IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9062-d438119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Nogal

    (Faculty Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Pilar Jiménez

    (Department of Mining and Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cartagena, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

When analysing the performance of bike-sharing scheme (BSS) stations, it is common to find stations that are located in specific points that capture the interest of users, whereas nearby stations are clearly underused. This uneven behaviour is not totally understood. This paper discusses the potential factors influencing station attractiveness, supported by the related literature on cyclists’ and pedestrians’ preferences and the characteristics of the stations themselves. The existing literature addresses these topics independently, while this work unites them by proposing a non data-extensive methodology that allows the attractiveness of BSS stations to be assessed. Attractiveness in this context is understood as the set of physical, environmental and service-related features of a bike station that make it more appealing for BSS users than nearby stations. Special attention is paid to differentiating objective features, based on facts, from subjective features, those influenced by personal perceptions. This classification becomes important in this context because subjective aspects can change from one geographical location to another, making the findings related to these aspects difficult to apply to other regions. Moreover, the assessment of the stations’ levels of safety and security is included. Thus, the proposed measure of attractiveness of BSS stations provides a balanced overview of several features. The consideration of station attractiveness when designing BSS layouts will help to refine the design of new layouts and will assist in conducting an appropriate diagnostic evaluation of the existing ones. This tool will allow urban and transportation planners to reduce re-balancing costs and to maximise user satisfaction at a low cost, which have a direct impact on improving the urban sustainability. The proposed method is applied to the Dublin bike sharing scheme, Dublinbikes, with good performance results.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Nogal & Pilar Jiménez, 2020. "Attractiveness of Bike-Sharing Stations from a Multi-Modal Perspective: The Role of Objective and Subjective Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9062-:d:438119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9062/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9062/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nogal, Maria & Morales Nápoles, Oswaldo & O’Connor, Alan, 2019. "Structured expert judgement to understand the intrinsic vulnerability of traffic networks," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 136-152.
    2. Janice Kirner Providelo & Suely Penha Sanches, 2011. "Roadway and traffic characteristics for bicycling," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 765-777, September.
    3. Lin, Jen-Jia & Wei, Yi-Hsuan, 2018. "Assessing area-wide bikeability: A grey analytic network process," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 381-396.
    4. 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.
    5. Frade, Ines & Ribeiro, Anabela, 2015. "Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 216-227.
    6. 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.
    7. Nielsen, Thomas Alexander Sick & Skov-Petersen, Hans, 2018. "Bikeability – Urban structures supporting cycling. Effects of local, urban and regional scale urban form factors on cycling from home and workplace locations in Denmark," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 36-44.
    8. Jiménez, Pilar & Nogal, María & Caulfield, Brian & Pilla, Francesco, 2016. "Perceptually important points of mobility patterns to characterise bike sharing systems: The Dublin case," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 228-239.
    9. Cooper, Crispin H.V., 2017. "Using spatial network analysis to model pedal cycle flows, risk and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 157-165.
    10. Meghan Winters & Gavin Davidson & Diana Kao & Kay Teschke, 2011. "Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 153-168, January.
    11. Arentze, Theo A. & Molin, Eric J.E., 2013. "Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-28.
    12. Zhang, Ying & Thomas, Tom & Brussel, Mark & van Maarseveen, Martin, 2017. "Exploring the impact of built environment factors on the use of public bikes at bike stations: Case study in Zhongshan, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 59-70.
    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. Wang, Haizhong & Palm, Matthew & Chen, Chen & Vogt, Rachel & Wang, Yiyi, 2016. "Does bicycle network level of traffic stress (LTS) explain bicycle travel behavior? Mixed results from an Oregon case study," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Biehl, Alec & Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "Community mobility MAUP-ing: A socio-spatial investigation of bikeshare demand in Chicago," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 80-90.
    3. 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.
    4. Wang, Mingshu & Zhou, Xiaolu, 2017. "Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 147-154.
    5. Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Karol Żarski, 2021. "Bicycle Traffic Model for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-36, September.
    6. Zhao, De & Ong, Ghim Ping & Wang, Wei & Hu, Xiao Jian, 2019. "Effect of built environment on shared bicycle reallocation: A case study on Nanjing, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 73-88.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    11. Kumar Dey, Bibhas & Anowar, Sabreena & Eluru, Naveen, 2021. "A framework for estimating bikeshare origin destination flows using a multiple discrete continuous system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 119-133.
    12. Shah, Nitesh R. & Guo, Jing & Han, Lee D. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2023. "Why do people take e-scooter trips? Insights on temporal and spatial usage patterns of detailed trip data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. HaeLi Kang & Dong Ha Kim & Seunghyun Yoo, 2019. "Attributes of Perceived Bikeability in a Compact Urban Neighborhood Based on Qualitative Multi-Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Mora-Navarro, Gaspar & Femenia-Ribera, Carmen & Martinez-Llario, Jose & Antequera-Terroso, Enrique, 2018. "Optimising urban routes as a factor to favour sustainable school transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 211-217.
    15. Xueying Wu & Yi Lu & Yaoyu Lin & Yiyang Yang, 2019. "Measuring the Destination Accessibility of Cycling Transfer Trips in Metro Station Areas: A Big Data Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Shuo Zhang & Li Chen & Yingzi Li, 2021. "Shared Bicycle Distribution Connected to Subway Line Considering Citizens’ Morning Peak Social Characteristics for Urban Low-Carbon Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Hallberg, Martin & Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær & Rich, Jeppe, 2021. "Modelling the impact of cycle superhighways and electric bicycles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 397-418.
    18. De Zhao & Ghim Ping Ong & Wei Wang & Wei Zhou, 2021. "Estimating Public Bicycle Trip Characteristics with Consideration of Built Environment Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Li, Haojie & Ding, Hongliang & Ren, Gang & Xu, Chengcheng, 2018. "Effects of the London Cycle Superhighways on the usage of the London Cycle Hire," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 304-315.
    20. Wang, Ruoxuan & Wu, Jianping & Qi, Geqi, 2022. "Exploring regional sustainable commuting patterns based on dockless bike-sharing data and POI data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    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:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9062-:d:438119. 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.