How Micromobility affects Social Equity

The social equity impacts of micromobility programs are somewhat mixed. In demographic analyses of bikeshare and scooter share riders in developed countries, studies often find that riders are, based on their income, education, youth or able-bodied status, relatively privileged [1], [2]. Though low-income travelers may be less likely to adopt bikeshare, those who do may use them more intensively and for more trip purposes than more affluent users [3], [4]. Shared micromobility programs designed with docked stations tend to be particularly unequally distributed geographically relative to dockless systems [5]. In light of these demographic and geographic imbalances, it is not uncommon for agencies to impose equity requirements in shared micromobility programs [6]. Social equity research in micromobility focuses on two main components 1) how to incentivize low-income and underrepresented groups to use the services (with a focus on policy measures or direct subsidies linked to spatial equity) and 2) how to include diverse voices in the planning process. Policy analysis is largely linked to geospatial distribution of access to bikeshare, scooter-share, and carshare [7], [8], [9].

Shared micromobility offers an alternative to private driving and thus displaces driving trips that make roads more dangerous and pollute air for everyone. And, it has the added benefit of providing job access and improved health outcomes [10], [11].

References

  1. J. Dill and N. McNeil, “Are shared vehicles shared by all? A review of equity and vehicle sharing,” J. Plan. Lit., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2021.

  2. S. Meng and A. Brown, “Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 96, p. 103185, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103185.

  3. M. Winters, K. Hosford, and S. Javaheri, “Who are the ‘super-users’ of public bike share? An analysis of public bike share members in Vancouver, BC,” Prev. Med. Rep., vol. 15, p. 100946, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100946.

  4. H. Mohiuddin, D. T. Fitch-Polse, and S. L. Handy, “Does bike-share enhance transport equity? Evidence from the Sacramento, California region,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 109, p. 103588, 2023.

  5. Z. Chen, D. Van Lierop, and D. Ettema, “Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications?,” Transp. Rev., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 333–353, May 2020, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2019.1710306.

  6. A. Brown and A. Howell, “Mobility for the people: Equity requirements in US shared micromobility programs,” J. Cycl. Micromobility Res., vol. 2, p. 100020, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100020.

  7. S. Meng and A. Brown, “Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 96, p. 103185, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103185.

  8. J. J. C. Aman, M. Zakhem, and J. Smith-Colin, “Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 11856, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132111856.

  9. L. Su, X. Yan, and X. Zhao, “Spatial equity of micromobility systems: A comparison of shared E-scooters and docked bikeshare in Washington DC,” Transp. Policy, vol. 145, pp. 25–36, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.10.008.

  10. W. Yu, C. Chen, B. Jiao, Z. Zafari, and P. Muennig, “The Cost-Effectiveness of Bike Share Expansion to Low-Income Communities in New York City,” J. Urban Health, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 888–898, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11524-018-0323-x.

  11. X. Qian and D. Niemeier, “High impact prioritization of bikeshare program investment to improve disadvantaged communities’ access to jobs and essential services,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 76, pp. 52–70, 2019.

Related Literature Reviews

See Literature Reviews on Micromobility

See Literature Reviews on Social Equity

Note: Mobility COE research partners conducted this literature review in Spring of 2024 based on research available at the time. Unless otherwise noted, this content has not been updated to reflect newer research.