Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Capitalisation of accessibility to dockless bike sharing in housing

rentals: Evidence from Beijing
Si Qiao , Anthony Gar-On Yeh , Mengzhu Zhang *
Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Chinese cities have seen a rapid development of dockless bike sharing (DBS) in recent years.
Dockless bike sharing Numerous studies have examined the positive social effects of DBS, but a crucial question re­
Housing rental market mains: if docklessness has successfully reworked shared bikes into a desired and valuable ame­
Hedonic model
nity, will unequal access to DBS affect housing rentals? The present study examines this question
Externalities of public transit
by considering the case of Beijing. A big data approach is employed to analyse the listed rents of
75,197 houses in Beijing and their attributes that affect housing rentals. Measurement of acces­
sibility to DBS at the housing level is constructed from 3.2 million DBS trips generated over two
weeks. Results of the hedonic model show that every one-point increase in the accessibility to DBS
generates a premium worth 28.02 CNY in housing rental, thereby supporting the hypothesis that
docklessness has turned DBS into a valuable amenity for renters. These findings suggest that
although low- and middle-income workers benefit from the convenience of DBS in the short term,
the benefits are gradually eroded and transferred to landlords through rental premiums. Unequal
accessibility to DBS may induce gentrification that displaces or excludes low-income renters in
certain neighbourhoods.

1. Introduction

Promoting active travel modes for a sustainable urban future has become a crucial task in large cities because of severe air
pollution, road congestion and residents’ health issues (Banister, 2008). Encouraging cycling as a substitute for private cars is widely
considered as a sustainable urban strategy (Fishman et al., 2013; Pucher and Buehler, 2017). The integration of bike-sharing systems
and other forms of transportation has become an innovative approach to promoting sustainable mobility in the sharing economy
(Bullock et al., 2017). Thus, state-sponsored docked bike-sharing systems have experienced rapid development in metropolitan areas
worldwide (Fishman et al., 2015). Although some evidence verified the effects of docked bike sharing on reducing private vehicle use
and encouraging metro ridership (DeMaio, 2009), many studies have investigated the failure of this system in various contexts
(Fishman et al., 2012; Martens, 2007). The inflexibility of shared bike use due to the fixed location of rent or return stations and
cumbersome leasing formalities are common contributors to the non-usage of shared bikes (Sun et al., 2018).
In China, the combination of new information technology and bike-sharing initiatives presents an innovative approach to overcome
the barriers to shared bike use. Owing to the mobile-based real-time positioning of shared bikes and advanced mobile payment systems
that unlock shared bikes from stations, dockless bike sharing (DBS) has become a popular means of mobility (Zhao and Li, 2017). DBS
is considered as an ideal solution to the “first/last mile” issue because of its ability to efficiently link residences or workplaces to metro

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: siqiao@hku.hk (S. Qiao), hdxugoy@hkucc.hku.hk (A. Gar-On Yeh), mengzhu.zhang@pku.edu.cn (M. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102640

Available online 7 December 2020

1361-9209/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

stations (Gu et al., 2019). To combat air pollution and road congestion, China’s metropolitan governments encourage DBS and
collaborate with technology companies to facilitate the integration of DBS and metro ridership. Many scholars and policymakers
celebrate the DBS because of its potential to promote sustainable city development. However, two important questions should be
addressed. If docklessness has successfully reworked the shared bike into a desired and valuable amenity, is there unequal accessibility
to DBS? If yes, then how does the unequal accessibility to DBS affect the urban housing market?
Such investigations are underpinned by the lengthy theoretical debate on the adverse social effects of public transportation.
Although public transit provides an affordable means of mobility to medium- and low-income residents, its socially inclusive quality is
undermined by its ability to appreciate house prices or rentals, thereby engendering gentrification (Grube-Cavers and Patterson,
2015). Considerable research has substantiated the effects of newly opened metro stations and bus stops on housing costs and de­
mographic changes of nearby communities (Duncan, 2011; Zuk et al., 2015).
The role of DBS in reshaping the urban housing market has attracted scholarly attention. However, existing studies have three main
limitations. First, attention has been paid to the effect of DBS on the property price (Chu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019), whereas how
DBS affects housing rentals remains poorly understood. What should not be ignored is that DBS, as a low-cost mobility means, mainly
serves low- and middle-income groups. In Chinese megacities, these low- and middle-income groups that heavily rely on DBS for daily
mobility consist mostly of migrant workers who live in rented houses. Thus, the house rental market should be more sensitive to the
spatially uneven distribution of DBS than the property market. Accordingly, capitalisation of accessibility to DBS in housing rentals
may cause severe social consequences, that is, increasing housing costs for disadvantaged migrant workers, which should be carefully
examined.
Second, existing studies have qualified the effect of DBS on the property price near the metro stations (Chu et al., 2020; Zhou et al.,
2019). Such an approach treats DBS only as a means of transfer to metro stations while ignoring other functions of DBS. In fact, DBS is
widely used to access various urban destinations and for leisure/fitness purposes (Mobike, 2018). Thus, DBS should be considered as a
common amenity, the accessibility to which should have affected the entire housing market. Third, existing studies focus on the entry
of DBS in a city and its immediate effect on the housing market (Chu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019). Such an approach, however, fails to
capture the long-term effect of the accessibility to DBS in the housing market. To address these limitations, the present study develops
an innovative measurement of the accessibility to DBS at the house level using the big data approach. Then, a multilevel hedonic model
is applied to examine the capitalisation of accessibility to DBS in housing rentals one and a half years after the entry of DBS in a city.
Beijing, the first Chinese city to implement DBS, is examined as a case study.
By doing so, this study contributes to the theoretical debate on the paradoxical externalities of public transit and provides sig­
nificant implications for governing DBS development in Chinese megacities. In recent years, Beijing and other large cities in China
have experienced a severe housing affordability crisis and a rapid increase in commuting burden (Zhang et al., 2018a,b). Migrant
workers are struggling to reduce commuting burden, whereas the increase of housing rentals is a barrier to a balanced job–housing
relationship (Zhang et al., 2018a,b). DBS benefits migrant workers in that it improves commuting efficiency; however, it may also
cause competition for houses with high accessibility to DBS, thereby increasing housing costs for migrant workers. Thus, DBS
development requires appropriate interventions if the goal is inclusive urban development. The empirical findings of this study can
inform an equity-concerned policy on coordinating DBS development and housing market regulation.
This study is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on the contested externalities of public transport. Section 3
elaborates on the methodology used in empirical analysis. The modelling results are discussed in Section 4. Key conclusions and policy
implications are provided in the final section.

2. Literature review

2.1. Contested externalities of metro and bus facilities

Contested externalities of public transit systems have been a critical topic in transportation, planning and public policy studies
(Glaeser, 2008; Harford, 2006; Sanchez et al., 2004). Public transits, including railways, bus lines and bike-sharing systems, have been
theoretically demonstrated and empirically proven to exhibit positive externalities to society. These merits include reducing private
vehicle use and road congestion. Furthermore, public transits are widely recognised to improve low-income groups’ and deprived
neighbourhoods’ access to jobs, public services and social opportunities. Thus, public transit systems are argued to provide low-income
groups with an affordable mobility means, which mitigates the transport-related exclusion of the poor (Glaeser, 2008; Lucas, 2012).
However, some scholars have recognised the negative externalities of public transit. A primary concern is the increase in housing
prices and gentrification brought about by public transits that have caused housing unaffordability for the poor (Grube-Cavers and
Patterson, 2015). Cervero and Duncan (2002) showed that instead of indigenous residents, developers, real estate agents and spec­
ulators are sensitive to public spending on local transport facilities and the consequent revalorisation of land rent, particularly in
deprived low-income neighbourhoods (Golub and Martens, 2014). Many studies have examined the increased property value or
housing cost and restructured local population composition because of newly developed rail and bus transit systems in communities
(Duncan, 2011; Kahn, 2007; Lin, 2002; Zuk et al., 2015). For example, Kahn (2007) found that the communities served by rail transits
in Boston and Washington suffer from high housing appreciation and residential displacement by high-income groups.
Empirical results of studies on bus transit-induced housing unaffordability are mixed. Studies that focused on the rapidly expanded
bus rapid transit (BRT) in Latin American cities found an increased value of properties located near BRT corridors and stations (Munoz-
Raskin, 2010; Perdomo Calvo et al., 2007). However, some scholars have reported no significant association (Flores Dewey, 2013;
Perdomo, 2011). The recent introduction of BRT as a sustainable solution to road congestion in East Asian cities has also attracted

2
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

scholarly attention. Cervero and Kang (2011) found a 5–10% increase in the property price within 300 m from BRT stations. Deng and
Nelson (2010) found a premium in property value in Beijing due to the proximity to BRT stations, whereas Zhang and Wang (2013)
reported a non-significant association. Heres et al. (2014) quantified the nonlinear relationship between the proximity to BRT corridors
and property value. The authors found that less than 1 km to the BRT corridor increases the property price, whereas 1–2 km decreases
the property price due to the noise, pollution and undesirable landscapes caused by BRTs.

2.2. Recent attention to DBS

DBS has attracted scholarly attention in recent years for its potential to reshape urban housing value. Chu et al. (2020) used an
event study to examine how the launch of DBS in a city affected the property price near metro stations. By examining panel data on the
monthly change in the property price in 10 Chinese cities, the authors found that the DBS reduced the subway-induced housing price
premium enjoyed by apartments near metro stations while increasing the subway-induced housing price premium enjoyed by the
apartments relatively distant from these stations. This mitigation of the uneven spatial distribution of the subway-induced housing
price premium is due to the extension of areas serviced by metro stations as a result of the entry of DBS (Chu et al., 2020). Zhou et al.
(2019) examined how the growth in the number of DBS trips after the entry of DBS in Shanghai affected the property price near metro
stations. The authors assume that DBS has a dual role: as an amenity that improves the accessibility to metro services and as a dis­
amenity that occupies public spaces. Using a quantitative approach to examining this assumption, the authors found that the growth in
the number of DBS trips depreciated the property price in neighbourhoods with a high preference for private car use, while increasing
the property price in neighbourhoods at a suitable distance (2 km) from a metro station.
The present study differs from the aforementioned two studies in three key aspects. First, we focus on the effect of DBS on housing
rentals instead of property prices. The housing rental market distinguishes itself from the property market based on different bidders.
Renters have lower income levels than homeowners. Thus, compared with homeowners, renters are more sensitive to certain attributes
of a house and less sensitive to others (Nelson, 2010). Thus, a distinction should be made between the effects of DBS on the property
market and on the rental market. Second, studies by Chu et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2019) are based on the assumption that DBS only
affects the property price near metro stations. However, recent data on the real DBS usage revealed that only 10–20% DBS trips were
made for connecting residences or workplaces and metro stations (Mobike, 2018). The purpose of DBS usage is various, such as
reaching nearby restaurants, gardens, shops and hospitals and as fitness and leisure activities (Mobike, 2018). Thus, the function of
DBS to improve the general accessibility to various destinations and provide an alternative to fitness/leisure has to be considered. In
this vein, the current study considers DBS as a general amenity. The accessibility to DBS is treated as a common attribute of a house that
has a hedonic price. We establish a multilevel hedonic model that includes houses in different area submarkets rather than focus on a
specific housing submarket near metro stations.
Third, we are interested in capturing the hedonic price of the accessibility to DBS in relative market equilibrium when daily DBS
usage is stable, and the market has rationally estimated the value of DBS. When DBS was launched, the market reacted irrationally
because of unrealistic expectations and the marketing practices of technology companies. Thus, instead of conducting a longitudinal
analysis of the price changes around the DBS launch, we examine the market one and a half years after the launch of DBS in a city using
a cross-sectional multilevel hedonic model (Jones and Bullen, 1994; Orford, 2000, 2002).

3. Methodology

3.1. City context

Beijing is considered to be a suitable case for examining the effect of DBS on housing rentals because of two key features. First,
Beijing is the world’s first city that adopted DBS. Since Ofo, the first DBS in the world, was launched in 2015, Beijing has witnessed the
integration of DBS into people’s daily mobility. By 2018, approximately 12 DBS systems with 2.3 billion shared bikes in service have
been operated by various Internet and technology companies in the city (Transport, 2019). Meanwhile, Beijing has been experiencing
intensive urban sprawl in the recent decade. From 2010 to 2018, the built-up area in the city increased from 1268 km2 to 1485 km2
(BSB, 2019). The lagged rail-transit developments coupled with severe disintegration of metro stations and residential land de­
velopments (Zhao et al., 2018a) contributed to the rapid increase in commuting burden. From 2010 to 2018, the average commuting
time and distance increased by 24 min and 6.9 km, respectively, and the average one-way commuting time reached 54 min, ranking the
highest in China. In this context, the municipal government and residents of Beijing welcomed DBS, which has the potential to address
the “last mile” issue and improve commuting efficiency. Therefore, Beijing provides a case in which DBS has been fully developed and
become a means of popular mobility.
Second, as the capital city of China, Beijing has been consistently attracting migrant workers. By 2018, approximately eight million
migrant workers lived in the city, accounting for 40% of the total population of Beijing (BSB, 2019). However, the severe housing
inflation and persistent institutional discrimination that excludes migrant workers from a local affordable housing system have
challenged the city’s housing rental market where migrant workers struggle to find affordable houses (Zhang et al., 2018a). Therefore,
although DBS helps improve commuting efficiency of migrant workers, it can create intensive competition for the houses with high
accessibility to DBS, thereby increasing housing cost in specific communities. The conflicting externalities of DBS in Beijing demand a
timely examination.

3
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Fig. 1. An illustration of the measurement of DBS mobility.

3.2. Measuring uneven spatial access to DBS

Spatial proximity to public transit is widely used as a substitute to measure access from a residential area to public transit services
(Asabere and Huffman, 2009; Welch et al., 2016). As the location of metro or bus stations is fixed, measuring the accessibility of a
residence to a certain public transit service using the proximity to transportation infrastructures is convenient. However, the dock­
lessness of DBS presents a challenge to measure the accessibility to DBS because of shared bikes that can be rented or returned at any
corner of the city. To overcome this barrier, the present study introduces a measurement of the accessibility to DBS at the house level.
We adopt the number of trips generated from the DBS system (trip density) to evaluate the supply capacity of the transportation
system. Trip generation in a certain area indicates the maximum likelihood of the residents in this area to access the transport service.
That is, in DBS high-traffic areas, residents have a high probability of accessing the system. Conversely, in DBS low-traffic areas,
residents have low access to DBS because of the low possibility of an anchored shared bike in this area available to use. Based on these
viewpoints, the present study uses the following equation to measure the uneven spatial access to DBS:
DBS Trips*Trip Weight
DBS mobility = , (1)
Areal Unit

where DBS Trips indicates the number of DBS trips generated within a nearby area of a house. We name this nearby area as Areal Unit
and use it to refer to the spatial scale to assess the service capacity of the DBS system. Owing to a modifiable areal unit problem, the
effects of the selected areal unit on the analysis result needs to be tested. In this study, we selected areal units with buffer distances of
500; 1000 and 1500 m to test our model. Thus, DBS mobility is constructed to indicate the maximum likelihood of the dweller of a
certain house to access the DBS regardless of the actual demand of the dweller. Notably, a trip with a closer starting point to a house
should have a higher possibility of the bike being used by the house dweller. Thus, we construct Trip Weight as a multiplier to measure
the space-varying possibility of a bike that is used by the house dweller, as expressed in the following equation:
Buffer Distance − Proximity to Start Point
Trip Weight = (2)
Buffer Distance

where Proximity to Start Point indicates the distance between the starting point of a trip and a house.
Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed approach developed to measure the accessibility to DBS for a house. Trip 1 and Trip 2 are ignored in
the calculation because this type of trips starts outside from a threshold buffer distance of the target house. Compared with Trip 3, Trip 4
has a higher probability of generation by the dweller of the target house because the start point is much closer, which indicates more
convenient usage for those who live in the target house. In this study, we quantify this probability of using shared bikes as trip weight,
which means that the trip weight of Trip 3 is smaller than that of Trip 4 (Eq. (2)) when used to assess the accessibility to DBS (Eq. (1)) of
the target house.
As DBS mobility hardly provides an intuitive sense of the disparity of accessibility to BDS amongst houses, we applied the max–min

4
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution and statistics of DBS score at 500; 1000 and 1500 m level.

normalisation approach to DBS mobility, transforming it into a scoring system within which the house with the poorest accessibility to
DBS has a score of 0, whereas the house with the highest accessibility to DBS has a score of 100. The following equation expresses the
normalisation of DBS mobility:
DBSmobility − Min(DBSmobility)
DBSScore = *100. (3)
Max(DBSmobility) − Min(DBSmobility)
The dataset on the spatial distribution of DBS trips is obtained from Mobike, the largest DBS operator in China that currently serves

5
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

more than 200,000 residents per day in Beijing. The dataset records all DBS trips in the city within 15 consecutive days (two full weeks)
from May 10 to 24, 2017. A total of 3.2 million DBS trips were recorded. Fig. 2 illustrates the spatial distribution and statistical
distribution of the DBS score using different buffer distance (500, 1000 and 1500 m) to measure the nearby area of a house. The
standard deviation of the DBS score is 6.430, 10.469 and 11.099 at the 500; 1000 and 1500 m levels, respectively, indicating a sig­
nificant variation in the house-level accessibility to DBS.

3.3. Hedonic model and other variables

This study employs the multilevel hedonic model to examine the effect of uneven spatial access to DBS on housing rentals. Briefly,
the hedonic model is widely used to examine how the proximity to public transit or any other public service/facility affects property
prices. This model posits that the value of a property, which is indicated either by its transaction or rental price, is decided by con­
sumers’ willingness to pay for the living services that a property can provide (Rosen, 1974). Thus, the value of a house depends on its
attributes that decide the quality of desired living services the house can offer. Property value is affected by two sets of attributes:
structural and neighbourhood or locational (Connolly et al., 2019).
Structural attributes include house area, number of rooms and other internal features of a house that affect the housing condition
(e.g., decoration). Neighbourhood or locational attributes refer to the proximity or accessibility of a house to amenities and jobs that
reflect the living conditions the house can provide; the amenities include metro stations, bus stops, retail shops, catering businesses,
medical facilities and parks (Kim et al., 2003). Accessibility to jobs refers to the ability of a house to ensure a balanced job–housing
relationship that reduces the commuting burden of occupants. In this study, we consider DBS as a new type of amenity that affects the
living conditions offered by a house. Moreover, as Beijing is a polycentric megacity with over 30 employment centres (Huang et al.,
2017), the conventional use of proximity to the city centre as an alternative indicator for accessibility to jobs is not applicable to this
study. Therefore, we use the density of firms and commercial buildings around houses as the alternative indicator of job accessibility.
Overall, to specify the effects of these attributes, the hedonic rental price model can be formally expressed as follows:
P = β0 + S⋅βS + N⋅βN + B⋅βB + ε, (4)

where P is the logarithm-transformed house rental price; S and N are matrices of structural attributes and neighbourhood attributes,
respectively, and all the continuous variables are also logarithm transformed; B is a matrix of bike score;β0 is the constant; βS , βN and βB
are the coefficients associated with S, N and B; and ε is a random error term.
However, this traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) hedonic model is criticised for ignoring the existence of submarket or
housing market segmentation (Goodman and Thibodeau, 1998). Briefly, a house occupies a unique location in space and its locational
bundles of attributes may be impossible to duplicate. The demand for certain housing bundles is also highly inelastic and, for many
consumers, different housing bundles may not be substitutable (Orford, 2000). Thus, houses are by nature nested in spatial submarkets
where the hedonic pricing varies. To control for the fixed effect of the spatial submarket, researchers often use the multilevel hedonic
model in which the neighbourhood/locational and structural attributes are separately treated on two levels of variables. Furthermore,
Orford (2002) argued that neighbourhood-based submarkets are nested in broader area-based submarkets. The unsubstitutable at­
tributes of an area, including social/racial composition, prestige and cultural atmosphere, affect housing prices or rentals. Thus, a
three-level hedonic model is necessary if the sample size is large enough. In Beijing, a house is nested in a neighbourhood-based
submarket, and the latter is nested in an area-based submarket. This condition can be observed from the classification of listed
houses made by housing transaction/rental platforms in Beijing. That is, houses and neighbourhoods are classified into different area-
based submarkets for browsing. Based on this classification made by transaction/rental platforms, a three-level hedonic price model is
developed, as expressed in the following equations:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
L1 : Pijk = π0ij + π 1ij α1ijk + π2ij α2ijk + ⋯ + πpij αpijk + eijk , eijk N 0, σ 2 , (5)

wherePijk is the logarithm-transformed house rental price, πpij (p = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, p) is an intercept and regression coefficient, αpijk is the
level 1 predicted variable and eijk is a random error. The level-1 variables include the house area, number of bedrooms, house age and
house facing direction.
( ) ( ) ( )
L2 : π pjk = βp0k + βp1k χ 1jk + βp2k χ 2jk + ⋯ + βpQp k χ pQp jk + γ pjk , (6)

where βpqk (p = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, Qp ) is a level 2 intercept and slope, χ qjk is the value of the level 2 predictor and γ pjk is a random effect. The
level 2 variables include proximity to metro, proximity to centre, bus station density, educational facility density, medical facility
density, retail density, catering density, leisure facility density, park density, firm density, commercial building density and DBS score.
( )
L3 : βpqk = γpq0 + γ pq1 (ϖ 1k ) + γ pq2 (ϖ 2k ) + ⋯ + γpqSpq ϖ Spq k + μpqk , (7)

where γ pqs (S = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, Spq ) is a level 3 intercept and slope, ϖ sk is the value of the level 3 predictor and μpqk is a random effect. The
level 3 variables include all the area-level attributes.
Notably, area-level attribute is difficult to specify, although Orford (2002) listed many possible attributes to examine in the context
of British cities. However, in China, the data on these area-level attributes are not available because the area boundary defined by the
housing transaction and rental platforms is not consistent with that defined by the census unit. Thus, following Leishman et al. (2013),

6
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Table 1
Variable definition and data source.
Variable Name Descriptions Level Data Source

Dependent variable
Rent Rental price of housing per month (CNY/month) Fangtianxia Platform
Structural attributes
Area Area of housing (m2) Level 1
Bedrooms Number of bedrooms (quantity) Level 1
Housing age Number of years since house was built (to 2018, years) Level 1
South direction Living room of house faces south Level 1
North direction Living room of house faces north Level 1
East direction Living room of house faces east Level 1
West direction (as Living room of house faces west Level 1
reference)

Neighbourhood attributes
Proximity to metro Distance to nearest subway stations (km) Level 2 Calculated by POIs from Gaode
Proximity to centre Distance to city centre (Tiananmen square) (km) Level 2 Map
Bus stations Number of nearby bus stations within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Educational facilities Number of educational facilities within buffer distance of houses (quantity/ Level 2
km2)
Medical facilities Number of medical facilities within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Retailers Number of retail establishments within buffer distance of houses (quantity/ Level 2
km2)
Caterers Number of catering businesses within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Leisure facilities Number of leisure destinations within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Parks Number of park entrances within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Firms Number of firms within buffer distance of houses (quantity/km2) Level 2
Commercial buildings Number of commercial buildings within buffer distance of houses (quantity/ Level 2
km2)
DBS score Housing DBS score (score) Level 2 Mobike

Areal attribute
Areal submarket The submarket where a neighbourhood belongs (indicated by a dummy Level 3 Fangtianxia Platform
variable)

Note: Level 1 indicates the structural level, level 2 indicates the neighbourhood level and level 3 indicates the area level.

Table 2
Variable summary statistics.
Variable Name 500 m 1000 m 1500 m

Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev

Dependent variable
Rent 9338.29 6175.606 9338.29 6175.606 9338.29 6175.606

Structural attributes
Area 99.75 155.741 99.75 155.741 99.75 155.741
Bedrooms 2.02 0.840 2.02 0.840 2.02 0.840
Housing age 13.45 4.791 13.45 4.791 13.45 4.791
South direction 0.69 0.464 0.69 0.464 0.69 0.464
North direction 0.03 0.183 0.03 0.183 0.03 0.183
East direction 0.11 0.307 0.11 0.307 0.11 0.307
West direction 0.17 0.378 0.17 0.378 0.17 0.378

Neighbourhood attributes
Proximity to metro 1.09 2.013 1.09 2.013 1.09 2.013
Proximity to centre 11.02 7.243 11.02 7.243 11.02 7.243
Bus stations 5.67 3.649 20.89 9.443 45.04 17.623
Educational facilities 4.18 4.555 16.25 14.546 35.13 28.058
Medical facilities 2.88 2.420 11.09 6.693 23.37 12.351
Retailers 16.31 15.313 61.40 43.967 134.07 90.808
Caterers 12.38 11.676 46.70 35.664 103.09 75.130
Leisure facilities 6.84 5.411 25.55 16.074 54.70 31.600
Parks 0.23 0.398 0.87 0.764 1.94 1.271
Firms 13.68 20.718 55.25 59.712 125.74 123.390
Commercial buildings 1.95 2.600 7.62 7.763 17.12 16.225
DBS score 41.79 6.430 52.31 10.469 53.96 11.099

7
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Fig. 3. Housing rental price distribution of sampled houses.

we set the area where a neighbourhood locates a dummy variable. Overall, our analytical unit is the house rather than the neigh­
bourhood or the area because the DBS score is constructed to measure the house-level accessibility to DBS. We employ the OLS hedonic
model to verify the significance of the effect of DBS score on housing rental and identify an appropriate buffer distance to measure the
accessibility to various amenities. We then use the multilevel hedonic model to estimate the effect size and price elasticity of DBS score
and other variables.

3.4. Buffer distance

Using an appropriate buffer distance to measure the neighbourhood-level accessibility to the amenities or jobs is important. In
Chinese cities, neighbourhoods are mostly gated (Sun et al., 2017) with amenities/jobs distributed outside. Existing studies typically
use the acceptable walking distance as the buffer to measure the density of available amenities near a neighbourhood. However, the
length of the acceptable walking distance is contested. To reduce the potential biases caused by inappropriate selection of the buffer
distance, we use 500; 1000 and 1500 m as the three distances that have been most commonly considered as the acceptable walking
distance, as the buffer distance to measure the neighbourhood-level accessibility to amenities, based on which three OLS hedonic
models and three multilevel hedonic models are established and estimated separately for comparison. We select the model that has the
highest fitness to report and discuss the results. We use the distance to the nearest metro station as proxy for the accessibility to the
metro service because the density of metro stations in Beijing is as low as 0.002/km2 and 67% of jiedao (the third-level urban
administration unit in Chinese cities analogous to the ward in British cities) did not have metro stations.

3.5. Data source

Table 1 illustrates all the variables included in the hedonic model and their data sources. Table 2 presents the summary statistics of
each variable. We employed the web-crawling method to collect the data on house rental price and house attributes from Fangtianxia
Platform, one of Beijing’s largest housing rental/sale platforms. A total of 77,719 houses that were listed between January 2018 and
April 2018, we used them as samples for the final analysis. Amongst these houses, 2522 have a listed rent amounting to 30,000 CNY/
month. We exclude these extremely expensive houses from the dataset because they belong to a different housing market segmen­
tation, namely, the luxury housing market. Including them in the model can produce biases. Other information such as house area,
number of bedrooms, house age, direction and address of each listed house are collected. Subsequently, we placed all the sample
houses into GIS with their addresses to be coordinated to the point of interest (POI) dataset collected from Gaode, the most popular
online map in China. Using GIS and the POI dataset, we calculated the value of each variable of each sampled house (Table 1). Fig. 3
illustrates the spatial distribution of the sampled house in Beijing. The result of a simple spatial autocorrelation analysis indicates a

8
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Table 3
Regression results of OLS hedonic models.
500 m 1,000 m 1,500 m

Variable Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5) Model (6) Model (7) Model (8) Model (9)

Accessibility to DBS
Bike score 0.007*** 0.008*** 0.002*** 0.008*** 0.009*** 0.004*** 0.007*** 0.009*** 0.002***
(75.710) (135.631) (24.492) (94.190) (175.892) (40.328) (91.157) (173.953) (21.865)

Structural attributes
Area 0.896*** 0.913*** 0.887*** 0.884*** 0.886*** 0.884***
(232.329) (257.398) (246.050) (254.784) (246.554) (254.784)
Bedrooms 0.018*** 0.019*** 0.028*** 0.032*** 0.030*** 0.032***
(7.507) (8.890) (12.937) (15.514) (13.943) (15.514)
Housing age 0.001*** —0.001** 0.000 —0.001*** 0.001*** —0.001***
(4.549) (—2.115) (1.356) (-3.643) (2.876) (-3.643)
South direction 0.101*** 0.092*** 0.102*** 0.097*** 0.103*** 0.097***
(12.742) (12.686) (13.738) (13.857) (13.955) (13.857)
North direction —0.104*** —0.082*** —0.085*** —0.072*** —0.085*** —0.072***
(-28.374) (-24.360) (—24.834) (—22.268) (—25.097) (—22.268)
East direction 0.043*** 0.040*** 0.049*** 0.047*** 0.049*** 0.047***
(8.325) (8.394) (10.152) (10.182) (10.074) (10.182)

Neighbourhood attributes
Proximity to metro —0.069*** —0.038*** —0.038***
—36.351) (—19.872) (—19.872)
Proximity to city centre —0.224*** —0.134*** —0.134***
(—76.325) (—37.365) (—37.365)
Bus stations 0.003*** 0.059*** 0.059***
(5.392) (20.107) (20.107)
Educational facilities 0.001*** —0.022*** —0.022***
(2.882) (—9.676) (—9.676)
Medical facilities 0.008*** —0.100*** —0.100***
(15.247) (—31.273) (—31.273)
Retailers —0.008*** 0.009*** 0.009***
(—13.083) (2.757) (2.757)
Caterers 0.010*** 0.068*** 0.068***
(18.347) (21.385) (21.385)
Leisure facilities —0.004*** 0.043*** 0.043***
(—6.480) (12.593) (12.593)
Parks —0.001*** 0.038*** 0.038***
(—5.942) (19.841) (19.841)
Firms 0.011*** 0.021*** 0.021***
(22.565) (10.685) (10.685)
Commercial buildings —0.008*** 0.039*** 0.039***
(—28.655) (20.089) (20.089)

_cons 6.090*** 2.014*** 6.266*** 6.936*** 2.893*** 5.338*** 7.039*** 2.985*** 4.918***
T (204.630) (82.690) (130.259) (395.688) (162.240) (109.272) (423.037) (170.794) (85.975)
Observations 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197 75,197
Adjusted R-squared 0.1098 0.6550 0.7009 0.1511 0.6989 0.7333 0.1511 0.7007 0.7299

Note: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, and *p < 0.1. Appendix II shows the variance inflation factor (VIF) of variables.

high spatial association between the housing rental and the DBS score measured with different buffer distances (see Appendix I).
Finally, we use STATA to estimate the hedonic models that were previously constructed.

4. Empirical results

Table 3 presents the results of the OLS hedonic models. A step-wise regression approach was used to examine the explanatory
power of the proposed analytical framework. Table 3 reveals that the fitness of each model, which is indicated by adjusted R square,
was gradually improved when new categories of variables were added. The fitness of each model exceeded 0.7 after all variables were
included in the model. Amongst the three fittest OLS hedonic models, the model using 1000 m buffer distance to measure the
accessibility to amenities has the highest fitness, which suggests that 1000 m is an appropriate buffer distance. We then estimate the
multilevel hedonic price model using 1000 m as the buffer distance to measure the accessibility to amenities. We report and discuss the
results of the multilevel hedonic model in Table 4 in the following paragraphs.
The modelling results indicate a significant and positive association between housing rental and accessibility to DBS (0.003***).
Therefore, the high accessibility of houses to the DBS system increases housing rentals. Residents would want to pay extra rent for
improved access to the DBS service. These findings support our previous hypothesis that the docklessness and flexibility of DBS have
successfully reworked shared bikes into a valuable amenity.

9
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Table 4
Regression results of multilevel hedonic models.
Variable Coefficient SE Price elasticity1

Fixed effects
Accessibility to DBS
Bike score 0.0030*** 0.001 28.015
Structural attributes
Area 0.491*** 0.003 4596.592
Bedrooms 0.131*** 0.001 1223.316
Housing age —0.000 0.001 —
South direction 0.004** 0.004 42.136
North direction —0.014 0.002 —
East direction 0.007** 0.003 65.368
Neighbourhood attributes
Proximity to metro —0.023*** 0.006 —196.495
Proximity to city centre —0.116*** 0.012 —98.310
Bus stations 0.105*** 0.011 9.805
Educational facilities —0.026*** 0.008 —2.428
Medical facilities —0.083*** 0.012 —7.751
Retailers 0.061*** 0.012 5.696
Caterers 0.076*** 0.012 7.097
Leisure facilities 0.064*** 0.012 5.977
Parks 0.009 0.006 —
Firms 0.066*** 0.006 6.267
Commercial buildings 0.065*** 0.006 6.070
_cons 6.789*** 0.158

Random effects
Neighbourhood level (_cons) 0.295 0.006
Area level (_cons) 0.074 0.020
Observations 75,197
AIC —28158.29
BIC —27955.28
Log-restricted likelihood 14014.287

Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, and * p < 0.1. AIC and BIC are commonly used indices to compare the fitness of different multilevel regression
models (Kuha, 2004). “—” indicates that this variable has no significant effect on rental prices.
1
When taking a logarithm for both dependent variable and explanatory variables, the formula can be presented as lnY = a + b*lnX + e. The
coefficient b means constant elasticity (Wooldridge, 2016.). Thus, a 1% change in X drives a change in Y by b%. When the logarithm is taken
for dependent variables only, the formula can be presented as lnY = a + b*X + e. The coefficient b means semi-elasticity, which indicates that
a one-unit change in X drives a change in Y by b*100%. In this study, the dependent variable is ln(rent). The average house rent is used to
calculate the percentage of change. Column (4) in Table 4 reflects the corresponding premiums of changes in various indicators for a rented
house with average rent at an average built environment level.

In large cities in China, the fast urban sprawl process in the recent decade has led to the heavy commuting burden amongst workers.
In Beijing, the one-way commuting time reached 54 min by 2018, thereby decreasing the subjective well-being of workers (Zhu et al.,
2019) and reducing their time budget for other activities and social opportunities. The discriminating hukou (household registration)
and labour policies have particularly restricted the propertyless migrant workers from achieving a balanced job–housing relationship
(Zhang et al., 2018a,b). Insufficient investments also worsen migrant workers’ suffering from the heavy commuting burden in public
transit and the disintegration of metro stations and land developments or the failure of transit-oriented development (Zhao et al.,
2018b). The DBS, which is an efficient, affordable and healthy means of mobility and fitness/leisure alternative (Zhao and Li, 2017), is
favoured by migrant workers in Beijing. However, as the housing market is sensitive to any location-specific and geographically
varying amenity provision (Hoehn et al., 1987), the value of DBS in enhancing commuting efficiency and accessibility to other urban
services has been rapidly capitalised into the housing rentals. Fig. 1 demonstrates that the uneven accessibility to DBS in Beijing is
salient, thereby promoting competition amongst houses with good accessibility to DBS and increasing housing costs in certain areas.
Thus, similar to other public transit systems (e.g., metro and BRT), the DBS has contested externalities in terms of its positive and
negative social consequences.
Furthermore, employment accessibility is a significant factor in explaining the variation in housing rentals. High densities of firms
(0.066***) and commercial buildings (0.065***) are associated with high housing rentals. Consistent with previous studies (Clapp
et al., 2001; McLeod and Ellis, 1983; Redfearn, 2009), neighbourhood attributes or accessibility to amenities significantly affect
housing rentals. Houses that are close to a metro station (–0.023***), have high accessibility to bus stations (0.105***), retail stores
(0.061***), caterers (0.076***) and leisure facilities (0.064***) tend to have high rentals. However, accessibility to schools
(–0.026***) is negatively associated with rentals, which is contrary to the property market where educational resources have been
highly capitalised into property prices (Feng and Lu, 2013). This finding can be explained by the fact that in China, only the owner of a
house in the catchment area of a public school has the enrolment quota, whereas tenants are denied the rights. For renters, schools have
negative externalities, including noise and traffic congestion during peak hours, which depreciate rentals. Consistent with the con­
dition in the property market (Chiang et al., 2015), medical facilities are disamenities that depreciate rentals (–0.083***) because

10
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

proximity to hospitals generates negative externalities, including noise, unsanitary conditions, overcrowding, health risks and traffic
congestion.
For the property market and in certain areas (e.g., wealthy neighbourhoods), several facilities (e.g., catering businesses, retail shops
and public parks) may be regarded as disamenities because they may generate noise and crowds, which are disfavoured by the rich,
thereby depreciating property prices (Jim and Chen, 2010; Ladenburg and Dubgaard, 2007). However, in Beijing’s rental market,
where the bidders are mostly low- and medium-income migrant workers, these facilities are necessary daily amenities that appreciate
the rentals. Moreover, proximity to Beijing’s traditional centre, namely, Tiananmen Square, is positively associated with housing
rentals (–0.116***) after controlling for the accessibility to amenities and jobs. An explanation for this finding is that the most
influential cultural facilities, including libraries, theatres and museums, are highly concentrated in the city centre, which generates
premiums. Lastly, the housing area (0.491***), number of bedrooms (0.131***), east direction (0.007**) and south direction
(0.004**) compared with the west direction are positively associated with housing rentals, and these findings are generally acceptable.
Table 4 presents the increased or decreased housing rentals caused by a one-unit change in each variable. In particular, every one-
point increase in the accessibility to DBS generates 28.015 CNY premiums in the rent. By contrast, every 1,000 m closer to the nearest
metro station yields 196.495 CNY premiums in the housing rental. Furthermore, every 1% increase in the density of bus stations within
a 1-km buffer of houses generates 9.805 CNY in housing rentals. In terms of the capitalisation of other amenities into housing rentals,
every 1% increase in the density of retail shops, caterers and leisure facilities within a 1-km buffer of houses generates premiums
amounting to 5.696, 7.097 and 5.977 CNY in housing rentals. Thus, propertyless migrant workers are willing to pay for access to
catering services amongst these amenities, whereas they least consider access to retail stores. Every 1000 m closer to Tiananmen
Square yields 98.310 CNY premiums in rent.
Concerning depreciation by disamenities, every 1% increase in the density of medical facilities and educational facilities within a 1-
km buffer of houses decreases rent by 2.428 CNY and 7.751 CNY, respectively. Furthermore, every 1% increase in the density of firms
and commercial buildings generates 6.267 CNY and 6.070 CNY premiums in housing rental. Every bedroom added results in premiums
worth 1223.316 CNY in housing rental, and every 100 sq. m. increase in housing areas yield 4596.592 CNY premiums in rental.

5. Conclusion and implications

In the past five years, the rapid development of DBS in China’s large cities has attracted close attention from scholars. Substantial
effort has been exerted to understand the role of DBS as an affordable, sustainable and healthy alternative to daily mobility (Zhao and
Li, 2017). Previous studies have explored the effect of DBS on reducing private car use (Zhang and Mi, 2018; Cao and Shen, 2019), the
function of DBS as a means of transfer to the metro (Gu et al., 2019; Zhao and Li, 2017), the environmental factors that affect the choice
of DBS for commuting (Zhao and Li, 2017) and the influence of DBS on improving commuters’ subjective well-being (Ma et al., 2018).
However, when scholars and policymakers celebrate the merits of DBS in promoting sustainable and inclusive social development, an
important question should be addressed: if DBS has become a desired and valuable transport amenity, how does the geographically
uneven DBS provision or unequal spatial accessibility to DBS affect housing rental? The answer to this question can enable the socially
inclusive nature of DBS to be reconsidered in terms of its long-term potential to increase housing costs for migrant workers, thereby
causing gentrification in some areas.
The present study fills this gap with a timely examination of the DBS capitalisation in housing rental. Beijing is taken as a case study
because it is the world’s first city to adopt DBS and experience the full integration of DBS as a transport mode for daily mobility.
Advanced big-data approaches coupled with GIS are used to generate a dataset on the price and attributes of the houses listed for rent.
Specific attention was paid to the construction of the measurement for the accessibility of houses to the DBS service. A multilevel
hedonic model was established and estimated to examine the effect of accessibility to DBS on the housing rental with the zone-fixed

Table A1
Variance inflation factor of each variable.
Variable Model (3) in Table 3 Model (6) in Table 3 Model (9) in Table 3

Bike score 2.24 3.20 3.42

Area 2.11 2.20 2.20
Bedrooms 2.18 2.21 2.22
Housing age 1.02 1.02 1.03
South direction 1.19 1.19 1.19
North direction 1.63 1.63 1.63
East direction 1.44 1.44 1.44
Proximity to metro 1.48 1.65 1.64
Proximity to city centre 2.00 3.24 3.66
Bus stations 1.26 2.56 2.70
Educational facilities 1.31 3.23 2.49
Medical facilities 1.83 5.12 2.30
Retailers 1.40 8.49 8.15
Caterers 1.53 8.31 4.64
Leisure facilities 1.30 6.92 6.40
Parks 1.03 1.10 1.06
Firms 1.22 5.42 2.99
Commercial buildings 1.35 4.26 1.16

11
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

effect controlled for. The results of the hedonic modelling show that the houses with better accessibility to DBS tend to have higher
rents. Every one-unit increase in the accessibility to DBS generates a premium worth 28.02 CNY in the housing rental, which supports
the hypothesis that the flexibility and docklessness have successfully reworked shared bikes into a valuable amenity for renters. The
house with an average level of accessibility to DBS (52.31 points) has rent amounting to 1465 CNY higher than that with the poorest
accessibility to DBS (0 point) after controlling for other housing attributes. In Beijing, the average monthly income is 9425 CNY in 2018
(BSB, 2019). These findings suggest that although the low- and middle-income workers benefit from the convenience of DBS in the
short term, the benefits of DBS are gradually eroded and transferred to landlords in the long term. Unequal access to DBS, which leads
to an increase in housing rentals, may induce gentrification that excludes low-income groups. The effect of DBS on the neighbourhood-
level demographic changes needs to be further examined.
The present study has several limitations. First, due to the lack of data on the listing date of the houses, the models did not control
for the time fixed effect, which might cause biases in our results. Second, the data on the rental price and DBS trip distribution were
collected from two different sampled periods, which may cause biases in our results. Third, the spatial distribution/generation of DBS
trips is associated with the built environment and demographic characteristics of a neighbourhood (e.g., terrain, road density or type,
mixed land use and demographic composition). These factors may also affect housing rentals, entailing the endogeneity in our model.
Finally, the listing price was used for the analysis rather than the transaction price, which might cause biases in the results.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Si Qiao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - original draft. Anthony Gar-On Yeh: Supervision, Writing - review
& editing. Mengzhu Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This research project is funded by the Chan To-Haan Endowed Professorship Fund of the University of Hong Kong.

Appendix I

Spatial association between housing rental and DBS score (on the left is BiLISA cluster map, and on the right is the corresponding
BiLISA significance map)

12
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

13
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Appendix II

See Table A1.

Appendix III

Daily spatial distributions of DBS trips from May 10 to 24, 2017

14
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

References

Asabere, P.K., Huffman, F.E., 2009. The relative impacts of trails and greenbelts on home price. J. Real Estate Fin. Econ. 38 (4), 408–419.
Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15 (2), 73–80.
Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics, N.S.O.i.B., 2019. Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2018, In: Statistics, B.M.B.o. (Ed.). China Statistics Press.
Bullock, C., Brereton, F., Bailey, S., 2017. The economic contribution of public bike-share to the sustainability and efficient functioning of cities. Sustain. Cities Soc.
28, 76–87.
Cao, Y., Shen, D., 2019. Contribution of shared bikes to carbon dioxide emission reduction and the economy in beijing. Sustain. Cities Soc. 51, 101749.
Cervero, R., Duncan, M., 2002. Benefits of proximity to rail on housing markets: experiences in santa clara county. J. Publ. Transport. 5 (1), 1–18.
Cervero, R., Kang, C.D., 2011. Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in seoul, korea. Transp. Policy 18 (1), 102–116.
Chu, J., Duan, Y., Yang, X., Wang, L., 2020. The last mile matters: Impact of dockless bike sharing on subway housing price premium. Manage. Sci. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.2019.3550.
Chiang, Y.-H., Peng, T.-C., Chang, C.-O., 2015. The nonlinear effect of convenience stores on residential property prices: A case study of Taipei. Taiwan. Habitat Int.
46, 82–90.
Clapp, J.M., Rodriguez, M., Pace, R.K., 2001. Residential land values and the decentralization of jobs. J. Real Estate Fin. Econ. 22 (1), 43–61.
Connolly, C., Livy, M.R., Qiu, Y., Klaiber, H.A., 2019. Capitalization of interconnected active transportation infrastructure. Landscape Urban Plann. 182, 67–78.
DeMaio, P., 2009. Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. J. Public Transp. 12 (4), 3.
Deng, T., Nelson, J.D., 2010. The impact of bus rapid transit on land development: A case study of Beijing, China. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 66, 1196–1206.
Duncan, M., 2011. The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban Stud. 48 (1), 101–127.
Feng, H., Lu, M., 2013. School quality and housing prices: Empirical evidence from a natural experiment in Shanghai, China. J. Hous. Econ. 22 (4), 291–307.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2012. Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 15 (6), 686–698.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2013. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transp. Rev. 33 (2), 148–165.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., Watson, A., 2015. Factors influencing bike share membership: An analysis of Melbourne and Brisbane. Transp. Res. Part A:
Policy Pract. 71, 17–30.
Flores Dewey, O.A., 2013. Expanding Transportation Planning Capacity in Cities of the Global South: Public-private Collaboration and Conflict in Chile and Mexico.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Glaeser, E.L., 2008. Cities, Agglomeration, and Spatial Equilibrium. Oxford University Press.
Goodman, A.C., Thibodeau, T., 1998. Housing market segmentation. J. Hous. Econ. 7, 121–143.
Golub, A., Martens, K., 2014. Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. J. Transp. Geogr. 41, 10–20.
Grube-Cavers, A., Patterson, Z., 2015. Urban rapid rail transit and gentrification in Canadian urban centres: A survival analysis approach. Urban Stud. 52 (1),
178–194.
Gu, T., Kim, I., Currie, G., 2019. Measuring immediate impacts of a new mass transit system on an existing bike-share system in China. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy
Pract. 124, 20–39.
Harford, J.D., 2006. Congestion, pollution, and benefit-to-cost ratios of US public transit systems. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 11 (1), 45–58.
Heres, D.R., Jack, D., Salon, D., 2014. Do public transport investments promote urban economic development? evidence from bus rapid transit in bogotá, colombia.
Transportation 41 (1), 57–74.
Hoehn, J.P., Berger, M.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1987. A hedonic model of interregional wages, rents, and amenity values. J. Regional Sci. 27 (4), 605–620.
Huang, D., Liu, Z., Zhao, X., Zhao, P., 2017. Emerging polycentric megacity in China: An examination of employment subcenters and their influence on population
distribution in Beijing. Cities 69, 36–45.
Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2010. External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 662–670.
Jones, K., Bullen, N., 2016. Contextual models of urban house prices: a comparison of fixed- and random-coefficient models developed by expansion. Econ. Geogr. 70
(3), 252–272.
Kahn, M.E., 2007. Gentrification trends in new transit-oriented communities: Evidence from 14 cities that expanded and built rail transit systems. Real Estate Econ. 35
(2), 155–182.
Kim, C.W., Phipps, T.T., Anselin, L., 2003. Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. J. Environ. Econ. Management 45 (1),
24–39.
Kuha, J., 2004. AIC and BIC: Comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociol. Methods Res. 33 (2), 188–229.
Ladenburg, J., Dubgaard, A., 2007. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 35 (8), 4059–4071.
Leishman, C., Costello, G., Rowley, D., 2013. The predictive performance of multilevel models of housing submarkets: A comparative analysis. Urban Stud. 50,
1201–1220.
Lin, J., 2002. Gentrification and transit in northwest Chicago. Transp. Quart. 56 (4), 175–191.
Lucas, K., 2012. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transp. Policy 20, 105–113.
Ma, L., Zhang, X., Ding, X., Wang, G., 2018. Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: an empirical study in china. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 118,
14–24.
Martens, K., 2007. Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 41 (4), 326–338.
McLeod, P., Ellis, J., 1983. Alternative approaches to the family life cycle in the analysis of housing consumption. J. Marriage Family 699–708.
Mobike Company, 2018. How cycling changes cities: insights on how bikesharing supports urban development. Accessed on 6 May 2020 from https://mobike.com/
global/public/HowCyclingChangesCitiesMobike.pdf.
Munoz-Raskin, R., 2010. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transp. Policy 17 (2), 72–84.
Nelson, J.P., 2010. Valuing rural recreation amenities: hedonic prices for vacation rental houses at deep creek lake, maryland. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 39 (3),
485–504.
Orford, S., 2000. Modelling spatial structures in local housing market dynamics: a multilevel perspective. Urban Stud. 37, 1643–1670.
Orford, S., 2002. Valuing locational externalities: a GIS and multilevel modelling approach. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Design 29, 105–127.
Perdomo Calvo, J.A., Mendoza, C.A., Baquero-Ruiz, A.F., Mendieta-Lopez, J.C., 2007. Study of the effect of the transmilenio mass transit project on the value of
properties in Bogotá, Colombia. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper No. WP07CA1.
Perdomo, J.A., 2011. A methodological proposal to estimate changes of residential property value: Case study developed in Bogota. Appl. Econ. Lett. 18 (16),
1577–1581.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2017. Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future. Transp. Rev. 37 (6), 689–694.
Redfearn, C.L., 2009. How informative are average effects? Hedonic regression and amenity capitalization in complex urban housing markets. Regional Sci. Urban
Econ. 39 (3), 297–306.
Rosen, S., 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82 (1), 34–55.
Sanchez, T.W., Shen, Q., Peng, Z.-R., 2004. Transit mobility, jobs access and low-income labour participation in US metropolitan areas. Urban Stud. 41 (7),
1313–1331.
Sun, F., Chen, P., Jiao, J., 2018. Promoting public bike-sharing: A lesson from the unsuccessful Pronto system. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 63, 533–547.
Sun, G., Webster, C., Chiaradia, A., 2017. Ungating the city: A permeability perspective. Urban Stud. 55, 2584–2600.
Transport, B.M.C.o., 2019. Beijing Municipal Communications Commission’s announcement on the operation and management supervision of the Internet rental
bicycle industry, In: Transport, B.M.C.o. (Ed.).

15
S. Qiao et al. Transportation Research Part D 90 (2021) 102640

Welch, T.F., Gehrke, S.R., Wang, F., 2016. Long-term impact of network access to bike facilities and public transit stations on housing sales prices in Portland, Oregon.
J. Transp. Geogr. 54, 264–272.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2016. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, sixth ed. Nelson Education.
Zhang, Y., Mi, Z., 2018. Environmental benefits of bike sharing: a big data-based analysis. Appl. Energy 220, 296–301.
Zhang, M., He, S., Zhao, P., 2018a. Revisiting inequalities in the commuting burden: Institutional constraints and job-housing relationships in Beijing. J. Transp.
Geogr. 71, 58–71.
Zhang, M., Wang, L., 2013. The impacts of mass transit on land development in China: The case of Beijing. Res. Transp. Econ. 40 (1), 124–133.
Zhang, X., Bai, X., Zhong, H., 2018b. Electric vehicle adoption in license plate-controlled big cities: Evidence from Beijing. J. Cleaner Prod. 202, 191–196.
Zhao, L., Zhao, Y., Hu, Q., Li, H., Stoeter, J., 2018a. Evaluation of consolidation center cargo capacity and loctions for China railway express. Transp. Res. Part E:
Logist. Transp. Rev. 117, 58–81.
Zhao, P., Yang, H., Kong, L., Liu, Y., Liu, D., 2018b. Disintegration of metro and land development in transition china: a dynamic analysis in beijing. Transport. Res.
Part A: Policy Pract. 116 (OCT.), 290–307.
Zhao, P., Li, S., 2017. Bicycle-metro integration in a growing city: The determinants of cycling as a transfer mode in metro station areas in Beijing. Transp. Res. Part A:
Policy Pract. 99, 46–60.
Zhou, Z., Li, H., Zhang, A., 2019. Does bike sharing increase house prices? Evidence from micro-level data in Shanghai. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Zhu, Z., Li, Z., Chen, H., Liu, Y., Zheng, J., 2019. Subjective well-being in china: how much does commuting matter? Transportation 46, 150–1524.
Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A.H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ong, P., Thomas, T., 2015. Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment.
J. Plann. Literat. 33 (1), 31–44.

16