Bike-sharing services are emerging as a sustainable urban transportation solution, providing both mobility and environmental benefits. This study explores the impact of various attributes on the gender gap in bike-sharing services in Seoul using the eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) technique. Prediction was performed using deep learning and machine learning, and interpretation was conducted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The results showed that the categorical boosting (CatBoost) model achieved the highest performance in predicting gender choice probability, with an F1 score of 0.869, among the five models. Using the CatBoost model, SHAP values were estimated, and two interpretable analyses were conducted: feature analysis and feature dependency analysis. The results indicated that female users prefer bike-sharing services with longer travel times, shorter travel distances, shorter Euclidean distances, smaller commercial areas, higher floating population ratios, and more bicycle-friendly environments. Additionally, bike-sharing stations were classified into those with a high proportion of female users and those with the potential to increase the proportion of female users. These findings provide valuable insights for planners and policy makers in developing policies to create more bicycle-friendly cities.
ZhaoJ.WangJ.DengW.Exploring Bikesharing Travel Time and Trip Chain by Gender and Day of the Week. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 58, 2015, pp. 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.01.030.
2.
WangK.AkarG.Gender Gap Generators for Bike Share Ridership: Evidence from Citi Bike System in New York City. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 76, 2019, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.02.003.
3.
Pellicer-ChenollM.PansM.SeifertR.López-CañadaE.García-MassóX.Devís-DevísJ.GonzálezL. M.Gender Differences in Bicycle Sharing System Usage in the City of Valencia. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 65, 2021, p. 102556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102556.
4.
ErenE.UzV. E.A Review on Bike-Sharing: The Factors Affecting Bike-Sharing Demand. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 54, 2020, p. 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882.
5.
CurrieG.DelboscA.Exploring the Trip Chaining Behaviour of Public Transport Users in Melbourne. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2011, pp. 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.003.
6.
Faghih-ImaniA.EluruN.Analysing Bicycle-Sharing System User Destination Choice Preferences: Chicago’s Divvy System. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 44, 2015, pp. 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.03.005.
7.
Bachand-MarleauJ.LeeB. H. Y.El-GeneidyA. M.Better Understanding of Factors Influencing Likelihood of Using Shared Bicycle Systems and Frequency of Use. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2314: 66–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-09.
8.
FournierN.ChristofaE.KnodlerM. A.Jr.A Sinusoidal Model for Seasonal Bicycle Demand Estimation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 50, 2017, pp. 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.021.
9.
El-AssiW.MahmoudM. S.HabibK. N.Effects of Built Environment and Weather on Bike Sharing Demand: A Station Level Analysis of Commercial Bike Sharing in Toronto. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2017, pp. 589–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9669-z.
10.
GebhartK.NolandR. B.The Impact of Weather Conditions on Bikeshare Trips in Washington, DC. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1205–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9540-7.
11.
McBainC.CaulfieldB.An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Journey Time Variation in the Cork Public Bike System. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 42, 2018, pp. 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.030.
12.
KimK.Investigation on the Effects of Weather and Calendar Events on Bikesharing According to the Trip Patterns of Bike Rentals of Stations. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 66, 2018, pp. 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.01.001.
13.
PucherJ.BuehlerR.Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2008, pp. 495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612.
WangK.AkarG.ChenY. J.Bike Sharing Differences Among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: Lessons Learnt from New York City’s Bike Share. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 116, 2018, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.001.
AkarG.FischerN.NamgungM.Bicycling Choice and Gender Case Study: The Ohio State University. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 5, 2013, pp. 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.673694.
18.
PucherJ.BuehlerR.SeinenM.Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2011, pp. 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001.
19.
SteinbachR.GreenJ.DattaJ.EdwardsP.Cycling and the City: A Case Study of How Gendered, Ethnic and Class Identities can Shape Healthy Transport Choices. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 72, No. 7, 2011, pp. 1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.033.
20.
McCormackG. R.Giles-CortiB.BulsaraM.The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2008, pp. 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.01.013.
21.
BrickaS. G.SenS.PaletiR.BhatC. R.An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Differences in Survey-Reported and GPS-Recorded Trips. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2011.09.005.
22.
LeeE. H.KimK.KhoS. Y.KimD. K.ChoS. H.Estimating Express Train Preference of Urban Railway Passengers Based on Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) Using Smart Card Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021. 2675: pp. 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211013349.
23.
LhéritierA.BocamazoM.DelahayeT.Acuna-AgostR.Airline Itinerary Choice Modeling Using Machine Learning. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 31, 2019, pp. 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2018.02.002.
24.
LeeE. H.Exploring Transit Use During COVID-19 Based on XGB and SHAP Using Smart Card Data. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2022, 2022, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6458371.
25.
HagenauerJ.HelbichM.A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Classifiers for Modeling Travel Mode Choice. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 78, 2017, pp. 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.057.
26.
HancockJ. T.KhoshgoftaarT. M.CatBoost for Big Data: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Big Data, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2020, p. 94.
27.
LundbergS. M.LeeS. I.A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Proc., 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30, 2017, pp. 4768–4777.
28.
LeeE. H.eXplainable DEA Approach for Evaluating Performance of Public Transport Origin-Destination Pairs. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 108, 2024, p. 101491.
29.
LeeE. H.Traffic Speed Prediction of Urban Road Network based on High Importance Links using XGBoost and SHAP. IEEE Access, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/Access.2023.3324035.
30.
KwakK.LeeE. H.Impact of Road Transport System on Groundwater Quality Inferred from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 917, 2024, p. 170388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170388.
31.
LeeE. H.LeeE.Iterative DEA for Public Transport Transfer Efficiency in a Super-Aging Society. Cities, Vol. 162, 2025, p. 105957.
32.
LeeC.LeeE. H.Evaluation of Urban Nightlife Attractiveness for Millennials and Generation Z. Cities, Vol. 149, 2024, p. 104934.
