Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 理學院
  3. 地理環境資源學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/104467
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor林楨家zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorJen-Jia LINen
dc.contributor.author賴奕達zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorIta LAIen
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-26T16:46:01Z-
dc.date.available2026-08-27-
dc.date.copyright2026-08-26-
dc.date.issued2026-
dc.date.submitted2026-08-07 16:00:31-
dc.identifier.citationAnselin, L. (1988). Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Analysis, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1988.tb00159.x
Arbia, G. (2024). A primer for spatial econometrics: With applications in R, STATA and Python (2nd ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57182-4
Arias-Molinares, D., Geurs, K., Grigolon, A., Ulak, B., Duran-Rodas, D., McCormick, B., Baguet, J., van Vessem, C., Adjeroud, H., Dörrzapf, L., Charalampidou, G., Bobičić, O., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2025). Exploring the 15-Minute City concept for the urban outskirts: A systematic literature review. European Transport Research Review, 17(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-025-00743-8
Banet, K., Naumov, V., & Kucharski, R. (2022). Using city-bike stopovers to reveal spatial patterns of urban attractiveness. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(18), 2887–2904. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2011841
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., Johnson, J. C., & Agneessens, F. (2022). Analyzing social networks using R. SAGE.
Buning, R. J., & Lulla, V. (2021). Visitor bikeshare usage: Tracking visitor spatiotemporal behavior using big data. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4), 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1825456
Cabinet Office. (2025). Policy on satellite navigation, 2025. Cabinet Office. https://www8.cao.go.jp/space/qzs/houshin/houshin.html
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
Chen, T., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Sun, H., & Wang, X. (2025). Effects of multidimensional factors on the distance decay of bike-sharing access to metro stations. Applied Sciences, 15(24), 13228. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152413228
Conrow, L., Murray, A. T., & Fischer, H. A. (2018). An optimization approach for equitable bicycle share station siting. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.04.023
Desjardins, E., Higgins, C. D., & Páez, A. (2022). Examining equity in accessibility to bike share: A balanced floating catchment area approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102, 103091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103091
Eren, E., & Uz, V. E. (2020). A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882
Ethier, B. G., Wilson, J. S., Camhi, S. M., Shi, L., & Troped, P. J. (2024). An analysis of built environment characteristics in daily activity spaces and associations with bike share use. Travel Behaviour and Society, 37, 100850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100850
Fishman, E. (2016). Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036
Gao, K., Yang, Y., Li, A., & Qu, X. (2021). Spatial heterogeneity in distance decay of using bike sharing: An empirical large-scale analysis in Shanghai. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102814
Gao, W., Yao, E., Zhang, Y., & Liu, S. (2024). Improving the catchment area identification for suburban railway stations by incorporating whole-journey-based mode choices and unevenly distributed population. Cities, 155, 105487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105487
García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Latorre, M. (2012). Optimizing the location of stations in bike-sharing programs: A GIS approach. Applied Geography, 35(1), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.07.002
Garin, R. A. (1966). Research note: A matrix formulation of the Lowry model for intrametropolitan activity allocation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(6), 361–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366608978511
Goodman, A., & Cheshire, J. (2014). Inequalities in the London bicycle sharing system revisited: Impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.04.004
Guo, Y., Yang, L., & Chen, Y. (2022). Bike share usage and the built environment: A review. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 848169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.848169
Guo, Y., Yang, L., Lu, Y., & Zhao, R. (2021). Dockless bike-sharing as a feeder mode of metro commute? The role of the feeder-related built environment: Analytical framework and empirical evidence. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102594
Harris, C. D., & Ullman, E. L. (1945). The nature of cities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242, 7–17.
Institute of Transportation. (2017). A study of integration and evaluation of the bicycle lane network system (2017). Institute of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
Kabra, A., Belavina, E., & Girotra, K. (2020). Bike-share systems: Accessibility and availability. Management Science, 66(9), 3803–3824. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3407
Kosmidis, I., & Müller-Eie, D. (2024). The synergy of bicycles and public transport: A systematic literature review. Transport Reviews, 44(1), 34–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2222911
Lazarus, J., Pourquier, J. C., Feng, F., Hammel, H., & Shaheen, S. (2020). Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco. Journal of Transport Geography, 84, 102620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102620
Li, W., Chen, S., Dong, J., & Wu, J. (2021). Exploring the spatial variations of transfer distances between dockless bike-sharing systems and metros. Journal of Transport Geography, 92, 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103032
Li, X., Du, M., & Yang, J. (2020). Factors influencing the access duration of free-floating bike sharing as a feeder mode to the metro in Shenzhen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123273
Lin, D., Zhang, Y., Zhu, R., & Meng, L. (2019). The analysis of catchment areas of metro stations using trajectory data generated by dockless shared bikes. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101598
Lin, J.-J., & Wu, J.-J. (2023). Association of bike-sharing service with gentrification in a transit-rich city: A catalyst or an outcome? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 22, 100941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100941
Lin, T.-Y., & Lin, J.-J. (2026). Multicriteria assessment of transit accessibility: Accounting for criterion and spatial interdependence. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 116(3), 720–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2025.2589316
Ma, X., Ji, Y., Jin, Y., Wang, J., & He, M. (2018). Modeling the factors influencing the activity spaces of bikeshare around metro stations: A spatial regression model. Sustainability, 10(11), 3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113949
Ma, X., Jin, Y., & He, M. (2018). Measuring bikeshare access/egress transferring distance and catchment area around metro stations from smartcard data. Information, 9(11), 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110289
Mahajan, S., & Sánchez-Vaquerizo, J. A. (2024). Global comparison of urban bike-sharing accessibility across 40 cities. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 20493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70706-x
McNeil, N. (2011). Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transportation Research Record, 2247(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-07
Moniruzzaman, M., & Páez, A. (2012). Accessibility to transit, by transit, and mode share: Application of a logistic model with spatial filters. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.006
Omwamba, J., Rotaris, L., & Longo, G. (2025). An assessment of proximity in the 15-Minute City: A systematic literature review. Urban Transitions, 3, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ubtr.2025.100012
Parkin, J., & Rotheram, J. (2010). Design speeds and acceleration characteristics of bicycle traffic for use in planning, design and appraisal. Transport Policy, 17(5), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.03.001
Qian, X., Jaller, M., & Niemeier, D. (2020). Enhancing equitable service level: Which can address better, dockless or dock-based bikeshare systems? Journal of Transport Geography, 86, 102784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102784
Shui, C. S., & Szeto, W. Y. (2020). A review of bicycle-sharing service planning problems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 117, 102648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102648
Sugimoto, K., Okano, Y., & Kikuchi, T. (2013). Patterns of tourists’ behavior in the context of rental bicycle use: Investigation and data-analysis using GPS and GIS in Azumino, Nagano, Japan. The Tourism Studies, 24(2), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.18979/jitr.24.2_15
Sun, Y., Wang, Y., & Wu, H. (2024). How does the urban built environment affect dockless bikesharing-metro integration cycling? Analysis from a nonlinear comprehensive perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 449, 141770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141770
Wang, F., Yin, C., Chang, X., Zhang, X., & He, Z. (2024). Exploring the relationship between built environment and bike-sharing demand: Does the trip length matter? Transportation Planning and Technology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2024.2400281
Wei, X., Luo, S., & Nie, Y. (2019). Diffusion behavior in a docked bike-sharing system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 107, 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.08.018
Wergin, J., & Buehler, R. (2017). Where do bikeshare bikes actually go?: Analysis of Capital Bikeshare trips with GPS data. Transportation Research Record, 2662(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3141/2662-02
Wu, X., Lu, Y., Gong, Y., Kang, Y., Yang, L., & Gou, Z. (2021). The impacts of the built environment on bicycle-metro transfer trips: A new method to delineate metro catchment area based on people’s actual cycling space. Journal of Transport Geography, 97, 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103215
Yuan, S., Yang, J., Zhang, Y., Yang, K., & Dai, W. (2026). The role of urban built environment in promoting dockless bike-sharing and metro integration: An adaptive catchment area approach. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 38, 102022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2026.102022
Zhang, Y., Shi, Z., Xiao, W., & Cao, M. (2025). Analysing the equity of dockless bike-sharing based on service-opportunity accessibility and multi-source urban data. Travel Behaviour and Society, 41, 101089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101089
Zuo, T., Wei, H., & Rohne, A. (2018). Determining transit service coverage by non-motorized accessibility to transit: Case study of applying GPS data in Cincinnati metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography, 67, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.01.002
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/104467-
dc.description.abstract公共自行車作為一種被廣泛採用的「最後一哩路」運輸服務,在全球各地產生大量關於使用型態和使用者行為的資料,使研究者得以一窺公共自行車如何拓展人們的移動範圍。相較於文獻關注公共自行車站點覆蓋與近用性(access to)的討論,本研究提出基於騎乘公共自行車移動(access by)的可及範圍分析,以理解公共自行車系統如何拓展主動運輸的可及範圍,進而討論影響可及範圍空間變異的因素。並試圖提升既有可及範圍偵測方法的精確度與解析度。
在方法上,本研究使用全球定位系統(Global Positioning System, GPS)旅次軌跡資料偵測可及範圍,確保可及範圍反映真實旅運行為與使用者的路徑偏好與旅次目的。本研究以臺北都會區的YouBike系統作為案例分析,證實本研究的可及方法偵測結果具有最低的不合理值 (0.613%) ,並在運量預測等實務應用上,具有最高的模型適配度,即最高的對數似然比 (-10539) 與最低的赤池及貝式資訊量準則 (21135, 21289) 。
基於偵測結果,本研究關注兩種可及範圍的空間差異:面積與均向性(Isotropy),以分別討論可及性在距離與方向上的空間差異。本研究使用SARAR (spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances)空間迴歸模式,處理都會區內因密集站點間重疊的可及範圍所導致的空間自相關特性。空間迴歸模式納入可及範圍的地形、運輸服務近用性、社會經濟與建成環境特徵作為自變數,結果指出對面積與均向性等依變數,可及範圍內的經濟福祉、商業與教育機會對於推展廣闊而均勻的可及性具有正面影響。與此同時,運輸服務近用性、就業機會等都會服務會導引可及範圍至特定的空間聚集區。公園與水域面積具有延展特定方向之可及性的影響,與休憩旅次的特徵相符。
本研究基於使用者行為,提出公共自行車的可及性範圍偵測方法,其顯示與文獻不同之市區-郊區差異:在市區廣闊而在不同方向間均勻分布,但在郊區緊湊而偏向特定方向。據此,本研究提出基於土地使用規劃與重力理論的解釋:郊區的都市機能與設施相對市區集中,但缺乏高品質的誘因以吸引來自不同方位的遠程旅次,使集中的目的地在空間上無法被平衡,進而促成可及範圍在市區與郊區間的差異。
本研究基於使用者行為,提出精細的可及範圍偵測方法,進而為空間規劃與公共自行車營運部門帶來貢獻。本研究在郊區觀察到較緊湊的可及範圍,顯示在方法上,過去文獻基於旅行距離的偵測方法,缺乏方向性地理脈絡的考量,故納入使用者不願前往,進而將真實世界中不可及的地方納入可及範圍。其成果在空間中存在偏差,從而使其規劃與政策建議產生偏誤。對空間規劃部門而言,本研究呈現土地使用對可及範圍有其影響,並篩選出可推廣的空間特性與設施,以推展廣闊且均勻的公共自行車可及性。在公共自行車營運部門,可及範圍可以呈現潮汐現象的空間範圍,並呈現區域型調度需求的空間尺度。最後,較緊湊的郊區可及性偵測結果顯示,在資源較受限的邊陲地帶,公共自行車營運者在分配站點資源時,應著眼於較小尺度的空間互動與使用者行為為宜。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractAs widely adopted last-mile transit services, bike-sharing systems generate extensive data on usage patterns and user behavior worldwide, shedding light on extended mobility through real-world usage. To understand how bike-sharing extends active mobility, a reachability analysis based on accessibility by using shared bikes is proposed, shifting the existing research focus from accessibility to bike-sharing stations for the neighboring population. This study aims to identify areas reachable by bike-sharing stations and discuss factors contributing to spatial variation in reachability.
The reachable area is detected using Global Positioning System (GPS) trajectory data, which represent real-world trip activities and user preferences. In YouBike system of Metropolitan Taipei, Taiwan, the proposed detection method is proven as superior to existing methods by two validation methods: (1) achieving the least unreasonableness (0.613%) as the percentage of reachable area covering known inaccessible area, such as forests and rivers, and (2) yielding best fitting results in trip volume, with the highest log likelihood ratio (-10526), the lowest AIC (21115), and the lowest BIC (21279).
Based on the detected reachable area, two forms of spatial variation are discussed: area and isotropy, representing size and evenness of reachability across directions. Bike-sharing stations in dense urban areas yield overlapping reachable areas thus, this research applies the spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances (SARAR) to deal with spatial autocorrelations. Influences from topography, transit accessibility, sociodemographic characteristics, and built environment are considered. SARAR estimations of area and isotropy show that economic well-being, commercial land-use, and educational opportunities in neighborhoods promote broader, more evenly distributed reachability, while urban utilities, including transit accessibility and job opportunities, funnel reachability to hotspots and urban nuclei. Reachability expands in directions adjacent to the waterfront and parks, corresponding to recreational behaviors.
The proposed behavior-based reachability detection reveals an urban-suburban divide different from the literature: reachability in urban cores is extensive and highly isotropic (round and even), whereas it is limited and spatially skewed in the periphery. To explain this, this research proposes a gravitation-based zoning mechanism. Although suburban amenities are quantitatively concentrated within compact outlying nuclei, they lack the qualitative draw necessary to attract long-distance, multidirectional trips. Consequently, they fail to offset the spatial agglomeration of primary destinations, driving the observed disparity in bike-sharing reachability between urban and suburban contexts.
This research assists both urban planners and bike-sharing operators by offering a detailed, behavior-based reachability detection method. The observed shrinkage of detected reachability in the suburbs indicates that traditional distance-based methods lack directional context. This oversight can lead to biased planning implications based on places unpreferable, and thus unreachable by cyclists, in real life. For planners, the results demonstrate that zoning affects reachability, suggesting that specific spatial features can foster more extensive and evenly distributed reachability. For operators, reachable areas indicate the potential scale of tidal effects, providing insights for optimizing the appropriate spatial scope for regional bike relocations. Finally, the compact nature of suburban reachability suggests that, under resource constraints, operators should manage resource allocation by accounting for spatial influences at a more compact scale in peripheral areas.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-08-26T16:46:01Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2026-08-26T16:46:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract i
摘要 iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 4
2-1. Accessibility to Bike-sharing Stations 5
2-2. Accessibility by Bike-sharing Stations 6
2-3. Methods in Analyzing Bike-sharing Spatial Data 7
2-4. Remarks 9
3. Research Design 12
3-1. Usage Data Preprocessing 14
3-2. Reachable Area Detection 15
3-3. Reachable Area Validation 16
3-4. Spatial Variation in Reachable Areas 19
4. Study Area and Data 30
5. Results 34
5-1. Usage Data Preprocessing 34
5-2. Reachable Area Detection 35
5-3. Reachable Area Validation 37
5-4. Spatial Variation in Reachable Areas 42
6. Discussions 54
6-1. Inaccurate but Predictive: How Data Resolution Affects Estimations of Trip Volume in the Reachable Area 54
6-2. The Urban-Suburban Divide 55
6-3. The Demand-driven approach of reachability detection 57
6-4. Compactness and Gravitational Influence on Reachability 58
6-5. Recreational Cycling Activities 59
6-6. The Role of Bike-Sharing in Transit: Supplementation or Substitution? 60
6-7. Suggestions to extend bike-sharing reachability further across directions 61
7. Conclusions 63
7-1. Contributions 63
7-2. Limitations 64
References 67
-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.subject公共自行車-
dc.subject可及性-
dc.subject服務範圍-
dc.subject全球定位系統-
dc.subject空間迴歸模式-
dc.subject建成環境-
dc.subjectbike-sharing system-
dc.subjectaccessibility-
dc.subjectreachability-
dc.subjectservice area-
dc.subjectGPS-
dc.subjectspatial regression model-
dc.subjectbuilt environment-
dc.title由公共自行車延伸的可及範圍分析:基於全球定位系統資料在臺北都會區的實例分析zh_TW
dc.titleWhere does Mobility Extend with Bike-sharing? A GPS-based Reachable Area Analysis of Bike-sharing Stations in Taipeien
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear114-2-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.coadvisor許聿廷zh_TW
dc.contributor.coadvisorYu-Ting HSUen
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee鍾易詩;劉鴻錡zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeYi-Shih CHUNG;Hung-Chi LIUen
dc.subject.keyword公共自行車; 可及性; 服務範圍; 全球定位系統; 空間迴歸模式; 建成環境zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordbike-sharing system; accessibility; reachability; service area; GPS; spatial regression model; built environmenten
dc.relation.page73-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202602724-
dc.rights.note未授權-
dc.date.accepted2026-08-11-
dc.contributor.author-college理學院-
dc.contributor.author-college工學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept地理環境資源學系-
dc.contributor.author-dept土木工程學系-
dc.date.embargo-liftN/A-
dc.contributor.author-noteeefc1b76-dc78-4843-b0ad-279d918806e2-
顯示於系所單位:地理環境資源學系

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-114-2.pdf
  未授權公開取用
4.34 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved