Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities

Castro, Alberto; Gaupp-Berghausen, Mailin; Dons, Evi; Standaert, Arnout; Laeremans, Michelle; Clark, Anna; Anaya-Boig, Esther; Cole‐Hunter, Tom; Ávila-Palència, Ione; Rojas-Rueda, David; Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark; Gerike, Regine; Panis, Luc Int; Nazelle, Audrey de; Brand, Christian; Raser, Elisabeth; Kahlmeier, Sonja; Götschi, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.trip.2019.100017

Cited by 80 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a randomized controlled trial in which adults had access to an e-bike or conventional bike for 3-months the median distance cycled per week on the e-bike was 20.2 km compared to 11.9 km on the conventional bike, with individuals spending longer on the e-bike (62.7 min) compared to the conventional bike (51.1 min ( Bjørnarå et al, 2019 )). Similarly, in a study conducted in seven European countries, Castro et al (2019) reported that e-cyclists average daily travel distance was 8.0 km compared to 5.3 km for conventional bike commuters. In addition, individual trip distances and duration of rides on e-bikes were longer than those on a conventional bike ( Castro et al, 2019 , Mobiel 21, 2014 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review

Bourne

Cooper

Kelly

et al. 2020

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Electrically assisted bicycles (e-bikes) have become increasingly popular in the past decade. This review aimed to scope the literature to identify what is known about the frequency and duration of e-bike use, their impact on travel behaviour, the purposes for which e-bikes are used and factors associated with e-bike use. In addition, the review aimed to identify gaps in the literature and highlight future research priorities. Methods A scoping review of published and unpublished literature in any language. Relevant articles were identified through searching six databases, two grey literature platforms and reference lists. Searches were conducted until August 2019. Data were extracted using a standardised extraction form and descriptive and narrative results are provided. Results Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The volume of research has increased since 2017 and primarily examines personal e-bike use, as opposed to e-bike share/rental schemes or organizational e-bike initiatives. The use of e-bikes increased the frequency and duration of cycling compared to conventional cycling and may help overcome barriers associated with conventional cycling. The uptake in e-cycling largely substitutes for conventional cycling or private car journeys, though the degree of substitution depends on the primary transport mode prior to e-bike acquisition. E-bikes are primarily used for utilitarian reasons, though older adults also engage in recreational e-cycling. Research priorities include quantitatively examining e-bike use, their impact on overall transport behaviour and identifying determinants of e-cycling to inform intervention and policy. Conclusions This review suggests that the personal use of e-bikes is associated with a reduction in motorized vehicle use, which has potential positive impacts on the environment and health. The impacts of e-bike share schemes and workplace initiatives are less well understood. Evidence describing the purposes for which e-bikes are used, and the factors associated with usage, are useful to inform e-cycling promotion policy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review

Bourne

Cooper

Kelly

et al. 2020

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it is valuable to improve urban and transport planning [39,40] and promote safe active mobility (such as bicycling in light polluted days), which may increase PA and reduce pollutant emissions [41]. E-mobility and indoor PA should also be promoted to improve pulmonary health [42]. Table 4 shows that people with very high levels of both PA and PM 2.5 had insignificant PA benefits on MMEF, implying that people living in areas with high levels of air pollution should be cautious when undertaking an extremely high volume of outdoor PA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect the benefits of habitual physical activity on lung function in adults: a longitudinal cohort study

Guo

Chan

et al. 2020

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Physical activity (PA) increases a person's inhalation of air pollutants due to greater ventilation, possibly leading to larger adverse health effects. This study aims to investigate the combined effects of long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and habitual PA on lung function in adults. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study that included 278,065 Taiwan residents with an age of 20 years old or above who joined a standard medical screening programme between 2001 and 2014. Each participant received at least one medical examination (including spirometric, blood, and urinary tests and a standard self-administered questionnaire survey) during the study period. We estimated the 2-year average PM 2.5 concentrations at each participant's address using a new physical model based on observational data. Information on the participants' PA was collected using the standard self-administrated questionnaire. Generalised linear mixed models were used to investigate the combined effects of PM 2.5 and PA on pulmonary function. We also performed stratified analyses by different levels of PM 2.5 exposure and habitual PA. Results: Each 10 MET-h increase in PA was associated with a higher level of 0.20%, 0.16%, and 0.19% in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV 1), and maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF), respectively, after adjusting for PM 2.5 exposure and a wide range of covariates including age, sex education, body mass index, lifestyles, and health conditions. Each 10 μg/m 3 increase in PM 2.5 was associated with a lower FVC, FEV 1 , and MMEF (2.43%, 2.78% and 3.10%, respectively). Negative interactions were observed, and PM 2.5 exposure was associated with a greater reduction in lung function among the participants with higher PA levels.

show abstract

“…Beyond a net reduction in travel demand, one of the more promising ways to reduce transport carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions is to promote and invest in active modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling, e-biking) while 'demoting' motorized modes that rely on fossil energy sources [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] . Surface transport accounts for nearly half the decrease in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced con nement 22 .…”

Section: Mainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While cycling cannot be considered a 'zero-carbon emissions' mode of transport, lifecycle emissions from cycling can be more than ten times lower per passenger-km travelled than those from passenger cars 9 . For most journey purposes active travel covers short to medium trips -typically 2 km for walking, 5 km for cycling and 10 km for e-biking 20 . Typically, the majority of trips in this range is made by car 14,16,24,40,41 , with short trips contributing disproportionately to emissions because of 'cold starts', especially in colder climates 10,42 .…”

Section: Mainmentioning

confidence: 99%

The climate change mitigation effects of active travel

Brand

Dons

Anaya-Boig

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active travel (walking or cycling for transport) is considered the most sustainable form of getting from A to B. Yet the net effects of active travel on mobility-related CO2 emissions are complex and under-researched. Here we collected travel activity data in seven European cities and derived lifecycle CO2 emissions from daily travel activity. Daily mobility-related lifecycle CO2 emissions were 3.2 kgCO2 per person, with car travel contributing 70% and cycling 1%. Cyclists had 84% lower lifecycle CO2 emissions from all daily travel than non-cyclists. Lifecycle CO2 emissions decreased by -14% (95%CI -12% to -16%) per additional cycling trip and decreased by -62% (95%CI -61% to -63%) for each avoided car trip. An average person who ‘shifted travel modes’ from car to bike decreased lifecycle CO2 emissions by 3.2 (95%CI 2.0 to 5.2) kgCO2/day, and using a bike as the ‘main method of travel’ gave 7.1 (95%CI 4.8 to 10.4) kgCO2/day lower lifecycle CO2 emissions than mainly using a car or van. Investing in and promoting active travel should be a cornerstone of strategies to meet net zero carbon targets, particularly in urban areas, while also improving public health and quality of urban life.

show abstract

Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities

Cited by 80 publications

References 39 publications

The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review

The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review

Does fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect the benefits of habitual physical activity on lung function in adults: a longitudinal cohort study

The climate change mitigation effects of active travel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About