IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v47y2020i2d10.1007_s11116-018-9910-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of users’ characteristics between station-based bikesharing system and free-floating bikesharing system: case study in Hangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Mengwei Chen

    (Zhejiang University)

  • Dianhai Wang

    (Zhejiang University)

  • Yilin Sun

    (Zhejiang University)

  • E. Owen D. Waygood

    (Université Laval)

  • Wentao Yang

    (Zhejiang University)

Abstract

The paper takes station-based bikesharing system (SBS) with docks and dockless free-floating bikesharing system (FBS) as two targets to dig out the relationship between users and use frequency of the services for each scheme, and how the relationship varies from scheme to scheme. To achieve this, studies are carried out focusing on three questions: “who are using these two bicycle services?”; “what are the factors influencing the use frequency of both bicycle systems?”; and “which specific level of the factors influencing the use frequency of both bicycle schemes?” To collect data from users, a survey was designed containing questions for user attributes and service experience and conducted jointly on-line and on-site at four locations with mixed land use in Hangzhou, China. Analysis results show that SBS and FBS have similar user structure but different factors influence use frequency. Based on analysis results, from the user perspective, SBS’s strength is to have good quality with low cost while FBS is more flexible and free to use. Finally, recommendations for SBS are to involve more technology to expand its range to aided bikes for senior citizens and open the access for a mobile renting system, whereas for FBS, it is critical to get government cooperation and for operators to add parking area restrictions into the cellphone application, and create an on-line platform where users can find all the free-floating bike information.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengwei Chen & Dianhai Wang & Yilin Sun & E. Owen D. Waygood & Wentao Yang, 2020. "A comparison of users’ characteristics between station-based bikesharing system and free-floating bikesharing system: case study in Hangzhou, China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 689-704, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11116-018-9910-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-018-9910-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-018-9910-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-018-9910-7?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Regue, Robert & Recker, Will, 2014. "Proactive vehicle routing with inferred demand to solve the bikesharing rebalancing problem," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 192-209.
    2. Ralph Buehler & John Pucher & Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi, 2017. "Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 4-28, January.
    3. Zhao, Jinbao & Deng, Wei & Song, Yan, 2014. "Ridership and effectiveness of bikesharing: The effects of urban features and system characteristics on daily use and turnover rate of public bikes in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 253-264.
    4. 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.
    5. Elliot Fishman & Simon Washington & Narelle Haworth, 2013. "Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 148-165, March.
    6. Jie Bao & Chengcheng Xu & Pan Liu & Wei Wang, 2017. "Exploring Bikesharing Travel Patterns and Trip Purposes Using Smart Card Data and Online Point of Interests," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1231-1253, December.
    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. Liu, Yixiao & Tian, Zihao & Pan, Baoran & Zhang, Wenbin & Liu, Yunqi & Tian, Lixin, 2022. "A hybrid big-data-based and tolerance-based method to estimate environmental benefits of electric bike sharing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Gao, Jiong & Ma, Shoufeng & Wang, Lei & Shuai, Ling & Du, Huibin, 2023. "Does greenness bring more green travelling? Evidence from free-floating bike-sharing in Beijing," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(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. 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.
    2. Jian-gang Shi & Hongyun Si & Guangdong Wu & Yangyue Su & Jing Lan, 2018. "Critical Factors to Achieve Dockless Bike-Sharing Sustainability in China: A Stakeholder-Oriented Network Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Andrea Bardi & Luca Mantecchini & Denis Grasso & Filippo Paganelli & Caterina Malandri, 2019. "Flexible Mobile Hub for E-Bike Sharing and Cruise Tourism: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, October.
    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. 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.
    6. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille, 2019. "The contradictions of bike-share benefits, purposes and outcomes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 401-419.
    7. Zhao, Chunkai & Wang, Yuhang & Ge, Zhenyu, 2023. "Is digital finance environmentally friendly in China? Evidence from shared-bike trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 129-143.
    8. Anaya-Boig, Esther & Douch, Jenny & Castro, Alberto, 2021. "The death and life of bike-sharing schemes in Spain: 2003–2018," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 227-236.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Albiński, Szymon & Fontaine, Pirmin & Minner, Stefan, 2018. "Performance analysis of a hybrid bike sharing system: A service-level-based approach under censored demand observations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 59-69.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Luqi Wang, 2018. "Barriers to Implementing Pro-Cycling Policies: A Case Study of Hamburg," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Li, Haojie & Zhang, Yingheng & Ding, Hongliang & Ren, Gang, 2019. "Effects of dockless bike-sharing systems on the usage of the London Cycle Hire," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 398-411.
    16. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille & Caruso, Geoffrey & Thomas, Isabelle, 2016. "Bike-share rebalancing strategies, patterns, and purpose," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 22-39.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Çelebi, Dilay & Yörüsün, Aslı & Işık, Hanife, 2018. "Bicycle sharing system design with capacity allocations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-98.
    20. Juelin Yin & Lixian Qian & Anusorn Singhapakdi, 2018. "Sharing Sustainability: How Values and Ethics Matter in Consumers’ Adoption of Public Bicycle-Sharing Scheme," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 313-332, May.

    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:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11116-018-9910-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.