The relationship between public and private bicycle use: the case of Seville

1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BICYCLE USE: THE CASE OF SEVILLE AUTHORS José I. Castillo-Manzano ([email protected]). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Seville (Spain) Mercedes Castro-Nuño ([email protected]). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Seville (Spain) Lourdes López Valpuesta ([email protected]). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Seville (Spain) Contact address: José I. Castillo-Manzano Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales University of Seville Avda. Ramón y Cajal, 1 41018 Seville Spain Tel: +34 954 556727. FAX: +34 954 557629 ABSTRACT: Despite the success achieved by Public Bicycle Sharing Systems (PBSS) across the world, several researchers provide evidence on their limitations and constraints in a medium-long term, and bicycle ownership may be considered as a complementary tool to promote a 'bicycle-culture'. This paper aims to cover the gap about the interaction between both systems (public bicycle / private bicycle) and which are the key aspects to explain the bicycle-buying decision. After a fieldwork based on surveys conducted in Seville (Spain), one of the cities currently acknowledged worldwide for its successful policy of promoting cycling, we apply a Discrete Choice Model. Our findings show that among the socio-demographic factors that favor the move from the PBSS to the private bicycle are: having a higher level of education, being more progressive ideologicallyspeaking, and being a resident of the city itself; while age and gender do not appear to be conclusive. Experienced users, for whom the bicycle is a part of his /her healthy lifestyle, state a greater willingness to buy a bicycle. And the main obstacles to make the jump from the PBSS to the private bicycle, and that any action plan to support private bicycle usage should take into account, are: the lack of proper parking at the origin/destination, and fear of theft. KEYWORDS: Public Bicycle Sharing System, Bicycle Ownership, Bicycle-buying decision, Cyclists’ perceptions, Discrete Choice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors would like to thank the European Union FEDER, the Public Works Agency and the Andalusian Ministry of Public Works and Housing for their financial and professional support via project GGI3001IDIR. 2 1. Introduction. The rise in motorization in developed countries since the second half of the 20th century has contributed towards raising citizens' quality of life, but at the same time has given rise to negative externalities, such as energy dependency, traffic congestion, and damage to the environment and public health (Rietveld, 2001). Alternatively, nonmotorized means of transport, such as the bicycle, are regarded as synonymous with health and energy savings and efficiency, as a growing number of research studies have shown (Castillo-Manzano and Sánchez-Braza, 2013a, 2013b; Krizek, 2007; Martens, 2007; Moudon et al., 2005; Sener et al., 2009, amongst others). Pucher et al. (2010) and Yang et al. (2010) review the actions undertaken by governments worldwide to promote bicycle use with the Public Bicycle-Sharing System (PBSS) standing out. Having originated in northern European countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, PBSSs have achieved high levels of popularity in recent years around the periphery of Europe, and have acquired the status of a veritable urban mode of transport (Anaya and Castro, 2012). Despite their success, some research exists that restrict the benefits of PBSSs in the short term; once the investment has been made and the initial boom starts to fade away, demand can stagnate, causing major limitations, as addressed by authors such as Bouf and Hensher (2007), Castillo-Manzano and Sánchez-Braza (2013a, 2013b), Fishman et al. (2012, 2013), Lin and Yang (2011). Of these, the most important are: poor quality of service due to a lack of comfort and units in a poor state of repair; the inappropriate location of stations for intermodality; non-competitive cost; the inflexibility of the timetable; a lack of agility in the granting of loans and the return of deposits; an oversubscribed or congested system; break-downs and damage caused by vandalism; issues with redistribution from full to empty stations; time and space restrictions on the user, who cannot take bicycles outside the designated area or exceed the time limits on usage and/or legal constraints (compulsory helmet use). Authors such as Lin and Yang (2011), Lin et al. (2013) and Nakamura and Abe (2014) analyze other limitations of PBSSs with respect to urban planning (especially in city centers), the need for sufficient available space to install the number of racks required to cover the demand for bicycles, and the other inconveniences that they might cause by hindering or obstructing other leisure activities. According to Anaya and Castro (2012), all these circumstances cover PBSSs in uncertainty, especially in the current framework of budgetary constraints. Thus, although the public bicycle may boast many advantages over bicycle ownership (users do not need to worry about theft or vandalism, the existence of a place to park at the trip origin and destination, and bicycle maintenance; see Fishman et al., 2012 and Rietveld and Koetse, 2003), on its own it cannot achieve the full development of the bicycle as a system of urban transport. In fact, previous studies such as Aldred and Jungnickel (2013) and Maness (2012) provide evidence that bicycle ownership may be a proxy indicator of a tendency towards a greater frequency of trips being made by bicycle, as a 3 result of which the private bicycle may be considered as a complementary tool to promote a 'bike-culture'. A literature review shows how, in comparison to the widespread interest aroused by PBSSs (Fishman et al., 2013; Pucher et al., 2010; Shaheen et al., 2010; Yang et al. 2010, among many others), bicycle ownership has been less often studied and usually associated with bicycle use (Xing et al., 2010). In this respect, Handy et al. (2010) find links between determinants of both bicycle ownership and bicycle use on three levels: 1) the user’s individual profile (with a broad analysis of socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, education, income level etc., by Emond et al., 2009; Owen et al., 2010 and Pinjari et al., 2009 and, to a lesser extent, of personal preferences and attitudes, such as lifestyle, health and environmental-related issues or economic aspects by Geus et al., 2008 and Moudon et al. 2005); 2) social structure, based on cultural norms, ideologies, habits and traditions that might encourage / discourage cycling (e.g., Gatersleben and Haddad, 2010 explain how promoting public cycling has changed social perception of the bicycle; Beck and Immers 1994 consider the bicycle theft problem; McCarthy (2011) examines a certain “anti-bike culture”; Delbosc and Currie (2013), analyze the decline in young people in developed countries taking out their driving licenses); 3) elements of the infrastructure and the physical environment that go from the obstacles that the terrain presents and correct adaption to the urban space (Heinen et al., 2010; Larsen et al. 2013; Sallis et al., 2013; Snizek et al., 2013) to the positive implementation of specific facilities for cyclists at trip origin/destination (lockers, changing rooms, showers (Hunt and Abraham, 2007); and, above all, safe bike-parking and storage (Salleh et al., 2014) in public/private spaces (Aldred and Jungnickel, 2013) and facilitating intermodality with other means of urban transport (Rietveld, 2001)). Although the studies cited provide conclusions as to the determinants of both bicycle ownership and bicycle commuting, we agree with Chatterjee et al. (2013) and Fishman et al. (2013) that this is still a recent topic with major shortcomings. One is clearly the interaction between PBSSs and the private bicycle. In fact, the only precedent found is the analysis by Buck et al. (2013) of the user profile for the two systems, although said study does not consider the relationship between the two. Finally, Bouf and Hensher (2007) report on the possible knock on effect of the PBSS in the city of Lyon, which results in higher sales and use of private bicycles. The motivation for this paper is, therefore, to fill the knowledge gap concerning the opinions and attitudes of users (members of a PBSS) regarding barriers and facilitators for the transition to bicycle-buying decisions. According to Damant-Sirois et al. (2014) and Handy et al. (2014), user perception may determine this trend. We therefore understand that specific field study-based analyses using interviews to collect data on demographic aspects, mobility patterns and trip preferences could shed some light on the possible indirect impact of PBSSs on the bicycle-buying decision. 4 In short, our paper takes a new approach and analyzes the relationship between the public bicycle and the private bicycle by testing the way that they complement each other and that one is substituted for the other, and determining the factors that influence the choice of their alternative or joint use through fieldwork based on surveys and treated with a Discrete Choice Model. The structure is the following: after this introduction, Section 2 lays out the empirical framework and the methodology for the case under study, the city of Seville (Spain); Section 3 includes the estimation results and discussion, and Section 4 presents the conclusions. 2. Empirical framework. 2.1. Case study and sampling. The database was created using surveys of PBSS users in Seville, Spain. Recent years have seen a major transformation of Seville's (pop.704,980) urban space into a sustainable mobility model. Since 2007, bicycle promotion has stood out, with measures such as the construction of a 140 kilometer bicycle lane network and the implementation of a PBSS, named SEVICI, with 260 stations, 2,650 smart-bikes and 5,163 tracks, managed by the JCDecaux company. The success of these policies has meant that the city is currently in fourth place worldwide in the prestigious Copenhagenize Index (Copenhagenize, 2013), only behind Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Utrecht. It is also singled out by experts in sustainable mobility, such as the European Environment Agency (2013), Lonely Planet (2012) and Reuters (2012). The latest acknowledgment it has received was awarded by the US tv channel CNN, which in August 2014 placed Seville second in the World's Best Cycling Cities (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/17/travel/best-cycling,-cities/). Returning to the present research, the survey campaign was conducted in three successive waves, so as to prevent any distortion that might be caused by an unforeseen exogenous event (such as a weather anomaly for the time of year, whether due to cold or heat, for example). The total size of the sample was 505 surveyees. Specific data regarding the survey campaign are given in Table 1. Table 1. Technical data of survey given to users of Sevillian PBSS (SEVICI) Field work Place Random selection of smart bicycle stations Period June-13 November-13 February-14 How information was obtained Interview with closed questionnaire 21 questions Universe Users of 'SEVICI' PBSS Sampling Sample size 95 222 188 Sampling method Random selection of users returning bicycles at the above-mentioned smart bicycle stations The variables were generated on the basis of the 21 items surveyees were asked and were grouped into four categories. These are shown in Table 2 together with their 5 corresponding descriptive statistics. The items selected are based on previous research and to a large degree relate to factors affecting both bicycle ownership and bicycle use already commented in the Introduction Section: a) individual demographic and socioeconomic user details, e.g., gender (Emond et al., 2009; Handy et al., 2010) and age (Owen et al., 2010; Xing et al., 2010); economic level, residence and level of education (as in Pinjari et al., 2009; Pinjari et al., 2011); and political and ideological preferences (following Danyluk and Ley, 2007; Heinen et al., 2010). b) Relationship with PBSS: in line with a similar previous study (Buck et al., 2013), temporal factors have been considered, such as the user’s experience and whether he/she is a short-term or annual PBSS member, and the level of satisfaction assigned to the PBSS. c) purpose of trip: following prior research, such as Beck and Immers (1994) and Buck et al. (2013), shopping, sport and recreational activities, work and school commuting are considered, as well as other intermodality-related issues (Cheng and Liu, 2012; Pucher et al., 2011). d) reasons for riding a bicycle: as in Handy et al. (2010), Geus et al. (2008) and Moudon et al. (2005), aspects associated with lifestyle, ecology, economics and health awareness are examined (it is cheaper, healthy, better for the environment, to avoid traffic congestion, etc.). Table 2. Explanatory variables and their descriptive statistics. VARIABLE DESCRIPTION No. obsv. Mean Std. Dev. a) Personal characteristics a.1. gender 1 if male; 0 if female. 294 0.582 0.494 a.2. age Age of person surveyed. - 26.802 10.748 a.3.education 1 if no formal education; 2 if school leaving certificate; 3 if high school diploma or professional training ; 4 if shorter graduate degree; 5 if longer licentiate degree; 6 if PhD. - 3.352 0.899 a.4. resident 1 if resident in city of Seville; 0 otherwise. 410 0.812 0.391 a.5. worker 1 if worker; 0 otherwise. 137 0.271 0.445 a.6. student 1 if student; 0 otherwise. 276 0.547 0.498 a.7. Francostrs 1 if agrees that references to Franco Dictatorship (1939- 242 0.479 0.500 6 1975) should be removed from street names; 0 otherwise. b) Relationship with SEVICI PBSS b.1. experience if SEVICI user for 1 if less than 6 months; 2 if from 6 months to a year; 3 if for over a year. - 2.412 0.834 b.2. type of pass 1 if has a short-term pass (7 days); 0 if has a long-term pass (yearly). 39 0.077 0.267 b.3. comfortSEVICI Scoring of comfort of SEVICI public bicycle, from 0 to 10. - 6.844 1.738 c) Bicycle use c.1. work/studies 1 if uses bicycle to commute to place of work or study; 0 otherwise. 413 0.824 0.381 c.2. shopping 1 if uses bicycle for shopping; 0 otherwise. 93 0.186 0.389 c.3. sport 1 if uses bicycle for sport; 0 otherwise. 84 0.168 0.374 c.4. leisure 1 if uses bicycle as a leisure activity or simply for enjoyment; 0 otherwise. 105 0.210 0.407 c.5. usage Number of times that uses bicycle per week. - 6.053 3.446 c.6. substitutability 1 if continues to use bicycle in bad weather; 0 if on such occasions changes to other type of public or private transport. 44 0.087 0.283 c.7. intermodality 1 if only uses bicycle for trips; 0 if combines bicycle with some other type of public or private transport. 276 0.547 0.498 c.8. helmet 1 if thinks that helmet-use should not be compulsory for SEVICI users; 0 otherwise 146 0.290 0.454 d) Reasons for using the bicycle: scoring of reasons for choosing the bicycle as mode of transportation in Seville (from 0 to 10). d.1. healthy To do exercise and for health reasons. - 7.554 2.226 d.2. environment Benefits to the environment. - 7.905 4.318 d.3. avoidtraffconges To avoid urban traffic congestion. - 7.755 2.320 d.4. cheap It is a cheap mode of transportation. - 8.487 1.560 d.5. lifestyle It is a lifestyle choice. - 6.093 2.601 7 d.6. ease of use Easy to take out and return bicycles. - 7.126 2.229 2.2. Model. The models used in this study seek to analyze the substitution or complementarity relationship that exists between public and private bicycles from the point of view of PBSS users in Seville (SEVICI) by analyzing two questions. Firstly, logit and probit estimations are used to study the factors that influence the decision of PBSS users who do not own private bicycles to buy one. Secondly, a bivariate probit model is applied to analyze the determinants of the responses that public bicycle users give to the question as to why they are not contemplating buying their own bicycle. This second category of models is especially designed for cases like ours where two questions with very closely linked binary answers need to be answered, that is, when everything seems to point to their being influenced by the same factors and, therefore, both dependent variables vary as one. Discrete choice models have been used in recent studies on the bicycle, including Castillo-Manzano and Sánchez-Braza (2013a, 2013b), Maness (2012), Moudon et al. (2005), and Zhang et al. (2014), among others. 3. Results and discussion. Table 3 shows the preferences of PBSS users in Seville (SEVICI) surveyed during the three waves commented regarding the use of private bicycles. Table 3. Responses from SEVICI users to the questions in the interview campaign. User Category % of Total 100% 100% 1 Owned private bicycle before using SEVICI 51.88% - 1.1 Used own private bicycle before using SEVICI - 1.1.1. Continues to use own private bicycle in conjunction with SEVICI 32.87% 1.1.2. Has stopped using own private bicycle and only uses SEVICI 12.48% 1.2. Did not use own private bicycle before using SEVICI 6.53% % of Category 2 2 Did not own private bicycle before using SEVICI 48.12% - 100% 2.1. Has purchased bicycle or planning to buy one soon 7.92% 16.46% 2.2. Is not planning to buy another bicycle 40.20% 83.54% Table 4 presents the logit and probit estimations for the factors that would determine whether SEVICI users who did not previously own private bicycles (category 2 in Table 3) decide to purchase one. As estimated coefficients in logit and probit 8 models, and in discrete demand models in general, cannot be interpreted directly, the marginal effects have been calculated at the mean. Table 4. Logit / Probit estimations of the marginal effects at the mean of SEVICI users' decision to PURCHASE a bicycle. Variables Bicycle-purchasing decision Logit Regression Probit Regression a.1. gender  0.593% (4.306)  0.420% (4.885) a.2. age  0.003% (0.385)  0.029% (0.392) a.3.education  2.730%* (1.480)  3.608%*** (0.885) a.4. resident  8.322%*** (2.645)  9.040%*** (2.846) a.5. worker  0.044% (2.145)  0.039% (1.619) a.6. student  2.353% (5.287)  1.983% (4.728) a.7. Francostrs  8.111%*** (1.947)  9.086%*** (2.355) b.1. experience  2.581%*** (0.954)  2.449%** (1.079) b.2. type of pass  6.243%* (3.295)  4.978%* (2.568) b.3. comfortSEVICI  4.940%*** (0.818)  5.388%*** (0.820) c.1. work/study  7.167%* (3.655)  8.465%** (3.367) c.2. shopping  0.801% (4.487)  1.076% (5.035) c.3. sport  16.436%*** (5.830)  17.504%*** (6.294) c.4. leisure  2.007% (2.021)  2.303% (2.137) c.5. usage  0.356% (0.397)  0.424% (0.459) c.6. substitutability  1.124% (4.188)  2.277% (5.437) c.7 intermodality  2.367% (4.773)  2.097% (4.901) c.8 helmet  4.121% (8.690)  4.560% (8.365) d.1. healthy  0.767% (1.271)  0.989% (1.240) d.2. environment  0.657% (0.936)  1.030% (1.095) d.3. avoidtraffconges  2.485%*** (0.677)  2.717%*** (0.778) 9 d.4. cheap  0.510% (0.956)  0.654% (1.131) d.5. lifestyle  2.391%*** (0.715)  2.500%*** (0.737) d.6. easeofuse  1.268%** (0.638)  1.280%** (0.494) No. observations 239 239 Log. Pseudolikelihood -84.361583 -84.474408 Pseudo R2 0.2066 0.2056 Wald Chi2 (p-value without clustering) 43.94 (0.0077) 43.72 (0.0082) Notes: standard errors in brackets robust to heteroscedasticity and clustered by waves of survey. *p≤0.1; **p≤0.05; ***p≤0.01. Table 5 shows non-exclusive reasons (i.e., the surveyees may have chosen more than one option) given by SEVICI users who do not own private bicycles for not wanting to purchase one, bearing in mind the findings in the previous literature commented in the Introduction section for both bicycle ownership and usage (Handy et al., 2010; Van Lierop et al., 2014; Xing et al., 2010). Table 5. Responses of non private bicycle-owning SEVICI users as to motives for not purchasing one Non exclusive motives for NOT PURCHASING a bicycle (Category 2.2) % of Category 2.2 1. The bicycle that they wish to purchase is very expensive 6.90% 2. There is nowhere to park their bicycle at home and/or at their destination 57.14% 3. Fear of private bicycle being stolen 45.81% 4. Ease of use of SEVICI compared to private bicycle 49.26% 5. SEVICI covers the user's needs 48.77% Our analysis will focus on motives 2 and 3 in Table 5 (There is nowhere to park their bicycle at home and/or at their destination; Fear of private bicycle being stolen) given the little importance of the first (price of bicycles) and as it would be illogical to act on the last two relating to the good quality of the PBSS, since it would not make sense to lower the price of the PBSS to facilitate transfer to the private bicycle. A priori, according to the literature (e.g., Handy et al., 2010; Nielsen et al., 2013; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; Van Lierop et al., 2014; Xing et al., 2010) it can be assumed that motives 2 and 3 are foreseeably mutually related, as the need to have a place to keep the bicycle both at trip origin and destination is at least in part aimed at preventing theft. This justifies using the bivariate probit. Thus, Table 6 presents the bivariate probit estimations of the factors that would justify public bicycle users not wishing to own a private bicycle, either because they 16 This issue has been widely analyzed in the present study using a broad sample of PBSS users in Seville, one of the most highly acknowledged cities in the field at the present time. The findings show, firstly, the great heterogeneity of the Sevillian PBSS user population as to the private bicycle and its relationship with the public bicycle. Secondly, unlike what could have been anticipated a priori, it is difficult to state that, on its own, the PBSS in Seville can be considered to be a tool for transitioning to the private bicycle. In reality, it has been found that for 59% of cyclists being, a PBSS user seems to have become a permanent state; even though 41% of these declare that they make joint use of their own private bicycle. Nevertheless, the results show a negative substitution effect between the PBSS bicycle and the private bicycle, which can be quantified as 4.5% of the total sample. As a result, the PBSS can be concluded to attract more users away from private bicycle usage than it transfers to it. This is not incompatible with the probable external knock on effect described by Bouf and Hensher (2007). One of the socio-demographic factors that stands out as favoring the move from the PBSS to the private bicycle is having a higher level of education, being part of a segment of the population that is more progressive ideologically-speaking, and being a resident of the city itself, rather than the metropolitan area, while other aspects, such as age and gender do not appear to be conclusive. The profile of the user in the sample who states that he or she is already the owner of a private bicycle or who would be willing to purchase one is especially interesting: an experienced, not sporadic, cyclist who makes the bicycle his/her daily and regular means of transport to work, to his/her place of study, who regularly does sport and for whom the bicycle is just another part of his/her healthy lifestyle. With respect to the obstacles that make it difficult to make the jump from the PBSS to the private bicycle, users in Seville do not feel influenced by economic issues, but rather cite obstacles related to the quality of the PBSS, which satisfies all the user's needs, and, especially, the lack of proper parking at the point of origin/destination, and fear of theft. The factors that heighten concern for these last two problems include, amongst others: not residing on the city, being a student, being a non-occasional user of the PBSS, having a higher level of education and, above all, gender differences, with a greater impact on women. These disadvantages do not seem to be evident with respect to bicycle usage in general, but with respect to private bicycle usage in particular. The findings also show that these two reasons (lack of parking and fear of theft) are closely related, and this undoubtedly facilitates implementing any action plan for transfer from the PBSS to the private bicycle. To summarize, any policy to promote private bicycle usage requires taking not only the typical measures based on investing a large sum of public funds in constructing bicycle lanes, but also requires other complementary measures to guarantee a minimum 17 level of security that reduces the likelihood of a bicycle being stolen, with special attention being paid to bicycle parking at the place of origin and destination. In countries like Spain, where publically funded subsidies have traditionally been provided for installing lifts in old apartment blocks, installing individual water meters and restoring façades, in the future, when the economic situation allows, the co-funding of installing bicycle parks in buildings should not be rejected. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the European Union FEDER, the Public Works Agency and the Andalusian Ministry of Public Works and Housing for their financial and professional support via project GGI3001IDIR. REFERENCES Aldred, R., Jungnickel, K. 2013. Matter in or out of place? Bicycle parking strategies and their effects on people, practices and places. Social & Cultural Geography, 146, 604-624. Anaya, E., Castro, A. 2012. Balance General de la Bicicleta Pública en España. Fundación ECA Bureau Veritas. Girona. Beck, M.J.H., Immers, L.H. 1994. Bicycle ownership and use in Amsterdam. Transportation Research Record, 1441, 141-146. Bouf, D., Hensher, D.A. 2007. The dark side of making transit irresistible: The example of France. Transport Policy, 14(6), 523-532. Buck, D., Buehler, R., Happ, P., Rawls, B., Chung, P., Borecki, N. 2013. Are Bikeshare Users Different from Regular Cyclists? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387(1), 112-119. Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 525–531. Castillo-Manzano, J. I., López-Valpuesta, L., Pedregal, D. J. 2012. How can the effects of the introduction of a new airline on a national airline network be measured? A time series approach for the Ryanair case in Spain. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 46(2), 263-279. Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Sánchez-Braza, A., 2013a. Managing a smart bicycle system when demand outstrips supply: the case of the university community in Seville. Transportation, 40(2), 459-477. Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Sánchez-Braza, A., 2013b. Can anyone hate the bicycle? The hunt for an optimal local transportation policy to encourage bicycle usage. Environmental Politics, 22(6), 1010-1028. Caulfield, B., Leahy, J. 2011. Learning to cycle again: Examining the benefits of providing tax-free loans to purchase new bicycles. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 2, 42–47. 18 Chatterjee, K., Sherwin, H., Jain, J. 2013. Triggers for changes in cycling: the role of life events and modifications to the external environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 183–193. Cheng, Y-H., Liu, K-Ch. 2012. Evaluating bicycle-transit users’ perceptions of intermodal inconvenience. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 1690–1706. Copenhagenize, 2013. The Copenhagenize Index 2013. Bicycle-Friendly cities. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/04/copenhagenize-index-2013-bicycle.html. Accesed June 2013. Damant-Sirois, G., Grimsrud, M., El-Geneidy, A. M. 2014. What’s your type: a multidimensional cyclist typology. Transportation, 1-17. Danyluk, M., Ley, D. 2007. Modalities of the new middle class: Ideology and behaviour in the journey to work from gentrified neighbourhoods in Canada. Urban Studies, 44(11), 2195-2210. Delbosc, A., Currie, G. 2013. Causes of Youth Licensing Decline: A Synthesis of Evidence. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 333, 271- 290. Emond, C. R., Tang, W., Handy, S. L. 2009. Explaining gender difference in bicycling behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2125(1), 16-25. European Environment Agency. 2013. A closer look at urban transport. TERM 2013: transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in Europe. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/term-2013/at_download/file. Fishman E., Washington S., Haworth, N. 2012. Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F, 15, 686–698. Fishman E., Washington, S., Haworth, N. 2013. Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 332, 148- 165. Fricker, C., Gast, N. 2012. Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 1-31. Fukuda, D., Morichi, S. 2007. Incorporating aggregate behavior in an individual’s discrete choice: An application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(4), 313-325. Gamman L, Thorpe A., Willcocks, M . 2014. Bike off! Tracking the design and terrains of cycle parking: Reviewing use, misuse and abuse. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 6(4),19-36. Gatersleben, B., Haddad, H. 2010. Who is the typical bicyclist? Transportation Research Part F, 13, 41–48. Geus, B., Bourdeaudhuij, D.I., Jannes, C., Meeusen, R. 2008. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Educational Research, 23, 697–708. Givoni, M. 2006. Development and Impact of the Modern High‐speed Train: A Review. Transport Reviews, 26(5), 593-611. Goetzke, F., Rave, T. 2011. Bicycle Use in Germany: Explaining Differences between Municipalities with Social Network Effects. Urban Studies, 48(2), 427-437. Hamre, A., Buehler, R. 2014. Commuter Mode Choice and Free Car Parking, Public Transportation Benefits, Showers/Lockers, and Bike Parking at Work: Evidence from the Washington, DC Region. Journal of Public Transportation, 17(2), 67-91. 19 Handy, S. L., Xing, Y., Buehler, T. J. 2010. Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of six small US cities. Transportation, 37(6), 967-985. Handy, S., Van Wee, B., Kroesen, M. 2014. Promoting Cycling for Transport: Research Needs and Challenges. Transport Reviews, 34(1), 4-24. Heinen, E., Van Wee, B., Maat, K. 2010. Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 301, 59- 96. Heinen, E., Maat, K., van Wee, B. 2013. The effect of work-related factors on the bicycle commute mode choice in the Netherlands. Transportation, 40(1), 23-43. Hunt, J.D., Abraham, J.E. 2007. Influences on bicycle use. Transportation, 344, 453- 470. Krizek, K.J. 2007. Estimating the economic benefits of bicycling and bicycle facilities: an interpretive review and proposed methods. In P.Coto-Millán & V. Inglada Eds., Essays on transport economics, 219-244.Springer. Larsen J., Patterson, Z., El-Geneidy, A. 2013. Build It. But where? The Use of Geographic Information Systems in Identifying Locations for New Cycling Infrastructure. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 74, 299-303. Lin, J. R., Yang, T. H. 2011. Strategic design of public bicycle sharing systems with service level constraints. Transportation research part E: logistics and transportation review, 47(2), 284-294. Lin, J.R., Yang, T.H., Chang, Y.Ch. 2013. A hub location inventory model for bicycle sharing system design: Formulation and solution. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 65, 77–86. Lonely Planet 2012. Seville goes green. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/spain/seville/travel-tips-and-articles/76948. Maness, M. 2012. Bicycle ownership in the United States: empirical analysis of regional differences. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Paper 12-4711. Martens, K., 2007. Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation Research A, 41(4), 326-338. McCarthy, D. 2011. ‘I’m a Normal Person’: An Examination of How Utilitarian cyclists in Charleston South Carolina Use an Insider/Outsider Framework to Make Sense of Risks. Urban Studies, 48(7), 1439–1455. Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A.D., Collier, C.W., Johnson, D.B., Schmid, T.L., Weathers, R.D. 2005. Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation Research D, 103, 245-261. Nakamura, H., Abe, N. 2014. Evaluation of the hybrid model of public bicycle-sharing operation and private bicycle parking management, Transport Policy, 35, 31-41. Nielsen, T. A. S., Olafsson, A. S., Carstensen, T. A., Skov-Petersen, H. 2013. Environmental correlates of cycling: Evaluating urban form and location effects based on Danish micro-data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22, 40-44. Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J. P. 2008. Containerisation, box logistics and global supply chains: The integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 10(1), 152-174. Owen, N., I. De Bourdeaudhuij, T. Sugiyama, E. Leslie, E. Cerin, D. Van Dyck, A. Bauman. 2010. Bicycle Use for Transport in an Australian and a Belgian city: Associations with Built-environment Attributes. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87(2), 189–198. Pinjari, A. R., C. R. Bhat, D. A. Hensher.2009. Residential Self-selection Effects in an 10 Activity Time-use Behavior Model. Transportation Research, 43(7),729-748. 20 Pinjari, A.R., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R., Waddell, P.A. 2011. Modeling the choice continuum: an integrated model of residential location, auto ownership, bicycle ownership, and commute tour mode choice decisions. Transportation, 38, 933–958. Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S. 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50(1), S106-S125. Pucher, J., Garrard, J. Greaves, S. 2011. Cycling down under: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 332–345. Reuters, 2012. Top 10 cycling destinations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/uk-travel-picks-cycling- idUSLNE84A01Q20120511. Reuters U.S. Edition. Rietveld, P. 2001. Biking and Walking: the Position of Non-motorized Transport Modes in Transport Systems. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2001-111/3. Rietveld, P., Daniel, V. 2004. Determinants of bicycle use: Do municipal policies matter? Transportation Research A, 38(7), 531-550. Rietveld, P., Koetse, M. 2003. Crime and offenses in transport. In W. Dullaert, B. Jourquin, J. B. Polak eds. Across the border: Building upon a quarter century of transport research in the Benelux, 293–321. Antwerp: De Boeck. Ruch, C., Warrington, J., Morari, M. 2014. Rule-based price control for bike sharing systems. In Control Conference (ECC), 2014 European, 708-713. IEEE. Salleh, B.S., Abdullah, R.A., Rahmat, O.K., Ismail A. 2014. A Study on Non-Motorised NMT Activities for Urban Environment. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 72, 290-295. Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Dillon, L.I., Frank, L.D., Adams M.A. Cain, K.L., Saelens, B.E. 2013. Environmental and demographic correlates of bicycling. Preventive Medicine, 57, 456–460. Sener, I.N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.R. 2009. An analysis of bicyclists and bicycling characteristics: Who, why, and how much are they bicycling? 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Shaheen, S.A., Guzman, S., Zhang, H. 2010. Bike sharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2143, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 159–167. Sidebottom, A., Thorpe, A., Johnson, S.D. 2009. Using Targeted Publicity to Reduce Opportunities for Bicycle Theft: A Demonstration and Replication. European Journal of Criminology, 6 3, 267–286. Snizek, B., Sick Nielsen T.A., Skov-Petersen, H. 2013. Mapping bicyclists’ experiences in Copenhagen. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 227–233. Van Lierop, D., Grimsrud, M., El-Geneidy, A. 2014. Breaking into Bicycle Theft: Insights From Montreal, Canada, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2013.811332. Wardman M, Tight M, Page M. 2007. Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transportation Research A, 414, 39-350. Xing, Y., Handy, S.L., Mokhtarian, P.L. 2010. Factors associated with proportions and miles of bicycling for transportation and recreation in six small US cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 152, 73-81. Yang, L., Sahlqvist, S., McMinn, A., Griffin, S.J. 2010. Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 351, c5293, 1-10. Zhang, D., Magalhães, D. J. A. V., Wang, X. C. 2014. Prioritizing bicycle paths in Belo Horizonte City, Brazil: Analysis based on user preferences and willingness 21 considering individual heterogeneity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, 268-278.