Article Peer-Reviewed
The Substitution Effect of E-bikes and Psychological Processes Influencing Its Use: Results from Two Randomised Controlled Trials in Sweden
Trivector Traffic AB, 222 36 Lund, Sweden
Academic Editor:
Received: 1 December 2021 Accepted: 12 May 2022 Published: 17 May 2022
Abstract
The market share of e-bikes has increased extensively in Europe over the last decade. How this trend will affect the transport system depends to a large extent on the substitution effect which needs to be determined in detail to allow projections on the potential of e-cycling as a means to promote sustainable transport systems. Further, little is known about what psychological determinants influence e-bike use, an important topic for policy makers that wish to promote e-cycling. This study aggregates GPS data from two randomised controlled trials in Sweden to determine the effect of e-bike use on travel behaviour. Motives behind e-bike use are investigated within a pathanalytic structural model, based on an expanded theory of planned behaviour. The results reveal that, on average, total cycling increased by 4.5 kilometres per person and day during the trials and its modal share measured in distance increased by 19%. E-bike use was predicted by the intention to bike to work, which in turn mediated the effects of attitudes and self-efficacy on e-cycling. Attitude mediated the indirect effect of personal norm on intention and collective efficacy amplified the effect of self-efficacy on intention. The results show that e-cycling has a large potential to contribute to a sustainable transport system. Policy makers could increase the use of e-bikes by strengthening individuals’ attitudes toward cycling and perceived self-efficacy to e-cycle, by making environmental personal norms more salient and by highlighting collective action in the effort to limit environmental degradation.
Figures in this Article
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Keywords
Copyright © 2022
Söderberg. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use and distribution provided that the original work is properly cited.
Funding
This study had support from the Västra Götaland Region [grant KTN2018-00158] and the Swedish Energy Agency [grant 2018-011630].
Cite this Article
ACS Style
Söderberg, A. The Substitution Effect of E-bikes and Psychological Processes Influencing Its Use: Results from Two Randomised Controlled Trials in Sweden. Highlights Sustain. 2022, 1, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain1020007
APA Style
Söderberg, A. (2022). The Substitution Effect of E-bikes and Psychological Processes Influencing Its Use: Results from Two Randomised Controlled Trials in Sweden. Highlights of Sustainability, 1(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain1020007
References
1.
McQueen, M.; MacArthur, J.; Cherry, C. The E-Bike Potential: Estimating Regional e-Bike Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102482
2.
The 2020 Bicycle Industry & Market Profile with 2019 Figures Is Now Available. Available online: https://mailchi.mp/3fc2dd1690af/the-2020-conebi-bicycle-industry-market-profile-is-now-available?e=d9b849ffde (accessed 30 December 2020).
3.
Zweirad-Industrie-Verband. Zahlen – Daten – Fakten Zum Deutschen Fahrrad- Und E-Bike Markt 2019 (in German) [Figures - Data - Facts about the German Bicycle and e-Bike Market 2019]. Zweirad-Industrie-Verband (ZIV): Berlin, Germany, 2020.
4.
Söderberg f.k.a. Andersson, A.; Adell, E.; Winslott Hiselius, L. What Is the Substitution Effect of E-Bikes? A Randomised Controlled Trial. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2021, 90, 102648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102648
5.
Fishman, E.; Cherry, C. E-Bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transp. Rev. 2016, 36, 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069907
6.
Jones, T.; Harms, L.; Heinen, E. Motives, Perceptions and Experiences of Electric Bicycle Owners and Implications for Health, Wellbeing and Mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 53, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2016.04.006
7.
Bourne, J.E.; Sauchelli, S.; Perry, R.; Page, A.; Leary, S.; England, C.; Cooper, A.R. Health Benefits of Electrically-Assisted Cycling: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0751-8
8.
Castro, A.; Gaupp-Berghausen, M.; Dons, E.; Standaert, A.; Laeremans, M.; Clark, A.; Anaya-Boig, E.; Cole-Hunter, T.; Avila-Palencia, I.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; et al. 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. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2019, 1, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100017
9.
Bucher, D.; Buffat, R.; Froemelt, A.; Raubal, M. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potentials Resulting from Different Commuter Electric Bicycle Adoption Scenarios in Switzerland. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2019, 114, 109298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109298
10.
Philips, I.; Anable, J.; Chatterton, T. E-bikes and Their Capability to Reduce Car CO2 Emissions. Transp. Policy 2022, 116, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.019
11.
Cairns, S.; Behrendt, F.; Raffo, D.; Beaumont, C.; Kiefer, C. Electrically-Assisted Bikes: Potential Impacts on Travel Behaviour. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2017.03.007
12.
Haustein, S.; Møller, M. 2016. Age and Attitude: Changes in Cycling Patterns of Different e-Bike User Segments. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1162881
13.
de Kruijf, J.; Ettema, D.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Dijst, M. Evaluation of an Incentive Program to Stimulate the Shift from Car Commuting to E-Cycling in the Netherlands. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.06.003
14.
Winslott Hiselius, L.; Svensson, Å. E-bike Use in Sweden – CO2 Effects Due to Modal Change and Municipal Promotion Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 818–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.141
15.
Kroesen, M. To What Extent Do E-Bikes Substitute Travel by Other Modes? Evidence from the Netherlands. Transp. Res. D Trans. Environ. 2017, 53, 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.036
16.
Söderberg, A. Soft Measures to Shift Modality. Doctoral Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2021.
17.
de Haas, M.; Kroesen, M.; Chorus, C.; Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S.; Hoogendoorn, S. E-Bike User Groups and Substitution Effects: Evidence from Longitudinal Travel Data in the Netherlands. Transportation 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10195-3
18.
Vesely, S.; Klöckner, C.A. Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395
19.
Bamberg, S.; Rees, J. The Impact of Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Measures – A Meta-Analytical Comparison of Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Evidence. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.004
20.
Chatterjee, K. 2009. A Comparative Evaluation of Large-Scale Personal Travel Planning Projects in England. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.10.004
21.
Graham-Rowe, E.; Skippon, S.; Gardner, B.; Abraham, C. Can We Reduce Car Use and, If so, How? A Review of Available Evidence. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.02.001
22.
Andersson, A.; Winslott Hiselius, L.; Adell, E. Promoting Sustainable Travel Behaviour through the Use of Smartphone Applications: A Review and Development of a Conceptual Model. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 11, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2017.12.008
23.
Chatterjee, K.; Carey, R.N. Special Issue on the Theory, Design and Evaluation of Behaviour Change Interventions in Transport. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.08.009
24.
Thøgersen, J. Promoting Public Transport as a Subscription Service: Effects of a Free Month Travel Card. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.10.008
25.
Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
26.
Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
27.
Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
28.
Bandura, A. Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
29.
Bamberg, S.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Roles of Past Behavior, Habit, and Reasoned Action. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 25, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_01
30.
Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
31.
Lanzini, P.; Khan, S.A. Shedding Light on the Psychological and Behavioral Determinants of Travel Mode Choice: A Meta-Analysis. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 48, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.04.020
32.
Eriksson, L.; Garvill, J.; Nordlund, A.M. Interrupting Habitual Car Use: The Importance of Car Habit Strength and Moral Motivation for Personal Car Use Reduction. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2007.05.004
33.
Verplanken, B.; Aarts, H.; van Knippenberg, A.; van Knippenberg, C. Attitude Versus General Habit: Antecedents of Travel Mode Choice. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 24, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00583.x
34.
Bird, E.L.; Panter, J.; Baker, G.; Jones, T.; Ogilvie, D. Predicting Walking and Cycling Behaviour Change Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.05.014
35.
Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.: New York, NY, US, 1997.
36.
Klöckner, C.A. A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour-A Meta-Analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014
37.
Sparks, P. Guthrie, C.A.; Shepherd, R. The Dimensional Structure of the Perceived Behavioral Control Construct. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 27, 418–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00639.x
38.
Glanz, K.; Rimer, B.K.; Viswanath, K. Behavior Health and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken , NJ, USA, 2008.
39.
Barth, M.; Jugert, P.; Fritsche, I. Still Underdetected – Social Norms and Collective Efficacy Predict the Acceptance of Electric Vehicles in Germany. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 37, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.011
40.
Doran, R.; Hanss, D.; Larsen, S. Attitudes, Efficacy Beliefs, and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection When Travelling. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2015, 15, 281–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415580360
41.
Reese, G.; Junge, E.A. Keep on Rockin’ in a (Plastic-)Free World: Collective Efficacy and pro-Environmental Intentions as a Function of Task Difficulty. Sustainability 2017, 9, 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020200
42.
Andersson, A.; Winslott Hiselius, L.; Adell, E. The Effect of Marketing Messages on the Motivation to Reduce Private Car Use in Different Segments. Transp. Policy 2020, 90, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.02.006
43.
Jugert, P.; Greenaway, K.H.; Barth, M.; Büchner, R.; Eisentraut, S.; Fritsche, I. Collective Efficacy Increases Pro-Environmental Intentions through Increasing Self-Efficacy. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
44.
Bamberg, S.; Hunecke, M.; Blöbaum, A. Social Context, Personal Norms and the Use of Public Transportation: Two Field Studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001
45.
Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Exploring Consumer Adoption of a High Involvement Eco-Innovation Using Value-Belief-Norm Theory. J. Consum. Behav. 2011, 10, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.346
46.
Lind, H.B.; Nordfjærn, T.; Jørgensen, S.H.; Rundmo, T. The Value-Belief-Norm Theory, Personal Norms and Sustainable Travel Mode Choice in Urban Areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.001
47.
Nayum, A.; Klöckner, C.A. A Comprehensive Socio-Psychological Approach to Car Type Choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.001
48.
Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Effects of Values, Problem Awareness, and Personal Norm on Willingness to Reduce Personal Car Use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9
49.
Simsekoglu, Ö.; Klöckner, C.A. The Role of Psychological and Socio-Demographical Factors for Electric Bike Use in Norway. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 13, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1466221
50.
Andersson, A. Is Climate Morality the Answer? Preconditions Affecting the Motivation to Decrease Private Car Use. Transp. Res. D: Trans. Environ. 2020, 78, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.027
51.
Verplanken, B.; Orbell, S. Reflections on Past Behavior: A Self-Report Index of Habit Strength. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 33, 1313–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01951.x
52.
Sjöman, M.; Tina Ringenson, T.; Kramers, A. Exploring Everyday Mobility in a Living Lab Based on Economic Interventions. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 5. https:/doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0392-2
53.
Ek, A.; Alexandrou, C.; Nyström, C.D.; Direito, A.; Eriksson, U.; Hammar, U.; Henriksson, P.; Maddison, R.; Lagerros, Y.T.; Löf, M. The Smart City Active Mobile Phone Intervention (SCAMPI) Study to Promote Physical Activity through Active Transportation in Healthy Adults: A Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 880. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5658-4
54.
Eriksson, J.; Lindborg, E.; Adell, E.; Holmström, A.; Silvano, A.P.; Nilsson, A.; Henriksson, P.; Wiklund, M.; Dahlberg, L. New Ways of Collecting Individual Travel Information: Evaluation of Data Collection and Recruitment Methods. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12050.91846
55.
Andersson, A.; Winslott Hiselius, L.; Berg, J.; Forward, S.; Arnfalk, P. Evaluating a Mobility Service Application for Business Travel: Lessons Learnt from a Demonstration Project. Sustainability 2020, 12, 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030783
56.
Eriksson, L.; Garvill, J.; Nordlund, A.M. Acceptability of Travel Demand Management Measures: The Importance of Problem Awareness, Personal Norm, Freedom, and Fairness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.05.003
57.
Meyers, L.S.; Gamst, G.C.; Guarino, A.J. Performing Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
58.
Ajzen, I. Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
59.
Gardner, B.; Abraham, C.; Lally, P.; de Bruijn, G.-J. Towards Parsimony in Habit Measurement: Testing the Convergent and Predictive Validity of an Automaticity Subscale of the Self-Report Habit Index. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-102
60.
Fyhri, A.; Heinen, E.; Fearnley, N.; Sundfør, H.B. A Push to Cycling—Exploring the e-Bike’s Role in Overcoming Barriers to Bicycle Use with a Survey and an Intervention Study. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 11, 681–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302526
61.
Jansson, J.; Nordlund, A.; Westin, K. Examining Drivers of Sustainable Consumption: The Influence of Norms and Opinion Leadership on Electric Vehicle Adoption in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 154, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.186
62.
Bandura, A. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Pajares, F., Urdan, T.C., Eds.; Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006; pp. 307–337.
63.
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988.
64.
Hu, L.-t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis : Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. h https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
65.
Hair Jr., J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014.
66.
Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
67.
Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
68.
Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
69.
Zhao, X.; Lynch Jr., J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
70.
Dawson, J.F. Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
71.
Fyhri, A.; Sundfør, H.B. Do People Who Buy E-Bikes Cycle More? Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 86, 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102422
72.
Semenescu, A.; Gavreliuc, A.; Sârbescu, P. 30 Years of Soft Interventions to Reduce Car Use – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 85, 102397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102397
73.
Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Gifford, R.; Vlek, C. Factors Influencing Car Use for Commuting and the Intention to Reduce It: A Question of Self-Interest or Morality? Transp. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.04.004
74.
Semenescu, A.; Gavreliuc, A. Car Use Reduction: A Matter of Reasoned Calculus, Morality or Habit? An Integrative Perspective. Rom. J. Appl. Psychol. 2019, 21, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.24913/rjap.21.2.02
75.
Bamberg, S. Is a Residential Relocation a Good Opportunity to Change People’s Travel Behavior? Results from a Theory-Driven Intervention Study. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 820–840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505285091
76.
Line, T.; Chatterjee, K.; Lyons, G. The Travel Behaviour Intentions of Young People in the Context of Climate Change. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.001
Metrics
Loading...
Journal Menu
Journal Contact
Highlights of Sustainability
Editorial Office
Highlights of Science
Avenida Madrid, 189-195, 3-3
08014 Barcelona, Spain
08014 Barcelona, Spain
Cathy Wang
Managing Editor
