IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6890-d577336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaojia Guo

    (College of Geographic Science, Shanxi Normal University, Linfen 041000, China
    Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Chengpeng Lu

    (Institute of County Economic Development & Rural Revitalization Strategy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Dongqi Sun

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Yexin Gao

    (College of Geographic Science, Shanxi Normal University, Linfen 041000, China)

  • Bing Xue

    (Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China)

Abstract

Automobile traffic has shifted the use of bicycles in many developed regions to being mainly for sport, recreation and commuting. Due to the desire to mitigate the impacts of climate change and alleviate traffic jams, bicycle sharing is booming in China. Governmental public bicycles and dockless bicycles are the main types of bicycle sharing in China, each with different types of management and pricing. Field research has found that many bicycle sharing networks are idle and wasteful, and thus we investigated which type is more popular and suitable for Chinese cities. This research comparatively analyzes the application of governmental public bicycles and dockless bicycles, mainly focusing on the cycling destination, cycling frequency, and cycling factors, taking Linfen City as an example. The results show that: (1) The purpose is different between governmental public bicycles and dockless bicycles. On the one hand, the aim of riding a governmental public bicycle to work represents the largest proportion at about 29%, mainly because of the fixed route of travel, and the fact that the fixed placement of governmental public bicycles makes them more available compared to the random arbitrariness of dockless bicycles. On the other hand, the aim of riding a dockless bicycle for entertainment accounts for the largest proportion, at about 34%, mainly due to the ease of borrowing and returning a bike, and mobile payment. (2) In terms of frequency, the public’s choice of riding a dockless bicycle or a governmental public bicycle has no essential difference, given that there are only two options for citizens in Linfen. (3) The response to the two kinds of bicycle sharing is different; the governmental public bicycle has the advantage of lower cost, but the dockless bicycle has more advantages in the procedure of borrowing and returning the bicycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaojia Guo & Chengpeng Lu & Dongqi Sun & Yexin Gao & Bing Xue, 2021. "Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6890-:d:577336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6890/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6890/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu-Yi Qiu & Ling-Yun He, 2018. "Bike Sharing and the Economy, the Environment, and Health-Related Externalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Kyung Hwan Lee & Dong Hyuk Won & Eun Jeong Ko, 2015. "The multiple impacts of the neighbourhood environment on the use of public bicycles by residents: an empirical study of Changwon in Korea," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 224-237, July.
    3. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Levy, Nadav & Golani, Chen & Ben-Elia, Eran, 2019. "An exploratory study of spatial patterns of cycling in Tel Aviv using passively generated bike-sharing data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 325-334.
    5. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Audikana, Ander & Ravalet, Emmanuel & Baranger, Virginie & Kaufmann, Vincent, 2017. "Implementing bikesharing systems in small cities: Evidence from the Swiss experience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 18-28.
    7. Wafic El-Assi & Mohamed Salah Mahmoud & Khandker Nurul Habib, 2017. "Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing in Toronto," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 589-613, May.
    8. Caulfield, Brian & O'Mahony, Margaret & Brazil, William & Weldon, Peter, 2017. "Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 152-161.
    9. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson, 2016. "Mobility and the Sharing Economy: Potential to Overcome First- and Last-Mile Public Transit Connections," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8042k3d7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Mingyang Du & Lin Cheng, 2018. "Better Understanding the Characteristics and Influential Factors of Different Travel Patterns in Free-Floating Bike Sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Özlem Şimşekoğlu & Trond Nordfjærn & Torbjørn Rundmo, 2017. "Predictors of car use habit strength in an urban Norwegian public," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 575-588, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seungkyu Ryu & Anthony Chen & Jacqueline Su & Xintao Liu & Jiangbo (Gabe) Yu, 2021. "Considering Space Syntax in Bicycle Traffic Assignment with One or More User Classes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Wei Ji & Chengpeng Lu & Jinhuang Mao & Yiping Liu & Muchen Hou & Xiaoli Pan, 2021. "Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    2. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    3. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Hyungkyoo Kim, 2020. "Seasonal Impacts of Particulate Matter Levels on Bike Sharing in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    6. Shahram Heydari & Garyfallos Konstantinoudis & Abdul Wahid Behsoodi, 2021. "Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bike-sharing demand and hire time: Evidence from Santander Cycles in London," Papers 2107.11589, arXiv.org.
    7. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Ross-Perez, Antonio & Walton, Neil & Pinto, Nuno, 2022. "Identifying trip purpose from a dockless bike-sharing system in Manchester," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Cheng, Long & Yang, Junjian & Chen, Xuewu & Cao, Mengqiu & Zhou, Hang & Sun, Yu, 2020. "How could the station-based bike sharing system and the free-floating bike sharing system be coordinated?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Morton, Craig & Kelley, Scott & Monsuur, Fredrik & Hui, Tianwen, 2021. "A spatial analysis of demand patterns on a bicycle sharing scheme: Evidence from London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    13. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Gao, Kun & Yang, Ying & Li, Aoyong & Li, Junhong & Yu, Bo, 2021. "Quantifying economic benefits from free-floating bike-sharing systems: A trip-level inference approach and city-scale analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 89-103.
    15. Qing Yu & Weifeng Li & Dongyuan Yang & Yingkun Xie, 2020. "Policy Zoning for Efficient Land Utilization Based on Spatio-Temporal Integration between the Bicycle-Sharing Service and the Metro Transit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Yanjie Ji & Xinwei Ma & Mingyuan Yang & Yuchuan Jin & Liangpeng Gao, 2018. "Exploring Spatially Varying Influences on Metro-Bikeshare Transfer: A Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    17. Bach, Xavier & Marquet, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2023. "Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 154-162.
    18. Daria Bylieva & Victoria Lobatyuk & Irina Shestakova, 2022. "Shared Micromobility: Between Physical and Digital Reality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Tomasz Bieliński & Agnieszka Kwapisz & Agnieszka Ważna, 2019. "Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, April.
    20. Hu, Yujie & Zhang, Yongping & Lamb, David & Zhang, Mingming & Jia, Peng, 2019. "Examining and optimizing the BCycle bike-sharing system – A pilot study in Colorado, US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C), pages 1-12.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6890-:d:577336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.