# An Overview of Shared Mobility Operational Models in Europe
## 6 Conclusions  
Among the three analyzed systems, bikesharing has emerged as the most widespread and established form of shared mobility across Europe, with well-integrated networks in both large metropolitan areas and smaller cities. E-scooter sharing services have gained rapid popularity in recent years, largely driven by user convenience, micromobility trends, and their perception as a modern urban lifestyle product. In contrast, carsharing--despite being present in Europe for over two decades--continues to face structural and operational challenges. While the concept is mature, the frequent market exits of service providers and operational discontinuities in various cities indicate persistent difficulties in achieving financial and spatial sustainability. This reflects the higher infrastructural and regulatory demands of carsharing systems, as well as the complexity of integrating them effectively into existing urban mobility ecosystems. The analyses of carsharing, bikesharing, and e-scooter sharing systems demonstrates their collective potential to support sustainable urban transport by reducing private car dependency, emissions, and congestion. However, the full benefits of shared mobility services can only be realized when they are systematically integrated with other sustainable transport modes--most notably public transport. Seamless integration allows for higher service quality, better accessibility, and more efficient multimodal travel chains, ultimately reinforcing the shift away from private vehicle ownership and supporting the reduction in car dependency. A key finding of this paper is the inconsistency in how operational and business models are defined across the literature. This lack of standardized terminology complicates the evaluation and comparison of shared mobility systems across regions and between studies. To enable more coherent research and policymaking, there is a clear need for the development of a unified classification framework that distinguishes shared mobility modalities and models in a consistent and transparent way. The review also highlights that most carsharing-related research to date remains focused on static fleet optimization, often without considering the dynamic nature of urban demands. Future research should address this by developing adaptive fleet management approaches that leverage real-time data, integrate public transport networks, and account for user behavior. From a policy perspective, the findings related to mixed carsharing systems that combine free-floating and station-based models provide actionable insights. These hybrid systems demonstrate higher utilization rates and coverage potentials compared to standalone configurations. EU-level transport policy could benefit from supporting the implementation of such models through funding schemes, urban planning incentives and shared infrastructure development. In addition, the observed regulatory fragmentation in e-scooter sharing across EU member states points to the need for harmonized legal standards. Establishing a baseline framework--covering aspects such as speed limits, helmet use, vehicle classification, and operational zones--would enhance operational predictability for providers and ensure safer and more consistent user experiences across cities. Shared mobility can play a pivotal role in achieving the EU's climate and urban sustainability goals. To achieve this, coordinated efforts across research, urban planning, and policymaking are essential, supported by clear definitions, integrated systems, and targeted interventions that facilitate inclusive, efficient, and environmentally responsible transport networks. Conceptualization, L.V. and M.S. ([PERSON]); methodology, L.V. and I.G. ; formal analysis, M.S. ([PERSON]); investigation, L.V. and M.S. ([PERSON]); data curation, L.V. ; writing--original draft preparation, L.V. ; writing--review and editing, M.S. ([PERSON]), I.G. and M.S. ([PERSON]); visualization, L.V. and M.S. ([PERSON]); supervision, M.S. ([PERSON]), and I.G. ; project administration, L.V.