DESIGN OF A USER-FRIENDLY BICYCLE REGISTRATION AND TRACKING SYSTEM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/14hk6p43Keywords:
Bicycle registration, bicycle tracking, user-centered design, Internet of Things, data security, smart mobility, theft preventionAbstract
Bicycle registration and tracking systems are also gaining significance to aid in sustainable urban mobility, ownership verification, theft deterrence, and recovery support. Most current solutions are however disjointed, complex, expensive or poorly linked with overarching transport and security systems. This review analyzes how to design an easy-to-use bicycle registration and tracking system by synthesising the literature regarding cycling behaviour, bike-sharing systems, Internet of Things architecture, mobile usability, data security, tracking technologies and smart mobility integration. The review points out that to be effective, good systems need more than just technical tracking; they need to integrate both easy registration processes, successful bicycle identification, trustworthy data management, privacy conscious location management, and open user interfaces. Comparative analysis reveals that manual registries, web-based, IoT-enabled trackers and community-based reporting systems have their own benefits, yet also significant limitations. It is advisable to have a hybrid model, where digital registration, passive identification, optional active tracking, alert notification, and authorized recovery support are incorporated into it. The review also points out the major issues that are associated with interoperability, adoption, cost, privacy, and institutional coordination. On the whole, the paper offers a systematic basis on how to design scalable, secure and user-friendly bicycle registration and tracking systems in urban settings.
References
1.E. Heinen, B. Van Wee, and K. Maat, “Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature,” Transport Reviews, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 59–96, 2010.
2.E. Heinen, K. Maat, and B. Van Wee, “The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 102–109, 2011.
3.E. Fishman, S. Washington, and N. Haworth, “Bike share: A synthesis of the literature,” Transport Reviews, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 148–165, 2013.
4.D. Lois, J. A. Moriano, and G. Rondinella, “Cycle commuting intention: A model based on theory of planned behaviour and social identity,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 32, pp. 101–113, 2015.
5.M. Ricci, “Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation,” Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 15, pp. 28–38, 2015.
6.L. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Y. Duan, and D. Bryde, “Sustainable bike-sharing systems: Characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 97, pp. 124–133, 2015.
7.S. D. Parkes, G. Marsden, S. A. Shaheen, and A. P. Cohen, “Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: Evidence from Europe and North America,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 31, pp. 94–103, 2013.
8.M. Zaltz Austwick, O. O’Brien, E. Strano, and M. Viana, “The structure of spatial networks and communities in bicycle sharing systems,” PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 9, Art. no. e74685, 2013.
9.E. Fishman, S. Washington, and N. Haworth, “Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 31, pp. 13–20, 2014.
10.L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “The internet of things: A survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 54, no. 15, pp. 2787–2805, 2010.
11.J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660, 2013.
12.D. Miorandi, S. Sicari, F. De Pellegrini, and I. Chlamtac, “Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1497–1516, 2012.
13.A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet of things for smart cities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2014.
14.C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, P. Christen, and D. Georgakopoulos, “Context aware computing for the internet of things: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 414–454, 2013.
15.M. Billi, L. Burzagli, T. Catarci, G. Santucci, E. Bertini, F. Gabbanini, and E. Palchetti, “A unified methodology for the evaluation of accessibility and usability of mobile applications,” Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 337–356, 2010.
16.R. Harrison, D. Flood, and D. Duce, “Usability of mobile applications: Literature review and rationale for a new usability model,” Journal of Interaction Science, vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 1, 2013.
17.D. Lee, J. Moon, Y. J. Kim, and M. Y. Yi, “Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty,” Information & Management, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 295–304, 2015.
18.B. Biel, T. Grill, and V. Gruhn, “Exploring the benefits of the combination of a software architecture analysis and a usability evaluation of a mobile application,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 2031–2044, 2010.
19.D. P. Piatkowski and W. E. Marshall, “Not all prospective bicyclists are created equal: The role of attitudes, socio-demographics, and the built environment in bicycle commuting,” Travel Behaviour and Society, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 166–173, 2015.
20.R. H. Weber, “Internet of Things—New security and privacy challenges,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2010.
21.R. Roman, J. Zhou, and J. Lopez, “On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things,” Computer Networks, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 2266–2279, 2013.
22.S. Sicari, A. Rizzardi, L. A. Grieco, and A. Coen-Porisini, “Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead,” Computer Networks, vol. 76, pp. 146–164, 2015.
23.H. Xu, X. R. Luo, J. M. Carroll, and M. B. Rosson, “The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 42–52, 2011.
24.H. Xu, H. H. Teo, B. C. Tan, and R. Agarwal, “Research note—Effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: A study of location-based services,” Information Systems Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1342–1363, 2012.
25.S. Joo and C. Oh, “A novel method to monitor bicycling environments,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 54, pp. 1–13, 2013.
26.S. Joo, C. Oh, E. Jeong, and G. Lee, “Categorizing bicycling environments using GPS-based public bicycle speed data,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 56, pp. 239–250, 2015.
27.G. Xiao, Z. Juan, and C. Zhang, “Travel mode detection based on GPS track data and Bayesian networks,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 54, pp. 14–22, 2015.
28.R. Faragher and R. Harle, “Location fingerprinting with Bluetooth Low Energy beacons,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2418–2428, 2015.
29.V. Coskun, B. Ozdenizci, and K. Ok, “A survey on near field communication (NFC) technology,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 2259–2294, 2013.
30.J. Shu, M. C. Chou, Q. Liu, C. P. Teo, and I. L. Wang, “Models for effective deployment and redistribution of bicycles within public bicycle-sharing systems,” Operations Research, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1346–1359, 2013.
31.I. Frade and A. Ribeiro, “Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 82, pp. 216–227, 2015.
32.A. Faghih-Imani and N. Eluru, “Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 44, pp. 53–64, 2015.
33.X. Zhou, “Understanding spatiotemporal patterns of biking behavior by analyzing massive bike sharing data in Chicago,” PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 10, Art. no. e0137922, 2015.
34.C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, P. Christen, and D. Georgakopoulos, “Sensing as a service model for smart cities supported by Internet of Things,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 81–93, 2014.
35.R. Want, “Near field communication,” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 4–7, 2011.
36.A. Wolf and S. Seebauer, “Technology adoption of electric bicycles: A survey among early adopters,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 69, pp. 196–211, 2014.
37.S. C. Van der Spek and N. Scheltema, “The importance of bicycle parking management,” Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 15, pp. 39–49, 2015.
38.T. Cole-Hunter et al., “Objective correlates and determinants of bicycle commuting propensity in an urban environment,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 40, pp. 132–143, 2015.
39.M. Dozza and J. Werneke, “Introducing naturalistic cycling data: What factors influence bicyclists’ safety in the real world?,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 24, pp. 83–91, 2014.
40.R. Buehler, “Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 525–531, 2012.
