公共自行車系統作為推動永續運輸轉型與主動運輸的重要工具，已逐漸成為當代都市中重要的交通基礎設施之一，因此受到各領域研究者的廣泛關注。過往研究多聚焦於公共自行車作為公共運輸接駁與轉乘工具的功能，然而在不同都市空間結構與公共運輸服務條件下，公共自行車可能承擔更多元的移動角色與功能，其使用行為特徵仍有待進一步探討。
本研究以時間地理學觀點分析公共自行車使用者之時空行為特徵，探討公共自行車租賃站之時空行為類型與時空路徑樣態，並以未設置捷運系統之臺南市為研究範圍，運用交通部數據匯流平台電子票證資料 (Transport Data eXchange, TDX) 在 2024 年 10 月至 2025 年09 月期間臺南市公共自行車電子票證紀錄 3,754,383 筆進行分析。研究方法首先辨識公共自行車租賃站之時空行為類型，透過時間地理學「時空方塊（Space-Time Cube）」概念量化租賃站之時空特徵，並結合「動態時間校正（Dynamic Time Warping）」與「局部空間自相關分析」，識別具統計顯著性的租賃站行為類型；其次，以敘述統計方法描述不同空間區域之公共自行車時空路徑樣態組成，探討各區域活動組織與移動行為特徵之差異，並依據臺南市國土計畫之分區發展策略進行區域分類。
研究結果顯示，平日公共自行車租賃站可區分為「晨昏峰對稱型」、「晨昏峰及午後型」、「傍晚活動型」及「午間活動型」四種類型，而假日則可區分為「活動核心型」與「非活動核心型」兩種類型。在時空路徑樣態方面，從時空特徵歸納出「晨昏峰對稱性行為」、「午後活動行為」、「同站借還行為」、「長距離移動行為」、「短距離移動行為」，南臺南、中臺南及北臺南地區於平日晨峰與昏峰時段呈現明顯之通勤通學移動特徵，反映活動安排受到權威制約影響；午間及傍晚時段則出現較多元且短距離的時空路徑樣態，且午後時段之路徑數量與活動範圍普遍高於上午，相較之下東臺南與西臺南地區因租賃站密度較低，其時空路徑樣態較為集中且具特定目的導向。此外，同站借還亦為呈顯出重要的時空路徑樣態，市區主要發生於午間及傍晚時段，反映公共自行車支援多元都市活動之功能；郊區則因站點分布較為稀疏，全天皆可觀察到同站借還行為，顯示其具有補充在地移動需求之特性。
公共自行車於公共運輸服務相對不足的城市中，透過尖峰時段與權威制約所展現的時空行為勾勒出個別生活圈以公共自行車為運具生活圈範圍，並且提供午間到夜間時段多樣都市活動的的能力制約拓展公共自行車騎乘者的時空稜柱，或是夜間時段與淺山沿海地區運輸服務不足之處的能力制約功能，展現在不同時空情境之下的移動地景特徵，並可作為未來公共自行車系統規劃、生活圈發展及永續都市發展政策之參考。

As a common strategy addressing climate change, public health, energy transition in transportation, and sustainable urban and mobility transitions, public bike systems have evolved alongside hardware and software advancements to become an essential urban transportation infrastructure. However, previous studies have predominantly focused on their function as a feeder or transfer mode within a trip chain, largely overlooking their potential to serve as the primary mode of transit—a role of particular significance in urban areas characterized by low public transit coverage. Adopting the perspective of Time Geography to analyze the spatiotemporal characteristics of biking behavior, this study investigates the classification of docking stations and the patterns of spatiotemporal paths of public bikes in Tainan City, an urban context without a rapid transit system. Methodologically, this research quantifies riding behaviors using the concept of the space-time cube, supplemented by Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) and Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) to identify statistically significant spatiotemporal behavioral features and classify the behavioral composition of public bike stations. Furthermore, utilizing the regional development strategies outlined in the Tainan Spatial Master Plan as the baseline spatial structure, this study explores the configurations of public bike spatiotemporal paths across different zones. The empirical analysis utilizes one full year of smart card transaction data sourced from the Transport Data eXchange (TDX) platform of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The empirical results reveal that on weekdays, public bike stations can be classified into four distinct categories: "Peak Hours Symmetry," "Peak Hours & Afternoon Activity," "Evening Activity," and "Midday Activity" stations. On weekends, the stations are separated into "Core Activity" and "Non-core Activity" stations. Regarding spatiotemporal path patterns, the South, Central, and North Tainan regions exhibit standard commuting and schooling path patterns shaped by rigid authority constraints during weekday morning and evening peak hours. Conversely, during midday and evening hours, these authority constraints loosen, giving rise to more diversified, short-distance spatiotemporal paths, with the length and volume of afternoon paths exceeding those in the morning. Due to the lower density of docking stations, the East and West Tainan regions display more localized and specific spatiotemporal path configurations. In addition, round-trip (same-station renting and returning) behaviors emerge as a critical spatiotemporal path pattern. In urban cores, these manifest primarily as short-distance paths during midday and evening hours, supporting diverse afternoon urban activities; in suburban areas, however, round-trips occur throughout the day, driven by the sparse station distribution where users return bikes to the originating station after completing their spatiotemporal itineraries. By delineating the mobility landscapes supported by public bikes in a city with low public transit coverage, this study envisions multiple possibilities for sustainable transport transition and serves as an empirical reference for urban policy in cities with similar structural characteristics.

Aoyong, L., Zhao, P., Haitao, H., Mansourian, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). How Did Micro-Mobility Change in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic? A case study based on Spatial-temporal-semantic Analysiss. Computer, Environment and Urban Systems, 90, 101703.
Arias-Molinares, D., Garcia-Palomares, J. C., Romanilos, G., & Gutierrez, J. (2023). Uncovering Spatiotemporal Micromobility Patterns through the Lens of Space-time Cubes and GIS Tools. Journal of Geographical Systems, 25, 403-427.
Böcker, L., Anderson, E., Uteng, T. P., & Throndsen, T. (2020). Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway [Article]. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 138, 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.009
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. Princeton Architechtural Press.
Cheng, L., Huang, J., Jin, T. H., Chen, W. D., Li, A. Y., & Witlox, F. (2023). Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro [Article]. Journal of Transport Geography, 107, 11, Article 103545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103545
El-Assi, W., Mahmoud, M. S., & Habib, K. N. (2017). Effects of built environment and weather on bike sharing demand: a station level analysis of commercial bike sharing in Toronto [Article]. Transportation, 44(3), 589-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9669-z
Eren, E., & Uz, V. E. (2020). A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand [Review]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 12, Article 101882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101882
Faghih-Imani, A., & Eluru, N. (2016). Incooperating the impact of spatio-temporal interactions in bicycle sharing system demand: A case study of New York CitiBike system. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 218-227.
Faghih-Imani, A., Hampshire, R., Marla, L., & Eluru, N. (2017). An empirical analysis of bike sharing usage and rebalancing: Evidence from Barcelona and Seville [Article]. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 97, 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.007
Farber, S., Neutens, T., Miller, H. J., & Li, X. (2013). he social interaction potential of metropolitan regions: a time-geographic measurement approach using joint accessibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(3), 483-504.
Fishman, E. (2016). Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature [Article]. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 92-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036
Fishman, E., S., W., & N., H. (2013). Bike Share: A synthesis of the literature. Transport Reviews, 33(2), 148-165.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in Regional Science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01936872
Hall, P. (2017). 明日城市：二十世紀城市規劃設計的思想史 (吳綱立, Trans.). 聯經.
J., Z., J., W., Z., X., X., L., & Y., J. (2018). Weather and Cycling: Mining Big Data to Have an In-depth Understanding of the Association of Weather Variability with Cycling on an Off-road Trail and an On-road Bike lane. Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 111, 119-135.
Ji, Y. J., Fan, Y. L., Ermagun, A., Cao, X. N., Wang, W., & Das, K. (2017). Public bicycle as a feeder mode to rail transit in China: The role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and bicycle theft experience [Article]. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(4), 308-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1253802
Kwan, M.-P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a geographic information system. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191-216.
Kwan, M.-P. (2004). GIS Methods in Time-Geographic Research: Geovisualization and Geocomputational Methods. Anthropology and Geography, 86(B(4)), 267-280.
Lenntrop, B. (1976). Paths in space-time environments. A time-geographic study of movement possibilities of individuals. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets Geografiska institutioner.
Mattson, J., & R., G. (2017). Bike Share in Fargo North Dakota: Keys to success and factors affecting ridership. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 174-182.
Miller, H. (1991). Modeling Accessibility Using Space-Time Prism Concepts Within Geographic Information Systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 287-301.
Neutens, T., Witlox, F., Weghe, N. V. D., & Maeyer, P. H. D. (2007). Space-time Opportunities for Mutiple agents: a constraint-based approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(10), 1061-1076.
Peet, R. (2005). 現代地理思想 (王志弘, 張華蓀, 宋郁玲, & 陳毅峰, Trans.; Vol. 1). 群學.
Schuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R. C., & van Hoeve, W. J. (2017). Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems [Article]. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(3), 992-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.029
Song, Y., Fan, Y., Li, X., & Ji, Y. (2017). Multidimensional visualization of transit smartcard data using space–time plots and data cubes. Transportation, 45(311-333).
Sui, D. (2012). Looking through Hägerstrand’s dual vistas: towards a unifying framework for time geography. Journal of Transport Geography, 23, 5-16.
Sun, L., Jin, J. G., Axhausen, K. W., Lee, D.-H., & Cebrian5, M. (2014). Quantifying long-term evolution of intra-urban spatial interactions. Interface(12).
Wang, K. L., Akar, G., & Chen, Y. J. (2018). Bike sharing differences among Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers: Lessons learnt from New York City's bike share [Article]. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 116, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.001
Wang, K. L., Qian, X. D., Fitch, D. T., Lee, Y., Malik, J., & Circella, G. (2023). What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings [Review]. Transport Reviews, 43(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.2015639
Widener, M., Farber, S., Neutens, T., & Horner, M. (2015). Spatio-temporal accessibility to supermarkets using public transit: an interaction potential approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography, 42, 72-83.
吳綱立. (2022). 建構綠色大眾運輸導向發展規劃模式來引導永續及緊湊的城市發展–以金門為例. 都市與計劃, 49(2), 219-262.
呂千慈, 鍾易詩, & 馮正民. (2018). 環境空間與站點數對公共自行車租借量之影響分析 [Investigating the Effect of Environmental Context and Number of Stations on Bike-Sharing Usage]. 運輸學刊, 30(2), 113-137. https://doi.org/10.6383/jcit.201809_30(2).0002
王安民. (2024). 臺北市公共自行車與大眾運輸系統之關聯性：追蹤資料之實證分析 [Relationship Between Public Bicycles and Mass Rapid Transit System in Taipei: An Empirical Analysis Using Panel Data]. 應用經濟論叢(116), 155-204. https://doi.org/10.7086/tjae.202412_(116).0004
羅先豪, 孔令傑, 王博群, & 李子璋. (2022). 公共自行車轉乘捷運架構下之大眾運輸導向發展概念調整 [Adjustments of Transit-Oriented Development Concepts under Popular Transport Mode Transfer between the Public Bicycle Sharing System and the Mass Rapid Transit System]. 都市與計劃, 49(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.6128/cp.202206_49(2).0003
邱華奕. (2024). 臺北市公共自行車系統升級後之使用特性與站點網絡效應分析 國立政治大學]. 臺灣臺北.
開奕臻. (2022). 探討天氣狀況對公共自行車使用的影響 國立成功大學]. 台灣台南.