IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v204y2026ics0965856425004409.html

Exploring taste heterogeneity and substitution patterns in dockless bike-sharing parking preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Shujing
  • Hancock, Thomas O.
  • Hess, Stephane
  • Jia, Shunping

Abstract

Dockless bike-sharing (DBS) is an important sustainable urban transportation mode in many cities but faces challenges with disorderly parking management. This study aims to explore the presence of taste heterogeneity and substitution patterns in DBS users’ parking preferences and to determine how interpersonal variations, alternative-specific attributes, and socio-demographic characteristics affect parking choices. Based on stated-preference data collected in China, a mixed nested logit (Mixed NL) model is employed to account for both inter-alternative correlation and random taste heterogeneity. The results indicate that reducing the distance to parking and increasing monetary fines are more effective in discouraging disorderly parking than offering incentives for orderly parking or adjusting parking fees. Social influence also plays a critical role, as users are more likely to park disorderly when they observe others doing so. Meanwhile, the research also reveals that users are willing to pay an average of 0.8 CNY to reduce the distance to parking by 100 m, and are willing to accept on average an additional 58 m of the distance to parking in exchange for 10 min of free riding time. These insights into DBS users’ parking behaviour enhance the understanding of the effectiveness of possible policy interventions and offer a valuable reference for developing future management strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Shujing & Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Jia, Shunping, 2026. "Exploring taste heterogeneity and substitution patterns in dockless bike-sharing parking preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004409
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425004409
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104807?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liang, Jiaqi & Jena, Sanjay Dominik & Lodi, Andrea, 2024. "Dynamic rebalancing optimization for bike-sharing systems: A modeling framework and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 875-889.
    2. 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.
    3. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Axhausen, Kay W. & Hess, Stephane & König, Arnd & Abay, Georg & Bates, John J. & Bierlaire, Michel, 2008. "Income and distance elasticities of values of travel time savings: New Swiss results," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 173-185, May.
    5. Qianling Jiang & Sheng-Jung Ou & Wei Wei, 2019. "Why Shared Bikes of Free-Floating Systems Were Parked Out of Order? A Preliminary Study based on Factor Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Dieter Von Fintel, 2007. "Dealing With Earnings Bracket Responses In Household Surveys – How Sharp Are Midpoint Imputations?," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 75(2), pages 293-312, June.
    7. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, August.
    9. Zhou, Yaoming & Lin, Zeyu & Guan, Rui & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2023. "Dynamic battery swapping and rebalancing strategies for e-bike sharing systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    11. Eva Heinen & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Bicycle parking: a systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 630-656, September.
    12. Wang, Yacan & Yang, Ying & Wang, Jiaping & Douglas, Matthew & Su, Duan, 2021. "Examining the influence of social norms on orderly parking behavior of dockless bike-sharing users," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 284-296.
    13. Liangpeng Gao & Yanjie Ji & Xingchen Yan & Yao Fan & Weihong Guo, 2021. "Incentive measures to avoid the illegal parking of dockless shared bikes: the relationships among incentive forms, intensity and policy compliance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 1033-1060, April.
    14. Molin, Eric & Maat, Kees, 2015. "Bicycle parking demand at railway stations: Capturing price-walking trade offs," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 3-12.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    16. Su, Duan & Wang, Yacan & Yang, Nan & Wang, Xianghong, 2020. "Promoting considerate parking behavior in dockless bike-sharing: An experimental study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 153-165.
    17. Chandra R. Bhat, 2000. "Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 228-238, May.
    18. Fukuda, Daisuke & Morichi, Shigeru, 2007. "Incorporating aggregate behavior in an individual's discrete choice: An application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 313-325, May.
    19. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    20. Elspeth Kirkman, 2019. "Free riding or discounted riding? How the framing of a bike share offer impacts offer-redemption," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    21. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Koppelman, Frank S., 2001. "The generalized nested logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 627-641, August.
    22. Hess, Stephane & Adler, Thomas & Polak, John W., 2007. "Modelling airport and airline choice behaviour with the use of stated preference survey data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 221-233, May.
    23. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    24. Kohlrautz, David & Kuhnimhof, Tobias, 2025. "Cyclists’ heterogeneous parking preferences and their implications for bicycle parking facilities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    25. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    26. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    27. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    28. Daozhi Zhao & Di Wang, 2019. "The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.
    29. Cheng, Yao & Wang, Junwei & Wang, Yan, 2021. "A user-based bike rebalancing strategy for free-floating bike sharing systems: A bidding model," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    30. Du, Mingyang & Cheng, Lin & Li, Xuefeng & Tang, Fang, 2020. "Static rebalancing optimization with considering the collection of malfunctioning bikes in free-floating bike sharing system," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    31. Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan, 2022. "Can an Incentive-Based approach to rebalancing a Dock-less Bike-share system Work? Evidence from Sacramento, California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 181-194.
    32. Bhat, Chandra R., 1994. "Imputing a continuous income variable from grouped and missing income observations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 311-319, December.
    33. Kou, Weibin & Chen, Xumei & Yu, Lei & Qi, Yi & Wang, Ying, 2017. "Urban commuters’ valuation of travel time reliability based on stated preference survey: A case study of Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 372-380.
    34. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    35. Vincent van den Berg & Eric Kroes & Erik T. Verhoef, 2010. "Biases in Willingness-To-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates due to Unobserved Heterogeneity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-014/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    36. Wang, Yacan & Li, Jingjing & Su, Duan & Zhou, Huiyu, 2023. "Spatial-temporal heterogeneity and built environment nonlinearity in inconsiderate parking of dockless bike-sharing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    37. Song, Fangqing & Hess, Stephane & Dekker, Thijs, 2018. "Accounting for the impact of variety-seeking: Theory and application to HSR-air intermodality in China," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 99-111.
    38. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Mabit, Stefan E., 2026. "Mixed logit applications in travel behaviour research," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    3. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    4. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "A Dirichlet Process Mixture Model of Discrete Choice," Papers 1801.06296, arXiv.org.
    5. Poudel, Niranjan & Singleton, Patrick A., 2024. "Willingness to pay for changes in travel time and work time: A stated choice experiment of US commuters," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    7. Bronnmann, Julia & Requate, Till & Steinbrunner, Philipp, 2026. "Unconscious status and car consumption: social comparison effects in a discrete choice experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Stephane Hess & Denis Bolduc & John Polak, 2010. "Random covariance heterogeneity in discrete choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 391-411, May.
    9. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Merkert, Rico & Beck, Matthew, 2017. "Value of travel time savings and willingness to pay for regional aviation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 29-42.
    11. Regier, Dean A. & Ryan, Mandy & Phimister, Euan & Marra, Carlo A., 2009. "Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 598-610, May.
    12. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    13. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    14. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    15. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    16. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    18. Uemura, Hiroshi & Parady, Giancarlos & Takami, Kiyoshi, 2026. "Analyzing preferences for shared micromobility services in Japanese urban areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    19. Giergiczny, Marek & Valasiuk, Sviataslau & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2012. "Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 370-380.
    20. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004409. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.