The COCOMO project examined this question across three European cities: Manchester, Utrecht, and Malmö, revealing important insights about who uses these services and how they impact transport equality, particularly for vulnerable and lower-income groups. We interviewed Professor Dick Ettema, the project’s coordinator, to gain further insights into the project’s key findings, e.g. what cities should consider if they want to make shared mobility more inclusive
Understanding the Differences: Urban Contexts that Shape Mobility
“We wanted to understand how shared micro-mobilities would actually be used in different contexts,” explains Dick, emphasising how different cities require different approaches. “That depends on the geographical and policy context – what they imply for how people travel, whether that might become more sustainable, and what they mean for people’s accessibility.”
Researchers working across Manchester, Utrecht, and Malmö surveyed 1,518 respondents: 278 in Utrecht, 442 in Manchester, and 798 in Malmö to understand usage patterns and impacts. The cities were specifically chosen for their contrasting environments – from Utrecht’s extensive cycling infrastructure to Manchester’s more car-oriented layout. “The infrastructure differs quite a bit between these cities,” Dick notes. This highlights how urban planning and policies need to adapt to different local circumstances. This variety shows that the success of shared mobility is highly context dependent. Dick adds, “Since there’s lots of cycling infrastructure in Utrecht, but much less so in Manchester. Policy objectives are different, and the mobility cultures are different.”
Who Rides the Revolution? Demographics of Shared Mobility
The research revealed clear patterns in who adopts these services. Younger and male individuals were consistently more likely to use shared mobility across all three cities. Education and income showed more complex relationships – higher-educated people used shared bikes more frequently but e-scooters less. Household income was positively correlated with the use of shared e-bikes, e-mopeds, and e-cargo bikes in Utrecht.
An unexpected finding emerged regarding accessibility for those with disabilities. “We found that people with physical disabilities used shared e-mopeds more than others in Utrecht,” Dick explains, “This is particularly important for those with mobility limitations, as it allows them more options for independent travel.” This likely stems from e-mopeds requiring less physical effort than bikes or conventional e-scooters, as users can remain seated while travelling.
Digital barriers proved less significant than expected, though this might reflect the survey’s online nature, reaching primarily those comfortable with digital technology. The research showed that public transport season ticket holders used shared bikes significantly more than others, suggesting the importance of these services for first- and last-mile connections to stations.
Where Does It Work Best? The Impact of Location on Mobility Use
Location significantly influenced adoption patterns. In high-density central areas of Malmö, shared mobility services saw notably higher usage rates. Utrecht showed higher adoption of shared bikes and e-cargo bikes in denser areas with sufficient service supply, though interestingly, shared e-bikes saw less use in central areas due to parking restrictions.
Manchester revealed a distinct pattern, with e-bikes and e-scooters showing higher usage near transit stations, reinforcing their role in public transport connections. The research found that residents in low-density and marginalised areas had fewer opportunities to benefit from these services, highlighting potential equity concerns.
Bridging Gaps: Income, Accessibility, and Transport Equality
The project revealed nuanced findings about accessibility and income. Lower-income individuals reported increased accessibility through shared mobility across all three cities, though the specific mode varied—e-bikes in Utrecht and Manchester and e-scooters in Malmö.
The research showed that e-scooters and e-mopeds showed greater potential in facilitating transport equity than shared bikes. Low-income users received comparable or greater mobility benefits from these services compared to high-income users, likely because they could serve as alternatives to private cars.
However, the relationship between shared mobility and accessibility proved complex. While most users reported similar or increased accessibility after adopting these services, some challenges emerged. In Utrecht, shared bike users often reported increased travel costs, possibly due to associated train journey expenses.
Creating an Inclusive Future: Recommendations for Shared Mobility
The project’s findings suggest several key paths forward for cities looking to make shared mobility more inclusive. The research emphasises increasing awareness and acceptance of shared mobility, particularly among underrepresented groups. Better cycling infrastructure and improved traffic safety could encourage more women to use these services, while shared tricycles might offer safer, more accessible options for older users.
Affordability remains a crucial consideration. “It’s a facility to fill in certain gaps or help in specific situations,” Dick notes. “It doesn’t have a huge effect on substituting for car use.” The research suggests lowering prices could help improve mobility benefits, especially for low-income users. Cities should focus on improving accessibility through better infrastructure and parking facilities. The project demonstrates that while shared mobility can increase accessibility, its effectiveness depends heavily on local infrastructure, existing transport options, and careful consideration of user needs.
Addressing affordability concerns proves particularly important for low-income users, while safety considerations need integration into system design from the start. Most importantly, the research shows that cities need to tailor services to local contexts rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions.
Cover image (photo) by Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke från Pixabay.