## 2 Literature Review
For example, authors [40] analyze the potential of bike-sharing bicycles in Nitra (5 th largest city in Slovakia) considering the possibilities as well as limitations in the city by extensive survey among 625 residents, where \"the lack of cycling paths\" was the most common reason for not using the bike-sharing system (25% of respondents). The potential of cycling in Slovakia is underestimated because of the lack of cycling infrastructure documentation [41]. The COVID-19 pandemic situation also had an impact on the development of the bike-sharing system. The authors [42] processed data from 2019 and 2020 and determined users' behavior change during this period. The operator or municipality should consider three important aspects: the identification of the objectives and setting indicators for their monitoring, the feasibility study, system type selection and policy setting, and the development of a business and financial plan. Objectives should reflect the maximal utilities, for example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced by motorized traffic (this one was primarily for the bike-sharing institute in Paris) [43] or improving access to public transport. After defining objectives, it is necessary to determine metrics for monitoring and comparing the system's performance year-on-year or with other cities. There are two metrics for efficiency and a credible optimizing system. First one, the average daily ride time with 1 bicycle reflects the usability of the bike-sharing service with a suitable interval between 4 and 8 rides. Less than 4 rides per day indicates financial unsustainability for the operator, which can be caused by either insufficient cycling infrastructure or an unnecessarily high number of bicycles. However, more than 8 rides per day indicate limited availability of the service and low credibility of the service. Then, the average daily number of rides per 1000 inhabitants describes the increase or decrease in service usage, and so the market penetration of the bike-sharing service. The value of the objective is not explicitly given, but one ride per 20-40 inhabitants is appropriate with the intention to increase its year-on-year [44; 45; 46; 47]. After defining objectives, the preparation of a feasibility study involves the choice of bike-sharing system type, the scope of the service, and the policy settings like method of rent, tariff, fines, etc. The study serves for the evaluation of the basic system requirements, potential investments, and revenue sources. Fundamentals of technical and territorial nature, like choosing the appropriate type of bicycle or the correct location of bike-sharing stations, must be considered for suitable locations of stations, capacity of stations, etc. Also, the identification of local contextual elements and potential barriers to implementation (for example, weather, topography, cycling infrastructure, culture, and the political and legal aspects of the city or state) needs to be considered for the suitability of a municipality for a bike sharing service. And finally, the business and financial plan represents the last aspect and includes the financial analysis of service development options. Studies that deal with planning include several approaches. A study that deals with strategic planning for the introduction of a shared bike system in Kosice. Authors [41] deal with strategic planning for the introduction of the bike-sharing service in Kosice (the 2 nd largest city in Slovakia). Optimal locations for bicycle stations were identified and evaluated using the proportional index method to ensure an objective assessment. Another study [48] provides a spatial framework for planning station-based bike-sharing systems, which may be useful in analyzing and planning such systems in small urban areas. The case study of the city of Salzburg (Austria) serves to illustrate a procedure involving the analysis of urban characteristics and estimating demand to design efficient bicycle station locations.