1 Introduction

In recent years, technological progress and innovations in transportation have led to new ideas in the field of mobility-related solutions (Gössling, 2020). Micromobility-related solutions, such as the usage of e-scooters, e-bicycles, or cargo e-bikes as well as other types of vehicles, might be a building block in a more sustainable urban transportation system. These new mobility forms, i.e., micromobiles, could replace short car rides and connect the start and end parts of commuting (Giuffrida et al., 2020). Several companies are trying to satisfy the demand for electric micromobility (e-micromobility) in European cities (Oeschger et al., 2020). This leads to an increasing number of accidents involving e-scooters highlighting legislative issues (Tuncer et al., 2020).

For e-micromobility solutions and the related implementation to become successful, certain aspects need a more detailed focus. First, a method showing how to provide a definition of e-micromobiles with the agreement of different stakeholders cannot be found today. As a result, there are several synonymously used terms, which may lead to confusion. Second, an assessment framework can help in defining the relevant challenges and related measures to support the successful integration of e-micromobility into urban transportation networks. This paper addresses specifically these research gaps by providing a common definition of e-micromobility through an expert survey, which is used when analyzing the framework components. The framework creates a suitable knowledge base, where the collected information is integrated with the outcomes of an expert workshop. Based on these consolidated results, general and specific recommendation can be formulated.

Current paper starts with providing information about current issues and research gaps, which is followed by a review of recent papers about e-micromobility. In the third section, the methodology is presented. The fourth section is about the application of a framework analysis tool. The definition process together with the stakeholder identification is shown in the next section. The discussion section provides some ideas about issues with the current mobility system and potential implications of new mobility services. The final part of the paper is the conclusion section.

2 Literature review

2.1 User experience and travel behavior

As a new mobility solution, e-micromobility provides a unique user experience and initiates novel practices; however, its status within the existing transportation system and the application of existing rules to this new mobility form is unclear, based on Geels et al. (2017). Although electric mobility is emerging nowadays, as stated by Meszaros et al. (2021), the conditions for a serious market penetration, especially considering the infrastructure, the financial opportunities, and the policy settings, are not present in several locations. Furthermore, there is limited information available about the impact of introducing new mobility solutions on existing city services.

To understand potential changes, it has to be identified how e-micromobiles are used within a city. Gössling (2020) finds that e-micromobiles represent a highly attractive new transport mode in the urban transportation system, but they compete with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorized transportation, as well. However, the researcher’s study has a limitation to e-scooters. Hardt and Bogenberger (2019) state that the majority of trips can be realized by micromobiles, but safety, weather conditions, and baggage capacity are the most relevant attributes which may hinder the practical usage. Hardt and Bogenberger’s (2019) paper focuses on powered two-wheelers, while the researchers admit that the nomenclature is rather inconsistent. Campbell et al. (2016) examine the differences between the usage of shared bikes and shared electric bikes. The scholars find that the electric version is less sensitive to long distance, bad air quality, and weather issues. In general, e-micromobility is widely accepted by citizens, based on a survey of Clewlow (2019). Fitt and Curl (2020) explore wider perspectives of e-micromobility as it has the potential to change the established patterns of urban space usage and mobility patterns including frequency and transport mode choice. The researchers’ study focuses on shared micromobility as a synonym of shared e-scooters.

2.2 Stakeholder perspectives and transport mode choice

In order to shift toward a more sustainable transportation system and to enhance the user experience, suitable policies, which facilitate the spreading of e-micromobility, have to be identified. These policies are prepared, created, supported, and realized by different stakeholder groups. Edge et al. (2020) provide new insights how stakeholders facilitate sustainability transitions in case of new mobility solutions. The researchers focus specifically on e-bikes, which strengthen the multimodal integration and the innovations of a shared mobility system. In order to assess the perceptions of e-bikes as new mobility options and the potential changes it can realize, an expert workshop of 24 participants is organized including urban planners, cycling professionals, associations, as well as academy, industry, and city representatives. Aono and Bigazzi (2019) conduct a similar analysis, where industrial, civil, and governmental stakeholders are invited to discuss their perspectives on implementing e-bike policies. The results indicate an agreement among the stakeholders, which states that new mobility solutions require separate regulations from other vehicle types. A top priority is to include speed limits into the regulations and to support infrastructural improvements. Pike and Pilatowsky Gruner (2020) investigate, among 42 stakeholders, what kind of impact new mobility solutions might bring to the existing transportation network. City planners, transportation agencies, regional operators, service providers, and non-profit organizations are invited to the interview. It is pointed out that the lack of data is a main issue, which causes uncertainty related to the impacts of transportation, the economic background, and the environmental benefits. Furthermore, the scholars find that the regulations should balance local control with state-level guidance. The above-mentioned papers cover the regulations and policy-making of new mobility solutions; however, they do it in a mode-specific way, not necessarily addressing e-micromobility.

2.3 Micromobility definitions

Before setting the policies, the definition of the new mobility form should be discussed. In a report from the International Transport Forum (ITF), micromobiles are defined as human-powered or electrically assisted vehicles weighing less than 350 kg and having a maximum speed of 45 km/h (ITF, 2020). The study primarily covers safety issues, but it does not form an opinion on whether 350 kg powered vehicles with a speed capacity of 45 km/h should be accommodated on bike lines. Thus, still confusion remains regarding the opportunities of infrastructure usage. In 2019, the Society of Automotive Engineers published a standard titled “Taxonomy & Classification of Powered Micromobility Vehicles” defining e-micromobility as a category of powered vehicles that can be classified according to four main criteria: vehicle weight (up to 227 kg), vehicle width (up to 1.5 m), top speed (up to 48 km/h), and power source by an electric motor or a combustion engine (SAE International, 2019). Another definition is provided for e-micromobiles in Germany (German Federal Ministry of Transport & Digital Infrastructure, 2019). The features of e-micromobiles are defined among others with the following criteria: speed between 6 and 20 km/h, weight of maximum 55 kg, width of maximum 700 mm, height of maximum 1400 mm, and length of maximum 2000 mm.

Several researchers provide various definitions. For example, McQueen et al. (2020) define micromobility as “small, lightweight human-powered or electric vehicles operated at low speeds including docked and dockless e-scooters and bike-sharing systems”. Their study works with a fuzzy definition of micromobility without numerical constraints regarding weight and speed as well as referring to shared solutions. Based on Milakis et al. (2020), “micro-mobility is a term often used to describe a group of modes that are typically electric, shared, hailed through an app and are used as first/last mile solution. Yet, there is still ambiguity about which modes can be included under this term”. Several features can be used to specify the definition of micromobiles. To define micromobility, Zarif et al. (2019) suggest the following parameters to be included: weight, passenger number, payload capacity, powertrain, maximum speed, and maximum range. However, without a clear definition, the study recommends handling micromobility as a mode which can use the same infrastructure as bicycles. This implies that the definition of e-micromobility should be more exactly elaborated.

2.4 Regulatory environment and policy suggestions

Micromobility spreads unexpectedly in cities; companies appear and provide operational solutions including smart elements. However, the regulatory environment is not ready for such a change, which creates conflicts among users and a challenge for policy-makers, as discovered by Anderson-Hall et al. (2019). More coordination between the cities and operators should be realized to facilitate a smooth transition toward alternative transportation options.

Fearnley (2020) claims that the main issues include that e-micromobility operates a gray area between local and national government regulations, between commercial use and public spaces as well as between non-motorized and motorized transport modes. In the researcher’s paper, some policy suggestions appear including geofencing, zoning, mandatory data sharing, and mandatory cooperation. Gössling (2020) notes that there is a considerable uncertainty about appropriate rules and policies. Additionally, some cities adopt ad hoc policies, but the final aim would be to introduce such policy approaches which minimize conflicts related to e-mobility users. Thus, the newly developed policies should contain regulations regarding the maximum speed, the use of infrastructure, dedicated parking, and the limitation of the number of licensed operators.

Furthermore, Zarif et al. (2019) highlight the potential issues with the infrastructure, such as riding on the sidewalk, bike lanes, or roads. The scholars provide potential solutions: adaptive regulation, regulatory sandboxes, outcome-based regulation, and risk-weighted regulation. Zagorskas and Burinskiene (2020) state that most cities rely on rules created for bicycles, where the unique aspects of e-micromobility solutions are not taken into account. The researchers suggest the introduction of speed limits, parking regulations, geofencing, and fines.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which consists of 86 major North American cities and transit agencies, deals with e-micromobility-related regulations and policies (National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), 2019). The suggestion of the NACTO is that e-micromobility services should be solely allowed if having a legal permission. This permission should include a limitation on the number of companies and vehicles. Moreover, operators should be obliged to remove those vehicles which are within the predefined restricted areas in the city. The requirement of having insurance should be included in the contracts. Furthermore, operators should provide a certain level of customer service together with the communication and data usage requirements. However, it is claimed that there are many questions for which there has not been a well-defined best practice.

The regulation of the European Union (2013) addresses two-, three-, and four-wheeled vehicles excluding self-balancing vehicles and those without seats. Consequently, e-scooters are explicitly excluded from the scope. Due to this lack of distinctive legislative regulations on e-micromobility at the European level, national regulators are required to address this discrepancy. It means that authorities should introduce a flexible approach of regulations to keep up with the arriving mobility-related solutions.

3 Research gap

The current definitions on e-micromobility are mostly descriptive definitions originating from ongoing innovations. Shared e-scooters were the first form of electric micromobility, which turned this topic visible, when companies (e.g., Lime and Bird) started their operations. During the last couple of years, comprehensive experience has been gained by city experts and decision-makers. Abduljabbar et al. (2021) investigate what is the role of micromobility in shaping sustainable cities through a systematic literature review, but a clear and comprehensive definition has not been provided yet. Therefore, a new process is created and carried out to reach a definition of e-micromobility, which builds on this experience and is applicable to urban circumstances. Additionally, it seems that developing a comprehensive framework assessment about the situation of e-micromobility in specific locations might be useful. Thus, in this paper, a framework including planning, regulatory, and practical realization conditions is elaborated.

4 Methodology

4.1 The expert pool from the cities

Electric micromobility is a relatively new term for a rapidly changing urban transport mode, where a clear definition has not been transferred to practice yet, but several cities have already gained practical experience about it. Thus, a feasible way to analyze the status and challenges in policy-making is to discuss the issues with local experts and decision-makers. The partners of an Urban Mobility KIC project, funded by the European Union, includes the following five municipalities: Barcelona, Copenhagen, Munich, Stockholm, and Tel Aviv. The expert pool consists of experts with different background, for example, an executive manager from a technology center in Spain, a project manager working for a metropolitan municipality in Denmark, a head of mobility research of a German research institute, a program leader for efficient transportation concepts at a Swedish university, and a municipality officer from an Israeli municipality.

The participants’ direct involvement provides the opportunity to form an expert pool, which is available for surveys and for iterative workshops to validate the outcomes. The number of analyzed cities is feasible for an in-depth framework assessment and provides a good variety of European locations in terms of geographical and cultural aspects. Moreover, all the chosen cities have already collected a valuable practical experience in the field of electric micromobility; thus, they could properly justify the findings and the results of the analysis.

4.2 The expert workshop and expert survey

The first part of the approach consists of an expert workshop and an expert survey. This part of the research identifies the relevant stakeholders and provides a common definition of e-micromobiles. The expert workshop is organized to collect information about the current situation of e-micromobility and to explore who the main stakeholders are in this framework. The topics of the workshop include complex questions about the role and requirements of e-micromobility in the urban ecosystem. Additionally, the most relevant stakeholders, who are part of this e-micromobility ecosystem, are identified, and their relationship is assessed. Afterward, various regulations in specific countries are presented, and the aspects of a potential agreement between the service operator and the municipality are listed. The collected information is an essential input for the use case descriptions in the next step since some regulations and legislations are not available in English, and it is hard to collect and analyze them without knowing the local language and circumstances.

A non-representative expert survey is carried out with the participation of the expert pool to set up a suitable definition of e-micromobiles. The methodology (shown in Fig. 1) divides the survey into two independent parts: the first part aims to set up the relevant parameters (P1,P2,…,Pn), and the second part aims to derive constraint values (V1, V2,…,Vn) for the specified vehicle types. In the first part of the survey, the experts have to decide whether a specific vehicle is a micromobile or not based on real-life photographs but without any text, while in the other part, the experts are asked to evaluate parameters whether to include them in the definition of e-micromobile or not. In addition, for the constraints, typical values are collected from the market. This solution is developed to avoid theoretical discussions and keep the experts’ focus on the local experience to gain quantitative results. The parameters of e-micromobile listed in the survey are discussed during the expert workshop, which allows an opportunity to clarify the terms and potential issues. Based on the inputs from the expert pool, a consolidated definition of e-micromobiles can be presented, which is used in the second part of the method.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The structure of the methodology

Full size image

Clustering methodologies are used to highlight groups in the unlabelled datasets. For the purpose of current research, the number of clusters is predefined as three: top scores, middle scores, and low scores, where the middle scores require further discussions; meanwhile, top scores and low scores are considered as clear results. Based on the findings of Abbas (2008), k-means cluster analysis is selected as the number of clusters is predefined and low, the size of the dataset is low, and the number of variables is one. In addition, k-means clustering is a well-known and accepted method with several applications by experts and researchers. According to Kriegel et al. (2017), the basics of k-means clustering is to minimize the within-cluster sum of squares (WCSS) by pairwise iterations.

$$ {\text{WCSS}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{{c_{i} \in C}} \mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1..d} \mathop \sum \limits_{{x,y \in c_{i} }} \left( {x_{ij} - y_{ij} } \right)^{2} $$

where xij and yij are the coordinates of the elements in cluster ci. The number of dimensions is j, and the number of clusters is i. In this research, j represents the scores provided by the experts.

The framework analysis tool includes three parts: planning conditions, regulatory environment, and practical realization, which is explained in detail in the next subsection. During the workshop, another topic is discussed, where the country- and city-specific differences in planning strategies, governmental regulations, and realized implementation are identified. After the data collection, the whole process is discussed again with the experts in the frame of additional smaller expert workshops, where the expert pool provides clarifications regarding the collected information. This serves as a validation of the framework analysis tool. As a final step, general and specific suggestions derived from the definition and the framework analysis are formed.

4.3 Framework analysis tool

In the other main part of the method, an extensive analysis is conducted to assess the e-micromobility-related framework from the policy-making perspective. The analysis of the current situation is done by using publicly available documents, official reports, and in case of missing official information, through trustworthy media appearances. Based on the discussions, three components are generally identified to cover every city-related aspect. These three components (i.e., planning conditions, regulatory environment, and practical realization) are accepted by the experts as a framework for e-micromobility situation description. The organizational structures and responsibilities of cities defined by the national legislation vary a lot; thus, further subdivision does not enable comparability.

As part of the analysis, a comprehensive description of the European market is realized by the expert pool, where the use cases (i.e., Barcelona, Copenhagen, München, Stockholm, and Tel Aviv) are identified, as well. The framework assessment process is supplemented with information from the workshop participants, and the results of the data collection are verified by the city representatives.

In the following paragraphs, the three components are described. Planning conditions: In the first part, urban-, regional-, and national-level strategic documents (e.g., climate plans and mobility development plans) are collected to examine the objectives and measures related to e-micromobility, which are usually very similar to the conventional measures of cycling. Planning conditions are collected to see what kind of visions or strategies supports e-micromobility.

Regulatory environment: In the second part, information is collected to analyze the current regulations and legislation regarding e-micromobility. In this part, not merely official regulations are observed but the public information available for end users, as well. The regulatory environment is analyzed to see what the current rules of using and operating e-micromobility vehicles are.

Practical realization: The third part focuses on market opportunities and e-micromobility services. It is assessed whether there is any support and what are the obstacles or constraints to provide such services. Administrative, technical, and financial opportunities including implementation-related circumstances and integration opportunities are collected to see the current potential in the e-micromobility market.

5 The identification of the stakeholders and the definition of the most common e-micromobiles

5.1 The identification of the stakeholders

An expert workshop was conducted on January 30, 2020, where the opinion of around 20 international experts including municipality representatives, industry partners, and researchers is asked about how they see the status and future trends in the field of e-micromobility. It is discussed that the e-micromobility ecosystem is connected to several types of stakeholders, such as manufacturers, service providers, users, authorities, and cooperating partners. Without further descriptions, the following partners are involved; however, they do not play such a central role: road infrastructure management, mobility data providers, law enforcement bodies, and local citizens.

In the following paragraphs, five stakeholders are introduced. Manufacturers: The first group of stakeholders is the manufacturers who produce micromobiles. Manufacturers can be connected to specific service providers or might be independent actors. Processes such as product development, design, and production are strongly linked to the legislation and the standards of the market. Considering these aspects, the manufacturers’ requirements can be deducted as having unified legislation, same standards in different regions, and growing market opportunities. These stakeholders can support mobility with produced vehicles, which are utilized by the users. However, when observing the sustainability of e-micromobility, one of the key questions is the life span of e-micromobiles with special attention to batteries.

Service providers: Service providers are those who provide their own micromobiles for public use. The vehicles can form a station-based, a free-floating, or a hybrid service. Service providers require stable legislation and competition neutrality (e.g., access to public spaces); standardized solutions on the market can help to lower their costs. Service providers can contribute to urban mobility by shortening the travel time in their service area compared to walking or by giving missing connections with public transportation. When observing the sustainability of e-micromobility, a key topic is the waste treatment of either the batteries or the whole e-micromobiles.

Users: Various categorization can be realized for end users, but in this research, two aspects are considered. The first category consists of for-profit users (e.g., cargo bikes, food delivery) and non-profit users. The second category shows whether the micromobiles are shared (i.e., direct connection to the service provider) or private (i.e., direct connection to the manufacturer). Users require clear and easy-to-follow regulations, efficient service, and safe infrastructure. Users can contribute to sustainability by choosing sustainable transport modes including e-micromobility instead of their private cars.

Authorities: Every market has its own legislations at national, regional, and city level. All these governance institutions have various decision-making processes and level of authority. In several markets, no specific rules are applied to e-micromobiles. In these cases, general legislations have to be considered. These rules affect road usage (i.e., moving with micromobiles), public space usage (i.e., storing micromobiles), or general legislation on providing services. The establishment and application of complaint rules serve their role in the urban transportation system. Authorities are responsible for the sustainability goals of the city and for the legislation. Authorities can contribute to the user experience and can directly control the operation of the service providers.

Cooperating partners: E-micromobility can be used as a single mode of transportation (i.e., primarily with private vehicles) or as a complementary mode in a travel chain (i.e., mainly with shared vehicles). In the latter case, primarily, public transportation and car-sharing are the combined transport modes. These stakeholders are in competition for the end users, but in given circumstances, stakeholders can cooperate to enhance the user experience with value-added services, such as multimodal points or harmonized mobility packages. This is an integration process, which should be applied to such a great extent as possible.

5.2 The relationship between the stakeholders

The relationship between the stakeholders is observed by considering three categories such as mutual agreement, one-way directive, and non-formal interaction. The users of e-micromobility accept the general terms and conditions of the service provider or the instruction manual of the manufacturer. This is considered as a mutual agreement between the parties since the users are not forced to obey these regulations. At the same time, users must accept the rules of usage described in the legislations; thus, this is a one-way directive even if some users are not aware of the actual regulations. However, users can participate in the public involvement process, where they can express their opinion on the regulations, but it does not change the relation into a mutual connection since the responsibility and the final decision is always the authorities and governance bodies’. Micromobility service providers have a service contract with the users and the manufacturers based on a mutual agreement. Without this agreement, the service cannot be implemented. Additionally, the regulators can set up mutual agreements with the cooperating partners to reach common business interests. With authorities, service providers can occasionally initiate a non-formal interaction to represent their interests regarding the new regulations.

5.3 The identification of e-micromobility vehicle types

The terms for e-micromobiles vary a lot (e.g., e-bike, pedelec), or they are mixed with the name of the product (e.g., Segway), or they can even cover different vehicle types, for example, e-scooters can be understood as electric rollers or as electric motorbikes, as well. In this paper, e-scooter is used for electric rollers and e-moped for small electric motorcycles. In order to prepare the definition of e-micromobiles, in February 2020, the expert pool was asked to identify micromobiles based on photographs. To avoid any confusion derived from the above-mentioned terminological differences, exclusively photos are shown in real-life urban circumstances without any text or further information. The following vehicle types are part of the survey: e-skateboard, e-roller skate, gyropod, one-wheeler, Segway, e-scooter, seated e-scooter, e-bike, e-moped, mobility e-scooter, cruiser e-moped, tricycle e-moped, golf e-car, one-seated e-car, and two-seated e-car.

The results of the survey are shown in Table 1, where the maximum value is 20 based on the number of responses. Some experts are more exclusive by preferring merely the most innovative vehicle types, which results in that solely four vehicle types get the highest score. Other experts are more inclusive, but the extent of inclusion varies a lot. There is no option with zero score meaning that a few experts can accept even electric cars as micromobiles. A major outcome of this expert survey is the validation of the assumption that e-micromobile is not well-defined even among experts, and a proper definition is necessary.

Table 1 The results of the expert survey about the vehicle types of e-micromobile
Full size table

To avoid the individual evaluation of the results, k-means cluster analysis is selected to form the clusters (Ci), as described by Steinley (2010). To define the proper number of clusters (n), an optimization function is set up to minimize the error sum of squares (SSE), which describes the quality of the clusters, and to avoid the creation of rag bags (i.e., clusters with low number of objects) at the same time, which is necessary to have meaningful clusters, as stated by Han et al. (2012). Rag bags are considered as clusters with one object due to the relatively low number of total objects.

$$ \mathop {\min }\limits_{j} {\text{SSE}}_{j} $$

while \(n(C_{i} ) > 1 \) is true for every i. The SSE is calculated by the following equation:

$$ {\text{SSE}}_{j} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{{k_{j} }} \mathop \sum \limits_{{C_{i} }} \left( {p - m_{i} } \right)^{2} $$

where p is the score, k is the clusters, C is the set of objects in a cluster, and m is the center point of a cluster.

According to the clustering results, a vehicle is considered as being definitely an e-micromobile if at least 76% of the experts agree on that. If the value is between 26 and 75%, then the vehicle is debatably an e-micromobile, while if less than 25% of the experts choose a vehicle, it is not considered as an e-micromobile. By applying these categories, the following vehicle types are considered as e-micromobiles: e-scooter, seated e-scooter, Segway, gyropod, one-wheeler, and e-bike. Typically, smaller vehicle types without a cockpit or robust outfit are categorized as mostly accepted.

5.4 The parameters of the e-micromobile definition

Based on the literature review, professional considerations, and discussions with the expert pool, the following parameters, which describes the physical features of micromobiles, are assessed in the survey: size, weight, capacity, maximum speed, range, and the number of wheels. To each parameter, the participants could assign one of the following statements: very necessary, necessary, unnecessary, and very unnecessary. The survey does not ask specifically what the definition of micromobile should be; instead it assesses what kinds of parameters define a micromobile. With each answer, a simple weight is associated (i.e., very necessary: 4, necessary: 3, unnecessary: 2, very unnecessary: 1), and based on the number of answers and weights from the experts, an order of the parameters is created. The number of responses is 20, and the parameters analyzed when defining micromobiles are introduced in the following paragraphs, where Fig. 2 demonstrates the results.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The importance of the parameters

Full size image

Size is ranked as the most important parameter to be included in the definition. 55% of the experts consider this parameter as very necessary. In general, defining the width should be enough since the height and the length are the consequences of the width and the maneuverability of the device. The width is important in examining on what infrastructure can micromobiles be allowed. This parameter is easily measurable for legislation purposes.

Weight is ranked as the second most important. In this case, 40% choose the very necessary and 45% the necessary option. The weight of the tools is in strong connection with safety and the transportability on other modes. This parameter is easily measurable for legislation purposes.

Capacity is ranked nearly as important as weight; however, in this case, more experts consider the parameter as very unnecessary. Measuring capacity is, on the one hand, a question of design and scaling, on the other hand, a practical usage issue as classic bicycles or e-scooters are typically designed for one user but occasionally used by two people. This improper use might be a safety issue. All in all, this parameter is easily measurable for legislation purposes.

Speed is ranked approximately the same as capacity or weight, but in this case, even more experts are on the side of very unnecessary. There could be several types of speeds defined: design speed, maximum allowed speed, or the maximum speed reached by power assistance. However, speed can differ a lot regarding the allowed speed, for example, in case of a micromobility service, speed can be technically controlled remotely. Some means of speed can be measured by an authority in advance, but generally, this parameter is more related to law enforcement.

Range is considered debatable since 55% of the experts choose unfavorable options. One aspect of an e-micromobile range is the achievable distance without recharging the batteries. The other aspect is the allowed range that is more applicable in case of a micromobility service than a privately owned device. Range can be defined within a service area or as the length of a specific trip. However, the effective range is a crucial point from the perspective of urban planning since this parameter defines the competition between micromobility and public transportation or private cars.

Based on the experts’ opinion, the number of wheels is clearly unnecessary. Although the vast majority of micromobiles are two-wheeled (e.g., bicycles, e-scooters), restricting this parameter seems to bring no additional benefits in terms of regulation.

5.5 The suggested definition of e-micromobiles

Regarding the comparison of the expert survey’s two parts, if the most appreciated parameters (i.e., size, weight, capacity, speed) from the second part are used to define e-micromobiles, solely a couple of vehicle types (i.e., mostly car types) do not fit into the concept. However, in the first part, where the experts decide on the actual vehicle types, the results are more straightforward. If both categories are considered as part of the definition of an e-micromobile, the experts’ answers are consistent.

Based on the expert survey, a market data collection is done. The parameters of the top-scored vehicle types are collected by considering actual products. Since the market for these products is diverse, simplifications are required. To have a valid overview of these vehicles, one product is chosen from each of the three major online market stores such as Amazon, Alibaba, and eBay. Finally, ranges are defined based on three products from every vehicle type. The selected parameters are shown in Table 2. The maximum values are defined for all vehicle types with rounding up to a meaningful value. The design capacity is one person for every vehicle type in the list.

Table 2 The typical parameters of the top-scored vehicle types
Full size table

As a final integration, the following parameters and constraint values are suggested for the definition of e-micromobile:

  • The maximum size is 2100 mm length, 900 mm width, and 1300 mm height.

  • The maximum weight is 50 kg.

  • The maximum speed is up to 45 km/h.

  • The capacity is one person.

  • The vehicle has an electric drive.

  • The vehicle does not have a cockpit.

Using this definition based on the vehicle types identified during the expert workshop and the parameters listed in the expert survey, every current and future product can be identified as either an e-micromobile or not. This definition will be useful at both the policy-making level and the implementation level, where smart solutions are deployed.

6 The results of the framework assessment

Cities typically have relevant mobility plans, which focus on sustainable modes of transportation. These mobility plans involve objectives, goals, or actions related to cycling, and with this, some general micromobility-related goals and actions are addressed in these documents, as well. On the other hand, new mobility forms rarely appear directly in these documents.

The landscape of the national legislation in the European Union is extremely heterogeneous. There are different regulations in the individual countries; thus, the use of e-micromobiles is handled by various national regulations, or in some exceptional cases, no national legal basis has been established yet. In several countries, the current regulations of e-micromobility are derived from cycling regulations, while others are from car driving regulations. Germany has already published its own ordinance as a national law on the regulations of small electric vehicles (PLEV), which sets out the specific aspects of road traffic, the rules of conduct, the fines, and the user requirements (Federal Ministry of Transport & Digital Infrastructure, 2019), while in Spain, municipal regulations form the basis for the use of e-micromobiles (Barcelona City Council, 2017). Even though most countries have national regulations that provide a framework for the usage of e-micromobiles, there are numerous differences.

The cooperation of cities with e-micromobility service providers is formally and informally ongoing. A low level of data exchange (i.e., covering typically basic information, such as the number of vehicles) has already been set up; however, a higher-level data exchange is desirable by cities. In some cities, there is a restriction on the number of e-micromobiles, which can be different in urban areas.

The main documents of the specific cities related to the planning conditions, to the regulatory environment, and to the practical realization are presented in Table 3. Usually, there are strategic documents supporting the planning of sustainable transport modes, but e-micromobility is not directly mentioned. In terms of regulations, generally, e-micromobiles are handled as bikes, but in some cases, preliminary rules are present. Regarding the operations, in most cities, there are some special rules for e-micromobility providers, and cities implement limitations in terms of the number of operators, the fleet size, and the parking zones.

Table 3 Relevant expertise and the strategic documents of planning and regulations with practical realizations
Full size table

7 Discussion

As it turned out from the literature review, the majority of the papers are limited to e-scooters or e-mopeds; however, several personal e-micromobiles have already appeared on the market. Moreover, a rapid innovation, which reflects several features required by the users, is foreseen. It means that new types of micromobiles are expected to be designed. Reflecting on these shortcomings, a future-proof and inclusive definition for e-micromobiles is set up.

When providing the definition of e-micromobiles, the debatable categories in Table 1 should be addressed, too. First of all, e-skateboards and e-roller skates are considered more as free time vehicle types. However, if these are used as daily mobility tools, they could potentially fit in the definition. Mobility e-scooters are typically vehicle types driven by users with specific medical conditions. These tools are generally not considered as e-micromobiles since they are not designed for a wider public, and they are robust and heavy compared to other e-micromobiles. Cruiser e-moped, tricycle e-moped, and e-moped are almost the same: electric driven motor bicycles. Several definitions cited in the literature review state that micromobility is up to 350 kg (ITF, 2020) or 227 kg (SAE International, 2019), which basically covers these vehicle types. On the other hand, these vehicle types receive very low scores in the survey; thus, further expert discussions are conducted to clarify the results. As an outcome, these vehicle types are excluded from the definition of e-micromobiles due to the following reasons: (1) their robustness and heaviness do not fit other e-micromobiles, (2) the general experience is that these vehicle types are typically used on the infrastructure of private cars, (3) the category can include even large motorcycles; thus, limiting the weight or power would not be justified anymore.

Since there are several different definitions available in various research papers, and clear definitions are important for both the practitioners in spatial and transportation planning as well as for the decision-makers in adopting policies and strategies, the main differences must be highlighted. First, the definition formed in current paper is based on experience from some years of operation in the selected cities, while the vast majority of the available definitions are rather descriptive and theoretical approaches. Second, the definition of this research focuses on the challenges of policymaking from the perspectives of cities, such as regulations or infrastructure development plans. In contrast, a general multimodality perspective focuses on other aspects, such as the integration or cooperation of different services. Third, electric motorcycles (i.e., in some papers referred to as e-mopeds or e-scooters) often appear as e-micromobility vehicle types, but in this definition, they are clearly not within the given ranges of specific parameters.

Based on the provided definition and the framework assessment, e-micromobiles can be defined as specific vehicle types of a new mode of urban mobility, where several usage options (i.e., shared or personal) should be considered. In addition, the actual operation (e.g., sharing is less important in Tel Aviv, where 75% of the e-micromobiles are personally owned) and the actual vehicle types on the market (e.g., in Copenhagen, e-micromobility has already included e-bikes) could be the aspects when creating urban mobility-related policies, strategies, and operational specifications.

Although e-micromobility provides new opportunities, the introduction and usage of these vehicles on the streets might create new conflicts. The new types of vehicles need time to be adapted to, and clear rules applied in a correct way are needed (e.g., as seen in Germany, which leads the way for standardization and creating specific rules). The interaction with other vehicles and road users as well as the overall acceptance of e-micromobility are crucial even among the non-users. Proper regulations and specific problem-related awareness programs could help in reducing the conflicts and making use of the potential of these new mobility solutions not solely for the currently available e-micromobiles but for the expected innovations, too.

Europe seems to respond positively to the appearance of e-micromobiles. However, problems in connection with this new transport mode are in the focus of city planning and management bodies. Discussions about the use of public and traffic space show that a new way of thinking is needed as the current infrastructure and urban areas are generally not designed for e-micromobility solutions. Inexperienced users may cause accidents indicating the fact that there are safety issues associated with this new mobility solution. The uncontrolled supply of e-micromobility leads to parking complaints and the unsafe usage of traffic infrastructure. Furthermore, the parking of e-micromobiles is a challenge, which arises in many cities once the new vehicles are introduced. In general, these problems lead to a discussion about the potential redistribution of public spaces.

With the increasing number of e-micromobility users and the restrictions from the city administration, the necessity of planning becomes important to the stakeholders, as well. Many cities have already set up bilateral agreements with e-micromobile operators covering such aspects as the deployment of an orderly parking situation, the regulation of usage, monitoring and correction, integration into existing transportation systems, sustainability, data exchange and evaluation, and communication (e.g., a good example for this can be seen in Munich). The agreements help to establish the communication between municipalities and service providers as well as support the integration of new mobility services into the existing infrastructure.

It seems that the transformations of transportation are inevitable, which puts more and more emphasis on the sustainable urban transportation infrastructure planning. Developing intermodality is a key toward sustainable mobility as traditional transport modes usually do not provide a door-to-door access, and other modes work solely within a given distance (e.g., biking performs poorly in case of intercity trips). During the framework assessment, it is mentioned that Stockholm plans to increase the modal share of public transportation and micromobility at the same time, which brings attention to the synergies of these modes. However, the literature review shows that micromobility can decrease walking and public transportation trips (McQueen et al., 2020).

Intermodality considering e-micromobiles has two potential approaches. The first is the conventional approach, where a mobility node can be a place of transferring from a micromobile to a public transportation vehicle or any other mode. Reshaping mobility nodes by giving access to micromobility can help the integration of this new paradigm into urban mobility systems. The provided definition gives essential technical parameters to design future transportation nodes. The other approach that serves intermodality is traveling with micromobiles on other modes, primarily on public transportation. In this case, it requires the allowance of micromobiles on public transportation vehicles while in the meantime, respecting other passengers’ safety. Based on the definition introduced in current paper (i.e., where robust and heavy vehicles are ruled out as e-micromobiles), further exploitation could be reached by co-traveling with personally owned e-micromobiles. The first approach supports the shared and the private micromobiles equally, while the second supports the private ones to a greater extent. However, the two approaches do not exclude each other, and the main developmental directions should focus on creating a seamless transportation system.

Technological perspectives get special attention in the framework assessment, but merely a few practical realizations are identified. However, it has to be noted that cities have interest in realizing smart solutions for shared and private e-micromobiles. A direct opportunity is identified from the strategy and policy-making perspective, where it is said that the data collection is a key for urban decision-makers providing various useful information about the number of vehicles on the roads or the average travel speeds of the vehicles and the origin destination matrices or the used routes of the users. These are essential inputs for planning infrastructure developments or for developing public transportation services. Additionally, there is interest in the law enforcement, which can be done by realizing smart solutions, such as setting up restricted areas, geofencing, or speed controls. This topic is especially relevant because one main ongoing argument against shared e-micromobility is that users often leave their e-micromobiles in an inadequate position. As a suitable solution, a smartphone-based reporting system for citizens could be developed to inform service providers about misplaced vehicles. Furthermore, there are other integration opportunities, where cities are important stakeholders, such as Smart City and e-micromobility integration, vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, and traffic control-related developments in urban areas.

As it turned out from the framework assessment, the integration of e-micromobility services with conventional transport modes is not a dominant experience; however, there are some good practices on the market. One example is the application integration of the e-scooter provider Tier and the local public transportation authority in Munich with a common marketing campaign. Another example is the allowance of e-micromobiles in the bus service of Barcelona, where railway wagons are installed with dedicated places for e-micromobiles, as well. A unique example comes from Stockholm, where private parking garages make agreements with e-micromobility service providers on storing e-micromobiles for a fixed fee during the day. However, integration is considered as an area where a lot of exploitation needs to happen.

Finally, the communication and the education of e-micromobility users should be a rather relevant topic. Users operate these new types of vehicles without proper knowledge and experience, which might lead to frequent conflicts, accidents, or annoyance for other citizens. Governments do not require service providers to ensure the proper use of the devices (e.g., operational training, skill test), but sometimes, service providers include additional benefits to their service (e.g., insurance, educational videos). The success of e-micromobiles is strongly connected to their easy accessibility; thus, none of the use cases require driving license for using such vehicle types. However, the use case of Barcelona shows the importance of avoiding accidents, where tool-specific guidance should be supported by awareness campaigns built on easy-to-follow rules.

To summarize the outcomes of the definition and the framework assessment regarding e-micromobility, the following general suggestions are provided.

  • Policy-making should consider e-micromobility in a unified way as a new transport mode.

  • Harmonization between the regulations and strategic planning has to be enhanced.

  • A better understanding of smart mobility systems, more integrated processes, and an efficient deployment of the solutions should be achieved.

  • Public spaces should be accessible for e-micromobiles without being an obstacle for others.

  • Infrastructure development plans should take the mixed use of bike lanes into account.

  • Intermodality should be supported to enhance the modal share of the sustainable modes.

  • Data exchange policies between cities and service providers have to be introduced.

  • Safety issues have to be clearly regulated by applying limited tool-specific rules.

  • The users’ education of practical usage and regulations should be realized in a consolidated way.

8 Conclusion

Recently, new mobility solutions, which support a sustainable transition of transportation systems, have started to spread. This paper examines the assessment of the current status and potential of e-micromobility.

First of all, an expert workshop and an expert survey are conducted. The expert workshop aims to assess the stakeholders of these new vehicle types, while the expert survey aims to define the term e-micromobile. It is discussed that the e-micromobility ecosystem contains a wide range of stakeholders, but the main ones are manufacturers, service providers, users, authorities, and cooperating partners. The experts identify e-scooter, seated e-scooter, Segway, gyropod, one-wheeler, and e-bike as being definitely e-micromobiles. When defining the term e-micromobile, the following parameters are considered by the experts: size, weight, capacity, and speed.

Second, a framework assessment is done to analyze the planning, regulatory, and practical realizations of the e-micromobility solutions in specific locations in Europe such as Barcelona, Copenhagen, Munich, Stockholm, and Tel Aviv. It is found that cities typically have mobility plans focusing on the sustainable modes of transportation with dedicated objectives, goals, or actions related to cycling. However, new mobility forms and implementation-related guidelines rarely appear directly in these documents. There are various and rather heterogeneous regulations in the different countries. The use of e-micromobiles is usually handled by national regulations, in several cases, these are derived from cycling regulations, but in some other cases, specific rules are present. The cooperation of cities with e-micromobility service providers is ongoing but with a low level of data exchange. Some cities implement limitations in terms of the number of operators, the fleet size, and parking zones. Thus, further implementations should be realized to enhance the service quality and integration.

All in all, e-micromobility provides new opportunities, but the usage of these vehicles causes conflicts with other road users. Proper regulations and specific programs might help to reduce the conflicts and make use of the potential of this new mobility solution. Discussions about the use of public and traffic space show that a new way of thinking is needed, where parking as well as the usage of pedestrian areas and bike lanes should be the main topics. The integration of e-micromobility services with conventional transport modes might support sustainable mobility goals, which brings better user experience. Besides technical developments, the education of e-micromobility users should be a rather relevant topic.