Exploring the Factors Affecting Shared Biking Perception: Insights from Türkiye

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3, 391 - 406, 11.07.2024

Bengü Sevil Oflaç , Seda Özcan

https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.20240303

Öz

Understanding consumer perception regarding shared biking services requires the analysis of psychological factors underlying the late diffusion of shared biking services. In this regard, by scrutinizing these underlying factors, we aim to uncover insights that can inform the development of targeted business strategies that better align with users’ preferences and needs, thereby overcoming barriers to adoption and facilitating the wider dissemination of shared biking systems. Findings show that as consumers perceive shared biking services as useful and hedonic, their attitudes become more favorable. Importantly, highlighting the mediating role of compatibility, this study emphasizes the congruence among shared biking services, consumers’ lifestyles, and their traveling habits. Findings also suggest that perceived complexity has a negative impact on shared biking attitudes. Interestingly, no significant relationship was found between perceived risk and shared biking attitude. The findings provide further support for innovation diffusion and theory of reasoned action. The suggested theoretical framework integrates variables related to both barriers and drivers, thus guiding future studies on the sharing economy. The study also provides insights that contribute to the development of service design and marketing strategies that respond better to users’ needs, and also, facilitate the spread of these mobility systems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Shared biking services, Shared biking adoption, Psychological factors, Structural Equation Modeling

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Action control (pp. 11-39). Springer.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
• Altin Gumussoy, C. (2016). Acceptance of the virtual item auctioning system in online games: The role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and trust. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(5), 627-637.
• Basukie, J., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2020). Big data governance and algorithmic management in sharing economy platforms: A case of ridesharing in emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120310.
• Bergantino, A. S., Intini, M., & Tangari, L. (2021). Influencing factors for potential bike-sharing users: An empirical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in Transportation Economics, 86, 101028.
• Böcker, L., Anderson, E., Uteng, T. P., & Throndsen, T. (2020). Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138, 389-401.
• Boksberger, P. E., & Melsen, L. (2011). Perceived value: A critical examination of definitions, concepts, and measures for the service industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 229-240.
• Carr, A. S., & Pearson, J. N. (1999). Strategically managed buyer–supplier relationships and performance outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 17(5), 497-519.
• Chen, S. Y., & Lu, C. C. (2016). A model of green acceptance and intentions to use bike-sharing: YouBike users in Taiwan. Networks and Spatial Economics, 16(4), 1103- 1124.
• Chen, X. (2022). Predicting College Students’ Bike-Sharing Intentions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
• Chen, Y., & Wang, L. (2019). Commentary: Marketing and the sharing economy: Digital economy and emerging market challenges. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 28-31.
• Chen, Z., van Lierop, D., & Ettema, D. (2020). Dockless bikesharing systems: What are the implications? Transport Reviews, 40(3), 333-353.
• Cheng, P., OuYang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2019). Understanding bike sharing use over time by employing extended technology continuance theory. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 124, 433-443.
• Chopdar, P. K., Lytras, M. D., & Visvizi, A. (2022). Exploring factors influencing bicycle-sharing adoption in India: A UTAUT 2 based mixed-method approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets.
• Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
• Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 923464.
• Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2020). Sharing economy: Studying the social and psychological factors and the outcomes of social exchange. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120143.
• De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. Journal of Brand Management, 21(6), 495-515.
• Dütschke, E., & Peters, A. (2017). Why are individuals likely to change to sustainable modes of transport like carsharing and electric vehicles? An empirical analysis (No. S06/2017). Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation.
• Eccarius, T., & Lu, C. C. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility–Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 84, 102327.
• El-Assi, W., Salah Mahmoud, M., & Nurul Habib, K. (2017). Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing in Toronto. Transportation, 44(3), 589 613.
• Eren, E., & Uz, V. E. (2020). A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101882.
• Fishman, E., & Schepers, P. (2016). Global bike share: What the data tells us about road safety. Journal of Safety Research, 56, 41-45.
• Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 686-698.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Franckle, R. L., Dunn, C. G., Vercammen, K. A., Dai, J., Soto, M. J., & Bleich, S. N. (2020). Facilitators and barriers to bikeshare use among users and non-users in a socioeconomically diverse urban population. Preventive Medicine Reports, 20, 101185.
• Gaes, G. G., Kalle, R. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). Impression management in the forced compliance situation: Two studies using the bogus pipeline. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(5), 493-510.
• Gao, F., Li, S., Wu, Z., Lv, D., Huang, G., & Liu, X. (2019). Spatial-temporal characteristics and the influencing factors of the ride destination of bike sharing in Guangzhou city. Geographical Research, 38(12), 2859- 2872.
• Gao, S., Li, Y., & Guo, H. (2019). Understanding the adoption of bike sharing systems: By combining technology diffusion theories and perceived risk. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology.
• Ge, Y., Qu, W., Qi, H., Cui, X., & Sun, X. (2020). Why people like using bikesharing: Factors influencing bikeshare use in a Chinese sample. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, 102520.
• Gerrard, P., & Cunningham, J. B. (2003). The diffusion of internet banking among Singapore consumers. International Journal of Bank Marketing.
• Grotzinger, A. D., Rhemtulla, M., de Vlaming, R., Ritchie, S. J., Mallard, T. T., Hill, W. D., ... & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2019). Genomic structural equation modelling provides insights into the multivariate genetic architecture of complex traits. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 513- 525.
• Guo, Y., Yang, L., & Chen, Y. (2022). Bike share usage and the built environment: A review. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River.
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
• Halvadia, N. B., Bhatt, K., Sharma, M., Sharma, A., & Dash, S. (2022). Consumers’ intention to use bicycle sharing services: The role of consumer consciousness. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 100076.
• Huang, D., Liu, Y., Wang, M., Yang, H., Huang, Q., & Li, C. (2020). How to promote users’ adoption behavior of dockless bike-sharing? An empirical study based on extended norms activation theory. Transportation Letters, 12(9), 638-648.
• Hussain, H. I., Kamarudin, F., Anwar, N. A. M., Ali, M., Turner, J. J., & Somasundram, S. A. (2023). Does income inequality influence the role of a sharing economy in promoting sustainable economic growth? Fresh evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), 100348.
• Hwang, B. N., Huang, C. Y., & Wu, C. H. (2016). A TOE approach to establish a green supply chain adoption decision model in the traffic semiconductor industry. Sustainability, 8(2), 168.
• Irawan, M. Z., Bastarianto, F. F., & Priyanto, S. (2022). Using an integrated model of TPB and TAM to analyze the pandemic impacts on the intention to use bicycles in the post-COVID-19 period. IATSS Research.
• Jahanshahi, D., Van Wee, B., & Kharazmi, O. A. (2019). Investigating factors affecting bicycle sharing system acceptability in a developing country: The case of Mashhad, Iran. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(2), 239-249. Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 344–361.
• Jamšek, S., & Culiberg, B. (2020). Introducing a three‐ tier sustainability framework to examine bike‐ sharing system use: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 44(2), 140-150.
• Ji, W., Lu, C., Mao, J., Liu, Y., Hou, M., & Pan, X. (2021). Public’s intention and influencing factors of dockless bike-sharing in central urban areas: A case study of Lanzhou City, China. Sustainability, 13(16), 9265.
• Jia, L., Liu, X., & Liu, Y. (2018). Impact of different stakeholders of bike-sharing industry on users’ intention of civilized use of bike-sharing. Sustainability, 10(5), 1437.
• Jiao, J., Lee, H. K., & Choi, S. J. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on bike-sharing usages in Seoul, South Korea. Cities, 130, 103849.
• Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 781-804.
• Khajehshahkoohi, M., Davoodi, S. R., & Shaaban, K. (2022). Factors affecting the behavioral intention of tourists on the use of bike sharing in tourism areas. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100742.
• Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013
• Kim, B., & Kim, D. (2020). Exploring the key antecedents influencing consumer’s continuance intention toward bike-sharing services: Focus on China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4556.
• Li, D., & Schoenherr, T. (2023). The institutionalization of sharing economy platforms in China. Journal of Operations Management.
• Li, R., Krishna Sinniah, G., & Li, X. (2022). The Factors Influencing Resident’s Intentions on E-Bike Sharing Usage in China. Sustainability, 14(9), 5013.
• Li, X., & Lin, H. (2022). Using the extended acceptance model to understand continuance intention of dockless bike-sharing. Frontiers in Psychology, 101.
• Lou, A. T. F., & Li, E. Y. (2017). Integrating innovation diffusion theory and the technology acceptance model: The adoption of blockchain technology from business managers’ perspective. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), 2017-Decem, 299–302.
• Lou, L., Li, L., Yang, S. B., & Koh, J. (2021). Promoting user participation of shared mobility in the sharing economy: Evidence from Chinese bike sharing services. Sustainability, 13(3), 1533.
• Lu, H., & Yu‐Jen Su, P. (2009). Factors affecting purchase intention on mobile shopping web sites. Internet Research, 19(4), 442-458.
• Ma, L., Zhang, X., Ding, X., & Wang, G. (2018). Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: An empirical study in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 14-24.
• Ma, X., Cao, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Effects of psychological factors on modal shift from car to dockless bike sharing: A case study of Nanjing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), 3420.
• Ma, X., Ji, Y., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., Jin, Y., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2020b). A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, 148-173.
• Ma, X., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2020a). Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: A case study in Delft, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120846.
• Maalouf, J. T., Abi Aad, A., & El Masri, K. (2021). Competitiveness of sharing economy companies in emerging markets. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 31(2), 297-309.
• Mars, L., Ruiz, T., & Arroyo, R. (2018). Identification of determinants for rescheduling travel mode choice and transportation policies to reduce car use in urban areas. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(8), 572-582.
• McKinsey (2020). The future of micromobility: Ridership and revenue after a crisis. [Online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-andassembly/our-insights/the-future-of-micromobilityridership-and-revenue-after-a-crisis.
• McKinsey (2021). Why micromobility is here to stay? [Online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/ industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/why-micromobility-is-here-to-stay?cid=always-psotwi-mip-mck-tsp-2201-i3a&sid=61f02011041db367 da0b5c54&linkId=149560086.
• Mete, S., Cil, Z. A., & Özceylan, E. (2018). Location and coverage analysis of bike-sharing stations in university campus. Business Systems Research: International Journal of the Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, 9(2), 80-95.
• Mikiki, F., Oikonomou, A., & Katartzi, E. (2021). Sustainable mobility issues of physically active university students: The case of Serres, Greece. Future Transportation, 1(3), 777-793.
• Ngan, N. T., & Khoi, B. H. (2019). Empirical study on intention to use bike-sharing in Vietnam. IIOAB, 10(Suppl 1), 1-6.
• Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Vo, N. S., Le, P. T., & Van Nguyen, T. (2021). How does perceived risk affect passenger satisfaction and loyalty towards ride-sourcing services?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 97, 102921.
• Nikiforiadis, A., Ayfantopoulou, G., & Stamelou, A. (2020). Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on bike-sharing usage: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability, 12(19), 8215.
• Nikitas, A. (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’. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 56, 306-321.
• Nikitas, A. (2019). How to save bike-sharing: An evidencebased survival toolkit for policy-makers and mobility providers. Sustainability, 11(11), 3206.
• Panda, D. S., Tripathy, S., Choudhury, N., Singhal, D., & Tripathy, S. (2023). Bike-sharing Intention: An Empirical Study in India. In Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering (pp. 331-339). Springer, Singapore.
• Peeters, G. G., Brown, W. J., & Burton, N. W. (2015). Psychosocial factors associated with increased physical activity in insufficiently active adults with arthritis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(5), 558-564.
• Plewa, C., & Palmer, K. (2014). Self-congruence theory: towards a greater understanding of the global and malleable selves in a sports-specific consumption context. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship.
• Podgórniak-Krzykacz, A., & 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(2), 651-662.
• Politis, I., Fyrogenis, I., Papadopoulos, E., Nikolaidou, A., & Verani, E. (2020). Shifting to shared wheels: Factors affecting dockless bike-sharing choice for short and long trips. Sustainability, 12(19), 8205.
• Qin, H., Gao, J., Kluger, R., & Wu, Y. J. (2018). Effects of perception on public bike-and-ride: A survey under complex, multifactor mode-choice scenarios. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 54, 264-275.
• Rahimi, E., Shabanpour, R., Shamshiripour, A., & Mohammadian, A. K. (2021). Perceived risk of using shared mobility services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 81, 271-281.
• Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MEF), (2023), Türkiye bike network expands with over 1,600 kms of lanes, Last access: 17.03.2024, https://csb.gov.tr/bakan-ozhaseki-nefes-alan-sehirler-ve-saglikliinsanlar-siariyla-ulkemizi-bisiklet-aglariyla-orup-havakalitesini-iyilestiriyoruz-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-38712.
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
• Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Edition, the Free Press, New York.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• Rojanakit, P., de Oliveira, R. T., & Dulleck, U. (2022). The sharing economy: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1317-1334.
• Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518.
• Shen, Y., Zhang, X., & Zhao, J. (2018). Understanding the usage of dockless bike sharing in Singapore. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(9), 686-700.
• Shin, E. J. (2021). A comparative study of bike-sharing systems from a user’s perspective: An analysis of online reviews in three US regions between 2010 and 2018. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(12), 908-923.
• Si, H., Shi, J. G., Tang, D., Wu, G., & Lan, J. (2020). Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104513.
• Sirgy, M. J., Johar, J. S., Samli, A. C., & Claiborne, C. B. (1991). Self-congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 363-375.
• Song, H., Yin, G., Wan, X., Guo, M., Xie, Z., & Gu, J. (2021). Increasing Bike-Sharing Users’ Willingness to Pay — A Study of China Based on Perceived Value Theory and Structural Equation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
• Standing, C., Jie, F., Le, T., Standing, S., & Biermann, S. (2021). Analysis of the use and perception of shared mobility: A case study in Western Australia. Sustainability, 13(16), 8766.
• Statista (2022). Bike-sharing - Türkiye. Last access: 09.11.2022, https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/shared-mobility/shared-rides/bike-sharing/Türkiye#analyst-opinion.
• Sun, Y. (2018). Sharing and riding: How the dockless bike sharing scheme in China shapes the city. Urban Science, 2(3), 68.
• Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5, 18–27.
• Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro‐change bias: incorporating passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894-907.
• Tao, J., & Zhou, Z. (2021). Evaluation of potential contribution of dockless bike-sharing service to sustainable and efficient urban mobility in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 921-932.
• TCPNMP Turkish Cycle Path Network Master Plan (2021). Last access: 14.10.2022, https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/ db/cygm/menu/turkiye_bisiklet_yolu_agi_master_plani_cilt1_20211221042955.pdf.
• Teixeira, J. F., Silva, C., & e Sá, F. M. (2021). The motivations for using bike sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from Lisbon. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 82, 378-399.
• Therrien, S., Brauer, M., Fuller, D., Gauvin, L., Teschke, K., & Winters, M. (2014). Identifying the leaders: applying diffusion of innovation theory to use of a public bikeshare system in Vancouver, Canada. Transportation Research Record, 2468(1), 74- 83.
• Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoptionimplementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (1), 28-45.
• Uslu, C., Altunkasa, F. M., Boyacıgil, O., Konaklı, N., & Salıcı, A. (2012). Bicycle master plan for Adana, Türkiye. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 138(1), 62-69.
• Wahab, S. N., Hamzah, M. I., Ye, X., & Hareeah, V. (2020). Bikesharing acceptance through the lens of the theory of routine mode choice decisions. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 23(1-2), 25-47.
• Wang, Y., Douglas, M., & Hazen, B. (2021). Diffusion of public bicycle systems: Investigating influences of users’ perceived risk and switching intention. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 143, 1-13.
• Wang, Y., Gu, J., Wang, S., & Wang, J. (2019). Understanding consumers’ willingness to use ride-sharing services: The roles of perceived value and perceived risk. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 105, 504-519.
• Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Wang, J., Douglas, M., & Su, D. (2021). Examining the influence of social norms on orderly parking behavior of dockless bike-sharing users. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 147, 284-296.
• Wei, X., Luo, S., & Nie, Y. M. (2019). Diffusion behavior in a docked bike-sharing system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 107, 510-524.
• Wei, Z., Mo, H., & Liu, Y. (2018). Spatial-temporal characteristics of bike-sharing: An empirical study of Tianhe District, Guangzhou. Sci. Technol. Rev, 36, 71-80.
• WRI Türkiye (2018). Last access: 25.11. 2022, https://wrisehirler.org/sites/default/files/A%20Roadmap%20for%20Municipalities%20on%20Bicycle%20Transportation%20Workshop.pdf. Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(5), 719-729.
• Xue, X., Wang, Z., Liu, X., Zhou, Z., & Song, R. (2022). A choice behavior model of bike-sharing based on user perception, psychological expectations, and loyalty. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2022.
• Ye, X. (2022). Bike-Sharing Adoption in Cross-National Contexts: An Empirical Research on the Factors Affecting Users’ Intentions. Sustainability, 14(6), 3208.
• Yeganeh, H. (2021). An analysis of factors and conditions pertaining to the rise of the sharing economy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(3), 582-600.
• Yin, J., Qian, L., & Shen, J. (2019). From value co-creation to value co-destruction? The case of dockless bike sharing in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 169-185.
• Yuen, K. F., Wang, X., Ma, F., & Wong, Y. D. (2019). The determinants of customers’ intention to use smart lockers for last-mile deliveries. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 316-326.
• Zhang, T., Zeng, W., Zhang, Y., Tao, D., Li, G., & Qu, X. (2021). What drives people to use automated vehicles? A meta-analytic review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 159, 106270.
• Zhang, X., Wang, J., Long, X., & Li, W. (2021). Understanding the intention to use bike-sharing system: A case study in Xi’an, China. PLoS One, 16(12), e0258790.
• Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197- 206.
• Zhou, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Customer satisfaction of bicycle sharing: studying perceived service quality with SEM model. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(5), 437-448.