Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747462 Psychology Original Research Increasing Bike-Sharing Users’ Willingness to Pay — A Study of China Based on Perceived Value Theory and Structural Equation Model Song Hanning 1 Yin Gaofeng 2 * Wan Xihong 3 Guo Min 3 Xie Zhancai 4 Gu Jiafeng 5 1Institute of International Economy, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China 2Dong Fureng Institute of Economic and Social Development, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China 3School of Banking and Finance, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China 4School of Marxism, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang, China 5School of Statistics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China

Edited by: Andrea C. Kollmann, Energy Institute at Johannes Kepler University, Austria

Reviewed by: Shouheng Sun, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada; Elżbieta Macioszek, Silesian University of Technology, Poland

 *Correspondence: Gaofeng Yin, yq190@sina.com

This article was submitted to Environmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

 18 01 2022 2021 12 747462 09 09 2021 13 12 2021 Copyright © 2022 Song, Yin, Wan, Guo, Xie and Gu. 2022 Song, Yin, Wan, Guo, Xie and Gu

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Bike sharing, as an innovative travel mode featured by mobile internet and sharing, offers a new transport mode for short trips and has a huge positive impact on urban transportation and environmental protection. However, bike-sharing operators face some operational challenges, especially in sustainable development and profitability. Studies show that the customers’ willingness to pay is a key factor affecting bike-sharing companies’ operating conditions. Based on the theories of perceived value, this study conducts an empirical analysis of factors that affect bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay for bike-sharing through measurement scales, user surveys, and structural equation models. We designed a five-point Likert-type scale containing 11 latent variables affecting willingness to pay and a total of 34 measurement items. We investigate bike-sharing users in China’s first and second-tier cities, with a total of 502 participants. The results show that perceived value, payment awareness, trust, and environmental awareness constitute key factors that directly affect bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. And perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, perceived cost, and perceived risk indirectly affect bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. However, we found no significant effects of perceived entertainment on perceived value or word of mouth on willingness to pay. Our results are expected to provide theoretical and practical implications for bike-sharing programs.

 bike sharing willingness to pay perceived value structural equation model Likert-type scale Introduction

Since 2014, a number of private, profit-making, app-based dockless bike sharing (hereafter referred to as bike sharing) has experienced a leap in growth within China (Chen Z. et al., 2020). These systems combine mobile payments and global positioning system (GPS) positioning and tracking technology. All necessary steps to use a bike, such as locating, unlocking a bike, recording a trip, and paying for the service come together into a mobile application (APP) (Shen et al., 2018). As a representative industry of the sharing economy, the bike-sharing industry advocates for the concept of “green environment protection” (Zhang and Mi, 2018). The bike-sharing industry also relies on information technology (IT) for bike management and expense payment (Fishman et al., 2015), which fully shows the characteristics of convenience, and carries the “last mile” of residents’ traffic (Xu et al., 2019; Nocera et al., 2021).

Quality bike-sharing systems can have a huge positive impact on urban transportation (Guidon et al., 2019). Currently, in many urban areas, the main challenge is to solve the problem of the widespread use of motor vehicles (Macioszek, 2019). Although bike-sharing systems are not specifically developed to lead people to change transport mode, shared bikes can be used on a quick and convenient basis, and a person’s decision about taking a trip can be made in a short time. Hence, shared bikes are suitable for short-distance trips (Zhao et al., 2015). In Poland and other countries that use shared bikes, bike-sharing systems are designed to encourage more people to commute using bicycles other than motor vehicles, thereby reducing congestion and enhancing transport accessibility (Macioszek and Kurek, 2020). In addition, bike-sharing systems are able to promote an alternative way of traveling and can be used as a way of enhancing sustainable urban mobility (Macioszek et al., 2020). That means bike-sharing benefits for less use of vehicles; better use of space for movement and parking; easing traffic congestion; cutting carbon emissions, reducing energy losses; extending the life of road networks; saving time and money for residents on short and medium distances; better access to urban services; enhancing the sustainable development of urban transportation (Drynda, 2014; Fishman et al., 2014).

However, with the rapid development of bike sharing in Chinese cities, some unsustainability issues have been exposed (Wang et al., 2019). First, the bike-sharing industry faces chaotic deposit management and large numbers of broken bikes (Guo et al., 2017). Second, piles of shared bikes scatter around the parking spaces increase the difficulty of regulation and distribution, directly lowering the quality of bike-sharing services. Due to the lack of regulation, many users park shared bikes at any place they like, leading to negative impacts such as blocking sidewalks, occupying common areas, and even encumbering other modes of transport (Chang et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2018). Third, regulations and supervision of the bike-sharing industry are imperfect, with large numbers of shared bikes vandalized or stolen. Fourth, no unified standards are available for the cost and quality of bike-sharing services, which means safety concerns such as traffic accidents and the leakage of personal information often cause trouble for bike-sharing users. Fifth, currently, the profit from the bike-sharing industry is narrow, as bike-sharing operators find it difficult to make profits relying merely on users’ service fees (Yang et al., 2019b), and the thin profit is far from meeting the needs of early investment and later maintenance of operators (Yan and Zhuang, 2019). These issues above have seriously affected the sustainability of Chinese bike-sharing operators. Since 2017, less competitive Chinese bike-sharing operators such as Wukong, Xiaolan, Kuqi, and Xiaoming have closed down or transferred (Xu, 2020). Giants of the bike-sharing industry also suffered from failure. The former leaders in the bike-sharing industry, Mobike and Ofo, had around 95% of the Chinese bike-sharing market in 2017 (Li, 2017). However, in 2018, Mobike was acquired by a Chinese group-buying giant for consumer products and retail services named Meituan (Yang et al., 2019a; Kittilaksanawong and Liu, 2021), and Ofo’s bike-sharing business took heavy losses and finally came to an end (Bieliński and Ważna, 2018; Ravi and Arora, 2019).

For the sustainable development of bike-sharing operators, enhancing the profitability of the bike-sharing industry is indispensable (Tian et al., 2021). Increasing the profitability includes enriching the profit model, raising service charges, and expanding the market demand for shared bikes (Liu and Wang, 2019). However, it is difficult to effectively solve a single profit model in the bike-sharing industry. At present, bike-sharing operators face fierce competition, and other earning modes are not yet mature, with problems such as scarce profits and lack of long-term profitability (Liu and Wang, 2019). Measures to raise service charges seem to do little to increase the profits of bike-sharing operators. Because shared bikes have elastic demand, users’ demand is likely to decrease significantly when service charge decreases. Once the service charges increase, users’ demand for shared bikes will reduce significantly, offsetting the positive effect of service charges increase on profitability. Compared with enhancing the profit model and raising service charges, expanding the market demand for shared bikes is a more effective way to boost the profits of bike-sharing operators. In 2019, the cyclist scale of Chinese bike-sharing services is about 259 million, and the market demand is relatively strong. In addition, the market scales of Chinese bike-sharing continued to grow steadily from 2016 to 2020 and there is still room for improvement in the demand of bike-sharing users (Xiao and Wang, 2020). To turn the strong market demand into operators’ profits, the key to the problem lies in improving the users’ willingness to pay for bike sharing. The higher the user’s willingness to pay for the service, the more likely the user is to choose a shared bike when traveling. Therefore, the study of bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay and its influencing factors is of great significance to solve the profit problem of bike-sharing operators.

In terms of the impact of users’ payment intention on bike-sharing operators, many studies have found that users’ willingness to pay affects the operation and management quality of bike sharing and strongly impacts the profitability of bike-sharing operators (Kim et al., 2017). Bike-sharing operators mainly depend on deposits, advertising, and user rent fees to make profits (Tian et al., 2021). Bike-sharing operators ever made profits from investment activities mainly through deposits paid by customers. However, some bike-sharing operators struggled to refund deposits to their users, which resulted in serious social problems (Sago, 2020). However, in 2019, the Ministry of Transport of China no longer allowed bike-sharing operators to collect user deposits “in principle” (Lo, 2019). In addition, since 2017, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and other cities began to ban advertisements on shared bikes, and bike-sharing operators can no longer gain revenue through advertisements (Yue, 2017). As a result, the user rent fees have become the primary profit source for bike-sharing operators in the bike-sharing system, and users’ payment intention has become a key factor affecting the operating conditions of bike-sharing (Sheng et al., 2019). Since 2019, when many of the surviving bike-sharing operators increased user rent fees based upon the length of time they use shared bikes, maintaining users’ willingness to pay has become more and more important for operators to sustain profits (Sago, 2020).

In terms of the influencing factors of users’ willingness to pay, the customer is widely considered to be a critical direct influencing factor, significantly affecting users’ satisfaction and payment intention (Omar et al., 2011; Morar, 2013; Demirgünescedil, 2015). Perceived value is a user’s psychological assessment of a product or service after measuring their perception, which is usually affected by benefits and costs (Zeithaml, 1988). While enjoying a specific product or service, users can form a cognition of the benefits and costs and then estimate the total utility. Perceived value is a trade-off between the received benefits and sacrifices (Dodds et al., 1991; McDougall and Levesque, 2000). Perceived benefits are beliefs about positive consequences brought by a specific product or service, and perceived sacrifices refer to what is given up to enjoy a product or service (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1977; McMillen and Fisher, 1998). Studies indicate that perceived benefits generally include feelings of usefulness, ease-of-use, and entertainment (Davis, 1989; Blanco et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2015; Komlan et al., 2016), while perceived sacrifices include the risk and all kinds of costs such as money, time, effort, and energy (Bauer, 1960; Morewedge et al., 2007; Benazić et al., 2015; Yang, 2017). These elements of perceived benefits and perceived benefits can be indirect factors affecting users’ willingness to pay (Chen, 2016; Lou et al., 2021). Boksberger and Melsen (2011) and Zhang and Deng (2018) pointed out that the key to measuring perceived value lies in the ratio between perceived benefits and perceived sacrifices. Besides perceived value, previous studies on bike-sharing also consider perceived trust, individual paying consciousness, word-of-mouth, and environment protection as direct influencing factors of bike-sharing users’ payment intention (Alford and Biswas, 2002; Ma et al., 2018; Cerutti et al., 2019; Xiao and Wang, 2020).

Based on the arguments above, this study builds a structural equation model around the influencing factors of users’ willingness to pay in bike sharing. This paper contributes to the future study of theoretical and practical aspects. In the theoretical aspect, there are some existing studies on bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. However, few of these studies establish a systematic impact path of bike-sharing users’ payment intention. Based on these existing studies, this study summarizes the influencing factors of bike-sharing users’ payment intention and further analyzes the influencing factors of users’ perceived value — one key factor influencing users’ willingness to pay. Furthermore, we illustrate the formation mechanisms through building the impact path of bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay and perceived value. In practice aspect, it is expected that this study will help understand bike-sharing user consumption decision-making mechanisms by analyzing the impact path of users’ willingness to pay. Moreover, policy proposals on bike-sharing services can also be put up according to the impact path, which will facilitate increasing profits and promoting the sustainable development of bike-sharing operators.

 Overview of the Research Research Hypotheses

Willingness to pay is the maximum price or the possibility a customer is willing to pay in exchange for a product or service, which is an inner activity used to measure consumers’ subjective purchase intention for a particular commodity (Knetsch and Sinden, 1984; Varian, 1992; Wertenbroch and Skiera, 2002). As we discussed above, willingness to pay is a crucial factor affecting bike-sharing users’ consumptive decisions, and perceived value (i.e., perceived benefit and perceived sacrifice) significantly affects users’ willingness to pay. A bike-sharing user’s perceived value is the monetary and psychological evaluation of the utility, considering the gain and the pain of acquiring bike-sharing services (Kim et al., 2007). This article treats the attributes of usefulness, ease-of-use, and entertainment as perceived benefits of bike-sharing users’ perceived value, and treats perceived cost and perceived risk as perceived sacrifices. Furthermore, we introduce individual paying consciousness, word-of-mouth, perceived trust, and environmental protection as critical factors directly affecting users’ willingness to pay. Therefore, we put forward ten related hypotheses, as follows.

Perceived Value and Willingness to Pay

Studies clarified the positive impact of perceived value on users’ usage and payment intention toward bike-sharing services (Ma et al., 2018; Wu and Kim, 2019). Users’ enthusiasm for mobile payment, which is the primary consumption mode of bike sharing, can be influenced by adjusting perceived value (Yang et al., 2011; Ye et al., 2014). Some studies analyzed the cases and data of Chinese consumers’ mobile payment and agreed that perceived value is the overall utility evaluation after weighing income and paying, and consumers’ perceived value has strong links to payment intention (Zhong and Zhang, 2013; Zhao and Zhou, 2017; Zhao et al., 2018). Similar conclusions can be found in some studies on the transport service industry: the more favorable perception of the value of a transport service results in customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intention to accept the service, including bike sharing (Lai and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2021). Studies from Guangzhou, China revealed that individual psychological factors, including perceived value, imposed significant effects on bike-sharing users’ willingness to use and pay for shared bikes (Wei Z. et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019). The stronger the users’ perceived value of a service or product, the higher the users’ willingness to pay for bike-sharing services. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

Perceived value significantly positively influences the user’s willingness to pay.

 Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Value

Perceived usefulness is the extent to which the behavior of enjoying bike-sharing services will be achieved efficiently (Van der Heijden, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 2012). Perceived usefulness is a key factor in adding bike-sharing service value, as shared bikes can be used to quickly and conveniently reach the destination in areas with little traffic (Li X. et al., 2018). Kuo and Yen (2009), Kim et al. (2010) and Slade et al. (2013) found that mobile payment users’ perceived value has a positive impact on their satisfaction and consumption willingness. Cheng et al. (2019) also argued the critical role of perceived usefulness in enhancing users’ attitudes toward bike-sharing programs. Therefore, this study expects that privacy risk has a negative effect on the intention to use it continuously. Therefore, this study expects that when paying for the use of shared bikes, if users perceive that bike sharing is useful, their perceived value will be higher.

Perceived usefulness significantly positively influences users’ perceived value.

 Perceived Entertainment and Perceived Value

Perceived entertainment in bike sharing is defined as the pleasure and relaxation enjoyed by users while using bike-sharing services, not just solving travel difficulties (Venkatesh et al., 2012). To expand new users and keep regular users operators launch creative activities to grow entertainment, such as “Free Riding Day” activities, which enrich users’ consumption experience and add entertainment value (Cao et al., 2018). According to the intrinsic motivation theory, perceived entertainment is considered as an internal motive for evoking a behavior (Davis et al., 1992; Lee et al., 2005). Roostika (2012) found that college students’ perceived value of mobile Internet positively correlates with their entertainment level. In the same way, if bike-sharing users perceive that they can obtain a higher level of riding pleasure or welfare by using bicycles, their perceived value may be higher (Zhang et al., 2017). Delightful experiences in bike-sharing services are critical for bike-sharing users to establish trust, satisfaction, and value for bike-sharing operators.

Perceived entertainment significantly positively influences perceived value.

 Perceived Ease-of-Use and Perceived Value

Perceived ease-of-use refers to the operation convenience of bike sharing (Van der Heijden, 2004). Specifically, this includes but is not limited to ease of consumption and ease of using shared bikes. For ease of consumption, users only download the APP before using it, and they can unlock the bike by scanning the QR code (Yin et al., 2019). Bike-sharing operators also cooperate with payment platforms such as WeChat and Alipay to help bike-sharing users complete the payments, thus simplifying the process of using shared bikes and enhancing the consumer experience. Such convenience makes people form positive attitudes to bike sharing, and take it as a life-benefiting tool for travel, which means higher perceived value. The easier bike-sharing service use is perceived, the more value they generate for bike-sharing users (Kim et al., 2009). Thus, the following hypothesis is developed:

Perceived ease of use significantly positively influences perceived value.

 Perceived Cost and Perceived Value

A bike-sharing user’s perceived cost is defined as the monetary cost which the user thinks he/she incurs by accepting bike-sharing services (Benazić et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2020). The monetary cost in bike-sharing services generally refers to the usage cost of bike sharing and the deposit (Sun and Duan, 2021). Studies suggest that consumers’ perceived cost has a reverse effect on their perceived value (Li, 2018; Li W. et al., 2018). Ma et al. (2020) suggest that “cheaper than other transport modes” is the primary reason for bike-sharing users to choose shared bikes, which means the low perceived cost is an essential factor to attract users to enjoy bike-sharing services (Ricci, 2015). Most bike-sharing operators no longer collect user deposits because the deposit fee is far more expensive than the service fee. Thus user deposits will substantially drive up users’ perceived cost, increasing the financial concern of users negatively impacting the perceived value of bike-sharing services (Zhao et al., 2020). Based on the discussion above, we argue that if bike-sharing users’ perceived cost is higher, their perceived value will decrease.

Perceived value is significantly negatively affected by perceived cost.

 Perceived Risk and Perceived Value

To a bike-sharing user, perceived risk is a feeling of uncertainty while enjoying bike-sharing services (Choi and Choi, 2020). Perceived risk refers to the perceived loss resulting from uncertainty (Wei Y. et al., 2018). A bike-sharing user’s perceived loss refers to the risk of defective bikes, traffic accidents, payment security, the leakage of personal information, etc. (Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972). In addition, a user’s perceived risk can also result from negative comments from other users and the media (Sun, 2018). If a user worries about the potential risk while using a shared bike, the user will be reluctant to believe the shared bike is valuable and reuse it. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Perceived value is significantly negatively affected by perceived risk.

 Individual Paying Consciousness and Willingness to Pay

Individual paying consciousness refers to a customer’s willingness to pay a higher price for a more valuable product and service (Shirai, 2015; Rihn et al., 2018). Individual paying consciousness is negatively affected by price consciousness, which is defined as “the degree to which the consumer focuses exclusively on paying a low price” (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). A customer with low paying consciousness or high price consciousness would not like to pay a high price to a specific good or service, even though the good or service is valuable for him or her. That is because a customer with low paying consciousness can perceive emotional value and entertainment from low prices (Alford and Biswas, 2002). Prior studies and findings indicated that price promotion and discounts will result in lower-paying consciousness (Compeau and Grewal, 1998; Biswas et al., 1999). In China, at the beginning of the bike-sharing industry’s rise, bike-sharing operators promoted all kinds of incentives such as free riding and discounts to seize market share. As a result, bike-sharing users formed low-paying consciousness (i.e., high price consciousness), weakening their motivation to pay a reasonable price for bike-sharing services. And to make matters worse, a customer who lacks individual paying consciousness is prone to be a free rider (Baumol, 2004). As the number of free riders grows, it is not uncommon for them to steal and even destroy shared bikes (Berger, 2018). Nevertheless, if bike-sharing users have high individual paying consciousness, they will not mind paying a higher price for valuable services. As most bike-sharing operators in China have raised service fees since 2019, users with higher individual paying consciousness may have a stronger willingness to pay for bike-sharing services. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Bike-sharing users’ individual paying consciousness significantly positively influences their willingness to pay.

 Word-of-Mouth and Willingness to Pay

In bike-sharing services, word-of-mouth is the passing of information from one bike-sharing user to another. Whether the information is positive or negative largely depends on bike-sharing users’ satisfaction with the quality of bike-sharing service. Nongnuch (2014) pointed out in the exploration of user intention and relationship marketing that word-of-mouth plays a positive role in purchase desire and perceived value. For online shopping consumers, a study by Parry and Kawakami (2015) shows virtual word-of-mouth (the passing of information from person to person online) is positively correlated with perceived utilitarian value. Online consumer comments and ratings, which represent a common form of virtual word-of-mouth, have a direct positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay (Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Nieto-García et al., 2017). Hence, we propose the eighth hypothesis:

Word-of-mouth significantly positively influences bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay.

 Perceived Trust and Willingness to Pay

A bike-sharing user’s perceived trust refers to the level of trust the user has in the quality of shared bikes (including comfort, safety, fast transport time, etc.), bike-sharing mobile APP user privacy protection, and the reliability of bike-sharing operators (Yuliati et al., 2020). Perceived trust significantly impacts users’ willingness to pay (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Goudarzi et al. (2013) indicated that a customer’s trust positively affects their willingness to accept a certain service. Studies of online customers (including mobile APP users) come to the same conclusion: trust from online customers plays a positive role in promoting customers’ purchase and payment behavior (Alsajjan and Dennis, 2010; Simanjuntak et al., 2020). In bike-sharing services, a study from Indonesia argued that perceived trust significantly positively influences service usage and payment behavior (Yuliati et al., 2020). Therefore, we assume that the feeling of trust will make bike-sharing users predisposed to use and pay for shared bikes.

Users’ perceived trust significantly positively influences their willingness to pay.

 Environment Protection and Willingness to Pay

Cycling is considered to be an efficient way to reduce traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution, and promote environmental sustainability (Cupples and Ridley, 2008). Studies demonstrated that people with environmental consciousness tend to choose a more environmentally friendly transport mode, such as bike and public transport (Hunecke et al., 2001; Nordlund and Garvill, 2003; Shena et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2013). In the case of bike-sharing, we define environment protection as a bike-sharing user’s feeling of contributing to green transport and environment protection through the use of shared bikes. Kim et al. (2017) found that if people are aware of the positive effect of cycling to protect the ecological environment, it is possible for people to increase the use of bikes. It is assumed, therefore, that bike-sharing users will be more willing to use and pay for shared bikes if they have strong environmental consciousness.

Users’ environmental awareness significantly positively affects their willingness to pay.

Based on the above theoretical basis and hypotheses, we construct a theoretical framework presented in Figure 1.

Theoretical framework.

 Materials and Methods Scale Design

A scale is required to test whether the 10 hypotheses in the influencing factor model of users’ willingness to pay in bike-sharing are valid (Ma et al., 2019). The 10 hypotheses involve 11 latent variables, including perceived value (PV), perceived usefulness (PU), perceived entertainment (PE), perceived ease-of-use (PEU), perceived cost (PC), perceived risk (PR), individual paying consciousness (IPC), word-of-mouth (WOM), perceived trust (PT), environment protection (EP), and willingness to pay (WTP). The 11 latent variables are subdivided into 34 measurable variables, which correspond with 34 survey questions (see Table 1). All variables and survey questions were measured by a five-point Likert-type scale, which has been adopted in many behavioral intention studies (Chen and Chao, 2011; Cheng and Huang, 2013).

Statistics of the measurement scale.

Latent Variable Measured Variable Item Description References
Perceived Value (PV) PV1 Compared with the money paid, it is worthwhile to pay for a shared bike
PV2 Compared with the physical strength, it is worthwhile to pay for a shared bike Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002)
PV3 Compared with the time spent, it is worthwhile to pay for a shared bike
PV4 In general, paying for a shared bike is valuable
Perceived Usefulness (PU) PU1 Bike sharing can improve travel efficiency Slade et al. (2013), Liu and Tang (2015)
PU2 I think bike sharing is useful
PU3 I think it is necessary to use a shared bike
Perceived Entertainment (PE) PE1 Bike sharing pleases me in riding
PE2 Bike sharing makes my life more interesting Roostika (2012)
PE3 Bike sharing is interesting, not boring
Perceived ease-of-use (PEU) PEU1 It is easy for me to use a shared bike Slade et al. (2013), Liu and Tang (2015)
PEU2 It doesn’t take much effort to learn to use a shared bike
PEU3 The paid use steps of the shared order are simple to operate
Perceived Cost (PC) PC1 Bike sharing’s pricing is relatively high
PC2 Excessive price is an obstacle to my use of a shared bike Self-compiled
PC3 I need to spend more money on traveling in bike sharing
Perceived Risk (PR) PC1 I will worry about the loss caused by the failure to refund the deposit in time
PC2 I’m worried that my safety will be damaged if I break down while riding a shared bike Thakur and Srivastava (2014)
PC3 I am worried that the company will collect my data without the customer’s permission and use it illegally
Individual Paying Consciousness (IPC) IPC1 I think paying fees can help me get higher quality service
IPC2 It is cost-effective to pay for valuable services Self-compiled
IPC3 I am willing to pay for services that I think are valuable
Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) WOM1 Before deciding to use the shared bike, I will watch the comments from the Internet and friends Self-compiled
WOM2 I prefer to spend money to ride a shared bike with better evaluation
WOM3 Comments from the Internet or friends around me will have an impact on my spending money to ride the brand’s shared bike
Perceived Trust (PT) PT1 I believe that the bike-sharing company I use can safely protect my funds (deposit)
PT2 I believe the quality of the shared bike I use is guaranteed Self-compiled
PT3 I believe that the company I use in bike sharing can do a good job in supporting the relevant services of the bike
Environment Protection (EP) EP1 I think bike sharing helps to travel green, save energy and reduce emissions
EP2 I think bike sharing can reduce the use of private cars or taxis Self-compiled
EP3 I am willing to pay for the use of bike sharing for environment protection
Willingness to Pay (WTP) WTP1 In the future, I may try (or continue) to pay for the use of bike sharing, such as buying bicycle monthly cards and annual cards, etc.
WTP2 If bike sharing is what I need to use, I am willing to pay for it Fang et al. (2018)
WTP3 I am willing to recommend high-quality shared bikes to my friends
Data Collection and Variable Measurement

The scope of this survey is limited to the first-tier and second-tier cities in mainland China with high utilization rates in bike-sharing. We first conducted a pre-survey to prevent the distortion of the data collected by a large-scale survey. Because the overall preliminary test results in the pre-survey are ideal, we retained and included all the measurement items and survey results in the formal survey samples. In this paper, we collected a total of 502 questionnaires in the pre-investigation and investigation stages. Next, we cleaned the original data obtained from the questionnaires and eliminated invalid data to ensure the quality of the analysis samples. Finally, we got 458 available samples, accounting for 91.2% of the total. See Table 2 for the information of valid respondents.

Descriptive statistics of sample data.

Statistical Items Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 213 46.51
Female 245 53.49
Age 19–25 years old 52 11.35
26–30 years old 234 51.09
31–40 years old 140 30.57
40–50 years old 27 5.90
Over 50 years old 5 1.09
Degree of education Junior high school and below 5 1.09
Senior high school 9 1.97
College/Undergraduate 363 79.26
Graduate student and above 81 17.69
Monthly usage frequency 0 times 56 12.23
1–5 times 205 44.76
6–10 times 93 20.31
10–20 times 71 15.50
More than 20 times 33 7.21
Duration of each use Within five minutes 55 12.01
5–10 min 201 43.89
10–15 min 134 29.26
15–30 min 57 12.45
More than 30 min 11 2.40

According to the information of valid interviewees, there are a few more female users among interviewees, most of whom are under 30 years old. Less than 30% have a junior college or undergraduate degree, with the vast majority completing higher education. Users consume bike-sharing services once to five times a month (accounting for nearly 50%), indicating that most users use shared bikes as an unconventional means of transportation; the frequency of use is generally not high. In addition, respondents used bikes for five to ten minutes at a time (accounting for 43.9%). Thus, the survey group conforms to the general situation of users in bike-sharing.

 Empirical Test and Results Reliability Analysis

The reliability and validity of data samples are analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics (New York, NY, United States). Reliability evaluates the accuracy and trustworthiness of experimental data. Before using a structural equation to analyze the model, it is necessary to examine the reliability of data samples to measure the model’s adaptability and effectiveness of hypothesis testing. The Cronbach’s α coefficient is selected as the measuring index of reliability (Lao and Wu, 2013). When Cronbach’s α coefficient is greater than 0.7 and less than 0.8, the scale’s reliability can be considered good (Xie and Han, 2005; Li and Tian, 2017). As shown in Table 3, Cronbach’s α coefficient and corrected item-total correlation (CITC)-value both fall into the category of high reliability. Furthermore, the coefficient does not increase significantly after removing items, indicating that the full scale has good reliability.

Reliability analysis results.

Latent Variable Measured Variable Cronbach’s α Corrected item-total correlation (CITC) Cronbach’s α if Item Deleted
Perceived Value (PV) PV1 0.864 0.888
PV2 0.831 0.895
0.922
PV3 0.784 0.912
PV4 0.815 0.901
Perceived Usefulness (PU) PU1 0.680 0.810
PU2 0.838 0.753 0.730
PU3 0.688 0.789
Perceived Entertainment (PE) PE1 0.732 0.811
PE2 0.861 0.793 0.751
PE3 0.690 0.847
Perceived Ease-of-use (PEU) PEU1 0.693 0.743
PEU2 0.824 0.699 0.740
PEU3 0.660 0.783
Perceived Cost (PC) PC1 0.500 0.725
PC2 0.739 0.659 0.536
PC3 0.545 0.680
Perceived Risk (PR) PC1 0.645 0.805
PC2 0.828 0.780 0.670
PC3 0.640 0.808
Individual Paying Consciousness (IPC) IPC1 0.591 0.714
IPC2 0.774 0.599 0.71
IPC3 0.642 0.663
Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) WOM1 0.682 0.856
WOM2 0.859 0.782 0.759
WOM3 0.743 0.794
Perceived Trust (PT) PT1 0.783 0.887
PT2 0.905 0.843 0.835
PT3 0.809 0.864
Environment Protection (EP) EP1 0.794 0.859
EP2 0.898 0.809 0.849
EP3 0.800 0.854
Willingness to Pay (WTP) WTP1 0.857 0.911
WTP2 0.935 0.855 0.913
WTP3 0.883 0.891
Validity Analysis

We measured the questionnaire’s validity from two aspects: content and structure. Content validity measures the content practicality and logical rationality of variables and items. The questionnaire used in this study comprehensively integrated the structural relationship of variables from the previous research literature, including reasonable text expression and the writing logic of the questions. Therefore, the measure used in our research has high content validity (Malmgreen et al., 2009).

Structural Validity Analysis

Structural validity is the degree to which the items in the questionnaire adequately reflect the measured variables. In this paper, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to measure structural validity (Watkins, 2018). First, we conducted the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test (Hill, 2011), resulting in 0.868 > 0.5. Next, we found the Bartlett spherical test P-value significantly less than 0.01. These results are very significant, which shows that the measurement data collected in this questionnaire has a good concentration and meets the prerequisite for further factor analysis.

Then, we carried out an exploratory factor analysis. We extracted 11 factors by calculation, and we obtained the explanatory rates of variance by rotation as follows: 9.887, 7.674, 7.614, 7.160, 7.133, 6.907, 6.829, 6.793, 6.581, 6.300, and 5.962%. The total explanatory power reached 78.840%, indicating that these 11 factors can better explain the information contained in the questionnaire data.

After maximum variance rotation, the absolute value of factor load of each measurement item was higher than 0.7, and the commonality of corresponding items was higher than 0.4. These findings indicate a significant correlation between research items and factors, and these factors can effectively extract information, thus confirming that the scale has good structural validity.

 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correction

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) can further investigate the fit between actual measurement data and the theoretical framework, which is implemented in AMOS software (Brown and Moore, 2012; Brown, 2015). Before adopting this method, the first step is to describe the model of covariant relation and measure and revise it to increase its degree of fit. After measuring the model, we carried out the CFA using AMOS software. The results show that all fit parameters meet the requirements except adjusted goodness of fit index, AGFI = 0.881. This result is not up to 0.9 or higher. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the model to optimize and improve the model’s fit.

The model needs to be re-estimated after three times of model modification to increase the correlation path. Figure 2 shows the modified model.

Modified measurement model of influencing factors of users’ willingness to pay in bike sharing.

After conducting CFA on the modified model, the results of the modified model test were chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom, CMIN/DF = 1.438 < 3, which meets the requirements. Therefore, comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), incremental fit index (IFI), tucker lewis index (TLI), normed fit index (NFI), and other values are greater than 0.9, which meets the standards. In addition, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.031 < 0.08, which shows a high degree of fit.

 Analysis of Discriminant Validity and Convergent Validity

We provide an analysis of the discriminant and convergent validity of the internal items of each variable. The standardized factor load of confirmatory factor analysis on the modified model is higher than 0.5, and the significance level is high. The reliability of customers’ perceived usefulness, ease-of-use, entertainment, risk, cost, and value, as well as payment awareness, brand reputation, perceived trust, environment protection, and willingness to pay, are as follows: 0.845, 0.823, 0.862, 0.839, 0.753, 0.918, 0.777, 0.865, 0.905, 0.895, and 0.935, all of which are greater than 0.7. Average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.738, 0.646, 0.676, 0.608, 0.511, 0.639, 0.537, 0.682, 0.761, 0.741, and 0.828, respectively, all of which are greater than 0.6. These results meet the convergence effectiveness standard and have a high overall degree of fit, so it is possible to analyze all the variables next. See Table 4 for details. From the square root of AVE in the diagonal of the matrix (the bold value Table 4), the discriminant validity of the measuring scale is relatively good; that is, there are significant differences among potential variables.

Correlation analysis and differential validity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Perceived Usefulness 0.803
Perceived Entertainment 0.226** 0.822
Perceived Ease-of-use 0.265** 0.262** 0.779
Perceived Cost −0.139** −0.160** −0.161** 0.714
Perceived Risk −0.199** −0.007 −0.083 0.175** 0.799
Individual Paying Consciousness 0.225** 0.039 0.047 −0.081 −0.093* 0.732
Word-of-Mouth .0352** 0.337** 0.325** −0.255** −0.200** 0.098* 0.825
Perceived Trust 0.329** 0.336** 0.363** −0.276** −0.261** 0.183** 0.353** 0.872
Environment Protection 0.273** 0.307** 0.426** −0.142** −0.207** 0.174** 0.295** 0.376** 0.860
Perceived Value 0.303** 0.171** 0.263** −0.292** −0.245** 0.163** 0.247** 0.338** 0.157** 0.859
Willingness to Pay 0.220** 0.114* 0.192** −0.183** −0.182** 0.347** 0.233** 0.373** 0.297** 0.452** 0.909

1, Perceived Usefulness; 2, Perceived Entertainment; 3, Perceived Ease-of-use; 4, Perceived Cost; 5, Perceived Risk; 6, Individual Paying Consciousness; 7, Word-of-mouth; 8, Perceived Trust; 9, Environment Protection; 10, Perceived Value, 11 = Willingness to Pay.

* suggests the significance at the level of 10%, ** suggests the significance at the level of 5%. The bold value means the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).

The above test results show that the measurement model in this paper can effectively fit various influencing factors of users’ willingness to pay, with high reliability and validity. We can analyze the structural equation model based on the model and sample data to check the path relationship among potential variables and verify theoretical assumptions.

 Structural Equation Model Model Building

The structural equation model, integrating factor analysis and path analysis, can be used for analyzing direct and indirect relations among variables (Kaplan et al., 2015). The structural equation includes two equations: the measurement equation that describes the relationship between the latent variable and measured variable, and the structural equation that describes the relationship between latent variables (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1977). This paper uses the structural equation model to build a hypothetical model about the influencing factors of bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. We introduce AMOS to build the structural equation. Figure 3 shows the specific structural equation analysis model 3, consisting of 11 latent variables, 34 measurable variables, and 36 residual variables.

Structural equation analysis model.

Our study uses AMOS to analyze the degree of fit, and the results show that CMIN/DF = 1.714 < 3, with the fit between the model and sample data reaching the standard. In addition, CFI, GFI, and other values also reached the standard because they were all higher than 0.9. RMSEA also meets the standard at 0.040 < 0.08. However, the AGFI-value is 0.880; it does not reach the standard above 0.9. Assuming that the model fitting degree does not reach the optimal standard, the model needs to be modified and optimized.

Looking at the path coefficient of the structural equation model, we get Table 5. We find that the P-value of two paths except for perceived entertainment→perceived value and word of mouth→willingness to pay is greater than the significant standard of 0.05. This finding indicates that perceived entertainment and word of mouth have no significant influence on willingness to pay at the significance level of 5%. Therefore, hypotheses H3 and H8 are not valid. P-values of other paths are less than 0.05 significant standard, indicating that they significantly influence at the 5% significance level. This finding supports the other hypotheses.

Path coefficient of structural equation model.

Path relation Standardized path coefficient T-Value P-Value Hypothesis
Perceived Value ← Perceived Usefulness 0.185 3.488 0.002 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Entertainment 0.033 0.655 0.513 Not Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Ease-of-use 0.162 2.982 0.003 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Cost −0.241 −4.436 0.001 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Risk −0.135 −2.77 0.006 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Individual Paying Consciousness 0.27 5.442 0.001 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Word-of-Mouth 0.001 0.029 0.977 Not Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Perceived Trust 0.155 3.027 0.002 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Environment Protection 0.138 2.814 0.005 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Perceived Value 0.364 8.152 0.000 Supported

Since perceived entertainment and word-of-mouth have no significant influence on willingness to pay at a significance level of 5%, thereby not supporting the hypothesis, it is necessary to delete the two paths of perceived entertainment→perceived value and word-of-mouth→willingness to pay as the initial revision of the model. After deletion, we execute the model again and analyze the fitting degree of the model. Except for AGFI = 0.89 < 0.9, which does not meet the requirements, the remaining variables are in the acceptable range, thereby optimizing the model again. At this time, the P-value of each path has reached the significant standard of less than 0.05, supporting the hypothesis corrected by the residual covariance method. In addition, we found that we could reduce the chi-square value by adding a path to improve the model between two residuals. The correlation between variables starts with the variable with the largest MI-value, and finally, adding the path between e3 and e4 to modify the model. After correcting the model, we executed it again to get Figure 4:

Modified structural equation analysis model.

After analyzing the fitting degree of the model again, we found CMIN/DF = 1.566 < 3, which meets the standard. At the same time, CFI and GFI are all higher than 0.9, reaching the standard. In addition, RMSEA is 0.035 < 0.08, and the relevant indexes of fitting degrees are all up to the standard. Therefore, the revised model has a high degree of adaptation.

 Path Analysis and Hypothesis Test

After the model fitting test, it is necessary to analyze the model path, calculate each potential variable’s significant coefficient and path coefficient, and examine whether the hypothesis passes the test. Finally, based on the findings, verify the relationship between potential variables proposed in this study. See Table 6 for the conclusion of the research hypotheses after path analysis.

Hypothesis test results.

Path relation Standardized path coefficient T-Value P-Value Hypothesis
Perceived Value ← Perceived Usefulness 0.181 3.463 0.001 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Ease-of-use 0.174 3.284 0.001 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Cost −0.238 −4.426 0.000 Supported
Perceived Value ← Perceived Risk −0.126 −2.605 0.009 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Individual Paying Consciousness 0.268 5.402 0.000 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Perceived Trust 0.158 3.251 0.001 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Environment Protection 0.140 2.892 0.004 Supported
Willingness to Pay ← Perceived Value 0.365 8.294 0.000 Supported

The P-values of t in Table 6 are all less than 0.05, which means all hypothesis test results reach statistical significance, indicating:

Impact on perceived value:

Perceived usefulness has a significant positive effect, assuming H2 holds.

Perceived ease-of-use has a significant positive effect, assuming that H4 holds.

Perceived cost has a significant negative effect, assuming H5 holds.

Perceived risk has a significant negative effect, assuming H6 holds.

Impact on willingness to pay:

Payment awareness has a significant positive effect, assuming H7 holds.

Perceived trust has a significant positive effect, assuming H9 holds.

Environment protection has a significant positive effect, assuming that H10 holds.

Perceived value has a significant positive effect, assuming H1 holds.

At the same time, we can see that assuming H3 and H8 are not significant, that is, perceived entertainment has no significant impact on perceived value, and word-of-mouth has no significant effect on users’ willingness to pay. The influence path of the eight factors (perceived entertainment and word-of-mouth are excluded) is shown in Figure 5.

Influence path of modified structure equation model. *** suggests the significance at the level of 1%.

 Conclusion and Discussion

Based on the survey data of first-tier and second-tier cities in mainland China, perceived value theory, and structural equation model, this paper analyzed the direct and indirect factors that affect bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. The results show that: first, perceived value, individual paying consciousness, perceived trust, and environmental protection have a significant and positive direct effect on users’ willingness to pay, with direct influence values of 0.365, 0.268, 0.158, and 0.140. While the positive effect of word-of-mouth on users’ willingness to pay is not significant. Second, perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use have significant and positive direct effects on perceived value (i.e., significant and positive indirect effects on users’ willingness to pay), with direct influence values of 0.181 and 0.174. Third, perceived cost and perceived risk have significant and negative direct effects on perceived value (i.e., significant and negative indirect effects on users’ willingness to pay), with direct influence values of −0.238 and −0.126. However, the impact of perceived entertainment on perceived value is not significant. Therefore, the main conclusions and proposes are given below:

Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay

Perceived value is the crucial factor influencing bike-sharing users’ payment intention with the highest influence value of 0.365, and the conclusion is consistent with some studies on China’s bike-sharing programs such as Ma et al. (2018, 2019), and Ji et al. (2021). This means bike-sharing users put the utility gained from bike-sharing services first. Therefore, to attract more non-users and keep users, bike-sharing operators should focus more on users’ subjective well-being.

It is not difficult to understand why individual paying consciousness, with an influence value of 0.268, is the second most important factor to influence users’ payment intention. Many studies indicate that users’ perceived value significantly influences the usage behavior, however, it does not mean they are willing to pay a reasonable price for the valuable product or service they think. As we have discussed, sales promotion and discounts conducted by bike-sharing operators will make people seek lower prices and even become “free riders”, severely diminishing the willingness to pay. Bike-sharing operators should adhere to the bottom line to improve service quality and customer experience, refine the service and management, and not set off a “price war” to seize market share. Operators should also cultivate the individual payment consciousness on the whole market by improving users’ satisfaction.

Perceived trust, with an influence value of 0.158, can positively influence bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay. Bike-sharing users’ trust in the reliability and security of bike-sharing operators is a significant part of shaping a long-term relationship between users and operators (Gefen et al., 2003). Hence, we suggest that bike-sharing enterprises increase investment in human resources, capital, and technology. These investments will help maintain customer information, personal safety, and security of customer funds, improve the security of the service platform, ensure the related payment accounts of users, provide high-quality vehicles, and improve service reliability. To regulate bike-sharing operators’ behavior, it is also necessary for the government to enact laws governing the bike-sharing market (Ma et al., 2018).

Environment protection positively influences bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay with an influence coefficient of 0.140: The results of our study emphasize the importance of making people perceive the environmental value of bike sharing. To encourage cycling, some promotional campaigns aimed at promoting low-carbon and environment-friendly life are necessary (Geus et al., 2008). Some studies emphasized that bike-sharing operators’ marketing, news media’s presentation of bike-sharing, and some political ways can increase people’s environmental concern and create awareness about the positive aspects of using shared bikes (Brög et al., 2002; Berthoû, 2013; Zanotto, 2014). Therefore, we suggest that operators fully play the advantages of low-carbon environmental protection in bike sharing, strengthen the publicity and marketing of green travel elements in bike sharing, and carry out environmental protection activities. For instance, bike-sharing operators could organize “Earth Hour” in conjunction with green public welfare organizations and the public media to make bike-sharing users realize their contribution to environmental protection. Operators could also find ways to increase cooperation with successful public welfare and environment protection digital platform, such as Alipay “Ant Forest” (Chen B. et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2018).

 Factors Influencing Perceived Value

In terms of the four factors influencing users’ perceived value, the influence value of perceived cost is significantly higher than the other three factors. According to the prospect theory developed by Kahneman and Tversky (2013), people value gains and losses differently because of risk aversion. People have a tendency to avoid losses rather than gain benefits because the pain of perceived monetary loss (i.e., perceived cost) is greater than the satisfaction of an equivalent monetary gain. Therefore, decision-makers should concern more about the perceived cost to enhance bike-sharing users’ perceived value. It is difficult to cut bike-sharing users’ costs through reducing service fees because the low price strategy is no longer attractive to users and will significantly hurt operators’ profitability. In this context, it is suggested that bike-sharing operators engage in price discrimination, providing active users with huge discounts to stimulate more people to use shared bikes (Haider et al., 2018). For example, operators may consider introducing a membership upgrade system, in which the membership level goes up as the user use shared bikes more frequently. In addition, bike-sharing operators could carry out differentiated pricing at different membership levels or provide various preferential efforts. The benefit is that high-level users can enjoy lower prices and lower-level users will make greater preferential efforts, thus increasing their willingness to use and pay for shared bikes.

The other three factors, perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, and perceived risk also have effects on bike-sharing users’ perceived value. Hence, we put out some policy proposals below.

Perceived usefulness first, we suggest that bike-sharing operators should devote themselves to optimizing basic services, optimizing the bike ownership rate and bike scheduling efficiency when users want to use bikes, and enhancing the practical value of bike sharing. Second, operators should publicize bike sharing’s advantages in losing weight and keeping fit, deepen users’ recognition of the usefulness of bike sharing, and then improve customers’ willingness to pay. Third, we suggest that the government better promote bike sharing by contrasting its advantages compared with other transport modes.

Perceived ease-of-use for one thing, bike-sharing operators should optimize the user experience, including improving client convenience, removing unnecessary functions, and avoiding cumbersome operations when users rent and return shared bikes. Bike-sharing operators should also focus on solving problems of huge piles of broken bicycles, limited service areas, and unreasonable divisions of parking places to improve bike-sharing users’ perceived ease of use while using shared bikes. For another, bike-sharing users’ behavior should also be supervised to enhance the convenience of using shared bikes. For example, some illegal behaviors, such as stealing and vandalizing shared bikes, should be integrated into the individual credit system via Internet. People whose illegal behaviors are recorded in the individual credit system will lose some credit scores. And they will not be able to enjoy bike-sharing services if their credit scores are lower than a certain degree, which can reduce bike-sharing uses’ illegal behaviors on shared bikes (Ji et al., 2021).

Perceived risk the influence value of perceived risks is relatively low, one possible reason is that the bike-sharing market and behavior of operators are becoming more regulated (Reddick et al., 2020). Nevertheless, some measures can still be taken to enhance users’ perceived value. For bike-sharing operators who still collect user deposits (Some electric bike sharing operators still collect deposits because of high operating costs), they should improve the measures for handling deposit risks and inform or unconditionally exempt customers. Operators could conduct scientific analysis in advance to protect users’ privacy and avert potential safety hazards and legal disputes during the registration and use of bike sharing. In addition, operators could improve the response mechanism for accidental injury and reflect it in the user service agreement, transforming it into an integral part of customer service. For example, to reduce the troubles and doubts caused by the risks that may occur during the use of bike sharing, operators can consider cooperating with insurance companies to provide paid cycling insurance to customers.

In the end, there are still some limitations in this study. Based on these limitations, some important future research priorities can be identified. On one hand, the questionnaire should cover more people and more places in China, especially for some small cities, counties, and even some rural areas in which bike-sharing services have become popular. On the other hand, this paper focused on bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay based on the structural equation model, and the impact of some realistic factors on users’ payment intention was still ignored. Future studies could further analyze these realistic factors. For instance, although there are very few dock bike-sharing programs, they may have an effect on users’ willingness to pay. Researchers could study the comparison between dockless and dock bike-sharing services to find out whether dock bike-sharing services will become a new competitive business model for China’s bike-sharing operators. Other realistic factors include discarded bike disposal, shared bike quantity control, legislation, support of the government, etc., which can be used to further analyze the impact on bike-sharing users’ willingness to pay.

 Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

 Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

 Author Contributions

HS, GY, and JG conceived and designed the study. XW, MG, and ZX finalized this manuscript. HS and GY helped with data processing. JG participated in scale design, questionnaire distribution, and collection. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Alford B. L. Biswas A. (2002). The effects of discount level, price consciousness and sale proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention. J. Bus. Res. 55 775–783. 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00214-9 Alsajjan B. Dennis C. (2010). Internet banking acceptance model: cross-market examination. J. Bus. Res. 63 957–919. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.014 Bansal H. S. Voyer P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. J. Service Res. 3 166–177. 10.1177/109467050032005 Bauer R. A. (1960). “Consumer behavior as risk raking,” in Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the Dynamic Marketiing for a Changing World, ed. Hancock R. S. (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association), 389–398. Baumol W. J. (2004). “Welfare economics and the theory of the state,” in The Encyclopedia of Public Choice, eds Rowley C. K. Schneider F. (Boston, MA: Springer). Benazić D. Tanković A. Č Music M. (2015). “Impact of perceived risk and perceived cost on trust in the online shopping websites and customer repurchase intention,” in Proceedings of the 24th CROMAR Congress, Split: Croatia. 104–122. Berger R. (2018). Bike Sharing 5.0: Market Insights and Outlook. Berlin: Roland Berger. Berthoû S. K. G. (2013). The everyday challenges of pro-environmental practices. J. Transdisciplinary Environ. Stud. 12 53–68. Bieliński T. Ważna A. (2018). New generation of bike-sharing systems in China: lessons for European cities. J. Manag. Financial Sci. 11 25–42. Biswas A. Pullig C. Krishnan B. C. Burton S. (1999). Consumer evaluation of reference price advertisements: effects of other brands’ prices and semantic cues. J. Public Policy Market. 18 52–65. 10.1177/074391569901800107 Blanco C. F. Blasco M. G. Azorín I. I. (2010). Entertainment and informativeness as precursory factors of successful mobile advertising messages. Commun. IBIMA 2010 1–11. 10.5171/2010.130147 Boksberger P. E. Melsen L. (2011). Perceived value: a critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industry. J. Services Market. 25 229–240. 10.1108/08876041111129209 Brög W. Erl E. Mense N. (2002). “Individualised marketing changing travel behaviour for a better environment,” in Paper Presented at the OECD Workshop: Environmentally Sustainable Transport, Werner Brög, (Germany). Brown T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford publications. Brown T. A. Moore M. T. (2012). “Confirmatory factor analysis,” in Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, ed. Hoyle R. H. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press). Cao G. Jin G. Z. Weng X. Zhou L. A. (2018). Market Expanding or Market Stealing? Competition with Network Effects in Bikesharing (No. w24938). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.3386/w24938 34419315 Cerutti P. S. Martins R. D. Macke J. Sarate J. A. R. (2019). “Green, but not as green as that”: an analysis of a Brazilian bike-sharing system. J. Clean. Prod. 217 185–193. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.240 Chang S. Song R. He S. Qiu G. (2018). Innovative bike-sharing in China: solving faulty bike-sharing recycling problem. J. Adv. Transportation 2018 1–10. 10.1155/2018/4941029 Chen B. Feng Y. Sun J. Yan J. (2020). Motivation analysis of online green users: evidence from Chinese “Ant Forest”. Front. Psychol. 11:1335. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01335 32714238 Chen C. F. Chao W. H. (2011). Habitual or reasoned? using the theory of planned behavior, technology acceptance model, and habit to examine switching intentions toward public transit. Transportation Res. Part F 14 128–137. 10.1016/j.trf.2010.11.006 Chen C. F. Chen Y. X. Mu P. J. Yu Y. H. (2021). Beyond adoption of shared bike: a case study on antecedents and consequences of brand attachment in Taiwan. Res. Transportation Bus. Manag. 40:100574. 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100574 Chen S. Y. (2016). Green helpfulness or fun? Influences of green perceived value on the green loyalty of users and non-users of public bikes. Transport Policy 47 149–159. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.014 Chen Z. van Lierop D. Ettema D. (2020). Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications? Transport Rev. 40 333–353. 10.1080/01441647.2019.1710306 Cheng P. OuYang Z. Liu Y. (2019). Understanding bike sharing use over time by employing extended technology continuance theory. Transportation Res. Part A: Policy Practice 124 433–443. 10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.013 Cheng Y. H. Huang T. Y. (2013). High speed rail passengers’ mobile ticketing adoption. Transportation Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 30 143–160. 10.1016/j.trc.2013.02.001 Choi Y. Choi E. J. (2020). Sustainable governance of the sharing economy: the Chinese bike-sharing industry. Sustainability 12:1195. 10.3390/su12031195 Compeau L. D. Grewal D. (1998). Comparative price advertising: an integrative review. J. Public Policy Market. 17 257–273. 10.1177/074391569801700209 Cupples J. Ridley E. (2008). Towards a heterogeneous environmental responsibility: sustainability and cycling fundamentalism. Area 40 254–264. 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00810.x Davis F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 319–340. 10.2307/249008 Davis F. D. Bagozzi R. P. Warshaw P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22 1111–1132. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x Demirgünescedil B. K. (2015). Relative importance of perceived value, satisfaction and perceived risk on willingness to pay more. Int. Rev. Manag. Market. 5 211–220. Dodds W. B. Monroe K. B. Grewal D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Market. Res. 28 307–319. 10.1177/002224379102800305 Drynda P. (2014). Development of bike share systems and their impact on the sustainability of urban transport: case study of opole bike. Central Eastern Eur. J. Manag. Econ. 2 199–215. Fang A. Lu M. Liu K. (2018). Empirical study on users’ knowledge purchase intention for virtual community. Library Inform. Service 62 105–115. Fishbein M. Ajzen I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Philos. Rhetoric 10 130–132. Fishman E. Washington S. Haworth N. (2014). Bike share’s impact on car use: evidence from the United States. Great Britain, and Australia. Transportation Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 31 13–20. 10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013 Fishman E. Washington S. Haworth N. Watson A. (2015). Factors influencing bike share membership: an analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane. Transportation Res. Part A: Policy Practice 71 17–30. 10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.021 Gao F. Li S. Wu Z. (2019). Spatial-temporal characteristics and the influencing factors of the ride destination of bike sharing in Guangzhou city. Geograph. Res. 38 2859–2872. Gefen D. Karahanna E. Straub D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27 51–90. 10.2307/30036519 Geus B. D. Bourdeaudhuij I. D. Jannes C. Meeuse R. (2008). Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Educ. Res. 23 697–708. 10.1093/her/cym055 17947248 Goudarzi S. Ahmad M. N. Soleymani S. A. Mohammadhosseini N. (2013). Impact of trust on internet banking adoption: a literature review. Australian J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7 334–347. Guidon S. Becker H. Dediu H. Axhausen K. W. (2019). Electric bicycle-sharing: a new competitor in the urban transportation market? an empirical analysis of transaction data. Transportation Res. Record 2673 15–26. 10.1177/0361198119836762 Guo P. Lin X. Huang Y. Tu S. Bai X. Yang Y. (2017). Bike sharing: collaborative governance in internet technology and public services. J. Public Manag. 14 1–10. Haider Z. Nikolaev A. Kang J. E. Kwon C. (2018). Inventory rebalancing through pricing in public bike sharing systems. Eur. J. Operational Res. 270 103–117. 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.053 Hill B. D. (2011). The Sequential Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Procedure as an Alternative for Determining the Number of Factors in Common-factor Analysis: A Monte Carlo Simulation. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. Huang Y. Wang F. He Y. (2020). “Study on the influencing factors of dockless bike sharing user’s intention in Chengdu, China,” in Proceedings of the 2020 12th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC), (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE). 10.1109/IHMSC49165.2020.00028 Hunecke M. Blöbaum A. Matthies E. Höger R. (2001). Responsibility and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environ. Behav. 33 830–852. 10.1177/00139160121973269 Jacoby J. Kaplan L. B. (1972). “The components of perceived risk,” in SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, ed. Venkatesan M. (Chicago, IL: Association for Consumer Research), 382–393. Ji W. Lu C. Mao J. Liu Y. Hou M. Pan X. (2021). Public’s intention and influencing factors of dockless bike-sharing in central urban areas: a case study of Lanzhou City, China. Sustainability 13:9265. 10.3390/su13169265 Jiang G. Peng L. Liu R. (2015). Mobile game adoption in China: the role of TAM and perceived entertainment, cost, similarity and brand trust. Int. J. Hybrid Inform. Technol. 8 213–232. 10.14257/ijhit.2015.8.4.24 Kahneman D. Tversky A. (2013). “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk,” in Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I, eds MacLean L. C. Ziemba W. T. (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd). 10.1142/9789814417358_0006 Kaplan S. Manca F. Nielsen T. A. S. Prato C. G. (2015). Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Manag. 47 34–46. 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.017 Kim B. Choi M. Han I. (2009). User behaviors toward mobile data services: the role of perceived fee and prior experience. Expert Systems Appl. 36 8528–8536. 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.063 Kim C. Mirusmonov M. Lee I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Comp. Hum. Behav. 26 310–322. 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013 Kim H. W. Chan H. C. Gupta S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems 43 111–126. 10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009 Kim J. Choi K. Kim S. Fujii S. (2017). How to promote sustainable public bike system from a psychological perspective? Int. J. Sustainable Transportation 11 272–281. 10.1080/15568318.2016.1252450 Kim J. Fujii S. Lee B. (2013). Strategies to promote sustainable transportation policy incorporating heterogeneity. Int. J. Sustainable Transportation 7 107–124. 10.1080/15568318.2011.621099 Kittilaksanawong W. Liu H. (2021). Mobike China: competing through the giant’s ecosystem. Emerald Emerg. Markets Case Stud. 11 1–28. 10.1108/EEMCS-04-2020-0128 Knetsch J. L. Sinden J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly J. Econ. 99 507–521. 10.2307/1885962 Komlan G. Koffi D. Kingsford K. M. (2016). MCDM technique to evaluating mobile banking adoption in the Togolese banking industry based on the perceived value: perceived benefit and perceived sacrifice factors. Int. J. Data Mining Knowledge Manag. Process 6 37–56. 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6304 Kuo Y. F. Yen S. N. (2009). Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Comp. Hum. Behav. 25 103–110. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.007 Lai W. T. Chen C. F. (2011). Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers—the roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport policy 18 318–325. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.003 Lao K. F. Wu J. (2013). Research on influencing mechanism of consumer green consumption behavior referring to TPB. Finance Econ. 2 91–100. Lee M. K. Cheung C. M. Chen Z. (2005). Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Inform. Manag. 42 1095–1104. 10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007 Li F. Tian J. (2017). Empirical study on driving forces of innovation in business pattern of online tourism enterprises. China Bus. Market 31 14–23. Li T. (2017). China’s Bike-sharing Giants could Merge to Stop the Cash Burning. Available online at: http://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tech/article/2113100/chinas-bike-sharinggiants-could-merge-stop-cash-burning [accessed September 31, 2021] Li W. (2018). Users’wilingness of paying for online Q &A platform based on the perceived value. Documentation Inform. Knowledge 4 4–14. Li W. Xu Y. Cong T. (2018). The impact of users’ perceived value on payment intention of online payment Q & A platform – an analysis of the regulatory effect based on past behavior. J. Mass Commun. Monthly 10 92–100. Li X. Zhang Y. Sun L. Liu Q. (2018). Free-floating bike sharing in jiangsu: users’ behaviors and influencing factors. Energies 11:1664. 10.3390/en11071664 Lichtenstein D. R. Ridgway N. M. Netemeyer R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. J. Market. Res. 30 234–245. 10.1177/002224379303000208 Liu F. Wang H. (2019). “Analysis of earning modes of sharing economy enterprises,” in The First International Symposium on Management and Social Sciences (ISMSS 2019), (Amsterdam: Atlantis Press), 140–143. 10.2991/ismss-19.2019.29 32175718 Liu Y. Tang D. (2015). Effects of consumer’s perceived value on mobile shopping willingness —based on TAM and VAM models. Lanzhou Acad. J. 04 169–175. Lo H. (2019). Shared-Bike Companies Told To Stop Collecting User Deposits. Available online at: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1004015/shared-bike-companies-told-to-stop-collecting-user-deposits (accessed September 31, 2021). Lou L. Li L. Yang S. B. Koh J. (2021). Promoting user participation of shared mobility in the sharing economy: evidence from chinese bike sharing services. Sustainability 13:1533. 10.3390/su13031533 Ma L. Zhang X. Ding X. Wang G. (2018). Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: an empirical study in China. Transportation Res. Part A: Pol. Practice 118 14–24. 10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.040 Ma X. Cao R. Wang J. (2019). Effects of psychological factors on modal shift from car to dockless bike sharing: a case study of Nanjing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:3420. 10.3390/ijerph16183420 31540094 Ma X. Yuan Y. Van Oort N. Hoogendoorn S. (2020). Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: a case study in Delft, the Netherlands. J. Cleaner Production 259:120846. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120846 Macioszek E. (2019). “Changes in values of traffic volume—case study based on general traffic measurements in opolskie voivodeship (Poland),” in Directions of Development of Transport Networks and Traffic Engineering; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, eds Macioszek E. Sierpiński G. (Cham: Springer), 66–76. 10.1007/978-3-319-98615-9_6 Macioszek E. Kurek A. (2020). P&R parking and bike-sharing system as solutions supporting transport accessibility of the city. Transport Problems 15 275–286. 10.21307/tp-2020-066 Macioszek E. Świerk P. Kurek A. (2020). The bike-sharing system as an element of enhancing sustainable mobility—a case study based on a city in Poland. Sustainability 12:3285. 10.3390/su12083285 Malmgreen C. Graham P. L. Shortridge-Baggett L. M. Courtney M. Walsh A. (2009). Establishing content validity of a survey research instrument: the older patients in acute care survey-United States. J. Nurses Professional Dev. 25 E14–E18. 10.1097/NND.0b013e3181a689b4 19955972 McDougall G. H. Levesque T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. J. Serv. Market. 14 392–410. 10.1108/08876040010340937 McMillen J. C. Fisher R. H. (1998). The perceived benefit scales: measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events. Soc. Work Res. 22 173–187. 10.1093/swr/22.3.173 Morar D. D. (2013). “An overview of the consumer value literature–perceived value, desired value,” in Proceedings of the Marketing from Information to Decision, (Cluj-Napoca). Morewedge C. K. Holtzman L. Epley N. (2007). Unfixed resources: perceived costs, consumption, and the accessible account effect. J. Consumer Res. 34 459–467. 10.1086/518540 Nieto-García M. Muñoz-Gallego P. A. González-Benito Ó (2017). Tourists’ willingness to pay for an accommodation: the effect of eWOM and internal reference price. Int. J. Hospitality Manag. 62 67–77. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.12.006 Nocera S. Pungillo G. Bruzzone F. (2021). How to evaluate and plan the freight-passengers first-last mile. Transport Policy 113 56–66. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.01.007 Nongnuch R. (2014). The Effects of Relationship Marketing on Travelers’ Transaction Intention: the Moderating Role of Word-of-mouth. Taipei: Chinese Culture University. Nordlund A. M. Garvill J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 339–347. 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9 Omar N. A. Alam S. S. Aziz N. A. Nazri M. A. (2011). Retail loyalty programs in Malaysia: the relationship of equity, value, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty among cardholders. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 12 332–352. 10.3846/16111699.2011.573297 Parry M. E. Kawakami T. (2015). Virtual word of mouth and willingness to pay for consumer electronic innovations. J. Product Innov. Manag. 32 192–200. 10.1111/jpim.12178 Ravi S. Arora D. (2019). Rise and fall of shared bicycle industry: a case of OFO company. Rev. Manag. 9 15–17. Reddick C. G. Zheng Y. Liu T. (2020). Roles of government in regulating the sharing economy: a case study of bike sharing in China. Inform. Polity 25 219–235. 10.3233/IP-190207 Ricci M. (2015). Bike sharing: a review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Res. Transportation Bus. Manag. 15 28–38. 10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.003 Rihn A. Khachatryan H. Wei X. (2018). Assessing purchase patterns of price conscious consumers. Horticulturae 4:13. 10.3390/horticulturae4030013 Roostika R. (2012). Mobile internet acceptance among university students: a value-based adoption model. Int. J. Res. Manag. Technol. 2 21–28. Sago D. V. (2020). Bike Sharing in China —- From Bicycle Graveyards to a Regulated Industry. Available online at: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/blog/bike-sharing-in-china-from-bicycle-graveyards-to-a-regulated-industry/#_ftn16 (accessed September 31, 2021). Shen Y. Zhang X. Zhao J. (2018). Understanding the usage of dockless bike sharing in Singapore. Int. J. Sustainable Transportation 12 686–700. 10.1080/15568318.2018.1429696 Shena J. Sakatab Y. Hashimotoc Y. (2008). Is individual environmental consciousness one of the determinants in transport mode choice? Appl. Econ. 40 1229–1239. 10.1080/00036840600771296 Sheng G. Yue B. Gong S. (2019). A research on consumers’ willingness to use shared bicycles continuously —based on the extended model of TAM theory. J. Northeastern University(Social Science) 21 567–574. Shi J. G. Si H. Wu G. Su Y. Lan J. (2018). Critical factors to achieve dockless bike-sharing sustainability in China: a stakeholder-oriented network perspective. Sustainability 10:2090. 10.3390/su10062090 Shirai M. (2015). Impact of “high quality, low price” appeal on consumer evaluations. J. Promotion Manag. 21 776–797. 10.1080/10496491.2015.1088922 Simanjuntak M. Putri N. E. Yuliati L. N. Sabri M. F. (2020). Enhancing customer retention using customer relationship management approach in car loan business. Cogent Bus. Manag. 7 1–17. 10.1080/23311975.2020.1738200 Sirdeshmukh D. Singh J. Sabol B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. J. Market. 66 15–37. 10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449 11670861 Slade E. L. Williams M. D. Dwivedi Y. K. (2013). Developing a theoretically grounded model to explore adoption of mobile payments. Nascent Connect. 2013:1. Sun S. Duan Z. (2021). Sustaining the development of campus bike-sharing: a lesson from the unsuccessful practice in Dalian Maritime University. China. J. Cleaner Production 295:126483. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126483 Sun Y. (2018). Sharing and riding: how the dockless bike sharing scheme in China shapes the city. Urban Sci. 2:68. 10.3390/urbansci2030068 Thakur R. Srivastava M. (2014). Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India. Int. Res. 24, 369–392. 10.1108/IntR-12-2012-0244 Tian X. Wang Y. Shi Y. (2021). “Research on risk management and profitability of bike sharing business model,” in Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Financial Management and Economic Transition (FMET 2021), (Amsterdam: Atlantis Press), 110–116. 10.2991/aebmr.k.210917.019 32175718 Van der Heijden H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28 695–704. 10.2307/25148660 Varian H. R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis. New York, NY: Norton. Venkatesh V. Thong J. Y. Xu X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36 157–178. 10.2307/41410412 Wang J. Huang J. Dunford M. (2019). Rethinking the utility of public bicycles: the development and challenges of station-less bike sharing in China. Sustainability 11:1539. 10.3390/su11061539 Wang Y. Douglas M. A. Hazen B. T. Dresner M. (2018). Be green and clearly be seen: how consumer values and attitudes affect adoption of bicycle sharing. Transportation Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58 730–742. 10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.043 Watkins M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J. Black Psychol. 44 219–246. 10.1177/0095798418771807 Wei Y. Wang C. Zhu S. Xue H. Chen F. (2018). Online purchase intention of fruits: antecedents in an integrated model based on technology acceptance model and perceived risk theory. Front. Psychol. 9:1521. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01521 30190693 Wei Z. Mo H. Liu Y. (2018). Spatial-temporal characteristics of bike-sharing: an empirical study of Tianhe District. Guangzhou. Sci. Technol. Rev. 36 71–80. Wertenbroch K. Skiera B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J. Market. Res. 39 228–241. 10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086 11670861 Wu X. Kim B. J. (2019). A study on the service factors and consumer factors influencing sharing economy performance—focused on sharing bicycle market in China. J. Aviation Manag. Soc. Korea 17 107–123. Xiao G. Wang Z. (2020). Empirical study on bikesharing brand selection in china in the post-sharing era. Sustainability 12:3125. 10.3390/su12083125 Xie H. Han Z. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Sci. Res. Manag. 5 1–10. Xu P. (2020). “Consumer protection and China’s sharing economy,” in International Conference on Arts, Humanity and Economics, Management (ICAHEM 2019), (Amsterdam: Atlantis Press), 19–26. 10.2991/assehr.k.200328.005 32175718 Xu Y. Chen D. Zhang X. Tu W. Chen Y. Shen Y. (2019). Unravel the landscape and pulses of cycling activities from a dockless bike-sharing system. Comp. Environ. Urban Systems 75 184–203. 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.02.002 Yan X. Zhuang Y. (2019). Review and evaluate on sharing bicycles in China. Foreign Econ. Relations Trade 06 97–100. Yang F. X. (2017). Effects of restaurant satisfaction and knowledge sharing motivation on eWOM intentions: the moderating role of technology acceptance factors. J. Hospitality Tourism Res. 41 93–127. 10.1177/1096348013515918 Yang S. Lu Y. Cao Y. (2011). Mobile payment services adoption: from the cross-environment perspective. Sci. Res. Manag. 32 79–88. Yang T. Li Y. Zhou S. Zhang Y. (2019b). Dynamic feedback analysis of influencing factors and challenges of dockless bike-sharing sustainability in China. Sustainability 11:4674. 10.3390/su11174674 Yang T. Li Y. Zhou S. (2019a). System dynamics modeling of dockless bike-sharing program operations: a case study of mobike in Beijing. China. Sustainability 11:1601. 10.3390/su11061601 Yang Z. Kong X. Sun J. Zhang Y. (2018). Switching to green lifestyles: behavior change of ant forest users. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:1819. 10.3390/ijerph15091819 30142899 Ye H. Lin Z. Xu D. (2014). The influence of the content characteristics of the online reputation on the willingness to buy. Modern Manag. Sci. 6 111–114. Yin J. Qian L. Shen J. (2019). From value co-creation to value co-destruction? the case of dockless bike sharing in China. Transportation Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 71 169–185. 10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.004 Yue P. (2017). Chinese Bike Sharing https://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/2017/09/18/beijing-bans-commercial-advertisement-chinese-bike-sharing-cycles (accessed September 31, 2021). Yuliati L. N. Dradjat H. A. Simanjuntak M. (2020). Online bike: role of perceived technology, perceived risk, and institution-based trust on service usage via online trust. Cogent Bus. Manag. 7:1798067. 10.1080/23311975.2020.1798067 Zanotto M. (2014). Facilitators and Barriers to Public Bike Share Adoption and Success in a City with Compulsory Helmet Legislation: A Mixed Methods Approach Master Thesis, Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University. Zeithaml V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Marketing 52 2–22. 10.1177/002224298805200302 Zhang S. Wang W. Li J. (2017). Research on the influencing factors of user’s online knowledge payment behavior. Library Inform. Service 61 94–100. Zhang Y. Mi Z. (2018). Environmental benefits of bike sharing: a big data-based analysis. Appl. Energy 220 296–301. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.101 Zhang Z. Deng Y. (2018). The factors affecting the willingness to pay for knowledge payment behavior. Modern Educ. Technol. 28 86–92. Zhao D. Wang D. Wang B. (2020). Research on a shared bicycle deposit management system based on blockchain technology. J. Adv. Transportation 2020 1–14. 10.1155/2020/8854082 Zhao J. Wang J. Deng W. (2015). Exploring bikesharing travel time and trip chain by gender and day of the week. Transportation Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 58 251–264. 10.1016/j.trc.2015.01.030 Zhao W. Zhou X. (2017). A research on the continuance intention of mobile SNS users from the view of perceived value. Sci. Res. Manag. 38 153–160. Zhao Y. Liu Z. Song S. (2018). Exploring the influential factors of Askers’ intention to pay in knowledge Q&A platforms. Data Anal. Knowledge Discovery 2 16–30. Zhong K. Zhang C. (2013). A study on the impact of consumers’ perceived value on online purchase intention – taking online word-of-mouth as the moderating variable. Soc. Sci. J. 3 125–131.