 2019; Noor et al., 2021).

Furthermore, many large university campuses are

notorious for parking problems (McLoughlin et al.,

2012; Noor et al., 2021). In these conditions, SM

could create opportunities for trips not previously

possible (Ma et al., 2020), fill transportation gaps (Li

et al., 2022), improve accessibility and connectivity

(D’Acierno et al., 2022) inside and outside the

campus facilities, and reduce the reliance on private

cars (May, 2022).

However, perceptions of shared micromobility

may vary depending on the individual. For example,

some students and staff may see SM as a convenient,

accessible, and fun way to get around, while others

may have concerns about safety and cost. Therefore,

410

Pobudzei, M., Wichmann, I. and Hoffmann, S.

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus.

DOI: 10.5220/0012010300003479

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2023), pages 410-419

ISBN: 978-989-758-652-1; ISSN: 2184-495X

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

to increase the adoption of SM, factors such as

availability, the cost of using the service, and safety

measures need to be considered (Pobudzei, Wegner,

et al., 2022). It is also helpful to provide information

and education about the benefits of SM, such as their

environmental impact and potential to reduce parking

demand on campus.

Before deploying SM, it is necessary to deliberate

its design and features. By consulting the

stakeholders, the system architects need to consider

the kind of vehicles to use in the shared fleet, which

should reflect the local application scenarios.

Furthermore, the SM planners must formulate the

operation concept (free-floating or station-based) and

the service geography, as the vehicles must be easily

approachable and visible to many people (Karbaumer

& Metz, 2021; SWM, 2022). This research addresses

these questions by focusing on perceptions and

adoption intentions of the university campus

population toward a micromobility sharing system. It

explores a) the current use of shared micromobility

and attitudes and opinions toward it, b) the usage

intention and purposes of shared micromobility

modes such as pedal bikes, e-bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-

scooters, e-mopeds, and e-cabin scooters, c) the

preferences toward free-floating and station-based

operation approaches. This study links these

questions with the survey respondents' demographic

characteristics, attitudes, and travel behavior. This

analysis contributes to research by explaining views

towards SM, characterizing its potential users and

non-users, and describing the preferences for certain

operation concepts and shared vehicles. The results of

this research will help inform decision-making

regarding the implementation and operation of local

micromobility sharing systems.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

SM is typical for densely populated urban

environments (Shaheen et al., 2022; Tießler et al.,

2023). Rural areas and smaller towns with fewer

populations are usually excluded from the operation

zones (Friedel, 2021). Users of bike, scooter, or

moped sharing tend to be younger adults, who are

well-educated, have middle and upper income, have

no children, have a lower car ownership rate, and

travel multimodally (Großmüller et al., 2021; Krier et

al., 2019; Pirra & Diana, 2020; Pobudzei, Wegner, et

al., 2022; Reck et al., 2022; Winter et al., 2020).

Regarding micromobility trip purposes, leisure

activities and private errands are the most frequently

mentioned for pedal bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-

mopeds (Aguilera-García et al., 2021; Großmüller et

al., 2021; Krauss et al., 2020; Nobis & Kuhnimhof,

2019). People use pedal bicycles for recreation and

exercise (Ling et al., 2017). On the other hand, e-

bikers tend to ride longer distances and take more

trips during workdays (Ling et al., 2017). Groceries

shopping and transporting larger loads are the most

mentioned trips for cargo bikes (Becker & Rudolf,

2018; Behrensen & Sumer, 2020). In contrast to car

sharing, commonly used in a targeted and planned

manner, shared micromobility modes are rented more

spontaneously and impulsively out of curiosity or for

transport needs (SWM, 2022).

Primary beneficiaries of SM are public transport

users covering the first and (or) last part of their trip

and pedestrians replacing part or all of their journey

(D’Acierno et al., 2022; Tießler et al., 2023). On the

other hand, the ownership of private vehicles might

prevent the use of sharing services (Dorner & Berger,

2019). For example, private car or bicycle owners

continue to confirm their mobility choices, and the

presence of micromobility sharing solutions does not

influence their mobility preferences (D’Acierno et al.,

2022; Großmüller et al., 2021).

Regarding the factors behind the adoption of

electric micromobility, environmental concerns

(Eccarius & Lu, 2020), innovativeness, and belonging

could influence individuals, travel costs, and time

savings (Bretones & Marquet, 2022). Furthermore,

people might use shared mobility if they perceive it

as socially beneficial, contributing to improved

livability, equity of access, improved health, and

diversity of choice (Bretones & Marquet, 2022; Ling

et al., 2017). On the other hand, a perceived lack of

safety and reliability negatively affects micromobility

usage (Bretones & Marquet, 2022; Eccarius & Lu,

2020; Großmüller et al., 2021; Pobudzei, Wegner, et

al., 2022). Additional obstacles are uncertainty about

where to ride and park (Bridge, 2023; SWM, 2022)

and mandatory ownership of a smartphone with

internet access and a credit card (Curl & Fitt, 2019;

SWM, 2022). Furthermore, Großmüller and

colleagues (2021) showed that especially older

persons would not imagine using shared

micromobility even if various criteria improve in the

future.

Some SM projects have already been

implemented at university campuses (Aliari et al.,

2020; Bicicleta Livre, 2021; Block, 2020; Eifling,

2020; Integra UFRJ, 2022; Kuhn et al., 2021;

NABSA, 2022; Quinones et al., 2019; Thornton,

2021; Woodman & Shepherd, 2022). Their entitled

members are the university’s students, academic

staff, and employees. Providers such as Bird, Spin,

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus

411

and Capital Bikeshare report that campus programs

are integral to their business (NABSA, 2022). They

created university-specific teams focused on unique

operating needs and currently operate on multiple

university campuses in the U.S, reporting minimal

marketing needed for their services to be adopted

(NABSA, 2022). In a survey among student riders

(VEO, 2022), 35% of students would have used a car

for their most recent SM trip, and 7% would not have

taken the trip if SM was not available. Comparing the

demand between city sharing programs and campus

use, Aliari and colleagues (2020) showed on-campus

usage proximate to the transit hubs, supporting the

complementary relationship between SM and transit.

Furthermore, institution-internal sharing systems are

more popular and accepted than public SM offers

(Kuhn et al., 2021).

To the best authors’ knowledge, no campus SM

comprises different micromobility modes but offers a

single vehicle type. However, offering various

options can provide greater flexibility and

convenience and attract a broader range of users, as

different micromobility vehicles may be more

suitable for different trips or terrain. On the other

hand, managing a system with multiple vehicle types

may be more expensive and technically complex.

Furthermore, users may need help understanding and

comparing the different options. Ultimately, the

decision to offer multiple SM options will depend on

various factors, including the needs and preferences

of the target user group and the resources available to

manage the system (Pobudzei, Wegner, et al., 2022).

Regarding the operation concept, the preferences

towards station-based or free-floating SM might vary

depending on the context and goals of the program,

the availability and accessibility of the vehicles, and

the overall user experience. Some research suggests

that people prefer free-floating systems for

convenience and flexibility (Kou & Cai, 2021; Liao

& Correia, 2020; Mooney et al., 2019). However,

some studies indicate that people may prefer station-

based systems for reliability (Stellar Market

Research, 2020). Overall, it is essential to consider

the specific context and goals of the program when

deciding whether to implement a station-based or

free-floating SM. This research investigates potential

shared mobility users and their preferences towards

SM vehicle types and operation concepts to inform

the design process for the shared micromobility

system.

3 METHODOLOGY

The University of the Bundeswehr in Munich is on a

140-hectare site in the municipality of Neubiberg, in

the immediate neighborhood of Munich. This is one

of the largest campus universities in Germany.

Approximately 5,300 persons are university

members: 72% are students, 16% are academic staff,

8% are non-academic personnel, and 4% are

professors (UniBw, 2022). The students are military

officers and non-military persons from diverse

German and foreign regions. Most students are

between 20 and 30, live on campus premises, and

have a solid middle income. Other persons working

at the university are paid according to their field of

activity.

A voluntary and anonymous survey in July 2022

targeted the attitudes and previous experiences with

shared mobility. The respondents were asked whether

and how they would use SM if available on campus.

In addition, attitudes (openness to technology, an

affinity for environmental protection), commuting

behavior, structural and personal boundary

conditions, and socio-demographics were considered.

The survey invitation was sent via e-mail to the

university members in Munich. 259 persons filled out

the questionnaire. This population consists of

academic (36.4%) and non-academic (40.6%) staff,

students (12.7%), and professors (10.3%).

Respondents who answered less than 50% of the

questions were excluded from the analysis. In

addition, the categories “I prefer not to answer” or

“Not applicable” were treated as missing values,

affecting the number of valid cases for a particular

indicator.

The collected data is representative of the Munich

city population to some extent (Table 1). 43.6% of the

survey participants were female, which differs only

slightly from Munich. The majority were between 20

and 49 years old. Those under 20 and over 65 were

strongly underrepresented. Most respondents have a

monthly net income of 2,000 to 3,000 euros. Only

27.2% of the Munich population had this income

level. The majority have completed a university

degree. In the urban group, this proportion is 17.3%

lower. On the other hand, the number of households

with minor-aged children and the household size is

similarly distributed in the Munich city population. In

summary, the socio-demographic background of the

survey participants is representative of an urban

population only regarding gender, household size,

and the number of households with minors. Age,

income, and educational attainment differ from the

urban population.

VEHITS 2023 - 9th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

412

Table 1: Sample demographics compared to the Munich

population.

Survey Munich Difference

Female

43.6 50.6 -7.0

Age

< 20

20-34

35-49

50-64

65 <

0.0

43.6

32.7

21.2

1.8

17.1

24.7

22.1

19.0

17.1

-17.1

+18.9

+10.6

+2.2

-15.3

Monthly net

income

, €

< 1k

1k – 2k

2k – 3k

> 3k

2.1

9.8

53.1

35.0

5.9

24.6

27.2

43.3

-3.8

-14.8

+25.9

-8.3

University

degree

73.3 56.0 +17.3

Household

size

> 4

24.3

38.2

15.3

18.8

2.8

26.0

43.0

15.0

12.0

4.0

-1.7

-4.8

+0.3

+6.8

-1.2

Households

with

underage

children

28.6 24.0 +4.6

1) Landeshauptstadt München, 2022;

2) Landeshauptstadt München, 2021.

To explore the relationship between attitudes and

personal characteristics, the actual use of SM,

preferences towards specific micromobility vehicles

in a sharing system, and views on the SM operation

concept, we computed the strength and direction of

the association using bivariate correlations. We used

Spearman’s rank-order correlation (r

) for pairs of

ordinal variables and the point-biserial correlation

) for categorical and ordinal variables. For data

exploration, we chose a significance level of alpha

less or equal to 5 %.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Actual Use of SM

Understanding how shared micromobility (SM) is

used helps planners determine the actual demand,

needs, preferences, and degree of experience among

the population. 46% of the survey respondents have

shared mobility apps on their devices. Among them,

37% are registered users of car sharing (Figure 1).

The (e-)bike is the most popular SM option, with 32%

registered users. In addition, 22% have e-scooter, and

Figure 1: Shared mobility registered users among survey

respondents.

9% have e-moped sharing applications. However, just

because an app is installed on a mobile device does

not necessarily mean the service is used frequently.

For example, only 19% use shared mobility at their

residence, and 31% use it while traveling. In addition,

56% of respondents prefer owning a vehicle instead

of using it on an as-needed basis. On the other hand,

the other 44% do not necessarily want to own a

personal vehicle but need access to mobility. This

suggests that there is a potential market for SM. By

providing convenient, cost-effective, and reliable

options, SM operators can meet the needs of this

segment of the population and potentially reduce the

overall number of personal vehicles on the road.

Table 2 depicts the relationship between attitudes

and personal characteristics and the use of shared

micromobility services. Older people are not prone to

using SM. A moderate negative correlation between

frequent car commuters and those who prefer owning

a vehicle instead of only being able to use it implies

that these groups are not currently using SM

programs. The study found that there is a statistically

significant difference in the usage of shared

micromobility (SM) between males and females, with

males being more likely to use SM than females.

Additionally, individuals who regularly commute via

public transportation, use car sharing and are

considered tech-savvy are more likely to be current

adopters of SM. This suggests that individuals with

prior experience and comfort with public or shared

transportation and technology may have a greater

inclination towards using SM, and may possess the

necessary knowledge to access and utilize SM

options. These findings imply that targeting

marketing and education efforts towards these

demographic groups may increase the likelihood of

successful adoption of SM among these populations.

4.2 Opinions About SM

The opinions about shared micromobility (SM)

identify potential barriers to use and areas for

improvement. For example, if the target population

generally supports SM, this can build momentum and

37%

32%

22%

20%

40%

Car

Sharing

(E-)Bike

Sharing

E-Moped

Sharing

E-Scooter

Sharing

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus

413

support for the program. On the other hand, if the

population is reluctant to use these services, this may

indicate that more work is needed to address concerns

and build an acceptance foundation. For example, SM

can be perceived as prestigious, modern, tech-savvy,

and environmentally friendly transport. If friend

circle use SM services, a person may feel social

pressure to do the same to fit in or be seen as part of

the same social group. In our population, 46% think

their friends already use SM options. 50% consider

SM a prestigious way to move around. 69% see it as

an environmentally friendly transport mode.

Riding SM can be fun, especially with dedicated

bike lanes or micromobility-friendly streets. People

might like to grab a vehicle at a starting point, ride it,

and then leave it at the destination for the next person

to use. This can be a convenient and enjoyable

alternative to driving or public transportation. 56%

stated they consider SM fun. Most of the respondents

(62%) think it is uncomplicated to rent a shared

vehicle. A substantial portion of respondents (85%)

consider SM would allow them to reach destinations

that public transport does not reach. 43% think they

would find SM in their neighborhood if needed.

In many cases, SM services are less expensive

than a car or taxi, especially for short trips. Also, it

can be a faster way to get around, especially in

congested urban areas with heavy traffic. In our

population, only 37% think SM is cost-effective for

frequent use. On the other hand, more than half of the

respondents (55%) think SM would save them time,

and 47% could imagine using it under time pressure.

While SM can be a convenient and popular

transportation option, there might be concerns

regarding visual clutter on the streets, with bikes and

scooters scattered throughout the city. There may also

be safety concerns, as people riding bikes or scooters

may not always follow traffic laws or may not be

visible to other road users. Among our respondents,

the majority (87%) do not think SM disrupts the street

landscape.

Overall, the opinions regarding SM vary, with

some people supporting these services and actively

using them and others somewhat reluctant. Therefore,

it is essential to address issues and concerns that

prevent people from using shared micromobility. This

could include overcoming concerns by keeping the

vehicles well-maintained and reliable and promoting

the environmental benefits of using SM. Another

critical factor is ensuring that the vehicles are

accessible and convenient for all users. This could

involve expanding the service area, increasing the

availability of vehicles, and offering flexible payment

options. It will likely take a combination of

addressing the issues and promoting the benefits of

SM to build a positive image and encourage more

people to use these sharing services.

4.3 Intention to Use SM

We proposed that respondents select which vehicles

they would use in the context of a campus SM. They

could select multiple options among pedal bikes, e-

bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-scooters, e-mopeds, or e-cabin

scooters. 84% picked at least one option. 27% said

they would use shared pedal bikes. E-bikes and e-

cargo-bikes were both selected in 19% of the cases.

E-scooters (17%), e-mopeds (11%), and e-cabin

scooters (8%) followed the chosen options. Travel

purposes for the SM on campus varied (Figure 2).

Shared pedal bikes and e-bikes were mainly selected

for work-related errands, reaching a public transport

stop, and leisure. Some respondents also considered

traveling to work or studies, settling private errands,

or accompanying other persons by shared (e-)bikes.

Work-related, private errands, and shopping were the

use cases for e-cargo bikes, e-mopeds, and e-cabin

scooters. E-scooters were mostly chosen for leisure

and work-related errands.

A closer look into the correlation of the potential

users for micromobility (Table 2) showed that

younger individuals might use shared pedal bikes.

Furthermore, those who do not carry heavy items on

the way to the campus, commute by public transport,

and use bike sharing, would prefer using shared pedal

bikes. There might be several reasons why pedal

bikes were more popular than other micromobility

modes. For example, pedaling a bike can provide a

low-impact cardiovascular workout, which may

appeal to some people. Furthermore, pedal bikes do

not require a driver’s license or any special training

to operate, making them accessible to a broader range

of people.

Potential e-bike usage (Table 2) was associated

with individuals bringing children to daycare or

carrying heavy items on the way to the campus,

suggesting that the extra carrying capacity of e-bikes

may be a factor in their appeal. E-bikes might be an

alternative mode of transportation for short distances

and may be seen as a more convenient option for

some car commuters. Furthermore, current e-scooter

sharing users and frequent e-commerce users are

potential shared e-bike users. This implies that people

already comfortable with shared electric vehicles and

new e-commerce technologies may be more likely to

try shared e-bikes.

The potential utilization of e-cargo bikes (Table

2) was associated with current e-moped sharing

VEHITS 2023 - 9th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

414

Figure 2: Stated travel purpose for shared micromobility (SM).

Table 2: Correlation of SM actual use, intention to use SM, and SM operation concept.

Actual Intention to use SM Operation

Category

Variable

Correlation

user

Pedal

bike

E-bike

E-cargo

bike

E-scooter

E-moped

E-cabin

scooter

Station-

based

Age. r

-0.3*** -0.2*** 0.07 -0.08 -0.16** 0.06 0.09 0.07

Male. r

0.22*** -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.07 -0.03 -0.04 0.02

Campus

Accommodates on campus. r

0 0.07 0.03 -0.08 -0.05 0.04 -0.08 0.13*

Brings children to care/ school. r

-0.02 -0.02 0.2** 0.08 0.07 -0.04 0.09* 0.05

Carries heavy or oversized items

(e.g., purchases).

-0.12 -0.16** 0.13* -0.03 0.1 0.1 0.03 -0.01

Commuting

By car. r

-0.18** 0.01 0.15* -0.16** 0.22*** -0.06 -0.01 0.15*

By public transport. r

0.31*** 0.3*** 0.07 -0.13 0.05 0.06 -0.08 -0.12

By bike. r

0.07 -0.04 -0.2*** 0.16** -0.3*** -0.15** 0 0

On foot. r

0.1 0.01 0.03 0.11 -0.02 0.17** 0.03 -0.12

Signed up for

Car sharing. r

0.4*** 0.09 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.14** 0.2*** -0.09

(E-)bike sharing. r

- 0.23*** 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.05 -0.1

E-moped sharing. r

- 0.06 0.04 0.11* 0.11* 0.26*** 0.01 -0.08

E-scooter sharing. r

- 0.1 0.13* 0.06 0.21*** 0.13* 0.01 -0.13*

Mobility

Is annoyed to wear a helmet. r

0.03 0.08 -0.05 -0.05 0.18** -0.05 0.03 -0.15**

Prefers owning a vehicle instead

of just being able to use it.

-0.2*** -0.17** 0.06 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.09 -0.05

Tries to reduce one's carbon

emissions.

-0.08 -0.11 -0.06 0.2*** -0.07 -0.11 -0.11 0.04

Personal

Laws should be strictly enforced. r

0.04 -0.07 0.05 0.08 0.02 -0.03 0.05 0.17**

Likes to draw attention to

oneself.

0.06 -0.08 0.07 0.02 -0.03 0.15** 0.04 -0.05

Prefers a change to routine. r

0.05 0.07 0.02 -0.14* 0.05 0.15** 0.07 0.05

Technology

Enjoys learning new computer

programs and technologies.

0.15** 0.02 0.02 -0.01 0.1 0.04 -0.02 0.05

Orders goods online rather than

goes to the store.

0.02 0.05 0.24*** -0.09 0.12* -0.04 -0.06 0.03

Pays with a smartphone or

smartwatch.

0.32*** 0.04 0.13* 0.08 0.1 0.04 0.02 -0.07

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus

415

usage, suggesting that this group may be open to

trying new modes of transportation. Selecting shared

e-cargo bikes was related to bike commuters and

environmentally-concerned individuals. This implies

that the environmental benefits of e-cargo bikes may

be appealing to these groups. The potential use of e-

cargo bikes is also connected to individuals who

prefer stable routines over change. This suggests that

these modes may be seen as more reliable and

predictable than other shared e-vehicles. No

significant correlations were found between the

intention to use e-cargo bikes and individuals

transporting children to daycare or carrying heavy

items to the campus, which was the expected usage

scenario.

Younger adults, car commuters, current e-scooter,

e-moped sharing, and e-commerce users were opting

for e-scooters (Table 2) to be an integral part of an

SM system. Interestingly, the rejection of wearing a

helmet correlated with the choice of e-scooters. The

relationship suggests that e-mopeds (Table 2) are a

good alternative for those who walk to campus, as

they might save time and energy, especially for longer

distances. Individuals already comfortable with

shared transportation may be more likely to try shared

e-mopeds. Furthermore, those who prefer change

over routine and like attention were choosing shared

e-mopeds. That implies that e-mopeds appeal to

people looking for something new, exciting, and

different from their usual routine. This could be

particularly true for areas where e-mopeds are not

commonly used. E-cabin scooters (Table 2) were

popular among current car sharing users and those

who need to bring kids to school or daycare. These

vehicles may be an alternative to cars, as they provide

the same comfort and protection as cars but with the

added benefit of being more environmentally

friendly, less expensive, and more maneuverable.

Regarding the operation concept, 60% of the

survey respondents preferred a free-floating over

station-based sharing model. A medium-strong

correlation suggests that individuals residing on

campus prefer the station-based concept (Table 2).

One reason could be that it may be more convenient

for campus residents to access and return vehicles to

designated locations. Another contributing factor

could be the concern for vehicular clutter among

those residing on campus. Furthermore, car

commuters were opting for station-based SM

operation as it could be more reliable and predictable

than the free-floating concept. This could be

particularly true in areas where parking is limited and

finding a parking spot is challenging. The correlation

implies that those who strongly believe in the

importance of laws and regulations may feel more

comfortable with the predictability and structure of a

station-based operation. On the other hand, the free-

floating operation may be preferred by individuals

who already have experience with shared

micromobility as they may see it as a continuation of

the same kind of service and may be more

comfortable with the flexibility it offers.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Introducing a new transportation mode can be

challenging, as it requires changing user behavior.

Understanding the needs and habits of the community

and addressing any concerns or resistance to the new

system is crucial to its success. Collecting and

analyzing data on potential usage patterns and

behavior is essential to optimize the system and adapt

it to the community's needs. This data can be used to

make informed decisions about designing and

improving the system. User intentions are based on

the community characteristics and the adopted

technology. Some people may be more resistant to

change than others, and it may take time to adjust to

the new system. However, with proper marketing and

education campaigns, the changes can be positive and

beneficial to the community.

This study explored the perceptions of shared

micromobility and intention to use modes such as

pedal bikes, e-bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-scooters, e-

mopeds, and e-cabin scooters. It also investigated the

preferences regarding the shared micromobility

operation concept. Assessing the perception and

stance towards shared mobility can give an

understanding of the potential success of a new

system's implementation. Furthermore, it can help

identify potential challenges and opportunities for the

system, which could make it more cost-effective. On

the other hand, if the community has a positive view

of the concept, the chances of a successful

deployment may be increased.

Knowing the preferences for the various forms of

shared micromobility can aid in customizing the

system to suit the community's needs. For example, if

the targeted public is inclined to use specific

micromobility modes, it would be wise to focus on

providing those vehicles. Understanding the

characteristics of both potential users and non-users

also helps identify and address any specific needs,

such as accessibility requirements or safety concerns.

On the other hand, as users become more familiar

with shared micromobility and vehicles not

previously available, they may use it more frequently

VEHITS 2023 - 9th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

416

and for a broader range of trips. Furthermore, as users

get to know the different types of vehicles and their

capabilities, they may start choosing various shared

modes for different types of trips and explore

destinations they previously may not have been aware

of.

This study concentrated on theoretical use, but

comparing it to actual usage data would give a more

precise understanding of how the system is

functioning in reality. This can assist in identifying

any disparities between the projected and actual usage

and make necessary adjustments to enhance the

system's performance. Furthermore, contrasting

theoretical use with actual usage data can assist in

identifying any obstacles to adoption, such as lack of

knowledge or difficulty using the system, and direct

efforts to tackle these issues. To sum up, comparing

the study's theoretical use with actual usage data can

give a more comprehensive understanding of how the

system is being used and guide efforts to improve it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is part of the project MORE – Munich

Mobility Research Campus (MORE, 2023). The

project is funded by dtec.bw – Digitalization and

Technology Research Center of the Bundeswehr.

dtec.bw is funded by the European Union –

NextGenerationEU.

REFERENCES

Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Sobrino, N., & Vinagre

Díaz, J. J. (2021). Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’

Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for

Urban Mobility. Sustainability, 13(12), Article 12.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126886

Aliari, S., Nasri, A., Motalleb Nejad, M., & Haghani, A.

(2020). Toward sustainable travel: An analysis of

campus bikeshare use. Transportation Research

Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6, 100162. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100162

Becker, S., & Rudolf, C. (2018). Exploring the Potential of

Free Cargo-Bikesharing for Sustainable Mobility.

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and

Society, 27(1), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.

14512/gaia.27.1.11

Behrensen, A., & Sumer, A. (2020). European Cargo Bike

Industry Survey. cargobike.jetzt. http://www.

cyclelogistics.eu/market-size

Bicicleta Livre. (2021). Bicibleta L. http://www.

bicicletalivre.unb.br/

Block, J. (2020). Rutgers introduces electric scooters to

campus. The Daily Targum. https://dailytargum.com//

article/2020/09/rutgers-introduces-electric-scooters-to-

campus

Bretones, A., & Marquet, O. (2022). Sociopsychological

factors associated with the adoption and usage of

electric micromobility. A literature review. Transport

Policy, 127, 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.

2022.09.008

Bridge, G. (2023). Perceptions of E-Micromobility

Vehicles Amongst Staff and Students at Universities in

the North of England. Active Travel Studies, 3(1),

Article 1. https://doi.org/10.16997/ats.1164

Curl, A., & Fitt, H. (2019). Attitudes to and use of Electric

Scooters in New Zealand Cities (p. 2545528 Bytes)

[Data set]. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.

FIGSHARE.8056109

D’Acierno, L., Caldoro, L., Pariota, L., Di Costanzo, L.,

Henke, I., & Botte, M. (2022). The Adoption of Micro-

mobility Solutions for Increasing Student Accessibility:

The Case Study of the University of Naples, Italy. 2022

IEEE International Conference on Environment and

Electrical Engineering and 2022 IEEE Industrial and

Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS

Europe), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC/

ICPSEurope54979.2022.9854711

Dorner, F., & Berger, M. (2019). Peer-to-Peer-Lastenrad-

Sharing – Perspektiven verschiedener Zielgruppen. IS

THIS THE REAL WORLD? Perfect Smart Cities vs.

Real Emotional Cities. Proceedings of REAL CORP

2019, 24th International Conference on Urban

Development, Regional Planning and Information

Society, 541–552.

Eccarius, T., & Lu, C.-C. (2020). Adoption intentions for

micro-mobility – Insights from electric scooter sharing

in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport

and Environment, 84

, 102327. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.trd.2020.102327

Eifling, D. (2020). E-Scooter Program Expanded.

University of Arkansas News. https://news.uark.

edu/articles/52562

Friedel, A. (2021). Shared Micro Mobility – A Report on

the Status Quo in Europe and Beyond. Autonomy.

https://www.autonomy.paris/shared-micro-mobility-a-

report-on-the-status-quo-in-europe-and-beyond/

Großmüller, T., Heil, C., Hofmann, A., & Göl, V. (2021).

Datenbasierte Potentialanalyse zur Integration von

Mikromobilität in städtische Verkehrssysteme. chrome-

extension://efaidnbmnnnihttps://www.regensburg.de/f

m/121/forschungsbericht-mikromobilitaet.pdf

Integra UFRJ. (2022). Integra UFRJ. https://play.google.

com/store/apps/details?id=br.com.mobilicidade.integra

ufrj&hl=pt&gl=US

International Transport Forum. (2020). Safe Micromobility

[Text]. OECD/ITF. https://www.itf-oecd.org/safe-

micromobility

Karbaumer, R., & Metz, F. (2021). A Planner’s Guide to

the Shared Mobility Galaxy. SNKI.

Kou, Z., & Cai, H. (2021). Comparing the performance of

different types of bike share systems. Transportation

Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94,

102823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102823

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus

417

Krauss, K., Scherrer, A., Burghard, U., Schuler, J., Burger,

A. M., & Doll, C. (2020). Sharing Economy in der

Mobilität: Potenzielle Nutzung und Akzeptanz geteilter

Mobilitätsdienste in urbanen Räumen in Deutschland

(Working Paper S06/2020). Working Paper

Sustainability and Innovation. https://www.econstor

.eu/handle/10419/215685

Krier, C., Chretien, J., & Louvet, N. (2019). Uses and users

of free-floating e-scooters in France. 6t. https://6-

t.co/en/free-floating-escooters-france/

Kuhn, M., Schwing, M., Mandel, H., & Reit, V. (2021).

Reallabor Mikromobilität: DHBW Drive. https://

www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/forschung-transfer/technik/pro

jekte/reallabor-mikromobilitaet-dhbw-drive/

Landeshauptstadt München. (2021). Bevölkerungsbe

fragung zur Stadtentwicklung 2021: Soziale

Entwicklungen und Lebenssituation der Münchner

Bürger*innen. Referat für Stadtplanung und

Bauordnung.

Landeshauptstadt München. (2022). Statistische Daten zur

Münchner Bevölkerung. https://stadt.muenchen.de/

infos/statistik-bevoelkerung.html

Li, A., Zhao, P., Liu, X., Mansourian, A., Axhausen, K. W.,

& Qu, X. (2022). Comprehensive Comparison of E-

Scooter Sharing Mobility: Evidence from 30 European

Cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and

Environment, 105, 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

trd.2022.103229

Liao, F., & Correia, G. (2020). Electric carsharing and

micromobility: A literature review on their usage

pattern, demand, and potential impacts. International

Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1–30.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1861394

Ling, Z., Cherry, C. R., MacArthur, J. H., & Weinert, J. X.

(2017). Differences of Cycling Experiences and

Perceptions between E-Bike and Bicycle Users in the

United States. Sustainability, 9(9), Article 9.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091662

Ma, X., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2020).

Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: A case

study in Delft, the Netherlands—ScienceDirect.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095

9652620308933

May, T. (2022). Shared Mobility Network Aims to Reduce

Reliance on Private Cars. Future Transport-News.

https://futuretransport-news.com/shared-mobility-

network-aims-to-reduce-reliance-on-private-cars/

McLoughlin, I. V., Narendra, I. K., Koh, L. H., Nguyen, Q.

H., Seshadri, B., Zeng, W., & Yao, C. (2012). Campus

Mobility for the Future: The Electric Bicycle. Journal

of Transportation Technologies, 02(01), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2012.21001

Mooney, S. J., Hosford, K., Howe, B., Yan, A., Winters,

M., Bassok, A., & Hirsch, J. A. (2019). Freedom from

the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike

share. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 91–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.009

Moosavi, S. M. H., Ma, Z., Armaghani, D. J., Aghaabbasi,

M., Ganggayah, M. D., Wah, Y. C., & Ulrikh, D. V.

(2022). Understanding and Predicting the Usage of

Shared Electric Scooter Services on University

Campuses. Applied Sciences, 12

(18), Article 18.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189392

MORE. (2023). MORE – Munich Mobility Research

Campus. https://www.unibw.de/more

NABSA. (2022). Shared Micromobility Partners with

Higher Education to Help Them Move. North American

Bikeshare & Scootershare Association. https://nabsa.

net/2022/02/17/highereducation/

Nobis, C., & Kuhnimhof, T. (2019). Mobilität in

Deutschland—MID Ergebnissbericht.

Noor, R. B., Munir, M. U., Ahmedy, I. B., & Alang, N.

(2021). Promoting Sustainable Transport for University

Campus: Um Share Ride. International Innovation,

Design and Articulation i-IDeA, 1, 334–341.

Pirra, M., & Diana, M. (2020). Stated interest, actual use or

indifference towards car sharing: Profiling students and

staff of a university campus in Turin (Italy). European

Transport/Trasporti Europei, 79(ET.2020), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.48295/ET.2020.79.1

Pobudzei, M., Sellaouti, A., Tießler, M., & Hoffmann, S.

(2022). Riders on the Storm: Exploring Meteorological

and Temporal Impacts on Shared E-Scooters (SES) in

Munich, Germany. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISC

255366.2022.9922429

Pobudzei, M., Wegner, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2022).

Identifying Vehicle Preferences and System

Requirements of Potential Users of Shared Mobility

Systems (SMS). 8th International Conference on

Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

(VEHITS 2022), 13. https://doi.org/10.5220/00110

11600003191

Quinones, R., Marcavitch, A., & Woldu, M. (2019).

VeoRide Bikes and E-scooters Arrive at UMD, City of

College Par. https://transportation.umd.edu/about-

us/updates/veoride-bikes-and-e-scooters-arrive-umd-

city-college-park-2019-08-26

Reck, D. J., Martin, H., & Axhausen, K. W. (2022). Mode

Choice, Substitution Patterns and Environmental

Impacts of Shared and Personal Micro-Mobility.

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and

Environment, 102, 103–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

trd.2021.103134

Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Broader, J. (2022). Shared

Mobility in Low- and High-Income Regions. Volvo

Research & Educational Foundations.

Stellar Market Research. (2020). Germany Bike Sharing

Market: Industry Analysis and Forecast (2021-2027).

https://www.stellarmr.com/report/Germany-Bike-

Sharing-Market/118

SWM. (2022). MoveRegioM: Evaluation MVG Rad im

Umland Ergebnispräsentation.

Thornton, W. (2021, October 29). 300 ebikes now available

on University of Alabama campus. https://www.al.com/

news/tuscaloosa/2021/10/300-ebikes-now-available-on

-university-of-alabama-campus.html

Tießler, M., Pobudzei, M., Sellaouti, A., & Hoffmann, S.

(2023). Electric Scooters and Where to Find Them—A

Spatial Analysis of the Utilization of Shared E-Scooter

in Munich, Germany.

VEHITS 2023 - 9th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

418

UniBw. (2022). Karriere an der Universität der

Bundeswehr München. https://www.unibw.de/karriere

VEO. (2022, May 18). Shifting Modes: Veo’s Rider Survey

Results. Veo. https://www.veoride.com/shifting-

modes-veos-rider-survey-results/

Winter, K., Cats, O., Martens, K., & van Arem, B. (2020).

Identifying user classes for shared and automated

mobility services. European Transport Research

Review, 12(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-

00420-y

Woodman, R., & Shepherd, C. (2022). Innovative

Micromobility Trials on Campus, University of

Warwick. https://www.strath.ac.uk/workwithus/cop26/

innovationshowcase/sustainableworld/innovativemicro

mobilitytrialsoncampus/

Zhang, L., & Song, J. (2022). The periodicity and initial

evolution of micro-mobility systems: A case study of

the docked bike-sharing system in New York City,

USA. European Transport Research Review, 14(1), 27.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-022-00549-y.

Unlocking the Wheel: Insights into Shared Micromobility Perceptions and Adoption on Campus

419