IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7397-d1465486.html

Gaining Traction on Social Aspects of E-Biking: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Allison McCurdy

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Elizabeth E. Perry

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Jessica E. Leahy

    (School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA)

  • Kimberly J. Coleman

    (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Joshua Doyle

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Lydia A. Kiewra

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Shelby A. Marocco

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Tatiana A. Iretskaia

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Madison M. Janes

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Mikael Deliyski

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

Abstract

E-biking is alluring for its various physical, environmental, and financial benefits and the ability to travel farther and faster, and being physically easier to ride than astride an analog (traditional) bicycle. E-bikes are also a source of controversy, especially in places where analog bicycles have been allowed but e-bikes represent a “slippery slope” of technology permissions and/or in situations where the function of e-bikes may increase concerns about safety. Despite an increase in use and conversation about such use, academic literature focused on e-bikes’ social aspects remains sparse. The objective of this work is to describe the existing literature on the characteristics of social aspects of e-biking, particularly in leisure contexts. Analyzing the literature on e-bike social research is crucial considering e-bikes’ rapid rise in popularity and potential effects on access, inclusion, leisure, and sustainability. As e-bike prevalence and use increases worldwide, it is important to understand what topics characterize the existing e-bike literature, and, particularly in leisure-focused studies, to ascertain where studies may lend insight toward aims of inclusive and sustainable access, and related policy considerations. The Integrated Recreation Amenities Framework (IRAF) provides a conceptual framework for considering this question, as it focuses on the topical, spatial, and temporal scales of outdoor leisure-related activities toward sustainable conditions and explicitly provides an opportunity for emergent and case-specific factors to be considered alongside established ones. In this work, we explore the following: (1) How are e-bikes discussed across disciplines? and (2) How are e-bikes discussed in leisure-focused articles? Using a scoping review approach, we analyzed a corpus of 279 peer-reviewed articles relevant to the social aspects of e-bikes. Primarily using the IRAF for conceptual framing, our results center the geographies and contexts, topical areas, interdisciplinarity, and emergent additional social considerations of e-biking in general and in leisure-specific studies. The results enable us to connect interdisciplinary topic discussions and suggest where foundational and connective studies are warranted. This can inform decision making related to e-bike adoption, encourage multi-scalar thinking, and extend interdisciplinary research.

Suggested Citation

  • Allison McCurdy & Elizabeth E. Perry & Jessica E. Leahy & Kimberly J. Coleman & Joshua Doyle & Lydia A. Kiewra & Shelby A. Marocco & Tatiana A. Iretskaia & Madison M. Janes & Mikael Deliyski, 2024. "Gaining Traction on Social Aspects of E-Biking: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7397-:d:1465486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7397/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7397/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Mathijs Haas & Maarten Kroesen & Caspar Chorus & Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2022. "E-bike user groups and substitution effects: evidence from longitudinal travel data in the Netherlands," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 815-840, June.
    3. Li, Qiumeng & Fuerst, Franz & Luca, Davide, 2023. "Do shared E-bikes reduce urban carbon emissions?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shi, Ziyi & Xu, Meng & Song, Yancun & Zhu, Zheng, 2024. "Multi-Platform dynamic game and operation of hybrid Bike-Sharing systems based on reinforcement learning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Parnell, Katie J., 2025. "The gender data gap in e-micromobility research: A systematic review of gender reporting," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Arias-Molinares, Daniela & Romanillos, Gustavo & García-Palomares, Juan Carlos & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2021. "Exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    5. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    6. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Shuai & Wu, Tao & Yang, Yizhe & Yu, Jiajie, 2023. "Can dockless and docked bike-sharing substitute each other? Evidence from Nanjing, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Zhang, Yongping & Fu, Wenyan & Yan, Jiaxin & Chao, Hao & Kong, Hui, 2025. "The effect of dockless e-bike-sharing on reducing carbon emissions: A dynamic investigation of two small Chinese cities between 2020 and 2022," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    9. Riggs, William & Kawashima, Matt & Batstone, David, 2021. "Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 18-27.
    10. Cai, Xiao & Gu, Xinyue & Silm, Siiri & Hadachi, Amnir & Jin, Tanhua & Witlox, Frank, 2025. "Differences in bike-sharing usage and its associations with station-surrounding characteristics: A multi-group analysis using machine learning techniques," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Daniela Arias-Molinares & Juan Carlos García-Palomares & Gustavo Romanillos & Javier Gutiérrez, 2023. "Uncovering spatiotemporal micromobility patterns through the lens of space–time cubes and GIS tools," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 403-427, July.
    12. Mathijs Haas & Maarten Kroesen & Caspar Chorus & Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2025. "Didn’t travel or just being lazy? An empirical study of soft-refusal in mobility diaries," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 955-981, June.
    13. Schneider, Paul R., 2023. "From elements to policies: A Shovian social practice perspective on pathways to facilitate daily E-bike commuting," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 36-45.
    14. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    15. Shi, Lin & Jiang, Yiliang & Chen, Faan & Zhu, Kaiyi & Nielsen, Chris P. & Wang, Yuejiao & Tian, Fang & Wu, Jiaorong & Chen, Xiaohong, 2025. "Built environment, car ownership and PM2.5: Stronger causal estimates from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    16. Shahram Heydari & Garyfallos Konstantinoudis & Abdul Wahid Behsoodi, 2021. "Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bike-sharing demand and hire time: Evidence from Santander Cycles in London," Papers 2107.11589, arXiv.org.
    17. Post, Alison PhD & Ratan, Ishana & Hill, Mary & Huang, Amy & Soga, Kenichi PhD & Zhao, Bingyu PhD, 2021. "Benchmarking “Smart City” Technology Adoption in California: An Innovative Web Platform for Exploring New Data and Tracking Adoption," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5mt4m51n, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    18. Gong, Mengjie & Xin, Rui & Yang, Jian & Wang, Jiaoe & Li, Tingting & Zhang, Yujuan, 2024. "Spatio-temporal dynamics and recovery of commuting activities via bike-sharing around COVID-19: A case study of New York," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Liu, Xize & Chen, Wendong & Chen, Xuewu & Chen, Jingxu & Cheng, Long, 2024. "Could free-floating bikeshare weed out station-based bikeshare? Analyzing the relationship between two bikeshare systems from bivariate flow clustering," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Maria Giovina Pasca & Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion & Laura Di Pietro & Maria Francesca Renzi, 2025. "Unveiling the role of gamification in shared mobility services," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 13371-13410, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7397-:d:1465486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.