IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i14p5501-d381754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cluster Analysis of Public Bike Sharing Systems for Categorization

Author

Listed:
  • Tamás Mátrai

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Stoczek utca 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • János Tóth

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Stoczek utca 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

The world population will reach 9.8 billion by 2050, with increased urbanization. Cycling is one of the fastest developing sustainable transport solutions. With the spread of public bike sharing (PBS) systems, it is very important to understand the differences between systems. This article focuses on the clustering of different bike sharing systems around the world. The lack of a comprehensive database about PBS systems in the world does not allow comparing or evaluating them. Therefore, the first step was to gather data about existing systems. The existing systems could be categorized by grouping criterions, and then typical models can be defined. Our assumption was that 90% of the systems could be classified into four clusters. We used clustering techniques and statistical analysis to create these clusters. However, our estimation proved to be too optimistic, therefore, we only used four distinct clusters (public, private, mixed, other) and the results were acceptable. The analysis of the different clusters and the identification of their common features is the next step of this line of research; however, some general characteristics of the proposed clusters are described. The result is a general method that could identify the type of a PBS system.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamás Mátrai & János Tóth, 2020. "Cluster Analysis of Public Bike Sharing Systems for Categorization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5501-:d:381754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5501/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5501/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julia Winslow & Oksana Mont, 2019. "Bicycle Sharing: Sustainable Value Creation and Institutionalisation Strategies in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, January.
    2. Hamidi, Zahra & Camporeale, Rosalia & Caggiani, Leonardo, 2019. "Inequalities in access to bike-and-ride opportunities: Findings for the city of Malmö," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 673-688.
    3. Kou, Zhaoyu & Cai, Hua, 2019. "Understanding bike sharing travel patterns: An analysis of trip data from eight cities," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 515(C), pages 785-797.
    4. 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.
    5. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Todd, James & O'Brien, Oliver & Cheshire, James, 2021. "A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor & Uteng, Tanu Priya & Throndsen, Torstein, 2020. "Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 389-401.
    10. 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.
    11. Tiznado-Aitken, Ignacio & Fuenzalida-Izquierdo, Jorge & Sagaris, Lake & Mora, Rodrigo, 2021. "Using the five Ws to explore bikeshare equity in Santiago, Chile," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Xavier Bach & Carme Miralles-Guasch & Oriol Marquet, 2023. "Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    13. Xin, Rui & Yang, Jian & Ai, Bo & Ding, Linfang & Li, Tingting & Zhu, Ruoxin, 2023. "Spatiotemporal analysis of bike mobility chain: A new perspective on mobility pattern discovery in urban bike-sharing system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    14. Wang, Xudong & Cheng, Zhanhong & Trépanier, Martin & Sun, Lijun, 2021. "Modeling bike-sharing demand using a regression model with spatially varying coefficients," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Latournerie, André & Tirachini, Alejandro & Quitral, Félix, 2022. "Optimal pricing and design of station-based bike-sharing systems: A microeconomic model," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    17. Ruijing Wu & Shaoxuan Liu & Zhenyang Shi, 2019. "Customer Incentive Rebalancing Plan in Free-Float Bike-Sharing System with Limited Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Wang, Xize & Lindsey, Greg & Schoner, Jessica E. & Harrison, Andrew, 2016. "Modeling bike share station activity: Effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations," SocArXiv stav4, Center for Open Science.
    20. Lijuan Wang & Songbai Liu, 2020. "Study on the Influencing Factors and Consumer Behaviors of Bicycle Sharing in Beijing," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-40, March.

    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:14:p:5501-:d:381754. 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.