# Understanding and Predicting the Usage of Shared Electric Scooter Services on University Campuses
## 1 Introduction  
The advancement of information technology and sharing economy business models is changing traditional models of ownership and transport services. New modes of travel are emerging in urban areas, such as transport network company services, bike-sharing and scooter-sharing, etc. Shared micro-mobility (SMM, the shared utilization of an e-/bicycle, e-/scooter, or other low-speed modes) is a newly developed transportation mode [1]. SMM provides users with a short-term access to a transportation service over an as-needed basis [2]. Early documented impacts of SMM include increased mobility [3], decreased greenhouse gas emissions [4], and decreased automobile use [5, 6]. Since 2017, over USD 5.7 billion have been devoted to SMM start-up companies, mostly in China. A steady customer pool has been established in the SMM market, which is two to three times faster than ride-hailing or car-sharing services. The combined value of SMM start-ups is estimated to exceed USD 1 billion [7]. Shared Free-Floating Electric Scooters (SFFESs) have been altering travel in cities and on university campuses. Though SFFESs have swiftly obtained popularity and approval over the past couple of years, limited studies have been reported on their use. The analysis of Berg Insight shows that the COVID-19 crisis lead to a lower shared-scooter ridership in 2021. However, in the long term, ridership is projected to reach over 4.6 million people in 2024 worldwide, with a base of 774,000 people in 2019 [8]. New mobility services, such as Uber/Lyft, have been changing the landscape of urban mobility. SFFESs have become increasingly popular and utilized by communities given their acceptable cost, zero-emission power and minimal environmental footprint. In addition, given the present pandemic, city planners are looking for new methods, such as SFFESs, to reconcile urban mobility need and social distance requirements. While SFFESs offer promising opportunities, they also bring negative externalities, including safety and equity issues for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled/elder citizens [6; 9]. Many cities proscribed SFFES services, particularly in the initial boom of SMM, due to vital vandalism and street clutter, including Austin, Nantes, Amsterdam, Bordeaux, and recently Kuala Lumpur. These cities revisited their decisions afterwards and devised novel regulation provisions to optimize SFFES benefits while limiting their drawbacks. Some cities banned the usage of SFFESs due to regulation requirements; for example, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles legislation requires the registration of any electric vehicle, which makes SFFES service impossible. Effective regulation faces two major setbacks emanating from the organizational culture/climate mismatch between local authorities and service operators. The operators need a high vehicle density to guarantee a high service quality and ultimately foster their market [10; 11]. However, local authorities are wary of street clutter and intend to limit the fleet size. While technology and investments are essential for service implementation, equally important is to signify the impact of shared micro-mobility on the urban mobility ecosystem and its evolution trend over time, in order to better design and integrate it into sustainable mobility as a whole [12]. However, very few studies examined SFFESs, and in addition the existing studies were limited in the analysis approaches used, which may fail to capture the complex nonlinear relationship between variables. In addition, most studies on SFFES services were conducted in the United States, China and, most recently, European cities, but are yet very limited in developing countries. It is presumed that this study will be the first step taken to assess the adoption of SFFESs and usage behavior with respect to a Malaysian context. The paper identifies public concerns, SFFES benefits and barriers, and the choice and usage behavior of the university population (students and non-/academic staff).