Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods
(This article belongs to the Section E: Electric Vehicles)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- -
- Improperly adjusted zone of the scooter-sharing system to the needs of a given urban area;
- -
- An inadequate number of vehicles to meet the needs of the service and society;
- -
- Improper relocation of vehicles in urban conditions, especially during rush hours;
- -
- An inappropriate type of systems management;
- -
- Technical issues related to vehicles and their operation;
- -
- Improper scooters models for the needs of society, e.g., too heavy, unstable, with operational problems, damaged, etc., negatively affecting user safety.
- -
- Ensuring self-confidence when moving an electric scooter;
- -
- Having the ability to anticipate phenomena on the path or road;
- -
- Owning and increasing the experience of driving an electric scooter;
- -
- Ability to move the scooter on different surfaces;
- -
- Knowledge of equipping the electric scooter with safety systems when moving the vehicle.
2. Materials and Methods
- -
- Precise modeling of the decision maker’s preferences to each of the criteria, as well as the precise determination of the importance of the criteria;
- -
- Considering subcriteria;
- -
- Considering a large (more than >7+/−2) number of criteria;
- -
- Applicable to a single decision maker as well as to a group of decision makers;
- -
- Use of actual and not relative values of criteria assessments for individual variants;
- -
- The use of preference thresholds both in the form of fixed values and in the form of proportional (linear) to the compared criteria values;
- -
- Relatively low time consumption of the preference modeling stage by the decision maker;
- -
- The ability to graphically present the results.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- -
- When creating a fleet of vehicles, you should first focus on the greatest possible range of a given vehicle and the number of security systems;
- -
- Operators should focus on vehicles with the best engine power, which translates into more efficient driving around the city;
- -
- Operators should also pay attention to the manufacturer of a given vehicle, whether it has the experience and its products are recognizable on the market;
- -
- Theoretically, the vehicle fleet should be adjusted to meet all user preferences, but unfortunately, depending on the city/country in which the electric scooter-sharing system is located, you need to familiarize yourself with the legal requirements that can significantly exclude vehicles with higher engine power (exceeding 350 W);
- -
- It is also worth equipping the vehicles with batteries with the largest possible capacity so that the operator in crises will be able to manage a given vehicle and limit its engine parameters, which will increase the range of the vehicle;
- -
- The criterion of the cost of purchasing an electric scooter is a less significant criterion, as the ranking was won by a vehicle worth EUR 575, and the cheapest a6 vehicle was classified in the last position in the ranking.
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The Emissions Reduction Obligation Quota Policy Is Reinforced with Increasing the Share of Renewables in Vehicle Fuels. Available online: https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2020/09/branslebytet-forstarks-med-hogre-inblandning-av-fornybart-i-drivmedel/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Baek, K.; Lee, H.; Chung, J.-H.; Kim, J. Electric Scooter Sharing: How Do People Value It as a Last-Mile Transportation Mode? Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2021, 90, 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ham, S.W.; Cho, J.-H.; Park, S.; Kim, D.-K. Spatiotemporal Demand Prediction Model for E-Scooter Sharing Services with Latent Feature and Deep Learning. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021, 2675, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, G.; Arsenio, E.; Ribeiro, P. The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K.; Kubik, A.; Łazarz Bogusław, B.; Czech, P.; Stanik, Z. Car-Sharing in the Context of Car Operation. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 421, 032027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evaluation of E-Scooter Media Coverage. Available online: https://findingspress.org/article/30193-evaluation-of-e-scooter-media-coverage (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Turoń, K.; Czech, P. The Concept of Rules and Recommendations for Riding Shared and Private E-Scooters in the Road Network in the Light of Global Problems. In Modern Traffic Engineering in the System Approach to the Development of Traffic Networks; Macioszek, E., Sierpiński, G., Eds.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1083, pp. 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFarland, M. Scooters Are a Huge Problem for Cities. No One Knows How to Solve It Yet. CNN Business. Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/30/tech/scooter-management/index.html (accessed on 17 November 2022).
- Inside Hook Portal. Scooter-Sharing Has Problems. When Will American Cities Solve Them? Available online: https://www.insidehook.com/article/travel/how-to-solve-americas-e-scooter-sharing-problem (accessed on 12 November 2022).
- Sareen, S.; Remme, D.; Haarstad, H. E-Scooter Regulation: The Micro-Politics of Market-Making for Micro-Mobility in Bergen. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 40, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, P. Perceptions of Electric Scooters Prior to Legalisation: A Case Study of Dublin, Ireland, the ‘Final Frontier’ of Adopted E-Scooter Use in Europe. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Meng, M.; Zhou, L.; Ieromonachou, P. Developing a Conceptual Business Model Framework for Shared Electric-Micro-Mobility Services: A Systematic Literature Review. IFAC-Pap. 2022, 55, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Chan, N.; Bansal, A. Sharing Strategies: Carsharing, Shared Micromobility (Bikesharing and Scooter Sharing), Transportation Network Companies, Microtransit, and Other Innovative Mobility Modes. In Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 237–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, F.-H. User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrese, S.; D’Andreagiovanni, F.; Giacchetti, T.; Nardin, A.; Zamberlan, L. A Beautiful Fleet: Optimal Repositioning in E-Scooter Sharing Systems for Urban Decorum. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 52, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orvin, M.M.; Bachhal, J.K.; Fatmi, M.R. Modeling the Demand for Shared E-Scooter Services. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, 2676, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montella, A.; Chiaradonna, S.; Mihiel, A.C.D.S.; Lovegrove, G.; Nunziante, P.; Rella Riccardi, M. Sustainable Complete Streets Design Criteria and Case Study in Naples, Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popova, Y.; Zagulova, D. Aspects of E-Scooter Sharing in the Smart City. Informatics 2022, 9, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemzadeh, K.; Sprei, F. Towards an Electric Scooter Level of Service: A Review and Framework. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 29, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şengül, B.; Mostofi, H. Impacts of E-Micromobility on the Sustainability of Urban Transportation—A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leoni, J.; Tanelli, M.; Strada, S.C.; Savaresi, S.M. Assessing E-Scooters Safety and Drivability: A Quantitative Analysis. IFAC-Pap. 2022, 55, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- D’Andreagiovanni, F.; Nardin, A.; Carrese, S. An Analysis of the Service Coverage and Regulation of E-Scooter Sharing in Rome (Italy). Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 60, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Waerden, P.; van der Waerden, J. The Relation between Train Access Mode Attributes and Travelers’ Transport Mode-Choice Decisions in the Context of Medium- and Long-Distance Trips in the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 719–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingvardson, J.B.; Nielsen, O.A. Effects of New Bus and Rail Rapid Transit Systems—An International Review. Transp. Rev. 2018, 38, 96–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuipers, R.A.; Palmqvist, C.-W.; Olsson, N.O.E.; Winslott Hiselius, L. The Passenger’s Influence on Dwell Times at Station Platforms: A Literature Review. Transp. Rev. 2021, 41, 721–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.J. Performance of bus lanes in Seoul. IATSS Res. 2003, 27, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CineCinelli, M.; Kadziński, M.; Miebs, G.; Gonzalez, M.; Słowiński, R. Recommending Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Methods with a New Taxonomy-Based Decision Support System. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2022, 302, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zlaugotne, B.; Zihare, L.; Balode, L.; Kalnbalkite, A.; Khabdullin, A.; Blumberga, D. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Comparison. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2020, 24, 454–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Breuil, D.; Chauhan, S.S.; Parent, M.; Reveillere, T. A Multicriteria Decision Making Approach for Carsharing Stations Selection. J. Decis. Syst. 2007, 16, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K.; Kubik, A.; Chen, F. What Car for Car-Sharing? Conventional, Electric, Hybrid or Hydrogen Fleet? Analysis of the Vehicle Selection Criteria for Car-Sharing Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 4344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobryń, A. Wielokrotne Wspomaganie Decyzji w Gospodarowaniu Przestrzenią; Difin: Warszaw, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Figueira, J.R.; Greco, S.; Roy, B.; Słowiński, R. ELECTRE methods: Main features and recent developments. In Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 51–89. [Google Scholar]
- Norese, M.F. ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-making on the localisation of waste-treatment plants. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żak, J.; Kruszyński, M. Application of AHP and ELECTRE III/IV Methods to Multiple Level, Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Urban Transportation Projects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 820–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dudek, M.; Solecka, K.; Richter, M. A Multi-Criteria Appraisal of the Selection of Means of Urban Passenger Transport Using the Electre and AHP Methods. Czas. Tech. 2018, 6, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
- Turoń, K. Selection of Car Models with a Classic and Alternative Drive to the Car-Sharing Services from the System’s Rare Users Perspective. Energies 2022, 15, 6876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fancello, G.; Carta, M.; Fadda, P. A Decision Support System Based on Electre III for Safety Analysis in a Suburban Road Network. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borken, J. Evaluation of environmental indicators for transport with ELECTRE III. In Actes du Seminaire PIE; INRETS; INRETS Seminar PIE: Lyon, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lupo, T. Fuzzy ServPerf Model Combined with ELECTRE III to Comparatively Evaluate Service Quality of International Airports in Sicily. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2015, 42, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K. Carsharing Vehicle Fleet Selection from the Frequent User’s Point of View. Energies 2022, 15, 6166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, M.; Bruen, M. Using ELECTRE III to Choose Route for Dublin Port Motorway. J. Transp. Eng. 2000, 126, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis during Selection of Vehicles for Car-Sharing Services—Regular Users’ Expectations. Energies 2022, 15, 7277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nermend, K. Metody Analizy Wielokryterialnej I Wielowymiarowej We Wspomaganiu Decyzji; Wydawnictwo PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Żak, J. Wielokryterialne Wspomaganie Decyzji w Transporcie Drogowym; Rozprawa habilitacyjna nr 394; Politechnika Poznańska: Poznań, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage 1986, 32, 841–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T. Decision Making for Leaders. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hashemi, S.S.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Mahdiraji, H.A. Multicriteria Group Decision Making with ELECTRE III Method Based on Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 1554–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary, S.A.S.A.; Suganya, G. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using ELECTRE. Circuits Syst. 2016, 07, 1008–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kubik, A. The Energy Consumption of Electric Scooters Used in the Polish Shared Mobility Market. Energies 2022, 15, 8193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubik, A. CO2 Emissions of Electric Scooters Used in Shared Mobility Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 8188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubik, A. Impact of the Use of Electric Scooters from Shared Mobility Systems on the Users. Smart Cities 2022, 5, 1079–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoycheva, S.; Marchese, D.; Paul, C.; Padoan, S.; Juhmani, A.; Linkov, I. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework for Sustainable Manufacturing in Automotive Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ataç, S.; Obrenović, N.; Bierlaire, M. Vehicle Sharing Systems: A Review and a Holistic Management Framework. EURO J. Transp. Logist. 2021, 10, 100033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factor Abbreviation | Factor | Factor Description |
---|---|---|
C1 | Vehicle price [EUR] | The market purchase price of a scooter for the scooter-sharing system. |
C2 | Range [km] | The maximum distance that can be covered with one full use of the maximum battery capacity. |
C3 | Battery capacity [Ah] | The maximum ability to supply an electrical circuit with a given amount of current for a given time. |
C4 | Charging time [min] | Number of minutes needed to fully charge the electric battery. |
C5 | Engine power [kW] | A parameter expressed in Watts (W), which means the work that the motor is able to perform in a given time |
C6 | Capacity [kg] | Maximum weight of scooter rider. |
C7 | Number of driving modes [-] | The number of riding modes that can be selected by the scooter user while riding. |
C8 | Number of driving assistance systems [-] | The number of driving assistance systems that are helping user during riding. |
C9 | Number of safety systems [-] | The number of safety systems that the electric scooter is equipped with. |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
C1 [EUR] | C2 [km] | C3 [Ah] | C4 [min] | C5 [kW] | C6 [kg] | C7 [-] | C8 [-] | C9 [-] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a1 | 850 | 25 | 8 | 300 | 350 | 100 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
a2 | 525 | 20 | 5 | 120 | 350 | 120 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
a3 | 340 | 18 | 7.5 | 240 | 350 | 120 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
a4 | 575 | 35 | 10 | 560 | 350 | 120 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
a5 | 525 | 35 | 10 | 560 | 350 | 120 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
a6 | 635 | 15 | 4 | 240 | 300 | 100 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
a7 | 375 | 20 | 5 | 210 | 250 | 100 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
a8 | 425 | 30 | 8 | 330 | 250 | 100 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
a9 | 575 | 45 | 12 | 510 | 300 | 100 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maximum Difference of Criteria Values: ∆ = max − min | 510.00 | 30.00 | 8.00 | 440.00 | 100.00 | 20.00 | 1.0 | 3.00 | 2.00 |
Equivalence Threshold: Q = 0.25 × ∆ | 127.50 | 7.50 | 2.00 | 110.00 | 25.00 | 5.00 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.50 |
Preference Threshold: P = 0.5 × ∆ | 255.00 | 15.00 | 4.00 | 220.00 | 50.00 | 10.00 | 0.50 | 1.50 | 1.00 |
Veto Threshold: V = ∆ | 510.00 | 30.00 | 8.00 | 440.00 | 100.00 | 20.00 | 1.0 | 3.00 | 2.00 |
Compatibility Matrix | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a5 | a6 | a7 | a8 | a9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a1 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.64 |
a2 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.41 |
a3 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.46 |
a4 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
a5 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
a6 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.51 |
a7 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.66 |
a8 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.87 |
a9 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
Matrix of Domination | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a5 | a6 | a7 | a8 | a9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a1 | 0 | U+ | U+ | E | L− | U+ | L− | L− | L− |
a2 | L− | 0 | U+ | L− | L− | E | L− | L− | L− |
a3 | L− | L− | 0 | L− | L− | L− | L− | L− | L− |
a4 | E | U+ | U+ | 0 | L− | E | L− | L− | L− |
a5 | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | 0 | U+ | L− | L− | L− |
a6 | L− | E | U+ | E | L− | 0 | L− | L− | L− |
a7 | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | 0 | L− | L− |
a8 | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | 0 | L− |
a9 | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | U+ | 0 |
Ascend Distillation | Descend Distillation | Final Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|
a9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
a8 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.50 |
a7 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 |
a4 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 3.50 |
a5 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.50 |
a1 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.50 |
a2 | 4.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 |
a6 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
a3 | 6.00 | 7.00 | 6.50 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kubik, A. Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods. Energies 2022, 15, 8903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238903
Kubik A. Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods. Energies. 2022; 15(23):8903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238903
Chicago/Turabian StyleKubik, Andrzej. 2022. "Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods" Energies 15, no. 23: 8903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238903
APA StyleKubik, A. (2022). Selection of an Electric Scooter for Shared Mobility Services Using Multicriteria Decision Support Methods. Energies, 15(23), 8903. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238903