Main findings

individuals perceive scooter sharing as an effective alternative to the already existing options on the market, effective conversion of new users is possible. Affirmations such as “I can save money if I participate in scooter sharing.” try to evaluate how do potential users currently see the available services from an intrinsic financial viewpoint. For other players in the sharing economy, economic motivation is the leading user incentive that produced industry-wide changes. For example, in the case of Airbnb, the competitive prices and the high volume of new accommodation alternatives posed a significant challenge for the traditional hotel industry (Forgacs & Dimanche, 2016). The current results showed a positive correlation between economic motivation and the intention to use scooter sharing, effectively confirming H1. These results highlight the fact that consumers will be more willing to use scooter

sharing if they perceive the service as being financially superior to other means of

transportation. One important note here is that the perceived economic gain can be different than the actual objective cost difference. For example, studies done on bonus packs and price discounts show how consumers have a tendency towards adopting a product which is

discounted, neglecting the base value of a product (Chen et al., 2012). This behavior has been widely studied in marketing and can prove to be effective when used in scooter sharing services as well. Other mobility sharing services were seen to greatly benefit from discounts or bundle packages, with users being more attracted to services that offered them discount entitlements (Ho et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021). With the economic motivation being one of the critical factors found for consumers’ intention to use scooter sharing, some sort of dynamic pricing is recommended for such services in the Netherlands.

While the innovative business models of the sharing economy undoubtedly accelerate innovation, the means through which user conversion happens varies from one industry to another. A critical finding of this study is the strong effect that the practical motivations had on the intention to use scooter sharing. The confirmed effect of H2 could be specific to the

Dutch population or explained by the particularities of scooters sharing as a means of transportation. Looking at the effects of H1 and H2 on the dependent variable, the practical motivations (β = .43) were particularly important for the population, compared to economic motivations (β = .20). These results further support the idea brought up by H2, stating the importance of the practical motivations in the intention to use scooter sharing. In previous studies on MaaS (e.g., Sochor et al., 2018), the economic factor is perceived as a primary means for individuals to change their current mobility patterns and maintain interest in alternative transport. In this study, the practical motivations are defined by the perceived practicability that scooter sharing brings to the end-user regarding travel time and

availability. Essentially, it tries to capture how much more time-effective one perceives to be when moving from point A to point B with a scooter, compared to other means of

transportation. Affirmations such as “Using scooter sharing enables me to accomplish my daily mobility more quickly.” try to make the respondents imagine scooter sharing as a central part of their daily, in-city mobility. Given the nature of scooter sharing as a service, the practicability dimension has two elements: the travel time and the time it takes to find a scooter nearby (proximity). When evaluating the proximity using an additional question, a substantial number of respondents rated proximity as being highly important. This finding shows that regardless of the importance people give to practical motivation, the wide majority agree that it is crucial to have a scooter closely available in order to consider using it. Other studies on scooter sharing services (i.e. Aguilera-García et al., 2020) recognize distance to the scooter as a relevant factor of adoption. The proximity importance of scooter sharing and its effects on intention to use goes beyond the purpose of this study and is a theme that definitely needs more exploration in future studies.

The observed difference between the two instrumental motivations might be more significant in scooter sharing than other mobility sharing services. The upfront costs for using

such a service are generally low, making the price less relevant for potential users. To further understand the effect of the instrumental motivator on the intention to use, a more thorough understanding of Dutch urban planning is necessary. In all the major Dutch cities, car traffic can be pretty slow. At the same time, scooters can move on bike lines and outsmart heavy traffic, making it a much more effective means of transportation than other alternatives (private car/public transport). One interesting theme that could be worth exploring in future studies is how the instrumental motivator differs for different Dutch cities' populations.

Future studies are advised to construct a more explicit proximity variable, which consists of multiple elements, based on previous proximity findings in mobility (such as Aguilera-García et al., 2020 or Marquet & Miralles-Guasch, 2014). With the infrastructure being significantly different from one city to another, a comparative study can bring a better understanding to the instrumental motivator. Additionally, in such a study, the different policies of each city can be considered, as municipalities have different views towards the broad adoption of scooter-sharing services.

Social-Hedonic Motivator

Although the name for this motivator originally came from joining the social and the hedonic motivations, during the testing phase of the study, the social motivation was deemed not usable for the purpose of the current study. When this motivator was initially created, previous literature from the sharing economy mentioned the social factor as being a central part of the motivations for people to use such a service (Andreotti et al., 2017; Gazzola et al., 2018). Even so, the low correlation between the social factor and the intention to use scooter sharing was expected and stated in the preliminary phase of the study. Scooter sharing services in their current form differ a lot from the quoted studies on the sharing economy.

The motivation studies that lie at the base for the motivators used in the current research are

more generic, operationalizing the sharing economy as a peer-to-peer economy, where social motivations have a much more vital role. In the business models of scooter-sharing services from the Netherlands, users do not have a dual state of both providers and consumers, with the scooters being provided by a company rather than a network of users. Therefore, it was expected for the social motivation to not be relevant in determining the intention to use. Such observations were similarly noted by other studies as well when it comes to mobility sharing.

For example, Boateng et al. (2019) look into how social connection does not play a role in users' participation in the usage of Uber services, contrary to what was hypothesized. Their findings show that a significant part of the Uber users are mere ‘riders’ without actually seeking social connection from their Uber experience.

Similarly, users of scooter sharing do not necessarily seek a social experience from their scooter trip, but rather focus on the instrumental benefits that such a service provides.

Furthermore, the main reason for which H3 could not be tested was an improper

operationalization of the variable. The social motivation variable was constructed using four elements, which were most likely unclear to the participants when placed in the context of scooter sharing. The vagueness of the elements in the context of the social variable led to an non-satisfactory consistency and a poor performance in terms of explaining variance for the Social-Hedonic Motivator. Given these facts, it was decided to only include the hedonic motivation as part of the hierarchical regression and completely leave out the social motivation from the rest of the analysis.

The second part of the motivator, hedonic motivation, was hypothesized to be one of the most influential factors in the intention to use scooter-sharing services. In previous studies (i.e., Krogmann et al.,2020), hedonism is particularly associated with younger participants from the 18-24 age group. Contrary to the expectations, the hedonic motivation was not as strong as the practical motivation, even though both were significant. The current study

results show a correlation between this motivation and the intention to use, confirming H4, but the observed effect was not as strong as expected. While some respondents scored higher for hedonic motivation, indicating a possible fun-seeking behavior, the overall population's practical motivations are stronger. Regarding the hedonic aspect of scooter sharing, one interesting aspect to note is the significant difference in the scores for people who have never tried using scooter sharing and people who have previously tried the service. This difference shows that people who have tried scooter sharing generally perceive it as more fun than people who never tried it. Several factors influence this difference, with two more obvious factors that can be further hypothesized upon. First, some individuals dislike the idea of scooter sharing and will never use such a service for various reasons. The second factor, which deserves more exploration in the future lies in the potential users who might be enjoying scooter-sharing services but never got the chance to try them (either because of availability or personal choice).

The second factor has a significant managerial relevance when it comes to possible means to attract customers. After people try scooter-sharing services, they tend to enjoy it more than before, an enjoyment that can contribute to new users' conversion process. This effect is worth exploring further regarding the effects of this hedonistic motivation upon actual (measured) usage of the service. For example, a cross-sectional approach to the motivations of prospective clients can show which motivators were the most effective at converting new clients. Using actual behavioral data from sharing services and correlating it with pre-recorded motivator evaluations, a future study can establish which of the employed motivations can be effectively taken advantage of for future marketing-related activities.

Normative motivator

For this motivator, getting a more minor effect on the intention to use was expected.

Consistent with the literature observations, normative factors play a role in the sharing economy, but with a weaker influence in the mobility sharing field (Aguilera-García et al., 2020; Christoforou et al., 2021). Contrary to the expectations, this study did not find a significant effect of either sustainability (H5) or conformity (H6) on the intention to use scooter sharing. Even so, the importance of normative motivations in the context of scooter sharing should not be ruled out. It seems possible that these results are due to the nature of the Dutch population and the particularities of the local market. The theory that aided the construction of the conformity motivation came from studies that were conducted in

collectivistic societies, markets in which conformity has a greater salience than it does for the Dutch market. These normative motivations should definitely be considered in future studies on the motivations for mobility sharing, even if they do not play a significant role for a specific market. Additionally, the social perspective of the scooters as a means of

transportation might play a mediating role between sustainability motivation and intention to use. This study did not look at the purposes for which individuals were using scooter sharing.

If the general social perception towards scooter sharing is associated with short trips, done more for leisure purposes, the sustainability motivation might not be so noticeable. This possibility is based on previous studies done on micromobility sharing, which note that individuals can use such services for replacing their car, but only in the context of longer trips (Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2018). If most people see scooter sharing as a substitute for walking or biking, the sustainability factor cannot be accounted for. Therefore, in future studies, a more complex approach to sustainability is recommended. A more complete view of the normative motivator can be achieved by testing for other factors such as vehicle ownership and trip purpose (similar to Christoforou et al., 2021).