Next Article in Journal
The Development of an Information Technology Architecture for Automated, Agile and Versatile Companies with Ecological and Ethical Guidelines
Next Article in Special Issue
The C2G Framework to Convert Infrastructure Data from Computer-Aided Design (CAD) to Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Previous Article in Journal
Lean ICU Layout Re-Design: A Simulation-Based Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
UTAUT Model for Smart City Concept Implementation: Use of Web Applications by Residents for Everyday Operations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City

1
Transport and Telecommunication Institute, 1 Lomonosov Str., LV1019 Riga, Latvia
2
Baltic International Academy, 4 Lomonosov Str., LV1003 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 18 April 2022 / Accepted: 20 April 2022 / Published: 22 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Building Smart Cities and Infrastructures for a Sustainable Future)

Abstract

:
The contemporary urban environment faces such challenges as overloaded traffic, heavy pollution, and social problems, etc. The concept of the “smart city” allows solving some of these issues. One of the opportunities provided by the smart city is the development of micro-mobility and sharing services; contributing to the optimization of transport flows and decreasing carbon footprints. This study investigates the factors affecting the development of e-scooter sharing services and the attitudes of young urban residents towards using these services. The research applied a PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) analysis performed in SmartPLS3.7 software. The data were collected via focus groups and surveying a population aged 18–35. The authors partially based the research on the UTAUT model (the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology), taking such constructs as “intention to use”, “anxiety”, “attitude toward use”, “effort expectancy”, and “social influence”; they also introduced the new unique variables “internal uncertainty”, “e-scooter design”, “experience”, “perceived safety”, “infrastructure quality”, and “motivation to physical activity”. The main finding of the study was determining that the latent variables attitude towards sharing, anxiety, internal uncertainty, JTBD (jobs to be done), and new way of thinking have a direct or indirect effect on the intention to ride e-scooters in the future and/or to use sharing services. The obtained results permit making recommendations to businesses, municipal authorities, and other stakeholders on developing e-scooter sharing services as a contribution to the advancement of the smart city.

1. Introduction

The time of the COVID-19 pandemic is a time of changes. Many concepts come to life, develop, change, and go away. New phenomena are becoming the center of attention of scholars, society, authorities, and producers. Micro-mobility, not new in its essence, received special attention, due to some specific factors specific to the contemporary global world, which simultaneously disintegrated as a consequence of the pandemic.
Issues of sustainability, traffic planning in big cities, people’s new ways of thinking, and increased requirements towards the urban environment, etc., have become challenges for contemporary cities, and smart city solutions can contribute to solving many of these urban issues. One of the ways of solving these problems is the development of micro-mobility and sharing services within the framework of smart city advances.
Micro-mobility is assumed to be fairly new and innovative modern mode of urban transportation, capable of decreasing trips by private transport (especially first- and last mile trips); improving the ecological situation in the city; introducing a healthier life style, due to the lower emissions from private cars; and increasing the quality of life, due to provision of more mobile, flexible transportation means, which are cost-efficient and easily available; and this is not a full list of the contributions of micro-mobility to the development of a smart city [1,2,3,4].
There are many researches devoted to the various types of micro-mobility, but e-scooters as a means of transportation are a rather new option, and, although, there is research on this type of transportation, nevertheless, there is still a certain lacuna in the vision of the future development of this type of micro-mobility in smart cities.
Therefore, the authors believe this study can contribute to comprehending the factors influencing the development of e-scooter services, including their sharing prospects. This is especially urgent, taking into consideration that people are the most significant part of almost all processes in smart city, and that their attitudes, opinions, way of thinking, education, and experience become the factors allowing the solving of the contemporary tasks of the smart city [5,6,7].
The creation of a smart city requires substantial investments, and understanding the factors impacting the introduction of solutions in life, and further active exploitation of these solutions by citizens, requires serious study of human behavior, otherwise these investments in smart solutions will not be effective and efficient.
The goal of this research was to determine the most significant factors affecting the behavior of consumers regarding the use of e-scooter sharing services
This type of micro mobility is rather new to European cities; it has appeared in active use in Europe only in recent years [8,9], and has attracted a lot of attention.
This issue is of great practical importance for Riga, Latvia. Latvia is a country of the Baltic Sea Region, it belongs to the group of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), and has certain issues requiring special attention in its development. It has a high level of technological advancement [10]; the capital city Riga has the status of a smart city and takes the 96th position in the world list of smart cities, and the 34th place in the European list of smart cities [10,11].
Therefore, the promotion of various types of micro-mobility and sharing services will contribute significantly to further the development of Riga as a smart city.
The local authorities have made significant investments in creating special infrastructure for micro-mobility (EUR 16.5 million in 2021), and the reaction of citizens was rather negative, considering the narrow streets of the city, the general traffic flows, and the habits and behavior patterns of the population [12,13,14,15].
Therefore, the lack of research on the preferences and behavior patterns of the population became substantial problems for the city authorities. Thus, we suggest that this study can make a real contribution to modelling the special infrastructure for micro-mobility in Riga.
The authors did not consider the development of all types of micro-mobility within smart city; we studied only the attitudes of people towards such smart solutions as the introduction of standing e-scooters on the streets of the city, and considered different types usage: using sharing services or ownership.
The authors use the term “e-scooter” as an abbreviated form of “standing e-scooter”, although in many other research works we can find other names for this micro-mobility mode.
The attitude of citizens toward riding e-scooters and using sharing services was investigated with employment of structural equation modeling (SEM). To analyze the data in this study, the authors chose PLC-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) over CB-SEM (covariance based structural equation modeling). Choosing the PLS-SEM type of analysis is explained, first of all, by the fact that this research is oriented toward exploratory purposes, rather than testing already existing theories [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. A more detailed description of PLS-SEM and CB-SEM (covariance based structural equation modeling) analysis is presented in Section 3.2 (Methods: development of the framework of the model and formation of hypotheses).

2. Literature Review

A smart city is a place where traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital and telecommunication technologies, for the benefit of its inhabitants and businesses [10,23,24]. The constituent parts of a smart city include the smart economy, smart people, smart living, smart mobility, smart governance, and smart environment. There are specific challenges to all these areas, and part of these challenges can be reduced and mitigated by micro-mobility [25]. This study reveals the factors, directly and indirectly affecting the intention to use and share micro-mobility; the analysis is done with the employment of PLS-SEM analysis.
Another part of the smart city and smart economy is sharing. According to [26], the sharing economy is known under many names; for example, collaborative economy, collaborative consumption, access economy, platform economy, community-based economy, and so on. A sharing economy results in the better allocation of resources, since underutilized assets are shared, and it contributes to the smart city concept, as well as to sustainability [10,27]. The sharing economy creates common values in many spheres of life [28].
Mobility has changed significantly over time; nowadays it is a new paradigm, which has new approaches to the movement of people and freight, considering these flows, not only from a technical position, but also from the social point of view. This is closely connected with all the new phenomena governing our life: globalization, communication technologies, migration, etc. [29].
Micro-mobility is one of the areas employing the multi-folded concept of mobility. The micro-mobility topic is not very well developed; however, there are many studies investigating the various sides of it. To begin with, there is no strict definition of micro-mobility as an event in urban life. In this research the authors use the following definition: micro-mobility can be defined as trips of short distances, with employment of light and small-sized vehicles. It is assumed that these vehicles are powered by electricity (e-devices) or man power (bikes, kick scooters), and speed does not typically exceed 45 kph. It is a promising solution for transport in urban areas, and oriented toward short-distance and also first and last mile trips [1,25].
The concepts of sharing and micro-mobility can be easily combined. Shared micro-mobility assumes access for short time to this transportation mode on an “as-needed basis” [30]. Shared micro-transport can improve the life of the urban population, increase “environmental awareness” (in this study this indicator is included in a wider concept “new way of thinking”), can contribute to quality of life [30], and, thus, promote the development of the smart city.
Nevertheless, if the city residents do not want to use micro-mobility for riding in the streets, this concept will not be viable. It is very important for all stakeholders to comprehend what factors are taken into consideration by the people when they make a decision to ride or not ride an e-scooter. One of the wide-spread models for determining the attitudes of a population towards technologies is the UTAUT model (the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) [31,32,33,34,35]. This model does not fully correspond to the needs of this research; however, it could serve as a basis for creating a model suitable for this study. Therefore, it was necessary to determine the factors that could be included in the model. The Table 1 below shows which factors impacting micro-mobility were considered by other researchers.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

This research started with a preliminary study aimed at determining the constructs of the model and their indicators. For this purpose, the authors interviewed 13 respondents and used four focus groups of five people and found out the opinions of young residents of Riga (18–35 years old, 22.83 ± 3.83) about using e-scooter sharing services. (The data in this research are presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation).
The participants were people who already had experience in riding an e-scooter (60.87%, n = 14), and people without such experience (39.13%, n = 9). The goal of this study was to determine the factors affecting the decision to share e-scooter services and to develop these services; therefore, the authors were interested in the opinions of both categories of people: those who use e-scooters for trips around the city, and those who do not use them. It should be noted that the respondents who participated in the preliminary study were not involved in the questionnaire, in order not to create a threat to validity due to the testing effect.
The authors developed the constructs for the model (see Section 3.2, describing the model); the constructs were built on the basis of the preliminary research and literature review (see Table 1).
After determining the constructs of the model, the questions for the survey were formulated and the target group of respondents determined. A questionnaire of 42 questions was developed, presupposing the answers according to a 5-point Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) agree; (5) strongly agree [64]. Taking into account the negative attitude of some residents, including the citizens of Riga, towards e-scooters, we used semi-closed questions, oriented toward the opportunity for respondents to express their negative opinion in the “other” field, and not refuse to answer the questionnaire. The target audience of this study was young residents of Riga, aged 18–35 years, since, according to the published data, the main e-scooter users are young people of this age category [65,66].
A test study, based on the answers of 17 respondents, was conducted. This helped to improve the questionnaire, so that all questions and answers were unambiguously and adequately understood by the respondents.
The questionnaire was distributed electronically among the students and the graduates of the universities and colleges in Riga, as well as among young entrepreneurs and employees of several companies. It should be noted that the respondent could not submit an e-questionnaire if there were not answers to all the questions; as a result, only fully completed questionnaires appeared in the database. All the questions were direct. There were no indirect, suggestive, or tendentious questions or answers. This questionnaire does not affect the sensitive aspects of respondents, and the answers to the questions cannot affect their lives. Therefore, the probability of deliberate inaccuracy in the respondents’ answers was very low. In order to minimize possible research errors in the formulation of questions, first, we used simple expressions; second, we focused on similar questionnaires in the published studies by other scholars; and third, we used data from focus groups and then preliminarily tested them.
When 365 questionnaires without missing questions were collected, the process of collection was stopped. As a result, 194 (53.15%) male and 171 (46.85%) female respondents aged 18–35 years participated in this study, the average age with standard deviation was 27.35 ± 3.79 years.
Next, the process of analyzing the interrelation started. According to the hypotheses, the study involved the analysis of 21 relationships. The “ten times rule” [67], an inaccurate and criticized, but simple, method for determining a sample size, says that in such a study 210 valid surveys are needed for representativeness, which is less than the samples obtained. A much larger number of answers were collected, so that there was an opportunity to explore non-intended relationships.

3.2. Development of the Framework of the Model and Formation of Hypotheses

The scholars mainly used two approaches to structural equation modeling (SEM) for simultaneous analysis of several statistical relationships: partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) [17,68,69].
SEM is used to investigate relationships between latent constructs (latent variable), consisting of measurable observable variables (indicators), and tested on reliability [17,68,69,70]. CB-SEM refers to the common factor-based SEM method; it considers constructs as common factors [69]. CB-SEM is usually used to verify and confirm an already existing theory, when it is necessary to investigate the conformity of the model and the correctness of the choice of factors. PLS refers to the composite-based SEM method, where a linear combination of indicators is used for composite variables [69].
PLS-SEM is a technique that allows a good causal-predictive analysis and explaining the variance in the independent constructs [68,69]. PLS-SEM combines a regression-based path analysis and analysis of the most important components [71] and permits forecasting the behavior of a peculiar construct [72]. In addition, this technique is applicable for specifying the mediating and moderating effects, and showing direct and indirect relationships [70]. In general, this method is preferred by many scholars working in innovative areas [18,73,74].
In cases where a researcher is interested in developing a theory, constructing explanations, and forecasting the indicator’s behavior, PLS-SEM is more suitable. In general, this method is preferred by many scholars working in innovative areas [18,73,74].
The PLS-SEM method considers an inner and outer model. The inner model refers to the relationships between independent and dependent latent variables, while the outer model considers the relationships between the latent variables and their observed indicators. Latent variables are the variables that are not directly measured; they are commonly called constructs.
When determining the model constructs that could potentially have implications for ES sharing, we focused on the research conducted by the author and on the components of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [30,31,32,34,35].
The UTAUT principle, especially its extended version, is a method well suited for various fields [31,75], including micro-mobility; for example, bicycle sharing [76]. As a result, we came to the conclusion that e-scooter sharing (the Sharing construct) can be defined by the following groups of constructs:
  • Attitude towards e-scooter sharing (attitude towards sharing, Att),
  • In general, the intention to use the ES in the future (intention to use in future, Int),
  • Fear of using the e-scooter (anxiety, Anx),
  • Internal uncertainty regarding movement on micro-transport and the e-scooter (internal uncertainty, IU),
  • Having experience in e-scooter riding (experience, Exp),
  • The users’ demand for the functions performed by the e-scooter (jobs to be done, JTBD),
  • Attitude towards the safety of this type of transport, (perceived safety, PSaf),
  • Quality characteristics of the roads (infrastructure quality, Infr),
  • Effort expectation (EE),
  • e-scooter design features (design, Des),
  • New way of thinking (NEW),
  • Social influence (SI),
  • An active and healthy lifestyle, and the use of an e-scooter to implement it (activity, Act).
The corresponding indicators were identified for each construct (see Table A2 in the Appendix A). Based on the identified constructs, the framework of the theoretical model was formed, and the research hypotheses were developed. The theoretical model describes the causal relationships, assessing the influence of various factors for the intention and use of sharing.
The attitude of consumers towards the sharing and the intention to use something in the future, according to the theory [30,31,32,34,35] can have a significant impact on its use. This assumption became the basis for H1 and H2:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
In general, the intention to use the e-scooter in the future (intention of future use, Int) has a direct positive impact on the use of sharing for various purposes.
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
A positive attitude towards e-scooter sharing (attitude towards sharing, Att) has a direct positive impact on the use of sharing for various purposes.
The use of any vehicle is often associated with anxiety. It is very important to understand which factors prevent citizens from using e-scooters. Therefore, the model estimates the impact of anxiety on the constructs intention of future use and sharing (H3):
Hypothesis 3 (H3a,b):
Consumer’s anxiety (Anx) directly negatively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
As a result of the interviews and focus groups, it became clear that the anxiety construct, and exactly the components used to describe it, can be influenced by the users’ internal uncertainty, which consists of uncertainty about driving any kind of vehicle, denial of micro transport (e-scooter), and lack of riding skills (see the hypothesis):
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
Personal internal uncertainty (IU) has a direct and positive impact on anxiety about use.
One of the significant factors for the intention to ride e-scooters and use sharing services may be the preliminary experience of the consumer. Therefore, the corresponding hypotheses were formulated.
Hypothesis 5 (H5a,b):
The preliminary experience (Exp) in using e-scooters directly and positively influences the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
For the development of micro-mobility in the city, it is necessary to know what can prevent it. One of the significant barriers may be road conditions, such as road quality, infrastructure, etc. This fact explains the inclusion of the following hypotheses in the study:
Hypothesis 6 (H6a,b):
Infrastructure quality (Infr) is significant for the consumer and has a direct and positive impact on the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
From the point of view of one of the modern concepts of consumer behavior “jobs to be done (JTBD)”, a product is “hired” to do a certain work. People “hire” a product or service to do the work, in order to satisfy the need for the product or service and to perform the work that the consumer needs. According to our assumption, the interest of residents in doing the “work” that an e-scooter can perform should positively influence the attitude towards sharing, as well as an intention to use e-scooter and to use sharing services. Therefore, the following hypotheses were set:
Hypothesis 7 (H7a,b):
The functions of e-scooters (JTBD), interesting for residents, directly and positively influence the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
The JTBD construct in relation to e-scooters can be influenced by the opinion of consumers about the level of perceived safety of the e-scooter for all road users: the perceived safety. There is also a possibility that perceived safety may influence the intention to use e-scooters and to use sharing services. To test this assumption, a hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 8 (H8):
The opinion of consumers about the high level of perceived safety (PSaf) of the e-scooter for all road users has a direct positive effect on the JTBD construct in relation to the e-scooter.
The attitude of people towards the difficulty of training to ride and then using an e-scooter, i.e., effort expectancy, can affect many other components of the model. However, first of all, this should be expected regarding the intention to use an e-scooter, attitude towards sharing, and sharing constructs. The level of effort expectancy is estimated conversely, the less effort it takes to master and use e-scooter, the higher the effort expectancy is [34]. Therefore, in this connection, the corresponding hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 9 (H9a,b):
Effort Expectancy (EE) directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
The design of an e-scooter has both advantages and disadvantages for the user. For the development of urban micro-mobility, the e-scooter must meet the needs of the user, in order to perform the expected JTBD, and the design should facilitate this and not make this job more difficult.
Therefore, a hypothesis, evaluating the design features of e-scooters that are the most important for consumers was included in the study:
Hypothesis 10 (H10a,b):
The design (Des) features of the scooter directly affect the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
The authors included in the survey questions indicating a “new way of thinking”. Some scholars associate the development of micro-mobility with a more responsible attitude of people to the environmental issues and the formation of more favorable environment. This may be due to the desire of residents to participate in the preservation of the environment; for example, by reducing personal use of vehicles with an internal combustion engine, and reducing the traffic load in the city. In addition, the influence of the new way of thinking on the use of e-scooters, most likely, may depend on a person’s attitude to the role of the residents and e-scooters in solving such issues. As a result, the following hypotheses were set:
Hypothesis 11 (H11a,b):
The new way of thinking (NWT) directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
One of the components of UTAUT is social influence. It refers to personal estimates of the attitude of close and significant people, and society as a whole, to riding e-scooters and using a sharing service [33]. Since, the use of the e-scooter is ambiguously perceived by society, we considered it to be very important to find out how much social influence can affect the intention to use e-scooters and to use the sharing service. The following hypotheses were put forward:
Hypothesis 12 (H12a,b):
The personal opinion on the positive attitude of society to the use of e-scooter (social influence, SI) directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
Scooters are often used for sports, maintaining physical activity, and health. In this regard, we tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 13 (H13a,b):
Motivation to maintain physical activity and health (activity, Act.) directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).
In addition, during the oral surveys, different attitudes towards the use of e-scooter were observed among men and women. Therefore, the influence of gender as a modifier on internal models was tested with PLS-SEM.
These hypotheses were set within the frameworks of the proposed research conceptual model (see Figure 1).

3.3. Software and Statistical Analysis

Statistical data were processed using software the MS Excel 2010 and Statistica 8.0. StatSoft. Inc.
The calculations for the partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were done using the software 3.3.7. Smart PLS.
The threshold level of statistical significance α was taken as the value of the criterion p < 0.05.
For p, the values of which in SmartPLS were 0.0000, we used the following method of presentation: p < 0.001 [77].
The data in this research are presented in the form “mean ± standard deviation”.

3.4. Estimation of Model in SmartPLS Software

The PLS-SEM analysis in SmartPLS was carried out in three stages:
(1) Outer model or construct validity was evaluated. The analysis comprised testing the reliability and validity of the model, including the investigation of indicators loadings for the theoretically determined constructs. In addition, the number of iterations required by SmartPLS® to complete the evaluation was determined.
(2) The inner model (structural model) evaluated the relationships between the constructs. This was done using coefficient of determination (R2), standardized path coefficients (β), and their significance level (p), as well as effect size (f2) and predictive relevance (Q2).
(3) A general assessment of the model (overall model assessment) was carried out, to check how well it corresponded to the data. In SmartPLS, this can be done using SRM, exact fit criteria d_LS and d_G, FI and RMS_theta.
Table 2 reflects all the criteria used and their limit values in the PLS-SEM analysis at all stages.

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary Research

The interviews with e-scooter users and focus groups resulted in a comprehension of the main reasons for their use and non-use, as well as the possible JTBD of e-scooters and barriers to their sharing. The details of the preliminary research are not presented in this article, since they were only important for the compilation of the survey questions and formed the basis for its development. For example, a list of purposes for using the e-scooter sharing service was compiled; despite the fact that the question was semi-closed, there were no additional answers from the respondents. Only 17.81% (n = 130, 95% CI 15.03–20.58%) of young residents of Riga would never take advantage of using an e-scooter sharing service. Considering only these respondents who do not have the intention to use e-scooter sharing services, only 76.92% (95% CI 73.87–79.98%) of them do not plan to use an e-scooter in the future. It should be noted that 50.68% of all respondents had experience in using e-scooters (n = 370, 95% CI 47.06–54.31%). We should emphasize, that there were no significant gender differences in the experience of using e-scooters in the study sample: 53.85% male and 47.06% female respondents had experience of riding e-scooters (see Figure 2 in the text and Table A1 in the Appendix A).
Most often, an e-scooter sharing service is used for entertainment (53.42%, n = 390, 95% CI 49.81–57.04%), more rarerly for various short trips (42.47%, n = 310, 95% CI 38.88–46.05%), while, 39.73% (n = 290, 95% CI 36.18–43.28%) of respondents generally used it when they go to another city and while traveling. E-scooters sharing services are largely not used for sports and maintaining physical activity (2.05%, n = 15, 95% CI 1.03–3.08%). The latter is most likely due to the fact that user’s own rather than shared e-scooters are used for such purposes. This is the reason why the Hypothesis 13 was not tested after the preliminary research.
The data used for constructing Figure 2 are presented in Table A1 in Appendix A.
According to the media, scientific literature, and our preliminary surveys, there is no unambiguous attitude to the use of e-scooters [37,43,59].
The attitude of society towards this issue can significantly influence the development of micro-mobility. The question is whether society is ready for legislative regulation. The survey showed that 67.12% (n = 490, 95% CI 63.72–70.53%) of young residents of Riga believe that the active use of e-scooters in the city needs legislative regulation. Moreover, the attitude to this issue among those who had experience in riding an e-scooter does not differ from all respondents, they were 67.57% (n = 250, 95% CI 64.17–70.96%).
The respondents who had experience in using e-scooters believed that their insufficient safety can serve as a barrier to the use of e-scooters (45.95%, n = 170, 95% CI 42.33–49.56%).
Thus, a paradoxical situation is observed. On the one hand, the vast majority of young residents who do not have experience in riding an e-scooter want to use an e-scooter sharing service. On the other hand, many people consider this type of transport unsafe; the use of which needs legislative regulation. In many cities this type of micro-mobility is increasingly being developed, despite some rejection from society and the lack of proper regulation. The necessity to take into account the interests and fears of the young urban population (exemplified by Riga city residents) serves as an argument for the relevance and topicality of the presented research.

4.2. Outer Model Evaluation—Construct Validity

The model in SmartPLS software was constructed based on the relations demonstrated by the set hypotheses. As a result of the implementation of PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 3.7, first of all, the indicators of latent variables with loadings >0.60 were selected, since such a boundary value is permissible for exploratory research [82] (see Table 2). This boundary value was less than the recommended 0.70, but we settled on such a boundary value because this study is an exploratory one, and the important task was not to build a predictive model, but to identify the indicators that are significant for the studied constructs and would ultimately allow understanding the factors that can influence the development of e-scooter sharing services. This is important from the point of view of practical recommendations for business and municipal authorities related to micro-mobility and other stakeholders. In addition, according to the recommendation of [82,93], indicators with external loadings from 0.40 to 0.70 should be removed only if their removal leads to an increase in the overall reliability and AVE above the proposed threshold value. When analyzing the model, we took into account that low loadings can be the result of (1) a poorly formulated element, (2) an unsuitable element, or (3) an incorrect transfer of an element from one context to another [94]. The second reason was solved by removing the “unnecessary components”. However, solving the problem of poorly formed elements will be the task of future studies. In the future, it will be necessary to improve the indicators of such constructs as design, infrastructure quality, new way of thinking, internal uncertainty, and social influence.
It should be noted, that the authors developed two models. Model 1 was the actual model which we used for exploratory purposes and for preparing the recommendations for the stakeholders of e-scooter sharing services. The second model was constructed as a statistically ideal model from the point of view of the overall model assessment (standardized root mean square residual—SRMR, see Table 2), corresponding to all parameters of PLS SEM. Model 2 has significantly fewer indicators and was only constructed to check the ideal statistical parameters. All further results, recommendations, and discussion refer to Model 1 only. The details of Model 1 and Model 2 are shown in Table A2 in Appendix A.
Presenting Model 1, the authors determined the indicators with appropriate loadings for each construct.
  • Anxiety (Anx) includes: Lack of confidence on the road (indicator loading—IL = 0.762), Possibility of emergency situations (IL = 0.740), Poor knowledge of traffic rules (IL = 0.727);
  • Design (Des) comprises: Inability to transport things (IL = 0.874) and Fear of lack of charge (IL = 0.659);
  • Experience (Exp) has only one indicator: Experience in using an e-scooter;
  • Attitude towards sharing (Att) encompases the indicators: It is always better to use sharing services (IL = 0.947); and It is more convenient to use sharing services (IL = 0.915);
  • Intention of future use (Int)→has only one indicator: Intention to use the e-scooter in the future (IL = 1.000);
  • Infrastructure Quality (Infr)→includes: Poor quality of road (IL = 0.864), Dirt on the roads (IL = 0.712), Poor infrastructure (availability of parking lots, availability of charging places, existance of special road lines for micro-mobility, etc.) (IL = 0.620);
  • Effort Expectancy (EE) encompasses: E-scooters are easy to use (IL = 0.999), It is easy to learn how to ride an e-scooter (0.889);
  • Social Influence (SI) includes: Positive assessment of the society (IL = 0.647); and Irritates city rezidents (IL = 0.912) (the scale data were inverted);
  • New Way of Thinking (NWT) is made up of: Specialists of the future should have a new mindset focused on lean manufacturing, resource conservation, environmental thinking, and a systematic approach (IL = 0.9400); A company benefits from the transition to the use of electric transport (IL = 0.633), Each member of society should contribute to reducing the transport load of the city (IL = 0.651);
  • JTBD comprises: Speed of movement (IL = 0.851); Route optimization (IL = 0.782); Replacement of public transport at certain distances (IL = 0.753); Taxi replacement at certain distances (0.731); and Car replacement at certain distances (IL = 0.610);
  • Perceived Safety (PSaf) includes: E-scooter is safe for pedestrians (IL = 0.927); E-scooter is safe for scooter drivers (IL = 0.920);
  • Sharing (Sh) is made up of one indicator: Using sharing service for any purpose;
  • Internal Uncertainty (IU) consists of: Uncertainty about driving any vehicles (IL = 0.918); and Negative attitude towards this type of transport (IL = 0.685).
The values of the criteria for outer model evaluation (construct validity), namely composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and predictive relevance with omission distance (Q2), were within the required boundaries (see Table 3), which are specified in Table 2. All constructs demonstrated high reliability values for internal consistency. The considered variables really reflected the latent constructs intended for measurement: composite reliability was >0.7 and thee average variance extracted >0.50. It should be noted that for PLC-SM, it is preferable to use composite reliability rather than Cronbach’s alpha [95].
The evaluation of discriminant validity is considered mandatory for outer model estimation, and it indicates the difference between the constructs within the model. Two common methods are used to evaluate the discriminatory validity in PLS SEM: the Fornell–Larcker criterion, and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT).
The Fornell–Larcker criterion dominates for evaluating the discriminant validity in PLS-SEM. It should be noted that the Fornell–Larcker criterion is considered to be less powerful, error-prone, and ineffective under certain circumstances [78,96]. The Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) method is a stricter criterion [88]. Moreover, Hair et al. [78] recommended not relying on the Fornell–Larcker method, because of its exaggerations when detecting discriminant validity, but to use HTMT [67]. However, in order to evaluate the discriminant validity, it is also suggested to take into account the model setting and the degree of the researcher’s conservatism in evaluating the discriminant validity [97]. The obtained results fully met the Fornell–Larcker criterion: cross-loads showed that each indicator had the highest loads in the construct that it was originally supposed to measure (see Table A3 in Appendix A). Nevertheless, not all latent variables met the HTML criterion (see Table A4 in Appendix A). A lack of discriminant validity was observed between anxiety and internal uncertainty, design and infrastructure quality, and internal uncertainty and new way of thinking and social influence. This situation might be due to the lack of accuracy in determining the components of these variables. We suggest that the reason for these constructs showing a high level of similarity should be considered in further studies.
However, for our exploratory research, the most important thing was to identify the indicators of latent variables, in order to consider the possibilities of their use in the real practice of smart city management and business development. Therefore, if the indicators showed good significance in the model, according to criteria other than HTMT, we considered it possible to focus on them when elaborating recommendations for the development of urban micro-mobility.
For a more complete exploration, we “cleaned” the constructs, so that the HTMT and the approximate fit indices SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) [98] discrimination indicators improved. After this procedure, when discriminating by HTML, there remained one value >0.90 at the intersection of the design and infrastructure constructor. HTMT evaluates the similarity between the constructs of the model. The design construct was determined by the importance for users of “The impossibility of transporting things on an e-scooter” and “Fear of lack of charge on an e-scooter”, while the infrastructure construct considers “Poor quality of roads” and “Dirt on the roads”.
The constructs obtained from these indicators might be similar digitally, but not in meaning, since they reflect completely different categories: the first is the structure of the scooter, and the second is the condition of the road. Multiple regression was used to analyze the similarity between these latent variables. There is a statistically significant relationship between the standardized latent variables design and infrastructure: Spearman rank order correlations 0.45, p < 0.001 and the adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted R-squared), which evaluates the quality of the model fit, was only 0.18 (p < 0.001). This means that only 18% of the variance of one variable is explained by the variance of another, whereas when placing actually related indicators in different constructs (for example, in one “replacement of public transport” and “speed of movement”, and in the other “taxi replacement” and “route optimization”) the Spearman rank order correlation was 0.71, p < 0.001 and, accordingly, the adjusted coefficient of determination was 0.49 (p < 0.001).
The question is whether it is possible, under these circumstances, to consider the similarity of the design and infrastructure constructs as valid and true, or whether it is explained by behavioral determinants that form a certain style of behavior and attitudes towards the various issues. Most likely, it is for this reason that in some cases latent variables may be similar, but at the same time they cannot replace each other, since they characterize different areas of interest and do not create a superabundance. It is also worth mentioning here that some authors reported that PLS-SEM does not cope well with the multicollinearity problem [21].

4.3. Inner Model Evaluation (Structural Model)—Testing the Hypotheses

The inner model describes the relationships between constructs using coefficient of determination (R2), standardized path coefficients (β), and their significance level (p), as well as effect size (f2) and predictive relevance (Q2). The analysis stopped after three iterations, which is less than the permissible 10 iterations [67,79].
As has been mentioned, first, we investigated the model using the relationships specified in the framework of the model (see Figure 1). Then, in the course of improving the model and determining a more significant design for sharing, other relationships between latent variables were considered. Therefore, effort expectation, JTBD, perceived safety, and new way of thinking found more optimal relations, which was not provided in the framework of the model (Figure 3).
In the present study, the R2 and Q2 values for the constructs “intention of future use” and “sharing”, as the target variables of the model, were of the greatest interest. The latent variables of the model explained about 42.1 ± 0.93% of the differences in the intentions of Riga residents to use e-scooters for any purpose and 70.3 ± 0.071% in the intentions to use the e-scooter sharing services. This is a fairly high level of R2, which indicates that this study identified the main variables that can be used in the development of e-scooter sharing services in Riga and, most likely, in cities similar in size and infrastructure.
Only three of nine hypotheses about the direct connection of intention of future use with other variables were confirmed (see Table 4). At the same time, the greatest overall and negative effect on intention of future use was observed from anxiety (β: −0.467 ± 0.092, p < 0.001), the value of which, in turn, significantly depended on the internal uncertainty (β: 0.606 ± 0.090, p < 0.001) and to a small extent from the effort expectation (β: −0.174 ± 0.103, p =0.017). Moreover, JTBD (β: 0.244 ± 0.086, p = 0.002), design (β: 0.165 ± 0.098, p = 0.047), and experience (β: 0.248 ± 0.098, p = 0.006) had insignificant direct positive effects on the intention of future use.
Five hypotheses of the 10 hypotheses about the direct effects of latent variables on sharing were confirmed (see Table 4). Individually, the variables demonstrated not very strong, but statistically significant, positive effects: intention of future use (β: 0.270 ± 0.074, p < 0.001), design (β: 0.388 ± 0.109, p < 0.001), attitude towards sharing (β: 0.331 ± 0.071, p < 0.001), infrastructure quality (β: 0.166 ± 0.090, p = 0.032), and social influence (β: 0.221 ± 0.083, p = 0.004).
For the purpose of developing in the city the micro-mobility connected with e-scooters, it is important to understand all the factors that influence the intention to use e-scooters in the future and to use sharing services. Therefore, variables that have an indirect statistically significant relationship with the intention of future use and sharing should not be overlooked. Indirect general effects were insignificant and associated with the variables perceived safety (β: 0.154 ± 0.054, p = 0.005) and internal uncertainty (β: −0.283 ± 0.072, p < 0.001) (see Table A5 in the Appendix A).
Indirect relations help to understand the importance of taking into account the studied variables and their indicators in the development of e-scooter sharing services. For example, despite the strong effect of perceived safety with effort expectation and JTBD, the total indirect effects perceived safety on sharing turned out to be statistically insignificant (see Table A5 in Appendix A). At the same time, variables such as effort expectation, new way of thinking, experience, internal uncertainty, and anxiety had a weak, but statistically significant, effect on sharing, mediated by other variables (see Table A5 in the Appendix A). All these variables, together, form a significant influence on sharing, which is expressed by the coefficient of determination R2 of 70.3%.
In the process of selecting the variables for constructing the model, we turned to the concept “jobs to be done” (JTBD). In accordance with this concept [99,100], the respondents in the course of oral surveying were asked what kind of “work” the e-scooter can perform for them and what kind of “work” they would like to receive from the e-scooter. As a result of the literature analysis, e.g., [37,43,53,59], etc., (see Table 1), and the authors’ research, such “works” as speed of movement, route optimization, and replacement of public transport at certain distances, etc., were included in the questionnaire (see Table A2 in the Appendix A). The indicators “ability to plan time better” and “saving money” had low indicator loads and were removed from the latent variable JTBD. This variable had no significant effect on sharing (see Table 5); however, it had a positive effect on the intention to use the e-scooter (β: 0.244 ± 0.08, p = 0.002), and a negative effect on attitude towards sharing (β: −0.326 ± 0.118, p = 0.003) (see Table 5).
The assessment of the moderating effect of gender on all relationships revealed only one significant effect: a slight negative effect on the relationship attitude towards sharing and sharing (β: −0.242 ± 0.074, p < 0.001). The meaning of this influence can be understood from the simple slope analysis (see Figure 4). As follows from the angle of the slope of the straight curves “M” and “F” for male respondents, there was a high dependence between these variables, whereas for female respondents this dependence was practically absent. According to other studies, women are less interested in using e-scooter sharing services than men [39]. However, the other studies did not observe gender differences in this issue [101].

4.4. Hypotheses Testing Results

After estimating the outer and inner models, some hypotheses were rejected and some of them were supported. The obtained results are presented in Table 4.

4.5. Overall Model Assessment

A PLS SEM analysis cannot be considered complete without an overall model assessment. Unfortunately, this estimate turned out to be not very good; the result of standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) was 0.133, while the required value is <0.080. However, this value is not so bad as to not take into account the results obtained during this exploration. Moreover, after radical “cleaning” of the variables from indicators with a load of <0.7 (see Table A2 in Appendix A, Model 2), SRMR approached the recommended limit and became 0.086.
All these facts allow us to consider the task completed and the conducted exploration as quite successful, with some limitations and an understanding of further research directions. Therefore, in the discussion section we will discuss some opportunities for the development of e-scooter sharing services in the city.

5. Discussion

The contemporary urban environment faces new challenges and has to solve issues connected to the traffic, pollution, organization of human activities, and so on. Part of these challenges can be solved via smart city development.
One of the smart city components is smart people. Attitudes of city residents towards various issues are very important for smart city implementation at all levels. The behavior of the population is widely discussed in many research works, for example, Ref. [102] discuss the acceptance of web applications and readiness to use them for everyday operations in a smart city. This is substantial for another feature of the smart city: the development of the idea of exchanging the ownership concept for a sharing concept, which should contribute to better allocation of resources, a better ecological situation, and a more comfortable way of living for urban populations. The concept of sharing has pros and cons [9], but the discussion of advantages and disadvantages of sharing is beyond the framework of this article. The authors consider in this article sharing services as a part of the smart economy, which is a constituent part of the smart city and partially determined by smart people. Another activity discussed within the smart city concept is micro-mobility, which is suggested as a partial solution to the traffic problems in the urban environment. Therefore, the authors focused their research on these two elements of the Smart City and considered the factors impacting the development of micro-mobility (namely, standing e-scooters) and e-scooter sharing services in Riga, Latvia.
As the analysis shows, e-scooters are a very attractive mode of transport in urban environments, and their importance is expected to grow.
Taking into account the obtained results regarding the relationship of the sharing construct with other variables, it is possible to make assumptions about the changes, which might affect the development of e-scooter sharing, the content of these changes, and how they can be adopted in society.
Not only the sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of e-scooter are the stakeholders of the development of micro-mobility in general, and e-scooters in particular, but also municipal authorities; micro-mobility can be developed due to sharing services, or due to various forms of ownership. Municipal authorities may be especially interested in improving legislation, taking into account the interests of all parties: residents, car owners, and e-scooters riders. They can create an infrastructure favorable for the traffic of all involved parties (pedestrians, car-drivers, e-scooter-riders, bike-riders, etc.); authorities can contribute to the improvement of the environmental situation and to the advancement of a smart city, due to the development of micro-mobility. Moreover, the concept of the smart city presupposes that the active and smart participation of local authorities can greatly contribute to its development.
One of the difficult issues in the development of urban micro-mobility, and e-scooters in particular, is the creation of safe conditions for the use of such transport [53]. A safe living environment is one of the most important tasks within a smart city. The inability to solve safety problems with e-scooters leads to strict regulation of their use [103,104]. For example, in Singapore and in France [105], it is forbidden to ride an e-scooter on the sidewalks, in the Netherlands there are many restrictions on riding e-scooters [106], in London it is permitted to use privately owned e-scooters only on private property, and not on public roads, bike paths, or sidewalks [107]. In many countries there are speed limits for e-scooters, tests conducted on the various forms of using e-scooters, and the development of corresponding laws and regulations [108,109]. The effectiveness of the introduction of laws depends on the attitude of the population towards them; on how much the laws are demanded by and approved by the society. According to our research, the young residents of Riga agree that the active use of e-scooters in the city needs legislative regulation and that it is necessary to improve safety, the absence of which can serve as a barrier to the use of e-scooters.
The use of e-scooters, as well as other vehicles, may be hindered by a sense of anxiety. Therefore, special attention should be focused on this negative effect of anxiety, which in this study was determined by such indicators as lack of confidence on the road, the possibility of accidents, and poor knowledge of traffic rules. Fear caused by these factors can serve as a serious barrier to the development of micro-mobility. On the one hand, we can say that a person should solve such problems for himself. However, on the other hand, solving such problems with the help of the municipality and businesses interested in developing the use of ES, can contribute not only to the activation of micro-transport traffic in the city, but also become a strong marketing factor. It is possible to reduce uncertainty and the fear of self-use of vehicles only with the help of appropriate training programs. Training, offered in various offline and online forms, will involve consumers in the process of developing micro-mobility, increasing the joint consumer value in relation to micro-transport. The importance of improving the knowledge and experience of riding e-scooters for the development of sharing services is confirmed by the fact that the experience variable has a positive effect both on the intention to use the e-scooter for various purposes and on their sharing. More frequent practice reduces feelings of anxiety about the use of e-scooters [37]. In addition, there is an opinion that sufficient safety propaganda on social networks can contribute to the decrease of unsafe driving practices without protective equipment [57]. It should be borne in mind that female riders might need to practice riding more than men; it could help them to cope with feelings of anxiety due to a feeling of disequilibrium or anxiety about falling [37]. In general, the components of a smart city (living and people) suggest attention towards the creation of conditions for self-development of the people for convenient and safe living, and these initiatives will contribute to the development of the smart city.
One of the possible problems of the active use of e-scooters, according to the interviewed young people, is the design features of the e-scooter, which does not allow carrying the necessary things and feeling safe about the battery charge. The same problem has been discussed in the same context in other studies [53,59]. The first can be solved by proposals for legalized tuning or the proposal of new e-scooter designs. The solution to the second issue is most likely impossible without the municipality; that is, the widespread development of places for fast charging of batteries (not only at gas stations, but also, for example, at points of sharing and in catering places). This is also part of the infrastructure of a smart city, and its development will advance the development of the smart city.
To build an exploratory model, we used the theory of jobs to be done (JTBD), which represents the progress of scientific research dating back to the 1950s with the development of the theory of expected value in cognitive psychology [106], which is unfairly ignored by many researchers. According to the JTBD concept, goods and services should be considered in terms of the work that the client requires and that can be implemented with the help of these goods and services [110,111,112,113]. If the product does a good job, then there is a high probability that it will be hired in future. If a product does a “trashy” job, it is “fired” and replaced with an alternative one [113]. The customers do not just buy goods or services, they involve them in their lives, in order to make “personal progress” [114]. That is why the consideration of e-scooter sharing, from the point of view of JTBD seems very promising. After all, an e-scooter is not just a means of transportation, an e-scooter participates in the formation of a certain lifestyle, based not only on maintaining physical health, but also on a more environmentally friendly new way of thinking. The fact is supported by the obtained study results: the positive effect of the new way of thinking on e-scooter sharing was revealed. In addition, a positive effect of the JTBD variable on the intentions to use the e-scooter and a negative effect on attitude towards sharing was shown. The latter is most likely due to the fact that respondents with an expressed desire to receive these “works” (functions) from an e-scooter do not believe that it is always better to use sharing services for e-scooter, but it is more convenient to use sharing services. Apparently, the owning of an e-scooter is preferable to using the sharing services.
The fact that the e-scooter can do the required “work” well and that its functions are needed by consumers is confirmed by the fact that the e-scooter is considered an alternative or replacement for public transport, taxis, and, in some cases, a personal car, not only in our study, but also as proven by many prominent scholars [37,39,40,44,53]. Understanding the functions that e-scooter can perform for a city resident serves as a good basis for the development of this type of micro-mobility, both on the part of the municipality and on the part of businesses. It is the demanded functions of e-scooters that should underlie the formation of a marketing strategy and management of the development of e-scooter sharing services, and which fully coincide with the strategies of smart city development.
It should also be noted that e-scooters, despite all the contradictions of their use so far, can contribute substantially to the development of a smart city, due to improvement of many factors.
Almost all researchers mentioned the great value of micro-mobility for ecology. This transportation mode reduces the number of cars on the roads, especially for short-distance trips [1,2,3], and, according to European Environment Agency [115], traditional vehicle transportation produces a significant part of emissions in Europe. Therefore, low-carbon and sustainable micro-mobility improves the ecological situation [116]. It is very flexible and cost-efficient [30]. In rush hours, when the cities suffer with high congestion, micro-mobility allows reducing the time of travel [4,54]. Micro-mobility creates opportunities for the development of sustainable business within the city [117]; therefore, micro-mobility contributes to the smart city as a sustainable city.
Great importance is given to the social component of micro-mobility. The authors consider that the rates of adoption of micro-mobility [118,119] and the convenience for users have resulted in “unique affordances in use” and very quick integration of this transportation mode into the urban environment [8].
Nevertheless, micro-mobility, and especially standing e-scooters, create divisions among specialists, who consider them to be not so ecological as they seem, since micro-mobility mostly replaces, not car driving, but walking [119]. However, young people, according to the results of our research, consider riding an e-scooter as an alternative not for walking, but for using other mode of transportation (public transport, taxi, personal cars). The behavior of young people regarding this issue is an interesting subject for further research and can become the objective of the next study of the authors.
The increased road risks for citizens are also at the center of attention of scholars [8,116,120,121,122,123], as was discussed above.
Another possible problem appears due to the fact that the businesses providing the micro-mobility services use applications, and create large and well-functioning databases. These databases improve the work with statistics and help the specialists [52,124]. Nevertheless, there appears the problem of the unethical uses of information [125], manipulating the data [126,127], and using them for monetization purposes [128].
Considering the negative effect of micro-mobility on some aspects of urban life, it is necessary to pay great attention to the regulation of micro-mobility, and there is research devoted to this issue [125,129].
As a result, we can conclude that micro-mobility facilitates meeting the requirements of the smart city: it decreases carbon footprints, solves some problems of city transport, changes the way of thinking of the population, makes the urban living environment more comfortable for citizens, creates new possibilities for businesses, is oriented toward smart allocation of resources, and, therefore, solves some local issues, faced by municipal authorities.

5.1. Research Limitations

The study was conducted on data selected within only one city, Riga. We assume that the residents of other cities, similar to Riga in size, cultural peculiarities, and habits will have similar influencing factors regarding the micro-mobility sharing services. However, this can be considered as a limitation of this research.
This study brings society closer to understanding the issues of the development of e-scooter sharing, but leaves many questions open. In particular, the role of such important variables as the new way of thinking, perceived safety, personal internal uncertainty, and social influence in the development of e-scooter sharing has only been indicated, but not fully revealed and described.
Another restriction is connected with the set of variables chosen for determining the model construct. The authors tried to consider all the possible indicators; nevertheless, it is possible to extend the range of used indicators, to use other factors, or implement another method of analyzing the data.
In addition, sampling studies are accompanied by survey errors; in particular, coverage errors and sampling error. A discrepancy between the sample and the general population is more or less inevitable. It should always be borne in mind that, if a large-scale randomized study has not been conducted, the results of a single sample study cannot be considered to be representative. In such cases, representative results can be obtained with multiple sample studies conducted by different authors.
It should also be noted that, in this study, the interpretation of the model was restricted by age limits, since only the residents of the age group of 18–35 participated in the survey. Other age groups also use this type of transport. Therefore, for a more adequate forecast that would be useful to the municipality and business, it is necessary to take into account the data of other age groups of residents, at least up to 60 years old.
In addition, the questionnaire was distributed electronically among the students and the graduates of the universities and colleges in Riga, as well as among young entrepreneurs and employees of several companies. There is no doubt that the respondents surveyed did not include all social groups of the residents of Riga. In addition, the survey did not take into account the quotas of each of the social groups in the structure of the population of Riga.
It is likely that the relationship between motivation to maintain physical activity and health and e-scooter sharing was not detected due to coverage errors.
However, all this does not mean that this sample study conducted with the help of a survey has no theoretical and practical significance. This means that, when interpreting and using the results, this sampling error must be taken into account. This research is exploratory and was conducted in order to answer the fundamental questions that are important for assessing the conditions for the development of scooter rental in a city such as Riga. And in this regard, the results presented are suitable for both theoretical research and practical use.

5.2. Further Research Directions

It would be interesting to study why the young people move from walking or public transport to the use of e-scooter sharing, but not from active use of private cars. This may be interesting as a phenomenon, determining the behavior of young people in either CEE countries, or in all European countries.
We could also study the development of sharing services for other means of transportation in smart cities.
This study can serve as a basis for further large-scale studies with a larger number of respondents, to clarify the significant constructs and their indicators.

6. Conclusions

The concept of a Smart City presupposes an increased attention on creating a safe and convenient urban environment for city residents. Ecology, traffic in the streets, convenience of getting from one place to another; these are the problems that a Smart City should solve, and one of the solutions is the development of micro-mobility and sharing services. The present study was aimed at investigating the factors influencing the development of e-scooter sharing in Riga (Latvia).
The study was carried out using PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 3.7 software.
The target audience of the study was young residents of Riga (age 18–35), since they are thought to be the main users of this type of transport. The main purposes for using e-scooter sharing services are entertainment, short trips around the city for business, and other purposes, such as spending time with friends; they are also used when people come to other cities and during a trip to explore the city, for excursions, and for other purposes.
The authors used the constructs that were previously described in the literature and also new ones, not investigated in a similar context, as latent variables for PLS-SEM analysis. These comprised attitude towards sharing, anxiety, internal uncertainty, JTBD, and new way of thinking. All of them had a direct or indirect effect on the intention of future use and/or sharing variables. The indicators for the variables were determined on the basis of a literature review and surveying respondents, and then they were checked for loadings, convergent validity (CR, AVE), and discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker Criteria and HTMT).
Within the constructed model, the latent variables explained about 42.1 ± 0.93% of the differences in the intentions of Riga residents to ride e-scooters, and 70.3 ± 0.071% of their intentions to use sharing services. This research identified the main variables determining the attitude of consumers towards using e-scooter sharing services. These data could be used for the development of e-scooter sharing services in Riga and, most likely, in other cities similar to Riga in size and infrastructure.
For the first time in such a study, the concept JTBD (jobs to be done) was used to determine the types of “work” that the consumer needs and which e-scooters can perform. The results showed that e-scooters are considered by young people as a replacement for public transport, taxis, and private cars, and the choice of this method of transportation is explained by faster movement in traffic jams and the possibility of optimizing the route.
The following barriers and factors can reduce the usage of e-scooter sharing services: perceived safety of using e-scooters, anxiety due to possible emergencies and poor knowledge of traffic rules, and also internal uncertainty associated with the uncertainty of driving any vehicles and a negative attitude to scooters as a transportation means. Municipalities and businesses interested in the development of e-scooter sharing services are able to reduce these unfavorable factors with training programs, including gaming and engaging methods. Another important factor is that the municipality is the only structure able to solve the infrastructure problems, which can serve as a significant obstacle to the development of micro-mobility, in general, and e-scooter sharing services, in particular.
The development of e-scooter sharing is substantially affected by the positive attitude of society towards it, and on the other hand, the irritation of citizens associated with this mode of transportation. The only solution for neutralizing this situation is legislative regulation and monitoring of the implementation of these laws by e-scooter riders.
The study revealed the importance of a new way of thinking for the development of e-scooter sharing, including the ecological consciousness of young residents of Riga, understanding the problems of traffic load in the city, and positive attitudes towards micro-mobility as an alternative way of transportation, since it is a more suitable mode for the urban environment.
Thus, the conducted research brings us closer to a better understanding of the important factors influencing the development of urban micro-mobility and specifies the factors that are important for the development of this type of mobility. The residents, municipality and businesses are stakeholders of this process. The results can serve as a basis for the development of initiatives aimed at mitigating the negative effects of riding an e-scooter within the city and for informing the population about ways of creating a safe and comfortable urban environment.
The factors specified within this research can help e-scooter riders, pedestrians, and other participants of traffic to create a safe environment for using micro-mobility and preserving the environment.
The development of micro-mobility (including e-scooters) and the popularization of sharing services can significantly contribute to advancing Riga (and other cities) as a smart city.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.P.; methodology, Y.P. and D.Z.; software, D.Z.; validation, Y.P. and D.Z.; formal analysis, Y.P. and D.Z.; investigation, Y.P. and D.Z.; resources, Y.P.; data curation, Y.P. and D.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.P. and D.Z.; writing—review and editing, Y.P.; visualization, D.Z.; supervision, Y.P.; project administration, Y.P.; funding acquisition, Y.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the specific support objective activity, Project id. N. 1.1.1.2/16/I/001) of the Republic of Latvia, funded by the European Regional Development Fund. Research project No.1.1.1.2/VIAA/3/19/458.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Frequency of respondents choosing different goals for using e-scooter sharing service (CI-confidence interval).
Table A1. Frequency of respondents choosing different goals for using e-scooter sharing service (CI-confidence interval).
The Purpose of Using Sharing Service n% Yes5% CI95% CI
Never 13017.8115.0320.58
For maintaining physical activity and/or sports 152.051.033.08
For entertainment 39053.4249.8157.04
For short trips around the city for business purposes31042.4738.8846.05
Short movements for any purpose other than business31042.4738.8846.05
In another city16021.9218.9224.92
During a trip to explore the city, for excursions and for other purposes20027.4024.1630.63
To spend time with friends27036.9933.4840.49
Source: generated by the authors.
Table A2. Constructs of the model; their included and excluded indicators and their loading (IL).
Table A2. Constructs of the model; their included and excluded indicators and their loading (IL).
Constructs and Their IndicatorsILModel1Model2
Anxiety (Anx)
  • Lack of confidence on the road
0.762
  • Possibility of emergency situations
0.740
  • Poor knowledge of traffic rules
0.727 excluded
  • Difficult road situation
0.635excludedexcluded
  • The possibility of getting into an accident or other dangerous road situation
0.518excludedexcluded
  • Insufficient safety of riding e-scooter
0.470excludedexcluded
Design (Des)
  • Inability to transport things
0.874
  • Fear of lack of charge
0.659
  • Unreliability of the design
0.296excludedexcluded
  • Inconvenience of movement in standing position
0.052excludedexcluded
Experience (Exp)
  • Experience in using an e-scooter
1.000
Attitude towards sharing (Att)
  • It is always better to use sharing services
0.947
  • It is more convenient to use sharing services
0.915
Intention of future use (Int)
  • Intention to use the e-scooter in the future
1.000
Infrastructure Quality (Infr)
  • Poor quality of road
0.864
  • Dirt on the roads
0.712
  • Poor infrastructure,
0.620 excluded
  • Inconvenience or insufficiency of parking
0.340excludedexcluded
Effort Expectancy (EE)
  • E-scooters are easy to use
0.999
  • It’s easy to learn how to ride an e-scooter
0.889 excluded
Social Influence (SI)
  • Positive assessment of the society
0.647
  • Irritates city residents (invert) 1
0.912
New Way of Thinking (NWT)
  • Specialists of the future should have a new mindset focused on lean manufacturing, resource conservation, environmental thinking and a systematic approach
0.940
  • The company benefits from the transition to the use of electric transport
0.633 excluded
  • Each member of society should contribute to reducing the transport load of the city
0.651 excluded
  • Every resident of the city should contribute to reducing environmental pollution (for example, using more environmentally friendly transport)
0.427excludedexcluded
JTBD
  • Speed of movement
0.851
  • Route optimization
0.782
  • Replacement of public transport at certain distances
0.753
  • Taxi replacement at certain distances
0.731 excluded
  • Car replacement at certain distances
0.610 excluded
  • Ability to plan time better
0.217excludedexcluded
  • Saving money
0.178excludedexcluded
Perceived Safety (PSaf)
  • E-scooter is safe for pedestrians
0.927
  • E-scooter is safe for scooter drivers
0.920
Sharing (Sh)
  • Using sharing service for any purpose
1.000
  • Internal Uncertainty (IU)
  • Uncertainty about driving any vehicles
0.918
  • Negative attitude towards this type of transport
0.685 excluded
  • Lack of skills
0.357excludedexcluded
Source: generated by the authors. N.B. The minimum allowable level for a preliminary (exploratory) study for indicator reliability is 0.4, the preferred value is 0.70 and higher [76]. 1 For use in the model, the scale data were inverted.
Table A3. Discriminant validity, Fornell–Larcker criteria.
Table A3. Discriminant validity, Fornell–Larcker criteria.
AnxAttShDesEEExpInfrIntIUJTBDNWTSIPSaf
Anx0.744
AttSh−0.2250.931
Des−0.028−0.0940.774
EE−0.2950.364−0.3960.919
Exp−0.0560.0260.171−0.1271.000
Infr−0.1270.0990.507−0.0830.2070.738
Int−0.5090.0220.2340.0570.2960.2471.000
IU0.640−0.316−0.153−0.201−0.119−0.179−0.4420.763
JTBD−0.098−0.0330.0600.360−0.0260.1930.2930.0660.740
NWT−0.2090.2900.2450.270−0.0410.4050.198−0.2650.4560.754
SI−0.2960,32−0.2630.386−0.0040.0450.057−0.3330.0280.3360.791
PSaf−0.134−0.059−0.2220.350−0.226−0.0180.163−0.0360.5160.3040.4430.924
Sh−0.3500.4240.4890.1260.1850.4970.402−0.3220.1590.4720.271−0.013
Source: generated by the authors.
Table A4. Discriminant validity: Divergent validity Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios (HTMT).
Table A4. Discriminant validity: Divergent validity Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios (HTMT).
AnxAttShDesEEExpInfrIntIUJTBDNWTSIPSaf
Anx
AttSh0.302
Des0.5070.285
EE0.3960.4170.859
Exp0.0960.0290.2510.146
Infr0.4010.1841.073 *0.1320.269
Int0.6270.0220.4110.1410.2960.293
IU1.317 *0.6790.5350.4120.2040.4980.796
JTBD0.3850.1910.3900.4410.1670.3630.2920.675
NWT0.5200.3110.5290.3040.0680.6560.2410.961 *0.735
SI0.4990.5300.7320.6580.2790.3740.1330.938 *0.4980.254
PSaf0.2230.0680.3910.4130.2500.1900.1800.3440.6170.4100.812
Sh0.4550.4530.7900.1240.1850.5940.4020.6850.1770.4730.3870.078
Source: generated by the authors. N.B.: * The discriminant validity is established between two reflective constructions if the HTMT value is below 0.90 [71].
Table A5. Total and specific indirect effects: path coefficients (β), standard deviation (STDEV), T statistics (T-St), p Values, 5% confidence interval CI, and 95% confidence interval CI.
Table A5. Total and specific indirect effects: path coefficients (β), standard deviation (STDEV), T statistics (T-St), p Values, 5% confidence interval CI, and 95% confidence interval CI.
VariablesβSTDEVT-Stp Values5% CI95% CI
PSaf→EE→Anx→Int→Sharing0.0080.0071.0960.1370.0000.021
PSaf→EE→Att→Sharing0.0450.0251.8180.0350.0120.090
PSaf→JTBD→Att→Sharing−0.0560.0281.9730.025−0.113−0.021
PSaf→JTBD→Int→Sharing0.0340.0181.8620.0320.0090.067
PSaf→Sharing0.0310.0400.7890.215−0.0310.097
JTBD→Int→Sharing0.0660.0332.0030.0230.0200.118
JTBD→Att→Sharing−0.1080.0462.3400.010−0.197−0.049
JTBD→Sharing−0.0420.0560.7500.227−0.1400.049
NWT→Att→Sharing0.1100.0462.3960.0090.0450.199
NWT→Infr→Sharing0.0670.0471.4400.0750.0010.149
NWT→Sharing0.1780.0602.9380.0020.0880286
EE→Att→Sharing0.1300.0542.3830.0090.0500.215
EE→Anx→Int→Sharing0.0220.0181.2460.1070.0020.058
EE→Sharing0.1510.0602.5400.0060.0630.247
Des→Int→Sharing0.0440.0291.5530.061−0.0010.090
Des→Sharing0.4230.1163.722<0.0010.2300.626
Exp→Int→Sharing0.0670.0351.9170.0280.0160.130
IU→Anx→Int→Sharing−0.0760.0272.8570.002−0.123−0.035
Anx→Int→Sharing−0.1260.0403.1360.001−0.195−0.064
PSaf→EE→Anx→Int0.0280.0211.3510.0890.0020.064
PSaf→JTBD→Int0.1260.0512.4550.0070.0460.211
PSaf→Int0.1540.0592.6240.0050.0690.249
IU→Anx→Int−0.2830.0723.9020.000−0.405−0.157
EE→Anx→Int0.0810.0551.4790.0700.0070.185
PSaf→EE→Att0.1370.0642.1220.0170.0460.245
PSaf→JTBD→Att−0.1680.0732.3090.011−0.305−0.071
PSaf→Att−0.0310.0880.3500.363−0.1880.099
PSaf→EE→Anx−0.0610.0411.4950.068−0.132−0.006
Source: generated by the authors.

References

  1. Abduljabbar, R.L.; Liyanage, S.; Dia, H. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 92, 102734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Clewlow, R. The Micro-Mobility Revolution [WWW Document]. 2018. Available online: https://medium.com/populus-ai/the-micro-mobility-revolution-95e396db3754 (accessed on 8 September 2021).
  3. Tiwari, A. Micro-Mobility: The Next Wave of Urban Transportation in India 2019; [WWW Document]. Available online: https://your-story.com/journal/micro-mobility-edc6x8f1y1 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  4. Shaheen Susan, P.; Cohen, A.; Chan, N.; Bansal, A. Chapter 13—Sharing strategies: Carsharing, shared micro-mobility (bike-sharing and scooter sharing), transportation network companies, microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes. In eScholarship; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lytras, M.D.; Visvizi, A. Who uses smart city services and what to make of it: Toward interdisciplinary smart cities research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lytras, M.D.; Visvizi, A.; Chopdar, P.K.; Sarirete, A.; Alhalabi, W. Information Management in Smart Cities: Turning end users’ views into multi-item scale development, validation, and policy-making recommendations. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 102146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Visvizi, A.; Mazzucelli, C.; Lytras, M.D. Irregular migratory flows: Towards an ICT-enabled integrated framework for resilient urban systems. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2017, 8, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tuncer, S.; Brown, B. E-scooters on the ground: Lessons for redesigning urban micro-mobility. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25 April 2020; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  9. Acquier, A.; Daudigeos, T.; Pinkse, J. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017, 125, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Popova, Y. Economic Basis of Digital Banking Services Produced by FinTech Company in Smart City. J. Tour. Serv. 2021, 23, 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Findexable Limited. The Global Fintech Index. City Rankings Report. Findexable Limited& The Global Fintech Index. 2020. Available online: https://findexable.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Findexable_Global-Fintech-Rankings-2020exSFA.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  12. Viktors Demidovs. Rīga Plans Substantial Investments in Bicycle Infrastructure. Public Broadcasting of Latvia. Available online: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/transport/riga-plans-substantial-investments-in-bicycle-infrastructure.a439384/ (accessed on 18 January 2021).
  13. Eng.LSM.lv. Several ‘Temporary’ Bicycle Lanes to be Installed in Rīga This Year. Public Broadcasting of Latvia. Available online: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/transport/several-temporary-bicycle-lanes-to-be-installed-in-riga-this-year.a393972/ (accessed on 23 February 2021).
  14. Schubert, L.; Pastare, I. Cyclists in Riga Embrace New Cycling Infrastructure. Riga|CIVITAS Handshake. Available online: https://handshakecycling.eu/news/cyclists-riga-embrace-new-cycling-infrastructure (accessed on 19 July 2021).
  15. Transparency International Latvia (Sabiedrība par atklātību—Delna). Integrity Pacts EU: Civil Control Mechanisms for Safeguarding EU Funds Development of the Riga Infrastructure. 2021. Available online: https://delna.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IP_LV_Public-Report.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  16. Garson, D. Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM): Regression & Structural Equation Models; Statistical Associates Publishing, North Carolina State University: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Z.; Sharma, P.N.; Cao, J. From knowledge sharing to firm performance: A predictive model comparison. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4650–4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Macoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  20. Höck, M.; Ringle, C.M. Strategic Networks in the Software Industry: An Empirical Analysis of the Value Continuum; IFSAM VIIIth World Congress: Berlin, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wong, K.K.K. Mastering Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS_SEM) with Smartpls in 38 Hours; iUniverse: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Popova, Y.; Popovs, S. Impact of Smart Economy on Smart Areas and Mediation Effect of National Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lai, C.S.; Jia, Y.; Dong, Z.; Wang, D.; Tao, Y.; Lai, Q.H.; Wong, R.T.; Zobaa, A.F.; Wu, R.; Lai, L.L. A review of technical standards for smart cities. Clean Technol. 2020, 2, 290–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. European Commission. What Are Smart Cities? Cities and Urban Development. Smart Cities. 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  25. Eccarius, T.; Lu, C.C. Adoption intentions for micro-mobility–Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 84, 102327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hossain, M. Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lim, W.M. The sharing economy: A marketing perspective. Australas. Mark. J. AMJ 2020, 28, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sheller, M. Mobility. Sociopedia. International Sociological Association; University Complutense: Madrid, Spain, 2011; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared micromobility: Policy and practices in the United States. In A Modern Guide to the Urban Sharing Economy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 166–180. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Chao, C.M. Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc. Inf. 2016, 17, 328–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Min, Q.; Ji, S.; Qu, G. Mobile commerce user acceptance study in China: A revised UTAUT model. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2008, 13, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aman, J.J.; Smith-Colin, J.; Zhang, W. Listen to E-scooter riders: Mining rider satisfaction factors from app store reviews. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 95, 102856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sanders, R.L.; Branion-Calles, M.; Nelson, T.A. To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 139, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. König, A.; Nicoletti, L.; Schröder, D.; Wolff, S.; Waclaw, A.; Lienkamp, M. An overview of parameter and cost for battery electric vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nikiforiadis, A.; Paschalidis, E.; Stamatiadis, N.; Raptopoulou, A.; Kostareli, A.; Basbas, S. Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 94, 102790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guo, Y.; Zhang, Y. Understanding factors influencing shared e-scooter usage and its impact on auto mode substitution. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 99, 102991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, H.; Huo, J.; Bao, Y.; Li, X.; Yang, L.; Cherry, C.R. Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 154, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jiao, J.; Bai, S. Understanding the shared e-scooter travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2020, 9, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Bieliński, T.; Ważna, A. Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, M.; Chow, J.Y.; Yoon, G.; He, B.Y. Forecasting e-scooter substitution of direct and access trips by mode and distance. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 96, 102892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aguilera-García, Á.; Gomez, J.; Sobrino, N. Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities 2020, 96, 102424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tuli, F.M.; Mitra, S.; Crews, M.B. Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 154, 164–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bai, S.; Jiao, J.; Chen, Y.; Guo, J. The relationship between E-scooter travels and daily leisure activities in Austin, Texas. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 95, 102844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hawa, L.; Cui, B.; Sun, L.; El-Geneidy, A. Scoot over: Determinants of shared electric scooter use in Washington DC. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 99th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 2020, 20, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, M.; Seeder, S.; Li, H.; Mathew, J.; Bullock, D. Analysis of e-scooter trips and their temporal usage patterns. Inst. Transp. Eng. ITE J. 2019, 89, 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  51. McKenzie, G. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, DC. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nigro, M.; Castiglione, M.; Colasanti, F.M.; De Vincentis, R.; Valenti, G.; Liberto, C.; Comi, A. Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 157, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gössling, S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 79, 102230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKenzie, G. Urban mobility in the sharing economy: A spatiotemporal comparison of shared mobility services. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2020, 79, 101418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mathew, J.K.; Liu, M.; Bullock, D.M. Impact of weather on shared electric scooter utilization. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, NZ, USA, 27–30 October 2019; pp. 4512–4516. [Google Scholar]
  56. Djavadian, S.; Chow, J.Y. Agent-based day-to-day adjustment process to evaluate dynamic flexible transport service policies. Transp. B Transp. Dyn. 2017, 5, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dormanesh, A.; Majmundar, A.; Allem, J.P. Follow-Up investigation on the promotional practices of electric scooter companies: Content analysis of posts on Instagram and Twitter. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020, 6, e16833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ma, Q.; Yang, H.; Mayhue, A.; Sun, Y.; Huang, Z.; Ma, Y. E-scooter safety: The riding risk analysis based on mobile sensing data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 151, 105954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hardt, C.; Bogenberger, K. Usage of e-scooters in urban environments. Transp. Res. Proc. 2019, 37, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bekhit, M.N.Z.; Le Fevre, J.; Bergin, C.J. Regional healthcare costs and burden of injury associated with electric scooters. Injury 2020, 51, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Multnomah County Health Department. Scooter-related Injuries in Multnomah County. July–November 2018. Available online: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709715 (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  62. Civity. E-Scooter in Deutschland. 2019. Available online: http://scooters.civity.de/ (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  63. Wodinsky, S. New York City Is the Perfect Scooter Market, but It’s Also the Most Impossible. The Verge. 2018. Available online: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/11/17553508/scooter-sharing-nyc-bird-lime-law (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  64. Sullivan, G.M.; Artino, A.R., Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2013, 5, 541–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Lee, H.; Baek, K.; Chung, J.H.; Kim, J. Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 92, 102751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Krier, C.; Chrétien, J.; Louvet, N. Usages et Usagers de Services de Trottinettes Élec-Triques en Free-Floating en France. 6T Bureau de Recherche. 2019. Available online: https://6-t.co/etudes/usages-usagers-trottinettes-ff/ (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  67. Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chin, W.W.; Cheah, J.-H.; Liu, Y.; Ting, H.; Lim, X.-J.; Cham, T.H. Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 20, 2161–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. An Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. In Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R. Classroom Companion: Business; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Mitchell, R.; Gudergan, S.P. Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. Res. 2020, 31, 1617–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mateos-Aparicio, G. Partial least squares (PLS) methods: Origins, evolution, and ap-plication to social sciences. Commun. Stat. 2011, 40, 2305–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Schlägel, C.; Sarstedt, M. Assessing the measurement invariance of the four-dimensional cultural intelligence scale across countries: A composite model approach. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shujahat, M.; Ali, B.; Nawaz, F.; Durst, S.; Kianto, A. Translating the impact of knowledge management into knowledge-based innovation: The neglected and mediating role of knowledge-worker satisfaction. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2018, 28, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Valaei, N.; Nikhashemi, S.R.; Javan, N. Organizational factors and process capa-bilities in a KM strategy: Toward a unified theory. J. Manag. Dev. 2017, 36, 560–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Kettles, N.; Van Belle, J.P. Investigation into the antecedents of autonomous car acceptance using an enhanced UTAUT model. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advances in Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD), Winterton, South Africa, 5–6 August 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 10291–10296. [Google Scholar]
  76. Jahanshahi, D.; Tabibi, Z.; Van Wee, B. Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: Applying an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Case Stud. Transp. Policy. 2020, 8, 1212–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhu, W. p < 0.05, < 0.01, < 0.001, < 0.0001, < 0.00001, < 0.000001, or < 0.0000001 …. J. Sport Health Sci. 2016, 5, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Will, A. SmartPLS 2.0 M3; University of Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kock, N. Warp PLS 5.0 User Manual; ScriptWarp Systems: Laredo, TX, USA, 2015; Available online: http://cits.tamiu.edu/WarpPLS/UserManual_v_5_0.Pdf (accessed on 10 October 2021).
  81. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gorsuch, R.L. Exploratory factor analysis. In Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology; Nesselroade, J., Cattell, R.B., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 231–258. [Google Scholar]
  84. Peter, J.P. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fornell, C.G.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nunnally, J.; Bernstein, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  91. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lohmöller, J.B. Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. In Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares; Physica: Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 199–226. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wong, K.K.K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  94. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A re-view of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rönkkö, M.; Evermann, J. A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organ. Res. Methods 2013, 16, 425–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ab Hamid, M.R.; Sami, W.; Sidek, M.M. Discriminant validity assessment: Use of For-nell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 890, 012163. [Google Scholar]
  98. Maydeu-Olivares, A. Assessing the size of model misfit in structural equation models. Psychometrika 2017, 82, 533–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Christensen, C.; Hall, T.; Dillon, K.; Duncan, D.S. Competing against Luck; Harper-Business: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  100. Ulwick, A.W. Jobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice; Idea Bite Press: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  101. Populus. The Micro-Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States. San Francisco, California. 2018. Available online: https://www.populus.ai/white-papers/micromobility-revolution (accessed on 7 December 2021).
  102. Popova, Y.; Zagulova, D. UTAUT Model for Smart City Concept Implementation: Use of Web Applications by Residents for Everyday Operations. Informatics 2022, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. BBC. When and Where Can I Ride an e-Scooter Legally? 7 June 2021. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48106617 (accessed on 12 September 2021).
  104. Transport for London. TfL Announces Safety Ban of e-Scooters on Transport Net-Work. TFL, 9 December 2021. Available online: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/december/tfl-announces-safety-ban-of-e-scooters-on-transport-network (accessed on 5 January 2022).
  105. Westcott, B. Singapore Joins France in Banning e-Scooters on Sidewalks. CNN, 5 November 2019. Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/singapore-e-scooter-ban-intl-hnk/index.html (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  106. van Dalen, L. Hoelang Is Populaire Elektrische Step Nog Illegaal? 24 January 2022. Ewmaga-Zine. Available online: https://www.ewmagazine.nl/nederland/achtergrond/2022/01/hoelang-is-populaire-elektrische-step-nog-illegaal-866839/ (accessed on 30 January 2022).
  107. Topham, G. e-Scooters to be Banned from TfL Network over Battery Fire Risk. Gardian, 9 December 2021. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/e-scooters-banned-tfl-network-battery-fire-risk (accessed on 26 December 2021).
  108. Attwood, J. UK Government Considering New Vehicle Class for e-Scooters. MoveElectric, 21 January 2022. p.1098. Available online: https://www.moveelectric.com/e-scooters/uk-government-considering-new-vehicle-class-e-scooters (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  109. Reeves, F. Highway Code Changes for e-Scooters Would ‘Cause Confusion’ and Pose ‘Greater Risk’. Express, 5 February 2022. Available online: https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1561026/electric-scooter-highway-code-changes-driving-laws-2022-road-safety-exclusive (accessed on 14 February 2022).
  110. Jordan, M.S. Synthesizing the Two Schools of Thought—JTBD Progression Part 5. 5 December 2020. Available online: https://clck.ru/Z6n49 (accessed on 14 December 2021).
  111. Ulwick, A.W. Outcome-Driven Innovation® (ODI): Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory in Practice; Strategyn, LLC Whitepaper: Denver, CO, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  112. Bettencourt, L.A.; Ulwick, A.W. The customer-centered innovation map. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 109. [Google Scholar]
  113. Christensen, C.M.; Hall, T.; Dillon, K.; Duncan, D.S. Know your customers’ jobs to be done. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2016, 94, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
  114. Christensen, C.M.; Dillon, K. Disruption 2020: An Interview With Clayton M. Christensen. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2020, 61, 4–26. [Google Scholar]
  115. European Environment Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/indictors/transport-emissions-of-greenhousegases/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-11 (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  116. Allem, J.P.; Majmundar, A. Are electric scooters promoted on social media with safety in mind? A case study on Bird’s Instagram. Prev. Med. Rep. 2019, 13, 62–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Nikolewski, R. How Can Dockless Bike and Scooter Companies Make Money? The San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego, CA), 15 April 2018. Available online: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-docklessprofitable-20180415-story.html (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  118. Aono, S.; Bigazzi, A. Industry stakeholder perspectives on the adoption of electric bicycles in British Columbia. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 0361198119837158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Riggs, W. Disruptive Transport: Driverless Cars, Transport Innovation and the Sustainable City of Tomorrow; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  120. Hollingsworth, J.; Copeland, B.; Johnson, J.X. Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 084031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Badeau, A.; Carman, C.; Newman, M.; Steenblik, J.; Carlson, M.; Madsen, T. Emergency department visits for electric scooter-related injuries after introduction of an urban rental program. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 1531–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Loizos, C. A lime scooter rider died in Washington, D.C., Marking the Second Fatality This Month. TechCrunch 2018. Available online: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/21/a-lime-scooter-riderdied-this-morning-in-washington-d-c-/marking-the-second-fatality-this-month (accessed on 11 October 2021).
  123. Hooten, K.G.; Murag, G.J. Helmet use and cervical spine injury: A review of motorcycle, moped, and bicycle accidents at a level 1 trauma center. J. Neurotrauma 2014, 31, 1329–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Portland Bureau of Transportation. 2018 e-Scooter Pilot. User Survey Results. 2018. p. 1138. Available online: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/escooterpdx/2018-e-scooter-findings-report (accessed on 11 December 2021).
  125. Petersen, A.B. Scoot over smart devices: The invisible costs of rental scooters. Surveill. Soc. 2019, 17, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Voytek. Rides of Glory. Uber Blog. 26 March 2012. p. 118. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20141118192805/http://blog.uber.com/ridesofglory (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  127. Fung, B. Uber Settles with FTC over ‘God View’ and Some Other Privacy Issues. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), August 2015. Available online: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-ftc-20170815-story.html (accessed on 21 November 2021).
  128. Newcomer, E. Lime and Bird Raise Millions, but at Far Lower Valuations than Hoped. Bloomberg News, 17 January 2019. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-17/lime-bird-said-to-raise-millions-at-lower-valuations-than-hoped (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  129. Fang, K.; Agrawal, A.; Steele, J.; Hunter, J.; Hooper, A. Where Do Riders Park Dockless, Shared Electric Scooters? Findings from San Jose, California. SJSU ScholarWorks. San Jose State University. 2018, Mineta Transportation Institute. Available online: https://scholar-works.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=mti_publications (accessed on 31 January 2022).
Figure 1. The proposed conceptual model of the research. (Source: figure was generated by the authors.).
Figure 1. The proposed conceptual model of the research. (Source: figure was generated by the authors.).
Informatics 09 00036 g001
Figure 2. Frequency of respondents choosing different purposes for using e-scooter sharing services (data are presented as % ± 95% CI). (Source: generated by the authors).
Figure 2. Frequency of respondents choosing different purposes for using e-scooter sharing services (data are presented as % ± 95% CI). (Source: generated by the authors).
Informatics 09 00036 g002
Figure 3. Structural model of e-scooter sharing. (Source: generated by the authors based on PLS-SEM in SmartPLS) N.B.: The path coefficients are shown on the arrows and p-levels are in brackets. Source: generated by the authors.
Figure 3. Structural model of e-scooter sharing. (Source: generated by the authors based on PLS-SEM in SmartPLS) N.B.: The path coefficients are shown on the arrows and p-levels are in brackets. Source: generated by the authors.
Informatics 09 00036 g003
Figure 4. Simple slope analysis of moderating effect of variable “gender” on relation of “attitude towards sharing” and “sharing” constructs.
Figure 4. Simple slope analysis of moderating effect of variable “gender” on relation of “attitude towards sharing” and “sharing” constructs.
Informatics 09 00036 g004
Table 1. Review of factors affecting micro-mobility within the scientific literature.
Table 1. Review of factors affecting micro-mobility within the scientific literature.
Investigated FactorsAuthors
Gender [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]
Age [38,39,40,41,42,43,44]
Education [38,41,42,43,44,45]
Marital status[37,44,45]
Employment [41,43]
Race/Ethnicity[37]
Income[37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]
Place of residence (city center, suburb, university campus)[39,40,45,46,47]
Population density[46,48]
Rider satisfaction factors (battery capacity, customer service, ease of use pricing, safety (speed), safety (technical), e-scooter age, ease of use)[36]
Demand-stimulating activities (daily meals/drinks, shopping and entertainment)[49]
Urban landscape, characteristics of the area (parks, special zones, places of skiing, population density, business districts, land use)[27,40,44,46,48,49,50]
Places of use of e-scooter (city center, university campuses, business districts)[42,47,48,49]
Density of attractions[48]
Forecast of future use of e-scooter[37]
Niche for e-scooter[51]
Switching to e-scooter from a car [52]
Demand for e-scooter (potential demand, factors of increasing demand, demand forecast)[44,46,47,51]
Frequency of demand[41,46,48,51]
Frequency of use[39,40,42,43,44,52]
Travel time[41,42,52,53]
Using a bicycle and car sharing[41,45]
Replacement of other transportation modes by e-scooter (car, any personal transport, public transport, taxi)[37,39,40,44,53]
Competition and comparison with other micro-mobile vehicles (bicycle)[53,54]
Combination with other transport[39]
Ownership or use of other vehicles (car, e- and regular bike, motorcycle)[43,45]
Road infrastructure and recharging facilities[46,51,53,54]
Road surface[39,54]
Parking lots[39,46]
Weather[41,53,55]
Scooter design (luggage transportation)[45,53]
Purpose of use (short trips, direct trips, entry/exit trips, the “last-mile” problem, entertainment, recreation, combined trips, trips to work/study, communication with close people, replacement of walking)[37,38,39,40,43,44,49,53,56]
User behavior[40,47]
Environmental awareness[45]
User groups[39]
Motivation factors, advantages of traveling by e-scooter (faster, more convenient, more fun, easier, cheaper)[37,40,41]
Rider training, information support (security aspects)[39,57]
Legislation and governance[40,53]
Safety (wearing helmets, aggression of drivers, speed limit, road surface, road signs)[39,40,45,53,58]
Perceived safety[37,59]
Conflicts arising around e-scooters [39,53]
Accident rate (injuries, treatment costs, risk of accidents)[41,60,61]
Solving urban problems (traffic jams, ecology, enriching urban mobility)[53,62,63]
Barriers (disinterest, lack of e-scooter presence, security, feeling of instability, worry about falling, price, weather, infrastructure, battery capacity, luggage carrying, public opinion, road surface, aggression of car drivers, long distances)[37,39,42,53,59]
Reasons for not riding e-scooters (infrastructure, price, limited quantity)[39]
Source: generated by authors.
Table 2. Recommended assessment of PLS-SEM.
Table 2. Recommended assessment of PLS-SEM.
AssessmentCriterionRules of Thumb/Desired Value
Algorithm settings and software
Number of iterationsStop criterionSum of the outer weights’ changes between two iterations <10–5 [78]
Maximum number of iterations: 300 [79]
Outer model evaluation (construct validity)
Item reliabilityIndicators loadings (IL)>0.70 [80]
>0.50 [81,82]
>0.40 [83]
Convergent validity 1Composite reliability (CR) 2>0.80 [84]
>0.70 (in exploratory research 0.60 to 0.70 is considered acceptable) [21,82,85,86]
Average variance extracted (AVE)>0.50 [87]
AVE >0.5 and CR <0.6 [85]
Discriminant validityFornell and Larcker (F&L)
Divergent validity heterotrait:monotrait ratios (HTMT)Values lower than 0.85 for conceptually distinct constructs and below 0.90 for conceptually similar constructs; confidence intervals should not include a value of 1 [67,88]
Inner model evaluation (structural model)
Coefficient of
determination
R2Higher value is preferred: 0.67 substantial, 0.33 average, 0.19 weak [19,89]
Standardized
path coefficients
Beta (β)Values from −1 to +1.
Assess significance and confidence intervals
Significance of the paths coefficientsp-valuesSignificance value is based on the degrees of freedom
p < 0.05 [82]
Effect sizef2 0.02 weak, 0.15 moderate, 0.35 strong effects [89,90]
Predictive relevanceQ2>0.5 [19]
Overall model assessment
Fit MeasuresStandardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)<0.08;
Confidence Intervals [88]
Bentler and Bonett Index: normed fit index (NFI)>0.09, the closer NFI to 1, the better the match
[91,92]
1 Convergent validity shows that the studied variables really reflect the latent constructs intended for measurement. 2 Reliability of the design, a measure of the internal consistency of the scale elements. Source: generated by the authors.
Table 3. Measurement values: composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), predictive relevance with omission distance (Q2), standard deviation (STDEV), and coefficient of determination (R2) with confidence interval and p value (p).
Table 3. Measurement values: composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), predictive relevance with omission distance (Q2), standard deviation (STDEV), and coefficient of determination (R2) with confidence interval and p value (p).
ConstructsCRAVEQ2 R2
ValueSTDEVCI 95%p
Anxiety0.7880.5530.2090.4390.0950.237–0.556<0.001
Attitude towards sharing0.9290.8670.1920.2490.0970.072–0.3580.004
Design0.7460.599
Effort expectancy0.9160.8450.1530.1230.0640.042–0.2380.023
Experience1.0001.000
Infrastructure quality0.7780.5440.1200.1640.0860.010–0.2780.030
Intention of future use1.0001.0000.3220.4210.0930.248–0.536<0.001
Internal uncertainty0.7250.582
JTBD0.8550.5470.1260.2660.1020.110–0.4210.003
New way of thinking0.7930.569
Social influence0.7640.625
Perceived safety0.9210.853
Sharing1.0001.0000.6280.7030.0710.54–0.781<0.001
Source: generated by the authors.
Table 4. Results of testing the hypotheses.
Table 4. Results of testing the hypotheses.
HypothesesResult of Checking
H1: The intention to use the e-scooter in the future has a direct positive impact on the use of sharing for various purposes.Confirmed
H2: A positive attitude towards e-scooter sharing has a direct positive impact on the use of sharing for various purposes.Confirmed
H3a,b: Consumer’s anxiety directly negatively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Confirmed,
(b) Partially confirmed (indirect effect)
H4: Personal internal uncertainty has a direct and positive impact on anxiety about its use.Confirmed
H5a,b: The preliminary experience in using e-scooter directly and positively influences the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Confirmed,
(b) Partially confirmed (indirect effect)
H6a,b: Infrastructure quality is significant for the consumer and has a direct and positive impact on the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Not Confirmed,
(b) Confirmed
H7a,b: The functions of an e-scooter (JTBD), interesting for residents, directly positively influence the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Confirmed,
(b) Not Confirmed
H8: The opinion of consumers about the high level of perceived safety of the e-scooter for all road users has a direct positive effect on the JTBD construct in relation to the e-scooter.Confirmed
H9a,b: Effort expectancy directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Not Confirmed,
(b) Partially confirmed (indirect effect)
H10a,b: The design features of the scooter directly affect the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Confirmed,
(b) Confirmed
H11a,b: The new way of thinking directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Not Confirmed,
(b) Partially confirmed (indirect effect)
H12a,b: The personal opinion on the positive attitude of society to the use of e-scooter directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Not Confirmed,
(b) Confirmed
H13a,b: Motivation to maintain physical activity and health directly positively affects the intention to use e-scooters (a) and to use the sharing service (b).(a) Not Confirmed,
(b) Not Confirmed
Source: generated by the authors.
Table 5. Direct effects: path coefficients (β), standard deviation (STDEV), T Statistics (T-St), p Values, 5% and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Table 5. Direct effects: path coefficients (β), standard deviation (STDEV), T Statistics (T-St), p Values, 5% and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
VariablesβSTDEVT-Stp5% CI95% CI
Anx→Int−0.4670.085.864<0.001−0.593−0.333
JTBD→Int0.2440.0862.8310.0020.0970.375
Des→Int0.1650.0981.6770.0470.0020.323
Exp→Int0.2480.0982.5330.0060.0740.405
Int→Sharing0.2700.0743.625<0.0010.1410.378
Des→Sharing0.3880.1093.555<0.0010.1910.561
Att→Sharing0.3310.0714.687<0.0010.2240.453
Infr→Sharing0.1660.0901.8520.0320.0250.328
SI→Sharing0.2210.0832.6560.0040.0830.352
EE→Att0.3910.1293.0220.0010.1590.564
JTBD→Att−0.3260.1182.7560.003−0.519−0.156
NWT→Att0.3320.1262.6330.0040.130.535
I U→Anx0.6060.0906.727<0.0010.4520.749
EE→Anx−0.1740.1031.6890.046−0.342−0.017
PSaf→JTBD0.5160.0935.551<0.0010.3640.665
NWT→Infr0.4050.1462.7740.0030.2050.574
PSaf→EE0.3500.0893.955<0.0010.1890.477
Source: generated by the authors.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popova, Y.; Zagulova, D. Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City. Informatics 2022, 9, 36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/informatics9020036

AMA Style

Popova Y, Zagulova D. Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City. Informatics. 2022; 9(2):36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/informatics9020036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popova, Yelena, and Diana Zagulova. 2022. "Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City" Informatics 9, no. 2: 36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/informatics9020036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop