Geografie 2022, 127, 1-29
https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2022127010001
It is time to get virtual: limitations of shared e-scooter mobility points, case study in Cracow (Poland)
Paweł Pistelok1
, Daniel Štraub2
, Daniel Štraub2
1Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Urban Policy Observatory, Kraków, Poland
2Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Department of the Regional Development, Kraków, Poland
Received August 2021
Accepted November 2021
References
1. , J.-P., MAJMUNDAR, A. (2019): Are electric scooters promoted on social media with safety in mind? A case study on Bird’s Instagram. Preventive Medicine Reports, 13, 62−63.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.11.013>
2. ANDERSON-HALL, K., BORDENKIRCHER, B., O’NEIL, R., SCOTT, S.C. (2019): Governing Micro-Mobility: A Nationwide Assessment of Electric Scooter Regulations. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 98th Annual Meeting, 1−18.
3. , S., JIAO, J. (2020): Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments: A comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN. Travel Behaviour and Society, 20, 264−272.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.04.005>
4. , K. (2021): Using Data on Bike-Sharing System User Stopovers in Smart Tourism: A Case Study. Communications – Scientific letters of the University of Zilina, 2, 23, G1–G12.
<https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2021.2.G1-G12>
5. , D., HICKMAN, R. (2013): Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transport Policy, 29, 283−293.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.07.005>
6. BIERWIACZONEK, K., NAWROCKI, T. (2012): Teoretyczne spojrzenie na przestrzeń publiczną. In: Bierwiaczonek K., Lewicka B., Nawrocki T. (eds.): Rynki, malle i cmentarze. Przestrzeń publiczna miast śląskich w ujęciu socjologicznym. Wydawnictwo Nomos, Kraków, 23−63.
7. BOLT (2020): Bolt E-Scooters Will Become Climate Positive by the End of 2020. blog.bolt. eu, https://blog.bolt.eu/en-gb/climate-positive-by-the-end-of-2020-the-bolt-e-scootersustainability-pledge/ (17. 5. 2021).
8. BOSETTI, S., DI BARTOLO, C., MALGIERI, P., SITRAN, A., BRŮHOVÁ FOLTYNOVÁ, H., JORDOVÁ, R., KURFURST, P., SMUTKOVÁ, D. (2014): Policy recommendations: for EU sustainable mobility concepts based on CIVITAS experience. Centrum Dopravního Výzkumu; Freiburg, Brno.
9. , K., VANOUTRIVE, T. (2017): Transport policy in Belgium: Translating sustainability discourses into unsustainable outcomes. Transport Policy, 53, 11−19.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.08.009>
10. FOLTÝNOVÁ, H., VEJCHODSKÁ, E., RYBOVÁ, K., KVĚTOŇ, V. (2020): Sustainable urban mobility: One definition, different stakeholders’ opinions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, 102465.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102465>
11. , Z., WILK, N. (2018): Ocena systemu wypożyczalni rowerów miejskich Wavelo w Krakowie. Transport Miejski i Regionalny, 10, 22−27.
12. CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHAES, C., HAMMOND, L. (2008): Public Space. The Management Dimension. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London, New York.
13. , C., HESSE, M. (2020): Mobility policy through the lens of policy mobility: The postpolitical case of introducing free transit in Luxembourg. Journal of Transport Geography, 83, 102634.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102634>
14. CARR, S., FRANCIS, M., RIVLIJ, L.G., STONE, A.M. (2009 [1992]): Public space, Cambridge University Press, New York.
15. CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHÃES, C., HAMMOND, L. (2008): Public space: the management dimension. Routledge, Abingdon.
16. , Y.-W., CHENG, C.-Y., LI, S.-F., YU, C.-H. (2018): Location optimization for multiple types of charging stations for electric scooters. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 519−528.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.02.038>
17. , R.L., SAKRAN, J. V. (2019): The Integration of Electric Scooters: Useful Technology or Public Health Problem? American Journal of Public Health, 4, 109, 555−556.
<https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.304955>
18. CLEWLOW, R.R. (2019): The Micro-Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 98th Annual Meeting. 1−13.
19. CZECH, P., TUROŃ, K., SIERPIŃSKI, G. (2017): Development of the Bike-Sharing System on the Example of Polish Cities. In: Macioszek, E., Sierpiński, G. (eds.): Recent Advances in Traffic Engineering for Transport Networks and Systems. TSTP 2017. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer, Cham.
20. CZECH, P., TUROŃ, K., URBAŃCZYK, R. (2017): Bike-Sharing as an Element of Integrated Urban Transport System. In: Sierpiński, G. (ed.): Advanced Solutions of Transport Systems for Growing Mobility. TSTP 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer, Cham, 161−169.
21. , A. (2021): Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93, 102743.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102743>
22. ERCAN M.A. (2010): Less Public than Before? Public Space Improvement. In: Madanipour, A. (ed.): Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. Routledge, London, 21−50.
23. , A., SCHLEBUSCH, S., FAURE, M. (2020): The end of free floating? Smart parking, smart riding and the evolution of micromobility. Thinking Cities, 2, 7.
24. GÓRNY, P. (2020): Transport i mobilność miejska. In: Górny P., Muzioł-Węcławowicz A., Ryś R., Sobol A. (eds.): Raport tematycznych grup eksperckich Kongresu polityki miejskiej 2019. Wyzwania i rekomendacje dla krajowej polityki miejskiej. Instytut Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, Warszawa-Kraków, 39−50.
25. HICKMAN, R., BANISTER, D. (2014): Transport, climate change and the city. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.
26. , E., BANISTER, D., GÖSSLING, S., GILPIN, G., LINNERUD, K. (2020): Grand Narratives for sustainable mobility: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 65; 101454.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101454>
27. , A., ALGOMAIAH, M., KLUGER, R., LI, Z. (2020): E-scooters and Sustainability: Investigating the Relationship between the Density of E-Scooter Trips and Characteristics of Sustainable Urban Development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 66, 1−15.
28. HOWE, E. (2020): Deconstructing the Gender Gap in Shared Micromobility Usage. INVERS.
29. , O., SWIDERSKI, J., HICKS, J., TEOMAN, D., BUEHLER, R. (2019): Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders. Sustainability, 20, 11, 1−13.
30. JONAS, A.A.G. (2015): Rethinking Mobility at the Urban-Transportation-Geography Nexus. In: Cidell, J., Prytherch, D. (eds.): Transport, Mobility, and the Production of Urban Space. Routledge, New York, 320.
31. Kancelaria Sejmu (1990): Act on Local Self-Government (Dz. U. z 2020 r. poz. 713, 1378, z 2021 r. poz. 1038.), https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19900160095/U/D19900095Lj.pdf (25. 6. 2021).
32. Kancelaria Sejmu (1998): Act on County Self-Government (Dz. U. z 2020 r. poz. 920, z 2021 r. poz. 1038.), http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19980910578/U/D19980578Lj.pdf (25. 6. 2021).
33. Kancelaria Sejmu (2003): Act on Spatial Planning and Management (Dz. U. z 2021 r. poz. 741, 784, 922.), https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20030800717/U/D20030717Lj.pdf (25. 6. 2021).
34. , W., BASSENS, D. (2018): “All transport problems are essentially mathematical”: The uneven resonance of academic transport and mobility knowledge in Brussels. Urban Geography, 3, 39, 413−437.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1336320>
35. KOHN, M. (2004): Brave new neighborhoods: the privatization of public space. Routlege, New York.
36. KRIZEK, K.J., MCGUCKIN, N. (2019): Shedding NHTS Light on the Use of “Little Vehicles” in Urban Areas. Transport Findings.
37. , S., DIJST, M. (2001): Multimodal Trips in the Netherlands: Microlevel Individual Attributes and Residential Context. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1, 1753, 11−19.
<https://doi.org/10.3141/1753-02>
38. LOFLAND, L. (2007 [1998]): The Public Realm. Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. AldineTransaction. A Division of Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.).
39. LYNCH, K. (1981): A Theory of Good City Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England.
40. LYNCH, K. (1990 [1960]): The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England.
41. MARODY, M., GIZA-POLESZCZUK, A. (2003): Przemiany więzi społecznych. Zarys teorii zmiany społecznej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warsaw.
42. , G. (2019): Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 19−28.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007>
43. , M.W., ELMLUND, P., HAAS, T. (2019): Public Spaces And Private Conflicts In The New Urban Agenda. The Sustainable City XIII, 238, 87−96.
44. , A. (2014): Urban public space between fragmentation, control and conflict. City, Territory and Architecture, 1, 1.
<https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0015-0>
45. MONTGOMERY, CH., ADSIT-MORRIS, CH., DOMINIGUES, O., GRANT, A. (2015): Wellbeing principles for British Land, Happy City, https://thehappycity.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Wellbeing-Principles-for-British-Land.pdf (25. 6. 2021).
46. , M.E., LAA, B., EMBERGER, G. (2020): Six Scooter Operators, Six Maps: Spatial Coverage and Regulation of Micromobility in Vienna, Austria. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2, 8.
47. NAMIRI, N.K., LUI, H., TANGNEY, T., ALLEN, I.E., COHEN, A.J., BREYER, B.N. (2020): Electric Scooter Injuries and Hospital Admissions in the United States, 2014−2018. JAMA Surgery.
48. , J., SCHMIDT, S. (2011): The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1, 38, 5−23.
<https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057>
49. , C. (2007): Multimodality: Facets and Causes of Sustainable Mobility Behaviour. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 35−44.
<https://doi.org/10.3141/2010-05>
50. , K. (2015): Travel demand management in the context of promoting bike trips, an overview of solutions implemented in Cracow. Transport Problems, 2, 10, 23−34.
51. , G., CARROLL, P., CAULFIELD, B. (2020): Micromobility and public transport integration: The current state of knowledge. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89, 102628.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628>
52. , P., SALATA-KOCHANOWSKI, P. (2020): Inwestycje w przestrzeni publicznej z inicjatywy mieszkańców, Urban Development Issues, 67, 27−36.
<https://doi.org/10.2478/udi-2020-0031>
53. Public transport authority in Cracow (2021a): Mapa punktów mobilnosci, https://ztp.krakow.pl/rower/mapa-punktow-mobilnosci (22. 6. 2021).
54. Public transport authority in Cracow (2021b): Mapa stojaków rowerowych, https://ztp.krakow.pl/rower/mapy-rowerowe (22. 6. 2021).
55. , H., BRENAC, T. (2019): Safe, sustainable… but depoliticized and uneven – A critical view of urban transport policies in France. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 218−234.
56. , E., TORRICELLI, G.P. (2017): Urban mobility and public space. A challenge for the sustainable liveable city of the future. The Journal of Public Space, 2, 2, 37.
<https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i2.91>
57. RIGGS, W., KAWASHIMA, M. (2020): Exploring Best Practice for Municipal E-Scooter Policy in the United States, papers.ssrn.com, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3512725 (26. 5. 2021).
58. RISOM, J., MUESSIG, A., SCHARNHORST, E., JONES, T., DECICCO, A., DOCKSTADER, C. (2015): Public Life Diversity Toolkit: a prototype formeasuring social mixing and economic integration in public space. Gehl Studio, San Francisco, Knight Foundation, https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Gehl_PublicLifeDiversityToolkit_Pages-1.pdf (25. 6. 2021).
59. ROMANOWSKA, M. (2019): Status prawny UTO. Eksperci o mikromobilności i jej miejscu w przestrzeni miejskiej, www.transport-publiczny.pl, https://www.transport-publiczny.pl/wiadomosci/status-prawny-uto-eksperci-o-mikromobilnosci-i-jej-miejscu-w-przestrzenimiejskiej-62913.html (22. 6. 2021).
60. RYGHAUG, M., SUBOTIČKI, I., VON WIRTH, T., SMEDS, E., SHERRER, A., FOULDS, C., BERTOLINI, L., INCE, E.B., BRAND, R., COHEN-BLANKSHTAIN, G., DIJK, M., FREUDENDAL-PEDERSEN, M., GÖSSLING, S., GUZIK, R., KIVIMAA, P., KLÖCKNER, C., NIKOLOVA, H. L., LIS, A., MARQUET, O., MILAKIS, D. (2020): 100 Social Sciences and Humanities priority research questions for transport and mobility in Horizon Europe. Energy-SHIFTS, Cambridge.
61. SCHELLONG, D., SADEK, P., BARRACK, T. (2019): The Promise and Pitfalls of E-Scooter Sharing, BCG Global, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/promise-pitfalls-e-scootersharing (22. 9. 2020).
62. SMITH, C.S., SCHWIETERMAN, J.P. (2018): E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless Scooters in Chicago. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, Chicago.
63. SZCZEPAŃSKI, M.S. (1991): “Miasto socjalistyczne” i świat społeczny jego mieszkańców, Europejski Instytut Rozwoju Lokalnego i Regionalnego, Warszawa, https://www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl/dane/web_euroreg_publications_files/3679/32._miasto_socjalistyczne_i_wiat_spoeczny_jego_mieszkacw.pdf (17. 6. 2021).
64. SZLOGINIA, W. (1980): Informacja wizualna w krajobrazie miejskim. PWN, Warszawa.
65. ŠTRAUB, D. (2020): Przyszłość branży e-hulajnóg a działania miast, Obserwatorium Polityki Miejskiej IRMiR, http://obserwatorium.miasta.pl/przyszlosc-branzy-e-hulajnog-a-dzialania-miast/ (29. 6. 2021).
66. ŠTRAUB, D. (2021): Newcastle zakázal parkování e-koloběžek v blízkosti hospod večer a v noci, Zdopravy.cz, https://zdopravy.cz/newcastle-zakazal-parkovani-e-kolobezek-v-blizkosti-hospod-vecer-a-v-noci-81575/ (2. 6. 2021).
67. , D., GAJDA, A. (2020): E-scooter sharing schemes operational zones in Poland: Dataset on voivodeship capital cities. Data in Brief, 33, 106560.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106560>
68. ŠTRAUB, D., PISTELOK, P. (2022): Mobilność współdzielona. Sposoby zarządzania hulajnogami elektrycznymi w miastach na prawach powiatu. Instytut Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, Warszawa, Kraków.
69. , A. (2019): The Development of Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland. The Study of Wavelo System in Kraków. Logistics and Transport, 4, 44, 69−75.
<https://doi.org/10.26411/83-1734-2015-4-44-7-19>
70. TODD, J., KRAUSS, D., ZIMMERMANN, J., DUNNING, A. (2019): Behavior of Electric Scooter Operators in Naturalistic Environments. SAE Technical Paper Series, 1−5.
71. , M., MOHSENIAN, S., SHUM, L.K., CHAN, H., BRUBACHER, J.R. (2021): Injury patterns and circumstances associated with electric scooter collisions: a scoping review. Injury Prevention, 1−10.
72. , T.K., LIU, C., ANTONIO, A.L.M., WHEATON, N., KREGER, V., YAP, A., SCHRIGER, D., ELMORE, J.G. (2019): Injuries Associated With Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA Network Open, 1, 2, e187381.
<https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7381>
73. VOI (2020): Voi launches parking racks in Oslo in a bid to address needs of vulnerable groups and improve e scooter parking, Voi, https://www.voiscooters.com/blog/voi-launchesparking-racks-in-oslo/ (22. 1. 2021).
74. WALLIS, A. (1977): Miasto i przestrzeń. PWN, Warszawa.
75. WALLIS, A. (1979): Informacja i gwar. PIW, Warszawa.
76. , H., MA, Q., WANG, Z., CAI, Q., XIE, K., YANG, D. (2020): Safety of micro-mobility: Analysis of E-Scooter crashes by mining news reports. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 143, 1−13.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105608>
77. , H., ZOU, Z., WU, J., BAIOCCHI, G. (2020): Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134, 308−320.
