IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1244-d141879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better Understanding the Characteristics and Influential Factors of Different Travel Patterns in Free-Floating Bike Sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Mingyang Du

    (School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

  • Lin Cheng

    (School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

Abstract

In recent years, free-floating bike sharing (FFBS) has become a significant travel mode to satisfy urban residents’ travel demands in China. This paper was designed to better understand the characteristics and influential factors of different travel patterns in FFBS. Firstly, travel patterns were divided into three categories: Origin to Destination Pattern (ODP), Travel Cycle Pattern (TCP) and Transfer Pattern (TP). Then, the characteristics of these patterns were analyzed based on a survey of 4939 valid questionnaires in Nanjing, China. A multinomial logit (MNL) model was established to explore the influential factors associated with the three patterns. The results showed the following. (1) Employees and students were more inclined to choose TP and ODP, and the selection probability of employees was larger than that of students. (2) The evening peak was more significant than the morning peak. (3) Residents with short travel distances were more likely to choose TCP and ODP, and when the travel distance reached 4 km, there was a significant transfer to TP. (4) Price had an impact on residents’ travel patterns, with residents showing an inclination toward FFBS when making short distance trips, if they were quickly found. Malfunctioning bicycles were an important factor restricting FFBS development. Several policy recommendations are proposed based on these results, for government and FFBS businesses to improve their management of FFBS systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1244-:d:141879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tien Dung Tran & Nicolas Ovtracht & Bruno Faivre D’arcier, 2015. "Modeling Bike Sharing System using Built Environment Factors," Post-Print halshs-01474166, HAL.
    2. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen, 2015. "Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 53-64.
    3. Fishman, Elliot & Washington, Simon & Haworth, Narelle & Mazzei, Armando, 2014. "Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 325-337.
    4. 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.
    5. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam & Martin, Elliot PhD, 2013. "Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator Understanding and Emerging Trends," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt1x26m6z7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. John Parkin & Mark Wardman & Matthew Page, 2008. "Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 93-109, January.
    7. Corcoran, Jonathan & Li, Tiebei & Rohde, David & Charles-Edwards, Elin & Mateo-Babiano, Derlie, 2014. "Spatio-temporal patterns of a Public Bicycle Sharing Program: the effect of weather and calendar events," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 292-305.
    8. Pucher, John & Buehler, Ralph, 2006. "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 265-279, May.
    9. Rahul, T.M. & Verma, Ashish, 2014. "A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 106-113.
    10. Li, Shengxiao & Zhao, Pengjun, 2015. "The determinants of commuting mode choice among school children in Beijing," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 112-121.
    11. Ranran Yang & Ruyin Long, 2016. "Analysis of the Influencing Factors of the Public Willingness to Participate in Public Bicycle Projects and Intervention Strategies—A Case Study of Jiangsu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M. & Rabbat, Michael & Haq, Usama, 2014. "How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 306-314.
    13. O’Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James & Batty, Michael, 2014. "Mining bicycle sharing data for generating insights into sustainable transport systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 262-273.
    14. Vogel, Marie & Hamon, Ronan & Lozenguez, Guillaume & Merchez, Luc & Abry, Patrice & Barnier, Julien & Borgnat, Pierre & Flandrin, Patrick & Mallon, Isabelle & Robardet, Céline, 2014. "From bicycle sharing system movements to users: a typology of Vélo’v cyclists in Lyon based on large-scale behavioural dataset," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 280-291.
    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. Yi Yao & Yifang Zhang & Lixin Tian & Nianxing Zhou & Zhilin Li & Minggang Wang, 2019. "Analysis of Network Structure of Urban Bike-Sharing System: A Case Study Based on Real-Time Data of a Public Bicycle System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Xuefeng Li & Yong Zhang & Li Sun & Qiyang Liu, 2018. "Free-Floating Bike Sharing in Jiangsu: Users’ Behaviors and Influencing Factors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah, 2019. "Gender gap generators for bike share ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike system in New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-9.
    4. 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.
    5. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Liu, Hung-Chi & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2019. "Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of public bicycle use," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 299-312.
    7. Liu, Hung-Chi & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2022. "Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of shared scooter use: A comparison with shared bike use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 107-119.
    8. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey, 2015. "Estimating bike-share trips using station level data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 260-279.
    9. Bean, Richard & Pojani, Dorina & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2021. "How does weather affect bikeshare use? A comparative analysis of forty cities across climate zones," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics and bike share member patterns of use," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Wang, Kailai & Akar, Gulsah & Chen, Yu-Jen, 2018. "Bike sharing differences among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: Lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-14.
    12. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey & Thomas, Isabelle, 2017. "Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 202-214.
    13. 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.
    14. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Do new bike share stations increase member use: A quasi-experimental study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-11.
    15. 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.
    16. Saberi, Meead & Ghamami, Mehrnaz & Gu, Yi & Shojaei, Mohammad Hossein (Sam) & Fishman, Elliot, 2018. "Understanding the impacts of a public transit disruption on bicycle sharing mobility patterns: A case of Tube strike in London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-166.
    17. Yi-Wen Kuo & Cheng-Hsien Hsieh & Yu-Chen Hung, 2021. "Non-linear characteristics in switching intention to use a docked bike-sharing system," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1459-1479, June.
    18. Jinyi Zhou & Changyuan Jing & Xiangjun Hong & Tian Wu, 2019. "Winter Sabotage: The Three-Way Interactive Effect of Gender, Age, and Season on Public Bikesharing Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Mix, Richard & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Raveau, Sebastián, 2022. "Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 126-142.
    20. Yi-Wen Kuo & Cheng-Hsien Hsieh & Yu-Chen Hung, 0. "Non-linear characteristics in switching intention to use a docked bike-sharing system," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.

    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:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1244-:d:141879. 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.