Bridging the gap: Toward a holistic understanding of shared micromobility fleet development dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid urbanization and shifting demographics worldwide necessitate innovative urban transportation solutions. Shared micromobility systems, such as bicycle- and scooter-sharing programs, have emerged as promising alternatives to traditional urban mobility challenges. This study delves into the complexity of shared micromobility fleet development, focusing on the interplay between fleet size, user demand, regulatory frameworks, economic viability, and public engagement. By employing a system dynamics modeling approach that incorporates causal loop diagrams (CLDs) and stock and flow models (SFMs), we explore various policy scenarios to optimize micromobility management systems. Our findings reveal that financial incentives, such as fee reductions and government subsidies, significantly increase user adoption and profitability, whereas increased operational fees necessitate a delicate balance between cost management and service attractiveness. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses highlight critical parameters for effective fleet management. This research offers actionable insights for policymakers and operators, promoting sustainable urban transport systems. • Fee reductions and subsidies increase micromobility adoption and profitability. • Fleet expansion and strategic policies boost shared micromobility usage. • Balancing regulations and costs are crucial for micromobility market growth. • Sensitivity analysis identifies fleet size, user demand, and revenue allocation as key factors. • Real-world data validates the model's emphasis on fleet expansion and strategic policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".