User intention to adopt public bicycle sharing system: a priori acceptance approach

ABSTRACT

Bicycle-sharing services have received worldwide attention as a sustainable form of transportation. This study explores a priori acceptance of public bicycle-sharing system (PBSS) in India, which is still in the early phases of adopting PBSS. The effects of psychological factors, such as perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived fun (PF), health value (HV), and environment values (EV), on intention to use PBSS are studied, utilizing an extended technology acceptance model. 747 samples were collected from online questionnaires in Dehradun, India. Results of Structural Equation Modelling revealed that intention to use PBSS is strongly predicted by PU and PF together, while PF mediates the influence of PEoU. Furthermore, EV and HV generate positive behavior intention to use PBSS through PU, PF, and PEoU. The study suggests promoting PBSS as a green and active transportation mode offering high PU and enjoyment, with theoretical and practical implications discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Technology acceptance model
• public bicycle-sharing systems
• structural equation modelling
• behavior intention
• human behavior model
• priori acceptance

List of commonly used acronyms

Table

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge the partial funding support from the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee to present a preliminary version of this work at 102nd TRB Annual Meeting. The authors would like to thank Vikram Singh, Rupam Fedujwar, Rashmi Choudhary, Suhail Akhtar, and Chinmay Agarwal for their assistance in the data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contribution

Nidhi Kathait: Conceptualization, Literature review, Methodology, Validation, Writing-original draft. Amit Agarwal: Conceptualization, Methods, Review and editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Notes

1. https://ueppcb.uk.gov.in/.

2. https://www.questionpro.com/.

3. The higher covariance between these two can be explained by a somewhat similar understanding of the two questions by respondents. The repetitiveness is kept for a few questions to check the consistency and alertness of the respondent.