The economic loss that comes from bike theft. Loss for both the individual bike owners and costs for the State for policing, deterrents, etc.

Traffic Density. If there are high rates of bike theft it could deter cyclists and increase the number of cars on the road.

In need of transportation in order to go to work, get a few groceries, or any various essential needs

Long distance to access public transportation and stealing a bike accommodates for that

observational data of missing bikes/bike parts

Getting to public transportation/the cost of transportation is expensive and individuals choose to steal to minimize cost

Community safety preventions/organizations. Informal Guardianship: "The number of spectators present who are capable of deterring crime" (Levy et al., 2018, p. 234)

Public Goods

• Bicycle theft does not produce a "public good" market failure because bicycles theft is both a rivalrous and exclusive action, and public goods are both non-rivalrous and non-exclusive. Bicycle theft is exclusive because it generally costs money to own a bike, and rivalrous because bike theft removes the ability of the victim to enjoy their bicycle--previously private property.
  
  

Monopolies

• Bicycle theft does not produce a monopolistic "market failure" because the act of increased theft is not likely to influence conditions for producers to make bikes at a lower cost. While bicycle theft may increase competition among local bike producers or sellers as consumers who were victims of bike theft replace their bikes, but is unlikely to otherwise limit competition for bike sales. In addition, after someone has a bicycle stolen there is likely no efficiency loss in the market. After a bike owner has his or her bike stolen, the demand for the bike likely remains elastic because biking itself can be substituted with walking, public transportation, or driving.

Information Symmetry:

• A market failure in the form of information asymmetry is likely to occur regarding bike theft due to the high variability in the amount of information individuals can access. Those who have access to the internet, cable television, and/or a smartphone will likely have access to information reporting increased bike thefts around town and may be deterred from bike ownership as a result, while those without such access may be limited in their knowledge of increased bike theft to personal experience. In addition, bike theft itself is severely underreported, which inhibits knowledge of the crime itself from spreading and produces information asymmetry. Victims of bicycle theft often believe "that the police are not interested in bicycle theft and cannot do anything about catching the offender and returning the stolen bicycle," and thus fail to report the theft--unless required to do so for insurance reasons. (Johnson, 2008 3–6). This trend hold true across the world, in 2000 a survey of 17 countries, including the United States, found that "on average only 56 percent of bicycle thefts were reported to the police." (Johnson, 2008 5).
• In addition, the manner in which the bike theft reports are quantified and understood influence public understanding of the severity of the crime of bike theft. Bike theft can be quantified in many ways, including by calculating the bike theft rate in particular areas. Factors such as the number of bikes in existence and the price range of the bikes stolen would help determine the consumption and use of bikes and bike theft rates. (Fano, 1997 p. 2). Additionally, unlocked or improperly locked bikes are more susceptible to theft, so identifying the context of each theft is important when characterizing the problem. (Fano, 1997 p. 2) Depending on whether the reporting includes contextual information like rate of bike theft, and how that rate is calculated--including existence of underlying factors like presence of locks on the bike--will influence public response to bike theft. For example, consumers may shy away from buying a bike because they have an exaggerated fear of their own bike being stolen, and producers of bike locks may capitalize on the reporting to target bike lock advertisements in areas where there was reporting on bike theft.

Externalities

Positive Externalities:

• If government responds to the theft with policies that promote better bike-locking practices, or if the bikes that are stolen remain within the community and are used as an alternative to driving, a positive consequence of increased bike theft may be decreased pollution. In fact, much urban planning is now aimed at promoting pedestrian and cycling infrastructure "in an attempt to promote sustainable urban futures that are not heavily reliant on the personal automobile." (Van Lierop, 2015, 490).
  
  

Negative Externalities:l

• In cities, the more people that own bikes, the more competition there is with other motorists and cyclists on roadways, especially surface streets. When cities respond through bike lanes, those who drive vehicles and cannot ride a bike--such as workers toting equipment or parents toting children--are forced to experience more traffic. When cities do not respond, safety-conscious bike riders may be forced from the streets to the sidewalks, and pedestrians are forced to experience greater traffic on sidewalks.
• One negative externality is the environmental damage caused by the commutes of former cyclists who become motorists after experiencing multiple bike thefts. (Harrison, 2012). While the cost to the environment of the pollution from a single motorists' car is not easily quantifiable in money terms, an unaccounted cost in bike theft is the pollution from vehicle usage that otherwise would not occur.
• Additionally, another negative externality is the loss of physical activity and accompanying damage to health experienced by victims of bike theft who are unable to replace their biking-related physical activities otherwise.