Cycling is regarded by many as a solution for providing efficient and effective urban mobility, in terms of its contribution to reducing the negative environmental consequences of motorised transport while also promoting health through ‘active travel’ (Buehler and Pucher, 2021). However, over the last two decades, levels of cycling in the UK have remained stubbornly low relative to other northern European countries such as Denmark, Germany, and The Netherlands (Pucher and Buehler, 2008). Since 2002, the overall number of cycle trips has remained flat accounting for only 2 per cent of all journeys made (average 17 trips per person per year) while the average distance cycled has increased by 50 per cent (average 58 miles per person per year) over the same period (UK DfT, 2018).

The growth in market for electrically power assisted bikes, more commonly known as ‘e-bikes’ (and ‘pedelecs’), could help to increase cycling uptake in the UK and diversify participation. E-bikes are essentially regular pedal cycles with the addition of an electric motor and battery that provide power assistance on condition that the rider also pedals (MacArthur et al., 2014). Although they account for only a fraction of all UK bike sales by volume (around 4 per cent), sales have continued to rise by around 40 per cent year on year equating to around 100,000 e-bikes in 2019 (Mintel, 2020). Furthermore, according to industry experts, e-bike sales across Europe, including the UK, continued to grow during the Covid-19 crisis and are projected to grow from around 3.4 million, sold in 2019, to 13.5 million, by 2030 (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2021).

In the United Kingdom e-bikes are regulated at 250-Watt maximum continuous rated power output providing a maximum speed up to 25 kmh (15.5 mph) per hour and a range of up to 100 km between charges. Over half (58%) of car journeys in the UK in 2018 were reportedly under five miles (eight kilometres) and four-fifths of journeys were under 10 miles (ibid.; UK DfT, 2018). It is often pointed out that journeys up to five miles are perfectly suited to cycling and could replace journeys currently made by car (Neves & Brand, 2019). E-bikes could make cycling accessible to people who would not otherwise contemplate cycling five miles, particularly in hilly areas, or who find difficulty partaking in regular pedal cycling for health or other reasons. While average cycling trips per year in the UK has stayed constant between 2002 and 2018, average cycle journey distance per year has increased by 50 per cent from 39 to 58 miles but still represents only one per cent of all distance travelled by all modes (UK DfT, 2018). E-biking could support longer distance cycle journeys, for example, between urban centres and outlying towns and villages where (in the UK) an older demographic is more common, and contribute to increasing overall mode share. Despite the misconception that e-bikes are ‘cheating’ (Jones et al., 2016), riders are still required to pedal, albeit with power assistance. E-biking could, therefore, help riders incorporate moderate exercise into everyday travel routines (Gojanovic et al., 2011; Louis et al., 2012; Sperlich et al., 2012). In environmental terms, replacement of car journeys with journeys by e-bike could contribute to a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution because they place less demand on road space and produce zero emissions whilst in operation (Ji et al., 2012).

There are counterpoints to the benefits of encouraging e-biking in transport and health terms. First, is the fear that e-biking does not fit with an ‘active travel’ agenda because of the potential to wean people away from ‘healthier’ conventional cycling rather than tackling car use (Dons et al., 2018). Second, that e-biking can increase potential risk of traffic injury to riders or other road users unaccustomed to their higher speeds (Du et al., 2013; Papoutsi et al., 2014; Schepers et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2014). And third, that promoting e-biking could distract authorities from focusing on implementing good quality cycling infrastructure and measures that reduce road danger for cycling such as discouraging motor traffic on city streets and enforcing stricter speed limits (Whitelegg, 2013).

Despite these concerns, emerging evidence has demonstrated that e-biking can make a positive impact in terms of replacing journeys by car and supporting engagement in physical activity. For example, a recent scoping review of studies on the impact of e-bikes on travel behaviour suggests that the personal use of e-bikes is associated with a reduction in motorised vehicle use and the most frequently cited benefit was the opportunity e-bikes provide for riding longer distances than on a conventional bicycle (Bourne et al., 2020). Furthermore, a recent before-and-after study has also demonstrated that those who purchased an e-bike increased their cycle use by an order of four and their (e-)cycling mode share by between 17 and 49 per cent as a proportion of overall travel, compared to a control group (Fyhri & Beate Sundfør, 2020).

In terms of health outcomes, a systematic review by Bourne et al. (2018) identified moderate evidence that e-cycling provided physical activity of at least moderate intensity and concluded that e-cycling can contribute to meeting physical activity recommendations and increasing physical fitness. And countering the often-raised concern that e-biking may result in a substantial reduction of physically activity for traveling due to a reduction in required physical effort, Castro et al. (2019) found that physical activity from travel-related activities is similar when comparing physical activity levels of e-bikers and conventional bicycle users across Europe.

In relation to the risk of e-cycling vis-à-vis conventional cycling, Schepers et al. (2020) have reported that, after controlling for bicycle use, e-bike users are not more likely to be involved in a crash or to sustain severe injuries, although older female cyclists did have an elevated risk on e-bikes. Fyhri et al. (2019) have also identified that the overall accident risk for e-bikes vis-à-vis conventional cyclists is higher but only for female cyclists and that this is related to the higher prevalence of accidents resulting from balance problems.

Evidence of the potential of e-bikes to tackle issues associated with the environment and health has started to gain traction among UK policy makers. In June 2020, the UK government published, Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking. This highlights how the restrictions put in place to mitigate the Covid-19 pandemic, and the corresponding rise in cycling, provide ‘a once in a generation opportunity to permanently transform how people move around’ (UK DfT, 2020, p8). The strategy commits government to establishing a national e-bike support programme noting: ‘[electrically-assisted bikes] could be hugely important in our goal of bringing non- traditional groups to cycling including older and disabled people. We will establish a national e-bike support programme, which could include loans, subsidies, or other financial incentives, using the learning from other schemes in the UK and abroad for e-bikes, adapted e-bikes and other e-vehicles’ (ibid., p39). Reports suggest that the government is considering subsidising the purchase of electric bikes to encourage uptake (Norman, 2020). The growth in popularity of e-bikes and signalled support from central government is prompting municipal authorities to consider where e-bikes fit within wider policies to promote sustainable mobility and on requirements for planning and designing cycle infrastructure. In January 2017, for example, Transport for London (TfL) held its first e-bike summit at City Hall to explore the role of e-bikes in encouraging more people to cycle and how it could work together with the e-bike industry to support the use of e-bikes in London. The result was the launch of a website to encourage the uptake of e-cycling among Londoners through incentives such as discounts and improved access to e-bikes (TfL, 2018).

This paper draws on data from a large UK study that sought to understand (e-)cycling among the older population and how this affected independence, health, and wellbeing. Part of the study involved an ‘e-bike trial’ where participants aged 50 and over, who were returning to cycling after a hiatus, were loaned an e-bike for an eight-week trial period. Pre-trial and post-trial cognitive tests of trial participants, reported previously Leyland et al. (2019), demonstrated how e-bikes, provide positive benefits to cognitive function and wellbeing. This paper builds on these findings, drawing specifically on the qualitative component, primarily written and visual material provided in rider diaries and a focus group discussion, to understand the reasons for this positive impact. This information is important for informing future e-cycling initiatives and we discuss the implications for policy and practice.

The large-scale UK Research Council–funded study cycle BOOM ran from 2013 to 2016. A key objective of the study was to develop a better understanding of how the design of the built environment and technology shapes engagement with and experience of cycling as people get older and how this affects their independent mobility, health, and wellbeing (Jones et al., 2016). To achieve this, a mixed-methods approach was adopted. This included biographical interviews with people aged 50 and over about their cycling histories to understand how ability and willingness to cycle is shaped by life course experiences and events; mobile observation and video elicitation interviews to capture everyday experience of and engagement with cycling in the outdoor environment; and finally, a quasi-experimental study in the form of a cycling and wellbeing trial (CWT), which is the focus of this paper. The CWT was conducted with new or returning cycle users and aimed to investigate whether pedal and electrically assisted cycling in the outdoor environment improves cognitive processes and wellbeing in terms of feeling better, happier, and more engaged with life. Our previous paper Leyland et al. (2019) reported the quantitative analysis of pre-trial and post-trial cognitive tests with trial participants and demonstrated the positive impact of e-biking in an outdoor environment on cognitive function and mental health. This paper focuses specifically on the qualitative findings that were generated during the CWT to understand the reasons for this positive impact. This was achieved through the analysis of diary accounts of e-bike participants who took part in the trial and a follow-up focus group.

Participants for the CWT were recruited using advertisement in the local press and at shopping and community centres in Oxford and Reading, UK. The advert stated that those eligible should be aged 50 and above; either new or returning to cycling (i.e., had either done no cycling in the past five years, or that their cycling had seriously diminished over that period); and willing to commit to using a loaned e-bike for at least three times a week for 30 minutes over an eight-week period. Those who responded to the advert were asked to complete a short screening questionnaire. A purposive sample was carefully selected to ensure a balance of males and females from different socio-economic backgrounds who were living in both urban and peri-urban locations.

Prior to commencing the trial, an accredited Bikeability cycle trainer (https://www.bikeability.org.uk/) assessed participants to determine whether they had the ability to cycle safely on the public highway (Bikeability Level 2 status) and to provide necessary support and training to ensure they met this standard. All participants passed the assessment before being loaned an e-bike for the eight-week trial. Instructions did not stipulate where, when or with whom their e-cycling should take place. A total of 38 participants took part and were aged between 50 and 82 years (Mean 61.9; SD = 7), twenty of whom were female. The trial took place on a rolling basis from August 2014 to December 2015 and therefore incorporated seasonal contrast.

At the beginning of the trial, a semi-structured biographical interview of approximately one hour was conducted to understand participants’ cycling throughout the life-course (Chatterjee et al., 2012; Lanzendorf, 2010). During the eight-week trial, participants were asked to keep a ‘Diary of Cycling Experience’ (DoCE) where they were able to record basic journey characteristics in a tabular format (i.e., timing, purpose, locations, how they used power assist) (see Figure 1) as well as being provided with space to write brief notes about their experience. For each diary week, a blank A4 page was provided where participants were asked to volunteer their reflections on their experience in whichever format they wished (e.g., text, photographs, sketches). The aim was to enable more extensive, emotional, and embodied qualitative data to be generated that would potentially provide researchers with an insight into participant’s wellbeing as the trial unfolded (Jacelon and Imperio, 2005; Milligan, Bingley, and Gatrell, 2005). Shortly after the trial, Oxford Brookes researchers invited Oxford participants to take part in a focus group at Oxford Brookes University to investigate shared cycling experiences. Seven were able to take part.

Biographical, diary and focus group analysis was undertaken by authors Jones and Spencer. This involved compiling biographical summaries, separate accounts of individual DoCE entries from all 38 diaries, and transcription and analysis of the focus group discussion. The act of analysis involved complete immersion in the data by the authors and a process of constant comparison. This closeness to participant data allowed discussion, reflection, and convergence upon what were identified as shared definitions and significant key themes. Adopting an idiographic approach that recognizes the unique and subjective experiences of participants, we selected six participants who provided significant insight into their e-bike experience. Particular attention was given to the location and types of journeys recorded in the six participants’ diaries – their ‘ranging behaviour’ – and the written accounts of how e-bike experience unfolded over the trial period. The six participants also agreed to publicly share their experience through a series of video vignettes (available at https://www.cycleboom.org/video/). Many of the themes that emerged were discussed and corroborated at the focus group discussion.

Joint thematic analysis was aided by using QSR NVivo version 11 (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Ethical approval for all components of the research was obtained from the University of Reading Research Ethics Committee (Registration No: 14/31) and Oxford Brookes University Research Ethics Committee (Registration No: 140813).

Records of cycling activity in the DoCE established that e-bikers (n = 38) spent, on average, 2.39 hours (SD = 0.90) cycling each week1 – an average of just over 60 minutes of what was requested of them. They also reported spending, on average, 15 per cent of their time cycling with power assist switched ‘off’. Figure 2 provides an illustration of participants’ level of engagement with the trial in terms of average duration of cycling activity per week.

Findings from the quantitative component of the cycling and wellbeing trial, reported in Leyland et al. (2019), measured the impact of cycling (both e-biking and conventional pedal cycling) on cognitive processes and wellbeing. This highlighted increases in self-reported mental health and wellbeing and improved cognitive function, particularly among e-bike participants. We suggested that these results may have been related to the novelty factor of loan of an e-bike and the opportunity this provided for participants to get outdoors.

To understand the reasons for this positive impact more fully, in this section, we report on participant experience of e-biking from the analysis of participant diaries (n = 38) and further in-depth analysis of qualitative data generated from six completed participant diaries, and their corresponding biographies, as well as the subgroup of seven participants who took part in a focus group discussion. We focus on themes that emerged within three broad topic areas: (a) motivation and preparation for taking part in the e-bike trial (b) how e-bikes were used and the types of ‘ranging behaviour’, and (c) how this impacted wellbeing. Most participants represented in this article gave permission for their real name to be used and where this was not the case, pseudonyms have been used. Box 1 provides brief vignettes of the six participants’ ‘cycling trajectories’ over the life course from biographical interviews and the impact of the trial on their mobility and wellbeing.

This paper has built upon our previously reported findings Leyland et al. (2019) that demonstrated the positive benefits of cycling for cognitive function and wellbeing among participants aged 50 and above who took part in an eight-week cycling and wellbeing trial. By drawing on rich qualitative data to understand e-bike user experience, we demonstrated how e-bikes offered participants the opportunity to overcome personal physical limitations, develop capability and increase confidence, increase knowledge of cycling geographies, gradually extend their ‘ranging behaviour’, and make journeys that may not have been made by conventional pedal cycle. It was the development of personal capability to (re)discover new geographies and connect with self, others and nature that was significant in providing improvements to physical and mental wellbeing. However, we also revealed the factors that can serve to diminish the e-bike experience. In summary, our qualitative findings were able to help elaborate the quantitative element of our study to reveal the potential mechanisms behind the positive response attributed to e-biking (ibid.).

We revealed how participants were drawn to the e-bike trial for a combination of reasons but primarily because it offered a structured programme to test an e-bike and engage with an outdoor activity that was perceived to be beneficial to health or to overcome health related issues. Although cycling had commonly featured in childhood, it had varied across the life course and had significantly diminished or was not part of participants’ regular activity in the years prior to taking part in the trial. An unexpected outcome of our research was how cycle training and assessment was well received, even among those who regarded themselves as already possessing the necessary skills to cycle. We also underestimated how the trial would motivate participants to cycle by providing a sense of structure and goal-oriented activity – the majority exceed the expected 30 minutes cycling, three times per week, over the eight weeks.

We gave participants the opportunity to engage in a series of cycling experiences of their own choosing. Cycling activity was mainly for recreation although participants did use their e-bikes to make short local errands and a few of them who were in employment used them for commuting. Our findings showed how engagement was shaped by personal cycling capability and perceived affordance for safe cycling in the immediate proximity of the home. This is important given that older sections of the population place significant attachment to home and place particularly following retirement and if they have spent a long time in living in the locality (Buffel, 2020).

Cycling in the UK typically requires sharing the public highway with motor traffic and sometimes requires intense concentration which can demand sensory overload (LifeCycle, 2010; World Health Organization, 2002). It became clear from our study that participants actively sought opportunities to cycle off the highway along purpose-built cycle tracks and paths through green, and alongside, blue spaces, by first consulting maps and reconnoitring routes. Where participants felt uncomfortable riding in traffic, tactics were employed such as riding on pavements, to avoid potential conflict with motor vehicles.

Over the course of the trial, participants’ ranging behaviour did expand into new and unfamiliar geographical domains. Participants developed the confidence to (re)discover geographies that they had not ever visited by cycle or had not done so for some while. Power assistance offered riders the confidence to investigate unfamiliar routes safe in the knowledge that they could turn back if this was inaccessible or not suited to their capabilities. This corroborates recent research with older e-bikers in Flanders by Van Cauwenberg et al. (2019) who reported that the most important benefit of e-bike use was to be able to bike longer distances, and also the study (cited earlier) by Fyhri and Sundfør (2020), which found that, people in Norway who purchased an e-bike, increased their bicycle use from 2.1 to 9.2 km per day on average (and that this was not just a novelty effect).

Travelling far and covering vast geographical areas was not, however, required for participants to reap wellbeing benefits. Diary narratives revealed participants’ appreciation of the opportunity e-biking provided for them to simply get outdoors alone or in the company of others. The therapeutic qualities of the act of simply moving from one place to another, what we might call ‘therapeutic velomobility’ (Gatrell, 2013), was evident even for short rides in and around the local area. We argue that it was the ‘mobilisation of the self’ (Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011) through e-biking and the sheer joy of power-assisted pedalling across physical space that provided a sense of purpose and accomplishment and allowed participants to flourish – this is evident in the way our six participants articulate their experience and convey positive non-verbal gestural and facial expressions in our video vignettes (see https://www.cycleboom.org/video/). However, we also pointed out how wellbeing can be diminished through journey stress because of the lack of supportive infrastructure and the fear of having to interact with traffic. Despite this, and examples of some minor cycle crashes, participants developed coping strategies and tactics in terms of timing of their cycling events and spaces where they felt comfortable cycling.

This paper has demonstrated how e-biking can provide riders with the opportunity to extend the distance and types of area they are willing to cycle from their homes (their ‘ranging behaviour’) and how this can promote health and wellbeing. Our evidence suggests that e-bikes have the potential to support cycling for leisure as well as everyday travel and that consideration should be given to the positive effects of e-cycling on mental wellbeing in addition to physical activity. As societies begin to repair the threads of social connectedness following the Covid-19 pandemic the desire to travel physically to be co-present with others will be heightened following an extended period of virtual co-presence (Morina et al. 2021; Urry, 2002). E-biking, within the context of an ageing society, therefore, offers an important technological tool to support social connectedness and wellbeing, while at the same time contributing towards a green transport recovery.

Supporting data is available on request by contacting Oxford Brookes Research and Digital Assets Repository (RADAR) at radar@brookes.ac.uk DOI 10.24384/g2k3-sm81.