The circular economy (CE) is an increasingly popular approach to create sustainable business. The aim of a CE is to attain a sustainable society and economy by avoiding and minimising resource consumption through multiple product-and-material loops (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2015). Sustainable consumption (SC) is a complex and ambivalent concept composed of two visibly opposite terms-consumption and sustainability. Existing definitions nevertheless show that the main aim of SC is to reach the harmony between the satisfaction of consumer needs and preservation of the environment (Piligrimiene, Žukauskaite, Korzilius, Banyte & Dovaliene, 2020). SC entails satisfying consumer needs while reducing negative impacts caused during material extraction, production and consumption (Mont and Plepys, 2008; Cooper, 2013).

SC emphasises individual actions of consumers in the areas of acquisition, usage and disposal of goods, products and services, taking into account the impact on ecological and socioeconomic conditions for today’s and future generations (Geng, Mansouri & Aktas, 2017). According to Phipps et al. (2013), SC is a compromise between environmental, social and economic aims, acquiring, using and utilising products, seeking global welfare for the present and future generations. SC, representing the demand side of the consumption/production coin, should allow for potential changes in consumer behaviour (Phipps et al., 2013). SC patterns are necessary to realise a sustainable society and economy (Druckman & Jackson, 2010). Customer SC behaviours facilitate the efficient use of underutilised resources (e.g. sharing spare household resource) and extend the life cycle of accessed products (e.g. keeping items in good conditions for others), thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability in the sharing economy (SE) (Munoz & Cohen, 2017). Second-hand clothing is an example of recycling that extends the life of products by reusing. Reuse of clothing is associated with reducing the amount of disposed clothing, thereby reducing environmental pollution (Farrant, Olsen & Wangel, 2010). Second-hand and vintage clothes are getting popular due to environmental benefits and also for a personal style (Johansson, 2010).

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the importance and to determine the influence of selected types of motives on the attitudes towards using collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) applications/ platforms and willingness to use them in the future.

The Concept of CFC

Collaborative consumption (CC) is one of the new consumption trends in consumer behaviour that includes an alternative approach to meeting needs. This trend is based on access to goods without the need to own and transfer property rights. In Belk (2014), the term ‘collaborative consumption’ was defined as ‘people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation’. CC is dynamically developing in various areas of human activity. The popularity of CC has significantly increased due to the development of digitalisation. Owing to the dissemination of smartphones, the development of mobile technologies, Internet accessibility and the proliferation of online payment, the CC has never been so easy and widespread (Muangmee, Kot, Meekaewkunchorn, Kassakorn & Khalid, 2021; Kapoor & Vij, 2021). The growing consumer awareness of environmental concerns and anticonsumerist attitudes also contribute to the development of CC. The areas in which it is most developed include transport, tourism, education, food, clothing, healthcare and leisure (Paczka, 2020). CC is most often studied in the context of the SE (Belk, 2014), prosumption (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010), sharing (Belk, 2010; Lamberton & Rose, 2012), access-based consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) or connected consumption (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). The principal idea behind all of these approaches is to promote the notion of using, as opposed to owning, products (Iran & Schrader, 2017).

According to Iran and Schrader (2017), CFC is a consumption trend ‘in which consumers, instead of buying new fashion products, have access to already existing garments either through alternative opportunities to acquire individual ownership (gifting, swapping or second hand) or through usage options for fashion products owned by others (sharing, lending, renting or leasing)’. CFC can be between peers; then, we are talking about ‘pure cooperation’, a form that has existed since forever, when clothes were shared between family members prior to the industrial revolution (Belk, 2014). Nowadays, it could be organised by peers themselves either through online or offline platforms. But it can also take place between businesses and end consumers; then, we are talking about ‘trading cooperation’. There are companies offering either service as substitutes for product ownership (renting and leasing) or second-hand retail service to make the purchase of new products dispensable (Iran & Schrader, 2017). Finally, CFC can be mediated by a third party; then, we are talking about ‘sourcing collaboration’ (Henninger, Brydges, Iran & Vladimirova, 2021). On the basis of the literature review, the following forms of CFC can be distinguished: sharing, borrowing, reuse, charity, second-hand market, SC, anti-consumption, swapping, resale, take-back schemes and repurpose. These practices result in reduced new product acquisitions, increased product reuse and extended product life cycle (Armstrong, Niinimäki, Lang & Kujala, 2016). Various forms of CFC are accepted and practiced by consumers. Some people accept one or more form(s) of CFC, while others reject the concept entirely and are against sharing their clothes (Iran, Geiger & Schrader, 2018). In the apparel industry, the SE enables consumers to have access to fashion products that would not be accessible otherwise, achieving more variety in apparel choice (Balck & Cracau, 2015).

CFC has gained an increasing amount of attention among not only consumers but also academia (Lang, Seo & Liu, 2019). Researchers identify that CFC serves to not only reduce waste and negative environmental impact (Gopalakrishnan & Matthews, 2018) but also increase sustainability in the apparel industry (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken & Hultink, 2017).

The emergence of new information and communication technologies has caused significant changes in the rules of fashion sharing. Such activities, initially carried out only with family members or friends and acquaintances, gradually began to be undertaken also with previously unknown people. Access to new technology and digital platforms makes it easier to communicate at a distance and to find people who have spare resources and those who would like to use them. More and more platforms for CFC have emerged around the world, e.g. Rent the Runway, Share Wardrobe, GlamCorner, Dress & Go, Vinted, Zalando Pre-owned and E-Garderobe.com (Lee, Jung & Lee, 2021). Such platforms are having a serious impact on the fashion industry. Contemporary SE applications create a market form in which strangers rather than kin and communities exchange garments, thereby creating new ways of provisioning goods and services as well as opportunities for CC. Many consumers are becoming more open to renting and thrifting and, as a result, businesses are adapting by making the shift from not only selling products but also offering subscription services. An individual who cannot afford to buy luxury goods can rent various designer fashion items at lower prices. It is worth noting that CFC applies to different consumer segments of the clothing market. According to experts, CFC could rapidly grow into one of the fastestgrowing segments of retail in the next 10 years (Chieng, 2021).

Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Model

Users’ motivation to participate in CFC has been the subject of research by scientists all over the world for many years. Guiot and Roux (2010) distinguished three main categories of motives for second-hand shopping: critical motivations (distance from the consumption system, ethics and ecology), economic motivations (gratificative role of price, searching for a fair price) and hedonic/recreational motivation (treasure hunting, originality, social contact and nostalgia). Padmavathy, Swapana and Paul (2019) proposed a scale to measure online second-hand shopping motivation and focussed on economic motivation (price orientation, bargaining power and critical orientation), convenience motivation (usefulness and ease of use) and ideological motivation (need to be unique, nostalgia, trust and assurances). Based on a literature review, Becker-Leifhold and Iran (2018) identified the drivers of CFC from a consumers’ perspective — hedonic motives (e.g. availability of rare items, excitement, fun, satisfaction, treasure hunting, nostalgia and social interaction), utilitarian motives (smart purchase behaviour, fair price, frugality and bargains) and biospheric motives (environment-friendly consumption, prevention of wasteful disposal and distance from the system). Zaman, Park, Kim and Park (2019) distinguished six consumer orientations relevant to second-hand clothing shopping: frugality, style consciousness, ecological consciousness, dematerialism, nostalgia proneness and fashion consciousness. Park and Armstrong (2019) classified five basic consumer motivations for collaborative apparel consumption: saving money, saving time, finding desirable product assortment, utility and no burden of ownership. Cervellon, Carey and Harms (2012) have studied the influence of nostalgia, fashion involvement, need for uniqueness, need for status, frugality and value consciousness and environmental-friendly proneness on the intention to purchase second-hand fashion pieces (and vintage pieces). Xu, Chen, Burman and Zhao (2014), in their cross-cultural study, distinguished four perceived values for purchasing second-hand clothing: economic value, hedonic value or treasure hunting, uniqueness and environmental value. The results of their study have shown significant differences in second-hand clothing consumption behaviour between US and Chinese consumers. This justifies the conduct of research in individual countries, as the behaviour of consumers from different countries may differ significantly from each other.

The subject scope of our study includes the recognition of the impact of economic and utility motives (e.g. promotions, convenience and saving time), social motives (e.g. being a part of a group of people with similar interests, image and following trends) and ecological motives (e.g. to protect/care for the natural environment, to limit excessive consumption and to extend the life of the products) on attitudes towards CFC applications and the willingness to use them in the future.

Economic and Utility Motives

The analysed literature on the consumption of used clothing suggests that pragmatic motivations based on time and money saving play an important role in shaping attitudes towards second-hand buying (Williams & Paddock, 2003). Guiot and Roux (2010) state that economic motivations are important incentives of second-hand purchase behaviour. The results of a study conducted by Cervellon et al. (2012) have shown that the main driver for the purchase of second-hand clothes is frugality. Studies indicate that economic factors play the most important role for clients when making decisions on the use of SE (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016). However, it should be noticed that the findings of the study by Won and Kim (2020) suggest that utilitarian motives (saving money or maximising utility) do not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. On the other hand, the findings of Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) indicate that economic motivations influence positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on SE platforms. The study by Yan, Bae and Xu (2015) has shown that college students’ shopping frequency for second-hand clothing was predicted by price sensitivity.

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Economic and utility motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Economic and utility motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Social Motives

Social motives are incorporated for instance in the possibility of getting to know other people who have similar desires (Benoit, Baker, Bolton, Gruber & Kandampully, 2017). Findings from a study by Angelovska, Èeh Èasni and Lutz (2020) suggest that motives such as meeting with people and social responsibility are significant predictors of participation in the SE. A study by Yan et al. (2015) suggests that consumers who shopped for second-hand clothing might do so for social reasons (among others). Psychological factors promote people to interact on peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms and form the basis for borrowing and rental mechanisms, as well as transferring ownership through exchange, donation or purchase of used goods (Hamari, 2013; Hamari, Sjöklint & Ukkonen, 2016; Piscicelli, Cooper & Fisher, 2015).

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Social motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Social motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Ecological Motives

The SE is part of ethical consumerism, and participation in it can be perceived as a form of sustainable consumer behaviour (Perlacia, Duml & Saebi, 2017). Sold sales, transition, renting or transferring unwanted/unnecessary clothes contributes to the extension of the product life, reduction of production and fashion waste (Perlacia et al., 2017; Sarigöllü, Hou & Ertz, 2021). Although participation in the sharing economy may potentially have a positive impact on the environment (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) (no resource consumption), it does not seem to be a strong motivator for many consumers (Habibi et al., 2016). Furthermore, Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn and Baedeker (2013) show that ‘use instead of having’ patterns may also have undesirable ecological side effects, because customers can abuse shopping, which can eliminate positive environmental effects. Some studies suggest that purchase of second-hand clothes is not driven by ecological consciousness directly but through the mediating effect of bargain hunting (Cervellon et al., 2012). Findings from the study by Won and Kim (2020) indicate that hedonic and ecological motivation affects consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) found that perceived sustainability influences positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on sharing-economy platforms. On the other hand, the study by Yan et al. (2015) did not confirm the relationship between environmental attitudes and the shopping frequency for second-hand clothing among college students. Those authors noticed, however, that second-hand shoppers tend to be more environmentally conscious than non-shoppers.

The literature review findings regarding the impact of ecological motives on attitudes towards SE/CC and participation in SE/CC are ambiguous. The authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Ecological motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Attitude

According to the theory of planned behaviour, an individual’s intention to perform a certain behaviour is determined by a combination of three factors: attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). The assumption of the positive influence of the attitude towards CC or second-hand shopping on behaviour intention (participation in CC or buying second-hand fashion) is supported in the literature. In the study by Hamari et al. (2016), attitude had a significant positive effect on behavioural intentions to participate in CC. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) suggest that attitude towards buying second-hand fashion positively influences behavioural intention to buy second-hand goods on P2P-SE platforms. Won and Kim (2020) indicate that consumers’ attitudes towards fashion-sharing platforms have a positive effect on their purchase intentions.

Based on a review of past research, the authors assume that the attitude towards CFC positively affects behavioural intention and thus propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms positively influence the willingness to use them in the future.

The following conceptual research model is proposed (Figure 1):

Research Design

The data was collected through an online research panel (Nationwide Research Panel Ariadna) with the use of an online survey in 2021 on a total of 412 Polish respondents. The non-random sampling method was used in the selection of the research sample. The structure of the research sample corresponded to the structure of adult Poles in terms of gender, age, education level and place of residence. The dataset was created with SPSS, version 27 (IBM). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and a structural equation model (SEM) was developed using AMOS, version 21.0. Based on prior studies, a multi-item measurement scale was developed to measure motives and attitude. Economic and utility motives, social motives, ecological motives and attitude were each measured with four items and behaviour intention with one item. All items were measured utilising a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The selection of the research sample was carried out by the quota method (selection criteria: sex, age and place of residence). The structure of the research sample is presented in Table 1.

Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the results of the CFA, including factor loadings and descriptive statistics. Two of three motives to participate as a user of CFC platforms were of relatively high importance: economics and utility motives (EU) (meanEU = 3.88) and ecological (ECO) (meanECO = 3.65). Social (SOC) motives were considered by the respondents as less important (meanSOC = 3.22).

SEM was used to test the hypothetical relationships between observable and/or latent variables in experimental and non-experimental research (Konarski, 2009, p. 15). The SEM consisted of a structural and a measurement part — the structural part of the model describes the theoretical cause-and-effect relation or correlation between the studied phenomena, while the measurement part takes place when the analysed phenomena are not directly measurable (therefore, they are represented in the constructed model by unobservable/latent variables). This means that before starting the estimation of the SEM, its measurement part should be determined and verified. One of the methods of verification of the measurement model is by the use of CFA (Bedyńska & Książek, 2012, pp. 219–223). The reliability of the measurement instrument was tested using CFA, where the results showed acceptable model fit indices (Table 3).

The evaluation of the overall measurement model (Figure 2) and the assessment of reliability and validity of the constructs were performed with a CFA. In the process of evaluating the measurement model, the discriminant and convergent validities were verified — the discriminant validity measures the extent to which the factors intended to measure a specific construct are actually unrelated (Wang & Wang, 2012). The Fornell and Larcker approach for the assessment of discriminant validity was used (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Within this approach, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each research construct should be higher than the square of the correlation between the construct and other constructs (Ode & Ayavoo, 2020). The diagonal (shown in bold with asterisks — *) elements shown in the table are the squares of multiple correlations between the research variables. As shown in Table 4, the AVE ranges from 0.57 to 0.81, while the diagonal values range from 0.75 to 0.90, indicating that the diagonal variables are higher than the AVE values (in rows); this result suggests that all constructs have appropriate discriminant validity. The data presented in the table shows that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.

Convergent validity measures the degree to which the factors measuring single constructs are consistent with each other. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and AVE — the minimum values adopted in the analysis were such that AVE should be >0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), factor loadings should be >0.6 and CR should be >0.6 (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2009; Ahmed, Romeika, Kauliene, Streimikis & Dapkus, 2020; Popa & Dabija, 2019; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, 2021). On the basis of the obtained results, all three minimum values were reached, which suggests that the reliability and validity of the model and the constructs used are acceptable.

Structural Model

Based on the research conducted in the literature review, the results of CFA and the proposed hypotheses, a research model was developed and is graphically illustrated in Figure 3. All the fit indices of the SEM allow us to proceed to the verification of the research hypotheses.

Testing the Hypotheses

The test results for the hypotheses are shown in Table 5. The results indicate that ATT was influenced by EU (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.195, p = 0.002) and ECO (β = 0.455, p < 0.001). We found that EU (β = 0.255, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.223, p < 0.001) and ATT (β = 0.706, p < 0.001) influenced BI. ECO has been found to be not significantly associated with BI. It should be noticed that the hypothesis regarding social motives (H2a and H2b) were not supported due to the negative effect of those factors on ATT and BI.

Discussion

Our study allowed to identify the importance and to determine the effect of economic and utility motives, social motives and ecological motives on the attitudes towards using CFC apps/platforms and behavioural intention regarding the willingness to use them. We investigated also the influence of attitude towards using CFC platforms on behavioural intention. As assumed, our study confirmed the effect of attitude on willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

The findings suggest that economic and utility motives were considered by the respondents to be the most important type of motivation for participation as a user (consumer) of CFC applications. The results confirm previous findings wherein economic/utility/frugality motivation was suggested to be a main or important driver of secondhand fashion consumption (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Cervellon et al., 2012). Furthermore, economic and utility motives significantly affected the attitude towards CFC apps and the willingness to use them in the future. Those conclusions are in line with the works of other researchers (e.g. Ek Styvén & Mariani, 2020; Yan et al., 2015). It should be recalled that the overall findings of prior studies in this area are ambiguous. In some studies, utilitarian motives (saving money or minimalising utility) did not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms (Won & Kim, 2020).

Social motives turned out to be the least important factor (among the three types of motivation) for participation in CFC as a consumer. While analysis of the literature suggests that social motives might be an important reason for second-hand clothing shopping behaviour (Yan et al., 2015) or can be a significant predictor of participation in the SE (Angelovska et al., 2020), our findings seem to be quite interesting in that aspect. In our research, social motives significantly affected both attitude towards CFC platforms and intention to use them in the future; however, the effect on those variables was negative.

Ecological motives were considered to be a relatively important factor for buying second-hand clothing through CFC platforms. Our study findings confirm that ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms, which is in line with previous studies by Won and Kim (2020) or Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020). It should be noted, however, that our results did not support the hypothesis that those motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future, same as in Yan et al. (2015). Ecological motivation can be seen as a quite important factor regarding participation in CFC platforms, but they may not directly affect the behavioural intention to use them.

Conclusions

The results of our research have shown that there is significant evidence to conclude that the most important motives for using online applications for collaborative fashion consumption were economic and utility motives. Moreover, their impact on attitudes towards these applications and the willingness to use them was confirmed. Past research demonstrates that second-hand consumers are more likely to be price-sensitive and motivated by low prices. Saving money is a key driver for consumers. Thus, low prices exert a major influence on consumers’ willingness to purchase second-hand goods (Cervellon et al., 2012; Guiot & Roux, 2010; Isla, 2013; Williams & Paddock, 2003). Ecological motives emerged as relatively important determinants of the use of CFC applications. Environmental and ethical benefits of garment reuse are also significant drivers according to previous research (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Waight, 2013; Xu et al., 2014). Social motives not only were the least important determinants of participation in CFC, but they seem to have a negative impact on both ATT and willingness to use CFC platforms.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the fashion literature by shedding light on the motivations for using CFC online platforms, especially in the context of the results on social motives. The findings presented in this article can be extremely valuable and useful in designing and implementing solutions to support CFC, such as mobile applications or dedicated websites. The results of our research can be used when designing activities in the field of marketing communication. In order to promote their applications/platforms, enterprises should first of all focus on economic and utility benefits, as well as on ecological aspects, and not focus on social benefits.

Limitations and future research directions

The study has several limitations. Because of the sample size and the selected method of sampling, the results cannot be treated as representative for the general population of Polish consumers who use CFC platforms to buy second-hand clothing. Due to the differences in consumer behaviour regarding various forms of participation in SE/CC, it should be kept in mind that the possibility of inference is limited only to CFC platforms. Our research was focussed on three types of motivation regarding the usage of CFC applications, so it would be a good idea to widen the spectrum of motives in future research. The research findings could be used to describe the consumer behaviour of Polish consumers; however, it should be noticed that due to cultural differences, the importance and the influence of motives for using CFC platforms can differ in other countries. It would be interesting to conduct cross-country research in that aspect. Future studies could also explore other forms of consumer behaviour regarding the usage of CFC platforms, e.g. consumer engagement.

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted within the research project Economics in the face of the New Economy financed within the Regional Initiative for Excellence programme of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of Poland, years 2019–2022, grant no. 004/RID/2018/19, financing 3,000,000 PLN.

References

1. Ahmed, R. R., Romeika, G., Kauliene, R., Streimikis, J., & Dapkus, R. (2020). ES-QUAL model and customer satisfaction in online banking: Evidence from multivariate analysis techniques. Oeconomia Copernic, 11, 59–93.

2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

3. Angelovska, J., Èeh Èasni, A., & Lutz, C. (2020). Turning consumers into providers in the sharing economy: Exploring the impact of demographics and motives. Ekonomska misao i praksa, 29(1), 79–100. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/239585.

4. Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., & Kujala, S. (2016). A use-oriented clothing economy? Preliminary affirmation for sustainable clothing consumption alternatives. Sustainable Development, 24, 18–31. doi:10.1002/sd.1602

5. Balck, B., & Cracau, D. (2015). Empirical analysis of customer motives in the shareconomy. Working Paper Series, University of Magdeburg. Retrieved from https://www.fww.ovgu.de/fww_media/femm/femm_2015/2015_02.pdf

6. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. doi:10.1086/666376.

7. Barnes, S., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A Four-Stage Delphi Study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01

8. Becker-Leifhold, C., & Iran, S. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — Drivers, barriers and future pathways. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22, 189–208. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-2017-0109

9. Bedyńska, S., & Książek, M. (2012). Statystyczny drogowskaz 3. Praktyczny przewodnik wykorzystania modeli regresji oraz równań strukturalnych; Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej: Warsaw, POL, pp. 159–200, ISBN 9788363354053

10. Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. doi:10.1086/612649.

11. Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres. 2013.10.001.

12. Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. A. (2017). Triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal Business Research, 79, 219–227.

13. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption.? New York: Harper Business.

14. Cervellon, M., Carey, L., & Harms, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956–974. doi:10.1108/09590551211274946

15. Chieng, F. Y. L. (2021). Collaborative fashion consumption: You don’t have to own high fashion to own it. Curtin Insight Articles. Retrieved from https://news.curtin.edu. my/insight/2021-2/collaborative-fashion-consumption-you-dont-have-to-own-highfashion-to-own-it/

16. Cooper, T. (2013). .Sustainability, Consumption and the Throwaway Culture. W: Walker S. and Giard J. (red.) The Handbook of Design for Sustainability, pp. 137–155, Bloomsbury Academic.

17. Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2010). The bare necessities: How much household carbon do we really need? Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1794–1804.

18. Ek Styvén, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2020). Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychology Marketing, 37(5) 1–16. doi:10.1002/mar.21334

19. Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I., & Wangel, A. (2010). Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 726–736.

20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18/3, 382–388.

21. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy — A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.

22. Geng, R., Mansouri, S. A., & Aktas, E. (2017). The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 245-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.10.008

23. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Matthews, D. (2018). Collaborative consumption: A business model analysis of second-hand fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), 354–368. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2017-0049.

24. Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 355–371. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.08.002

25. Habibi, M. R., Davidson, A., & Laroche, M. (2017). What managers should know about the sharing economy. Business Horizons, 60(1), 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.00

26. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed., pp. 627–686). Upper Saddle River: NJ, USA: Pearson International Edition. ISBN 9780138132637.

27. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004.

28. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2047–2059. doi:10.1002/asi.23552

29. Henninger, C. E., Brydges, T., Iran, S., & Vladimirova, K. 2021. Collaborative fashion consumption — A synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128648.I doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128648

30. International EMF Project — Progress reports — June 2015–2016. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/international-emf-project-progress-report2015-2016

31. Iran, S., & Schrader, U. (2017). Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(4), 468–482. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

32. Iran, S., Geiger, A. M., & Schraeder, U. L. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — A cross-cultural study between Tehran and Berlin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 313–323. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

33. Isla, V. L. (2013). Investigating second-hand fashion trade and consumption in the Philippines: expanding existing discourses. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 221–240. doi:10.1177/1469540513480167

34. Johansson, J. K. (2010). Global Marketing Strategy. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem01024

35. Kapoor, A. P., & Vij, M. (2021). Want it, Rent it: Exploring attributes leading to conversion for online furniture rental platforms. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 188–207. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762021000200113.

36. Konarski, R. (2009). Modelowanie równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka (p. 15). Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. ISBN 9788301160944

37. Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems, Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0368.

38. Lang, C., Seo, S., & Liu, C. (2019). Motivations and obstacles for fashion renting: A crosscultural comparison. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(4), 519–536. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-0106

39. Lee, S. E., Jung, H. J., & Lee, K.-H. (2021). Motivating collaborative consumption in fashion: Consumer benefits, perceived risks, service trust, and usage intention of online fashion rental services. Sustainability, 13, 1804. doi:10.3390/su13041804

40. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2(3), 184–203. doi:10.3390/resources2030184

41. Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531–537.

42. Muangmee, C., Kot, S., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N., & Khalid, B. (2021). Factors determining the behavioral intention of using food delivery apps during COVID19 pandemics. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 1297–1310. doi:10.3390/jtaer16050073

43. Munoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21–37. 44. Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5, 209–217.

45. Paczka, E. (2020). Collaborative consumption i jej wpływ na rozwój przedsiębiorczości w obliczu zmian pokoleniowych. Przegląd Prawa I Administracji, 120, tom 2, 749–761. doi:10.19195/0137-1134.120.104.

46. Padmavathy, C., Swapana, M., & Paul, J. (2019). Online second-hand shopping motivation — Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 19–32. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.014

47. Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2019). Is money the biggest driver? Uncovering motives for engaging in online collaborative consumption retail models for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.022

48. Perlacia, A. S., Duml, V., & Saebi, T. (2017). Collaborative consumption: Live fashion, don’t own it. Beta, 31, 6–24. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2860021

49. Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., & Weaver, T. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.

50. Piligrimiene, Ž., Žukauskaite, A., Korzilius, H., Banyte, J., & Dovaliene, A. (2020). Internal and external determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 12(4), 1349. doi:10.3390/su12041349

51. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.

52. Popa, I. D., & Dabija, D. C. (2019). Developing the Romanian organic market: A producer’s perspective. Sustainability, 11, 467.

53. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. doi:10.1177/1469540509354673

54. Sarigöllü, E., Hou, C., & Ertz, M. (2021). Sustainable product disposal: Consumer redistributing behaviors versus hoarding and throwing away. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), pp. 340–356. doi:10.1002/bse.2624

55. Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (n.d.). Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 410–425. doi:10.4337/9781783471270.00039

56. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2021). Management theory, innovation, and organisation. A model of managerial competencies. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9780367485528

57. Waight, E. (2013). Eco babies: reducing a parent’s ecological footprint with second-hand consumer goods. International Journal of Green Economics, 7(2), 197–211. doi:10.1504/IJGE.2013.057444

58. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908.

59. Williams, C. C., & Paddock, C. (2003). The meanings of informal and second hand retail channels: some evidence from Leicester. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13(3), 317–336. doi:10.1080/0959396032000101372

60. Won, J., & Kim, B.-Y. (2020). The effect of consumer motivations on purchase intention of online fashion — Sharing platform. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6), 197–207. doi:10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO6.197

61. Xu, Y., Chen, Y., Burman, R., & Zhao, H. (2014). Second-hand clothing: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 670–677. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12139

62. Yan, R.-N., Bae, S.Y., & Xu, H. (2015). Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: The role of psychographic characteristics. Young Consumers, 16(1), 85–98. doi:10.1108/YC-02-2014-00429

63. Zaman, M., Park, H., Kim, Y.-K., & Park, S.-H. (2019). Consumer orientations of secondhand clothing shoppers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 10(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1080/20932685.2019.1576060

Changes in the lifestyle of inhabitants, economic issues, and the growing importance of environmental issues in consumer choices are redefining mobility patterns in cities (Aguilera-García et al., 2019). For many years, changes in access to various forms of urban transport that are assumed to be consistent with the concept of sustainable development have been observed. An increasingly common trend around the world (including Poland) is the growing importance of low-emission transport and the introduction of short-term rental systems of bicycles, electric cars, e-scooters and moped e-scooters (Sojkin & Michalak, 2019). The shift from “ownership” to “usership” — using resources made available “on demand” or sharing them with others — observed on the mobility market is a response to the negative consequences caused by mass motorization and the rapid increase of the number of private vehicles (Jurczak, 2019; Machado et al., 2018). Despite the increasing development of electric moped scooter sharing services/systems, the subject literature includes far fewer studies on the conditions of their use than in the case of other “sharing” services/systems (Aguilera-García et al., 2021; Bieliński & Ważna, 2020; Eccarius & Lu, 2018, Wortmann et al., 2021). On a dynamically changing market of transport services, understanding the mobility patterns of inhabitants is crucial for urban planners, administrators and transport service providers in order to adapt their services to the evolving needs of consumers (Aguilera-García et al., 2019). The main aim of this paper is to identify and assess the motives for and barriers to the use of electric moped scooter sharing services among the inhabitants of selected Polish cities and to define the main travel destinations using this form of transport.

Electric moped scooter sharing services as a form of shared micro-mobility

In recent years, a certain evolution of the transport services market has been observed, within which two main trends should be noted — shared mobility and electrification (Liao & Correia, 2020). Among the forms of shared mobility, there are services related to shared micro-mobility, which is considered an innovative and “green” form of transport (Flores & Jansson, 2021). Micro-mobility is an innovative urban transport solution and relates to trips over a shorter distance for personal transport by using low-speed modes of transportation e.g., bike, scooter/e-scooter, moped e-scooter, Segway, etc. (Lee et al., 2021; Eccarius & Lu, 2020; Mitra & Hess, 2020). The essence of shared micro-mobility is the temporary use of goods and services by consumers without having to own them (Machado et al., 2018). The use of shared micro-mobility services by consumers may contribute to reducing the problems faced by the authorities and inhabitants of many cities, e.g. excessive transport costs, traffic jams, air pollution, shortage of (parking) spaces and noise (Bieliński & Ważna, 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). One of the results of the acceptance of this innovative form of urban transport may be a change in inhabitants’ attitudes towards the necessity for private vehicle ownership and thus the inhibition of mass motorization and a reduction in the number of private cars (Abduljabbar et al., 2021). It should be noted that the rapid increase in the popularity of shared micro-mobility services was and still is a certain challenge for city authorities and public administration, e.g. in terms of appropriate legal regulations regarding the use of various forms of micro-mobility, the issue of adapting transport infrastructure, and ensuring the safety of pedestrians who are at risk of being hit by users of micro-mobility modes (Milakis et al., 2020; Reck & Axhausen, 2021). In addition, attention is also drawn to the fact that rare metals as well as fossil fuel energy are used in the production of batteries to power micro-mobility electric modes (Milakis et al., 2020).
The motives for and barriers to using particular forms of micro-mobility differ from each other. For example, in the case of bike-sharing, the top facilitators to bikeshare use among users were: convenience, easy access to bikes, health benefits, economics benefits and fun/new experience. The top reported barriers were: no helmet, trouble with renting/returning, traffic safety concerns, bad weather and inconvenient stations (Franckle et al., 2020). On the other hand, the main benefits associated with the use of e-scooters by regular users in the USA include: they are faster than walking, they are convenient, they can be fun/relaxing, they are better in hot weather than walking and they allow users to reach places without the need to drive e.g. by car), are inexpensive to use, good for the environment or that users feel safer when using them (less likely to commit a crime on them). The main barriers to using e-scooters are related to safety concerns (e.g. hitting someone or being hit by someone, not enough safe places to ride, feeling unsteady / worrying about falling off), practicality-related barriers (e.g. no space for carrying luggage or transport other people, impractical for longer distances) and equipment-related barriers (e.g.
broken e-scooters, trouble finding one when needed, battery not always charged, worrying that equipment will break / malfunction (Sanders et al., 2020). The main reasons for using e-scooters in Taiwan were primarily environmental issues, as well as convenience, the ability to access without owning, saving money, flexibility and pricing. The main barriers to the use of e-scooters were concerns about their condition (cleanliness, technical condition), availability / distance to the next e-scooter, price, helmet hygiene, and vehicle speed (Eccarius & Lu, 2018).

Despite the fact that the availability and popularity of electric moped scooter sharing services is growing rapidly in Europe (Wortmann et al., 2021), in the literature on the subject, there are few studies on the motives for and barriers to using this micro-mobility mode. The main reasons for using a moped scooter-sharing system listed by Spanish consumers were: the benefits of easily parking the moped, flexibility mobility/avoiding traffic jams, a well-functioning system, competitive pricing and environmental awareness (Aguilera-García et al., 2021).
It should be borne in mind that the use of various modern urban mobility systems is possible after meeting certain criteria for a given form, e.g. in the case of bike-sharing in Poznań — people under the age of 13 may use bikes only under the care of a parent or legal guardian, for people from 10 to 18 years of age to drive an electric scooter, it is required to have the same qualifications as for cycling, i.e. a bicycle card or driving license of categories AM, A1, B1 or T, in the case of car-sharing it is obligatory to have driving license, and in the case of moped e-scooters legal age and the use of a helmet are required.

Research design

An empirical study verifying the motives, barriers and goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services was conducted in cooperation with Blinkee1 in the first half of 2021 using the online survey technique in Google Forms. The areas of empirical research included the following scopes:

a) subjective — electric moped scooter users (having an active account in the application, regardless of the frequency of using the moped scooters),
b) subject — frequency of using the selected form of urban transportation, motives, barriers and goals of using city electric moped scooter sharing services,
c) spatial — selected voivodeship capital cities of Poland: Białystok, Bydgoszcz, Gdańsk, Gdynia, Katowice, Kraków, Lublin, Łódź, Poznań, Warsaw and Wrocław,
d) temporary — first half of 2021.

The size of the research sample was 352 observations (N = 352). In the process of selecting the research sample, purposive selection was used, where the basic criterion was to have an active account in the Blinkee application for renting electric moped scooters. The analysis of the empirical data obtained was carried out using the IBM SPSS Statistics program — the response distribution indicators, statistical description indicators were calculated, and selected methods of analysis of variance and the method of exploratory factor analysis were used.
The research sample was dominated mainly by men (93.5% of all respondents) and people aged 25–34 (42.6% of all respondents), with higher education (64.8% of all respondents), with a material status above national average (52.6% of all respondents). The structure of the research sample, taking into account selected characteristics of the respondents, is presented in the table below (Tab. 1).

In assessing the motives for electric moped scooter sharing services, 17 factors were verified (tab. 2). The significance of the selected motifs was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — definitely not, to 5 — definitely yes. For the purposes of the study, it was assumed that the distances between the categories on the Likert scale are equal. Such an assumption is common in the social sciences and allows the use of parametric tests. The analysis of mean values allows the most and least important motives from the perspective of the respondents to be identified. The set of the most important motives included the flexibility of using moped e-scooters (mean7 = 4.19), making it easier to travel (mean8 = = 4.17), the possibility of reaching the destination point directly (mean11 = = 4.05), independence from public transport (mean16 = 3.91) and time savings compared to the use of other forms of urban mobility (mean17 = 3.86).

The average significance of all the identified motives for using electric moped scooter sharing services is presented in the table below (Tab. 2).

Additionally, the significance of the selected motives for using electric moped scooter sharing services was compared between the two groups of respondents — the first group includes respondents who do not use moped e-scooters or use moped e-scooters very rarely (less than once a month), while the second group includes respondents who declare more frequent use of moped e-scooters. The results obtained clearly indicate the higher importance of the surveyed motives in the group of respondents who use electric moped scooter sharing services at least once a month — the only motive, the importance of which is similar in both groups of the respondents, is the lack of the need to incur additional costs of parking in the city (mean4_N ≈ mean4_Y — Tab. 2).

The next step in the research procedure was to assess the importance of barriers to using electric moped scooter sharing services (the relevant data presented in Tab. 3). The significance of these examined barriers was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — definitely no, to 5 — definitely yes. In the context of barriers to using moped e-scooters, respondents primarily focused on the availability of scooters in places where they would like to use them (mean4 = 3.89), weather conditions (mean5 = 3.84), travel price (mean6 = = 3.36) and the concern about the cleanliness and hygiene of scooters (mean8 = 3.11).

The comparison of the significance of the identified barriers between the groups of respondents (not using or rarely using and using moped e-scooters at least once a month) allowed for the identification of only a few statistically significant differences — in the group of active scooter users, the number of scooters in places where they can be used (mean4_N < < mean4_Y) and the battery level in the scooter (mean14_N < mean14_Y) are more important, while in the group of people who do not or occasionally use moped e-scooters, preferences regarding other forms of urban transportation (mean9_N > mean9_Y) and difficulties in driving and using scooters (mean12_N > mean12_Y) are more important.

In the next step of the research procedure, based on the frequency of using electric moped scooter sharing services, the significance of the purposes of their rental was verified (data presented in Tab. 4). The assessment was made using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — not at all or very rarely (less frequently than once a month), to 5 — very often (every day or almost every day). The mean values obtained (mean values ≤ ≤ 2.33) indicate a relatively rare use of this method of urban transportation — the key importance in this context seems to be the time of the study coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic and the related remote work and teaching at all levels of education. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the use of electric moped scooter sharing services occurs most often when dealing with various matters (mean6 = 2.33), traveling to or from a place where you spend your free time (mean7 = 2.22), restaurants or cafes (mean9 = 2.09), cinema, theatre, opera or concert (mean8 = 2.07). It is relatively popular to use this micro-mobility urban transportation mode when “driving” (mean11 = = 2.06) and visiting family or friends (mean5 = 2.04).

The comparison of the average importance of the purposes of using electric moped scooter sharing services between groups of respondents who rarely or occasionally, or at least once a month, use this form of urban transportation clearly indicates a greater role played by all the goals studied in the group of active users. Such an assessment, despite the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, may indicate the purposefulness of the development of this micro-mobility form of urban transportation.
In the last step of the research procedure, the original sets of measurable variables (motives, barriers and purposes of using electric moped scooter sharing services) were reduced using the exploratory factor analysis method — this allowed the original sets to be reduced, including 17 variables to 5 components in the case of motives, in the case of barriers, 17 variables to 3 components, while for the purposes of using scooters, 11 variables to 2 components2. A semantic interpretation was given to new components (results presented in Tab. 5).

As in the case of measurable variables, the average values of the newly distinguished components were compared between the group of respondents who do not use scooters or use moped e-scooters very rarely (less than once a month) and the group declaring more frequent use of electric moped scooters (Tab. 6).

The analysis of the results confirms the regularities identified at the stage of the results analysis in terms of directly observable variables. The most important reasons for using the electric moped scooter sharing services included the convenience of this mobility mode (mean = 3.97) and no city parking costs (mean = 3.38). The biggest barriers to choosing this micro-mobility mode for Polish consumers were those related to the safety of use (mean = 2.83). The comparison of the mean values of the components between the groups of respondents surveyed indicates the greater importance of the motives and goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services in the group of respondents using them at least once a month. On the other hand, the analysis of the significance of the barriers did not allow the identification of statistically significant differences between the surveyed groups of respondents — the absence of differences in this respect may indicate the need to emphasize the advantages (motives) of using moped e-scooters as the basic determinants that can increase the popularity of this method of urban transportation.

Summary

The analysis of the results shows that there are specific challenges faced by administrators of electric moped scooter sharing services. In this context, the most important thing is to identify the most attractive routes for moped e-scooter users, which should ensure the availability of scooters and minimize the costs associated with their possible logistics to these places. This is confirmed by the analysis of the purposes of using electric moped scooters, which indicates the informal nature of scooter trips. At this point, however, attention should be paid to the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, which certainly influenced the way a typical work or study day was organized by residents of large cities.

The analysis of barriers, in turn, indicates the occurrence of concerns related primarily to the safety of use, the availability of moped e-scooters and weather conditions. The last of these barriers indicates fluctuations in the demand for this micro-mobility mode, both irregular (e.g. rainfall in summer) and seasonal (e.g. low temperatures in late autumn and early spring), which certainly translates into economic calculations for the businesses providing the infrastructure of electric moped scooters.

The analysis of the importance of the goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services shows the potential for the development of the scooter market in large cities in Poland — this is indicated by higher average values in terms of goals of using scooters in the group of people using electric moped scooter sharing services at least once a month. The relatively low average values in the assessment of the goals of using scooters indicate the need to emphasize the advantages and minimize the significance of the identified barriers to using scooters identified in the groups of current and potential users — this should allow for a growing substitution in comparison with other forms of mobility in large cities.

Limitations and future research directions

It should be noted that due to the lack of a large number of studies on the determinants and scope of use of moped e-scooters by consumers,
future studies should be conducted to advance knowledge on the topic and fill the research gap. Future research topics could focus on identification of a potential relationship between user experience and willingness to use electric moped scooter sharing services in the future. A certain limitation of the research carried out for the purpose of writing this paper is the spatialsubjective scope covering only Polish consumers, hence an interesting idea would be comparative research in other countries. Cross-Country comparative research could identify differences in consumer behavior between users in different countries. Due to the selection sampling method and the size of the research sample, the results are not representative of the entire population of Polish electric moped scooter sharing services users. It should also be remembered that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it is worth comparing the behavior of consumers regarding the use of electric moped scooter sharing services during and after the pandemic.

Endnotes

1 Blinkee is the leader of electric moped scooter sharing market in Poland. The company has over half a million registered users in Poland and its portfolio also includes other micro-mobility modes.
2 The minimum values of the factor loadings were set at the level of 0.6.

References

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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734
2. Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Sobrino, N., & Díaz, J. J. V. (2021). Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility.
   Sustainability, 13(12), 6886. https://doi:10.3390/su13126886
3. Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J. & Sobrino, N. (2020). Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities, 96, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424
4. Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi:10.3390/ su12229640
5. Eccarius, T., & Lu, C-C. (2018). Exploring Consumer Reasoning in Usage Intention for E-Scooter Sharing. Transportation Planning Journal, 47(4), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.6402/TPJ
6. 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327
7. Flores, P. J., & Jansson, J. (2021). The role of consumer innovativeness and green perceptions on?green innovation use: The case of shared e-bikes and e-scooters. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1957
8. Franckle, R. L., Dunn, C. G., Vercammen, K. A., Dai, J., Soto, M. J. & Bleich, S. N.
   (2020). Facilitators and barriers to bikeshare use among users and non-users in a socioeconomically diverse urban population. Preventive Medicine Reports, 20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101185
9. Jurczak M. (2019). Koncepcje zrównoważonej logistyki miejskiej w wybranych polskich miastach [Concepts of Sustainable Urban Logistics in Selected Polish Cities].
   Ekonomika i Organizacja Logistyki 4(2), DOI: 10.22630/EIOL.2019.4.2.11
10. Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J-H. & Kim, J. (2021). Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102751
11. Liao, F. & Correia, G. (2020). Electric carsharing and micromobility: A literature review on their usage pattern, demand, and potential impacts. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2020.1861394
12. Machado, C., de Salles Hue, N., Berssaneti, F., & Quintanilha, J. (2018). An Overview of Shared Mobility. Sustainability, 10(12), 4342. http://doi:10.3390/su10124342
13. Malarska A. (2005). Statystyczna analiza danych wspomagana programem SPSS [Statistical Data Analysis Aided by SPSS]. Wydawnictwo SPSS Polska, Kraków.
14. Milakis, D., Gebhardt, L., Ehebrecht, D. & Lenz, B. (2020) Is micro-mobility sustainable?
    An overview of implications for accessibility, air pollution, safety, physical activity and subjective wellbeing. In: Carey Curtis (red.), Handbook of Sustainable Transport, 180–189. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
15. Mitra, R. & Hess, P. M. (2021). Who are the potential users of shared e-scooters? An examination of socio-demographic, attitudinal and environmental factors. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.12.004
16. 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803
17. Sanders, R. L., Branion-Calles, M. & Nelson, T. A. (2020). To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009
18. Sojkin, B. & Michalak, S. (2019). Innowacyjność zachowań mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej na rynku usług transportowych [Innovative Behavior of the Inhabitants of Poznań Agglomeration on the Market of Transport Services]. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 33, DOI: 10.2478/minib-2019-0040
19. Wortmann, C., Syré, A. M., Grahle, A., & Göhlich, D. (2021). Analysis of Electric Moped Scooter Sharing in Berlin: A Technical, Economic and Environmental Perspective. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(3), 96. doi:10.3390/wevj12030096
20. Zhu, R., Zhang, X., Kondor, D., Santi, P. & Ratti, C. (2020). Understanding spatiotemporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101483