Bike-sharing: the good, the bad, and the future

IF 2.1 4区 工程技术 Q3 TRANSPORTATION
David Duran-Rodas, Dominic Villeneuve, G. Wulfhorst
{"title":"Bike-sharing: the good, the bad, and the future","authors":"David Duran-Rodas, Dominic Villeneuve, G. Wulfhorst","doi":"10.18757/EJTIR.2020.20.4.5307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to the dilemma of bike-sharing concerning its benefits and drawbacks, and its unclear future, we focused on a mixed-methods approach to analyze this public discussion through posts or “tweets” from the social media channel Twitter. We collected around 12,000 tweets in English around the world related to bike-sharing for a period of about six months. We considered two approaches, including topic clustering and sentiment analysis in tweets including: a) bike-sharing related terms and b) “future” and bike-sharing related terms. Strongly positive tweets promote bike-sharing and its benefits such as being convenient, well-performing, and sustainable. Additionally, there is a tendency to write that public, electric, and dockless are better, together with scooters. In contrast, the complaints on bike-sharing focused on inequity, rentals and safety issues, critique on authorities and laws, and poor performance especially of dockless Asian bike-sharing start-ups with low-quality bikes. Around 50% of the tweets that included the terms “future” and “bike–sharing” stated that bike-sharing is going to be part of the future of mobility as an electric dockless version together with other shared modes. The hesitant statements towards bike-sharing being part of the future referred mainly to the systems with poor bikes’ quality. Politicians and stakeholders can use this information to enhance bike-sharing or consider the implementation of certain types of bike-sharing in their cities. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study would be one of the first that analysis the public discussion on social media about a transportation system and its future using a mixed-methods approach. Future studies should aim at identifying and comparing the public opinion of different emerging transportation technologies.","PeriodicalId":46721,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18757/EJTIR.2020.20.4.5307","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Due to the dilemma of bike-sharing concerning its benefits and drawbacks, and its unclear future, we focused on a mixed-methods approach to analyze this public discussion through posts or “tweets” from the social media channel Twitter. We collected around 12,000 tweets in English around the world related to bike-sharing for a period of about six months. We considered two approaches, including topic clustering and sentiment analysis in tweets including: a) bike-sharing related terms and b) “future” and bike-sharing related terms. Strongly positive tweets promote bike-sharing and its benefits such as being convenient, well-performing, and sustainable. Additionally, there is a tendency to write that public, electric, and dockless are better, together with scooters. In contrast, the complaints on bike-sharing focused on inequity, rentals and safety issues, critique on authorities and laws, and poor performance especially of dockless Asian bike-sharing start-ups with low-quality bikes. Around 50% of the tweets that included the terms “future” and “bike–sharing” stated that bike-sharing is going to be part of the future of mobility as an electric dockless version together with other shared modes. The hesitant statements towards bike-sharing being part of the future referred mainly to the systems with poor bikes’ quality. Politicians and stakeholders can use this information to enhance bike-sharing or consider the implementation of certain types of bike-sharing in their cities. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study would be one of the first that analysis the public discussion on social media about a transportation system and its future using a mixed-methods approach. Future studies should aim at identifying and comparing the public opinion of different emerging transportation technologies.
共享单车:好的、坏的和未来
由于共享单车在其优点和缺点方面的困境,以及其不明确的未来,我们专注于采用混合方法,通过社交媒体频道推特上的帖子或“推文”来分析这场公开讨论。在大约六个月的时间里,我们在世界各地收集了大约12000条与共享单车有关的英文推文。我们考虑了两种方法,包括推文中的主题聚类和情绪分析,包括:a)与共享单车相关的术语和b)“未来”和共享单车相关术语。强烈的正面推文宣传共享单车及其便利性、良好性能和可持续性等好处。此外,有一种趋势是,公共、电动和无码头与踏板车一起更好。相比之下,对共享单车的投诉集中在不公平、租赁和安全问题、对当局和法律的批评,以及糟糕的表现,尤其是那些拥有低质量自行车的无码头亚洲共享单车初创企业。在包含“未来”和“共享单车”两个术语的推文中,约50%的推文表示,共享单车将与其他共享模式一起,作为电动无码头版本,成为未来移动的一部分。对共享单车成为未来的一部分犹豫不决的说法主要指的是自行车质量差的系统。政治家和利益相关者可以利用这些信息来加强共享单车,或者考虑在他们的城市实施某些类型的共享单车。据作者所知,这项研究将是第一次使用混合方法分析社交媒体上关于交通系统及其未来的公众讨论。未来的研究应旨在识别和比较不同新兴交通技术的公众意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, freely accessible through the internet. EJTIR aims to present the results of high-quality scientific research to a readership of academics, practitioners and policy-makers. It is our ambition to be the journal of choice in the field of transport and infrastructure both for readers and authors. To achieve this ambition, EJTIR distinguishes itself from other journals in its field, both through its scope and the way it is published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信