English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Many cities around the world have introduced dockless micromobility servicesin recent years and witnessed their rapid growth. Shared dockless e-scootershave the potential to benefit neighborhoods that lack access to station-basedbikeshare services, but they may also exacerbate the existing spatialdisparities. While some studies have examined the equity of station-basedbikeshare systems, limited knowledge is available regarding dockless e-scooterservices. This study uses Washington DC as a case study, a city with bothdockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare systems, to conduct equityanalysis of the two types of micromobility options. We develop an analyticalframework to examine how dockless e-scooter and station-based bikeshare differon a set of equity-related outcomes (i.e., availability, accessibility, usage,and idle time) across neighborhoods of different socioeconomic categories.Results reveal that dockless e-scooter services increase accessibility toshared micromobility options for disadvantaged neighborhoods but also widen theaccess gap across neighborhoods. Compared to bikeshare, shared e-scooters havea higher level of spatial accessibility overall due to greater supply; however,the greater supply largely leads to longer average idle time of sharede-scooters rather than a greater number of trips. Finally, it appears that thebikeshare system's equity program effectively promotes low-income use bute-scooters' equity programs do not. Our findings suggest that increasingvehicle supply alone would probably not lead to higher micromobility use indisadvantaged neighborhoods. Instead, policymakers should combine a variety ofstrategies such as promoting the enrollment of equity programs and reducingaccess barriers (e.g., smartphone and banking requirements) to micromobilityservices.

Spatial Equity of Micromobility Systems: A Comparison of Shared E-scooters and Station-based Bikeshare in Washington DC