The paradox of public acceptance of bike sharing in Gothenburg

Abstract

Bike sharing is one of the most promising urban planning interventions to facilitate an all-necessary transition towards a more sustainable transport paradigm. Regardless of the fact that hundreds of schemes run in more than 50 countries worldwide, bike sharing is still moderately investigated by research. This paper reports on a primarily quantitative study of 558 responses that was set to frame attitudes reflecting public acceptance towards the rapidly expanding bike-sharing scheme in Gothenburg, Sweden (Styr & Ställ), in an attempt to identify the ‘formula for success’. The respondents generally believed that Styr & Ställ is a pro-environmental, inexpensive and healthy transport mode, which complements the city’s public transport services and promotes a more human-friendly identity for Gothenburg. Even the respondents that self-reported a small (or no) likelihood to use bike sharing were positive towards the scheme. This means that they recognise that bike sharing has a significant pro-social potential and is not a system favouring a particular road-user segment over others that might not be interested or able to use it. The fact that the majority of the respondents do not use the scheme and yet its popularity is still vast indicates that there is much potential for more use in real terms.

How Can Autonomous and Connected Vehicles, Electromobility, BRT, Hyperloop, Shared Use Mobility and Mobility-As-A-Service Shape Transport Futures for the Context of Smart Cities?

“…Bike-sharing can be defined as a locally customised provision of affordable short-term access to bicycles on an as-needed basis that could extend the reach of public transit services to final destinations and be a door-opener for increased bicycle usage [65]. Bike-sharing was first launched in Europe back in 1965 but re-emerged about a decade ago as a result of enhancements of ICT capabilitiesthat allowed a lot more control and safeguards in renting out bicycles.…”

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

“…An excessively car-centric transportation system has been the cornerstone of urban development for decades now; a cornerstone associated with adverse effects on social, economic and environmental sustainability. These effects that characterise the century-long reign of the conventional, fossil-fuelled, human-led, privately-owned car include increased traffic congestion, climate change, local air and noise pollution, road injuries and casualties, obesity and chronic diseases, decline in physical activity and a loss of social engagement [1][2][3]. All of them will continue to increase without appropriate interventions [4][5][6].…”

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

“…Since a car is more convenient and flexible than a bicycle, those who own a car may be less inclined to choose a public bicycle as their transportation (H1f). On the other hand, Fuller et al [27] has shown that public bicycle projects are more appealing to those whose travel modes are mainly centered upon using a bicycle, but Nikitas et al [48] indicated that many people tend to exclude themselves from using a bike-sharing scheme due to their ownership of private bicycles; for these individuals, their acceptance of the projects could be higher since they are more likely to appreciate the validity of bicycles as a viable transport mode. According to the results of the grounded theory, we assume for that those who have a private (H1g) or electric bicycle (H1h) may be more likely to use public bicycles because this reduces the chances of privately owned bicycles being stolen or damaged.…”