# Assessment of the Bike-Sharing Socioeconomic Equity in the Use of Routes

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Equity in Bike Sharing

## 3. Materials and Methods

#### 3.1. General Network Features

_{ij}is the weight of the link between i and j, and k

_{i}is the node degree or the number of stations connected to i.

#### 3.2. Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM)

## 4. Case Study

#### 4.1. Data

#### 4.1.1. Characteristics of the Network

#### 4.1.2. Characteristics of the Nodal and Edge Variables in the Network

## 5. Results and Discussion

## 6. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Fishman, E. Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature. Transp. Rev.
**2016**, 36, 92–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meddin, R.; DeMaio, P.; O’Brien, O.; Rabello, R.; Yu, C.; Seamon, J.; Benicchio, T. The Meddin Bike-sharing World Map. Available online: http://www.bikesharingworld.com2013 (accessed on 22 October 2021).
- Fishman, E.; Washington, S.; Haworth, N. Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.
**2014**, 31, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shaheen, S.A.; Cohen, A.P.; Martin, E.W. Public bikesharing in North America: Early operation understanding and emerging trends. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2013**, 2387, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Goodman, A.; Cheshire, J. Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: Impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. J. Transp. Geogr.
**2014**, 41, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Fishman, E.; Washington, S.; Haworth, N. Bikeshare’s impact on active travel: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. J. Transp. Health
**2014**, 2, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Du, M.; Cheng, L. Better understanding the characteristics and influential factors of different travel patterns in free-floating bike sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hamilton, T.; Wichman, C. Bicycle infrastructure and traffic congestion: Evidence from DC’s Capital Bikeshare. J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
**2018**, 87, 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Teixeira, J.; Silva, C.; Moura, F. The motivations for using bike sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from Lisbon. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
**2021**, 82, 378–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dingil, A.; Esztergár-Kiss, D. The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mobility Patterns: The First Wave’s Results. Transp. Lett.
**2021**, 13, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Awad-Núñez, S.; Julio, R.; Moya-Gómez, B.; Gómez, J. Acceptability of sustainable mobility policies under a post-COVID-19 scenario. Evidence from Spain. Transp. Policy
**2021**, 106, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Scott, J.; Carrington, P. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lusher, D.; Koskinen, J.; Robins, G. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: A story of southern Tampa. Transport. Res. A Pol.
**2019**, 130, 529–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lee, R.J.; Sener, I.N.; Jones, S.N. Understanding the role of equity in active transportation planning in the United States. Transp. Rev.
**2017**, 37, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Patel, S.; Patel, C. A stake holders perspective on improving barriers in implementation of public bicycle sharing system (PBSS). Transport. Res. A Pol.
**2020**, 138, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buck, D. Encouraging equitable access to public bikesharing systems. ITE J. Inst. Transp. Eng.
**2013**, 83, 24–27. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84883621901&partnerID=40&md5=bb5c66dc30a636d33847bcdcd0c44e6a (accessed on 24 May 2023). - Smith, S.; Oh, J.; Lei, C. Exploring the Equity Dimensions of US Bicycle Sharing Systems (Report No. TRCLC 14-01); Transportation Research Center for Livable Communities: Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rixey, R.A. Station-level forecasting of bikesharing ridership: Station network effects in three US systems. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2013**, 2387, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Builes-Jaramillo, A.; Lotero, L. Spatial-temporal network analysis of the public bicycle sharing system in Medellín, Colombia. J. Transp. Geogr.
**2022**, 105, 103460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ursaki, J.; Aultman-Hall, L. Quantifying the Equity of Bikeshare Access in US Cities. In Proceedings of the 94th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 11–15 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hosford, K.; Winters, M. Who Are Public Bicycle Share Programs Serving? An Evaluation of the Equity of Spatial Access to Bicycle Share Service Areas in Canadian Cities. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2018**, 2672, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Howland, S.; McNeil, N.; Broach, J.; Rankins, K.; MacArthur, J.; Dill, J. Current Efforts to Make Bikeshare More Equitable: Survey of System Owners and Operators. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2017**, 2666, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hamilton Spectator. Available online: https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7259556-sobi-bikes-to-offer-subsidized-memberships/ (accessed on 27 March 2020).
- Caspi, O.; Noland, R. Bikesharing in Philadelphia: Do lower-income areas generate trips? Travel Behav. Soc.
**2019**, 16, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maas, S.; Attard, M.; Caruana, M.A. 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 Pract.
**2020**, 140, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, L.; Wen, Z.; Wang, J.; Hu, J. Spatial Interaction Analysis of Shared Bicycles Mobility Regularity and Determinants: A Case Study of Six Main Districts, Beijing. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2022**, 11, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, M.E. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev.
**2003**, 45, 167–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Opsahl, T.; Agneessens, F.; Skvoretz, J. Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc. Netw.
**2010**, 32, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Harris, J.K. An Introduction to Exponential Random Graph Modelling. In Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; SAGE: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Snijders, T. Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of exponential random graph models. J. Soc. Struct.
**2002**, 3, 1–40. [Google Scholar] - Luke, D. A User’s Guide to Network Analysis in R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Shaheen, S.A.; Guzman, S.; Zhang, H. Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, present and future. Transp. Res. Rec.
**2010**, 2143, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Krivisky, P. Exponential-Family Random Graph Models for Valued Networks. Electron. J. Stat.
**2012**, 6, 1100–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lu, W.; Scott, D.M.; Dalumpines, R. Understanding bike share cyclist route choice using GPS data: Comparing dominant routes and shortest paths. J. Transp. Geogr.
**2018**, 71, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Monthly evolution of bike trips for local users with different rental and return stations.

**Figure 3.**Bicycle trips according to users’ zip code, and to their income level (blue: higher-income zip codes; green: lower-income zip codes).

**Figure 4.**Bicycle paths, stations with (

**a**) relevance according to the number of rental trips at the origin stations and income level; and (

**b**) workers in the bike network influence area and economic activity.

**Table 1.**Descriptive statistics of the number of trips and trip duration for local customers with different rental and return stations.

Number of Trips | Duration (min) | |
---|---|---|

Mean | 53.4 | 18.42 |

Minimum | 1 | 2.5 |

Percentile 25 | 2 | 8.23 |

Median | 8 | 12.35 |

Percentile 75% | 51 | 18.6 |

Max. | 1330 | 2052.6 |

Mean | Median | Mode | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max. | N° obs. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Variables at the Station Level | |||||||

N° stations within 500 m | 2.15 | 2 | 2 | 1.26 | 0 | 5 | 39 |

Popul. within 250 m | 9378 | 8488 | 670.89 | 1656 | 17,891 | 39 | |

N° workers in comm. | 3826.8 | 3545 | 2835.32 | 310 | 8885 | 39 | |

Tourist/leisure (1 yes) | 0.59 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 39 |

Comm. area (1 yes) | 0.23 | 0 | 0 | 0.43 | 0 | 1 | 39 |

Lower-income (1 yes) | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | 0.37 | 0 | 1 | 39 |

Uptown (1 yes) | 0.05 | 0 | 0 | 0.22 | 0 | 1 | 39 |

Distance (m) | 3616.7 | 3538.4 | 1839 | 233.9 | 9215.8 | 741 |

Variable | Description |
---|---|

Structural effects | |

Intensity | Sum of the weights of the edges (intercept of the model) |

Transitivity | It captures the trend towards the transitivity (triangles) among nodes. |

Nodal main effects | |

Nº Stations 500 m | Number or stations within a radius of 500 m. |

Population 250 m | Population within a radius of 250 m. |

Workers per postal zip | Number of workers (thousands) per postal zip for each station. |

Uptown stations | Denoted with 1 if the station is uptown, 0 else. |

Lower-income stations | Denoted with 1 if the station is in a lower-income area, 0 else. |

Nodal relational effects | |

Relationship between two higher-income zones | Income at station_{i} = income at station_{j} = 0 |

Relationship between one higher and one lower-income zone Relationship between two tourist-leisure zones Relationship between one tourist-leisure and one non-tourist leisure zone Relationship between two commercial zones Relationship between one commercial and one non-commercial zone | Income at station_{i} = 1, income at station_{j} = 0Tourist-leisure at station _{i} = tourist-leisure at station_{j} = 1Tourist-leisure at station _{i} = 1, tourist-leisure at station_{j} = 0Commercial station _{i} = commercial station_{j} = 1Commercial station _{i} = 1; commercial station_{j} = 0 |

Environmental effects | |

Distance | Distance (in km) between two stations |

**Table 4.**ERGM estimation of the public bike-sharing network “Sitycleta” in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, from April 2018 to October 2019.

Variable | Model 1 Coeff. | Model 1 Odds Ratios | Model 2 Coeff. | Model 2 Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|---|---|

Structural effects | ||||

Intensity | −1.43 (0.00) * | −2.16 (0.00) * | ||

Transitivity | 0.89 (0.00) * | 0.88 (0.00) * | ||

Nodal main effects | ||||

N° Stations 500 m | 0.04 (0.00) * | 1.04 | 0.04 (0.00) * | 1.04 |

Workers per postal zip | $-6.24\xb7$10^{−3}(0.00) * | 0.94 | $-6.26\xb7$10^{−3} (0.00) * | 0.94 |

Uptown stations | −0.75 (0.00) * | 0.47 | −0.76 (0.00) * | 0.47 |

Lower-income stations | −0.37 (0.00) * | 0.69 | ||

Nodal relational effects | ||||

Relationship between 2 higher-income zones | 0.74 (0.00) * | 2.10 | ||

Relationship between 1 higher and 1 lower-income zone | 0.38 (0.00) * | 1.46 | ||

Relationship between 2 tourist-leisure zones | 0.12 (0.00) * | 1.13 | 0.11 (0.00) * | 1.12 |

Relationship between 1 tourist-leisure and 1 non-tourist leisure zone | 0.17 (0.00) * | 1.19 | 0.17 (0.00) * | 1.19 |

Relationship between 2 commercial zones | 0.24 (0.00) * | 1.27 | 0.25 (0.00) * | 1.28 |

Relationship between 1 commercial and 1 non-commercial zone | 0.46 (0.00) * | 1.58 | 0.46 (0.00) * | 1.58 |

Environmental Effects | ||||

Distance | $-9.11\xb7$10^{−3} (0.00) * | 0.91 | $-9.03\xb7$10^{−3} (0.00) * | 0.91 |

AIC BIC | −1054 −1003 | −1054 −998.3 |

**Note**: Asterisk means significant at 99%.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Suárez-Vega, R.; Santana-Jiménez, Y.; Hernández, J.M.; Santana-Figueroa, J.J.
Assessment of the Bike-Sharing Socioeconomic Equity in the Use of Routes. *ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.* **2023**, *12*, 320.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12080320

**AMA Style**

Suárez-Vega R, Santana-Jiménez Y, Hernández JM, Santana-Figueroa JJ.
Assessment of the Bike-Sharing Socioeconomic Equity in the Use of Routes. *ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information*. 2023; 12(8):320.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12080320

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Suárez-Vega, Rafael, Yolanda Santana-Jiménez, Juan M. Hernández, and José Juan Santana-Figueroa.
2023. "Assessment of the Bike-Sharing Socioeconomic Equity in the Use of Routes" *ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information* 12, no. 8: 320.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12080320