communication and awareness campaigns can highlight the environmental and practical benefits of these
transport modes, thereby encouraging regular use. By combining these initiatives, public and private
stakeholders can establish shared micro-mobility as a central pillar of a modern, sustainable, and efficient urban
mobility system, capable of addressing the environmental and socio-economic challenges faced by cities.
CONCLUSION
This study has illuminated the motivations underlying the use of shared electric bicycles and scooters and offers
perspectives for developing strategies that promote the use of these innovative transport modes. A qualitative
study involving 21 users identified that the primary motivations are utilitarian, hedonic, social, and
environmental. These results demonstrate that the adoption of these mobility modes is not limited to functional
needs but is also embedded in personal, social, and sustainable considerations. The findings offer pathways for
developing strategies and policies aimed at encouraging regular, sustainable, and environmentally respectful
usage.
Despite its contributions, this study has certain limitations. It is based on a limited qualitative sample, which
restricts the generalizability of the results to the entire population of shared electric scooter and bicycle users.
Furthermore, the collected data reflect motivations at a single point in time, preventing an understanding of their
evolution over the long term.
To strengthen these findings, it would be pertinent to conduct longitudinal research to track the evolution of
motivations and behaviors over the long term, alongside quantitative studies to measure the relative importance
of different motivations and to generalize the conclusions. Such work would contribute to a better identification
of the levers capable of fostering regular, sustainable, and environmentally respectful usage. In particular, it
would provide important strategic recommendations for urban policymakers and micro-mobility operators
seeking to promote alternative, efficient, and ecological transport modes.
REFERENCES
1. Cheng, W., Yang, J., Wu, X., Zhang, T., & Yin, Z. (2024). A quantitative study on factors influencing
user satisfaction of micro-mobility in China in the post-sharing era. Sustainability, 16(4), 1637.
2. Cohen, A., & Shaheen, S. (2018). Planning for shared mobility.
3. Delacroix, E., Jolibert, A., Monnot, É. et Jourdan, P. (2021). Chapitre 6. L’analyse des données
qualitatives et documentaires. Gestion Sup , 151-177.
4. Felländer, A., Ingram, C., & Teigland, R. (2015). Sharing economy. In embracing change with caution.
Näringspolitiskt Forum Rapport (Vol. 11).
5. Kalašová, A., & Čulík, K. (2023). The micromobility tendencies of people and their transport behavior.
Applied Sciences, 13(19), 10559.
6. Kazemzadeh, K., & Ronchi, E. (2022). From bike to electric bike level-of-service. Transport reviews,
42(1), 6-31.
7. Kazemzadeh, K., & Ronchi, E. (2022). From bike to electric bike level-of-service. Transport reviews,
42(1), 6-31.
8. Schlagwein, D., Schoder, D., & Spindeldreher, K. (2020). Consolidated, systemic conceptualization, and
definition of the “sharing economy”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
71(7), 817-838.
9. Thiétart, R. A. (2025). Méthodes de recherche en management-5e éd. Dunod..
10. Tzouras, P. G., Pastia, V., Kaparias, I., & Kepaptsoglou, K. (2025). Exploring the effect of perceived
safety in first/last mile mode choices. Transportation, 52(5), 2145-2183.
11. Weschke, J., Oostendorp, R., & Hardinghaus, M. (2022). Mode shift, motivational reasons, and impact
on emissions of shared e-scooter usage. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
112, 103468.
12. Yanocha, D., & Allan, M. (2019). The electric assist: Leveraging e-bikes and e-scooters for more livable
cities. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.