skip to main content
10.1145/3510309.3510354acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicetmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

#bikeparking now: Bike Parking Patterns in the Landscape with Instagram Crowdsourced Data

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 March 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Progress in human development creates unwanted consequences in society. The public has been threatened with health issues that stem from the anthropogenic use of the environment. This is mainly the reason why the idea of a healthy city is an emerging topic. There must be a balance between having convenience and efficiency by affording health-supportive environments in the urban setting. The concept of active mobility is pushed for as it requires people to get exercise as a mode of transport. The mode of transport takes advantage of walking and cycling to get from one point to another. Between the two, the paper looks at cycling as it can reach farther distances and more locations with shorter periods.

In looking at active transport as a necessity to navigate between locations, the destination is the important reason for travel. If cycling active mobility is to be further encouraged, a sense of inclusivity must be provided through bike parking. This paper investigated current bike parking patterns in social media. Data was crowdsourced from Instagram with the hashtag “bikeparking” - #bikeparking (n=440). This study suggests a framework behind the considerations of bike parking by looking at dimensions of the user (parking typology, human presence, and type of bike used), cycling infrastructure (count of bikes parked, built overhead protection, and bike parking load), and environmental settings (visible elements and time settings) viewed through what social media labelled as #bikeparking. The sampled images were processed through content analysis. The variables collected were analyzed by Chi-square tests to find relationships within the suggested framework.

The data revealed that although there is a trend for cycling mobility, bike parking strategies in the landscape tend to vary based on the interactions between the variables of the user dimension to the other identified dimensions of cycling infrastructure and environmental settings. The contemporary patterns of bike parking elaborated in this paper provides an idea of ways wherein contributors of crowdsourced data find a scene they deem acceptable to be tagged as “#bikeparking.” In planning for more developments geared towards active mobility and health supportiveness, the landscape at the endpoints needs bike parking. Social media data through #bikeparking can contribute to this process through consideration of the framework interactions with security, demand, and environmental settings dimensions.

References

  1. Aashna Jain, Charles T. Brown, and James Sinclair. 2020. Case Studies on Increasing Walking and Bicycling through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/CPTED-Report_03.08.pdf Aashna Jain, Charles T. Brown, and James Sinclair. 2020. Case Studies on Increasing Walking and Bicycling through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/CPTED-Report_03.08.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alison Lee and Alan March. 2010. Recognising the economic role of bikes: sharing parking in Lygon Street, Carlton. Australian Planner, 47(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293681003767785Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Andrea Hamre and Ralph Buehler. 2014. Commuter Mode Choice and Free Car Parking, Public Transportation Benefits, Showers/Lockers, and Bike Parking at Work: Evidence from the Washington, DC Region. Journal of Public Transportation, 17(2), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.17.2.4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Andreas Nikiforiadis, Georgia Ayfantopoulou, and Afroditi Stamelou. 2020. Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Bike-Sharing Usage: The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability, 12, 19 (October 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Anne Brown, Nicholas Klein, Calvin Thigpen, and Nicholas Williams. 2020. Impeding access: The frequency and characteristics of improper scooter, bike, and car parking. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 4, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100099Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Franklin Oliveira, Dilan Nery, Daniel G. Costa, Ivanovitch Silva, and Luciana Lima. 2021. A Survey of Technologies and Recent Developments for Sustainable Smart Cycling. Sustainability, 13, 6 (March 2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063422Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Guido Schmidt-Traub, Mariana Mazzucato, Dirk Messner, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Johan Rockström, 2019. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2, 9 (September 2019), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jinhyun Hong, David Philip McArthur, and Joanna Stewart. 2020. Can providing safe cycling infrastructure encourage people to cycle more when it rains? The use of crowdsourced cycling data (Strava). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 133, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jinhyun Hong, David McArthur, and Varun Raturi. 2020. Did Safe Cycling Infrastructure Still Matter During a COVID-19 Lockdown? Sustainability, 12, 20 (October 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208672Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. John H. M. Brooks, Richard Tingay, and Justin Varney. 2020. Social distancing and COVID-19: an unprecedented active transport public health opportunity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55, 8 (September 2020), 411–412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102856Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. John Pucher and Ralph Buehler. 2017. Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future. Transport Reviews, 37, 6 (June 2017), 689–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1340234Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jonas Schmid-Querg, Andreas Keler, and Georgios Grigoropoulos. 2021. The Munich Bikeability Index: A Practical Approach for Measuring Urban Bikeability. Sustainability, 13, 1 (January 2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010428Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jose Antonio Bimbao. 2017. The Aesthetics of the Digital Common: Assessing The Emerging Discourse on Landscape Value of the Content Community, Unpublished Master in Tropical Landscape Architecture Thesis. University of the Philippines, Philippines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jose Antonio Bimbao and Yu-Chen Chien. 2021. What's our route? A case study on recent cycling patterns based on crowdsourced data in Taichung City, Taiwan. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Social Sciences and Intelligent Management (SSIM). Published. https://doi.org/10.1109/ssim49526.2021.9555202SGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jun Cao, Jason Prior, and Claudine Moutou. 2021. The governance of dockless bike-sharing schemes: A systemic review of peer-reviewed academic journal papers between 2016 and 2019. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 4 (June 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100140Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mason S. Gilbert, Abigail Smith, Alison L. Walsh, and M. Felicia Cavallini. 2021. Successfully Initiating a Bike Share Program in Smaller Communities: The College or University as a Focal Point. American Journal of Educational Research, 9, 5 (May 2021), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-9-5-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mohammad Sadegh Bahadori, Alexandre B. Gonçalves, and Filipe Moura. 2021. A Systematic Review of Station Location Techniques for Bicycle-Sharing Systems Planning and Operation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10, 8 (August 2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10080554Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Muhamad Razuhanafi Mat Yazid, Nik MohdIznan Tuan Yaakub, Mohamad NazriBorhan, Sharinatol Akmanida Jalamudin, and Nur Farma Fadilah Yaacob. 2021. The Barriers of Bike Sharing System in Ipoh City. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 56, 2 (April 2021), 652–658. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.56.2.52Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehandil Orvin, and Mahmudur Rahman Fatmi. 2021. Why individuals choose dockless bike sharing services? Travel Behaviour and Society, 22 (October 2020), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.10.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Njogu Morgan. 2019. Cycling infrastructure and the development of a bicycle commuting socio-technical system: the case of Johannesburg. Applied Mobilities, 4, 1 (December 2017), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2017.1416829Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Peng Zeng, Ming Wei, and Xiaoyang Liu. 2020. Investigating the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Urban Vitality Using Bicycle-Sharing Data. Sustainability, 12, 5 (February 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051714Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Ralph Buehler. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(7), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.06.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Robert Cervero, Benjamin Caldwell, and Jesus Cuellar. 2013. Bike-and-Ride: Build It and They Will Come. Journal of Public Transportation, 16(4), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.16.4.5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ruijing Wu, Shaoxuan Liu, Zhenyang Shi. 2019. Customer Incentive Rebalancing Plan in Free-Float Bike-Sharing System with Limited Information. Sustainability, 11, 11 (May 2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113088Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Seungkyu Ryu. 2020. A Bicycle Origin–Destination Matrix Estimation Based on a Two-Stage Procedure. Sustainability, 12, 7 (April 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072951Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Stefan Christiaan van der Spek and Noor Scheltema. 2015. The importance of bicycle parking management. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 15, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Stefania Zoika, Panagiotis Tzouras, Stefanos Tsigdinos, and Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou. 2021. Causal analysis of illegal parking in urban roads: The case of Greece. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(3), 1084–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.05.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Tao Zhou, Kris M.Y. Law, and K.L. Yung. 2020. An empirical analysis of intention of use for bike-sharing system in China through machine learning techniques. Enterprise Information Systems, 15, 6 (May 2020), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2020.1758796Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang Yang, Lan Jiang, and Zili Zhang. 2021. Tourists on shared bikes: Can bike-sharing boost attraction demand? Tourism Management, 86 (April 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104328Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. #bikeparking now: Bike Parking Patterns in the Landscape with Instagram Crowdsourced Data
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ICETM '21: Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Education Technology Management
          December 2021
          323 pages
          ISBN:9781450385800
          DOI:10.1145/3510309

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 14 March 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format