## 4 The Results
### Classification of the Infrastructure Assessment of Bike-Sharing System
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Mean** & **Median** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & **Skewness** & **Kurtosis** \\ \hline I1—Application–ease of use & 3.31 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.08 & \(-\)0.24 & \(-\)0.39 \\ \hline I2—Application–no errors hindering the & 3.05 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.04 & \(-\)0.14 & \(-\)0.26 \\ \hline I3—Application–no errors hindering payment for & 3.18 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.08 & \(-\)0.16 & \(-\)0.55 \\ \hline I4—Application–ability to check available bikes & 3.35 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.03 & \(-\)0.13 & \(-\)0.46 \\ \hline I5—Availability of bikes at stations & 3.35 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.00 & \(-\)0.07 & \(-\)0.25 \\ \hline I6—Network of bike paths & 2.90 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 0.97 & 0.14 & \(-\)0.12 \\ \hline I7—Density of bike rental locations & 2.99 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 0.94 & 0.08 & \(-\)0.12 \\ \hline I8—Quality of bike path surfaces & 3.11 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.06 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.38 \\ \hline I9—Technical condition of city bikes & 2.96 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.03 & 0.05 & \(-\)0.18 \\ \hline I10—Visual condition of bikes & 3.02 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 0.97 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.14 \\ \hline I11—Integration of bike transport with public & 3.07 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.13 & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.56 \\ \hline I12—Cost of using city bikes & 3.23 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.06 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)0.56 \\ \hline I13—Bike racks & 3.15 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.01 & \(-\)0.17 & \(-\)0.28 \\ \hline I14—Baskets for carrying shopping items & 3.14 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.15 & \(-\)0.15 & \(-\)0.63 \\ \hline I15—Different types of bikes available for rent & 3.01 & 3.00 & 1.00 & 5.00 & 1.25 & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.86 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Basic statistics for infrastructure to using bikes from bike-sharing systems. for 48% of the total variance in the dataset. Each factor corresponds to a unique dimension related to infrastructure evaluation, as confirmed by the factor loadings presented in Table 4. By employing normalised Varimax rotation, the analysis extracted factors that individually maximise explained variance while preserving orthogonality--meaning the factors remain statistically independent of each other. The first factor, which can be identified as the \"Technical and Operational Quality of the System\", encompasses variables that relate to the functionality and condition of the system (Figure 3). This factor includes items like the technical condition of city bikes, visual condition of bikes, and application ease of use. It also captures aspects related to the network of bike paths, availability of bikes at stations, and bike racks. The significant loadings for these variables suggest that users primarily associate the quality and condition of the bikes, infrastructure maintenance, and the overall technical performance of the system as key factors influencing their satisfaction. This factor represents the physical and operational reliability of the bike-sharing system, indicating how well the bikes' function and how effectively the system is maintained. The second factor, which can be identified as the \"Service Availability and User Convenience\", focuses more on the accessibility and user-friendliness of the bike-sharing system. Variables, such as application error-free rental process, availability of bikes at stations, integration of bike transport with public transport, and cost of using city bikes, weigh heavily on this factor. It reflects the users' perception of how convenient and accessible the system is in terms of finding bikes, navigating the rental process, and integrating with other modes of transport. This factor emphasises the ease of use, cost efficiency, and the broader accessibility of the system, indicating how well the system is designed to meet users' everyday transportation needs.