IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2977-d342911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Psychological Model of Free-floating Bike-Sharing Using Behavior: A Case Study of Beijing

Author

Listed:
  • Dandan Xu

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering, College of Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)

  • Yang Bian

    (Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering, College of Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)

  • Shinan Shu

    (Beijing Municipal Institute of City Planning and Design, Beijing 100045, China)

Abstract

As a clean, sustainable transport tool, bicycles have significant advantages in short-distance travel. Despite many efforts assumed in Beijing to improve the cycling environment, the popularity of cycling remains relatively low. However, the advent of the free-floating bike-sharing (FFBS) system has engendered an unexpected cycling enthusiasm in Beijing. Therefore, it is of great importance to delve into why travelers prefer FFBS as a transportation form from a psychological perspective. In this paper, 352 valid questionnaires were collected from an online survey, and an extended theory of planned behavior (TPB) was adopted to examine the psychological determinants of intention and actual behavior to use FFBS. The results showed that men and car-owners prefer vehicles and show a lower willingness to use FFBS. In contrast, residents under the age of 60, residents with FFBS riding experience, and residents skilled in cycling are inclined to use FFBS; the economic convenience of FFBS is the most important attractant for FFBS, while bad weather is the biggest hindrance factor for residents to use FFBS; however, imperfection in infrastructure has no significant impact on reducing residents’ willingness to use FFBS. These results have important implications for planners to better understand the FFBS use behavior, and several suggestions are proposed to support the policymaking about FFBS.

Suggested Citation

  • Dandan Xu & Yang Bian & Shinan Shu, 2020. "Research on the Psychological Model of Free-floating Bike-Sharing Using Behavior: A Case Study of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2977-:d:342911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2977/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2977/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Yanyong Guo & Jibiao Zhou & Yao Wu & Zhibin Li, 2017. "Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    3. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt6zr1x95m is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Cervero, R. & Duncan, M., 2003. "Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1478-1483.
    6. Fishman, Elliot & Washington, Simon & Haworth, Narelle & Watson, Angela, 2015. "Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 17-30.
    7. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt74n4j1p0 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Broach, Joseph & Dill, Jennifer & Gliebe, John, 2012. "Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1730-1740.
    9. Hannah Badland & Grant Schofield, 2008. "Understanding the relationships between private automobile availability, overall physical activity, and travel behavior in adults," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 363-374, May.
    10. Chen, Shang-Yu, 2016. "Using the sustainable modified TAM and TPB to analyze the effects of perceived green value on loyalty to a public bike system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 58-72.
    11. Zhao, Pengjun & Li, Shengxiao, 2017. "Bicycle-metro integration in a growing city: The determinants of cycling as a transfer mode in metro station areas in Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 46-60.
    12. Dandan Xu & Yang Bian & Jian Rong & Jiachuan Wang & Baocai Yin, 2019. "Study on Clustering of Free-Floating Bike-Sharing Parking Time Series in Beijing Subway Stations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    13. repec:cdl:itsrrp:qt1x26m6z7 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    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. Marcin Jacek Kłos & Grzegorz Sierpiński, 2021. "Building a Model of Integration of Urban Sharing and Public Transport Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Ruiwei Li & Gobi Krishna Sinniah & Xiangyu Li, 2022. "The Factors Influencing Resident’s Intentions on E-Bike Sharing Usage in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Bing Wang & Qiran Cai & Zhenming Sun, 2020. "Determinants of Willingness to Participate in Urban Incentive-Based Energy Demand-Side Response: An Empirical Micro-Data Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Shouheng Sun, 2021. "How Does the Collaborative Economy Advance Better Product Lifetimes? A Case Study of Free-Floating Bike Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, January.

    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. Xiaozhou Ye, 2022. "Bike-Sharing Adoption in Cross-National Contexts: An Empirical Research on the Factors Affecting Users’ Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, March.
    2. 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).
    3. Umer Mansoor & Mohammad Tamim Kashifi & Fazal Rehman Safi & Syed Masiur Rahman, 2022. "A review of factors and benefits of non-motorized transport: a way forward for developing countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1560-1582, February.
    4. Ioannis Politis & Ioannis Fyrogenis & Efthymis Papadopoulos & Anastasia Nikolaidou & Eleni Verani, 2020. "Shifting to Shared Wheels: Factors Affecting Dockless Bike-Sharing Choice for Short and Long Trips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Cheng, Long & Wang, Kailai & De Vos, Jonas & Huang, Jie & Witlox, Frank, 2022. "Exploring non-linear built environment effects on the integration of free-floating bike-share and urban rail transport: A quantile regression approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 175-187.
    6. Ji, Shujuan & Wang, Xin & Lyu, Tao & Liu, Xiaojie & Wang, Yuanqing & Heinen, Eva & Sun, Zhenwei, 2022. "Understanding cycling distance according to the prediction of the XGBoost and the interpretation of SHAP: A non-linear and interaction effect analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Verma, Meghna & Rahul, T.M. & Vinayak, Pragun & Verma, Ashish, 2018. "Influence of childhood and adulthood attitudinal perceptions on bicycle usage in the Bangalore city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 94-105.
    8. Jun Li & Jiachao Shen & Bicen Jia, 2021. "Exploring Intention to Use Shared Electric Bicycles by the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Milakis, Dimitris & Athanasopoulos, Konstantinos, 2014. "What about people in cycle network planning? applying participative multicriteria GIS analysis in the case of the Athens metropolitan cycle network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 120-129.
    10. Ma, Liang & Ettema, Dick & Ye, Runing, 2021. "Determinants of bicycling for transportation in disadvantaged neighbourhoods: Evidence from Xi’an, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-117.
    11. Cervero, Robert & Denman, Steve & Jin, Ying, 2019. "Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-164.
    12. Raturi, Varun & McArthur, David Philip & Hong, Jinhyun, 2024. "Re-examining the role of street network configuration on bicycle commuting using crowdsourced data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Borhan, Muhamad Nazri & Ibrahim, Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi & Miskeen, Manssour A. Abdulasalm, 2019. "Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external inf," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-384.
    14. 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.
    15. Ying Ni & Jiaqi Chen, 2020. "Exploring the Effects of the Built Environment on Two Transfer Modes for Metros: Dockless Bike Sharing and Taxis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Elise Desjardins & Christopher D. Higgins & Darren M. Scott & Emma Apatu & Antonio Páez, 2022. "Correlates of bicycling trip flows in Hamilton, Ontario: fastest, quietest, or balanced routes?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 867-895, June.
    17. Hao Zhang & Jie He & Xiaomeng Shi & Qiong Hong & Jie Bao & Shuqi Xue, 2020. "Technology Characteristics, Stakeholder Pressure, Social Influence, and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Express Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Acheampong, Ransford A. & Siiba, Alhassan, 2018. "Examining the determinants of utility bicycling using a socio-ecological framework: An exploratory study of the Tamale Metropolis in Northern Ghana," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Farzana Sharmin & Alina Badulescu & Darie Gavrilut & Ke Xue, 2021. "Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, April.
    20. Wadud, Zia, 2014. "Cycling in a changed climate," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 12-20.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2977-:d:342911. 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.