Armstrong Miranda Eg, Garbutt James, Jones Tim, Spencer Ben, Philips Ian, Sanghera Sabina, Welch Lesley, Roberts Rayne, de Vocht Frank, Jago Russell, Salway Ruth
Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol School for Policy Studies, Bristol, England, BS8 1TZ, UK.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
NIHR Open Res. 2025 May 7;5:44. doi: 10.3310/nihropenres.13857.1. eCollection 2025.
This study aimed to collect information on e-bike and e-scooter use in areas with and without e-bike (EB) and e-bike plus e-scooter (EB+ES) combined share-hire schemes.
This study employed a repeated cross-sectional design. An online survey asking questions about demographics, travel, and health was completed by people in August and September 2023 before the schemes were launched in Bristol (EB+ES) and Leeds (EB), with Bradford and Sheffield as control sites. A resurvey was conducted at the same sites one year later, but also in Bath (EB+ES) and Plymouth (EB). We also interviewed eight e-bike and e-scooter users and non-users in Bristol (n=4) and Leeds (n=4).
Following data cleaning, 3771 remained in the baseline sample and 5370 remained in the resurvey sample. The majority of participants reported having never used an e-bike (baseline: 61%; resurvey: 69%) or e-scooter (baseline: 77%; resurvey: 84%). At baseline, the most common e-bike access route was the use of their own e-bike (45%), with access via a share-hire scheme lower at 25%. In the resurvey sample, access levels were similar via a share-hire scheme (38%) and personal e-bikes (36%). The most common e-scooter access route was a share-hire scheme (baseline: 60%; resurvey: 74%). The most common weekly e-bike and e-scooter destinations were leisure/leisure venues, followed by work/education and shopping/errands.Half said they would not use an e-bike scheme and 63% indicated they would not use an e-scooter scheme. Potential users were willing to walk ~500 m to access an e-bike/e-scooter.Interviewees generally supported share-hire schemes, seeing them as a good addition to the wider transport offer, but with more support for e-bikes and reservations around e-scooters.
These data will be important for a later evaluation of EB and EB+ES share-hire schemes on public health, social, economic, and environmental factors.
本研究旨在收集在设有和未设有电动自行车（EB）以及电动自行车加电动滑板车（EB+ES）联合共享租赁计划的地区，电动自行车和电动滑板车的使用情况信息。
本研究采用重复横断面设计。在2023年8月和9月，即在布里斯托尔（EB+ES）和利兹（EB）推出这些计划之前，以布拉德福德和谢菲尔德作为对照地点，让人们完成一项关于人口统计学、出行和健康问题的在线调查。一年后在相同地点再次进行调查，同时也在巴斯（EB+ES）和普利茅斯（EB）进行调查。我们还对布里斯托尔（n=4）和利兹（n=4）的8名电动自行车和电动滑板车使用者及非使用者进行了访谈。
经过数据清理后，基线样本中保留了3771人，再次调查样本中保留了5370人。大多数参与者表示从未使用过电动自行车（基线：61%；再次调查：69%）或电动滑板车（基线：77%；再次调查：84%）。在基线时，最常见的电动自行车获取途径是使用自己的电动自行车（45%），通过共享租赁计划获取的比例较低，为25%。在再次调查样本中，通过共享租赁计划（38%）和个人电动自行车（36%）获取的比例相似。最常见的电动滑板车获取途径是共享租赁计划（基线：60%；再次调查：74%）。电动自行车和电动滑板车最常见的每周出行目的地是休闲场所，其次是工作/教育场所和购物/ errands场所。一半的人表示不会使用电动自行车计划，63%的人表示不会使用电动滑板车计划。潜在使用者愿意步行约500米去使用电动自行车/电动滑板车。受访者普遍支持共享租赁计划，认为它们是更广泛交通服务的有益补充，但对电动自行车的支持更多，对电动滑板车则有所保留。
这些数据对于后续评估电动自行车和电动自行车加电动滑板车共享租赁计划对公共卫生、社会、经济和环境因素的影响将具有重要意义。
