近年來，全球氣候變遷和環境問題日益嚴重，發展綠色、可持續的交通 運輸系統已成為各國的共同目標。共享電動滑板車以其便捷、低碳的特 點，被視為促進城市可持續交通的潛在解決方案之一。大學校園作為培 養未來社會棟樑的重要場所，在推動環保理念、引領可持續發展方面扮 演著獨特的角色。然而，目前針對校園情境下共享電動滑板車接受度的 實證研究仍相對缺乏，且較少關注環境因素的影響。 過往研究大多採用單一理論模型探討共享運具的接受度，較少使用整合 性的理論框架。延伸型整合科技接受模型(UTAUT2)作為一個綜合性的 理論框架，能夠更全面地解釋消費者對新技術的接受和使用行為。然 而，在校園共享電動滑板車的情境下，UTAUT2 模型的適用性尚未得到 充分驗證。此外，考慮到共享電動滑板車的環保屬性，環境關注因素在 接受度研究中的作用也值得深入探討。 本研究採用偏最小平方結構方程模型(PLS-SEM)，結合敘述性統計和開 放性問題分析，建立一個基於 UTAUT2 並納入環境因素的評估框架。研 究以台灣 96 所大專院校的學生和教職員工為對象，通過網絡問卷收集 數據，最終獲得 574 份有效問卷。 研究結果指出，「習慣」是影響共享電動滑板車接受度最重要的因素， 其次是「便利條件」和「享樂動機」。環境關注程度作為新增構面也表 現出顯著影響。研究建議台灣各大學校園應優先改善便利條件和增強使 用體驗，同時在推廣過程中強調環保理念。本研究為大學校園引入和管 理共享電動滑板車服務提供了理論依據和實務指導，也為未來在更廣泛 的公共領域推廣共享電動滑板車服務提供了有價值的參考。

The escalating global climate crisis has heightened the urgency for sustainable transportation solutions, particularly in urban and campus environments. Shared electric scooters have emerged as a promising micromobility option, offering potential benefits in terms of reduced emissions and improved last-mile connectivity. However, empirical research on the acceptance of these vehicles in university campus settings remains limited, with a notable gap in understanding the role of environmental factors in adoption decisions.
This study aims to comprehensively investigate the acceptance of shared electric scooters in university campuses by extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) to include environmental concern factors. The research employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative analysis through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of open-ended responses.
Data were collected through an online survey distributed to students and staff across 96 higher education institutions in Taiwan. The PLS-SEM analysis revealed that habit was the most significant predictor of shared electric scooter acceptance, followed by facilitating conditions and hedonic motivation. Notably, environmental concern, introduced as a new construct to the UTAUT2 model, demonstrated a significant positive influence on acceptance intentions.
Contrary to some previous technology acceptance studies, effort expectancy did not show a significant impact on adoption intentions in this context. Moreover, individual characteristics such as gender, academic status, and prior usage experience did not exhibit
significant moderating effects on the relationships between the main constructs and acceptance intentions.
The findings suggest that Taiwanese universities should prioritize strategies that focus on developing user habits, improving campus infrastructure to support scooter usage, enhancing the overall user experience, and emphasizing environmental benefits in their promotion efforts. Specifically, universities should consider implementing loyalty programs to encourage repeated use, invest in dedicated parking areas and charging stations, organize engaging promotional events, and integrate environmental education into their scooter-sharing initiatives.
This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of shared electric scooter acceptance in campus settings by validating an extended UTAUT2 model and highlighting the role of environmental factors. It also provides practical implications for university administrators and micromobility service providers in implementing and managing shared electric scooter services effectively.
Future research directions could include longitudinal studies to examine changes in acceptance over time, cross-cultural comparisons to explore the generalizability of findings, and investigation of the potential spillover effects of campus scooter usage on broader urban mobility patterns. Limitations of the study, such as the focus on a single country and the cross-sectional nature of the data, are acknowledged and discussed.

目錄
目錄	i
圖目錄	iii
表目錄	iv
第一章 緒論	1
1.1 研究背景及研究動機	1
1.2 研究目的	4
1.3 研究範圍與研究對象	5
1.4 預期貢獻	5
1.5 研究流程	6
第二章 文獻回顧	8
2.1 微型運輸之定義及定位	8
2.2 共享電動滑板車發展過程及現況	8
2.3 新型運具接受程度之相關研究	20
2.4 延伸型整合科技接受模式之應用	34
2.5 文獻回顧小結	40
第三章 研究方法	42
3.1 研究架構	42
3.2 研究假說	44
3.3 研究設計	50
3.4 問卷樣本蒐集	63
3.5 資料分析方法	65
第四章 實證分析	69
4.1 問卷回收	69
4.2 樣本結構之敘述性統計分析	69
4.3 信度分析	79
4.4 驗證性因素分析	81
4.5 研究構面問項之敘述性統計分析	84
4.6 結構化方程式	92
4.7 樣本學校屬性對共享電動滑板車接受程度之影響	105
4.8 開放性題目之敘述性統計	108
4.9 實證分析小結	110
第五章 研究結論與建議	112
5.1 研究結論	113
5.2 研究建議	118
5.3 實務建議與未來展望	120
參考文獻	125
附錄 正式問卷	158 
圖目錄
圖 1.1 研究流程圖	7
圖 2.1 Bird公司之共享電動滑板車	10
圖 2.2 Bird公司手機應用程式之教學頁面	11
圖 2.3 UCLA之共享運具停泊位置	14
圖 2.4 德克薩斯大學奧斯汀分校針對共享電動滑板車停泊問題之指引	15
圖 2.5 oloo共享電動滑板車之特色介紹	17
圖 2.6 oloo共享電動滑板車之使用教學	17
圖 2.7 整合科技接受模型(UTAUT)架構圖	22
圖 2.8延伸型整合科技接受模式(UTAUT2)架構圖	29
圖 3.1研究架構圖	44
圖 3.2研究假設圖	49
圖 4.1 本研究結構模型之路徑係數圖	94
表目錄
表 2.1  UTAUT之構面一覽表	27
表 2.2  UTAUT2新增之構面	33
表 3.1 研究假設、編號、定義表	49
表 3.2 本研究操作型定義之彙整	53
表 3.3 績效預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	55
表 3.4 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	56
表 3.5 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	57
表 3.6 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	58
表 3.7 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	59
表 3.8 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	60
表 3.9 努力預期構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	61
表 3.10 環境關注程度構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	62
表 3.11 使用意向構面之題號、問項及問項參考來源	63
表 4.1 受測者性別屬性	70
表 4.2 受測者就讀就職之學校屬性	70
表 4.3 受測者在學校之身份別屬性	75
表 4.4 受測者月可支配金額之屬性	76
表 4.5 受測者在校園移動方式之屬性	76
表 4.6 受測者對共享電動滑板車之了解程度之屬性	77
表 4.7 受測者有否使用過共享電動滑板車之屬性	78
表 4.8 受測者對自身校園共享電動滑板車之服務知悉之屬性	78
表 4.9 受測者使用共享電動滑板車之頻率	79
表 4.10 模型中各構面之信度分析	79
表 4.11 研究模型之各研究構面及問項之收斂效度	82
表 4.12 研究模型各構面之區別效度	84
表 4.13 績效預期構面各問項之敘述性統計表	85
表 4.14 努力預期構面各問項之敘述性統計表	86
表 4.15 社群影響構面各問項之敘述性統計表	86
表 4.16 便利條件構面各問項之敘述性統計表	87
表 4.17 享樂動機構面各問項之敘述性統計表	88
表 4.18 價格價值構面各問項之敘述性統計表	89
表 4.19 習慣構面各問項之敘述性統計表	90
表 4.20 環境關注程度構面各問項之敘述性統計表	91
表 4.21 使用意向構面各問項之敘述性統計表	91
表 4.22 模型適配度表	92
表 4.23 本研究結構模型之路徑分析結果	94
表 4.24 性別與不同構面路徑分析表	96
表 4.25年級/身份與不同構面路徑分析表	97
表 4.26 使用經驗與不同構面路徑分析表	97
表 4.27 決定係數分析表	98
表 4.28 研究假設及檢定結果	103
表 4.29 是否提供共享電動滑板車服務之Mann-Whitney U分析表	106
表 4.30 學校與FC2問項之學校平均分	107
表 4.31 開放性題目之敘述性統計表	109

中文文獻
1.	王祐晶、曾婕瑄、高于晴（2023/12/04）。共享交通新亮點 『滑』進校園生活。 小世界周報。http://shuj.shu.edu.tw/blog/2023/12/04/共享交通新亮點-『滑』進校園生活
2.	王駿杰（2021/12/03）。校園內地勢有高有低 清大電動滑板車上路。聯合報。https://udn.com/news/story/6928/5935241
3.	交通部運輸研究所（2020）。2020年版運輸政策白皮書。
4.	道路交通管理處罰條例 （2024/05/29）。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=K0040012
5.	宋培華（2019）。以UTAUT2模型探討影響消費者使用行動支付意願因素之研究。〔未出版碩士論文〕中國科技大學企業管理系碩士在職專班。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/dbfv7e
6.	李姿慧 （2022/10/11）。微型電動二輪車未掛牌罰3600元「11／30上路」　電動滑板車也納管。 ETtoday。 https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221011/2355628.htm
7.	李容萍（2022/04/18）。共享交通「快」人一等！ 中央大學引進電動滑板車。自由時報。 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3897457 
8.	易淳敏。 （2023）。 氣候變遷因應法三讀通過！2050淨零排放、碳費徵收重點一次看。ESG遠見。 https://esg.gvm.com.tw/article/21200
9.	林佑霖（2019）。大學校園公共自行車系統潛在使用者之使用意圖。〔未出版碩士論文〕國立成功大學交通管理科學系。 
10.	桃園市共享運具經營業管理自治條例 （2020）。 https://law.tycg.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL002158
11.	高雄市共享運具發展管理自治條例 （2019）。 
12.	國家發展委員會、行政院環境保護署、經濟部、科技部、交通部、內政部、行政院農業委員會、金融監督管理委員會。 （2022 ）。 臺灣2050淨零排放路徑及策略總說明。 
13.	張裕珍（2022/04/30）。陽明交大、清大推共享滑板車夯 「滑進」中央大學設點。聯合報。 https://udn.com/news/story/7266/6279481
14.	陳思豪 （2023/03/28）。 校園新寵電動滑板車，能突破台灣法規成功叩關？。 Retrieved 2023/10/26 from https://esg.gvm.com.tw/article/25722
15.	陳筠淇、王尚博（2018）。零廢棄的循環經濟時代。科學發展。543 6-13。 
16.	雲林縣共享運具經營業管理自治條例, （2021）。 https://paper.yunlin.gov.tw/paper/202112/%E9%9B%B2%E6%9E%97%E7%B8%A3%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E9%81%8B%E5%85%B7%E7%B6%93%E7%87%9F%E6%A5%AD%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E8%87%AA%E6%B2%BB%E6%A2%9D%E4%BE%8B.pdf
17.	馮正民、林楨家、陳正杰、蔡琮宇 （2002）。 城際永續運輸的願景與發展策略（一）。 
18.	黃凱靖。 （2022/05/13）。 節能減碳！共享電動滑板車　穿梭校園。 TVBS。 https://news.tvbs.com.tw/life/1790703
19.	新北市共享運具經營業管理自治條例, （2020）。 https://www.traffic.ntpc.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=8c850d9caa7f43fc
20.	熊毅晰。 （2022）。 獨家》2022天下USR大學公民調查：台灣哪些大學是淨零神隊友？。 CSR@天下。 Retrieved 2023/10/26 from https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/42512
21.	臺中市政府（2021）。臺中市共享運具經營業管理自治條例。 https://lawsearch.taichung.gov.tw/glrsout/DraftOpinion.aspx?id=109489&Type=H 
22.	臺北市共享運具經營業管理自治條例, （2018）。 https://www.laws.taipei.gov.tw/Law/LawSearch/LawArticleContent?lawId=P07B1005-20181119&realID=07-02-1002
23.	臺北市政府交通局運輸管理科（2022）。中央法規增訂「個人行動器具」尚未核定施行日，現行仍禁止行駛道路。 https://www.dot.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=D739A9F6B5C0AB95&s=473D93414213484D
24.	臺南市共享機動車輛管理自治條例 （2021）。 https://law01.tainan.gov.tw/GLRSNEWSOUT/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001521
25.	蔡宜芝（2021）。臺北捷運場站之站域形態研究。〔未出版碩士論文〕國立成功大學都市計劃學系。 
26.	鄭啟明（2019/05/29）。台大校園刮起了共享電動滑板車試乘風潮。工商時報。 https://ctee.com.tw/industrynews/99048.html
27.	戴威（2018）。臺北市YouBike開放大數據為基礎的公共自行車旅次與租賃站特性分析。〔未出版碩士論文〕淡江大學運輸管理學系運輸科學碩士班學位論文。 https://www.AiritiLibrary.com/Publication/Index/U0002-0102201822071000
28.	Chen, W. （2020） 共享電動滑板車、電動機車當道！微移動交通如何成為城市通勤首選？。 https://fc.bnext.com.tw/articles/view/1041
29.	OLOO（2024）。 oloo 共享滑板車新站點在高雄駁二藝術園區開始試營運。 https://oloo.com.tw/articles/pac-opening/
30.	Wang, Y （2019）。 「共享電動滑板車」是永續的交通方式嗎 ？。 https://yunli-wang.medium.com/%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E9%9B%BB%E5%8B%95%E6%BB%91%E6%9D%BF%E8%BB%8A-%E6%98%AF%E6%B0%B8%E7%BA%8C%E7%9A%84%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A%E6%96%B9%E5%BC%8F%E5%97%8E-7d5c13798a9c
英文文獻
A.	Khan, R., & Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2021). Technology Adoption Theories and Models. In R. A. Khan & H. Qudrat-Ullah (Eds.), Adoption of LMS in Higher Educational Institutions of the Middle East (pp. 27-48). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50112-9_5 
1.	Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S., & Dia, H. (2021). The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734 
2.	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T 
3.	Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x 
4.	Almannaa, M. H., Alsahhaf, F. A., Ashqar, H. I., Elhenawy, M., Masoud, M., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2021). Perception Analysis of E-Scooter Riders and Non-Riders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Survey Outputs. Sustainability, 13(2), 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020863 
5.	Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 
6.	Anderson, M., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher, S., Smith, S., Hunter, M., Norton, S., Jellison, J., Alyokhin, A., Gallandt, E., Haggard, S., & Bicknell, E. (2007). Attitude Changes of Undergraduate University Students in General Education Courses. The Journal of General Education, 56(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2007.0016 
7.	Aniegbunem, G., & Kraj, A. (2023). Economic Analysis of Sustainable Transportation Transitions: Case Study of the University of Saskatchewan Ground Services Fleet. Sustainability, 15(7), 5926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075926 
8.	Aruga, K. (2020). Is Environmental Awareness a Good Predictor of an Individual’s Altruism Level? Sustainability, 12(19), 7929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197929 
9.	Babbie, E. R. (2020). The practice of social research (Fifteenth ed.). Wadsworth. 
10.	Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. 
11.	Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence : an essay on psychology and religion. Rand Mcnally. 
12.	Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 
13.	Basky, G. (2020). Spike in e-scooter injuries linked to ride-share boom. Canadian Medical Association journal, 192(8), (1488-2329 ). https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095848 
14.	Bateman, T. (2021). Electric scooters face a crackdown in Sweden after accidents and problem parking euronews. https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/09/electric-scooters-face-a-crackdown-in-sweden-after-accidents-and-problem-parking
15.	Bayen, A., & Thibault, G. (2022). Here are five policies to make transport more sustainable in cities Retrieved 2023/10/04 from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/five-transit-policies-cities-should-prioritize-to-become-more-sustainable/
16.	Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 
17.	Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506-520. 
18.	Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364. 
19.	Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness-of-Fit in Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 
20.	Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 
21.	Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640 
22.	Bozionelos, N. (1996). Psychology of Computer Use: XXXIX. Prevalence of Computer Anxiety in British Managers and Professionals. Psychological Reports, 78(3), 995-1002. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3.995 
23.	Bozzi, A. D., & Aguilera, A. (2021). Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service. Sustainability, 13(16), 8676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168676 
24.	Brader, C., Haves, E., & Merritt, E. C. (2022). E-scooters: The road ahead. Retrieved 2023/10/05 from https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/e-scooters-the-road-ahead/
25.	Brown, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29, 399-436. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690 
26.	Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd ed. The Guilford Press. 
27.	Campisi, T., Akgün, N., & Tesoriere, G. (2020). An Ordered Logit Model for Predicting the Willingness of Renting Micro Mobility in Urban Shared Streets: A Case Study in Palermo, Italy Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020, Cham. 
28.	Cao, Z., Zhang, X., Chua, K., Yu, H., & Zhao, J. (2021). E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 147, 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.03.004 
29.	Carlier, M. (2021). Regional breakdown of the global shared e-scooter market 2025. Retrieved 2023/03/26 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022246/estimated-global-shared-e-scooter-market-size-by-region/
30.	Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Fawcett Crest. 
31.	Chau, P. Y. K., & Hui, K. L. (1998). Identifying early adopters of new IT products: A case of Windows 95. Information and Management, 33(5), 225-230. 
32.	Che, J. (2023). Paris Votes to Ban Shared E-Scooters. Retrieved 2023/04/11 from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-03/paris-referendum-bans-electric-scooter-rentals
33.	Chen, L.-H., & Chancellor, H. C. (2020). Examining the leisure use of a bicycle share program: A case study of YouBike in Taipei. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1660598 
34.	Chen, S. Y. (2016). Green helpfulness or fun? Influences of green perceived value on the green loyalty of users and non-users of public bikes. Transport Policy, 47, 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.014 
35.	Chen, X. (2022). Predicting College Students' Bike-Sharing Intentions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 836983. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.836983 
36.	Cheng, K. (2019). LTA delays handing out PMD-sharing licences again, as it mulls over more safety rules Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lta-delays-handing-out-pmd-sharing-licences-again-it-mulls-over-more-safety-rules
37.	Cheng, Y. h., & Huang, T. Y. (2013). High speed rail passengers’ mobile ticketing adoption. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 30, 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.02.001 
38.	Chin, W., & Marcoulides, G. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 8, 295-336. 
39.	Choi, M.-h., & Jung, H. (2022). Influencing Factors of Intention to Use E-scooter Based on UTAUT2. Journal of Korea Planning Association, 57, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.17208/jkpa.2022.04.57.2.80 
40.	Chopdar, P., Lytras, M., & Visvizi, A. (2022). Exploring factors influencing bicycle-sharing adoption in India: a UTAUT 2 based mixed-method approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets, (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-06-2021-0862 
41.	City of Santa Monica. (2021). Scooter and Bike Share Services. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Transportation/Shared-Mobility-Services/
42.	Civity Management Consultants. (2019). E-Scooter in Deutschland - Ein datenbasierter Debattenbeitrag. Retrieved 2023/03/15 from https://scooters.civity.de/en
43.	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates. 
44.	Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 
45.	Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth ed.). SAGE. 
46.	Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 
47.	Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1995). Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 41-56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188961 
48.	Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 
49.	Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 
50.	Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x 
51.	Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991-1004. 
52.	Deng, Y., & Zhao, P. (2023). The determinants of shared bike use in China. Transportation, 50(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10235-y 
53.	Denscombe, M. (2006). Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 246-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284522 
54.	Department for Transport. (2023). E-scooter trials: guidance for users. Retrieved 2022/12/06
55.	from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users
56.	DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications, applied social research methods. (2 ed., Vol. 26). Sage Publications. 
57.	Dias, G., Arsenio, E., & Ribeiro, P. (2021). The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions. Sustainability, 13(13), 7084. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137084 
58.	Dias, G., Ribeiro, P., & Arsenio, E. (2023). Shared E-Scooters and the Promotion of Equity across Urban Public Spaces—A Case Study in Braga, Portugal. Applied Sciences, 13(6), 3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063653 
59.	Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 
60.	Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172866 
61.	Dunlap, R., & Jones, R. (2002). Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 484-524). Bloomsbury Academic. 
62.	Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176 
63.	Dutta, S., & Shivani, S. (2020). Modified UTAUT2 to Determine Intention and Use of E-Commerce Technology Among Micro & Small Women Entrepreneurs in Jharkhand, India IFIP WG 8.6 International Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, Tiruchirappalli, India. 
64.	Eccarius, T., & Lu, C.-C. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility – Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 84, 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327 
65.	Electric Scooter Guide. (2022). What Were The First Electric Scooters? Retrieved 2023/05/24 from https://electric-scooter.guide/blog/the-first-electric-scooters/
66.	Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2008). Interrupting habitual car use: The importance of car habit strength and moral motivation for personal car use reduction. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(1), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2007.05.004 
67.	Ezarik, M. (2019). How to navigate the campus e-scooters trend. University Business. Retrieved 2023/10/30 from https://universitybusiness.com/how-to-navigate-the-campus-e-scooters-trend/
68.	Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4 
69.	Federal Highway Administration. (2020). Micromobility-Emergence of New Transportation Modes. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/fact_sheets/mm_fact_sheet.cfm
70.	Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. 
71.	Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature. Transport Reviews, 33(2), 148-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.775612 
72.	Fitt, H., & Curl, A. (2019). E-scooter use in New Zealand: Insights around some frequently asked questions. University of Canterbury. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13510.93761 
73.	Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 
74.	Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods / by Floyd J. Fowler (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 
75.	Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0141 
76.	Gao, Y., Li, H., & Luo, Y. (2015). An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(9), 1704-1723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0087 
77.	Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric Statistical Inference. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (pp. 977-979). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_420 
78.	Glavić, D., Trpković, A., Milenković, M., & Jevremović, S. (2021). The E-Scooter Potential to Change Urban Mobility—Belgrade Case Study. Sustainability, 13(11), 5948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115948 
79.	Gössling, S. (2020). Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 79, 102230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102230 
80.	Granello, D., & Wheaton, J. (2004). Online Data Collection: Strategies for Research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(4), 387-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00325.x 
81.	Hadler, M., Klösch, B., Schwarzinger, S., Schweighart, M., Wardana, R., & Bird, D. N. (2022). Measuring Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. In M. Hadler, B. Klösch, S. Schwarzinger, M. Schweighart, R. Wardana, & D. N. Bird (Eds.), Surveying Climate-Relevant Behavior: Measurements, Obstacles, and Implications (pp. 15-35). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85796-7_2 
82.	Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing. 
83.	Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 
84.	Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2018). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 
85.	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. X. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning, EMEA. 
86.	Hall, D. T., & Mansfield, R. M. A. (1975). Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 201-210. 
87.	Hall, M. (2017). Bird scooters flying around town Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://smdp.com/2017/09/26/bird-scooters-flying-around-town/
88.	Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047-2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552 
89.	Hawkins, A. J. (2018a). The electric scooter craze is officially one year old — what’s next? The Verge. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/20/17878676/electric-scooter-bird-lime-uber-lyft
90.	Hawkins, A. J. (2018b). Scooters will return to San Francisco, but Bird and Lime aren’t invited. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/30/17800960/scooters-sf-permits-bird-lime-uber-lyft-scoot-skip
91.	Heineke, K., Kloss, B., Scurtu, D., & Weig, F. (2019). Micromobility’s 15,000-mile checkup McKinsey and Company. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/micromobilitys-15000-mile-checkup
92.	Heineke, K., Kloss, B., Scurtu, D., & Wiemuth, C. (2023). Electric kickscooters have come of age. Regulators have taken. McKinsey and Company. Retrieved 2023/10/25 from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/electric-kickscooters-have-come-of-age-regulators-have-taken-notice
93.	Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 
94.	Hermawan, K., & Le, D.-T. (2022). Examining Factors Influencing the Use of Shared Electric Scooters. Sustainability, 14(22), 15066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215066 
95.	Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489122 
96.	Holley, P. (2018). Scooter use is rising in major cities. So are trips to the emergency room. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/scooter-use-is-rising-in-major-cities-so-are-trips-to-the-emergency-room/2018/09/06/53d6a8d4-abd6-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.1340df5597c8
97.	Hollingsworth, J., Copeland, B., & Johnson, J. X. (2019). Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters. Environmental Research Letters, 14(8), 084031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8 
98.	Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 
99.	Huang, F.-H. (2021). User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study. Sustainability, 13(23), 13153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313153 
100.	Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Angele, L. M. C. (1997). Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/249498 
101.	Iles, R. (2005). Public Transport in Developing Countries. Elsevier Science Ltd. 
102.	Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530204400303 
103.	International Transport Forum. (2020). Safe Micromobility. OECD/ITF. 
104.	IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
105.	IPCC. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/
106.	James, O., Swiderski, J. I., Hicks, J., Teoman, D., & Buehler, R. (2019). Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders. Sustainability, 11(20), 5591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205591 
107.	Javadinasr, M., Asgharpour, S., Rahimi, E., Choobchian, P., Mohammadian, A. K., & Auld, J. (2022). Eliciting attitudinal factors affecting the continuance use of E-scooters: An empirical study in Chicago. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 87, 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.03.019 
108.	Jia, Y., & Fu, H. (2019). Association between innovative dockless bicycle sharing programs and adopting cycling in commuting and non-commuting trips. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.12.025 
109.	Jiao, J., & Bai, S. (2020). Understanding the Shared E-scooter Travels in Austin, TX. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9020135 
110.	Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 433-438. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200723 
111.	Jose, B. (2018). SFMTA Offers Two Permits for One-Year Powered Scooter Pilot. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.sfmta.com/blog/sfmta-offers-two-permits-one-year-powered-scooter-pilot
112.	Kaplan, S., Manca, F., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Prato, C. G. (2015). Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.017 
113.	Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751 
114.	Kim, K., & Seo, E. (2018). The relationship between teacher efficacy and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(4), 529-540. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6554 
115.	Kim, S., & Malhotra, N. (2005). A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Post-Adoption Phenomena. Management Science, 51(5), 741-755. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0326 
116.	Kjærup, M., Skov, M., & van Berkel, N. (2021). E-Scooter Sustainability – A Clash of Needs, Perspectives, and Experiences. 18th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bari.
117.	Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 
118.	König, A., Gebhardt, L., Stark, K., & Schuppan, J. (2022). A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany. Sustainability, 14(5), 2639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052639 
119.	Kopplin, C. S., Brand, B. M., & Reichenberger, Y. (2021). Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91, 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102680 
120.	Kraj, A., & Aniegbunem, G. (2023). Economic Analysis of Sustainable Transportation Transitions Sustainability Aniegbunem Kraj. Sustainability, 15(7), 5926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075926 
121.	Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological Research Online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 
122.	KYODO News. (2022). Japan to scrap licenses for electric scooters. Retrieved 2022/11/06 from https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/04/65b9e3a0949d-japan-to-scrap-licenses-for-electric-scooters.html
123.	Laa, B., & Leth, U. (2020). Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. Journal of Transport Geography, 89, 102874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874 
124.	Lam, L. (2019). Two e-scooter sharing companies fined for operating without licences Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/telepod-neuron-mobility-pmd-e-scooter-sharing-fined-no-licences-861261
125.	Lampo, A., Silva, S., & Duarte, P. (2023). The role of environmental concern and technology show-off on electric vehicles adoption: the case of Macau. International Journal of Emerging Markets. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-10-2021-1637 
126.	Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155 
127.	Lavars, N. (2022). E-scooter injury rates are worse than motorcycles, new study finds New Atlas. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://newatlas.com/urban-transport/study-e-scooters-injury-rates-motorcycles/
128.	Leavy, P. (2017). Research Design : Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches. The Guilford Press. 
129.	Lee, H.-J., Cho, H., Xu, W., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). The influence of consumer traits and demographics on intention to use retail self-service checkouts. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501011014606 
130.	Levy, J. A. (1988). Intersections of Gender and Aging. The Sociological Quarterly, 29(4), 479-486. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121091 
131.	Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007). How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705-737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817 
132.	Lime. (2019). Lime To Take First E‑Scooter Ride In Japan As Part Of Fukuoka Smart EAST Project. Retrieved 2022/11/06 from https://www.li.me/blog/lime-first-e-scooter-ride-japan-fukuoka-smart-east-project
133.	Liobikienė, G., Mandravickaitė, J., & Bernatonienė, J. (2016). Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study. Ecological Economics, 125, 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.008 
134.	Locke, J. (2022). What is Micromobility and What is the Market for Developers? Digi Retrieved 2023/03/11 from https://www.digi.com/blog/post/what-is-micromobility
135.	Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Physica-Verlag. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ZaFwQgAACAAJ 
136.	Lustig, C., Konkel, A., & Jacoby, L. L. (2004). Which Route to Recovery?:Controlled Retrieval and Accessibility Bias in Retroactive Interference. Psychological Science, 15(11), 729-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00749.x 
137.	Maccallum, R., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. 
138.	Machavarapu, P. K., Ram, S., & Kant, P. (2023). Factors influencing bike share intentions of users in Indian cities: a structural equation modelling approach. Urban Planning and Transport Research, 11(1), 2276405. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2023.2276405 
139.	Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595430 
140.	Marikyan, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2023). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A review. TheoryHub Book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk 
141.	Mathew, A. O., Chowdhury, S., Devpura, S., & Lingappa, A. K. (2023). Factors Influencing Technology Acceptance of Drones for Last-Mile Food Deliveries: An Adaptation of the UTAUT2 Model. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023, 7399080. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7399080 
142.	Mathew, J. K., Liu, M., & Bullock, D. M. (2019, 27-30 Oct. 2019). Impact of Weather on Shared Electric Scooter Utilization. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand.
143.	Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The Influence of Perceived User Resources. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112. 
144.	McDavid, J., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. (2019). Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice (3 ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878897 
145.	McKenzie, G. (2019). Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007 
146.	Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring Differences in Males' and Females' Processing Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 63-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489485 
147.	Midgley, P. (2011). Bicycle-sharing schemes: enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas. Commission on Sustainable Development, New York. 
148.	Minton, H. L., & Schneider, F. W. (1980). Differential psychology. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. 
149.	Mitropoulos, L., Kortsari, A., & Ayfantopoulou, G. (2021). A systematic literature review of ride-sharing platforms, user factors and barriers. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00522-1 
150.	Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983532 
151.	Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23010883 
152.	Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2016). It's about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.003 
153.	Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 726-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001 
154.	Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x 
155.	Mouratidis, K. (2022). Bike-sharing, car-sharing, e-scooters, and Uber: Who are the shared mobility users and where do they live? Sustainable Cities and Society, 86, 104161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104161 
156.	Mustafa, S., Zhang, W., Shehzad, M. U., Anwar, A., & Rubakula, G. (2022). Does Health Consciousness Matter to Adopt New Technology? An Integrated Model of UTAUT2 With SEM-fsQCA Approach [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.836194 
157.	Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.1.p013 
158.	Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of Attitude and Behavior Research for Environmental Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943043 
159.	Nikkei staff writers. (2022). Japan's FamilyMart plans 600 rental sites for electric scooters. Nikkei https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Japan-s-FamilyMart-plans-600-rental-sites-for-electric-scooters
160.	North American Bikeshare Association. (2021). Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report for North America. https://nabsa.net/about/industry/
161.	Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. 
162.	Özmen, E. (2023). Examining Women’s Intention to Use E-Scooters with Technology Acceptance Model: Istanbul Case. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(52), 224-238. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1248118 
163.	Paço, A., & Raposo, M. (2009). "Green" segmentation: An application to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 364-379. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500910955245 
164.	Pan, L., Xia, Y., Xing, L., Song, Z., & Xu, Y. (2022). Exploring Use Acceptance of Electric Bicycle-Sharing Systems: An Empirical Study Based on PLS-SEM Analysis. Sensors, 22(18), 7057. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22187057 
165.	Pazzini, M., Cameli, L., Lantieri, C., Vignali, V., Dondi, G., & Jonsson, T. (2022). New Micromobility Means of Transport: An Analysis of E-Scooter Users’Behaviour in Trondheim. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127374 
166.	Pei, A. (2023). New Campus Infrastructure Makes UCLA Safer for Bruins. Retrieved 2024/03/28 from https://transportation.ucla.edu/blog/new-campus-infrastructure-makes-ucla-safer-bruins
167.	Peters, D., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Wei, W. (2015). Promoting Intermodal Connectivity at California's High-Speed Rail Stations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1427.6322 
168.	Plude, D., & Hoyer, W. (1986). Age and the selectivity of visual processing. Psychology and aging, 1(1), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.1.1.4 
169.	Pourfalatoun, S., Ahmed, J., & Miller, E. E. (2023). Shared Electric Scooter Users and Non-Users: Perceptions on Safety, Adoption and Risk. Sustainability, 15(11), 9045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119045 
170.	Price, J., Blackshear, D., Jr., W. B., & Sandt, L. (2021). Micromobility: A Travel Mode Innovation Public Roads, 85 (FHWA-HRT-21-003). https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/spring-2021/02 
171.	Putri, B., Atha, F., Rizka, F., Amalia, R., & Husna, S. (2021). Factors Affecting E-Scooter Sharing Purchase Intention: An Analysis Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). International Journal of Creative Business and Management, 1(2), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijcbm.v1i2.4397 
172.	Quinlan, H. (2019). University pilots new partnership for electric scooters on campus. Retrieved 2024/03/03 from https://record.umich.edu/articles/university-pilots-new-partnership-electric-scooters-campus/
173.	Reck, D. J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803 
174.	Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An Empirical Comparison of the Efficacy of Covariance-Based and Variance-Based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001 
175.	Rejali, S., Aghabayk, K., Mohammadi, A., & Shiwakoti, N. (2021). Assessing a priori acceptance of shared dockless e-scooters in Iran. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 100, 103042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103042 
176.	Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-Related Differences in Work Attitudes and Behavior: A Review and Conceptual Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.328 
177.	Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2020). Emissions by sector: where do greenhouse gases come from? OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved 2024/02/24 from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
178.	Rivero, E. (2019). Fractures, head injuries common in e-scooter collisions, according to UCLA research. UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/fractures-head-injuries-common-e-scooter-collisions
179.	Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Free Press. 
180.	Rybizki, A., Ihme, K., Nguyen, H. P., Onnasch, L., & Bosch, E. (2022). Acceptance of Automated Shuttles and Application and Extension of the UTAUT-2 Model to Wizard-of-Oz Automated Driving in Real-Life Traffic. Future Transportation, 2(4), 1010-1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2040056 
181.	San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. (2021). Powered Scooter Share Permit Program. Retrieved 2022/11/07 from https://www.sfmta.com/projects/powered-scooter-share-permit-program
182.	Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Hair, J. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2 
183.	Schellong, D., Sadek, P., Schaetzberger, C., & Barrack, T. (2019). The Promise and Pitfalls of E-Scooter Sharing. Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved 2022/12/05 from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/promise-pitfalls-e-scooter-sharing
184.	Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007 
185.	Schneider, R. J. (2013). Theory of routine mode choice decisions: An operational framework to increase sustainable transportation. Transport Policy, 25, 128-137. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.007 
186.	Seebauer, S. (2015). Why early adopters engage in interpersonal diffusion of technological innovations: An empirical study on electric bicycles and electric scooters. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 146-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.017 
187.	Shaheen, S., & Chan, N. (2016). Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Facilitate the First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections. Built Environment, 42(4), 573-588. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.42.4.573 
188.	Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Martin, E. (2013). Public Bikesharing in North America. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387, 83-92. https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-10 
189.	Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143(1). https://doi.org/10.3141/2143-20 
190.	Shao, X., Jiménez, A., Lee, J. Y., & Taras, V. (2023). The impact of the perceived value of the sharing economy on consumer usage behavior: evidence from shared mobility in China. Asian Business & Management, 22(5), 1962-2003. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-023-00236-3 
191.	Singapore Land Transport Authority. (2019). E-Scooters to Be Prohibited on All Footpaths Following Safety Review. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2019/11/1/e-scooters_tobe_prohibited_on_allfootpaths_following_safety_review.html
192.	Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2022). Central Area. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Master-Plan/Regional-Highlights/Central-Area
193.	Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 72-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251177 
194.	Statista. (2023). E-Scooter-sharing - Worldwide. Retrieved 2023/11/01 from https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-mobility/shared-rides/e-scooter-sharing/worldwide
195.	Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00026-8 
196.	Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0 
197.	Tamilmani, K., Rana, N., Dwivedi, Y., & Prakasam, N. (2019). The battle of Brain vs. Heart: A literature review and meta-analysis of “hedonic motivation” use in UTAUT2. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.008 
198.	Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017, 2017). A Systematic Review of Citations of UTAUT2 Article and Its Usage Trends. Digital Nations – Smart Cities, Innovation, and Sustainability, Cham.
199.	Taufique, K. M. R., Siwar, C., Chamhuri, N., & Sarah, F. H. (2016). Integrating General Environmental Knowledge and Eco-Label Knowledge in Understanding Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30090-9 
200.	Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23011007 
201.	Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443 
202.	Toofany, M., Mohsenian, S., Shum, L. K., Chan, H., & Brubacher, J. R. (2021). Injury patterns and circumstances associated with electric scooter collisions: a scoping review. Injury Prevention, 27(5), 490-499. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-044085 
203.	Trajkovski, M. (2023). Electric Scooter Statistics, Data, Trends, and Markets. EScooterNerds.com. Retrieved 2023/03/26 from https://escooternerds.com/electric-scooter-statistics-data-trends-markets/
204.	Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 195-259. 
205.	Tuncer, S., Laurier, E., Brown, B., & Licoppe, C. (2020). Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. Journal of Transport Geography, 85, 102702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102702 
206.	UCLA. (2024). Approved Electric Scooter and Electric Bike Vendors. Retrieved 2024/03/08 from https://transportation.ucla.edu/content/approved-electric-scooter-and-electric-bike-vendors
207.	United Nations. (2016). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved 2023/10/26 from https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement
208.	United Nations. (2021). Sustainable transport, sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Transportation%20Report%202021_FullReport_Digital.pdf
209.	University of Texas at Austin. (2024). Electric Scooter. Retrieved 2024/03/03 from https://parking.utexas.edu/transportation/electric-scooters
210.	Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2022). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUT). In Conducting Technology Acceptance Research in Education : Theory, Models, Implementation, and Analysis (pp. 111-133). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10846-4_6 
211.	Valle, P. O. D., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining Behavioral Theories to Predict Recycling Involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 364-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504272563 
212.	van der Heijden, H. (2004). User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660 
213.	Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 
214.	Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981 
215.	Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 
216.	Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 
217.	Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118356258 
218.	Westcott, B. (2019). Singapore joins France in banning e-scooters on sidewalks. CNN Retrieved 2022/11/08 from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/singapore-e-scooter-ban-intl-hnk/index.html
219.	Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754 
220.	Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968 
221.	Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.219 
222.	Wold, H. (1975). Path Models with Latent Variables: The NIPALS Approach. In H. M. Blalock, A. Aganbegian, F. M. Borodkin, R. Boudon, & V. Capecchi (Eds.), Quantitative Sociology (pp. 307-357). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-103950-9.50017-4 
223.	Wong, K. (2019). Mastering Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS in 38 Hours. iUniverse. 
224.	Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 00-00. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x 
225.	Wright, S., Nelson, J., & Cottrill, C. (2019). MaaS for the suburban market: Incorporating carpooling in the mix. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 206-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.034 
226.	Wu, Z., Zhou, H., Xi, H., & Wu, N. (2021). Analysing public acceptance of autonomous buses based on an extended TAM model. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 15(9), 1127-1138. https://doi.org/10.1049/itr2.12100 
227.	Wyer, S. (2019). UCLA Transportation agreement with e-scooter companies to impose new restrictions. Daily Bruin. Retrieved 2023/10/30 from https://dailybruin.com/2019/09/15/ucla-transportation-agreement-with-e-scooter-companies-to-impose-new-restrictions
228.	Yang, S. (2013). Understanding Undergraduate Students' Adoption of Mobile Learning Model: A Perspective of the Extended UTAUT2. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 8(10), 969-979. 
229.	Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Coping With Negative Emotions in Purchase-Related Situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 303-317. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_11 
230.	Zhu, R., Zhang, X., Kondor, D., Santi, P., & Ratti, C. (2020). Understanding spatio-temporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 81, 101483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101483 
日文文獻
1.	日本国国土交通省 （2022）。超小型モビリティについて。 https://www.mlit.go.jp/jidosha/jidosha_fr1_000043.html
2.	福田和郎、千田慎太郎、松原圭佑（2022）。 電動キックボード 免許は必要？ヘルメットは？。 NHK news. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221018/k10013862881000.html
3.	LUUP（2022）。Luup（ループ） | 電動キックボードシェア/シェアサイクルアプリ。Retrieved 2022/08/16 from https://luup.sc/