| Literature DB >> 35756367 |
Yan Chen1, Xinlu Sun1, Muhammet Deveci1,2, D'Maris Coffman1,3.
Abstract
Globally most governments implemented a 'Working from Home' (home office) strategy to contain the spread of the coronavirus in 2020 in order to ensure public safety and minimize the transmission of the virus. Unsurprisingly studies have found that COVID-19 has had a detrimental impact on urban transportation systems; however, the number of shared bicycle riders is progressively growing compared to other modes of public transit. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of COVID-19 on the usage of shared bicycle systems in order to identify passenger travel patterns and habits. In addition, bicycle rentals are becoming more popular in some locations. This demonstrates that bike sharing as a transport option has a high level of social adaptability and is progressively being adopted by the general population in a fashion that promotes the resilience of transport systems. CrownEntities:
Keywords: Big data; Bike sharing system; COVID-19; Human mobility; User behaviours
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756367 PMCID: PMC9212929 DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sustain Cities Soc ISSN: 2210-6707 Impact factor: 10.696
Summary of the available studies during COVID-19 of cycling user behaviour.
| Author (s) | Year | Research focus | Trip orders (per day) | Average trip duration (min) | Main findings | Countries/cites | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teixeira et al. | Bike share systems | - | 19 | Outperforms the metro system. | New York city | ||
| Lock | Cycling behaviour changes | - | - | Increased imperative for new cycle. | Sydney | ||
| Nikiforiadis et al. | Bike-Sharing Usage | – | – | COVID-19 will have little impact. | Thessaloniki, Greece | ||
| Shang et al. | User behaviors | 197, 350 | 22.16 | Avoid harsh regions. | Beijing | ||
| Hu et al. | Spatiotemporal changing patterns | 3287 | 27.12 | Increase-decrease-rebound. | Chicago | ||
| Chibwe | An exploratory analysis | 27,054.18 | – | Exploring the variability in the demand for the London bike-sharing system over the study period. | London | ||
| Kubaľák et al. | Shared mobility service | 532.9 | 9.22 | Use low-risk transport. | Slovakia | ||
| Schwizer | Outdoor cycling activities | – | – | Increase by 81% in Apri | German | ||
| Bergantino et al. | Influencing factors | – | – | Change travel habits | Italy |
Fig. 1The total number of confirmed infections nationwide and the number of trips of bicycle rentals from data set.
Fig. 2Changes in the average day and week usage of shared bicycles.
Fig. 3The starting point and ending point distribution of bike sharing cyclists.
Fig. 4Comparison of cumulative intensity distribution in different months in 2019,2020 and 2021. Degree k means the node strength s
Strength distribution type of bike-sharing trips.
| Year | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | |
| −0.0009 | −0.0007 | −0.0011 | −0.0015 | −0.0017 | −0.0013 | −0.0018 | −0.0028 | −0.0017 | −0.0011 | −0.0012 | −0.0016 | |
| 0.159 | 0.145 | 0.167 | 0.165 | 0.183 | 0.146 | 0.185 | 0.204 | 0.146 | 0.151 | 0.180 | 0.188 | |
| 0.947 | 0.959 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.962 | 0.972 | 0.939 | 0.948 | 0.977 | 0.958 | 0.922 | 0.931 | |
| 6567.01 | 9792.76 | 591.416 | 5246.8 | 9032.75 | 13,488.7 | 5368.23 | 5174.36 | 14,477.5 | 9182.17 | 4486.03 | 4822.16 | |
| 0.02 | 0.014 | 0.023 | 0.024 | 0.016 | 0.011 | 0.025 | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.016 | 0.032 | 0.029 | |
| 477.987 | 627.498 | 392.126 | 283.499 | 281.681 | 357.167 | 251.187 | 155.369 | 249.938 | 397.537 | 336.685 | 261.04 | |
| 477.088 | 627.498 | 393.507 | 283.003 | 281.194 | 354.216 | 251.187 | 153.898 | 246.214 | 393.867 | 337.704 | 261.04 |
Note: k and b are the parameters in Eq.3. R represents the proportion of the variance explained by the equation. F is the F statistic. All p values for 2019, 2020 & 2021 are zero.
Average path and clustering coefficient.
| Year/Month | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 3 | 6 | |
| Average path length | 2.683 | 2.492 | 2.923 | 3.213 | 2.836 | 2.53 | 2.791 | 2.86 | 2.789 | 2.656 |
| Maximum path network diameter | 12 | 9 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 12 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.551 | 0.571 | 0.535 | 0.504 | 0.493 | 0.48 | 0.462 | 0.395 | 0.451 | 0.506 |