Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Malte Kania
 -- 1399 2024-01-12 15:46:17 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
 -4 word(s) 1395 2024-01-15 01:40:44 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kania, M.; Mukku, V.D.; Kastner, K.; Assmann, T. Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53785 (accessed on 28 April 2024).
Kania M, Mukku VD, Kastner K, Assmann T. Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53785. Accessed April 28, 2024.
Kania, Malte, Vasu Dev Mukku, Karen Kastner, Tom Assmann. "Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53785 (accessed April 28, 2024).
Kania, M., Mukku, V.D., Kastner, K., & Assmann, T. (2024, January 12). Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53785
Kania, Malte, et al. "Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 January, 2024.
Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand and Design
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app14010180

As a consequence of the persistent trend towards urbanization, cities suffer from negative externalities (traffic congestion, air pollution, noise, etc.) caused by the increase in urban mobility. Since motorized individual transport comprises a sizable proportion of those negative effects, policymakers consider the promotion of active mobility (i.e., walking and cycling) as a way to address the key challenges of growing urban transport. In this regard, bike sharing systems have gained popularity, as they provide a sustainable and affordable alternative to motorized vehicles. Therefore, these systems are increasingly implemented in cities around the world.

bike sharing demand generation mobility on demand autonomous bike future mobility cargo bike

1. Prediction of Bike Sharing Demand

Based on their spatial granularity, the existing methods and approaches of predicting bike sharing demand can be classified into three groups: system-level prediction, cluster-level prediction, and station-level prediction [1].
For system-level prediction, Borgnat et al. [2] analyzed a public bike sharing scheme in Lyon, France, using a combination of statistical signal processing tools to derive temporal usage patterns for a typical week. While including internal (subscribers, number of available bikes) and external (temperature and precipitation) factors, those tools were also used to estimate the number of rentals within the next hour.
Additional research on predicting bike sharing demand at the system level was proposed by Giot and Cherrier [3]. They applied different regression models to predict the hourly bike sharing usage up to 24 h ahead. The used regressors (weather, previous bike usage, and holiday) were obtained from a public dataset containing two years of information on the Washington DC bike sharing system. Within their study, Ridge Regression and AdaBoost Regression were shown to have the best performance.
An approach for system-wide usage prediction over a longer time period was proposed by Cantelmo et al. [4]. Within their study, they introduced a clustering technique for synthesizing mobility data in order to obtain recursive mobility patterns. By validating their approach with existing data from New York City, Cantelmo et al. could show that combining those patterns with weather data enables the accurate prediction of daily bike sharing demand [4].
However, concerning the objective of researchers' study, the presented methods cannot be applied to OSABS demand generation, since the usage can be predicted either for only a few hours ahead [2][3] or with insufficient temporal granularity [4]. An additional impediment to transferability emerges from the constraint that employing data derived from already implemented conventional bike sharing systems only allows for the prediction of demand within these particular systems. This also applies to the multitude of cluster-based (e.g., Refs. [5][6][7][8]) or station-based (e.g., Refs. [1][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]) approaches, as they rely on already existing stations (or subsets of stations).

2. Bike Sharing System Design

To estimate potential bike sharing demand in cities or countries where such systems have not yet been implemented, Todd et al. [19] analyzed data from 322 bike sharing schemes and divided them into five main groups, which were further classified into subgroups with regard to usage, contextual indicators, and the behavioral characteristics of their users. According to their study, this enables a global comparison of scheme performance and provides a basis for new schemes to recognize existing BSS with comparable characteristics that can serve as a reference for predicting potential user demand. However, this approach only allows for a rough estimation of demand on a system level while lacking spatial granularity.
Further, Frade and Ribeiro [20] proposed a methodology to relate bike sharing demand with external characteristics that affect bicycle use. These are trip distance and purpose, slope inclination, and the presence of bike lanes. Within their study, the definition of demand is accomplished in two steps: quantifying demand based on other case studies and defining the effect on demand caused by trip and physical city characteristics. However, researchers are not able to apply this approach to OSABS demand generation since, due to the novelty of OSABS, it was not possible to determine demand based on case studies from existing systems.
Another approach on the dimensioning of bike sharing systems was presented by Garcia-Gutierrez et al. [21]. To enable the prediction of potential bike sharing usage, they derived mobility patterns from a large-scale mobility survey in Mexico. Further, they generated utility models for different modes of transport (foot, bike, public transport, car) based on declared preferences surveys. In combination with mobility patterns, those utility functions enabled the determination of initial bicycle travel matrices. But, since researchers aim to complement all conventional modes of transport (including bicycles) with OSABS, this approach is also not feasible for us.

3. Factors Influencing Bike Sharing Utilization

According to Chen et al. [22], bike sharing usage patterns are mainly impacted by two types of contextual factors. Those include common contextual factors that occur frequently and affect the whole system (e.g., weather and time-related variables). In addition, there are opportunistic contextual factors which happen irregularly and affect only a subset of the system (e.g., social and traffic events). While some studies investigate the effects of opportunistic contextual factors (e.g., calendar events [23] or transit disruption [24]), common contextual factors are more frequently the subject of the recent literature.
To identify temporal usage patterns, Koska et al. [25] analyzed trip data from five German bike sharing schemes. Their findings show that during weekdays bike sharing demand has a slight morning peak and a larger peak in the afternoon. Similar results were obtained by Miranda-Moreno and Nosal [26] during their analysis of a bike sharing system in Montreal, Canada.
On a larger scale, O’Brien et al. [27] analyzed 38 global bike sharing systems and classified them based on temporal characteristics and associated user types. A large proportion of the considered systems also showed two weekday peaks (morning and afternoon) and a broad afternoon peak at weekends, with predicted user types being commuters and weekend leisure users. However, O’Brien et al. also identified further systems that, for example, are primarily used on weekends (leisure users) or have more than two commuter peaks per day (commuters with some utility users) [27]. The temporal characteristics of an even larger number of 322 global bike sharing schemes can also be obtained from Todd et al. [19].
Gebhart and Noland [28] analyzed the effect of different weather variables on bike sharing trips in Washington, DC, USA. Consistent with other studies (e.g., Refs. [23][29][30][31]), their results found that adverse weather like cold temperatures, rain, and increased wind speeds decreases the number of bike sharing trips. In addition, Caulfield et al. [32] claimed that not only the number of trips but also the travel time increase during good weather conditions. In contrast, several studies suggest that temperature has a negative impact on bike sharing demand when it exceeds a certain level [9][33][34].
While looking at temporal and weather effects, An et al. [29] additionally considered natural and built environments influencing bike sharing trips in New York City, USA. However, their findings show that weather impacts bike trips more than topography, infrastructure, or land use mix.
Furthermore, in correlation with previously presented effects of weather variables, several studies could show that the yearly trend in bike sharing usage can be classified into three periods. This includes an off season with low demand during winter months, a main season with high demand during summer months, and a transition phase with growing or falling demand in spring and fall months, respectively [13][25]. This indicates that the long-term influence of weather variables on bike sharing usage behavior can be also expressed through temporal patterns (in terms of yearly profiles or seasons).
In addition to weather conditions and time-related variables, there are many studies analyzing several other factors affecting bike sharing usage on a higher spatial granularity, such as sociodemographic and built environment characteristics (e.g., Refs. [30][35][36][37][38][39]). However, those factors predominantly impact usage behavior on a station level rather than on a system level. In addition, analyzing them requires specific data which are mostly valid for the considered study area only and thus limit the broad and easy transferability of researchers' approach. Hence, related publications are beyond the scope of this research and will not be discussed any further.
For additional research in this regard, researchers recommend the work of Eren and Uz [40], Zhu et al. [41], and Guo et al. [42], who provide a comprehensive literature review of bike sharing influencing factors such as built environment and land use, public transportation, sociodemographic attributes, and safety. Another extensive overview of factors influencing micromobility sharing in general, classified into temporal, spatial, and weather-related factors, system-related factors, and user-related factors, is provided by Elmashhara et al. [43].

References

  1. Lin, L.; He, Z.; Peeta, S. Predicting station-level hourly demand in a large-scale bike-sharing network: A graph convolutional neural network approach. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 97, 258–276.
  2. Borgnat, P.; Abry, P.; Flandrin, P.; Robardet, C.; Rouquier, J.B.; Fleury, E. Shared bicycles in a city: A signal processing and data analysis perspective. Adv. Complex Syst. 2011, 14, 415–438.
  3. Giot, R.; Cherrier, R. Predicting bikeshare system usage up to one day ahead. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Vehicles and Transportation Systems (CIVTS), Orlando, FL, USA, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 22–29.
  4. Cantelmo, G.; Kucharski, R.; Antoniou, C. A low dimensional model for bike sharing demand forecasting. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.10266.
  5. Li, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, L. Traffic prediction in a bike-sharing system. In Proceedings of the GIS: ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Seattle, WA, USA, 3–6 November 2015.
  6. Cantelmo, G.; Kucharski, R.; Antoniou, C. Low-Dimensional Model for Bike-Sharing Demand Forecasting that Explicitly Accounts for Weather Data. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 2674, 132–144.
  7. Yang, Y.; Heppenstall, A.; Turner, A.; Comber, A. Using graph structural information about flows to enhance short-term demand prediction in bike-sharing systems. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020, 83, 101521.
  8. Zhou, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Chen, F.; Shao, J.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Yang, W. A reliable traffic prediction approach for bike-sharing system by exploiting rich information with temporal link prediction strategy. Trans. GIS 2019, 23, 1125–1151.
  9. Yang, Z.; Hu, J.; Shu, Y.; Cheng, P.; Chen, J.; Moscibroda, T. Mobility modeling and prediction in bike-sharing systems. In Proceedings of the MobiSys 2016, 14th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Singapore, 26–30 June 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 165–178.
  10. Duran-Rodas, D.; Chaniotakis, E.; Antoniou, C. Built Environment Factors Affecting Bike Sharing Ridership: Data-Driven Approach for Multiple Cities. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673, 55–68.
  11. Gao, C.; Chen, Y. Using Machine Learning Methods to Predict Demand for Bike Sharing. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 282–296.
  12. Noland, R.B.; Smart, M.J.; Guo, Z. Bikeshare trip generation in New York City. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 94, 164–181.
  13. Rudloff, C.; Lackner, B. Modeling Demand for Bikesharing Systems. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 2430, 1–11.
  14. Tran, T.D.; Ovtracht, N.; D’Arcier, B.F. Modeling bike sharing system using built environment factors. Procedia CIRP 2015, 30, 293–298.
  15. Sohrabi, S.; Ermagun, A. Dynamic bike sharing traffic prediction using spatiotemporal pattern detection. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 90, 102647.
  16. Gammelli, D.; Wang, Y.; Prak, D.; Rodrigues, F.; Minner, S.; Pereira, F.C. Predictive and prescriptive performance of bike-sharing demand forecasts for inventory management. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2022, 138, 103571.
  17. Hamad, S.Y.; Ma, T.; Antoniou, C. Analysis and prediction of bikesharing traffic flow—Citi Bike, New York. In Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Heraklion, Greece, 16–17 June 2021; pp. 1–8.
  18. Kumar Dey, B.; Anowar, S.; Eluru, N. A framework for estimating bikeshare origin destination flows using a multiple discrete continuous system. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 144, 119–133.
  19. Todd, J.; O’Brien, O.; Cheshire, J. A global comparison of bicycle sharing systems. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 94, 103119.
  20. Frade, I.; Ribeiro, A. Bicycle Sharing Systems Demand. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 518–527.
  21. Garcia-Gutierrez, J.; Romero-Torres, J.; Gaytan-Iniestra, J. Dimensioning of a Bike Sharing System (BSS): A Study Case in Nezahualcoyotl, Mexico. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 162, 253–262.
  22. Chen, L.; Zhang, D.; Wang, L.; Yang, D.; Ma, X.; Li, S.; Wu, Z.; Pan, G.; Nguyen, T.M.T.; Jakubowicz, J. Dynamic cluster-based over-demand prediction in bike sharing systems. In Proceedings of the UbiComp 2016—2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Heidelberg, Germany, 12–16 September 2016; pp. 841–852.
  23. Corcoran, J.; Li, T.; Rohde, D.; Charles-Edwards, E.; Mateo-Babiano, D. Spatio-temporal patterns of a Public Bicycle Sharing Program: The effect of weather and calendar events. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41, 292–305.
  24. Schimohr, K.; Scheiner, J. Spatial and temporal analysis of bike-sharing use in Cologne taking into account a public transit disruption. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 92, 103017.
  25. Koska, T.; Friedrich, M.; Rabenstein, B.; Bracher, T.; Hertel, M. Innovative Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme; Technical Report; Wuppertal Institut: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
  26. Miranda-Moreno, L.; Nosal, T. Weather or not to cycle: Temporal trends and impact of weather on cycling in an urban environment. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2247, 42–52.
  27. O’Brien, O.; Cheshire, J.; Batty, M. Mining bicycle sharing data for generating insights into sustainable transport systems. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 34, 262–273.
  28. Gebhart, K.; Noland, R.B. The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, DC. Transportation 2014, 41, 1205–1225.
  29. An, R.; Zahnow, R.; Pojani, D.; Corcoran, J. Weather and cycling in New York: The case of Citibike. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 77, 97–112.
  30. Guo, Y.; Zhou, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, Z. Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185100.
  31. Chibwe, J.; Heydari, S.; Faghih Imani, A.; Scurtu, A. An exploratory analysis of the trend in the demand for the London bike-sharing system: From London Olympics to COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 69, 102871.
  32. Caulfield, B.; O’Mahony, M.; Brazil, W.; Weldon, P. Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 152–161.
  33. Kim, D.; Shin, H.; Im, H.; Park, J. Factors Influencing Travel Behaviors in Bikesharing. In Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 22–26 January 2012; Volume 509, pp. 1–14.
  34. Bean, R.; Pojani, D.; Corcoran, J. How does weather affect bikeshare use? A comparative analysis of forty cities across climate zones. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 95, 103155.
  35. Rixey, R. Station-level forecasting of bikesharing ridership. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013, 2387, 46–55.
  36. Raux, C.; Zoubir, A.; Geyik, M. Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 106, 350–363.
  37. Wang, X.; Lindsey, G.; Schoner, J.E.; Harrison, A. Modeling Bike Share Station Activity: Effects of Nearby Businesses and Jobs on Trips to and from Stations. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2016, 142, 04015001.
  38. Du, Y.; Deng, F.; Liao, F. A model framework for discovering the spatio-temporal usage patterns of public free-floating bike-sharing system. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 103, 39–55.
  39. Zhao, D.; Ong, G.P.; Wang, W.; Zhou, W. Estimating public bicycle trip characteristics with consideration of built environment data. Sustainability 2021, 13, 500.
  40. Eren, E.; Uz, V.E. A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 54, 101882.
  41. Zhu, L.; Ali, M.; Macioszek, E.; Aghaabbasi, M.; Jan, A. Approaching Sustainable Bike-Sharing Development: A Systematic Review of the Influence of Built Environment Features on Bike-Sharing Ridership. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5795.
  42. Guo, Y.; Yang, L.; Chen, Y. Bike Share Usage and the Built Environment: A Review. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 5–14.
  43. Elmashhara, M.G.; Silva, J.; Sá, E.; Carvalho, A.; Rezazadeh, A. Factors influencing user behaviour in micromobility sharing systems: A systematic literature review and research directions. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 27, 1–25.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Transportation
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Malte Kania
,
Vasu Dev Mukku
,
Karen Kastner
,
Tom Assmann
View Times: 102
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback