European Spatial Research and Policy
Volume 31, 2024, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.31.1.07

Justyna TRIPPNER-HRABI ^*

Aldona PODGÓRNIAK-KRZYKACZ^*

Szymon WÓJCIK^*

FINANCIAL DETERMINANTS OF MODE SUBSTITUTION IN RESIDENTS’ TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR: A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC BIKE-SHARING IN LODZ, POLAND

1. INTRODUCTION

The modal substitution of car travel with environmentally friendly low-carbon mobility options represents a pivotal strategy for transitioning towards sustainable urban mobility (Becker and Rudolf, 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). A key expectation associated with public bike-sharing systems is their potential to redirect existing car journeys towards more sustainable modes of transportation, such as bicycles (Fishman et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2018; Shaheen et al., 2016). However, previous research has suggested that shared bikes have not been entirely effective in displacing car travel (Johansson et al., 2019; Fishman et al., 2014; Bieliński et al., 2021). Our understanding of the factors that drive modal substitution remains incomplete (Javaid et al., 2020; Guo and Zhang, 2021; Chen et al., 2022a). Thus, this paper aims to uncover the patterns of modal substitution brought by urban cycling and to underscore the significance of financial considerations in influencing the travel behaviour of urban residents. In our study, we consider modal substitution as potentially permanent, frequent, or occasional and encompassing the replacement of cars, public transport, and pedestrian journeys with shared bicycles.

Our emphasis on financial factors stems from the impact of bicycle rental fees on the adoption of this mobility option in urban settings, a phenomenon well-documented in numerous studies (Ricci, 2015; Podgórniak-Krzykacz et al., 2022; Ji, 2023). The primary contribution of this research to the field lies in its focused investigation into the role of financial factors in shaping modal substitution. By examining perceived cost savings in transportation, the financial accessibility of bike-sharing services, and the income of users, we introduce a novel dimension to the discourse, shedding light on the economic motivations underpinning modal substitution decisions.

The findings of this study could offer valuable insights for policymakers and urban planners seeking to promote sustainable urban mobility and reduce reliance on private vehicles, especially in light of ongoing global efforts to address climate change and urban sustainability.

The analyses conducted in this article pertain to the city of Lodz in Poland. Poland has emerged as a leader among Central and Eastern European countries in the development of shared mobility systems, particularly bike-sharing systems (Kuźma et al., 2022). Lodz, a central Polish city, offers an intriguing context to explore the dynamics of urban mobility. The city’s flat topography, coupled with an expanding network of bike lanes and cyclist-friendly infrastructure, creates an ideal setting for bike-sharing activities. Lodz boasts a diverse transportation system, with two traffic peaks, one around 9 a.m. and another at 5 p.m., followed by a gradual decline in travel until 11 a.m. (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2021). This pattern suggests significant potential for bike-sharing to play a pivotal role in urban mobility and alleviate transportation congestion.

The bike-sharing system in Lodz was inaugurated in 2016, with Nextbike serving as its operator at the time. In its inaugural year, the system achieved a notable success, and in the subsequent years, rental numbers remained relatively stable. Between 2016 and 2019, approximately 1.5 million bike rentals were recorded annually, accompanied by a concurrent doubling of registered users, from 66,000 to 130,000 (Rowerowa Łódź, 2022).

Our survey was conducted among 296 users of the bike-sharing system in Lodz in 2019. This study examines three financial predictors influencing changes in citizens’ travel behaviour following the introduction of a bike-sharing service: the role of transport cost savings as a motivation for using bike-sharing services, the perceived financial accessibility of the bike-sharing service, and the income levels of users. The financial conditions for utilising the bike-sharing system in Lodz were favourable for users making short trips, as the first 20 minutes of bike usage were free, and the high density of bike stations, particularly in the city centre and its immediate surroundings (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2020), which facilitated covering short distances at no cost. As such, our study aims to investigate whether financial factors influenced the substitution of other transportation modes with shared bicycles.

We sought answers to the following research questions:

1. Does the availability of the public bicycle system in Lodz lead to modal substitution where respondents opt for shared bicycles over other means of urban transportation?
2. Is there a correlation between the significance of financial factors for using public bicycles and the frequency of substituting other modes of transportation with bicycles?

The structure of this article is as follows. The following section presents a literature review examining the impact of bike-sharing service availability on residents’ travel behaviour, along with the findings of previous studies regarding the determinants of such changes, including financial aspects. The methodology and results sections follow, and the article concludes with a discussion and summary.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Shared mobility has become an integral part of urban landscapes worldwide, offering travellers short-term access to various transportation modes, including motor vehicles, bicycles, and scooters, tailored to their specific needs. Bike-sharing represents a prime example of the sharing economy paradigm, offering an innovative solution to transportation challenges (Pawłowska, 2019). Bike-sharing programs have been successfully introduced and implemented in numerous cities globally, serving as policy instruments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, alleviate traffic congestion, and promote physical activity. They have effectively bridged gaps in existing public transportation networks (Shaheen and Chan, 2016). Empirical evidence underscores the substantial positive externalities associated with bike-sharing programs. These programs offer urban residents a convenient and time-efficient mode of travel (Maas et al., 2021) while reducing traffic, lowering energy consumption, minimising harmful emissions, enhancing public health, and stimulating economic growth (Chen et al., 2022b). Bike-sharing holds the potential to play a pivotal role in urban transportation development, providing valuable insights for shaping urban transportation policies (Qiu and He, 2018). Nevertheless, transitioning travel behaviour away from automobiles and towards more sustainable alternatives, such as cycling, has proven to be a formidable challenge. Historical engineering-focused solutions to transportation issues during the 1960s to the 1990s marginalised cycling to the extent that utility trips in the United Kingdom plummeted from 13% in 1952 to around 1% by 1972 (Watson and Shove, 2008).

However, in many cities worldwide, residents, authorities, and other stakeholders have embraced the positive outcomes associated with private or shared bicycles. The surging popularity of cycling serves as evidence that behavioural change is attainable, even in cases of limited or suboptimal infrastructure investments (Pucher et al., 2011). Some research has investigated the transition from other modes of transport to shared bikes (Crisostomi et al., 2015). On average, no significant change was observed when shifting from private cars (Midgley, 2011; Johansson et al., 2019). However, residents more frequently switch from public transport (Jäppinen et al., 2013), a phenomenon often attributed to cultural factors, where public transport is perceived as the least desirable option, offering inadequate service quality. López-Casasnovas (2009) estimated that in Barcelona, most bike-sharing users had previously relied on public transport, implying that bike-sharing has, to some extent, supplanted mass transit systems like buses and subways.

Conversely, Otero et al. (2018) demonstrated that, when accounting for control variables and spatial effects, the frequency of public transport use significantly correlated with the number of bike-sharing trips. This positive effect was observed for short and medium-distance trips, but no such relationship was found for long-distance journeys. These findings underscore the relevance of public transport frequency as a determinant of bike-sharing usage, an aspect deserving attention in urban planning (Otero et al., 2018; Radzimski and Dzięcielski, 2021).

Recent developments have introduced unexpected shifts in travel behaviour. Abdullah et al. (2021) noted that travel behaviour worldwide underwent significant changes following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers confirmed a shift towards personal cars during lockdowns (Abdullah et al., 2021; Ku et al., 2021; Tan and Ma, 2021). Another study explored the spatiotemporal shift in bike-sharing patterns in Chicago during the pandemic, comparing them to other transportation modes. Generalised additive (mixed) models were employed to identify relationships and non-linear time interactions between daily bike-sharing usage at the station level and various independent variables. The results revealed that stations located in areas with higher income levels experienced a decrease in bicycle use during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period (Li et al., 2021).

According to Campbell et al. (2016), research based on a preference survey and multinomial logit analysis suggests that transitioning from existing modes of transport to bike-sharing depends on factors such as travel distance, temperature, precipitation, and air quality. Another study underscores the key factors contributing to bike-sharing success, emphasising the importance of local government experience, well-planned infrastructure, and public education as essential pillars of effective bike-sharing systems (Kwiatkowski and Biegańska, 2021). Zhao and Li (2017) observed that individuals with middle and high incomes were more likely to opt for cars over bicycles, while those with lower incomes preferred buses. Personal attitudes also play a crucial role in mode choice, as individuals who prioritise cost-effective travel are more inclined to choose cycling. Rodriguez-Valencia et al. (2021) revealed a connection between experience with public bike-sharing and perceptions of it as a mode of transportation. Less experienced users were more motivated by rational reasons, such as cost savings and dissatisfaction with subpar public transport. In contrast, experienced cyclists linked their use of public bikes to their passion for this mode of transport. Fishman et al. (2013) emphasised the paramount importance placed on value for money by bike-share members, a primary motivation for their registration and utilisation of these programs.

Numerous studies have explored the benefits of bike-sharing (Shelat et al., 2018; Nieuwenhuijsen and Rojas-Rueda, 2020; Chen et al., 2022c; Zhi et al., 2022). Otero et al. (2018) conducted a health impact assessment study to quantify the health risks and benefits of replacing car travel with the European Bike-Sharing System (BSS). The health benefits of physical activity outweighed the health risks posed by fatal road accidents and air pollution. The level of car travel substitution corresponded to an annual saving of €18 million, primarily due to reduced fatalities. The benefits of shared bikes can also be assessed from an economic perspective. Bullock et al. (2017) demonstrated the economic advantages of bike-sharing schemes in Dublin, showcasing individual benefits and public good outcomes.

However, research on the impact of public bicycling on citizens’ transport behaviour and the importance of financial factors driving these changes in Central and Eastern European countries remains limited. Analyses of bike-sharing systems in this region underscore their dynamic development and strong user interest (Kuźma et al., 2022). Poland, in particular, stands out with its average annual revenues from bike-sharing services, reaching €21 million in 2019, several times higher than neighbouring countries (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2020). The development of bike-sharing systems in Poland began in 2010 and proceeded at a rapid pace until the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, bike rentals in major Polish cities dropped by almost 50% (Jędrzejewski, 2022). From 2020 to 2022, the shared bike market in Poland experienced renewed growth, with 79 bike-sharing systems operating in 2022, offering approximately 23,700 vehicles (Mobilne miasto, 2023).

In contrast to the prevalence of scooter-sharing systems in Polish cities, constituting 80% of the shared micro-mobility market, 95% of bike-sharing systems are government-owned (docked bike-sharing), with only 5% being commercial systems. Public bike systems in Poland are largely funded by cities, with development often facilitated by European Union funds (Dzięcielski et al., 2020). Due to high maintenance costs, some Polish cities (e.g., Poznań, Olsztyn) have discontinued bike-sharing systems in recent years, while new systems continue to emerge. In 2024, the launch of the largest bike-sharing system in Poland, and the third-largest in Europe, is planned across 31 municipalities in the Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolis. The system will include 7,000 bikes and approximately 1,000 stations, offering passengers using public transportation monthly passes the ability to rent bikes for free for up to 30 minutes a day (Metropolia GZM, 2023).

Research on public bicycling in Polish cities has focused on the performance of bike-sharing systems (Bieliński et al., 2019), frequency of use, motivations and determinants of public bicycle use, including financial considerations (Podgórniak-Krzykacz and Trippner-Hrabi, 2021; Podgórniak-Krzykacz et al., 2022), user evaluations (Macioszek et al., 2020), or evaluations of specific application features (Pamuła and Gontar, 2017). However, the issue of modal substitution resulting from the introduction of bike-sharing systems has not been thoroughly examined. Radzimiński and Dzięcielski (2021) conducted a study in the city of Poznań that explored integration and substitution between public bicycles and public transport. The metropolitan bike-sharing system in Poland has also garnered interest, with studies highlighting the various needs of cities, towns, and villages in integrating bike-sharing as a means of transport for residents, tourists, and recreational cyclists (Kwiatkowski, 2021). Consequently, our study addresses this knowledge gap by investigating modal substitution induced by urban cycling in the Polish city of Lodz and seeks to establish the significance of financial factors in driving this change.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research sample

The operator of the bike-sharing system in Lodz during the survey period was Nextbike Polska, managing a fleet of 1,584 vehicles. In 2019, this system ranked fourth among the 15 largest bike-sharing systems in Poland (as shown in Table 1). The Lodz public bicycle system followed a station-based operational model, comprising 157 stations. In 2019, the system recorded 1.4 million rentals, making it the third-largest in terms of usage in Poland.

Source: Mobilne miasto (2020).

The changes in travel behaviour among Lodz residents, influenced by the availability of bike-sharing services and their financial determinants, were investigated through a survey conducted using the Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) technique. This survey took place from March to June 2019. The survey sample was non-random and purposive, consisting of individuals who had rented a bicycle from the municipal system in Lodz at least once. To ensure the sample met the target group specifications, a screening question was used at the beginning of the survey. Four interviewers were engaged and provided with thorough instructions to ensure accurate data collection. The survey was conducted among passers-by near bike stations. Control variables such as respondents’ age, gender, education, and monthly household income were included in the study. Table 2 presents the characteristics of the sample based on these attributes.

Source: own work.

3.2. Measurement and data analysis method

Respondents indicated changes in their travel behaviour resulting from the availability of public bicycles in Lodz using 11 proposed alternatives:

• they abandoned traveling by private car in favour of public bicycles permanently, frequently, or occasionally,
• they abandoned traveling by public transport in favour of public bicycles permanently, frequently, or occasionally,
• they abandoned walking or pedestrian movements in favour of public bicycles permanently, frequently, or occasionally,
• they continued using their usual mode of transportation and considered public bicycles as an additional means of transport,
• they did not change their behaviour.

The financial incentive for using the bike-sharing service was assessed by inquiring whether cost savings motivated their use of the city bikes. The perceived affordability of the bike-sharing service was evaluated by asking respondents to rate their satisfaction with the price of renting a city bike using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly unsatisfactory, 5 = strongly satisfactory).

Statistical analyses involved the Fisher test, the chi-square test of independence, and the Mann-Whitney test to examine the relationships between variables. The significance of the tests was assessed at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels. Effect sizes were determined using V-Cramer coefficients and correlation coefficients. All calculations were performed using Stata 17 software.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Modal substitution as a result of bike-sharing system availability

The influence of the public bike system’s availability on altering respondents’ travel behaviour is presented in Table 3. The respondents had the option to choose multiple answers (mutually exclusive options were eliminated by the authors). Among those who regularly use public mass transport, approximately 25% reported occasionally substituting public transport with bicycles. Slightly fewer respondents mentioned frequent substitution of public transport with bicycles. Significantly fewer respondents indicated a permanent shift compared to the „frequently” and „occasionally” categories. Similar patterns emerged among pedestrians, where a significantly smaller proportion permanently switched from walking to using a city bike compared to those who did it frequently or occasionally. These results highlight public bicycles as the primary alternative to both public transport and pedestrian mobility. However, the ongoing trend of replacing these modes of transportation with public bicycles may not be sustainable. In contrast, public bicycles are considerably less competitive with private cars, but when a change occurs, it tends to be frequent or occasional. Such changes also persist longer compared to pedestrians and public transport users.

Source: own work.

One-third of respondents stated that public bikes served as an additional mode of transport, and they continued to use other existing mobility options with the same frequency. Approximately 20% of respondents believed that access to the bicycle system did not lead to a permanent change in their travel behaviour.

4.2. The impact of financial determinants on the travel behaviour change due to bike-sharing system availability

The relationship between respondents’ declared changes in travel behaviour and financial predictors (including user income, the motive of saving transport expenses when renting a bicycle, and satisfaction with the price of renting a bicycle) was analysed. Income levels did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with any variation of travel behaviour change. Out of 296 respondents, 84 (28.4%) indicated cost savings in transport expenses as a motivating factor for choosing a public bicycle, with half of them reporting an average monthly household income below PLN 5,000. Using the chi-square test of independence, the association between the financial motive for choosing a city bike and changes in travel behaviour in response to the availability of bike rental services in the city was assessed. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 4.

Explanations: p – empirical significance level of the chi-square test of independence (*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01); V – V-Cramer coefficient (effect size).
Source: own work.

Cost savings for using city bicycles exhibited a highly statistically significant relationship (at the 1% significance level) with occasionally substituting walking with city bicycles, although the strength of this relationship was weak. At the 10% significance level, statistical significance was also observed among respondents who frequently substituted public transport with city bikes, occasionally substituted walking with city bikes, or experienced no permanent change in their travel behaviour. In all cases, the strength of the relationship ranged from weak to very weak.

Respondents’ satisfaction with the price of renting public bikes is summarized in Table 5. Satisfactory and very satisfactory ratings were prevalent, accounting for over 70% of respondents in total, indicating high financial accessibility of the service. This high satisfaction likely stems from the first 20 minutes of bicycle usage being free of charge and the dense network of stations, particularly in the city centre (on average 5.35 stations per 10 sq. km of the city area), making it possible to reach them within this time limit. Similar to other Polish and European cities, the price list rewards frequent and short-term bicycle users with no incurred costs and imposes fees that increase substantially with each subsequent hour of rental for longer routes (Fishman et al., 2013; Kwiatkowski, 2018).

Source: own work.

Subsequently, using the Mann-Whitney test, respondents’ average satisfaction ratings with the price of renting bicycles were compared based on their declared changes in travel behaviour. The results are presented in Table 6.

Explanations: M – average; SD – standard deviation; Z – standardized Z-score for Mann-Whitney test statistics; p – empirical significance level of the Mann-Whitney test (*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01); |r| – correlation coefficient (effect size).
Source: own work.

Statistically significant differences in the assessment of satisfaction with the price of using a city bike were revealed among people who switched to a city bike from a car permanently (at the 5% significance level), frequently (at the 10% significance level), or occasionally (at the 5% significance level). Among residents who frequently give up travelling by public transport in favour of a city bike, and among people who occasionally give up walking in favour of a city bike this relationship was significant at the 10% significance level. The switch from using a car to a city bike permanently yielded the most substantial effect size. However, in all cases, the magnitude of the observed effects was low.

Statistically significant differences in satisfaction ratings for using a city bike were observed among individuals who permanently switched from using a car to a city bike (at the 5% significance level), those who frequently made this change (at the 10% significance level), or those who occasionally did (at the 5% significance level). Among residents who frequently substituted public transport with city bikes and those who occasionally replaced walking with city bikes, this relationship was significant at the 10% significance level. The most substantial effect size was observed for the permanent switch from using a car to a city bike. However, in all cases, the observed effects were of low magnitude.

5. DISCUSSION

Our analysis reveals that bike-sharing serves as an additional mobility option for respondents without significantly altering their travel behaviour. Despite the increasing number of users in the Lodz bike-sharing system until 2019 and the noticeable share of trips made using rented bikes in the modal split (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2020), car travel remains the dominant mode of urban transportation in the city (Wiśniewski et al., 2023). Other analyses also emphasize the significant role of private cars and the limited use of bicycles in the mobility of residents of Polish cities (Bartosiewicz and Pielesiak, 2019). Furthermore, studies on bike-sharing system performance in Poland indicate relatively low utilization, with the average TDB (the number of trips per day per bike) in 2018 being 1.93, lower than observed in larger global cities or Chinese cities, ranging from 0.12 to 4.89 (Bieliński et al., 2019).

Nevertheless, our findings do indicate some impact of the bike-sharing system, which varies depending on the previous modes of travel. The most substantial behavioural change observed was the shift from public transport to public bicycles. To a lesser extent, public bicycles became competitive with walking, and to the smallest extent, they replaced individual car travel. These findings are consistent with results from studies conducted in various countries, confirming the competitiveness of public bicycles with public transport (Jäppinen et al., 2013; López-Casasnovas, 2009; Jin, 2019; Wolny-Kucińska, 2020). Similar observations apply to e-bikes (Bielinski et al., 2021). In Lodz, the well-developed public transport network, especially in the city centre, is countered by high traffic congestion, resulting in extended travel times, delays, and a decrease in the attractiveness of this mode of transportation (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2023; Wiśniewski et al., 2023). Consequently, public transport users in Lodz may seek alternative means of transportation.

Considering the positive impact of cycling on health, changes from public transport to cycling should be viewed favourably. Conversely, switching from walking to cycling should be regarded as neutral. It’s important to acknowledge the hierarchy of green transport, where walking trips are the most environmentally beneficial, healthy, and cost-effective (provided suitable pedestrian infrastructure exists). In contrast, cycling systems require financial investments for setup and operation, and they generate CO2 emissions throughout their life cycle due to system maintenance, vehicle relocation, and operation (Chen et al., 2023). Thus, cycling may not be an attractive option for travellers on short pedestrian journeys, which is a common scenario in Lodz (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2020).

The most desirable shift, from private car travel to cycling, is optimal for balancing transport systems, reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Cao and Shen, 2019; Chen et al., 2022b), and promoting public health. However, this transition is inadequately achieved in the studied city, consistent with findings from other studies (e.g., Midgley, 2011; Johansson et al., 2019; Fishamnn et al., 2014) regarding low car-to-bicycle mode substitution. This is attributed to individuals’ heavy reliance on cars. Barbour et al. (2019) drew more extensive conclusions about the behaviour of registered users of bike-sharing systems, suggesting that people’s dependence on cars leads them to rent bicycles less frequently and substitute bicycle travel with car travel when access to a bicycle system is unavailable. Furthermore, studies on the impact of bicycle systems on reducing car ownership suggest a small but immediate effect (Basu and Ferreira, 2021).

In the case of Lodz, despite the presence of a bike-sharing system with an efficiently distributed station network and a substantial number of bikes (Borowska-Stefańska et al., 2020), it does not constitute an attractive alternative to car travel, especially considering the prevalent traffic congestion. The high dependence of Polish society on cars, the nature of car travel primarily for commuting to workplaces, and significant travel distances due to urban sprawl in urban regions motivate car usage (Bartosiewicz and Pielesiak, 2019). In 2019, the Lodz bike-sharing system also had a concentration of bike stations in the city centre, affecting its accessibility in the outskirts. Basu and Ferreira (2021) estimated a 3.3% reduction in kilometres travelled by car with the introduction of a new cycling station, which increased to 10% when integrated with public transport and when bike stations were located within one kilometre of each other.

Our results reveal a relationship between financial factors related to bike-sharing (cost-saving motives and satisfaction with rental prices) and certain changes in travel behaviour. Respondents who occasionally and frequently substituted walking or public transport with cycling were more likely to emphasize the importance of cost savings. In both cases, this behaviour change can be attributed to the cost-free nature of cycling for the first 20 minutes. Additionally, our research suggests that low bike rental costs have the potential to reduce car travel. Among respondents highly satisfied with the rental price, there was a higher incidence of permanently, frequently, or occasionally giving up car travel. However, these relationships are of weak magnitude. These findings align with other research indicating the significance of bike travel costs in influencing car-to-bike mode substitution (Narayanan et al., 2023). In other studies, the importance of bicycle rental costs for intending to use the service was more pronounced among students compared to office workers (Duan et al., 2023).

It’s important to recognize that this study has certain limitations, primarily related to the non-representative nature of the research sample. Since the sample is not representative, we cannot extrapolate the research findings to encompass the entire population of Lodz’s citizens or all users of Lodz’s bike system. Such an attempt could potentially lead to biased conclusions, particularly when considering specific groups of residents who are not adequately represented in the research sample. Furthermore, the sample size is limited, which posed a challenge when attempting to introduce more advanced statistical techniques, such as multivariate regression analysis. Therefore, future developments of this study should prioritize achieving sample representativeness in terms of the general sociodemographic structure and spatial distribution of respondents, as well as expanding the sample size for more robust analysis.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Our study primarily focused on examining modal substitution options involving shared bikes. These analyses contribute significantly to addressing a knowledge gap concerning the adoption of shared bicycles in Polish cities. The research conducted among shared bicycle users in Lodz revealed that the most substantial impact observed was the substitution of public transport trips with bicycle trips, while the influence on replacing car trips was minimal. Such patterns and the limited degree of modal substitution do not align with expectations and do not support the goals of transitioning to sustainable urban mobility. The bike-sharing system does not appear to be an effective tool for facilitating this transition by substituting private and multimodal trips with shared bikes and public transport.

In our study, we examined the significance of financial factors in the shift from other modes of transportation to bike rentals. What sets our approach apart from other approaches is the consideration of two predictors of this substitution: the financial incentive for using the bike-sharing service and the perceived affordability of the bike-sharing service. We have indeed identified a statistically significant relationship between satisfaction with pricing and the decision to give up car travel in favour of cycling, as well as the cost-saving motive and the substitution of walking and public transport travel with biking. However, these relationships are relatively weak, underscoring the importance of other contributing factors.

These findings have implications for policymakers. To enhance the impact of cycling in reducing car journeys, it is imperative to promote cycling systems and introduce more flexible and financially attractive conditions for bike rentals from the user’s perspective. The promotion of cycling systems should emphasize the financial benefits associated with replacing car trips with bike-sharing. Additionally, encouraging multimodal journeys that combine first/last mile bike-sharing with public transport is essential. An illustrative example of innovative bike rental schemes is the one planned for implementation in Krakow, Poland, in 2023, offering the option to rent a city bike exclusively for one month.

Acknowledgements. The authors of the study gratefully acknowledge the linguistic assistance of Mark Muirhead form the University of Lodz. The final version of the manuscript was additionally proofread with the use of ChatGPT 3.5 and Grammarly software.

^* Justyna TRIPPNER – HRABI, University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Local Government Economics, POW 3/5, 90-255 Łódź, Poland; e-mail: justyna.hrabi@uni.lodz.pl; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3241-1122

^* Aldona PODGÓRNIAK – KRZYKACZ, University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Labour and Social Policy, Rewolucji 1905 r. 37/39, 90-214 Łódź, Poland; e-mail: aldona.podgorniak@uni.lodz.pl; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0029-0418

^* Szymon WÓJCIK, University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Department of Econometrics, Rewolucji 1905 r. 41/43, 90-214 Łódź, Poland; e-mail: szymon.wojcik@uni.lodz.pl; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6796-5734

REFERENCES

ABDULLAH, M., ALI, N., HUSSAIN, S. A., ASLAM, A. B. and JAVID, M. A. (2021), ‘Measuring changes in travel behavior pattern due to COVID-19 in a developing country: A case study of Pakistan’, Transport Policy, 108, pp. 21−33. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tranpol.2021.04.023

BARBOUR, N., ZHANG, Y. and MANNERING, F. (2019), ‘A statistical analysis of bike sharing usage and its potential as an auto-trip substitute’, Journal of Transport and Health, 12, pp. 253−262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.02.004

BARTOSIEWICZ, B. and PIELESIAK, I. (2019), ‘Spatial patterns of travel behaviour in Poland’, Travel Behaviour and Society, 15, pp. 113−122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs. 2019.01.004

BASU, R. and FERREIRA, J. (2021), ‘Planning car-lite neighborhoods: Does bikesharing reduce auto-dependence?’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102721

BECKER, S. and RUDOLF, C. (2018), ‘Exploring the potential of free cargo-bikesharing for sustainable mobility’, GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27 (1), pp. 156−164. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.11

BIELIŃSKI, T., KWAPISZ, A. and WAŻNA, A. (2019), ‘Bike-Sharing Systems in Poland’, Sustainability, 11 (9), 2458. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092458

BIELIŃSKI, T., KWAPISZ, A. and WAŻNA, A. (2021), ‘Electric bike-sharing services mode substitution for driving, public transit, and cycling’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 96, 102883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102883

BOROWSKA-STEFAŃSKA, M., KOWALSKI, M., KURZYK, P., SAHEBGHARANI, A., SAPIŃSKA, P., WIŚNIEWSKI, S., GONIEWICZ, K. and DULEBENETS, M. A. (2023), ‘Assessing the impacts of sunday trading restrictions on urban public transport: An example of a big city in central Poland’, Journal of Public Transportation, 25, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2023.100049

BOROWSKA-STEFAŃSKA, M., KOWALSKI, M. and WIŚNIEWSKI S. (2020), Funkcjonowanie roweru publicznego w dużym mieście. Przykład Łodzi, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. https://doi.org/10.18778/8142-996-2

BOROWSKA-STEFAŃSKA, M., MIKUSOVA, M., KOWALSKI, M., KURZYK, P. and WIŚNIEWSKI, S. (2021), ‘Changes in urban mobility related to the public bike system with regard to weather conditions and statutory retail restrictions’, Remote Sensing, 13 (18), 3597. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13183597

BULLOCK, C., BRERETON, F. and BAILEY, S. (2017), ‘The economic contribution of public bike-share to the sustainability and efficient functioning of cities’, Sustainable cities and society, 28, pp. 76−87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.024

CAMPBELL, A., CHERRY, C. R., RYERSON, M. S. and YANG, X. (2016), ‘Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing’, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, pp. 399−414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004

CAO, Y. and SHEN, D. (2019), ‘Contribution of shared bikes to carbon dioxide emission reduction and the economy in Beijing’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101749

CHEN, B., LI, J., SU, H., LU, K., CHEN, H. and HUANG, J. (2022c), ‘Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emission reduction through bike-sharing for sustainable cities’, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102789

CHEN, M., CAI, Y., ZHOU, Y., CHEN, L., WAN, H. and LI, Z. (2023), ‘Life-cycle greenhouse gas emission assessment for bike-sharing systems based on a rebalancing emission estimation model’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 191, 106892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106892

CHEN, Y., ZHANG, Y., COFFMAN, D. M. and MI, Z. (2022a), ‘An environmental benefit analysis of bike sharing in New York City’, Cities, 121, 103475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103475

CHEN, Z., VAN LIEROP, D. and ETTEMA, D. (2022b), ‘Dockless bike-sharing’s impact on mode substitution and influential factors: Evidence from Beijing, China’, Journal of Transport and Land Use, 15 (1), pp. 71−93. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2022.1983

CRISOSTOMI, E., FAIZRAHNEMOON, M., SCHLOTE, A. and SHORTEN, R. (2015), ‘A Markov-chain based model for a bike-sharing system’, International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), pp. 367−372. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVE.2015.12

DUAN, Y., WANG, J., LI, H., YAN, Y. and ZHANG, X. (2023), ‘A Comparison in Travel Characteristics of Bike-Sharing between College Students and Office Workers Based on Theory of Planned Behavior’, Behavioral Sciences, 13 (4), 329. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040329

DZIĘCIELSKI, M., WOŹNIAK, M. and RADZIMSKI, A. (2020), ‘Exploring bike-sharing systems in Poland co-financed from the European Union funds’, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 23 (4), pp. 7−18. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859XPKG. 20.023.13125

FISHMAN, E., WASHINGTON, S. and HAWORTH, N. (2013), ‘Bike share: a synthesis of the literature’, Transport reviews, 33 (2), pp. 148−165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.775612

FISHMAN, E., WASHINGTON, S. and HAWORTH, N. (2014), ‘Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 31, pp. 13−20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013

GUO, Y. and ZHANG, Y. (2021), ‘Understanding factors influencing shared e-scooter usage and its impact on auto mode substitution’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 99, 102991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102991

JAVAID, A., CREUTZIG, F. and BAMBERG, S. (2020), ‘Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review of reviews’, Environmental Research Letters, 15 (10), 103002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba032

JÄPPINEN, S., TOIVONEN, T. and SALONEN, M. (2013), ‘Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in Greater Helsinki: An open data approach’, Applied Geography, 43, pp. 13−24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog. 2013.05.010

JĘDRZEJEWSKI, A. (2022), ‘Rower miejski na nowo. Jakich zmian wymaga w Polsce bike sharing?’ https://smartride.pl/rower-miejski-na-nowo-jakich-zmian-wymaga-w-polsce-bike-sharing/ [accessed on: 15.12.2023].

JI, Y. (2023), ‘Research on Pricing of Parent-Child Shared Bicycles Based on Biogeme’, Proceedings of the 4th Management Science Informatization and Economic Innovation Development Conference MSIEID 2022, Chongqing, China, 9-11 December, 2022.

JIN, H., JIN, F., WANG, J. E., SUN, W. and DONG, L. (2019), ‘Competition and cooperation between shared bicycles and public transit: A case study of Beijing’, Sustainability, 11 (5), 1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051323

JOHANSSON, F., HENRIKSSON, G. and ENVALL, P. (2019), ‘Moving to private-car-restricted and mobility-served neighborhoods: The unspectacular workings of a progressive mobility plan’, Sustainability, 11 (22), 6208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226208

KU, D.-G., UM, J.-S., BYON, Y.-J., KIM, J.-Y. and LEE, S.-J. (2021), ‘Changes in passengers’ travel behavior due to COVID-19’, Sustainability, 13 (14), 7974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147974

KUŹMA J., POŁOM, M. and ŻUKOWSKA, S. (2022), ‘Rozwój mobilności współdzielonej w Polsce na tle tendencji europejskich’, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 25 (1), pp. 7−22. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859XPKG.22.003.15963

KWIATKOWSKI, M. A. and BIEGAŃSKA, J. (2021), ‘Rower publiczny 1. generacji w XXI w. – studium przypadku Krotoszyna’, Rozwój regionalny i polityka regionalna, 14 (57), pp. 207−219. https://doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2021.57.14

KWIATKOWSKI, M. A. (2018), ‘Bike-sharing-boom – rozwój nowych form zrównoważonego transportu w Polsce na przykładzie roweru publicznego’, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 21 (3), pp. 60−69. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859XPKG.18.017.10142

KWIATKOWSKI, M. A. (2021), ‘Metropolitan bicycle-sharing system in the context of various needs of cities, towns, and villages’, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 54, pp. 97−111. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2021-0036

LI, H., ZHANG, Y., ZHU, M. and REN, G. (2021), ‘Impacts of COVID-19 on the usage of public bicycle share in London’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 150, pp. 140−155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.010

LÓPEZ-CASASNOVAS, G. (2009), ‘El Bicing no es tan buena idea’, El Periódico de Catalunya, https://www.elperiodico.com/es/opinion/20090415/el-bicing-no-es-tan-buena-idea-125973 [accessed on: 18.12.2023].

LU, M., HSU, S.-C., CHEN, P.-C. and LEE, W.-Y. (2018), ‘Improving the sustainability of integrated transportation system with bike-sharing: A spatial agent-based approach’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, pp. 44−51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.023

MAAS, S., NIKOLAOU, P., ATTARD, M. and DIMITRIOU, L. (2021), ‘Examining spatio-temporal trip patterns of bicycle sharing systems in Southern European Island cities’, Research in Transportation Economics, 86, 100992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100992

MACIOSZEK, E., ŚWIERK, P. and KUREK, A. (2020), ‘The bike-sharing system as an element of enhancing sustainable mobility - A case study based on a city in Poland’, Sustainability, 12 (8), 3285. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083285

METROPOLIA GZM (2023), Metrorower zaprezentowany! Powstaje największy system roweru miejskiego w Polsce, https://metropoliagzm.pl/2023/10/31/metrorower-zaprezentowany-powstaje-najwiekszy-system-roweru-miejskiego-w-polsce/ [accessed on: 15.12.2023].

MIDGLEY, P. (2011), ‘Bicycle-sharing schemes: enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas’, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 8, pp. 1−12.

MOBILNE MIASTO (2020), Ostre hamowanie roweru miejskiego. Bikesharing w Polsce 2019/2020 https://mobilne-miasto.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Mobilne_Miasto_raport_bikesharing_final.pdf [accessed on: 18.12.2023].

MOBILNE MIASTO (2023), RAPORT: Rekordowa podaż pojazdów. Mikromobilność w Polsce 2022, https://mobilne-miasto.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RAPORT_MIKROSHARING_2022_final.pdf [accessed on: 15.12.2023].

NARAYANAN, S., MAKAROV, N., MAGKOS, E., SALANOVA GRAU, J. M., AIFADOPOULOU, G. and ANTONIOU, C. (2023), ‘Can Bike-Sharing Reduce Car Use in Alexandroupolis? An Exploration through the Comparison of Discrete Choice and Machine Learning Models’, Smart Cities, 6 (3), pp. 1239−1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6030060

NIEUWENHUIJSEN, M. J. and ROJAS-RUEDA, D. (2020), ‘Chapter Ten – Bike-sharing systems and health’, [in:] NIEUWENHUIJSEN, M. J. and KHREIS, H. (eds), Advances in Transportation and Health, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 239−250. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819136-1.00010-3

OTERO, I., NIEUWENHUIJSEN, M. J. and ROJAS-RUEDA, D. (2018), ‘Health impacts of bike sharing systems in Europe’, Environment International, 115, pp. 387−394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.014

PAMUŁA, A. and GONTAR, B. (2017), ‘Rower miejski w Łodzi – ocena użytkowników’, Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy, 52 (4), pp. 490−499. https://doi.org/10.15584/nsawg.2017.4.36

PAWŁOWSKA, J. (2019), ‘Systemy roweru miejskiego jako przejaw ekonomii współdzielenia’, Zeszyty Studenckie „NASZE STUDIA”, 9, pp. 27−38.

PODGÓRNIAK-KRZYKACZ, A., PRZYWOJSKA, J. and TRIPPNER-HRABI, J. (2022), ‘A Public Value-Based, Multilevel Evaluation Framework to Examine Public Bike-Sharing Systems. Implications for Cities’ Sustainable Transport Policies’, Transport and Telecommunication Journal, 23 (2), pp. 180–194. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2022-0016

PODGÓRNIAK-KRZYKACZ, A. and TRIPPNER-HRABI, J. (2021), ‘Motives and factors that determine city residents’ use of public bicycles. The case of Lodz, Poland’, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9, pp. 651−662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.03.003

PUCHER, J., BUEHLER, R. and SEINEN, M. (2011), ‘Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45 (6), pp. 451−475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001

QIU, L.-Y. and HE, L.-Y. (2018), ‘Bike sharing and the economy, the environment, and health-related externalities’, Sustainability, 10 (4), 1145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041145

RADZIMSKI, A. and DZIĘCIELSKI, M. (2021), ‘Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 145, pp. 189−202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.01.003

RICCI, M. (2015), ‘Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation’, Research in Transportation Business and Management, 15, pp. 28−38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.003

RODRIGUEZ-VALENCIA, A., ROSAS-SATIZABAL, D., UNDA, R. and HANDY, S. (2021), ‘The decision to start commuting by bicycle in Bogota, Colombia: Motivations and influences’, Travel Behaviour and Society, 24, pp. 57−67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.02.003

ROWEROWA ŁÓDŹ (2022), ‘Rower publiczny ciągle zawodzi’, https://rowerowalodz.pl/rower-publiczny/rower-publiczny-ciagle-zawodzi [accessed on: 15.12.2023].

SHAHEEN, S. and CHAN, N. (2016), ‘Mobility and the sharing economy: Potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections’, Built Environment (1978-), 42 (4), pp. 573−588.

SHAHEEN, S., COHEN, A. and ZOHDY, I. (2016), ‘Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles’, Shared Mobility Primer, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42193 [accessed on: 20.12.2023].

SHELAT, S., HUISMAN, R. and VAN OORT, N. (2018), ‘Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode’, Research in Transportation Economics, 69, pp. 68−76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.017

TAN, L. and MA, C. (2021), ‘Choice behavior of commuters’ rail transit mode during the COVID-19 pandemic based on logistic model’, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 8 (2), pp. 186−195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2020.07.002

WATSON, M. and SHOVE, E. (2008), ‘Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption’, Journal of consumer culture, 8 (1), pp. 69−89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540507085

WIŚNIEWSKI, S., BOROWSKA-STEFAŃSKA, M., DULEBENETS, M., KOWALSKI, M. and MASIEREK, E. (2023), ‘Changeability of transport behaviour in a large city from the perspective of working days and Sundays: The case of Łódź, Poland’, Moravian Geographical Reports, 31 (1), pp. 14−26. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2023-0002

WOLNY-KUCIŃSKA, A. (2020), ‘Rower podmiejski – koncepcja roweru publicznego na obszarach codziennych dojazdów do miast na przykładzie Polski’, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 23 (1), pp. 41−57. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859XPKG.20.012.12114

ZHANG, Z., GUO, Y. and FENG, L. (2022), ‘Externalities of dockless bicycle-sharing systems: Implications for green recovery of the transportation sector’, Economic Analysis and Policy, 76, pp. 410−419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.08.009

ZHAO, P. and LI, S. (2017), ‘Bicycle-metro integration in a growing city: The determinants of cycling as a transfer mode in metro station areas in Beijing’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 99, pp. 46−60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.003

ZHI, D., SUN, H., LV, Y. and XU, G. (2022), ‘Quantifying the comprehensive benefit of the bike-sharing system under cycling behavior differences’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134660

© by the author, licensee Łódź University–Łódź University Press, Łódź, Poland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Received: 09.10.2023. Revised: 05.01.2024. Accepted: 22.01.2024