Understanding the key criteria for shared mobility providers in their evaluation of potential markets

Previous literature on shared mobility has primarily focused on the factors impacting user adoption rates to explain the diffusion of these services across urban areas. However, there is no research incorporating the providers’ perspective and exploring the determinants of their expansion strategies. This study addresses this gap by identifying and prioritising the contextual factors that shared mobility providers deem (un)important in selecting the appropriate markets to become active in. It regards international business, economic geography and shared mobility adoption literature to establish a theoretical framework that steers the search for potential contextual factors influencing these decisions. These criteria are evaluated using pairwise judgements and calculating the principal eigenvector values, as featured in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis framework, in order to determine their relative importance. The distribution of the utility values indicates the level of agreement regarding the perceived (un)importance of a certain criterion. The results indicate that shared mobility providers are mainly considering the local institutional context, such as the type of permitting procedure to enter a market and the required key performance indicators with regard to fleet redistribution, fleet availability and parking compliance; the transportation infrastructure, where dedicated infrastructure for active mobility and parking infrastructure for shared mobility is valued; socio-demographics, in particular population density and income; and the coopetition environment, where public transport is considered a complementary service. In contrast, they are less valuing a potential integration within a MaaS application, the conditions specific to an area, such as weather conditions, topography and the land use mix, and the national regulations possibly impacting their services. The results for different categories of shared mobility services, including free-floating scooters, station-based bicycles and cars, highlight different focal points. Car sharing operators prioritise factors impacting the utility of private vehicles, such as parking regulations and infrastructure, and attach significant importance to the existing uptake of sustainable travel modes by citizens. Micromobility providers, on the other hand, tend to target densely populated and touristic areas and, scooter sharing operators specifically, locations with less strict service level requirements, particularly regarding parking compliance and fleet availability. Furthermore, station-based bike sharing companies focus on the available infrastructure for micromobility vehicles and the assigned role of shared mobility in local policy objectives. There is also a contrast in how providers consider competition and collaboration opportunities with public transport or public sharing schemes, with scooter companies mainly regarding the extent of competitiveness, while bike and car sharing providers primarily consider collaboration possibilities. As cities struggle to establish effective regulatory and governance frameworks, this research suggests that creating the right local institutional context is essential to attract providers while minimizing the externalities and enhancing the potential benefits of shared mobility. However, there are varying priorities between and within different categories of shared mobility operators, which makes it challenging for local policymakers to establish a policy environment that accommodates the diverse needs of the operators.