Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Integrated Model
2.3. Structural Equation Model (SEM)
2.4. Data Sources
3. Results
3.1. Factor Analysis of Residents’ Behavioral Intention of Using the Shared Bikes
3.2. Analysis of the Influencing Factors of the Public’s Behavioral Intention of DBS Use
- Behavioral attitude can directly affect behavioral intention, with an influence value of 0.691. Owing to the convenience, comfort, interestingness and value, the public shows positive attitudes towards DBS use, among which convenience and comfort impose most significant effects. Therefore, enhancing the appearance and performance of the shared bikes and placing the shared bikes at the appropriable positions can contribute to enhancing the public’s intention of using shared bikes.
- Subjective norms impose a direct effect on behavioral intention, with an influence value of 0.257. The opinions of acquaintances show important references for the public’s selection of shared bikes. The sense of trust in the surrounding acquaintances and both collective consciousness and sense of community in daily life can impose imperceptible effects on the public’s psychological actives and use behaviors. The individual behavioral intentions are inclined to stay in step with the people around. Therefore, the business should consider the difference in different user groups and the propaganda of DBS when making operating strategies. Formulating different operating schemes based on population differences can enhance the irradiating effect on more users.
- Perceived behavioral control can directly affect behavioral intention, with an influence value of 0.198. Both physical and psychological quality and riding skills can impose positive effects on the public’s choice of DBS. The riding skill and physical fitness can significantly affect the perceived behavioral control. According to the questionnaires, it can be found that some residents are anxious about collisions with motor vehicles or passers-by under bad weather or traffic conditions. In addition to skill and physical fitness, residents still doubted the use of shared bikes. It is therefore recommended to add a bike lane and advocate the comity to pedestrians to alleviate the risk to a certain degree, thereby enhancing the residents’ behavioral intention of using shared bikes.
- Perceived usefulness can affect the behavioral intention indirectly but impose a direct effect on the behavioral attitude, with influence values of 0.372 and 0.538, respectively. Behavioral attitude plays a mediating role in directly affecting behavioral intention. This means that residents still enjoy both interestingness and convenience in DBS in addition to environmental protection, alleviation of traffic jams and the enhancement of traveling efficiency. Owing to the multiple advantages of riding the shared bikes, residents are more inclined to use the shared bikes.
- Perceived ease of use can indirectly affect behavioral intention while directly affect perceived usefulness and behavioral attitude, with influence values of 0.396, 0.501 and 0.303, respectively. Perceived ease of use imposes indirect effect on behavioral intention via the following two paths: (1) Using behavioral attitude as the mediating variable and imposing indirect effect on the behavioral intention with an influence value of 0.209, and (2) using perceived usefulness and behavioral attitude as two mediating variables and imposing direct effect on the behavioral intention with an influence value of 0.187. DBS, as a new form of Internet bike renting mode, has the greatest advantage in freeing users from the parking stations and paying fees via the app on the mobile phone. Great convenience and flexibility change the residents’ opinion and attitude towards the use of shared bikes and enhance the use intention.
4. Conclusions and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guo, X.; Lu, C.; Sun, D.; Gao, Y.; Xue, B. Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocker, L.; Anderson, E.; Uteng, T.P.; Throndsen, T. Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 138, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Ruiz-Montanez, M.; Li’ebana-Cabanillas, F. User characteristics influencing use of a bicycle-sharing system integrated into an intermodal transport network in Spain. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2020, 14, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, T.; Wei, H.; Chen, N.; Zhang, C. First-and-last mile solution via bicycling to improving transit accessibility and advancing transportation equity. Cities 2020, 99, 102614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.G.; Si, H.; Wu, G. Critical factors to achieve dockless bike-sharing sustainability in China: A stakeholder-oriented network perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, Y. Research on Demand Forecasting and Scheduling Methods for Shared Bicycles; Beijing Jiaotong University: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bo, W.; Feng, Z.; Zongcai, W. The research on characteristics of urban activity space in Nanjing: An empirical analysis based on big data. Hum. Geogr. 2014, 29, 14–21. [Google Scholar]
- Zhen, F.; Wei, Z.; Yang, S. The impact of information technology on the characteristics of urban resident travel: Case of Nanjing. Geogr. Res. 2009, 28, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.X.; Heppenstall, A.; Turner, A.; Comber, A. A spatial and graph-based analysis of dockless bike sharing patterns to understand urban flows over the last mile. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2019, 77, 101361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.S. The spatial spread of dockless bike-sharing programs among Chinese cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 86, 102782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.Y.; Wang, K.; Lu, J.J. Exploring travel patterns and trip purpose of dockless bike sharing by analyzing massive bike-sharing data in Shanghai, China. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 87, 102787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, Y.; Shen, J.; Zhao, Y. Activity-based approach for urban travel behavior research. Sci. Online 2015, 5, 402–409. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, F.; Yang, G.; Li, X. A study of Hangzhou urban residents green travel choice in metro era. J. Green Sci. Technol. 2012, 8, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, K.; Li, C.; Zhang, C. Reference group influence and self-perceived value judgment of Xi’an urban residents’ green travel behavior. Hum. Geogr. 2017, 32, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
- Newton, P.; Meyer, D. Exploring the attitudes-action gap in household resource consumption: Does “Environmental Lifestyle” segmentation align with consumer behavior. Sustainability 2013, 5, 1211–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ran, L.; Li, F. An analysis on characteristics and behaviors of traveling by bike-sharing. J. Transp. Inf. Saf. 2017, 35, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, A. Study on Structure and Dynamic Behaviors in Weighted Complex Public Transit Network Based on Passenger Flow; Beijing Jiaotong University: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, B.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, C. Statistical physics research for human behaviors, complex networks, and information mining. J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Technol. 2012, 34, 103–117. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J.; Zhang, B.; Cheng, Y. Grop choice behavior in green travel based on scale-free network. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2019, 27, 198–208. [Google Scholar]
- Valkila, N.; Saari, A. Attitude behavior gap in energy issues: Case study of three different finish residential areas. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chardon, C.M.D.; Caruso, G. Estimating bike-share trips using station level data. Transp. Res. Part B 2015, 78, 260–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.R.; Yang, T.H. Strategic design of public bicycle sharing systems with service level constraints. Transp. Res. Part E 2011, 47, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caperello, N.D.; Kurani, K.S. Households’ stories of their encounters with a plugin hybrid electric vehicle. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faghih-Imani, A.; Eluru, N.; El-Geneidy, A.M. How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: Evidence from the bicycle sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saneinejad, S.; Roorda, M.J.; Kennedy, C. Modelling the impact of weather conditions on active transportation travel behaviour. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gebhart, K.; Noland, R.B. The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, DC. Transportation 2014, 41, 1205–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H.; Ko, E.J. Relationships between neighbourhood environments and residents’ bicycle mode choice: A case study of Seoul. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2014, 18, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, F.; Melo-Riquelme, C.; Grange, L.D. A combined destination and route choice model for a bicycle sharing system. Transportation 2016, 43, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, M.; Hamon, R.; Lozenguez, G. From bicycle sharing system movements to users: A typology of Vélo’v cyclists in Lyon based on large-scale behavioural dataset. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, F.; Li, S.; Wu, Z. Spatial-temporal characteristics and the influencing factors of the ride destination of bike sharing in Guangzhou city. Geogr. Res. 2019, 38, 2859–2872. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, Z.; Mo, H.; Liu, Y. Spatial-temporal characteristics of bike-sharing: An empirical study of Tianhe District, Guangzhou. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2018, 36, 71–80. [Google Scholar]
- The Investigation Report of Xinhua Green Travel Index; China Economic Information Service: Beijing, China, 2017. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com//politics/2017-09/27/c_1121731198.htm (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Ma, J.H.; Li, J.B.; Liu, B. Solving the persistent problems of urban governance and helping to build a sophisticated Lanzhou City. Shanghai Bus. 2021, 5, 88–90. [Google Scholar]
- Carstensen, T.A.; Olafsson, A.S.; Bech, N.M. The spatial-temporal development of Copenhagen’s bicycle infrastructure 1912–2013. Geogr. Tidsskr. Dan. J. Geogr. 2015, 115, 142–156. [Google Scholar]
- Bao, J.; Xu, C.C.; Liu, P. Exploring bike sharing travel patterns and trip purposes using smart card data and online point of interests. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2017, 17, 1231–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, H.; Wei, Z.; Zhai, Q. Travel behaviors and influencing factors of bike sharing in old town: The case of Guangzhou. South Archit. 2019, 1, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- Zainuddin, N.B.; Min, L.H.; Teng, C.S. Sustainable transportation scheme in university: Students’ intention on bike sharing system: An empirical approach. J. Glob. Bus. Soc. Entrep. 2016, 2, 144–163. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Manca, F.; Nielsen, T.A.S. Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Contemp. Sociol. 1975. Available online: http://worldcat.org/isbn/0201020890 (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.; Zha, Q.; Jing, P. Modeling and analysis of autonomous technology acceptance considering age heterogeneity. J. Jiangsu Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2021, 42, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
- Ju, P.; Zhou, J.; Chen, X.G. A study of the intent of shared use of automobiles based on TAM and TPB integration models. Mod. Manag. 2016, 36, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, Q. Factors affecting Beijing residents’ buying behavior of new energy vehicle: An integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2013, 21, 691–698. [Google Scholar]
- Kraft, P.; Rise, J.; Sutton, S. Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behavior: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 44, 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Li, G. Ecological compensation, psychological factors, willingness and behavior of ecological protection in the Qinba ecological function area. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 881–892. [Google Scholar]
- Lao, K.F.; Wu, J. Research on influencing mechanism of consumer green consumption behavior referring to TPB. Financ. Econ. 2013, 2, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.L.; Cao, X.S.; Li, T. Analysis of willingness and influence factors of urban residents to use shared bikes: A case study of Xi’an. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2019, 33, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, P.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, C. Research on the factors influencing shared bicycle green use behavior and intention. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Wang, H. Comparison and analysis of influential on the degree of satisfaction of city bike: Based on the research involving six main districts in Beijing. Econ. Probl. 2018, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, J.; Wang, D.; Niu, Y. Analysis of the influencing factors of urban public bikes: A case study of Suzhou. Geogr. Res. 2014, 33, 358–371. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, M.L. Structural Equation Modeling: Operation and Application of AMOS; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, J.; Yang, Y.; Yang, D. Influence of urban morphological characteristics on thermal environment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 72, 103045. [Google Scholar]
Latent Variable | Measured Variable | Number of Questions | Label |
---|---|---|---|
Behavioral attitude(X1) | It is convenient to use the shared bike. | 4 | X11 |
It is comfortable to use the shared bike. | X12 | ||
It is interesting to use the shared bike. | X13 | ||
It is valuable to use the shared bike. | X14 | ||
Subjective norm (X2) | Family members think we should use the shared bike. | 3 | X21 |
Friends think we should use the shared bike. | X22 | ||
Schoolmates or workmates think we should use the shared bike. | X23 | ||
Perceived behavioral control(X3) | Possess the mobile phone skills of using the shared bike. | 4 | X31 |
Possess the riding skills of using the shared bike. | X32 | ||
Possess the physical fitness of using the shared bike. | X33 | ||
Possess the psychological quality of using the shared bike. | X34 | ||
Perceived usefulness (X4) | Using the shared bike can protect the environment. | 5 | X41 |
Using the shared bike can avoid the traffic jam. | X42 | ||
Using the shared bike can enhance travel efficiency. | X43 | ||
Using the shared bike can contribute to taking exercise. | X44 | ||
Using the shared bike can save resources. | X45 | ||
Perceived ease of use (X5) | The registration procedure for the use of shared bike is easy and convenient. | 4 | X51 |
The shared bike can park conveniently. | X52 | ||
Payment for the use of shared bike is easy and economical. | X53 | ||
The shared bike possesses excellent performance. | X54 | ||
Behavioral intention (X6) | With the intention to use the shared bike under the current condition. | 3 | X61 |
With the intention to use the shared bike in the future. | X62 | ||
With the intention to recommend the shared bike to other people. | X63 |
Question | Options |
---|---|
1. Have you ever used the shared bikes? | A. Yes B. No (If you choose B, skip to the end) |
2. Your gender | A. Male B. Female |
3. Your age | A.≤17 B.12–18 C.19–30 D.31–50 E.>50 |
4. Your education background | A. Primary school or below B. Middle school C. Undergraduate D. Graduate student or above |
5. Your occupation | A. Student B. Civil servant C. Worker D. Liberal profession E. Others |
6. Your income | A. Below 2000 yuan B. 2000–4000 yuan C. 4000–6000 yuan D. Above 6000 yuan |
7. Your frequency of DBS use in one week | A. 1–4 times B. 5–8 times C. 9–12 times D. 13–16 times E. Over 16 times |
8. Where is your cycling destination? | A. School or work unit B. Shopping mall or entertainment venue C. Railway station, subway station or bus station D. Others |
9.Your attitude towards the use of shared bikes | A. It is convenient to use the shared bikes. B. It is comfortable to use the shared bikes. C. It is interesting to use the shared bikes. D. It is valuable to use the shared bikes. |
10. Who imposes great influence on your selection of the shared bikes? | A. Family member B. Friend C. Schoolmate or colleague |
11. Which kind of ability is needed for your use of shared bikes? | A. Mobile phone performance B. Cycling skill C. Physical fitness D. Psychological quality |
12. What are the advantages of DBS use? | A. DBS use can protect the environment. B. DBS use can avoid traffic jams. C. DBS use can enhance traveling efficiency. D. DBS use can provide physical exercise. E. DBS use can save resources. |
13. What is the greatest convenience in the use of shared bikes? | A. It is convenient to register the usage procedure. B. It is convenient to park the shared bikes. C. It is convenient to pay the cost of using shared bikes. D. The shared bikes have good performance. |
14. Your future attitude towards the use of shared bikes | A. I’m willing to use the shared bikes under current conditions. B. I’m willing to use the shared bikes in future. C. I’m willing to recommend shared bikes to others. |
Statistical Indicator | Classification Indicator | Number of People | Proportion in the Valid Samples (%) | Statistical Indicator | Classification Indicator | Number of People | Proportion in the Valid Samples (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 289 | 46.02 | Profession | Student | 208 | 33.12 |
Female | 339 | 53.98 | Civil servant | 214 | 34.08 | ||
Age | 12–18 | 88 | 14.01 | Worker | 37 | 5.89 | |
19–30 | 378 | 60.19 | Liberal profession | 84 | 13.38 | ||
31–50 | 132 | 21.02 | Others | 85 | 13.54 | ||
>50 | 30 | 4.78 | Income | Below CNY 2000 | 220 | 35.03 | |
Degree of education | Primary or below | 18 | 2.97 | CNY 2000–4000 | 126 | 20.06 | |
Middle school | 195 | 31.05 | CNY 4000–6000 | 188 | 29.94 | ||
Undergraduate | 286 | 45.54 | Above CNY 6000 | 94 | 14.97 | ||
Postgraduate or above | 129 | 20.54 |
Fitting Index | Specific Index | Ideal Value | Model Estimated Value | Test Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Measure of absolute fit | GFI | >0.90 | 0.917 | Accepted |
AGFI | >0.90 | 0.927 | Accepted | |
SRMR | <0.05 | 0.043 | Accepted | |
RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.068 | Accepted | |
Measure of incremental fit | NFI | >0.90 | 0.920 | Accepted |
TLI | >0.90 | 0.930 | Accepted | |
CFI | >0.90 | 0.942 | Accepted | |
IFI | >0.90 | 0.915 | Accepted | |
Measure of simple fit | PGFI | >0.50 | 0.641 | Accepted |
PNFI | >0.50 | 0.683 | Accepted | |
NC (Chi-square freedom degree ratio) | 1<NC<3 | 2.830 | Accepted |
Latent Variable | Measured Variable | P | C.R Value | Standard Factor Load |
---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioral attitude | X11 | 0.690 | ||
X12 | *** | 14.882 | 0.776 | |
X13 | *** | 12.314 | 0.635 | |
X14 | 0.632 | |||
Subjective norm | X21 | *** | 12.453 | 0.651 |
X22 | *** | 15.428 | 0.891 | |
X23 | *** | 15.270 | 0.862 | |
Perceived behavioral control | X31 | 0.545 | ||
X32 | *** | 14.360 | 0.710 | |
X33 | *** | 14.782 | 0.765 | |
X34 | *** | 11.917 | 0.621 | |
Perceived usefulness | X41 | 0.767 | ||
X42 | *** | 12.835 | 0.679 | |
X43 | *** | 13.378 | 0.701 | |
X44 | *** | 11.666 | 0.595 | |
X45 | *** | 12.350 | 0.644 | |
Perceived ease of use | X51 | 0.690 | ||
X52 | *** | 14.986 | 0.801 | |
X53 | *** | 14.827 | 0.778 | |
X54 | *** | 14.892 | 0.791 | |
Behavioral intention | X61 | 0.596 | ||
X62 | *** | 12.827 | 0.674 | |
X63 | *** | 14.253 | 0.713 |
Variables | Behavioral Intention | ||
---|---|---|---|
Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |
Behavioral attitude | 0.691 | - | 0.691 |
Subjective norm | 0.257 | - | 0.257 |
Perceived behavioral control | 0.198 | - | 0.198 |
Perceived usefulness | - | 0.372 | 0.372 |
Perceived ease of use | - | 0.396 | 0.396 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ji, W.; Lu, C.; Mao, J.; Liu, Y.; Hou, M.; Pan, X. Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169265
Ji W, Lu C, Mao J, Liu Y, Hou M, Pan X. Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):9265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169265
Chicago/Turabian StyleJi, Wei, Chengpeng Lu, Jinhuang Mao, Yiping Liu, Muchen Hou, and Xiaoli Pan. 2021. "Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 9265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169265
APA StyleJi, W., Lu, C., Mao, J., Liu, Y., Hou, M., & Pan, X. (2021). Public’s Intention and Influencing Factors of Dockless Bike-Sharing in Central Urban Areas: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China. Sustainability, 13(16), 9265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169265