Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services
Micromobility services hold substantial potential in terms of promoting shared and electric-powered mobility modes, however, little is known about their accessibility and what shapes their spatial coverage. These two issues are important to understand how socially equitable these modes can really be...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:272335 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/272335 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.3390/su15032096 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Free-floating systems Geofence Micromobility Shared mobility Moped-style scooter sharing Inequality |
| Sumario: | Micromobility services hold substantial potential in terms of promoting shared and electric-powered mobility modes, however, little is known about their accessibility and what shapes their spatial coverage. These two issues are important to understand how socially equitable these modes can really be and how public policies should manage their implementation in urban areas. Hence, this study examines the determinants of the spatial coverage of four moped-style scooter sharing services (MSS) in Barcelona. The article examines the socio-territorial characteristics of the coverage areas of each MSS, as defined in 2019, together with the minimum area that operators had to provide service in 2020 according to the local regulation. For each MSS, a binomial generalized linear mixed model is employed to predict the odds of each cadastral parcel being covered by the service and analyzed the main spatial determinants associated with it. The results suggest that territorial coverage is defined by centrality, household disposable income, and topography, with low-accessibility areas consistently omitted from services. The conclusions underline the need for the public sector to participate in the design of spatial coverage areas of MSS to guarantee spatial equity and transportation justice and avoid private sector designs that systematically exclude less attractive areas. |
|---|