Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Electric scooters (e-scooters) have rapidly integrated into university transportation networks; however, there is limited empirical understanding of users’ and non-users’ perceptions, which is essential for developing effective and inclusive policies. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the differential perceptions of e-scooter adoption, safety, and policy preferences at Louisiana State University (LSU). A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was administered to 1036 respondents (592 users and 444 non-users). Statistical analyses, including Chi-square tests and Binary Logistic Regression, were used to identify key perceptual differences and behavioral predictors of e-scooter usage. Results show that users were predominantly male undergraduates, with speed (90%) and convenience (61%) as the primary motivators. Users were over 12 times more likely to perceive e-scooters as safer than walking. In contrast, non-users cited frequent scooter misplacement (84%) as their top barrier to adoption. Logistic regression confirmed that concern about misplacement (Odds Ratio = 0.076) and support for restrictive policies were strong negative predictors of use, while belief in safety and low cost were positive predictors. These findings may help inform campus micromobility policy discussions. The strong negative perceptions associated with scooter misplacement suggest that designated parking hubs and geofencing strategies could help improve campus operations and pedestrian accessibility. In addition, because safety perception was identified as an important predictor of e-scooter use, targeted safety awareness and educational initiatives may help improve rider behavior and address perceived operational safety concerns. This strategy ensures a balance between user adoption incentives and the safety/accessibility needs of the entire university community.
Jamil et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: