## 4 Results
### Research Survey  
The questionnaire was aimed only at users of the bike-sharing service in Z\(\check{l}\)ina. Participants listed their social status as students (62.1%), then employed (34.5%), when other options were unemployed or retired (3.4%). The first question, Q1 asked about the cyclist's infrastructure quality in Z\(\check{l}\)ina municipality. Almost half of the respondents (48%) considered the quality of cycle infrastructure below average and 42.1% of respondents considered it sufficient, 6.5% of respondents considered it insufficient, and only 3.4% of respondents considered the high quality of cycle infrastructure. In question Q2, respondents were asked to specify the most important factors in decisions about bike-sharing service usage. The question had pre-formulated answers, and there was a possibility of marking a maximum of four of them. Respondents marked on average three options, and results are shown in Figure 6 above. The most common factor was the \"Price for the service, including free ride time\", and the least marked answer was \"Possibility of using the electric bike\". Then, respondents were asked in question Q3 if the current distribution of bike-sharing stations is sufficient. More than 40% of respondents considered the bike-sharing station's placement as not sufficient, but on the other hand, 37% of respondents replied the opposite, and 23% could  
Figure 5: The coverage of the system of shared bicycles in Z\(\check{l}\)ina by spatial analysis. not assess and did not reply to this question. To make the decision easier, a map with the current location of the stations was also attached to this question. Also, when respondents were asked in question Q4 whether the number of bicycles is sufficient, while 55.9% of people replied that the extension of bicycles is needed, then approximately a fifth, 20.9%, think that the number is sufficient, and 23.2% of those surveyed were unable to form an opinion. The following questions were considered as most important for future proposals for the service extension. Respondents could express their own opinion about the municipality's districts, with the lack of bike-sharing stations in question Q5. Respondents' preferences are visualized in Figure 7 below, with notes about zones lacking the bike-sharing areas. Most respondents replied that districts Zavodie and Banova (zone A) should be the preferred localities for bike-sharing station extension. There is one bike-sharing station. However, it is situated on the very edge of this district, so it is not accessible to a large portion of people. Also, the same situation is in district Banova. The bike-sharing station is  
Figure 6: Graph showing responses to question Q2. Figure 7: Graph showing responses to question Q5. situated near the small shopping center in the industrial zone, while the residential area of this district is split by the river. District Budatin (zone D) is a suitable place for a new bike-sharing station because of its location near the recreational and sports potential of the area. Borik is marked as the fifth preference district for bike-sharing service extension. The next question, Q6, was aimed only at districts where the bike-sharing service is completely missing. Respondents who in the previous question selected areas covered with availability isochrone could also consider districts that are not so frequented by them. Zavodie district was selected again as the most preferred locality for bike-sharing station extension, as in Figure 8 below. Finally, respondents were asked to propose specific places in their area suitable for a new bike-sharing station in Q7. A total of 98 responses were collected for this question. The most requested location was the railway station, followed by a park situated in Borik district and then a park situated in Budatin district. Locations that were specified at least by street name or closer territorial affiliation were considered.