Factors influencing user behaviour in micromobility sharing systems: A systematic literature review and research directions

*Abolhassani, 2019, Public preferences towards bicycle sharing system in developing countries: the case of Mashhad, Iran, Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 763, 10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.032 *Aguilera-García, 2020, Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas, Cities, 96 *Ahillen, 2016, Dynamics of bike sharing in Washington, DC and Brisbane, Australia: implications for policy and planning, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 10, 441, 10.1080/15568318.2014.966933 Ajzen, 2015, The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares, Health Psychol. Rev., 9, 131, 10.1080/17437199.2014.883474 Ajzen, 1991, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., 50, 179, 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T *Albiński, 2018, Performance analysis of a hybrid bike sharing system: A service- level-based approach under censored demand observations, Transp. Res. Part E J., 116, 59, 10.1016/j.tre.2018.05.011 *Alcorn, 2019, Bike-sharing station usage and the surrounding built environments in major Texas cities, J. Planning Educ. Res., 1–14 Aldred, 2014, Why culture matters for transport policy: the case of cycling in the UK, J. Transp. Geogr., 34, 78, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.004 *Aliari, 2020, Toward sustainable travel: An analysis of campus bikeshare use, Transp. Res. Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6 *An, 2019, Weather and cycling in New York: the case of Citibike, J. Transp. Geogr., 77, 97, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.04.016 Baas, 2020, Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies, Quantitative Sci. Stud., 1, 377, 10.1162/qss_a_00019 *Bachand-Marleau, 2012, Better understanding of factors influencing likelihood of using shared bicycle systems and frequency of use, Transp. Res. Rec., 66–71 Bagozzi, 1992, Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage, Human Relations, 10.1177/001872679204500702 Bagozzi, 1999, The role of emotions in marketing, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 27, 184, 10.1177/0092070399272005 *Bai, 2020, Dockless E-scooter usage patterns and urban built Environments: a comparison study of Austin, TX, and Minneapolis, MN, Travel Behav. Soc., 20, 264, 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.04.005 *Bakogiannis, 2019, Monitoring the first dockless bike sharing system in Greece: understanding user perceptions, usage patterns and adoption barriers, Res. Transp. Business Manage., 33 *Bao, 2018, Spatial analysis of bikeshare ridership with smart card and POI data using geographically weighted regression method, IEEE Access, 6, 76049, 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2883462 *Barbour, 2019, A statistical analysis of bike sharing usage and its potential as an auto-trip substitute, J. Transport Health, 12, 253, 10.1016/j.jth.2019.02.004 *Beecham, 2014, Exploring gendered cycling behaviours within a large-scale behavioural data-set, Transp. Planning Technol., 37, 83, 10.1080/03081060.2013.844903 *Bejarano, 2017, A user-centred assessment of a new bicycle sharing system in Medellin, Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 44, 145, 10.1016/j.trf.2016.11.004 Bell, 2018, Beyond self-report: a review of physiological and neuroscientific methods to investigate consumer behavior, Front. Psychol., 9, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01655 *Benedini, 2020, Understanding the use of private and shared bicycles in large emerging cities: the case of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Case Stud. Transport Policy, 8, 564, 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.11.009 *Bieliński, 2019, Bike-sharing systems in Poland, Sustainability (Switzerland), 11, 1 Birkle, 2020, Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity, Quantitative Sci. Stud., 1, 363, 10.1162/qss_a_00018 *Blanford, J.I., MGIS Geog 586 Students, 2020. Pedal Power: Explorers and commuters of New York Citi Bikesharing scheme. PLoS ONE 15, 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232957. *Bordagaray, 2015, Modeling the service quality of public bicycle schemes considering user heterogeneity, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 9, 580, 10.1080/15568318.2013.838722 Brick, 2017, “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior, J. Environ. Psychol., 51, 226, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004 Caggiani, 2019, User satisfaction based model for resource allocation in bike-sharing systems, Transp. Policy, 80, 117, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.03.003 *Cai, 2019, Determinants of intention and behavior of low carbon commuting through bicycle-sharing in China, J. Cleaner Prod., 212, 602, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.072 *Campbell, 2016, Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerging Technol., 67, 399, 10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004 *Caspi, 2020, Spatial associations of dockless shared e-scooter usage, Transp. Res. Part D: Transport Environ., 86 *Caulfield, 2017, Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 100, 152 *Cazabet, 2018, Tracking the evolution of temporal patterns of usage in bicycle-Sharing systems using nonnegative matrix factorization on multiple sliding windows, Int. J. Urban Sci., 22, 147, 10.1080/12265934.2017.1336468 CBInsights, 2020. The Micromobility Revolution: How Bikes And Scooters Are Shaking Up Urban Transport Worldwide [WWW Document]. URL https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/micromobility-revolution/ (accessed 1.13.21). *Cerutti, 2019, “Green, but not as green as that”: an analysis of a Brazilian bike-sharing system, J. Cleaner Prod., 217, 185, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.240 *Chen, 2020, Investigating the effects of a shared bike for tourism use on the tourist experience and its consequences, Curr. Issues Tourism, 1–15 *Chen, 2018, Critical success factors and performance evaluation model for the development of the urban public bicycle system, Asian Econ. Financial Rev., 8, 946, 10.18488/journal.aefr.2018.87.946.963 *Chen, 2019, Analyzing users’ attitudes and behavior of free-floating bike sharing: an investigating of Nanjing, Transp. Res. Procedia, 39, 634, 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.065 *Chen, 2020, Examining the leisure use of a bicycle share program: a case study of YouBike in Taipei, J. Leisure Res., 51, 183, 10.1080/00222216.2019.1660598 *Chen, 2019, Examining attitudes toward bicycle-share program use: a dual-process theory approach, Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 62, 769, 10.1016/j.trf.2019.03.007 *Chen, 2020, A comparison of users’ characteristics between station-based bikesharing system and free-floating bikesharing system: case study in Hangzhou, China, Transportation, 47, 689, 10.1007/s11116-018-9910-7 *Chen, 2016, A model of green acceptance and intentions to use bike-sharing: youbike users in Taiwan, Netw. Spatial Econ., 16, 1103, 10.1007/s11067-015-9312-8 *Chen, 2019, Eco-friendly value or others’ environmental norms? Arguing the environmental using psychology of bike-sharing for the general public, Transp. Lett., 11, 425, 10.1080/19427867.2017.1379722 *Chen, 2016, Using the sustainable modified TAM and TPB to analyze the effects of perceived green value on loyalty to a public bike system, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 88, 58 *Chen, 2016, Green helpfulness or fun? Influences of green perceived value on the green loyalty of users and non-users of public bikes, Transp. Policy, 47, 149, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.014 *Chen, 2020, Optimal pricing strategy of a bike-sharing firm in the presence of customers with convenience perceptions, J. Cleaner Prod., 253 *Chen, 2020, Is eye-level greening associated with the use of dockless shared bicycles?, Urban For. Urban Greening, 51 Chen, 2020, Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications?, Transp. Rev., 40, 333, 10.1080/01441647.2019.1710306 *Chen, 2020, Exploring dockless bikeshare usage: a case study of beijing, China, Sustainability, 12, 1 *Cheng, 2019, Understanding bike sharing use over time by employing extended technology continuance theory, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 124, 433 *Chevalier, 2019, Bicycle acceptance on campus: Influence of the built environment and shared bikes, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 76, 211, 10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.011 *Chi, 2020, Unraveling sustainable behaviors in the sharing economy: an empirical study of bicycle-sharing in China, J. Cleaner Prod., 260 *Choi, 2020, Sustainable governance of the sharing economy: the chinese bike-sharing industry, Sustainability, 12, 1 Cook, 1997, The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines, Ann. Intern. Med., 127, 210, 10.7326/0003-4819-127-3-199708010-00006 Cook, 1997, Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions, Ann. Intern. Med., 126, 376, 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 *Corcoran, 2014, Spatio-temporal patterns of a Public Bicycle Sharing Program: the effect of weather and calendar events, J. Transp. Geogr., 41, 292, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.09.003 Cruz, 2020, “Mobility as a service” platforms: a critical path towards increasing the sustainability of transportation systems, Sustainability, 12, 6368, 10.3390/su12166368 *Cui, 2018, Influencing factors of public participation willingness in shared bicycles and intervention strategies, J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptography, 21, 1437, 10.1080/09720529.2018.1527811 *Curto, 2016, Private and public modes of bicycle commuting: a perspective on attitude and perception, Eur. J. Pub. Health, 26, 717, 10.1093/eurpub/ckv235 Davis, 1989, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q., 13, 319, 10.2307/249008 *Ding, 2019, Antecedents of satisfaction and engagement of low-carbon bicycle-sharing using in China, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 26, 8533, 10.1007/s11356-019-04231-0 *Du, 2018, Better understanding the characteristics and influential factors of different travel patterns in free-floating bike sharing: evidence from Nanjing, China, Sustainability, 10, 1 *Du, 2019, Investigating the influential factors of shared travel behavior: comparison between app-based third taxi service and free-floating bike sharing in Nanjing, China, Sustainability, 11, 1 *Du, 2019, A model framework for discovering the spatio-temporal usage patterns of public free-floating bike-sharing system, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerging Technol., 103, 39, 10.1016/j.trc.2019.04.006 *Duran-Rodas, 2019, Built environment factors affecting bike sharing ridership: data-driven approach for multiple cities, Transp. Res. Rec., 1–14 *Eccarius, 2020, Adoption intentions for micro-mobility – insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 84 *Efthymiou, 2013, Factors affecting the adoption of vehicle sharing systems by young drivers, Transp. Policy, 29, 64, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.04.009 *El-Assi, 2017, Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing in Toronto, Transportation, 44, 589, 10.1007/s11116-015-9669-z Eren, 2020, A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand, Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882 Esmaeilikia, 2019, Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: a systematic review, Transp. Res. Part F: Psychol. Behav., 60, 299, 10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.026 *Estevan, 2018, Biking to school: the role of bicycle-sharing programs in adolescents, J. Sch. Health, 88, 871, 10.1111/josh.12697 *Faghih-Imani, 2016, Determining the role of bicycle sharing system infrastructure installation decision on usage: case study of montreal BIXI system, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 94, 685 *Faghih-Imani, 2016, Incorporating the impact of spatio-temporal interactions on bicycle sharing system demand: a case study of New York CitiBike system, J. Transp. Geogr., 54, 218, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.06.008 *Faghih-Imani, 2015, Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system, J. Transp. Geogr., 44, 53, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.03.005 *Faghih-Imani, 2014, How land-use and urban form impact bicycle flows: evidence from the bicycle-sharing system (BIXI) in Montreal, J. Transp. Geogr., 41, 306, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.01.013 *Faghih-Imani, 2017, How bicycling sharing system usage is affected by land use and urban form: analysis from system and user perspectives, Eur. J. Transp. Infrastructure Res., 17, 425 *Feng, 2016, Willingness to use a public bicycle system: an example in nanjing city, J. Public Transp., 19, 84, 10.5038/2375-0901.19.1.6 *Fernández-Heredia, 2016, Modelling bicycle use intention: the role of perceptions, Transportation, 43, 1, 10.1007/s11116-014-9559-9 *Festa, 2019, Attitude towards bike use in Rende, a small town in South Italy, Sustainability, 11, 2703, 10.3390/su11092703 Fishman, 2016, Bikeshare: a review of recent literature, Transp. Rev., 36, 92, 10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036 Fishman, 2013, Bike share: a synthesis of the literature, Transp. Rev., 1647, 148, 10.1080/01441647.2013.775612 *Fishman, 2012, Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: a qualitative approach, Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 15, 686, 10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.002 *Fishman, 2014, Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane, J. Transp. Geogr., 41, 325, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.005 *Fishman, 2015, Factors influencing bike share membership: an analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 71, 17 Flick, 2004, Triangulation in qualitative research, 178 Friedman, 2016, Helmet-wearing practices and barriers in Toronto bike-share users: a case-control study, Can. J. Emergency Med., 18, 28, 10.1017/cem.2015.22 *Fuller, 2013, Impact evaluation of a public bicycle share program on cycling: a case example of BIXI in Montreal, Quebec, Am. J. Public Health, 103, 85, 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300917 *Gámez-Pérez, 2017, Defining a primary market for bikesharing programs: a study of habits and usage intentions in León, Mexico, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 2634, 50, 10.3141/2634-09 *Gao, 2019, Understanding the adoption of bike sharing systems: By combining technology diffusion theories and perceived risk, J. Hospitality Tourism Technol., 10, 494 *Ge, 2020, Why people like using bikesharing: factors influencing bikeshare use in a Chinese sample, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 87 *Gebhart, 2014, The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, DC, Transportation, 41, 1205, 10.1007/s11116-014-9540-7 Geiger, 2019, Spread the green word: a social community perspective into environmentally sustainable behavior, Environ. Behav., 10.1177/0013916518812925 *Godavarthy, 2017, Winter bikesharing in US: user willingness, and operator’s challenges and best practices, Sustainable Cities and Society, 30, 254, 10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.006 *González, 2018, Visitors’ attitudes towards bicycle use in the Teide National Park, Sustainability, 10, 3283, 10.3390/su10093283 Grimmer, 2017, With the best of intentions: a large sample test of the intention-behaviour gap in pro-environmental consumer behaviour, Int. J. Consumer Stud., 41, 2, 10.1111/ijcs.12290 *Guo, 2017, Identifying the factors affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo, China, PLoS ONE, 12, 1 Han, 2020, Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products, Business Strategy Environ., 29, 2815, 10.1002/bse.2545 Hartl, 2016, Do we need rules for “what’s mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities, J. Business Res., 69, 2756, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011 Hassan, 2016, Who says there is an Intention-Behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an Intention-Behaviour Gap in ethical consumption, J. Bus. Ethics, 136, 219, 10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0 *Hazen, 2015, Predicting public bicycle adoption using the technology acceptance model, Sustainability (Switzerland), 7, 14558, 10.3390/su71114558 *He, 2019, Factors influencing electric bike share ridership: analysis of Park City, Utah, Transp. Res. Rec., 2673, 12, 10.1177/0361198119838981 Heinen, 2019, Bicycle parking: a systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour on cycling and travel behaviour, Transp. Rev., 39, 630, 10.1080/01441647.2019.1590477 *Hess, 2019, Functional perceptions, barriers, and demographics concerning e-cargo bike sharing in Switzerland, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 71, 153, 10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.013 Hetland, 2019, The thrill of speedy descents: a pilot study on differences in facially expressed online emotions and retrospective measures of emotions during a downhill mountain-bike descent, Front. Psychol., 10, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00566 Hofstede, 1994, The business of international business is culture, Int. Business Rev., 3, 1, 10.1016/0969-5931(94)90011-6 Hofstede, 2010, Long- versus short-term orientation: new perspectives, Asia Pacific Business Review, 16, 493, 10.1080/13602381003637609 *Huang, 2019, How to promote users’ adoption behavior of dockless bike-sharing? An empirical study based on extended norms activation theory, Transp. Lett., 1–11 *Hyland, 2018, Hybrid cluster-regression approach to model bikeshare station usage, Transp. Res. Part A, 115, 71 Izard, 1977 *Jahanshahi, 2020, Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: applying an extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8, 1212, 10.1016/j.cstp.2020.08.002 *Jahanshahi, 2019, Investigating factors affecting bicycle sharing system acceptability in a developing country: The case of Mashhad, Iran, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7, 239, 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.03.002 *Jain, 2018, Does the role of a bicycle share system in a city change over time? A longitudinal analysis of casual users and long-term subscribers, J. Transp. Geogr., 71, 45, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.06.023 *Jamšek, 2020, Introducing a three-tier sustainability framework to examine bike-sharing system use: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Int. J. Consumer Stud., 44, 140, 10.1111/ijcs.12553 Javidan, 2009, Managerial implications of the GLOBE project: A study of 62 societies, Asia Pacific J. Human Resour., 47, 41, 10.1177/1038411108099289 Jensen, 2010, Characterizing the speed and paths of shared bicycle use in Lyon, Transp. Res. Part D, 15, 522, 10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.002 Ji, 2014, Electric bike sharing: simulation of user demand and system availability, J. Cleaner Prod., 85, 250, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.024 *Ji, 2020, Comparison of usage regularity and its determinants between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems: a case study in Nanjing, China, J. Cleaner Production, 255 *Jia, 2018, Impact of different stakeholders of bike-sharing industry on users’ intention of civilized use of bike-sharing, Sustainability, 10, 1437, 10.3390/su10051437 *Jia, 2019, Association between innovative dockless bicycle sharing programs and adopting cycling in commuting and non-commuting trips, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 121, 12 *Jiao, 2020, Understanding the shared e-scooter travels in Austin, TX, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information, 9, 135, 10.3390/ijgi9020135 *Jurdak, 2013, The impact of cost and network topology on urban mobility: a study of public bicycle usage in 2 U.S. cities, PLoS ONE, 8, 1 Kamargianni, 2016, A critical review of new mobility services for urban transport, Transp. Res. Procedia, 14, 3294, 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.277 *Kaplan, 2015, Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Tourism Manage., 47, 34, 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.017 *Kaplan, 2018, The role of human needs in the intention to use conventional and electric bicycle sharing in a driving-oriented country, Transp. Policy, 71, 138, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.010 *Kapuku, 2020, Modeling the competitiveness of a bike-sharing system using bicycle GPS and transit smartcard data, Transp. Lett., 1–5 *Karki, 2016, How accessible and convenient are the public bicycle sharing programs in China? Experiences from Suzhou city, Habitat Int., 53, 188, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.007 Katz-Gerro, 2017, The relationship between value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: Universalism, benevolence, conformity and biospheric values revisited, Environ. Values, 10.3197/096327117X14847335385599 *Kaviti, 2019, Travel behavior and price preferences of bikesharing members and casual users: A Capital Bikeshare perspective, Travel Behav. Society, 15, 133, 10.1016/j.tbs.2019.02.004 Khalaj, 2020, Why are cities removing their freeways? A systematic review of the literature, Transp. Rev., 1–24 *Kim, 2020, Exploring the key antecedents influencing consumer’s continuance intention toward bike-sharing services: focus on China, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17, 1 *Kim, 2017, How to promote sustainable public bike system from a psychological perspective?, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 11, 272, 10.1080/15568318.2016.1252450 *Kim, 2018, Investigation on the effects of weather and calendar events on bike-sharing according to the trip patterns of bike rentals of stations, J. Transp. Geogr., 66, 309, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.01.001 *Kim, 2020, Text mining for the evaluation of public services: the case of a public bike-sharing system, Service Business *Kuo, 2020, Non-linear characteristics in switching intention to use a docked bike-sharing system, Transportation *Kutela, 2019, The influence of campus characteristics, temporal factors, and weather events on campuses-related daily bike-share trips, J. Transp. Geogr., 78, 160, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.002 *Lathia, 2012, Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerging Technol., 22, 88, 10.1016/j.trc.2011.12.004 Lazarus, 1991 Lazarus, 1991, Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion, Am. Psychol., 46, 819, 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819 Le, 2019, What we know and do not know about authenticity in dining experiences: a systematic literature review, Tourism Manage., 74, 258, 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.012 *Lee, 2015, The multiple impacts of the neighbourhood environment on the use of public bicycles by residents: an empirical study of Changwon in Korea, Int. J. Urban Sci., 19, 224, 10.1080/12265934.2014.1002523 *Li, 2019, Analysis of the choice behaviour towards docked and dockless shared bicycles based on user experience, Int. Rev. Spatial Planning Sustainable Development, 7, 143, 10.14246/irspsda.7.2_143 *Li, 2019, Factors affecting bike-sharing behaviour in Beijing: price, traffic congestion, and supply chain, Ann. Oper. Res., 1–16 *Li, 2019, Social factors influencing the choice of bicycle: difference analysis among private bike, public bike sharing and free-floating bike sharing in Kunming, China, KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 23, 2339, 10.1007/s12205-019-2078-7 *Li, 2018, Free-floating bike sharing in jiangsu: Users’ behaviors and influencing factors, Energies, 11, 1 *Liao, 2016, Association of sociodemographic and perceived environmental factors with public bicycle use among Taiwanese urban adults, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 13, 1 *Lin, 2017, Public bike system pricing and usage in Taipei, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 11, 633, 10.1080/15568318.2017.1301601 *Lin, 2020, Impact of weather conditions and built environment on public bikesharing trips in Beijing, Netw. Spatial Econ., 20, 1, 10.1007/s11067-019-09465-6 Lin, 2018, Built environment and public bike usage for metro access: a comparison of neighborhoods in Beijing, Taipei, and Tokyo, Transp. Res. Part D, 63, 209, 10.1016/j.trd.2018.05.007 *Link, 2020, Free-floating bikesharing in Vienna – a user behaviour analysis, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 135, 168 *Liu, 2019, Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of public bicycle use, J. Transp. Geogr., 74, 299, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.12.010 *Liu, 2020, How do Users Evaluate Service Quality of the Dockless Bicycle Sharing System?, J. Harbin Inst. Technol., 27, 19 *Liu, 2020, Quantitative evaluation on public bicycle trips and its impact variables among different land uses, Int. Rev. Spatial Planning Sustainable Development, 8, 118, 10.14246/irspsda.8.2_118 *Liu, 2018, Examining relationships among perceived benefit, tourist experience and satisfaction: the context of intelligent sharing bicycle, Asia Pacific J. Tourism Res., 23, 437, 10.1080/10941665.2018.1466814 *Liu, 2020, How do service quality, value, pleasure, and satisfaction create loyalty to smart dockless bike-sharing systems?, Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios, 22, 705 *Liu, 2020, Understanding the determinants of young commuters’ metro-bikeshare usage frequency using big data, Travel Behav. Soc., 21, 121, 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.06.007 *Lo, 2020, Shared micromobility: the influence of regulation on travel mode choice, N. Z. Geogr., 76, 135, 10.1111/nzg.12262 *Ma, 2019, Multi-stakeholders’ assessment of bike sharing service quality based on DEMATEL–VIKOR method, Int. J. Logistics Res. Applications, 22, 449, 10.1080/13675567.2019.1568401 *Ma, 2018, Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: an empirical study in China, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 118, 14 *Ma, 2019, College students’ shared bicycle use behavior based on the NL model and factor analysis, Sustainability, 11, 1 *Ma, 2019, Effects of psychological factors on modal shift from car to dockless bike sharing: a case study of Nanjing, China, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 16, 1 *Ma, 2020, A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 139, 148 *Ma, 2020, Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: a case study in Delft, the Netherlands, J. Cleaner Prod., 259 Ma, 2018, Challenges of collaborative governance in the sharing economy: the case of free-floating bike sharing in Shanghai, J. Cleaner Prod., 197, 356, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.213 *Maas, 2020, Assessing spatial and social dimensions of shared bicycle use in a Southern European island context: the case of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 140, 81 Macioszek, 2020, The bike-sharing system as an element of enhancing sustainable mobility – a case study based on a city in Poland, Sustainability, 12, 1, 10.3390/su12083285 *Maioli, 2019, SERVBIKE: riding customer satisfaction of bicycle sharing service, Sustainable Cities and Society, 50 *Manzi, 2018, Are they telling the truth? Revealing hidden traits of satisfaction with a public bike-sharing service, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 12, 253, 10.1080/15568318.2017.1353186 *Maranzano, 2020, Analysis of sustainability propensity of bike-sharing customers using partially ordered sets methodology, Soc. Indic. Res., 1–16 *Martin, 2014, Evaluating public transit modal shift dynamics in response to bikesharing: a tale of two U.S. cities, J. Trans. Geography, 41, 315, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.026 *Mateo-Babiano, 2016, How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing?, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 94, 295 *Mattson, 2017, Bike share in Fargo, North Dakota: Keys to success and factors affecting ridership, Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 174, 10.1016/j.scs.2017.07.001 *McBain, 2018, An analysis of the factors influencing journey time variation in the cork public bike system, Sustainable Cities and Society, 42, 641, 10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.030 *McNeil, 2018, Breaking barriers to bike share: Lessons on bike share equity, ITE J. (Inst. Transp. Eng.), 88, 31 *Médard de Chardon, 2017, Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 100, 202 *Milakis, 2015, Will Greeks cycle? Exploring intention and attitudes in the case of the new bicycle network of Patras, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 9, 321, 10.1080/15568318.2013.770586 *Molina-García, 2013, Bicycling to university: evaluation of a bicycle-sharing program in Spain, Health Promotion Int., 30, 350, 10.1093/heapro/dat045 *Molinillo, 2020, User characteristics influencing use of a bicycle- sharing system integrated into an intermodal transport network in Spain, Inte. J. Sustainable Transp., 14, 513, 10.1080/15568318.2019.1576812 Mooney, 2019, Freedom from the station: spatial equity in access to dockless bike share, J. Transp. Geogr., 74, 91, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.009 *Ngan, 2019, Empirical study on intention to use bike-sharing in Vietnam, IIOAB J., 10, 1 *Nickkar, 2019, A spatial-temporal gender and land use analysis of bikeshare ridership: the case study of Baltimore City, City, Culture and Society, 18 *Nikiforiadis, 2019, Exploring travelers’ characteristics affecting their intention to shift to bike-sharing systems due to a sophisticated mobile App, Algorithms, 12, 1 *Nikitas, 2018, Understanding bike-sharing acceptability and expected usage patterns in the context of a small city novel to the concept: a story of ‘Greek Drama’, Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 56, 306, 10.1016/j.trf.2018.04.022 Nilsson, 2017, Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda, Environ. Educ. Res., 23, 573, 10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148 *Noland, 2016, Bikeshare trip generation in New York City, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 94, 164 *Noland, 2019, Bikesharing trip patterns in New York City: associations with land use, subways, and bicycle lanes, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 13, 664, 10.1080/15568318.2018.1501520 *Oates, 2017, Bikeshare use in urban communities: Individual and neighborhood factors, Ethn. Dis., 27, 303, 10.18865/ed.27.S1.303 *Ogilvie, 2012, Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme, Prev. Med., 55, 40, 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.002 Ou, 2017, The impact of positive and negative emotions on loyalty intentions and their interactions with customer equity drivers, J. Business Res., 80, 106, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.011 *Pai, 2015, User behaviour analysis of the public bike system in Taipei, Int. Rev. Spatial Planning Sustainable Development, 3, 39, 10.14246/irspsd.3.2_39 Palmer, 2010, Customer experience management: a critical review of an emerging idea, J. Serv. Mark., 24, 196, 10.1108/08876041011040604 Papavasileiou, 2020, Tourism carbon Kuznets-curve hypothesis: a systematic literature review and a paradigm shift to a corporation-performance perspective, J. Travel Res. Parasuraman, 1988, Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, J. Retail., 64, 12 *Patel, 2020, A stakeholders perspective on improving barriers in implementation of public bicycle sharing system (PBSS), Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 138, 353 Petticrew, 2006 Pickering, 2014, The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers, Higher Educ. Res. Development, 33, 534, 10.1080/07294360.2013.841651 Pickering, 2015, Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews, Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1756, 10.1080/03075079.2014.914907 Podsakoff, 2003, Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, J. Appl. Psychol., 88, 879, 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Prati, 2018, Factors contributing to bicycle-motorised vehicle collisions: a systematic literature review, Transp. Rev., 38, 184, 10.1080/01441647.2017.1314391 *Qian, 2020, Enhancing equitable service level: which can address better, dockless or dock-based Bikeshare systems?, J. Transp. Geogr., 86 *Rabassa, 2020, Heat warnings and avoidance behavior: evidence from a bike-sharing system, Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. *Raux, 2017, Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 106, 350 *Reilly, 2020, From non-cyclists to frequent cyclists: factors associated with frequent bike share use in New York City, J. Transp. Health, 16 Rhodes, 2013, How big is the physical activity intention-behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework, Br. J. Health Psychol., 18, 296, 10.1111/bjhp.12032 *Rixey, 2013, Station-level forecasting of bikesharing ridership, Transp. Res. Rec., 46–55 *Salih-Elamin, 2020, Short-term prediction for bike share systems ’ travel time under the effects of weather conditions, Adv. Transp. Stud., 50, 81 *Sarkar, 2015, Comparing cities’ cycling patterns using online shared bicycle maps, Transportation, 42, 541, 10.1007/s11116-015-9599-9 *Schoner, 2016, Is bikesharing contagious?: modeling its effects on system membership and general population cycling, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 2587, 125, 10.3141/2587-15 *Scott, 2019, What factors influence bike share ridership? An investigation of Hamilton, Ontario’s bike share hubs, Travel Behav. Society, 16, 50, 10.1016/j.tbs.2019.04.003 *Serna, 2019, Identification of enablers and barriers for public bike share system adoption using social media and statistical models, Sustainability (Switzerland), 11 *Shaheen, 2011, China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle: understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing, Transp. Res. Rec., 33–41 *Shao, 2019, An analysis of the factors influencing the sustainable use intention of urban shared bicycles in China, Sustainability, 11, 2721, 10.3390/su11102721 Shao, 2020, Influence of service quality in sharing economy: understanding customers’ continuance intention of bicycle sharing, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl., 40, 10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100944 Sheeran, 2016, The intention-behavior gap, Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass, 10, 503, 10.1111/spc3.12265 *Shen, 2020, Choice behavioral model of shared bicycle: an empirical study based on SEM, Wireless Pers. Commun., 110, 309, 10.1007/s11277-019-06728-w *Shen, 2018, Understanding the usage of dockless bike sharing in Singapore, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 12, 686, 10.1080/15568318.2018.1429696 Si, 2019, Mapping the bike sharing research published from 2010 to 2018: a scientometric review, J. Cleaner Prod., 213, 415, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.157 *Si, 2020, Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 152 Sniehotta, 2005, Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise, Psychol. Health, 20, 143, 10.1080/08870440512331317670 *Soltani, 2019, Bikesharing experience in the city of Adelaide: insight from a preliminary study, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7, 250, 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.001 Stevenson, 2017, Systematically reviewing the potential of concept mapping technologies to promote self-regulated learning in primary and secondary science education, Educ. Res. Rev., 21, 1, 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.002 *Sun, 2019, Improving cycling behaviors of dockless bike-sharing users based on an extended theory of planned behavior and credit-based supervision policies in China, Front. Psychol., 10, 2189, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02189 *Sun, 2016, Behavior modes and attitudes of Hangzhou’s bike-sharing systems – expected utilities, real benefits and perspective, Lowland Technol. Int., 18, 31, 10.14247/lti.18.1_31 *Sun, 2017, Investigating impacts of environmental factors on the cycling behavior of bicycle-sharing users, Sustainability, 9, 1060, 10.3390/su9061060 *Therrien, 2014, Identifying the leaders: applying diffusion of innovation theory to use of a public bikeshare system in Vancouver, Canada, Transp. Res. Rec., 2468, 74, 10.3141/2468-09 Tranfield, 2003, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J. Manag., 14, 207, 10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Trivedi, 2019, Craniofacial injuries seen with the introduction of bicycle-share electric scooters in an urban setting, J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 77, 2292, 10.1016/j.joms.2019.07.014 *Verma, 2020, Evaluating bikesharing service quality: a case study for BIXI, Montreal, Int. J. Productivity Qual. Manage., 29, 45, 10.1504/IJPQM.2020.104518 *Wahab, 2018, Urban transportation: a case study on bike-sharing usage in Klang valley, Int. J. Supply Chain Manage., 7, 470 *Wang, 2019, Do new bike share stations increase member use: a quasi-experimental study, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 121, 1 *Wang, 2019, Neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics and bike share member patterns of use, J. Transp. Geogr., 79 *Wang, 2018, Bike sharing differences among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: lessons learnt from New York City’s bike share, Transp. Res. Part A, 116, 1 Wang, 2018, Connectivity-based accessibility for public bicycle sharing systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., 15, 1521, 10.1109/TASE.2018.2868471 Wang, 2017, Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities, J. Transp. Geogr., 65, 147, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.022 *Wang, 2017, A Bayesian network model on the public bicycle choice behavior of residents: a case study of Xi’an, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2017, 16 *Wang, 2020, Relationship between eye-level greenness and cycling frequency around metro stations in Shenzhen, China: a big data approach, Sustainable Cities and Society, 59 *Wang, 2016, Modeling bike share station activity: effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations, J. Urban Plann. Dev., 142, 04015001, 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000273 *Wang, 2018, Be green and clearly be seen: How consumer values and attitudes affect adoption of bicycle sharing, Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 58, 730, 10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.043 *Wang, 2020, Spatiotemporal characteristics of bike-sharing usage around rail transit stations: Evidence from Beijing, China, Sustainability, 12, 1 Wattanacharoensil, 2019, A systematic review of cognitive biases in tourist decisions, Tourism Management, 75, 353, 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.006 *Welch, 2020, Shared-use mobility competition: a trip-level analysis of taxi, bikeshare, and transit mode choice in Washington, DC, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 16, 43, 10.1080/23249935.2018.1523250 Wood, 2020, Tracing the absence of bike-share in Johannesburg: A case of policy mobilities and non-adoption, J. Transp. Geogr., 83, 1, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102659 Woodcock, 2014, Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: Health impact modelling study, BMJ, 348, 1, 10.1136/bmj.g425 *Wu, 2018, Usage patterns and impact factors of public bicycle systems: comparison between city center and suburban district in Shenzhen, J. Urban Plann. Dev., 144, 04018027, 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000471 *Wu, 2019, Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations as predictors of bicycle sharing usage intention: An empirical study for Tianjin, China, J. Cleaner Prod., 225, 451, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.016 *Wu, 2019, Exploring trip characteristics of bike-sharing system uses: Effects of land-use patterns and pricing scheme change, Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol., 8, 318, 10.1016/j.ijtst.2019.05.003 *Xiao, 2020, Empirical study on bikesharing brand selection in China in the post-sharing Era, Sustainability, 12, 1 *Xin, 2018, Cyclist satisfaction evaluation model for free-floating bike-sharing system: a case study of Shanghai, Transp. Res. Rec., 2672, 21, 10.1177/0361198118770193 *Xin, 2019, Psychosocial factors influencing shared bicycle travel choices among Chinese: an application of theory planned behavior, PLoS ONE, 14, 1 *Xu, 2020, Research on the psychological model of free-floating bike-sharing using behavior: a case study of Beijing, Sustainability, 12, 1 Xu, 2020, A longitudinal study of bike infrastructure impact on bikesharing system performance in New York City, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 14, 886, 10.1080/15568318.2019.1645921 Yang, 2017, A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism, Tourism Manage., 58, 89, 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.011 *Yang, 2020, Exploring spatial variation of bike sharing trip production and attraction: a study based on Chicago’s Divvy system, Appl. Geogr., 115, 1 *Yang, 2016, Analysis of the influencing factors of the public willingness to participate in public bicycle projects and intervention strategies-a case study of Jiangsu province, China, Sustainability, 8 *Ye, 2020, Mixed logit models for travelers’ mode shifting considering bike-sharing, Sustainability, 12, 1 *Yin, 2018, Sharing sustainability: how values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicycle-sharing scheme, J. Bus. Ethics, 149, 313, 10.1007/s10551-016-3043-8 *Younes, 2020, Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Practice, 134, 308 Zacharias, 2002, Bicycle in Shanghai: movement patterns, cyclist attitudes and the impact of traffic separation, Transp. Rev., 22, 309, 10.1080/01441640110103905 Zanotto, 2017, Helmet use among personal bicycle riders and bike share users in Vancouver, BC, Am. J. Prev. Med., 53, 465, 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.04.013 *Zeng, 2020, Investigating the spatiotemporal dynamics of urban vitality using bicycle-sharing data, Sustainability, 12, 1 *Zhang, 2015, User satisfaction and its impacts on the use of a public bicycle system: Empirical studies from Hangzhou, China, Transp. Res. Rec., 2512, 56, 10.3141/2512-07 *Zhang, 2017, Factors influencing users’ subjective well-being: an empirical study based on shared bicycles in China, Information Discovery and Delivery, 45, 202, 10.1108/IDD-03-2017-0022 *Zhang, 2017, Exploring the impact of built environment factors on the use of public bikes at bike stations: Case study in Zhongshan, China, J. Transp. Geogr., 58, 59, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.11.014 *Zhanyou, 2020, How to improve users’ intentions to continued usage of shared bicycles: a mixed method approach, PLoS ONE, 15, 1 *Zhao, 2014, Ridership and effectiveness of bikesharing: the effects of urban features and system characteristics on daily use and turnover rate of public bikes in China, Transp. Policy, 35, 253, 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.06.008 *Zhao, 2015, Exploring bikesharing travel time and trip chain by gender and day of the week, Transp. Res. Part C, 58, 251, 10.1016/j.trc.2015.01.030 *Zhou, 2020, The satisfaction of tourists using bicycle sharing: a structural equation model - the case of Hangzhou, China, J. Sustainable Tourism, 28, 1063, 10.1080/09669582.2020.1720697 *Zhou, 2019, Winter sabotage: The three-way interactive effect of gender, age, and season on public bikesharing usage, Sustainability, 11, 1 *Zhou, 2020, An empirical analysis of intention of use for bike-sharing system in China through machine learning techniques, Enterprise Information Systems, 1–22 *Zhou, 2015, Understanding spatiotemporal patterns of biking behavior by analyzing massive bike sharing data in Chicago, PLoS ONE, 10, 1 *Zhou, 2019, Customer satisfaction of bicycle sharing: studying perceived service quality with SEM model, Int. J. Logistics Res. Applications, 22, 437, 10.1080/13675567.2018.1513468 Zhu, 2020, A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers, Scientometrics, 123, 321, 10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 *Zhu, 2020, Intention to adopt bicycle-sharing in China: introducing environmental concern into the theory of planned behavior model, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. *Zhu, 2020, Understanding spatio-temporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 81 *Zhu, 2020, Understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of public bicycle usage: a case study of Hangzhou, China, Int. J. Sustainable Transp., 14, 163, 10.1080/15568318.2018.1538400