This is a repository copy of Bicycle parking: a systematic review of scientific literature on

parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel
behaviour.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/143013/

Version: Accepted Version

Article:
Heinen, E orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-5709 and Buehler, R (2019) Bicycle parking: a
systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and
their influence on cycling and travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 39 (5). pp. 630-656.
ISSN 0144-1647

https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1590477

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Accepted
Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Transport Reviews on 21 Mar
2019, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1590477.

Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.

Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Bicycle parking: a systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour,
parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour

Abstract
Cycling is experiencing a revival in many cities. Research has focused on the determinants of
cycling—in particular the role of the built environment and road infrastructure. Bicycle
parking has received little attention—even though bicycles are parked most of the time.
This article reviews the scientific literature on bicycle parking and identifies existing
gaps in research and knowledge. The review analyses 94 peer-reviewed papers identified
through a search in Scopus and Web of Science, in December 2017.
The annual number of papers increased 15-fold between 1995 and 2017. Overall, the
level of evidence on the importance of bicycle parking is limited. The majority of studies are
based on cross-sectional data with the presence of parking as a binary independent variable.
Most studies focus on bicycle parking at public transport stops and at work places. Few
studies report on bicycle parking throughout cities, and hardly any on parking at residential
locations. Bicycle parking supply and quality appears to be a determinant of cycling for
current and potential cyclists.
Our findings can serve as input for an evidence-based debate on the role of bicycle
parking. For practitioners, our research supports investment in bicycle parking, but
acknowledges that a proper evaluation of such initiatives needs to be conducted to increase
the level of evidence.

Keywords:
bicycle, parking, cycling, work-place, residence, stations
1. Introduction
Cycling has many individual and societal benefits. Riding a bicycle requires less space than
driving a car, it does not produce air pollution, and it can help increase levels of physical
activity and thereby improve individual and population health (Chief Medical, 2011). During
the past few decades, governments have increasingly encouraged cycling through various
initiatives including investments in bicycle infrastructure. At the same time, the number of
bicycling-related peer-reviewed publications has soared (Pucher & Buehler, 2017).
The majority of studies focus on the infrastructure necessary for the movement of
bicycles—such as the impacts of bike lanes or bike paths on cycling levels. Infrastructure for
bicycle parking has received limited attention—even though bicycles are parked the majority
of the time. For example, German and US national household travel surveys from 2017/2018
suggest that bicycles are parked at least 23 hours per day. This is likely an underestimate of
bicycle parking/standing time, because this estimate assumes that cyclists only own one
bicycle and excludes all bicycles owned by individuals who did not ride the day of the
survey.
It seems intuitive that parking is important infrastructure for cycling. Bicycle parking
can protect bicycles from theft, damage, and weather. The presence of bicycle parking, the
convenience and security of the location, its quality, and potential cost facilitate or hinder
cycling. Easily accessible, safe, secure, and inexpensive bicycle parking may increase the
likelihood to ride a bicycle. In contrast, the absence of easily accessible, safe, and
inexpensive bicycle parking may deter cycling. Next to theft, longer travel times, or more
demanding journeys due to inconveniently located and remote bicycle parking or increased
effort to park safely could reduce cycling.
Desirable features of bicycle parking facilities may depend on the characteristics of
the parking behaviour itself (e.g. duration and frequency of parking), trip characteristics (e.g.
purpose and distance), the bicycle (e.g. value, type), the location (e.g. at home, work, public
transport stop), and the user. Moreover, these factors may interrelate. For example, longer
distance trips may require higher quality and more expensive bicycles with increased
financial damage in case of theft. Alternatively, individuals may ride cheaper and lower
quality bicycles if the perceived chance of theft is high.
Typically, bicycles are parked at the residential location for the majority of time. The
residential location is the origin of most trips—including utilitarian (e.g. the work commute)
and recreational trips. Compared to other locations, parking at home involves parking for a
long duration (often multiple days or even weeks and months), with the potential of parking
multiple bicycles per household. A second frequent location to park is at work. Parking at
work is concentrated during an 8 hour work day and must accommodate multiple employees
commuting by bicycle. Bicycles are also often used in combination with public transport.
Parking at bus stops and train stations ranges from short-term parking to parking for multiple
days. Parking at public transport stations may potentially be very crowded, with continuous
movement of bicycles being parked and collected throughout a day. Finally, parking may
take place at any other urban or rural location. This parking can be highly variable in duration
and could be either spatially concentrated or dispersed.
A dedicated (systematic) review of bicycle parking is lacking thus far and we
consequently have a limited understanding of bicycle parking demand, how people park their
bicycles, and the effect of bicycle parking on (travel) behaviour. Consequently, transport
professionals and urban planners have limited guidance on where parking is best placed, how
much parking is needed, and which characteristics this parking should have in terms of
quality, proximity, and price. To provide bicycle parking of sufficient quality, an evidence-
based debate on the impact of bicycle parking facilities (and their absence) on cycling
informs future policies that promote cycling and can help estimate the demand of bicycle
parking and the required quality at different locations. For this, a better understanding of the
current evidence on bicycle parking and the development of a research agenda is essential.
This paper aims (1) to review the scientific knowledge in published peer-reviewed
papers on the impact of the presence, the amount and the quality of bicycle parking on
bicycle ownership, (travel) behaviour, bicycle parking behaviour (practices), and preferences
as well as (2) to identify empirical and methodological gaps in existing literature. These aims
are guided by the following questions:

(a) How do the quality, amount, cost, and safety of parking facilities influence bicycle
parking behaviour and demand?
(b) What is known about cyclists’ and non-cyclists’ preferences for bicycle parking
facilities?
(c) How are cycling and other (travel) behaviour influenced by the availability of
bicycle parking?
(d) Which methods are used to investigate bicycle parking and what is the current level
of evidence?

This paper is limited to reviewing the scientific literature on parking of private

bicycles. It excludes studies that focus on bicycle sharing, e.g. calculating where best to
position docking stations. Moreover, it does not comprise bicycles transported on-board or
outside of public transport vehicles.

2. Method
We searched two electronic databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), because Scopus
covers a greater number of journals in the social sciences and WoS has better historical
coverage (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). In December 2017, we conducted two searches for
peer-reviewed academic publications and reviews on bicycle parking. The first search
focused narrowly on search terms related directly to bicycle parking. The second was wider
to capture papers that investigated bicycle parking, but did not mention the exact combination
of search terms in search 1 (see Figure 1). All searches were based on the content of the title,
abstract, and keywords. The first search yielded 95 papers in WOS and 90 in Scopus, with an
overlap of 60. The second search yielded 607 papers in WOS and 533 in Scopus, with an
overlap of only 174. In total, we had 1,325 hits and 1,007 unique papers. There was an
overlap of 328 in total: 174 in the wider search, 60 in the narrow search, and 94 between
wider and narrow search results.
We read all abstracts and examined 137 papers in detail. We excluded papers that did
not focus on bicycle parking. The majority of those focussed on the positioning of parking
docks for bicycle-sharing schemes or on the effect of car parking on cycling or cyclist safety.
We excluded nine papers that could not be accessed—even after contacting the authors
directly and attempts by our university libraries to find the papers. Our final list comprised 94
papers for the literature review—including four review papers on cycling that contained
parking as a sub-topic (Figure 1). Sixteen of these papers focused exclusively on bicycle
parking. The other papers analysed bicycle parking as one factor among others—for example
as one of several variables in a regression model. We extracted information regarding (1)
study design, (2) dimension of bicycle parking studied, (3) country, (4) sample size, (5)
location where bicycle parking was provided, and (6) the findings of the study (see Tables 1-
4).
Figure 1: Review flow chart

3 Results
3.1 Trends and origin of research
Comparable to the strong growth in research on bicycling overall (Pucher & Buehler, 2017),
the number of peer-reviewed papers about bicycle parking increased sharply during the last
two decades. There was an average of only 0.8 papers in peer-reviewed journal publications
that included bicycle parking between 1995 and 2005. This rate almost tripled to 2.8
publications per year between 2006 and 2010. The years 2011-2015 saw another tripling of
this rate to 10.2. Finally, in both 2016 and 2017, around 15 bicycle-parking-related papers
were published. Thus, the number of peer-reviewed-bicycle parking papers per year increased
15-fold between 1995 and 2017. For comparison research on car parking has not seen such a
sharp increase. The largest number of papers (n=30) originated from the USA, followed by
China (n=8), the UK (n=7), and the Netherlands (n=7) (see Tables 1-4).

3.2 Methods Used in Bicycle Parking Studies

Most studies were conducted on the individual level, but the unit of analysis included train
stations, libraries, hospitals, schools, zip-code areas, cities, counties, and countries. Sample
sizes ranged from several thousand survey participants to interviews with a few respondents
(Table 1-4).
Only 17 of the studies reviewed used qualitative research methods, such as focus
groups or interviews. About a quarter (26) used descriptive statistics to analyse bicycle
parking. One in seven papers relied on stated preference data collected from survey
respondents. About one third of studies (33) featured cross-sectional data based on surveys,
observations, and counts of cyclists or bicycles. We found only seven before-and-after studies
evaluating the impact of bicycle parking provision. Methods of analysis followed the type of
data collected, and varied from describing the observations to determining causal relations in
before and after studies. The most common form of analyses was the inclusion of the
presence of parking as one of the independent variables in a multivariable statistical analysis
based on cross-sectional data.

3.3 Empirical findings

We identified four relatively distinct categories of studies based on the location of bicycle
parking at: public transport stations and stops (n=26); work, universities (both employment
and education), and schools (n=40); in the city and at other locations (n=27), and at home
(n=7). Although there is some overlap in findings, the emphasis of the topics addressed
differed. Possible explanations are that some locations are more likely to serve as an origin
(e.g. residence) and other locations (e.g. work, the city) as destinations, that trip purposes
differ by location, and that the duration of parking differs by location. We discuss the
empirical findings for each location by first providing a general overview of the body of
research, followed by a discussion of the research questions outlined above focusing on (1)
supply, demand and parking behaviour, (2) preferences, and (3) effect on (travel) behaviour.

3.3.1 Parking at public transport exchanges

Bicycle parking at public transport (PT) stops and stations has received much attention in the
scientific literature. The successful coordination of PT and bicycle parking can enlarge the PT
catchment area, reduce the need of operating feeder (bus) services, and increase demand for
bicycling and PT (Krizek & Stonebraker, 2011). Bicycle parking is typically analysed as an
element of bicycle–PT integration, and the literature has addressed issues of proximity,
quality, and price on stated preferences and potential effect on travel behaviour.

Supply, demand, parking behaviour, and preferences

The type of bicycle parking available at PT stops ranges from simple bicycle racks without
weather protection to full-service bicycle parking garages with video surveillance, repair
services, and bicycle rentals (Pucher & Buehler, 2006, 2008a). Reported bicycle trip shares
are higher for PT access than egress. Reported bicycle shares of PT access trips ranged from
0.8% (California) and 9% (Singapore) to 25% (Netherlands and Denmark). Bicycle trip
shares for egress trips ranged from 5% in the UK, 6% in Denmark, 7% in the Netherlands to
9% in Singapore (Calimente, 2012; Cervero, Caldwell, & Cuellar, 2013; Chen et al., 2012;
Halldórsdóttir et al., 2017; Martens, 2007; Sherwin, et al., 2011). The bicycle is more often
used for accessing rail, than other forms of PT (Martens, 2007). These variations in use may
affect the demand for parking, or the quality and quantity of parking may explain the
differences in use.
Cyclists park preferably close to PT. Four of five bicycles at rail stations in New
South Wales, Australia were parked within very close distance to the rail-station entrance (30
m). Cyclists were willing to walk farther to access higher quality parking, such as bicycle
lockers, but occupancy rates dropped by 20% for lockers farther than 100 m from the
entrance (Arbis et al., 2016). Martens (2007) reported that the inconvenient location of
bicycle parking at some bus stops in the Netherlands resulted in bicycles parked closer to the
bus stop, but not in designated bicycle-parking facilities. Highly visible areas are also
preferred (Molin & Maat, 2015) and more bicycles are parked in areas with video or public
surveillance (Arbis et al., 2016).
Several studies showed that bicycle-parking duration at PT stations and stops varies.
Some report an average of about 4-8h at Nanjing Metro stations (Chen et al., 2012), others
found that many bicycles were hardly used at all: a quarter of available parking spaces were
occupied by abandoned bicycles in New Jersey USA (Harvey et al., 2016) and 7% of bicycles
parked overnight at the Bristol, UK train station were used only once a week (Sherwin et al.,
 2011). The presence of abandoned or vandalised bicycles is a deterrent to parking (Rojas
López & Wong, 2017).

Effect on travel behaviour

The vast majority of papers found a positive relationship between bicycle parking supply and
cycling levels or the stated likelihood to cycle to access PT (e.g. Appleyard, 2012; Arbis et
al., 2016). For example, Appleyard & Ferrell (2017) found that commuters in California are
more likely to cycle to stations with a greater bicycle parking supply. In Denmark, the
availability of bicycle parking increased the likelihood of cycling to a station by a factor of
2.5 (Halldórsdóttir et al., 2017).
Few quantitative studies consider the quantity or quality differences of bicycle
parking. Those studies predominantly conclude that a larger number of parking spaces and
higher quality parking increases cycling (e.g. Geurs, La Paix, & Van Weperen, 2016). For
example, in Denmark, 100 additional bicycle parking places were related to a 2.5% greater
likelihood of making a bicycle egress trip from a station (Halldórsdóttir et al., 2017). The
presence of covered bicycle racks made cycling from the station 2.9 times more likely
(Halldórsdóttir et al., 2017), and bicycle lockers were approximately 2.5 times more of an
incentive for bike-and-ride use than simple covered bicycle racks (Taylor & Mahmassani,
1996). Puello & Geurs (2015) found that improvements in unguarded bicycle parking
facilities may increase the number of people who cycle to the train station more than
improvements in guarded bicycle parking facilities—although the lack of safe bicycle
parking is a key barrier to cycling to bus, train, and metro stations (de Souza et al., 2017).
Proximity of parking may also increase cycling. If bicycle parking was closer to the entrance,
there was a greater likelihood to cycle to Metro stops (Chen et al., 2012) and for main train
stations 2 minutes was found to be the critical factor (Geurs et al. 2016). Most studies focus
on rail–bicycle integration, and the one study on bus–bicycle integration suggest that high
quality parking at bus stops may not have similar effects: bicycle lockers at bus stops are
rarely used, possibly given the high cost of locker parking compared to the inexpensive
bicycles typically used for such trips in the Netherlands (Martens, 2007).
Paying for parking decreases the likelihood of cycling (Molin & Maat, 2015). Geurs
et al. (2016) found that free bicycle parking would result in an 11% greater likelihood of
cycling to the train station (vs. having to pay for parking).

Table 1: Overview of topics and methods of papers on parking at transport exchanges

Paper Method Country Sample size
Quantitative - Stated
Quantitative -

Quantitative-
Quantitative Revealed
Case study
Monologue

sectional
Qualitative

intervention
Descriptive analyses

preference experiment

preference cross-

Other

Author(s) and year

Appleyard & Ferrell, 2017 x USA crime data

Appleyard, 2012 x USA 5,694

x(observatio 146 outside parking and 102

Arbis et al., 2016 x x Australia
nal) lockers
Bachand-Marleau et al.,
x x Canada 1,432
2011
Bopp, Sims, Matthews, et
x USA 999 employees and staff
al., 2016
Calimente, 2012 x x Japan

Cervero et al., 2013 x USA 396 stations

Chen et al., 2012 x x China 1,784
x(focus
de Souza et al., 2017 x Brazil 505 (survey respondents)
group)
Debrezion et al., 2009 x Netherlands 1,440 postcode areas

Fukuda & Morichi, 2007 x Japan 1,616

Geurs et al., 2016 x x Netherlands 1,524 train station users

2,921 trips originating from
Halldorsdottir, 2017 x Denmark
home, 3658 from activity
x(focus
Harvey et al., 2016 x x USA 35 stations, 8 in focus group
group)
Ji et al., 2017 x China 709
Krizek & Stonebraker, x(focus
x x USA 6 case studies
2011 group)
Martens, 2007 x x Netherlands

Martinez & Cornejo, 2003 x Peru 2,500

Molin & Maat, 2015 x Netherlands 1,109

Netherlands,
Pucher & Buehler, 2008b x x x Denmark,
Germany
Netherland,
Pucher & Buehler, 2008a x x Denmark,
Germany
12,000 observations of
Puello & Geurs, 2015 x Netherlands
journeys
Rojas López & Wong, 3 focus groups, 26
x Singapore
2017 interviews

Sherwin et al., 2011 x x(observational) UK 2 stations

Taylor & Mahmassani,

x USA 814
1997
Yang et al., 2015 x China 825

In bold papers that are (largely) focussed on parking

3.3.2 Parking at work, universities, and schools

Commuting as a trip purpose has received substantial attention in transport research and
perhaps consequently, the number of studies on bicycle parking at work and educational
facilities school is large. The majority of studies focussed on employment sites, including
universities, but several studies concentrated on university students or children. We combined
the discussion of work and school, given that several papers combine students and staff at
universities. Moreover, parking at these locations shares similarities in terms of duration and
concentration in time. Most studies are cross-sectional quantitative studies analyzing the
effect of parking on (travel) behaviour.

Supply, demand and parking behaviour

Two studies address whether employers may consider facilities for cyclists as important and
whether they are offered and conclude that provision is far from standard. In the US, 12 out
of 16 companies listed in the League of American Bicycle-Friendly Businesses Framework
described parking as important for cyclists. In another study, only four out of 13 hospitals
self-reported providing parking specifically for staff (Owen, Day, & Scullion, 1999). This
indicates that parking is not necessarily considered as important as it may be.
Although, one would expect relatively long-duration parking at employment and
educational sites, at a university about a third of the bicycles were parked for less than 2 h
(Moskovitz & Wheeler, 2011). Illegal parking may also be a problem at
educational/employment sites, and Fujii (2005) conducted an experiment to reduce illegal
parking behaviour. Those that received a leaflet describing illegal parking as a problem as
well as those receiving a leaflet on how to park correctly reduced their incidence of
inappropriate bicycle parking after two weeks.

Preferences
Several papers point towards a preference of safer parking facilities at work. At Peking
University, students preferred caged sheds, and these were also occupied to a higher level
than other facilities (Yuan et al., 2017). Similarly, Noland & Kunreuther (1995) found that
employees with safe bicycle parking rated the convenience of cycling higher than those
without safe parking. Overall, parking at work does not seem to align with cyclist
preferences. In Montreal, 60% of the respondents were satisfied with their parking at work
and school, and 55% were satisfied with the level of parking availability, although 20% were
not satisfied with the facilities (Van Lierop, Grimsrud, & El-Geneidy, 2015).

Effect on travel behaviour

Most papers found a positive relationship between parking and bicycle mode choice. Only
one study reported a negative effect on cycling: Caulfield, Brick, & McCarthy (2012) found,
based on a stated preference survey, that increasing the number of bicycle parking would be
unlikely to encourage cycling to work. Most other studies showed that the presence of (safe)
bicycle parking increases the likelihood of commuting by bicycle (e.g. Bopp et al., 2016;
Yang & Zacharias, 2016). For example, Bueno et al. (2017) found that individuals with either
bicycle parking, workplace showers and lockers, or shared-use paths were 50% more likely to
cycle to work. On a zoning level, Chriqui et al. (2016a, 2017) found that zoning provisions
including bicycle parking were associated with higher levels of active travel to work. The
extent to which bicycle parking is important for mode choice is perhaps best shown by Hunt
& Abraham (2007). They found that secure parking results in the same effect on utility as a
decrease of 26.5 min spent cycling in mixed traffic. Parking may be more important to
younger people, as they valued secure parking much more highly, possibly as the bicycle is a
relatively more expensive possession (Hunt & Abraham, 2007).
At schools, the availability of parking spaces was mostly found to have a positive
effect on cycling to school, but evidence is mixed. The lack of bicycle parking is often
mentioned as a reason for not cycling to school (Mackie, 2010). In other studies, a large share
of respondents indicate that safer parking would encourage them to cycle to school more
(Mandic et al., 2017). The presence of bicycle parking (yes/no) also positively affects the
choice to ride the bicycle to school (e.g. Kamargianni & Polydoropoulou, 2013). However,
two studies found less clear results. In a stated preference experiment in Greece and Cyprus
(n=10,194), bicycle parking was only statistically significant at some locations and not others
(Kamargianni, 2015). In an intervention study in Ireland, which included parking, no effect
on active travel was found (Lambe, Murphy, & Bauman, 2017).
There are relatively few studies on the quality of parking. Nevertheless, available
research indicates that improved parking facilities may increase ridership. One intervention
study monitored parking behaviour before and after the installation of more higher-quality
parking spaces (Mrkajic, Vukelic, & Mihajlov, 2015) and occupancy rose from 30%-40% to
68%. Another study found that a bicycle station with repairs and more convenient parking
would encourage cycling (Akar & Clifton, 2009). Heinen, Maat, & van Wee (2013) showed
that having a bicycle facility inside (which 45% of the sample had) instead of outside (which
almost all respondents had) increased the likelihood of cycling to work and the frequency of
cycling to work. McDonald et al. (2013) showed that providing covered bicycle parking was
associated with increases in cycling (11% points).
Some studies concluded that the combination of facilities is important. Bicycle
parking and cyclist showers were found to be associated with higher levels of bicycle
 commuting, but the likelihood of cycling was higher for employees with access to both
compared to those with just bicycle parking (Buehler, 2012). The need to pay for parking and
its price, however, reduces the likelihood of bicycle commuting (Murillo Acosta & Romero-
Conrado, 2017).
Theft has received some attention and fear of theft reduces cycling. In addition to the
studies mentioned above on quality, Piatkowski & Marshall (2015) showed that increased
concern regarding security and comfort, which includes bicycle parking, storage, and fear of
theft, was associated with 0.37 lower odds of bicycle commuting (Piatkowski & Marshall,
2015) and Titze et al. (2007) showed that students who were not concerned about bicycle
theft were more than twice as likely to regularly cycle to university.

Table 2: Overview of topics and methods of papers on parking at work, universities,

and schools
Paper Method Country Sample size
preference experiment

Quantitative Revealed
Quantitative - Stated
Descriptive analyses

preference cross-
Quantitative -

Quantitative-

Author(s) and year

intervention
Monologue

Qualitative
Case study

sectional

Other

Akar & Clifton, 2009 X USA 1,500

Bopp, Sims, Colgan, et al.,
x USA 551
2016
Bopp, Sims, Matthews, et
x USA 999 employees and staff
al., 2016
Braun et al., 2016 x Spain 765

Buehler, 2012 x USA 5,091

Bueno et al., 2017 x USA 21,761

Caulfield et al., 2012 x Ireland 1,904

zoning data 3914
Chriqui et al., 2017 x USA
jurisdictions
3,914 municipal-level
Chriqui, et al., 2016a x USA jurisdictions located in
471 counties
Curto et al., 2016 x Spain 814

Fujii, 2005 x Japan 99

Hamre & Buehler, 2014 x USA 4,630

Heinen et al., 2013 x Netherlands 2,929

Hipp et al., 2017 x x(accelerometer) USA 2,013

Hunt & Abraham, 2007 x Canada 1,128

Kaczynski et al., 2010 x USA 375

Kamargianni &
x Cyprus 4,147
Polydoropoulou, 2013
Kamargianni, 2015 x Greece and Cyprus 10,194

Lambe et al., 2017 x x Ireland 1,038

Mackie, 2010 x x New Zealand 6 schools
Maldonado-Hinarejos et
x UK 1,985
al., 2014
Mandic et al., 2017 x x New Zealand 774

McDonald et al., 2013 x USA 14 schools

Moskovitz & Wheeler,
photographic; observational USA 35 areas with 368 places
2011
Mrkajic et al., 2010 x x(observational) Serbia

Mrkajic et al., 2015 x Serbia

Murillo Acosta & Romero-
x x Colombia Students and staff
Conrado, 2017
Nkurunziza et al., 2012 x Tanzania 600
Noland & Kunreuther,
x USA 1,500
1995
Owen et al., 1999 x Australia 13 hospitals
Piatkowski & Marshall,
x USA 1,633
2015
Rojas López & Wong, 3 focus groups, 26
x Singapore
2017 interviews
Stinson & Bhat, 2004 x USA and Canada 2,822

Titze et al., 2007 x Austria 538

x(intervie
Vairo et al., 2017 w with USA 16 businesses
company)
Van Lierop et al., 2015 x x Canada 2,039 (1,922 valid)

Wang et al., 2015 x USA 2,000

Yang & Zacharias, 2016 x China 852

Yuan et al., 2017 x China 425 students

In bold papers that are (largely) focussed on parking

3.3.3 Parking in the city and other locations

Despite the fact that bicycle parking in cities can be a challenge from a transport and urban
planning perspective, this topic has received less attention than parking at stations and
employment sites. Some research argues that programmes may have focussed too much on
bicycle sharing and limited attention has been given to private bicycle use and storage (Yang
et al., 2015). Others argue that bicycle-related investments, including parking, are more
common in privileged/wealthier areas (Flanagan, Lachapelle, & El-Geneidy, 2016). Studies
vary widely in approach and topic.

Supply, demand and parking behaviour

Different locations have different levels and quality of bicycle parking infrastructure. Dutch,
Danish, and German cities have large supplies of high-quality bicycle parking (Pucher &
Buehler, 2008b). Nevertheless, parking levels in the US are also increasing (Hirsch et al.,
2016), and some city zoning rules require bicycle parking (Pucher et al., 2011). In national
parks, parking can help prevent visitors from parking in unsafe locations or in a manner that
is detrimental to natural or historically sensitive surroundings (Villwock-Witte, Gleason, &
Shapiro, 2012). A limited number of studies investigated parking at specific locations and
often reveal the lack of (high-standard) parking. For example, Thompson (2006) showed that
only half of the libraries in Pennsylvania had bicycle parking, of which 50% had their own
bicycle racks.
Bicycle parking behaviour in cities showed variation between location and revealed
that parking takes place at unintended locations or street furniture (e.g. Aldred & Jungnickel,
2013). Larsen (2017) observed that whereas in some cities such as New York, bicycles were
always attached to something when parked, ‘unmoored’ bicycles, i.e. parked unattached to a
fixed object, were common in Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Two studies noticed that many
elements of the built environment were used for parking, counter to their primary purpose,
sometimes referred to ‘fly-parking’ (Gamman, Thorpe, & Willcocks, 2004; Larsen, 2017).
Fly-parking may be an indicator that current cycle parking provision is mismatched to user
requirements and a result of higher user demand (Nakamura & Abe, 2014). An alternative
 explanation is that when illegal parking is prevalent, it becomes the norm (Abou-Zeid et al.,
2013; Brock & Durlauf, 2002; Fukuda & Morichi, 2007). In countries with high cycling rates,
fly parking is often more prevalent, and shop keepers and authorities are enraged by fly
parking and abandoned bicycles (Van der Spek & Scheltema, 2015).
Not all locations are equally prone to theft and to prevent theft, communication may
encourage individuals to lock their bicycles more securely. The presence of bicycle stands,
pawn shops, universities, train stations, and vacant houses increased the likelihood of a
bicycle being stolen in London (Mburu & Helbich, 2016). Communication through stickers
could reduction ‘bad’ parking and improve the level of ‘OK’ parking (Sidebottom, Thorpe, &
Johnson, 2009). Also making people directly aware that they are a victim was positively
associated with an increase in the use of the lock immediately after the message (Shimada &
Arai, 2017). These studies demonstrate that individual strategies could reduce bicycle theft.

Preferences
Few scientific studies focus on preferences for parking in cities, possibly as a result of the
large variety of facilities available and large differences between countries. One study
showed little happiness with the current provisions (30%), and a third indicated that they
would pay for improved facilities (Van Lierop et al., 2015). The popularity of paid parking
dropped if the price was over two Canadian dollars, and individuals with a bicycle of a value
over $500 were more likely to be willing to pay. Research shows that better quality parking is
valued, but that cost matters: if parking is free and guarded, users in the Netherlands rate it
8.2 on a ten-point scale, but only 6.9 if it is paid and guarded, and 6.3 if it is paid and
automated (Van der Spek & Scheltema, 2015).

Effect on travel behaviour

Although a lack of parking is found to be an important barrier to cycling (Simons et al.,
2014), few studies provide estimates of the effect of parking in a city on cycling. Having a
bicycle rack was positively associated with outdoor physical activity frequency (Schipperijn
et al., 2013). On a county aggregated zoning level, the presence of bicycle parking was
significantly associated with biking (OR 1.83) (Chriqui et al., 2016b).
The question whether the quality of the parking facilities affects cycling has only been
addressed to a limited extent. Burke (2011) found that a newly opened cycle centre at a
central square in Brisbane, Australia in 2008 saw immediate use, but the opening did not
result in many people switching from car to bicycle. The importance of safe parking and theft
is discussed in several studies. The main obstacles to buying and using a private bicycle are
fear of theft (46%) and the lack of proper parking (57%) (Castillo-Manzano, Castro-Nuño, &
López-Valpuesta, 2015). The latter is particularly important to women. In contrast, theft and
parking were not very important variables for mode choice in India (Majumdar & Mitra,
2015).

Table 3: Overview of topics and methods of papers on parking in the city and other
locations
Paper Method Country Sample size
preference experiment

Quantitative Revealed
Quantitative - Stated
Descriptive analyses

preference cross-
Quantitative -

Quantitative-

Author(s) and year

intervention
Monologue

Qualitative
Case study

sectional

Other

Aldred & Jungnickel,

x x UK 4 cities
2013
Burke, 2011 x (x) Australia 44
Castillo-Manzano et al.,
x Spain 505
2015
1,617 county and
Chriqui, et al., 2016b x USA
municipal jurisdictions
Flanagan et al., 2015 x x USA 2 cases
Gaffga & Hagemeister,
x Germany 410 tricycles, 479 trailers
2015
Gamman et al., 2004 x observational UK and Europe

Hirsch et al., 2016 x x(longitudinal BE changes) USA 4 cities

Denmark,
Larsen, 2017 x x(ethnographic) 3 case studies
Netherlands, USA

Lee & March, 2010 x x Australia 1,023

Majumdar & Mitra, 2015 x x(expert judgement) India survey 575; 12 experts

Mburu & Helbich, 2016 x UK 1,029 crimes

Nakamura & Abe, 2014 Japan

Owen et al., 1999 x Australia 13 hospitals

Pucher & Buehler, 2008b x x x Netherlands, Denmark, Germany

Pucher et al., 2011 x x USA, Canada 9 cases

Schipperijn et al., 2013 x Denmark 1,305

Shimada & Arai, 2017 x Japan 256

Sidebottom et al., 2009 x UK 5 sites twice

Simons et al., 2014 x(focus groups) Belgium 36

Susilo et al., 2012 x UK 659

Thompson, 2006 x x USA 225 libraries

Van der Spek &
x Netherlands
Scheltema, 2015
Van Lierop et al., 2015 x x Canada 2,039 (1,922 valid)
Villwock-Witte et al.,
x USA 28 sites/plans
2012
Yang et al., 2015 x China

In bold papers that are (largely) focussed on parking

3.3.4 Parking at home

Few papers have focussed on bicycle parking at the residential location: our search only
yielded seven papers on parking in and around residences. This is surprising, as bicycles are
likely most commonly and for the longest duration parked at the residential location. Six of
the seven papers focussed on current bicycle parking behaviour and satisfaction with the
parking situation and one on bicycle theft in relation to travel behaviour.

Supply, demand, parking behaviour, and preferences

Cyclists prefer safe bicycle parking at home, but there is variability by country and city. In
China, parking sheds were most commonly used (~40%), and the most preferred option to
park the bicycle (~60%) (Lusk, Wen, & Zhou, 2014). Cyclists were less likely to park their
bicycle in a shed (~40%) compared to non-(frequent)-cyclists (~63%), which corresponded
with their differences in preferences. In Singapore, cyclists also often prefer to park their
bicycle inside, perhaps as a result of insufficient infrastructure outside (Meng et al., , 2016),
which was also found by Lusk et al. (2014) indicating that 17% of the respondents agreed
with the statement that ‘it is always difficult to find parking for my bicycle’. Parking is an
 even greater issue for ‘specialty bicycles’ and was mentioned as an obstacle by 10% of
tricycle and 25% of trailer users (Gaffga & Hagemeister, 2016).
Parking locations at home differ between cities and suburbs. Comparing bicycle
parking in the city of Vienna to the suburbs showed that Vienna cyclists more likely parked
in staircases (10% vs. 4%), living rooms (8% vs. 3%), and the street (6% vs. 3%), but less
likely in a garage (4% vs. 15%) (Pfaffenbichler & Brezina, 2016). Those that parked in
bicycle storage rooms with easy access or in gardens were more satisfied with their storage
facilities. These differences may be due as well to variations in crime levels. In the USA, fear
of crime was mentioned as a reason why blacks and Hispanics preferred to park their bicycle
inside (52% and 47%) compared to whites (28%) (Lusk et al., 2017). However, Van Lierop et
al. (2015) showed that individuals tend to underestimate the risk of theft at their own
residential location.

Effect on travel behaviour

One study showed a relationship between the presence of parking and the likelihood of
cycling (Nkurunziza et al., 2012). The lack of safe parking at home reduced the likelihood of
being in the maintenance group instead of the action group and to be in the relapse group
instead of the maintenance group, i.e. it reduced the likelihood of being more advanced on
‘stages of change model’ towards more cycling.

Table 4: Overview of topics and methods of papers on parking at home

Paper Method Country Sample size
preference experiment

Quantitative Revealed
Quantitative - Stated
Descriptive analyses

preference cross-
Quantitative -

Quantitative-

Author(s) and year

intervention
Monologue

Qualitative
Case study

sectional

Other

Gaffga & Hagemeister,

x Germany 410 tricycles, 479 trailers
2015
Lusk et al., 2014 x China 1,150
252 surveys, 120
Lusk et al., 2017 x USA intercept surveys, 709
observations
Meng et al., 2016 x Singapore 553
Nkurunziza et al., 2012 x Tanzania 600

Pfaffenbichler & Brezina,

x(spatial demand modelling) Austria 324
2015

Shaheen et al., 2011 x China 806

Van Lierop et al., 2015 x x Canada 2,039 (1,922 valid)

In bold papers that are (largely) focussed on parking

4. Discussion & Conclusion

This paper aims to (1) understand how the quality, the amount, the costs, and safety of
parking facilities influence bicycle parking behaviour and demand, (2) identify individual
preferences for bicycle parking facilities and (3) highlight how cycling and other (travel)
behaviour are influenced by the availability of bicycle parking. Several general patterns
emerged from the review pertaining to parking at various locations.
 First, greater bicycle parking supply is correlated with more bike parking. Cyclists
also tend to park their bicycles predominantly at higher quality (e.g. sheltered and secure)
bicycle parking over parking of lower quality, and at convenient locations, such as close to
entrances of public transport stations. Compared to free bicycle parking, charging for parking
reduces the likelihood of using a facility. Many cyclists lock their bicycles to urban street-
furniture not intended for bicycle parking (Gamman et al., 2004; Larsen, 2017), which may
indicate a local imbalance between supply and demand. At home, bicycles are parked at
various locations in and around the residence depending on the country, urban or rural
residential location, and individual characteristics.
Second, cyclists and potential cyclists prefer higher quality bicycle parking facilities
(such as covered parking) over lower quality facilities or no bicycle parking. However,
preferences, quality and convenience vary by user group. Current and potential cyclists prefer
bicycle parking facilities that increase personal security and safety from bicycle theft and
vandalism (e.g. Appleyard & Ferrell, 2017; Lusk et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2017). Greater
awareness of ‘good’ parking/locking behaviour seems to increase improved parking and may
contribute to reducing bicycle theft. Cyclists seem willing to pay for better parking facilities
(Van Lierop et al., 2015).
Third, bicycle parking supply appears to be a determinant of cycling for current and
potential cyclists. Conversely, a lack of bicycle parking and/or inadequate bicycle parking
discourages cycling. Higher quality bicycle parking facilities are associated with more
bicycle use (e.g. Halldórsdóttir et al., 2017; Heinen et al., 2013; Taylor & Mahmassani,
1996). More convenient bicycle parking is also associated with more cycling. Convenience
includes easy access to bicycles, e.g. short distances between bicycle parking and actual trip
origins or destinations. However, the need to pay for parking reduces bicycling (Geurs et al.,
2016 Molin & Maat, 2015; Murillo Acosta & Romero-Conrado, 2017).
Moreover, this paper tried to answer the question on which methods are used to
investigate bicycle parking. Although a large variety of methods are used, including
interviews, focus groups, observations, revealed preference surveys, stated preference
surveys and intervention studies, the most common research design is cross-sectional,
commonly using either a revealed or stated preference survey. Most of these studies do not
focus on parking exclusively, but only consider parking as one of several correlates of
bicycling or public transport usage. It is noticeable that the methodology applied seems to
vary between locations. The abovementioned methods are dominant for studies that focus at
public transport stations and at employment and educational sites. However, in urban centres
in-depth qualitative, observational and ethnographic studies on bicycle parking behaviour
(practices) are also common, which are hardly existing at other locations. Longitudinal
studies, such as studies on panel data or intervention studies hardly exist.

Empirical gaps
This review revealed that few studies have focussed on bicycle parking at residential
locations. This is noteworthy given that bicycles in a typical day are parked for a longer time
than they are ridden, and it is conceivable that the main bicycle parking location is its users’
residence or residential area. The available research revealed that cyclists have strong
preferences for certain facilities, although they may park in/at different facilities in the
absence of the preferred facility. The dearth of studies on the effect of parking at residential
locations and its behavioural consequences result in a limited understanding of the potential
effects of parking in residential areas on behaviours such as mode choice. Consequently,
attention from planners to address parking at home may be limited given the lack of evidence.
This review also found few quantitative studies on bicycle parking in cities in general
and even fewer about the effect on travel behaviour. Most studies focussed on supply, bicycle
parking behaviour and preferences. We also did not find many studies that evaluated bicycle
parking strategies at the city level—such as the appropriateness of zoning requirements for
bicycle parking in certain buildings or imbalances in bicycle parking supply between stations,
neighbourhoods, and central business districts.
The level of evidence on the importance and effect of good quality parking is limited.
Most studies have focussed on whether there is parking, or on the amount of parking
available. Although some studies have focussed on the quality of parking, and these tend to
draw similar conclusions, the number of high-quality studies that determine the influence of
better parking facilities on cycling behaviour, and parking demand is limited. This is
remarkable given the reported differences in preferences of cyclists for various parking
facilities and the effects found for higher quality parking compared to simple parking in the
few studies available (e.g. Geurs et al., 2016; Heinen et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2013).
These few studies tend to focus on train stations and sites of education and employment, but
it is conceivable that the effect is similar at other locations. This lack of evidence may result
in insufficient evidence to support an argument for improving bicycle parking at a local level.
Cycling is known to vary by country and city (e.g. Heinen et al., 2009). Cycling
practices differ, and the studies that focus on parking practices/bicycle parking behaviour
(e.g. Larsen, 2017) show that where people park, and how they lock their bicycles differs
between countries/cities. This could be either explained by differences in supply, preferences,
or different behavioural responses. Given the limited number of studies that focus solely on
bicycle parking, and the variation in measurement and modelling (see below) it is hard to
draw firm conclusions on whether the reported findings are similar around the world or
whether some may be location specific.
Finally, the focus on bicycle parking seems very restricted to specific locations. Most
current studies focus on key destinations, especially PT-stations and work and educational
locations. More generic locations in cities, or the main origin of trips (i.e. residences) have
received limited attention. It remains uncertain whether the preferences, and consequent
effects on travel behaviour are similar at the origin or destination, or whether they mostly
differ by trip purpose.

Methodological gaps
This review showed that there are key gaps in research methods, data availability, and
measurement to study bicycle parking. First, studies on bicycle parking are predominantly
cross-sectional. The dominance of one type of study results in a limited understanding of the
topic. Moreover, the focus on cross-sectional studies prohibits causal conclusions on the
reported relationships.
Second, most studies, especially if they are quantitative cross-sectional studies,
consider parking as only one of the correlates of bicycling or public transport usage. As a
result the effect size, statistical significance, and possibly even the direction of the reported
effect, are affected by the inclusion or absence of other covariates.
Third, a complexity accompanying interpretations of the existing literature is the
variation in the measurement of bicycle parking. Not only is bicycle parking not well defined
in many of the reviewed studies, but even when it is defined, differences in measurement
between studies and/or combining parking with other characteristics in one variable
complicate comparisons. Many studies included parking as a dummy variable, representing
whether bicycle parking was available or not. Other studies used measures such as the
number of parking spaces. Few studies considered a measure of parking quality. There is also
no agreed-upon term for parking a bicycle outside of designated spots, which is labelled as
‘illegal’, ‘fly’, or ‘wild’ bicycle parking.
 Fourth, bicycle parking behaviour (practices) and the variety within those seem to
have received attention in urban centres (e.g. Aldred & Jungnickel, 2013; Larsen, 2017), but
have received little attention at other locations. In-depth qualitative or observational studies
are noticeably absent which limits the understanding of the variety how and why bicycles are
parked and the options for improvement.
Finally, intervention studies are limited. Existing intervention studies focus on
changing individual bicycle parking behaviour (Fujii, 2005; Shimada & Arai, 2017;
Sidebottom et al., 2009), such as parking bicycles differently to prevent theft. Intervention
studies on the effect of parking on cycling behaviour are absent. The lack of intervention
studies on parking hampers the implied causality on the effect of bicycle parking on cycling.
We therefore recommend that intervention studies on parking be conducted. They could be
relatively easily implemented for parking compared to assessments of other bicycle
infrastructure.

Implications for future research on bicycle parking

It remains speculative on why parking has not received more and focussed attention. One
potential reason for the limited attention for the quality of parking and the dominance of
cross-sectional studies in which parking is only included as a dummy variable may be that
bicycle parking is often seen as part of a mix of policies designed to increase cycling.
Improving parking rarely occurs in isolation as a single measure to encourage cycling. This
may explain why parking, if considered at all in the scientific literature, is only one of many
covariates in cross-sectional studies. Although this corresponds with current practice, it
complicates the interpretation of results even further due to differences between studies in the
correlates considered. Improved measurement of parking and its effects are essential for
evidence-based planning and to select the most cost-effective policies to encourage cycling.
Existing studies hardly discuss the relationship between bicycle parking demand and
supply. This is in sharp contrast to car parking, where both supply and demand have received
attention (Marsden, 2006). Some examples have shown that after the opening of new high-
quality bicycle parking facilities, the demand exceeded expectations. This demonstrates that
we have only a limited understanding of (latent) demand and the feedback loops that exist
between levels of cycling and the presence of bicycle parking.
The current urban transport system is facing many changes. Important for the topic of
this paper is especially the rise of bicycle sharing. Issues related to parking have been
addressed in studies on the best placement for docking station (please note this excludes the
scope of this review). More recently, dockless bicycle sharing systems have gained
popularity. Parking issues for those systems could be more comparable to parking for
personal bicycles as they do not have designated parking places (i.e. docking stations), but
can be parked anywhere within designated areas. Research on this topic is still limited, but
may enhance our understanding of parking on an urban level, although issues such as theft
and consequent bicycle parking behaviour and demand may be very different. In the long turn
it also has the potential to contribute to discussions on parking management and changing
individual parking behaviour to reduce annoyance, as we already see in some countries with a
high bicycle modal split.
In conclusion, this review showed that while there is some clear empirical evidence
that bicycle parking may be an essential criterion to stimulate cycling, the results are limited
due to empirical and methodological limitations in existing research. Consequently, we still
have a narrowed understanding of the effects of bicycle parking policies and provisions.
Despite these shortcomings, for research, our findings can serve as input for an evidence-
based debate on the role of bicycle parking. For practice, our research supports investment in
bicycle parking, but acknowledges that a proper evaluation of such initiatives needs to be
conducted to increase the level of evidence of the effects of bicycle parking on cycling.
References
Abou-Zeid, M., Schmoecker, J.-D., Belgiawan, P. F., & Fujii, S. (2013). Mass effects and
mobility decisions. Transportation Letters, 5(3), 115–130.
Akar, G., & Clifton, K. J. (2009). Influence of Individual Perceptions and Bicycle
Infrastructure on Decision to Bike. Transportation Research Record, (2140), 165–172.
Aldred, R., & Jungnickel, K. (2013). Matter in or out of place? Bicycle parking strategies and
their effects on people, practices and places. Social and Cultural Geography, 14(6),
604–624.
Appleyard, B. (2012). Sustainable and healthy travel choices and the built environment.
Transportation Research Record, (2303), 38–45.
Appleyard, B., & Ferrell, C. (2017). The Influence of crime on active & sustainable travel:
New geo-statistical methods and theories for understanding crime and mode choice.
Journal of Transport & Health, 6, 516–529.
Arbis, D., Rashidi, T. H., Dixit, V. V, & Vandebona, U. (2016). Analysis and planning of
bicycle parking for public transport stations. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 10(6), 495–504.
Bachand-Marleau, J., Larsen, J., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2011). Much-anticipated marriage of
cycling and transit: How will it work? Transportation Research Record, 2247, 109–
117.
Bopp, M., Sims, D., Colgan, J., Rovniak, L., Matthews, S. A., & Poole, E. (2016). An
examination of workplace influences on active commuting in a sample of university
employees. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 22(4), 387–391.
Bopp, M., Sims, D., Matthews, S. A., Rovniak, L. S., Poole, E., & Colgan, J. (2016). There s
an app for that: development of a smartphone app to promote active travel to a college
campus. Journal of Transport and Health, 3(3), 305–314.
Braun, L. M., Rodriguez, D. A., Cole-Hunter, T., Ambros, A., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Jerrett,
M., … de Nazelle, A. (2016). Short-term planning and policy interventions to
promote cycling in urban centers: Findings from a commute mode choice analysis in
Barcelona, Spain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89, 164–183.
Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (2002). A Multinomial-Choice Model of Neighborhood
Effects. American Economic Review, 92(2), 298–303.
Buehler, R. (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, 17(7), 525–531.
Bueno, P. C., Gomez, J., Peters, J. R., & Vassallo, J. M. (2017). Understanding the effects of
transit benefits on employees’ travel behavior: Evidence from the New York-New
Jersey region. Transportation Research Part A, 99, 1–13.
Burke, M. I. (2011). Are cycle centers effective transport interventions? Evaluating King
George Square cycle center in Brisbane, Australia. Transportation Research Record,
2247(1), 118–125.
Calimente, J. (2012). Rail integrated communities in Tokyo. Journal of Transport and Land
Use, 5(1), 19–32.
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., & López-Valpuesta, L. (2015). Analyzing the
transition from a public bicycle system to bicycle ownership: A complex relationship.
Transportation Research Part D, 38, 15–26.
Caulfield, B., Brick, E., & McCarthy, O. T. (2012). Determining bicycle infrastructure
preferences - A case study of Dublin. Transportation Research Part D, 17(5), 413–
417.
Cervero, R., Caldwell, B., & Cuellar, J. (2013). Bike-and-ride: Build it and they will come.
Journal of Public Transportation, 16(4), 83–105.
Chen, L., Pel, A., Chen, X., Sparing, D., & Hansen, I. (2012). Determinants of bicycle
transfer demand at metro stations. Transportation Research Record, 2276, 131–137.
Chief Medical, O. (2011). Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity from the four
home countries’. Chief medical officers. London: Department of Health.
Chriqui, J. F., Leider, J., Thrun, E., Nicholson, L. M., & Slater, S. (2016a). Communities on
the Move: Pedestrain-Oriented Zoning as a Facilitator of Adult Active Travel to Work
in the United States. Frontiers in Public Health, 4.
Chriqui, J. F., Leider, J., Thrun, E., Nicholson, L. M., & Slater, S. J. (2017). Pedestrian-
oriented zoning is associated with reduced income and poverty disparities in adult
active travel to work, United States. Preventive Medicine, 95, S126–S133.
Chriqui, J. F., Nicholson, L. M., Thrun, E., Leider, J., & Slater, S. J. (2016b). More Active
Living–Oriented County and Municipal Zoning Is Associated With Increased Adult
Leisure Time Physical Activity—United States, 2011. Environment and Behavior,
48(1), 111–130.
Curto, A., De Nazelle, A., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Cole-Hunter, T., Garcia-Aymerich, J.,
Martínez, D., … Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016). Private and public modes of bicycle
commuting: A perspective on attitude and perception. European Journal of Public
Health, 26(4), 717–723.
De Souza, F., La Paix Puello, L., Brussel, M., Orrico, R., & van Maarseveen, M. (2017).
Modelling the potential for cycling in access trips to bus, train and metro in Rio de
Janeiro. Transportation Research Part D, 56, 55–67.
Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Modelling the joint access mode and railway
station choice. Transportation Research Part E, 45(1), 270–283.
Flanagan, E., Lachapelle, U., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Riding tandem: Does cycling
infrastructure investment mirror gentrification and privilege in Portland, OR and
Chicago, IL? Research in Transportation Economics, 60, 14–24.
Fujii, S. (2005). Reducing inappropriate bicycle parking through persuasive communication.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1171–1196.
Fukuda, D., & Morichi, S. (2007). Incorporating aggregate behavior in an individual’s
discrete choice: An application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behavior.
Transportation Research Part A, 41(4), 313–325.
Gaffga, G., & Hagemeister, C. (2016). Space for tricycles and bike trailers: Necessary
provisions. Proceedings of the institution of Civil Engineers, 169(2), 67–75.
Gamman, L., Thorpe, A., & Willcocks, M. (2004). Bike Off! tracking the design terrains of
cycle parking: Reviewing use, misuse and abuse. Crime Prevention and Community
Safety, 6(4), 19–36.
Geurs, K. T., La Paix, L., & Van Weperen, S. (2016). A multi-modal network approach to
model public transport accessibility impacts of bicycle-train integration policies.
European Transport Research Review, 8(4).
Halldórsdóttir, K., Nielsen, O. A., Prato, C. G., Halldorsdottir, K., Nielsen, O. A., & Prato, C.
G. (2017). Home-end and activity-end preferences for access to and egress from train
stations in the Copenhagen region. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 11(10), 776–786.
Hamre, A., & Buehler, R. (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.
Harvey, E., Brown, C. T., DiPetrillo, S., & Kay, A. (2016). Bicycling to Rail Stations in New
Jersey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2587, 50–60.
Heinen, E., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2013). The effect of work-related factors on the bicycle
commute mode choice in the Netherlands. Transportation, 40(1), 23–43.
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2009). Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the
literature. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96.
Hipp, J. A., Dodson, E. A., Lee, J. A., Marx, C. M., Yang, L., Tabak, R. G., … Brownson, R.
C. (2017). Mixed methods analysis of eighteen worksite policies, programs, and
environments for physical activity. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 14(1), 79.
Hirsch, J. A., Meyer, K. A., Peterson, M., Rodriguez, D. A., Song, Y., Peng, K., … Gordon-
Larsen, P. (2016). Obtaining Longitudinal Built Environment Data Retrospectively
across 25 years in Four US Cities. Frontiers in Public Health, 4.
Hunt, J. D., & Abraham, J. E. (2007). Influences on bicycle use. Transportation, 34(4), 453–
470.
Ji, Y., Fan, Y., Ermagun, A., Cao, X., Wang, W., & Das, K. (2017). Public bicycle as a feeder
mode to rail transit in China: The role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and
bicycle theft experience. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(4),
308–317.
Kaczynski, A. T., Bopp, M. J., & Wittman, P. (2010). Association of workplace supports
with active commuting. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(6).
Kamargianni, M. (2015). Investigating next generation’s cycling ridership to promote
sustainable mobility in different types of cities. Research in Transportation
Economics, 53, 45–55.
Kamargianni, M., & Polydoropoulou, A. (2013). Hybrid choice model to investigate effects
of teenagers’ attitudes toward walking and cycling on mode choice behavior.
Transportation Research Record, 2382, 151–161.
Krizek, K. J., & Stonebraker, E. W. (2011). Assessing options to enhance bicycle and transit
integration. Transportation Research Record.
Lambe, B., Murphy, N., & Bauman, A. (2017). Active travel to primary schools in Ireland:
An opportunistic evaluation of a natural experiment. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health, 14(6), 448–454.
Larsen, J. (2017). The making of a pro-cycling city: Social practices and bicycle mobilities.
Environment and Planning A, 49(4), 876–892.
Lee, A., & March, A. (2010). Recognising the economic role of bikes: Sharing parking in
Lygon Street, Carlton. Australian Planner, 47(2), 85–93.
Lusk, A. C., Anastasio, A., Shaffer, N., Wu, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Biking practices and
preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what
residents want. Preventive Medicine Reports, 7, 232–238.
Lusk, A. C., Wen, X., & Zhou, L. (2014). Gender and used/preferred differences of bicycle
routes, parking, intersection signals, and bicycle type: Professional middle class
preferences in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Transport and Health, 1(2), 124–133.
Mackie, H. (2010). Overcoming barriers to cycling to school: A key to improving transport
system performance. Road and Transport Research, 19(2).
Majumdar, B. B., & Mitra, S. (2015). Identification of factors influencing bicycling in small
sized cities: A case study of Kharagpur, India. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3(3),
331–346.
Maldonado-Hinarejos, R., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. W. (2014). Exploring the role of
individual attitudes and perceptions in predicting the demand for cycling: a hybrid
choice modelling approach. Transportation, 41(6), 1287–1304.
Mandic, S., Hopkins, D., García Bengoechea, E., Flaherty, C., Williams, J., Sloane, L., …
Spence, J. C. (2017). Adolescents’ perceptions of cycling versus walking to school:
 Understanding the New Zealand context. Journal of Transport and Health, 4, 294–
304.
Marsden, G. (2006). The evidence base for parking policies-a review. Transport Policy,
13(6), 447–457.
Martens, K. (2007). Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation
Research Part A, 41(4), 326–338.
Martinez, M. J., & Cornejo, J. (2003). Value of Facilities and Attributes of New Heavy Rail
and Bus Rapid Transit Projects in a Developing City . The Case of Lima , Peru Value
of Facilities and Attributes of New Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Projects in a
Developing City . The Case of Lima, 3, 1–17.
Mburu, L. W., & Helbich, M. (2016). Environmental risk factors influencing bicycle theft: A
spatial analysis in London, UK. PLoS ONE, 11(9), 1–19.
McDonald, N. C., Yang, Y., Abbott, S. M., & Bullock, A. N. (2013). Impact of the Safe
Routes to School program on walking and biking: Eugene, Oregon study. Transport
Policy, 29, 243–248.
Meng, M., Zhang, J., Wong, Y. D., & Au, P. H. (2016). Effect of weather conditions and
weather forecast on cycling travel behavior in Singapore. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation, 10(9), 773–780.
Molin, E., & Maat, K. (2015). Bicycle parking demand at railway stations: Capturing price-
walking trade offs. Research in Transportation Economics, 53, 3–12.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a
comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.
Moskovitz, D., & Wheeler, N. (2011). Bicycle parking analysis with time series photography.
Transportation Research Record, 2247, 64-71.
Mrkajic, V., Stamenkovic, M., Males, M., Vukelic, D., & Hodolic, J. (2010). Proposal for
reducing problems of the air pollution and noise in the urban environment. Carpathian
Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 5(1), 49–56.
Mrkajic, V., Vukelic, D., & Mihajlov, A. (2015). Reduction of CO2 emission and non-
environmental co-benefits of bicycle infrastructure provision: The case of the
University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49,
232–242.
Murillo Acosta, M., & Romero-Conrado, A. (2017). The influences of perceptions in bicycle
demand for users with the same socioeconomic characteristics. Espacios, 38(16).
Nakamura, H., & Abe, N. (2014). Evaluation of the hybrid model of public bicycle-sharing
operation and private bicycle parking management. Transport Policy, 35, 31–41.
Nkurunziza, A., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. (2012). Examining the
potential for modal change: Motivators and barriers for bicycle commuting in Dar-es-
salaam. Transport Policy, 24, 249–259.
Noland, R. B., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Short-run and long-run policies for increasing
bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips. Transport Policy, 2(1), 67.
Owen, H., Day, R. H., & Scullion, P. (1999). Cycling and walking: Why don’t hospitals
provide facilities for healthy transport? Australian Journal of Primary Health -
Interchange, 5(2), 105–113.
Pfaffenbichler, P. C., & Brezina, T. (2016). Estimating bicycle parking demand with limited
data availability. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers.
Piatkowski, D. P., & Marshall, W. E. (2015). Not all prospective bicyclists are created equal:
The role of attitudes, socio-demographics, and the built environment in bicycle
commuting. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2(3), 166–173.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2006). Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Policy, 13(3), 265–279.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008a). Cycling for everyone: Lessons from Europe.
Transportation Research Record, 2074, 58–65.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008b). Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The
Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495–528.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2017). Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future.
Transport Reviews, 1–6.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., & Seinen, M. (2011). Bicycling renaissance in North America? An
update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part
A, 45(6), 451–475.
Puello, L. L. P., & Geurs, K. (2015). Modelling observed and unobserved factors in cycling
to railway stations: Application to transit-oriented-developments in the Netherlands.
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 15(1), 27–50.
Rojas López, M. C., & Wong, Y. D. (2017). Attitudes towards active mobility in Singapore:
A qualitative study. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(4), 662–670.
Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013).
Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space.
Urban Forestry Urban Greening, 12 (1), 109–116.
Shaheen, S., Zhang, H., Martin, E., & Guzman, S. (2011). China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle:
Understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing. Transportation
Research Record, 2247, 33–41.
Sherwin, H., Parkhurst, G., Robbins, D., & Walker, I. (2011). Practices and motivations of
travellers making rail-cycle trips. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Transport, 164(3), 189–197.
Shimada, T., & Arai, T. (2017). The effect of victim description and receiver vulnerability in
threat appeal on crime prevention behavior. Shinrigaku Kenkyu, 88(3), 230–240.
Sidebottom, A., Thorpe, A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Using targeted publicity to reduce
opportunities for bicycle theft: A demonstration and replication. European Journal of
Criminology, 6(3), 267–286.
Simons, D., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., de Geus, B., Vandelanotte, C., & Deforche, B.
(2014). Why do young adults choose different transport modes? A focus group study.
Transport Policy, 36, 151–159.
Stinson, M. A., & Bhat, C. R. (2004). Frequency of Bicycle Commuting: Internet-Based
Survey Analysis. Transportation Research Record, 1878, 122–130.
Susilo, Y. O., Williams, K., Lindsay, M., & Dair, C. (2012). The influence of individuals’
environmental attitudes and urban design features on their travel patterns in
sustainable neighborhoods in the UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 17(3), 190–200.
Taylor, D., & Mahmassani, H. (1996). Analysis of stated preferences for intermodal bicycle-
transit interfaces. Transportation Research Record, 1556, 86–95.
Thompson, S. T. C. (2006). Bicycle access to public libraries: A survey of Pennsylvania
public libraries and their accessibility to patrons arriving via bicycle. Library
Philosophy and Practice, 9(1).
Titze, S., Stronegger, W. J., Janschitz, S., & Oja, P. (2007). Environmental, social, and
personal correlates of cycling for transportation in a student population. Journal of
Physical Activity & Health, 4(1), 66–79.
Vairo, N., Bopp, M., & Sims, D. (2017). Best practices for businesses promoting bicycling.
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 55(5–6), 298–310.
Van der Spek, S. C., & Scheltema, N. (2015). The importance of bicycle parking
management. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 15, 39–49.
Van Lierop, D., Grimsrud, M., & El-Geneidy, A. (2015). Breaking into bicycle theft: Insights
from Montreal, Canada. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(7),
490–501.
Villwock-Witte, N., Gleason, R., & Shapiro, P. (2012). Good practices to encourage
bicycling and pedestrians on federal lands 11 components. Transportation Research
Record, 2307, 80–89.
Wang, C.-H., Akar, G., & Guldmann, J.-M. (2015). Do your neighbors affect your bicycling
choice? A spatial probit model for bicycling to The Ohio State University. Journal of
Transport Geography, 42, 122–130.
Yang, J., Chen, J., Zhou, M., & Wang, Z. (2015). Major issues for biking revival in urban
China. Habitat International, 47, 176–182.
Yang, M., & Zacharias, J. (2016). Potential for revival of the bicycle in Beijing. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(6), 517–527.
Yuan, C., Sun, Y., Lv, J., & Lusk, A. C. (2017). Cycle tracks and parking environments in
China: Learning from college students at Peking university. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 930.