Content uploaded by Paul Plazier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Plazier on Oct 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Cycling was never so easy!” An analysis of e-bike commuters’
motives, travel behaviour and experiences using GPS-tracking
and interviews
Paul A. Plazier
Gerd Weitkamp
Agnes E. van den Berg
Department of Cultural Geography
University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Direct correspondence to: P.A. Plazier, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Department of Cultural
Geography, Landleven 1, 9747AD Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: P.A.Plazier@rug.nl
Journal of Transport Geography, published online October 12, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.09.017
Abstract
The market for electrically-assisted cycling is growing fast. When substituting motorized travel,
it could play an important role in the development of sustainable transport systems. This study
aimed to assess the potential of e-bikes for low-carbon commuting by analysing e-bike
commuters’ motives, travel behaviour and experiences. We GPS-tracked outdoor movements
of 24 e-bike users in the Netherlands for two weeks and used their mapped travel behaviour as
input for follow-up in-depth interviews. Most participants commuted by e-bike, alternated with
car use. E-bike use was highest in work-related, single-destination journeys. It gave participants
the benefits of conventional cycling over motorized transport (physical, outdoor activity) while
mitigating relative disadvantages (longer travel time, increased effort). The positive experience
of e-bike explained the tolerance for longer trip duration compared to other modes of
transportation. Participants were inclined to make detours in order to access more enjoyable
routes. Results demonstrate that e-bikes can substitute motorized commuting modes on
distances perceived to be too long to cover by regular bike, and stress the importance of positive
experience in e-bike commuting. This provides impetus for future actions to encourage
commuting by e-bike.
Key words: Electrically-assisted cycling, commuting, sustainable transport, active
transportation, mobility behaviour, route choice
1. Introduction
A major development in transportation in the past years has been the growth of electrically
assisted cycling or e-biking. Defined here as pedal-assisted or bicycle-style electric bicycles, e-
bikes make it possible to cover longer distances at higher speeds against reduced physical effort.
In many countries like Germany and the Netherlands, e-bikes account for a rapidly growing
share of new bikes sold (CONEBI 2016). Findings from previous studies suggest that e-bike
adoption can to some extent lead to substitution of trips formerly made using motorized
transportation (Jones et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2015). It thus appears a viable alternative to
commuting by automobile and public transportation. An increasing amount of research has
focused on e-biking, but less attention has been paid to e-bike use for commuting, and the extent
to which it can substitute motorized commuting. A better understanding of the mode choices
and their effects are needed to guide future actions to encourage functional e-bike use, in
attempts to further establish low-carbon commuting habits. This paper addresses these issues
by providing further insight into the potential for mode substitution.
The aim of this study was to assess the potential of e-bikes for sustainable commuting
by analysing e-bike commuters’ motives, travel behaviour and experiences. To accomplish this
aim, we GPS-tracked the daily travel behaviour of 24 e-bike commuters in the north of the
Netherlands and held follow-up in-depth interviews discussing their motives and experiences.
In the remainder of this paper, we first discuss prior research on e-bike use and the need for
comprehensive travel behaviour data as input for policy. We then present and discuss the
methods and results of the study.
1.1 Prior research on e-bikes
There is growing consensus that current levels of motorized transport negatively impact
environmental quality, quality of life, and accessibility to the extent of being unsustainable
(Kenworthy & Laube 1996; Steg & Gifford 2005). E-bikes, especially if they are of the pedal-
assisted type, provide a sustainable, healthy alternative for motorized transportation on
distances too long to cover by regular bike. As such, the e-bike has attracted a considerable
amount of research attention (Fishman & Cherry 2015; Rose 2012; Dill & Rose 2012;
MacArthur et al. 2014; Popovich et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2016). This research has mostly
focused on relative advantages and disadvantages of the e-bike compared to other modes of
transportation regarding aspects like health, comfort, safety, travel speed and travel distance
(Fishman & Cherry 2015).
As pointed out by Fishman & Cherry (2015) e-bike use is especially high in countries
with traditionally high levels of conventional cycling, such as most northern European
countries. In these countries, safety and infrastructural barriers to cycling have largely been
overcome, making it possible to utilize the full benefits of e-bikes. Research to date indicates
that e-bikes, as opposed to conventional bikes, permit bridging longer travel distances, reduce
travel times, mitigate physical effort, overcome geographical or meteorological barriers, and
facilitate cycling for elderly or physically impaired individuals (Dill & Rose 2012; Johnson &
Rose 2015; Jones et al. 2016; Popovich et al. 2014; Fyhri & Fearnley 2015; Lee et al. 2015;
MacArthur et al. 2014). However, there has been some concern for the effects of e-bikes on
safety, health and environment. Evidence so far shows that e-bike users are subject to slightly
higher risks of injury (Fishman & Cherry 2015). The likelihood of hospitalization is higher for
older or physically impaired victims. Contributing factors are heaviness of the e-bike, increased
speeds and cycling without protection. Yet, crashes are often one-sided (Schepers et al. 2014;
Vlakveld et al. 2015). The lower levels of physical activity compared to conventional cycling
have also caused concern for health. However, preliminary evidence suggests that assisted
cycling can still satisfy moderate-intensity standards and thus promote good health (Sperlich et
al. 2012; Simons et al. 2009; Gojanovic et al. 2011).
Finally, concerns have been raised regarding e-bike batteries. During the rapid uptake
of lead-acid powered e-bikes in China in the late-1990s and early 2000s, poorly regulated
production, disposal and recycling of lead batteries negatively affected environment and public
health (Cherry et al. 2009; Weinert et al. 2007). In recent years, the industry has shifted to the
use of Lithium-Ion batteries, which offer performance and environmental benefits over lead-
acid batteries (Fishman & Cherry 2015). In Europe, collection and recycling of batteries are
regulated in the “battery directive” adopted by the European Parliament in 2006 (EUR-Lex
2006). This directive prohibits disposal of batteries in landfills or by incineration, and states
that all collected batteries should be recycled.
Although e-bikes are increasingly popular, their contribution to sustainable transport
behaviour is still limited. In the Netherlands, e-bike use is especially high among older adults,
who predominantly use it for leisure purposes (KiM 2016, pp.17, 18). And despite findings that
e-bike trips can substitute trips by car and public transport, Kroesen (2017) suggests that e-bike
ownership to date mostly substitutes conventional bike use. Nonetheless, e-bikes hold growing
appeal to increasingly younger populations including students, commuters and parents, who
carry children and groceries or travel long distances on a day-to-day basis (Stichting BOVAG-
RAI Mobiliteit 2016; KiM 2016; Peine et al. 2016; Plazier et al. 2017). Considering the
disproportionate impacts of motorized commuting on congestion and environmental pollution,
transport officials are increasingly interested in the potential of e-bikes as a sustainable
alternative for motorized commuting. As yet, however, little is known about the opportunities
and barriers for commuting by e-bike.
1.2 Travel behaviour in research and policy
In general terms, sustainability in transport is related to balancing current and future economic,
social and environmental qualities of transport systems (Steg & Gifford 2005). In recent years,
research on sustainable transport behaviour has used insights from psychological theories to
provide practical guidelines for the development of personal travel campaigns, awareness
raising and promotion of alternative transport options (Heath & Gifford 2002; Bamberg et al.
2003; Groot & Steg 2007; Hiselius & Rosqvist 2016). These guidelines have to a large extent
relied on financial rewarding schemes and elements of gamification, which focus on individual
reasoned action in order to achieve major social change (Barr & Prillwitz 2014; Te
Brömmelstroet 2014). A major limitation of these approaches, however, is that they do not take
into account that a large part of people’s travel decisions are not deliberately made, but are
based on routines and activated by daily situational cues (Müggenburg et al. 2015). The
question remains to what extent sustainability in itself forms a motive to change travel
behaviours.
In recent years, mobility research has increasingly taken a perspective in which travel is
considered a routine activity shaped by a complex and ever-changing context, instead of the
result of individual decision making (Guell et al. 2012; Cass & Faulconbridge 2016;
Müggenburg et al. 2015). Within this approach, deliberate intentions, like concerns about
sustainability, have been accorded less importance, while social and structural contexts have
been argued to be significant shapers of individual travel behaviour.
However, while this more comprehensive approach to travel behaviour is gaining
importance in travel behaviour research, application to e-bike use is limited. Qualitative insights
on the subject are offered by Jones et al (2016), who consider e-bike users’ motives, experiences
and perceived changes in travel behaviour in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. They
found that motives for purchasing an e-bike were commonly related to a personal sense of
decline in physical ability, but emphasized that it was often the outcome of multiple reasons
including personal and household circumstances or critical events that led them to reflect on
lifestyle and travel behaviour.
The present study examines the habitual travel behaviour of e-bike users by combining
perceived and actual travel behaviour characteristics. In general, the value of combining these
data has widely been recognized in the social sciences (Driscoll et al. 2007) and mobility and
transport studies (Meijering & Weitkamp 2016; Grosvenor 1998; Clifton & Handy 2003). We
formulated three research questions: (1) What were motives for purchasing and starting to use
an e-bike? (2) Under what conditions can e-bikes substitute motorized commuting? (3) Which
role do travel experiences play in the daily commute by e-bike? The behaviour of this group
can provide important insights into the potential of the e-bike for commuting.
2. Method
2.1 Study area and participants
To study the commuting behaviour of e-bike users, we integrated two-week GPS data logs with
follow-up in-depth interviews. The GPS data from individual participants informed the
development of individual interview guides, whereas data retrieved from the interviews helped
to control and validate the recorded GPS data.
The study took place in the north-eastern part of the Netherlands around the city of
Groningen, at the intersection of the provinces of Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe (figure 1).
Groningen is the largest city in the north of the Netherlands, with a population of approximately
200.000. It attracts a considerable amount of daily commuter traffic from the surrounding
region. Around the city, most of the population lives in villages and small towns. The land
mostly consists of grass- and farmland, and has a flat topography. Like the rest of the
Netherlands, it has a temperate oceanic climate influenced by the North Sea, with average
temperatures in the coldest months above zero, but regular frost periods. Periods of extended
rainfall are common.
Twenty-four participants (12 men, 12 women), aged 25-65 years old (M=45 years, SD
=9.3) participated in the study. All participants lived and worked in the study area. Nineteen
participants commuted from their home village to the city of Groningen, two participants
commuted from an outer suburb to Groningen, and three participants commuted from village
to village in the area southwest of the city. Participants owned their own e-bike, and had been
using it regularly for a period ranging from a month up to four years at the time of the study.
Twenty-one participants owned a regular e-bike, which is the most common model in the
Netherlands, and legally defined as a bike propelled by user pedalling and assisted up to 25
km/h. Three participants owned a speed pedelec. This type of e-bike can potentially assist up
to 45 km/h (CROW-Fietsberaad 2015). All participants were regular cyclists, and most still
owned and used a conventional bike after e-bike adoption.
Figure 1 – E-bike commuting routes between participants’ home and work locations
We recruited participants through snowball sampling and with help of Groningen Bereikbaar,
the organization in charge of mobility management in the greater Groningen area. E-bike users
were asked by e-mail to participate in the study, which was approved by the ethics committee
of the Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen. Oral and written instructions were
provided before starting GPS tracking. All participants gave their written informed consent to
both methods prior to the study, and gave permission for their anonymized data to be used for
research purposes.
2.2 GPS tracking and analysis of GPS data
Tracking took place from November 2015 to April 2016. We asked participants to carry a GPS
tracking device for 14 days including week-ends, tracking all their outdoor movements. This
constituted a complete record of all travel movements and modes used in those two weeks.
QStarz Travel Recorder BT-Q1000XT devices were used. These were found to have relatively
high accuracy, good battery life and storage, and to be relatively easy-to-use (Schipperijn et al.
2014). Trackers were set to record GPS at a 10-second interval. 20 participants tracked for 14
days or more. On some of the days, travel behaviour was not recorded, as some participants had
forgotten to charge the battery or bring the tracker. One participant tracked 12 days, two 10
days and one 8 days.
After collection of the devices, V-Analytics CommonGIS was used to remove noise
from the GPS data and to define trajectories and destinations. The trajectories were categorized
by mode based on recorded speeds and visualized paths using ArcGIS. For each participant,
data were mapped in ArcGIS Online, which was discussed with the participants during the
interviews. The GPS data were validated and re-coded based on the interview-data, where
necessary. We distinguished seven types of destinations: work, personal, free time, shopping,
appointment, visiting, school (Krizek 2003, see table 1).
Table 1 – Overview of types of destinations
Trajectories were coded in trips (going from one place to another) and journeys (in other
literature also referred to as ‘tours’, e.g. Krizek, 2003) (figure 2). Journeys were formed by
round-trips (from home-to-home) and classified as either work-related or non-work-related.
They contained multiple trips and could contain multiple destinations. For instance, in figure 2,
journey A (work-related) contains 3 trips and 2 destinations (work and convenience shopping),
whereas journey B (non-work-related) contains 1 destination and 2 trips. Differentiating
between trips and journeys allowed analysing whether number and types of destinations in a
journey influenced mode choice and the likeliness to commute by e-bike.
Destination
Purpose
Work
Work locations
Personal
Getting a service done or completing a transaction, e.g. banking, fuel station
Free time
Non-task oriented activities, e.g. entertainment, dining, theater, sports, church, clubs
Shopping
Travel to buy concrete things, categorized here as convenience shopping (groceries) and
goods shopping (furniture, clothing, home supplies)
Appointment
Activities to be done at a particular place and time, e.g. doctor’s appointment, meeting
Visiting
Visit social contacts such as family, friends
School
Dropping off and picking up children for school (pre-school, elementary school)
Figure 2 –
Classification of trajectories in trips and journeys
2.3 Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured, and included the following topics: first, participants were
presented with the map of their travel behaviour during the days of tracking, and were given
the opportunity to reflect on their trips and destinations. The map was also used to check
whether modes had correctly been defined for each of the trajectories. The interviewer then
asked questions about the participant’s travel behaviour prior to e-bike adoption and reasons
for buying an e-bike. Next, the interview zoomed in on the commuting route to work using the
map and additional Google Streetview imagery. Finally, several aspects of e-bike use including
safety, reliability, comfort and commuting experience were discussed.
The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. They were then coded in
Atlas.ti using a grounded theory approach (Hennink et al. 2011, p.208). An interview guide was
designed before the interviews with the aim of ensuring complete and consistent coverage in
each interview of themes under study. A first round of deductive coding served to organize the
interview transcripts according to these themes. We then inductively coded the issues emerging
directly from the data. The resulting codebook was expanded and refined throughout the coding
process. Relevant citations were translated from Dutch to English by the authors. To preserve
confidentiality, all participants were referred to by their participant numbers.
3. Results
We first discuss participants’ motivations for e-bike adoption. Then, the recorded travel
behaviour is discussed. Finally, we consider participants’ day-to-day mode choice and
commuting experiences.
3.1 Motives for e-bike adoption
The interviews revealed that, before purchasing an e-bike, 19 participants mostly commuted by
car, 3 by bike and 2 by bus. To car and bus users, conventional cycling had never been a serious
alternative to their present commute: only three of them cycled to work sporadically, using it
as a last mile mode of transport, or in case of good weather:
“I was the typical ‘nice-weather cyclist’. I would only bike to work if there wasn’t any wind
and if it was dry” [participant 11, aged 55, 7 km commute]
Most participants had rarely questioned their routines:
“It was a habit… My car is parked right outside my house, so in the morning, I’d just jump in.
No hassle, no schedules, good parking at work… It was just so convenient” [participant 23,
aged 50, 11 km commute]
To those using motorized transportation, regular cycling to work would have meant a dramatic
increase in travel time relative to their habitual commute to work, or excessive physical exercise
causing them to arrive sweaty and tired. Despite these practical barriers to more active
commuting, many participants (n=13) mentioned feeling uncomfortable with their prevailing
commuting patterns, and buying an e-bike came from a longer held desire to change this
behaviour. For the large majority (n=20), reconsideration of commuting habits followed work-
related changes (changing jobs, moving work locations) or changes in the home environment
(moving, having children, children growing older). Some mentioned participating in a pilot, or
simply being offered a subsidy for a new bike.
“Both my children started high school this year, and they go there by bike. Well, I want to bike
too! But I don’t want to arrive here all warm and sweaty. So that’s when it came to me”
[participant 4, aged 40, 10 km commute]
“We wanted to get out of that car, so the will was already there. Then, we were offered a bike
subsidy, and we decided to do it” [participant 9, aged 35, 16 km commute]
To all participants in this study, commuting was the prime motive for purchasing an e-bike, and
few indicated the intention to use it for other purposes. Asked to what extent environmental
issues played part in the choice to adopt an e-bike, only one participant stated this to be a driver
behind the decision to purchase. The others saw it mostly as a fortunate coincidence:
“To be honest.. I just need to get to work on time (laughs). And it’s not like I ride my e-bike in
order to not take the car, you know, for environmental reasons. It is a nice coincidence, but it
was never decisive” [participant 17, aged 54, 18 km commute]
“Well.. not so much. It is sustainable in the sense that I use my car less. But I don’t think ‘wow,
that’s neat, I saved the environment!’ More like, ‘wow, that’s neat, I saved on gas’ (laughs). If
you ask me, was the environment a motive, I say no” [participant 2, aged 46, 8 km commute]
Rather than environmental issues, participants mentioned health (n=8) as one of the important
reasons to buy an e-bike:
“I thought, coming to work 4-days a week by bus, I don’t get enough exercise. And 50-year old
women like me need to start worrying about their Vitamin D levels!” [participant 16, aged 50,
18 km commute]
“At some point I noticed that, every time the weather was bad, or with a little wind, I would
take the car (..) But I suffer a type of rheumatism. And they told me it’s best to keep exercising
regularly, so cycling is really important (..) That’s when I decided to buy one” [participant 24,
aged 25, 13 km commute]
Most participants mentioned the high prices as a consideration in the decision to buy an e-bike,
but this had not deterred them from purchasing one. Instead, some had chosen a simpler e-bike
design that was less expensive. Others in turn found out they were eligible to employer
compensation, or argued buying an e-bike substituted the purchase of a second car or allowed
to save on gas or transit fares.
3.2 Two-week travel behaviour
A total of 1090 single-destination trips (going from one place to another) were recorded
constituting 443 round-trip (home-to-home) journeys. In this section, we first discuss
characteristics of trips, followed by home-to-home journeys. We complement GPS data results
with interview data when considered relevant.
3.2.1 Trips
Out of the 1090 trips, more than one-third (34.5%) were made by e-bike (see table 2). E-bike
use even accounted for the majority of the 250 trips to and from work (n=134, 53.6%). E-bike
use was also relatively high for the 21 trips to and from school (n=29, 50%), which, according
to the participants, were often combined with commuting. Car use (47.5% of the total number
of trips) was the main alternative to e-biking for most destinations. The car was even preferred
over the e-bike and other modes when spending free-time (63.3%), going shopping (55.9%)
and visiting friends and family (83.3%). Active and public transport use was generally low, and
conventional bike use was most frequent when shopping. Participants mentioned the habit of
running errands by conventional bike, and did not consider e-bike use worthwhile for this
purpose.
“It’s a small village, and everything is so accessible. So for runs to the [grocery store], I use
my normal bike” [Participant 10, aged 57, 11 km commute]
Table 2 – Frequencies of trips by mode and purpose
Purpose
Car
E-bike
Walk
Bike
Bus
Train
Other
Total
Work
80
134
15
1
13
5
2
250 (22.9%)
Personal
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
14 (1.3%)
Free time
81
24
15
5
1
3
0
128 (11.7%)
Convenience shop
51
12
14
17
1
0
0
95 (8.7%)
Goods shopping
20
5
1
5
0
1
0
32 (2.9%)
Appointment
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
10 (0.9%)
Visit
65
10
6
2
1
1
2
87 (8.0%)
School
21
29
1
7
0
0
0
58 (5.3%)
Home
190
148
33
29
9
5
2
416 (38.2%)
Total
518 (47.5%)
376 (34.5%)
85 (7.8%)
66 (6.0%)
25 (2.3%)
14 (1.3%)
6 (0.6%)
1090 (100%)
Of the 1090 trips, 305 were commuting trips. This includes trips from home to work and work
to home. Of these commuting trips, 63.3% were done by e-bike, followed by car (28.2%) and
bus (6.2%) (table 3). Comparison of average commuting distances shows that e-bike trips to
work covered an average of 14.1 kilometres. Longer commuting distances were covered by bus,
car, train and motorbike respectively. While e-bike commutes were shortest in distance, they
took longer (M=46 minutes) than commutes by car (M=29.7 minutes), and about equally long
as commutes by bus (M=46.6 minutes). This suggests that equal or longer travel times did not
deter participants from using an e-bike instead of car or bus.
Table 3 – Numbers of commuting trips with average distance and duration by mode
Mode
N (%)
Km (SD)
Min (SD)
Car
86 (28.2%)
24.0 (30.1)
29.7 (19.0)
E-bike
193 (63.3%)
14.1 (5.5)
46 (13.5)
Walk
0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
Bike
0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
Bus
19(6.2%)
20.5 (3.5)
46.6 (8.6)
Train
5 (1.6%)
197.4 (12.3)
148.2 (13.0)
Motor
2 (0.7%)
25.9 (0.2)
34.6 (4.3)
Total
305 (100%)
-
-
3.2.2 Journeys
In addition to trips (single trajectories going from one place to another) we also analysed the
distribution of journeys (round-trips from home-to-home). These journeys were classified as
work-related (i.e. including a work destination) or non-work related. Table 4 shows that the
majority of work-related journeys with work as the single destination were made by e-bike
(72.6%), followed by car (20%), bus (6%) and train (2%). When the journey had to be combined
with other destinations, the distinction was less clear, and car use was about as high (43.9%) as
e-bike use (45.1%). E-bike use was generally lower in the non-work-related journeys. Here, car
use was common on longer distances, and walking and cycling were frequent on shorter
distances. For both work and non-work related journeys, the travel distance was generally
higher for multiple destination-journeys (e.g. grocery shopping or picking up kids after work)
than for single destination journeys. For example, work-related journeys done by car were
almost 30 kilometres longer if multiple destinations were included. In the case of e-bike use,
work-related journeys were more than 7 kilometres longer on average. An average of 1.8
additional destinations were reached by e-bike on work-related journeys, whereas by car an
average of 2.1 destinations per journey were reached in addition to work. Thus work-related
car journeys included more additional destinations than work-related e-bike journeys.
Additional destinations in work-related car journeys were also more often work destinations
than additional destinations in e-bike journeys. This was supported by participants’ statements
that they were more likely to commute by car if they had to reach multiple work destinations
throughout the day. We further discuss this in the next section.
Table 4 – Count and average distance of work and non-work journeys, categorized by
destination
Work-related journeys
Non-work-related journeys
Single destination
Multiple destination
Single destination
Multiple-destination
Mode
N (%)
KM (SD)
N (%)
KM (SD)
N (%)
KM (SD)
N (%)
KM (SD)
Car
23 (19.6%)
39.5 (33.6)
36 (43.9%)
69.8 (96.8)
92 (52.0%)
30.5 (51.8)
44 (68.8%)
38.2 (46.0)
E-bike
85 72.6%)
26.4 (11.6)
37 (45.1%)
33.1 (12.4)
23 (13.0%)
7.7 (8.6)
13 (20.3%)
9.6 (7.8)
Walk
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (-)
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (-)
34 (19.2%)
3.1 (2.8)
1 (1.6%)
2.4 (-)
Bike
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (-)
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (-)
24 (13.6%)
2.9 (4.3)
5 (7.8%)
2.9 (1.3)
Bus
7 (6.0%)
32.2 (11.9)
6 (7.3%)
48.5 (18.2)
1 (0.6%)
31.7
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (-)
Train
2 (1.7%)
405.1 (8.3)
3 (3.7%)
336.8 (179.2)
2 (1.1%)
358.9 (235.2)
1 (1.6%)
439.2 (-)
Motor
0 (0.0%)
0.0 (0.0)
1 (1.2%)
463.5 (-)
1 (0.6%)
2.7 (0.0)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
Total
117 (100%)
-
82 (100%)
-
177 (100%)
-
64 (100%)
-
3.3 Commuting mode choice and experiences
In the interviews, which were supported by the individual route maps created from GPS data,
participants were also asked about their daily mode choice and experiences on the road. GPS
tracking revealed that e-bike use was mostly alternated with car use. Two important factors
were discerned: participants’ daily agenda’s, and the weather. Seventeen participants explicitly
stated to choose modes according to their day planning. Some referred to the e-bike’s limited
battery range:
“I went to work in the morning, and then had a conference meeting in the afternoon. I would
have loved to do that by e-bike, but it’s just not doable given my bike’s battery life” [participant
1, aged 61, 9 km commute].
For others, car use followed from the need to combine activities in limited amounts of time:
“I also work at [location], all the way on the other side of town (..) It just takes too much time
[by e-bike], so I’ll take the car” [participant 2, 46, 8 km commute]
“Yesterday, we had open day here at [work], so I needed to stay over in the evening. But I
prefer to go home to have dinner, so I knew I had a tight schedule, because I only have 45
minutes to go back and forth. So I took the car” [participant 4, aged 40, 10 km commute]
Participants stated preferring the car over the e-bike when work locations were further away,
when combining destinations, or when picking up or dropping off children at various activities.
This is consistent with the GPS data, which showed an increase in car use on journeys with
multiple destinations (table 4).
Another factor was the weather. To a majority, rain was a major influence (n=18). While
participants did not mind a bit of rain, heavy showers triggered higher levels of car use. Six of
them stated rain to be an influence more on the way to work than on the way back.
“I check the weather in the morning, and if rain is predicted for the entire trip to work I just
take the car (..) But getting home wet, it doesn’t really matter. I can change clothes at home
and that’s it” [participant 12, 47, 16 km commute]
Potential exposure to rain meant more carefully planning the trip to work. Most mentioned
minor alterations to their commute routine: the night before, participants checked weather apps,
and eventually prepared rain-clothing. However, wind influence seemed to have lost its
significance. Before they owned an e-bike, wind formed a major factor in participants’
commute through the open landscape, and mitigation of its influence was mentioned as the
greatest asset of the e-bike. This made it easier to choose cycling over driving.
To six participants, weather circumstances did not influence their commutes anymore
after adopting an e-bike. Some even mentioned the satisfaction of going out in bad weather:
“Rain, or thunder, I don’t care, I love it. I put my rain suit on, I don’t let the weather stop me.
(..) I don’t know, I think I just like braving the elements a bit” [participant 1, 61, 9 km commute]
Despite variations in levels of use due to weather and day planning, the e-bike was
overall considered to be the standard commuting mode. Asked what motivated them to use the
e-bike on a regular basis, participants accorded little attention to classic mode choice influences
like speed (n=3) or directness of the route (n=3). Rather, they mentioned being outside (n=16),
physical exercise (n=12) and freedom or independence from carpooling or public transit
schedules (n=10) as the main reasons for daily e-bike travel. In addition, the commute by e-
bike allowed mentally preparing for the day ahead or disconnecting from work (n=8). In the
words of one participant, e-bike use meant a re-valuation of his commuting time:
“I consider driving to work a waste of time. Really, it’s useless. I don’t see cycling and being
outside as a waste of time” [participant 2, 46, 8 km commute]
The GPS-data showed that commutes by e-bike took about as long as commutes by bus,
and longer than commutes by car, but this did not deter participants from commuting by e-bike.
In fact, when asked, sixteen participants mentioned they would be willing to extend their
commuting time if that meant they would still be able to travel by e-bike. Their maximum
acceptable extra commuting time by e-bike was 19 minutes on average (SD=7.3) on top of their
recorded 38 minutes on average (SD=11.6). Finally, in the interviews, participants were also
asked about their day-to-day route choice and experience using the e-bike. Two participants
had only one route to work, but the remainder had several alternative commuting routes and
showed variations in their trajectories. Again, speed (n=9) and directness (n=6) of a route were
of lesser interest. Most mentioned the beautiful surroundings of the route (n=16), the fact that
it ran through nature or green areas (n=12), and the tranquillity of the commute (n=11).
Alternative routes were sometimes used as they were faster (n=8), considered safer (e.g. during
early morning or night-time commutes, n=4) or preferable depending on the weather (n=3). For
others, the available alternative routes were simply too long (n=10), unpleasant (n=10) or
crowded with other cyclists or motorized traffic (n=10).
Route choice considerations can be illustrated by the route choice of participant 8 [aged
44, 15 km commute]. GPS tracking revealed he had two routes to work (figure 3). Route A
consisted of a section of shared, rural road, and a section of concrete bike path. Route B
consisted of a separate bike path running between his hometown and the border of the city,
where it would connect to the urban bike infrastructure network. In recent years, route B had
been upgraded in response to growing bike traffic to and from the city: the path was widened,
flattened, and had priority over all roads crossing the path, permitting a continuous commute to
the city. Despite this, and the slightly shorter and faster commute, he mostly refrained from
using route B and preferred route A:
“[Route A] is a fantastic route, I take it practically every day. It is way more fun, straight
through nature, no other roads, no traffic (..) It would be a bit shorter going through [route B].
But it’s insignificant, I prefer to take the scenic route (..) It is more inviting, it incentivizes to
take the e-bike”
Figure 3 – Route options and characteristics of participant 8
“On [Route B] you cycle next to the road all the way. There’s the bike path, two meters in
between, and then the road, where the speed limit is 80, 90 [km/h]. (..) It’s not very nice. And I
think it’s quite dangerous. The separation between bikes and cars is minimal. (..) Also the bike
path is a bit lower than the road, you’re blinded by the lights (..) It was upgraded a couple of
years ago, and the path itself is fine. But to me it is a functional route, for if the weather is bad”
This was echoed by 6 other participants, who all had dedicated, upgraded bike paths and
alternative routes available to them. They preferred the alternatives where they would enjoy
their surroundings less bothered by motorized traffic or crowds of cyclists.
“The shortest route goes along the main road, all the way. You constantly have the noise of
cars next to you. I’ll take it if the weather’s bad, if I’m in a hurry, or in case of headwind (..)
but if circumstances are good, I’ll take the longer route, the nicer one” [participant 4, aged 40,
10 km commute].
For those with no (realistic) alternatives, however, the combination of speed and directness was
a joy in itself:
“It’s a long stretch, and I look forward to that part now. I bike out of the city, and think, finally!
I turn my music a little louder, and then just go. I have to refrain myself from singing out loud
on that part” [participant 15, aged 33, 15 km commute]
Finally, participants mentioned the difference between assisted cycling in and outside the city
was a major influence on cycling experience. Overall, they felt they got less advantage of the
e-bike in the city due to the increase in traffic, traffic lights and complex traffic situations, which
led to loss of momentum and interrupted flow.
“My speed is a constant 26 [km/h] (..) but that changes the moment I arrive in the city. There
are schools, a shopping mall, I need to take into account other traffic (..) children crossing,
crosswalks..” [participant 20, aged 51, 13 km commute]
In the city, safety issues arose due to difference in relative speeds and lacking of judgement of
e-bike speed by other road users. Most acted on this by reducing speed or turning off the
assistance altogether. The urban environment led to new tactics for finding the shortest route
and avoiding traffic or traffic lights. Participant 17 mentioned regularly altering her route
through the city (figure 3):
“As you can see, I’m still kind of figuring out the best way of making it through [that
neighborhood] without joining the major roads too quickly. I basically try to postpone using
the main road as long as I can, because that really slows me down. I reduce the assistance. (..)
I really have to adjust to the other traffic there” [participant 17, aged 54, 18 km commute]
Participants mentioned lower speeds and increased number of stops in urban areas as a
drawback to their commute. The loss of momentum and interrupted flow, caused by the higher
number of stops on urban sections of the commute, was also revealed through additional
analysis of GPS data. On urban sections of their commute, participants had an average of 7.3
measured stops (recorded GPS points with speed under 5 km/h), as opposed to 4.2 stops per
commute on rural sections of the route. Despite the downsides of cycling in the city, participants
from time to time also enjoyed being exposed to city life. As participant 1 put it, he’d rather
experience the city from his bike than from inside his “car bubble”.
Figure 4 – Route choice of participant 17
4. Discussion
This study evaluated the potential of e-bike commuting by analyzing e-bike commuters’
motives, travel behaviour and experiences using GPS tracking and in-depth interviews. We had
three main questions: (1) What were motives for purchasing and starting to use an e-bike? (2)
Under what conditions can e-bikes substitute motorized commuting? (3) Which role do travel
experiences play in the daily commute by e-bike?
The majority of participants adopted an e-bike following changes in the work or home
environment. These changes prompted participants to reconsider prevailing commuting habits.
Sustainability was not found to be a key driver, but rather health was mentioned as an important
motive for adoption and daily use. GPS tracking revealed that e-bike use accounted for the
majority of recorded commuting trips, and competed mostly with car use. E-bike use was lower
when more activities were combined and in non-work-related journeys, in which car use,
conventional cycling and walking were more common. The findings provide little support for
substitution of conventional cycling by e-biking. E-bike commutes mostly substituted use of
car and bus in the old situation, and participants indicated shorter trips were still made by
conventional bike. E-bike commutes took about twice as long as car commutes and about as
long as bus commutes, although they covered shorter distances. Participants stated that
commuting by e-bike gave them benefits of conventional cycling compared to motorized
transport (enjoyment of outdoor, physical activity; independency) while mitigating its relative
disadvantages (longer travel time; increased effort). Daily schedules and weather conditions
were possible impediments, although electric assistance negated wind influence. Participants
generally preferred enjoyable and quiet routes over faster and more direct ones. Cycling
experience outside the city (enjoying the surroundings, maximizing e-bike speed) was different
from within the city, where traffic density, multiple forced stops and complex situations made
that assistance was not fully utilized. In general, the findings provide support for the idea that
e-bikes can be effective in replacing motorized transport for the purpose of commuting, and
emphasizes the role of positive experience in e-bike commuting.
The finding that e-bike adoption mostly followed a key event corroborates earlier
studies. Chatterjee et al. (2013) showed that events such as changes in employment,
relationships, health, children or residence can trigger a turning point, such as starting cycling
or changing cycling behaviour (in our case, the decision to buy an e-bike for purpose of
commuting). The probability that a life event triggers actual change is mediated by factors such
as personal history (our case: participants being accustomed to bike use, due to experiences in
earlier life stages), intrinsic motivators (our case: health) and existing facilitating conditions in
the external environment (our case: quality infrastructure, or employer benefits) (Chatterjee et
al. 2013; Clark et al. 2014). Our results also comply with earlier studies that found e-bikes to
be highly suitable for distances too long to cover by regular bike (Astegiano et al. 2015; Jones
et al. 2016). Average e-bike distances for both total trips (9,7 km) and commuting trips (14,1
km) in the current study surpassed distances measured in the Dutch national travel survey. Here,
e-bike trips averaged 5,5 kilometres, although differences were found between age categories
(KiM 2015, p.22). The discrepancy between the two studies is a possible consequence of our
small study sample and the relative low population densities of the study area, where as a result,
distances between destinations are higher than in more urbanized areas in the Netherlands.
Indeed, average travel distances per person per day in the provinces of Drenthe (>37 km) and
Friesland (34-37 km), where the majority of the participants reside, are higher than the national
average of 32 km per day. Residents of the province of Groningen in turn travel distances more
in line with the national average (CBS 2016, pp.19, 20, 21). The lower e-bike use in journeys
with more destinations contradict previous statements that users might reach a larger diversity
of destinations by adopting an e-bike (Astegiano et al. 2015). Claims that elevated speed of the
e-bike permits competition with rush hour driving and local public transport (Fyhri & Fearnley
2015) are, however, partly confirmed. While the average duration of recorded car commutes
was considerably shorter than e-bike commutes, average duration of recorded bus commutes
was similar to e-bike commutes. More importantly however than being faster than car or bus,
electrically assisted biking was considered a realistic alternative. This is related to previous
findings that suggested that for e-bike commuters, like e-bike users in general, being faster is
less important than being able to travel for longer distances (Lee et al. 2015). Covering the
distance and thereby including physical activity, being outside, enjoying the route and being
independent proved of higher value to e-bike commuters than being faster. This relates to the
positive utility for travel as described by Mokhtarian et al (2001). More than just being utile for
simply arriving at a destination, traveling by e-bike has intrinsic utility for the participants (e.g.
exposure to environment, breathing fresh air) and utility for activities that can be conducted
while riding (mentally preparing for the day ahead, or clearing the mind), resulting in longer
commuting durations than strictly necessary. These findings stress the importance of
considering quality aspects of the commute alongside conventional factors such as mode speed
and travel time when studying travel behaviour. Furthermore, e-bikes seem to change the way
cyclists ride (MacArthur et al. 2014, p.126). Assisted cycling gave participants options to
choose enjoyable routes over faster and more direct ones. However, assisted cycling in rural
and urban environments was experienced differently, as the latter was often considered less safe
or enjoyable. These results highlight the importance of travel experience in e-bike commuting,
both in the day-to-day mode choice and in route choice. They also suggest electrical assistance
might serve different purposes in different contexts: in lower-density peri-urban and rural areas,
assistance might be valued for enabling continuous commuting at high average speeds, and
increasing cycling range. In dense urban areas, cycling flow is more likely to be interrupted,
and assistance might instead be valued for supporting acceleration in the numerous stop-and-
go situations.
A methodological strength of our research is that it combined objective measurement
through GPS and subjective insights from in-depth interviews. By complementing and
contrasting results, new insights were generated. However, we identify some limitations. We
stress the probability of self-selection of participants. Therefore, results may not be
representative of the broader population. Another potential limitation is that the research was
conducted in the winter and early spring period, which may not be representative for other parts
of the year. However, the weather in the study period was generally very mild, with the
exception of one week of snow and frosting right after Christmas-break which delayed GPS
tracking for some participants. Most participants acknowledged that their e-bike use would
probably have been higher had their behaviour been recorded later in the spring or in summer.
However, all indicated that recorded behaviour was approximately representative for their
behaviour at that time of the year. Other limitations concern GPS tracking. Despite objective
measurement enabled by GPS tracking, incorrect operation of trackers led to some inaccuracy
in the data. Also, inclusion of both regular e-bikes and speed pedelecs in the study might affect
results, although only three participants used a speed pedelecs. Furthermore, we were not able
to track participants travel behaviour before e-bike adoption. We could therefore not make a
quantitative assessment of mode use change. Finally, a limitation of this study concerns
representativeness for other countries. High levels of cycling are already in place in the
Netherlands. Compact urban areas, relatively low travel distances, the quality of cycling
infrastructure, the cycling culture in place and the flat topography in the study area make that
the findings may not apply to contexts.
Future research should study e-bike use with larger and more representative samples in
order to address self-selection issues. Better insights in the relationship between e-bike use and
diverse weather and climate circumstances can be generated by tracking e-bike users in
different seasons and different climate zones. To generate more accurate and consistent
datasets, errors in GPS data collection will have to be addressed. Also, future studies should be
sensitive to the differences between types of e-bikes, and take into account the increasingly
popular speed pedelecs which support cycling at even higher speeds. Changes in travel
behaviour could be objectively monitored by tracking participants prior to and after e-bike
adoption. Finally, more insight in the potential of e-bike use for commuting is needed from
other geographical contexts, including areas with less bicycle infrastructure, lower
acquaintance with cycling in general, and different climatic circumstances and topography.
Further research could address a broader scope than commuting alone. An example could be to
study e-bikes’ possible contribution to mobility in low-density rural areas, to compensate
declining public transport provision and increase access to amenities.
Results imply that e-bikes can provide a good alternative to the use of car and public
transportation. This supports future efforts directed at getting car and public transport
commuters to use an e-bike. The growing appeal of e-bike commuting can lead to further
acceptance of the e-bike as a functional mode of transport by populations of more diverse ages.
Wider promotion of e-bikes for commuting, together with financial incentives from for instance
employers, could contribute to growth in e-bike use for this purpose. Finally, actual and future
development of fine-grained, appealing, high capacity bicycle infrastructure networks can
further improve e-bikes’ competitiveness with car and public transport, and take additional
advantage of the valuation of travel time. The important role of positive experiences in
commuting by e-bike suggests that this factor should be explicitly taken into account in future
actions in transport research, policy, and environmental design domains.
5. Conclusion
Electrically assisted cycling or e-biking manifests itself as an appealing alternative to motorized
commuting for those for which conventional cycling is not a realistic option. Its direct
competition with car use means that efforts to increase e-bike use should be directed at car
commuters. While e-bike commuting might not always be the faster option, enabling an
appealing e-bike ride to work can mitigate the role of increased travel time in commuting. High
levels of conventional cycling are already in place in the study area, but there is still much to
be gained. The findings suggests that health and enjoyment can make a significant contribution
to realizing sustainable travel behaviour. Promoting health and enjoyment of e-biking can
support the development of sustainable transport systems that support active and healthy
lifestyles.
References
Astegiano, P., Tampère, C.M.J. & Beckx, C., 2015. A Preliminary Analysis Over the Factors
Related with the Possession of an Electric Bike. Transportation Research Procedia,
10(July), pp.393–402. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352146515002768.
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I. & Schmidt, P., 2003. Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned
behaviour: The roles of past behaviour, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and applied
social psychology, 25(3), pp.175–187. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_01.
Barr, S. & Prillwitz, J., 2014. A smarter choice? exploring the behaviour change agenda for
environmentally sustainable mobility. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 32(1), pp.1–19.
Te Brömmelstroet, M., 2014. Sometimes you want people to make the right choices for the
right reasons: potential perversity and jeopardy of behavioural change campaigns in the
mobility domain. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, pp.141–144. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0966692314001495.
Cass, N. & Faulconbridge, J., 2016. Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from
theories of social practice. Transport Policy, 45, pp.1–14. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.08.002.
CBS, 2016. Transport en mobiliteit 2016,
Chatterjee, K., Sherwin, H. & Jain, J., 2013. Triggers for changes in cycling: The role of life
events and modifications to the external environment. Journal of Transport Geography,
30, pp.183–193. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.02.007.
Cherry, C.R., Weinert, J.X. & Xinmiao, Y., 2009. Comparative environmental impacts of
electric bikes in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
14(5), pp.281–290. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1361920908001387.
Clark, B. et al., 2014. Examining the relationship between life transitions and travel be-
haviour change: New insights from the UK household longitudinal study. In 46th
Universities’ Transport Studies Group Conference, Newcastje University, 6-8 January
2014. pp. 6–8. Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/22312/.
Clifton, K.J. & Handy, S.L., 2003. Qualitative Methods in Travel Behaviour Research.
Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, pp.283–302.
CONEBI, 2016. European Bicycle Market 2016 Edition - Industry & market profile, Brussels.
Available at: http://www.conebi.eu/?page_id=154.
CROW-Fietsberaad, 2015. Official: the speed pedelec is a moped. Available at:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?section=nieuws&lang=nl&mode=newsArticle&rep
ository=Official:+the+speed-pedelec+is+a+moped [Accessed November 12, 2015].
Dill, J. & Rose, G., 2012. Electric Bikes and Transportation Policy - Insights from early
adopters. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2314(15), pp.1–6. Available at:
http://trb.metapress.com/index/950266G1385T0386.pdf%5Cnhttp://trb.metapress.com/o
penurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3141/2314-01.
Driscoll, D.L., Salib, P. & Rupert, D.J., 2007. Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in
Mixed Methods Research : How To and Why Not. Ecological and Environmental
Anthropology, 3(1), pp.18–28.
EUR-Lex, 2006. Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6
September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators
and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC,
Fishman, E. & Cherry, C., 2015. E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of
Research. Transport Reviews, (July 2015), pp.1–20. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907.
Fyhri, A. & Fearnley, N., 2015. Effects of e-bikes on bicycle use and mode share.
Transportation Research Part D, 36, pp.45–52. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.005.
Gojanovic, B. et al., 2011. Electric Bicycles as a New Active Transportation Modality to
Promote Health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(11), pp.2204–2210.
Groot, J. De & Steg, L., 2007. General beliefs and the theory of planned behaviour: The role
of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp.1817–
1836. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00239.x/full.
Grosvenor, T., 1998. Qualitative Research in the Transport Sector. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec008/workshop_k.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb
.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec008/workshop_k.pdf.
Guell, C. et al., 2012. Towards a differentiated understanding of active travel behaviour:
Using social theory to explore everyday commuting. Social Science and Medicine, 75(1),
pp.233–239. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.038.
Heath, Y. & Gifford, R., 2002. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: Predicting the use
of public transportation1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), pp.2154–2189.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2002.tb02068.x/full.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I. & Bailey, A., 2011. Qualitative research methods, London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Hiselius, L.W. & Rosqvist, L.S., 2016. Mobility Management campaigns as part of the
transition towards changing social norms on sustainable travel behaviour. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 123, pp.34–41. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.055.
Johnson, M. & Rose, G., 2015. Extending life on the bike: Electric bike use by older
Australians. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(2), pp.276–283. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214140515000109.
Jones, T., Harms, L. & Heinen, E., 2016. Motives, perceptions and experiences of electric
bicycle owners and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. Journal of Transport
Geography, 53, pp.41–49. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0966692316301934.
Kenworthy, J.R. & Laube, F.B., 1996. Automobile dependence in cities: An international
comparison of urban transport and land use patterns with implications for sustainability.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(96), pp.279–308.
KiM, 2015. Mobiliteitsbeeld 2015, Den Haag: Kennisinstituut voor het Mobiliteitsbeleid.
KiM, 2016. Mobiliteitsbeeld 2016 Kennisinstituut voor het Mobiliteitsbeleid, ed., Den Haag:
Kennisinstituut voor het Mobiliteitsbeleid.
Krizek, K.J., 2003. Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel.
Transportation, 30, pp.387–410.
Kroesen, M., 2017. To what extent do e-bikes substitute travel by other modes? Evidence
from the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53,
pp.377–387. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1361920916304837.
Lee, A. et al., 2015. Electric bicycle use and mode choice in the Netherlands. Transportation
Research Record, 2520, pp.1–7.
MacArthur, J., Dill, J. & Person, M., 2014. Electric Bikes in North America - results of an
online survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2468, pp.123–130. Available at:
http://trb.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3141/2468-14.
Meijering, L. & Weitkamp, G., 2016. Numbers and narratives: Developing a mixed-methods
approach to understand mobility in later life. Social Science & Medicine.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I. & Lothlorien, R.S., 2001. Understanding the Demand for
Travel : It’s Not Purely “ Derived .” Innovation, the European Journal of Social Science
Research, 14(4).
Müggenburg, H., Busch-Geertsema, A. & Lanzendorf, M., 2015. Mobility biographies: A
review of achievements and challenges of the mobility biographies approach and a
framework for further research. Journal of Transport Geography, 46, pp.151–163.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0966692315000940.
Peine, A., van Cooten, V. & Neven, L., 2016. Rejuvenating Design: Bikes, Batteries, and
Older Adopters in the Diffusion of E-bikes. Science, Technology & Human Values,
pp.1–31. Available at: http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0162243916664589.
Plazier, P.A., Weitkamp, G. & Van den Berg, A.E., 2017. The potential for e-biking among
the younger population: a study of Dutch students. Travel Behaviour and Society, 8,
pp.37–45.
Popovich, N. et al., 2014. Experiences of electric bicycle users in the Sacramento, California
area. Travel Behaviour and Society, 1(2), pp.37–44. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X13000185.
Rose, G., 2012. E-bikes and urban transportation: emerging issues and unresolved questions.
Transportation, 39(1), pp.81–96. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-
011-9328-y [Accessed November 3, 2014].
Schepers, J.P. et al., 2014. The safety of electrically assisted bicycles compared to classic
bicycles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 73, pp.174–180. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001457514002668.
Schipperijn, J. et al., 2014. Dynamic Accuracy of GPS Receivers for Use in Health Research:
A Novel Method to Assess GPS Accuracy in Real-World Settings. Frontiers in public
health, 2(March), p.21. Available at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3948045&tool=pmcentrez&r
endertype=abstract.
Simons, M., Van Es, E. & Hendriksen, I., 2009. Electrically Assisted Cycling: A New Mode
for Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
41(11), pp.2097–2102. Available at:
http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=0000576
8-200911000-00018.
Sperlich, B. et al., 2012. Biomechanical, cardiorespiratory, metabolic and perceived responses
to electrically assisted cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(12),
pp.4015–4025. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00421-012-2382-0.
Steg, L. & Gifford, R., 2005. Sustainable transportation and quality of life. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13, pp.59–69.
Stichting BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit, 2016. Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2016/2017
Stichting BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit, ed., Amsterdam: Stichting BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit.
Available at: http://www.bovagrai.info/auto/2010/images/micauto2010.pdf.
Vlakveld, W.P. et al., 2015. Speed choice and mental workload of elderly cyclists on e-bikes
in simple and complex traffic situations: A field experiment. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 74, pp.97–106. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001457514003157.
Weinert, J.X., Burke, A.F. & Wei, X., 2007. Lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries for the
Chinese electric bike market and implications on future technology advancement.
Journal of Power Sources, 172(2), pp.938–945. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378775307010294.
