IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7640-d431658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-Ecological Predictors of Frequent Bike Share Trips: Do Purposes Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Ting Chen

    (Counseling and Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA)

  • Ya-Wen Hsu

    (Department of Hospital and Health Care Administration, Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, Tainan 71710, Taiwan)

Abstract

Using bike share could increase physical activity and improve health. This study used the social-ecological model to identify predictors of frequent bike share trips for different purposes. Participants residing in the U.S. were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Self-report trip purposes were used to group participants into using bike share for commuting only ( n = 260), social/entertainment only ( n = 313), exercise only ( n = 358), dual or triple-purpose ( n = 501), and purposes other than commuting, social/entertainment, and exercise ( n = 279). Results showed that at the intrapersonal level, perceived use of bike share to be helpful for increasing physical activity was a significant predictor for all groups, except for the other purpose group. Adjusting outdoor activity based on air quality was a significant predictor for the dual or triple-purpose group. At the interpersonal level, having four or more friends/family using bike share was a significant predictor for the other purpose group. At the community level, distance to the nearest bike share within acceptable range was a significant predictor for social/entertainment and dual or triple-purpose groups. The findings suggest that it is important to consider factors at multiple levels for predicting bike share usage. Moreover, health educators and policy makers should adopt different strategies for promoting bike share usage based on trip purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Ting Chen & Ya-Wen Hsu, 2020. "Socio-Ecological Predictors of Frequent Bike Share Trips: Do Purposes Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7640-:d:431658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7640/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7640/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt79v822k5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    3. Xinwei Ma & Ruiming Cao & Jianbiao Wang, 2019. "Effects of Psychological Factors on Modal Shift from Car to Dockless Bike Sharing: A Case Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Shaheen, Susan A & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6qg8q6ft, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    5. Pucher, John & Buehler, Ralph & Seinen, Mark, 2011. "Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 451-475, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Biehl, Alec & Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2019. "Utilizing multi-stage behavior change theory to model the process of bike share adoption," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-45.
    9. 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.
    10. Zheyan Chen & Dea van Lierop & Dick Ettema, 2020. "Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 333-353, May.
    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. Marco Haid & Elisabeth Nöhammer & Julia N. Albrecht & Alexander Plaikner & Harald Stummer & Peter Heimerl, 2021. "Health Promotion as a Motivational Factor in Alpine Cycling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-12, February.

    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 & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Raky Julio & Andres Monzon & Yusak O. Susilo, 2024. "Identifying key elements for user satisfaction of bike-sharing systems: a combination of direct and indirect evaluations," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 407-438, April.
    3. Büchel, Beda & Marra, Alessio Daniele & Corman, Francesco, 2022. "COVID-19 as a window of opportunity for cycling: Evidence from the first wave," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 144-156.
    4. Suzanne Maas & Paraskevas Nikolaou & Maria Attard & Loukas Dimitriou, 2021. "Heat, Hills and the High Season: A Model-Based Comparative Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Factors Affecting Shared Bicycle Use in Three Southern European Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Maas, Suzanne & Nikolaou, Paraskevas & Attard, Maria & Dimitriou, Loukas, 2021. "Examining spatio-temporal trip patterns of bicycle sharing systems in Southern European island cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    7. Kim, Minjun & Cho, Gi-Hyoug, 2021. "Analysis on bike-share ridership for origin-destination pairs: Effects of public transit route characteristics and land-use patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Rodrigo Mora & Pablo Moran, 2020. "Public Bike Sharing Programs Under the Prism of Urban Planning Officials: The Case of Santiago de Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Xinwei Ma & Ruiming Cao & Jianbiao Wang, 2019. "Effects of Psychological Factors on Modal Shift from Car to Dockless Bike Sharing: A Case Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Morton, Craig & Kelley, Scott & Monsuur, Fredrik & Hui, Tianwen, 2021. "A spatial analysis of demand patterns on a bicycle sharing scheme: Evidence from London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Maas, Suzanne & Nikolaou, Paraskevas & Attard, Maria & Dimitriou, Loukas, 2021. "Spatial and temporal analysis of shared bicycle use in Limassol, Cyprus," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Nixon, Denver V. & Schwanen, Tim, 2019. "Bike sharing beyond the norm," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Van Veghel, Daniel & Scott, Darren M., 2024. "Investigating the impacts of bike lanes on bike share ridership: A holistic approach and demonstration," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Mooney, Stephen J. & Hosford, Kate & Howe, Bill & Yan, An & Winters, Meghan & Bassok, Alon & Hirsch, Jana A., 2019. "Freedom from the station: Spatial equity in access to dockless bike share," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-96.
    16. 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).
    17. Fitzová, Hana & Kališ, Richard & Pařil, Vilém & Fila, Milan, 2024. "Entry and competition in the European bike-sharing industry," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 100-107.
    18. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Ainhoa Serna & Tomas Ruiz & Jon Kepa Gerrikagoitia & Rosa Arroyo, 2019. "Identification of Enablers and Barriers for Public Bike Share System Adoption using Social Media and Statistical Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-21, November.
    20. 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.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7640-:d:431658. 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.