IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt71h6g0td.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Examining Market Segmentation to Increase Bike-Share Use: The Case of the Greater Sacramento Region

Author

Listed:
  • Mohiuddin, Hossain
  • Fitch, Dillon
  • Handy, Susan

Abstract

Bike-share systems are proliferating across the US and could expand opportunities for those most underserved by the transportation system. A deeper understanding of current bike-share users could enable the expansion of these services and their benefits to a larger population. With the aim of deepening this understanding, this study uses data from household and bike-share user surveys in the Sacramento region to perform behavioral modeling and market segmentation. The results show that although individuals with low incomes and students are less likely than other demographic groups to use bike-share, they use it more frequently if they do use it. Individuals who regularly use multiple modes of travel also use the service frequently. The initial adoption of the service by transport-disadvantaged groups can play a vital role in the continued and frequent use of the service. The market segmentation analysis shows that low-income individuals, students, and zero-car individuals use the service frequently for commuting and a variety of non-commuting purposes. The occasional users of the bike-share service are mainly those with higher incomes and individuals who have access to a personal car. Another market segment consists of non- and infrequent-personal bike users; however, that segment is using the bike-share service at a greater rate for different purposes compared to regular bicyclists. This suggests that bike-share may fill an important travel gap and act as a lever for increasing bike travel for some users. Overall, the results provide detailed bike-share market information that can be used to tailor urban transport policies. The results also suggest that if the user base for bike-share programs were expanded to reach even more low-income individuals, students, and multi-modal travelers, greater environmental sustainability benefits would be achieved. View the NCST Project Webpage

Suggested Citation

  • Mohiuddin, Hossain & Fitch, Dillon & Handy, Susan, 2022. "Examining Market Segmentation to Increase Bike-Share Use: The Case of the Greater Sacramento Region," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt71h6g0td, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt71h6g0td
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/71h6g0td.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Aoyong & Zhao, Pengxiang & Huang, Yizhe & Gao, Kun & Axhausen, Kay W., 2020. "An empirical analysis of dockless bike-sharing utilization and its explanatory factors: Case study from Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Fitch, Dillon PhD & Mohiuddin, Hossain & Handy, Susan PhD, 2020. "Investigating the Influence of Dockless Electric Bike-share on Travel Behavior, Attitudes, Health, and Equity," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x53m37z, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan Alison & Lidicker, Jeffrey, 2010. "Carsharing’S Impact On Household Vehicle Holdings: Results From A North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0850h6r5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Zheyan Chen & Dea van Lierop & Dick Ettema, 2020. "Exploring Dockless Bikeshare Usage: A Case Study of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Dillon T. Fitch & Hossain Mohiuddin & Susan L. Handy, 2021. "Examining the Effects of the Sacramento Dockless E-Bike Share on Bicycling and Driving," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, January.
    6. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
    7. Hossain Mohiuddin, 2021. "Planning for the First and Last Mile: A Review of Practices at Selected Transit Agencies in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan Alison & Lidicker, Jeffrey, 2010. "Carsharing’S Impact On Household Vehicle Holdings: Results From A North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0850h6r5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    10. Robert Tibshirani & Guenther Walther & Trevor Hastie, 2001. "Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 411-423.
    11. Kroesen, Maarten & Handy, Susan & Chorus, Caspar, 2017. "Do attitudes cause behavior or vice versa? An alternative conceptualization of the attitude-behavior relationship in travel behavior modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 190-202.
    12. Gatersleben, Birgitta & Appleton, Katherine M., 2007. "Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 302-312, May.
    13. Wagner A. Kamakura & Byung-Do Kim & Jonathan Lee, 1996. "Modeling Preference and Structural Heterogeneity in Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 152-172.
    14. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan A & Lidicker, Jeffrey, 2010. "Carsharing's Impact on Household Vehicle Holdings: Resultsvfrom a North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3bn9n6pq, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    15. Xing, Yan & Handy, Susan L. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2010. "Factors Associated with Proportions and Miles of Bicycling for Transportation and Recreation in Six Small U.S. Cities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt74n4j1p0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    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. Mohiuddin, Hossain & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan L., 2023. "Does bike-share enhance transport equity? Evidence from the Sacramento, California region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Hossain Mohiuddin & Md Musfiqur Rahman Bhuiya & Shaila Jamal & Zhi Chen, 2022. "Exploring the Choice of Bicycling and Walking in Rajshahi, Bangladesh: An Application of Integrated Choice and Latent Variable (ICLV) Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.

    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. Mohiuddin, Hossain & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan L., 2024. "Examining market segmentation to increase bike-share use and enhance equity: The case of the greater Sacramento region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 279-290.
    2. Mohiuddin, Hossain & Fitch-Polse, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan L., 2023. "Does bike-share enhance transport equity? Evidence from the Sacramento, California region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Lovejoy, Kristin, 2012. "Mobility Fulfillment Among Low-car Households: Implications for Reducing Auto Dependence in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4v44b5qn, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Boyacı, Burak & Zografos, Konstantinos G., 2019. "Investigating the effect of temporal and spatial flexibility on the performance of one-way electric carsharing systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 244-272.
    5. Yue Guo & Fu Xin & Xiaotong Li, 2020. "The market impacts of sharing economy entrants: evidence from USA and China," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 629-649, September.
    6. Golalikhani, Masoud & Oliveira, Beatriz Brito & Carravilla, Maria Antónia & Oliveira, José Fernando & Antunes, António Pais, 2021. "Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    7. Xin-Wei Li & Hong-Zhi Miao, 2023. "How to Incorporate Autonomous Vehicles into the Carbon Neutrality Framework of China: Legal and Policy Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Susan Shaheen & Nelson Chan & Helen Micheaux, 2015. "One-way carsharing’s evolution and operator perspectives from the Americas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 519-536, May.
    9. Matthew Clark & Kate Gifford & Jillian Anable & Scott Le Vine, 2015. "Business-to-business carsharing: evidence from Britain of factors associated with employer-based carsharing membership and its impacts," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 471-495, May.
    10. Yiling Deng & Pengjun Zhao, 2023. "The determinants of shared bike use in China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-23, February.
    11. Diana, Marco & Chicco, Andrea, 2022. "The spatial reconfiguration of parking demand due to car sharing diffusion: a simulated scenario for the cities of Milan and Turin (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Irfan Ullah & Kai Liu & Tran Vanduy, 2019. "Examining Travelers’ Acceptance towards Car Sharing Systems—Peshawar City, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Wu, Guoqiang & Hong, Jinhyun & Thakuriah, Piyushimita, 2019. "Assessing the relationships between young adults’ travel and use of the internet over time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 8-19.
    14. Yuan, Ruizhi & Luo, Jun & Liu, Martin J. & Yu, Jiang, 2022. "Understanding organizational resilience in a platform-based sharing business: The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 85-99.
    15. Susanna Ulinski, 2015. "Corporate Social Innovation as a Driver of Performance and Welfare. WWWforEurope Policy Paper No. 25," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58500.
    16. Kent, Jennifer & Dowling, Robyn & Maalsen, Sophia, 2017. "Catalysts for transport transitions: Bridging the gap between disruptions and change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 200-207.
    17. Xiaowei Chen & Hongyu Zheng & Ze Wang & Xiqun Chen, 2021. "Exploring impacts of on-demand ridesplitting on mobility via real-world ridesourcing data and questionnaires," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1541-1561, August.
    18. Martin Obradovits, 2013. "Excessive supplier pricing and high-quality foreclosure," Vienna Economics Papers vie1303, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    19. Chen, Yuche & Gonder, Jeffrey & Young, Stanley & Wood, Eric, 2019. "Quantifying autonomous vehicles national fuel consumption impacts: A data-rich approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 134-145.
    20. Geoffrey Udoka Nnadiri & Anthony S. F. Chiu & Jose Bienvenido Manuel Biona & Neil Stephen Lopez, 2021. "Comparison of Driving Forces to Increasing Traffic Flow and Transport Emissions in Philippine Regions: A Spatial Decomposition Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; Bicycles; Market segmented groups; Surveys; Transportation disadvantaged persons; Travel behavior; Vehicle sharing;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cdl:itsdav:qt71h6g0td. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    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.