Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

The role of human needs in the intention to use conventional and electric T
bicycle sharing in a driving-oriented country
Sigal Kaplana,b, Dagmara K. Wrzesinskac, Carlo G. Pratod,∗
a
Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel
b
Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
c
Institute for Multidisciplinary Research in Quantitative Modelling and Analysis, Catholic University of Louvain, Voie Du Roman Pays 34, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium
d
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queenslandm, St. Lucia, 4072, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Transforming a driving-oriented region into a bicycle-oriented region would contribute significantly to building
Bicycle sharing healthier and more sustainable communities, but barriers to cycling make this potential transformation un-
Electric bicycles tapped. Unlike traditional research taking the “travel behaviour” perspective, this study looked at cycling from
Conventional bicycles the “new mobilities” perspective of travel being not only movement in space and time, but also an experience
Driving-oriented culture
that leads to emotional well-being and satisfies human needs. Accordingly, this study proposed a behavioural
Cycling culture
framework to examine the intentions of inhabitants of a driving-oriented region to use conventional and electric
Human needs
bicycles within a hypothetical scenario of a bicycle sharing system.
The behavioural framework was designed to assess the relations between intentions and characteristics of
travellers in terms of socioeconomic traits, habitual travel, and human needs according to the ERG (existence,
relatedness, growth) theory of needs. A web-based survey collected the information necessary to evaluate em-
pirically the framework, and a hybrid bivariate ordered model estimated the hypothesised relations. The findings
from the model revealed gender and age differences in the probability of using electric bicycles, as female as well
as older respondents were more likely to prefer the technological innovation. Also, the findings from the model
showed indeed relations between needs and the intentions to use bicycle sharing schemes: interestingly, while
functional and relational needs were associated with a higher likelihood of using both types of bicycle, self-
actualisation needs were related to a higher probability of using a conventional bicycle and a lower one of using
an electric bicycle. Accordingly, promoting bicycle sharing and more broadly cycling should not only focus on
the value of moving from one place to the next, but also on the social and relational value of cycling as well as
the self-actualisation potential.

1. Introduction Dickinson et al., 2003), topography challenges to be overcome (Parkin

Transforming a driving-oriented region into a bicycle-oriented re-
gion would contribute significantly to building healthier and more
sustainable societies (Tight et al., 2011), reducing motorised travel and
pollution (Lindsay et al., 2011; Woodcock et al., 2009), and improving
the physical and emotional health of the inhabitants of those regions
(e.g., Maibach et al., 2009; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011; Scheepers et al.,
2013).
Unfortunately, there exist a number of barriers to cycling that
render the potential untapped: road crash risk to be avoided (see, e.g.,
Pucher and Buehler, 2006; Parkin et al., 2007; Daley and Rissel, 2011;
Vandenbulcke et al., 2011), distance to be cycled (Kingham et al., 2001;
et al., 2007; Heinen et al., 2010), lack of dedicated infrastructure
(Kingham et al., 2001; Heinen et al., 2010), and climatic factors (Parkin
et al., 2007; Heinen et al., 2010). Overcoming these barriers would
likely contribute to the transformation of driving-oriented regions, and
bicycle sharing could help influence travel patterns in driving-oriented
countries where bicycle ownership is not part of the culture (Fishman
et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2016).
Arguably, electric bicycles could help overcome physical barriers
such as distance and topography (Popovich et al., 2014; Cherry et al.,
2016; Jones et al., 2016; Plazier et al., 2017). Existing research about
electric bicycles focuses on public perceptions (Muetze and Tan, 2007;
Kaplan et al., 2015), analyses of user experiences (Popovich et al.,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: c.prato@uq.edu.au (C.G. Prato).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.010
Received 21 November 2017; Received in revised form 21 June 2018; Accepted 10 September 2018
Available online 11 September 2018
0967-070X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kaplan et al.
2014; Cherry et al., 2016), evaluations of technology and environ-
mental impacts (Cherry et al., 2009; Dill and Rose, 2012), and measures
of the effects on mobility, health and safety (Montgomery, 2010; Cherry
et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016). Specifically, existing research looks at
electric bicycles from the perspective of the “travel behaviour” para-
digm: travel is the movement from the origin to the destination of a trip.
More broadly, existing research looks at cycling under the lens of utility
maximisation as the behavioural paradigm that represents the choice of
travel mode for that trip.
This study proposes to look at electric and conventional cycling
from the perspective of the “new mobilities” paradigm: travel is not
only a movement in space and time, it is also an experience that leads to
emotional well-being, identity production and social interaction
(Sheller and Urry, 2006; Jensen, 2009). In particular, travel is the
realisation of something that generates satisfaction and well-being in
travellers by increasing their human, economic, cultural and social
capital (de Vos et al., 2013, 2016; Morris and Guerra, 2015; Shliselberg
and Givoni, 2018) and satisfying a wide spectrum of their needs
(Mateo-Babiano, 2016; de Vos and Witlox, 2017).
Accordingly, this study proposes to investigate the intention to use
conventional and electric shared bicycles in a driving-oriented region
and its relation to the spectrum of human needs. The rationale for this
study is fourfold: (i) collecting intentions is preferable to observing
choices because the evaluation of travel with respect to satisfaction and
needs should not be retrospective because of inaccuracies inherent in
the memory of specific experiences (Gärling, 2017); (ii) studying a
driving-oriented region permits to evaluate whether electric bicycles
could be a jolt to the system because of the attractiveness of techno-
logical innovation; (iii) concentrating on bicycle sharing enables to
consider conventional and electric bicycles while eliminating the bar-
riers of the purchase price and the potential inequality in the cost of
using the different bicycle types; (iv) focusing on the spectrum of
human needs allows for the empirical analysis of whether cycling (with
electric and/or conventional bicycles) relates indeed to more than
travel time and cost, and hence can be marketed as something more
than a way to move from the origin to destination of a trip. Interest-
ingly, the perception of cycling in a driving-oriented region is often
negative and has nothing to do with its functionality, as cyclists are
perceived as “foolish”, “hazardous” and “thoughtless” (Horton et al.,
2007).
This study considered the ERG (existence, relatedness, growth)
theory of needs (Alderfer, 1969) to conceptualise the needs associated
with travel: (i) at the basic level, the existence needs fulfil necessities
related to mobility and safety; (ii) at the intermediate level, the relat-
edness needs satisfy a sense of belonging and togetherness; (iii) at the
highest level, the growth needs accomplish inner potential and self-
actualisation. The ERG theory (Alderfer, 1969) was developed from the
hierarchical theory of motivation (Maslow, 1943), but it is more ad-
vantageous because of the flexibility of its implementation where the
three domains can be satisfied independently and not only hier-
archically (Ryan and Deci, 2001). Notably, existing research focuses
almost only on the basic level by looking at travel time and cost, and
rarely on the intermediate and high levels by considering relational and
self-actualisation value. Exceptions are recent studies focusing on the
relational value of activity participation (van der Kloof et al., 2014) and
public transport use (Salvá et al., 2015), and past studies on self-ac-
tualisation because of car use (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 2001; Hiscock
et al., 2002; Mann and Abraham, 2006; Sigurdardottir et al., 2013).
This study adds to the exceptions with an empirical analysis of the
theory that travel satisfies human needs (Mateo-Babiano, 2016; de Vos
and Witlox, 2017).
This study focused on Poland as a driving-oriented region where
possibly the technological innovation of electric bicycles could jolt the
system by stimulating enthusiasm and interest in cycling. Certainly, the
jolt to the system would also require a dramatic improvement of the
current conditions of the bicycle infrastructure and the improvement of
139
Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146
facilities (Polish Ministry of Transport, 2015). Interestingly, there exists
a social acceptance for dedicating public funds to cycling infrastructure
regardless of past unsuccessful construction projects of cycling infra-
structure that did not translate into any benefit because of in-
appropriate design and poor quality (Brzeziński, 2015).
A web-based survey was administered in three Polish cities (Poznan,
Szczecin, Gorzow) between March and April 2016. The survey was
designed to elicit the intentions to use electric and conventional bi-
cycles within an innovative version of existing bicycle sharing systems,
to assess the potential barriers to cycling, and to measure the three
types of needs with psychometric items. A multivariate joint model of
the intentions to use conventional and/or electric bicycles was for-
mulated to provide answers about whether their use is related to the
fulfilment of human needs.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents the be-
havioural framework, the survey design and administration, and the
hybrid bivariate model. Section 3 describes the sample characteristics
and illustrates the model estimates, and section 4 introduces conclu-
sions and suggestions for further research.
2. Methods
2.1. Behavioural framework
The hypothesised behavioural framework (Fig. 1), looks at the use
of electric and conventional bicycles from the perspective of the “new
mobilities” paradigm.
As motivational theories are based on human needs (Gärling et al.,
2002) and there exists a relation between travel mode choice and a
sense of autonomy, relatedness and self-actualisation (de Vos and
Witlox, 2017; Schliselberg and Givoni, 2018), the behavioural frame-
work considers that the three latter elements reflect the three dimen-
sions of the ERG theory of needs (Alderfer, 1969). When choosing to
cycle, travellers are rewarded with satisfaction that is dependent not
only on the attributes of cycling as a travel mode (e.g., time, cost), but
also on the perception of cycling as satisfying higher order needs (e.g.,
social, self-actualisation).
As the reward is related to not only positive feedback when needs
are satisfied, but also negative feedback when barriers emerge, per-
ceptions about easiness or difficulty of cycling and e-cycling are con-
sidered complementary to the ERG theory of needs because they im-
pede self-efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). As electric bicycles are
supposed to overcome these barriers, the intention to cycle is measured
for both conventional and electric bicycles and the two are correlated
because the same traveller has underlying traits that are common in the
expression of these intentions.
The hypothesised behavioural framework assumes that human
needs are related to observed characteristics of the travellers, as het-
erogeneity might arise for example because of gender and age, habitual
travel choices, as the experiences with the different travel modes shapes
the associated feeling of satisfaction, and the context, as the familiarity
with a certain city affects the intentions to cycle there.
It should be noted that travel as the satisfaction of human needs
might transform into goal driven behaviour that is then likely to be-
come script-based (Gärling et al., 2002; Gärling and Axhausen, 2003;
De Vos and Witlox,2017). Specifically, cycling with electric and/or
conventional bicycles as the satisfaction of human needs has the po-
tential of becoming habitual behaviour, certainly an effect that would
greatly contribute to the transformation of driving-oriented regions.
2.2. Survey design and administration
A web-based survey was designed and administered in three Polish
cities that were chosen because of their heterogeneous characteristics in
terms of cycling development and climate. Poznan is a major cultural,
trade, technology and tourism centre, where summers are warm and
S. Kaplan et al.
Habitual travel Socioeconomic
behaviour characteristics
Existence needs
Relatedness needs
Growth needs
Perceptions of
cycling
Perceptions of
electric cycling
Fig. 1. Behavioural framework.
winters are cold, and the topography is mostly flat. The bicycle sharing
system counts 400 bicycles over 37 stations serving slightly over half a
million inhabitants, and has observed a 350% increase in use in the last
three years. Alongside the bike sharing system, there is a bicycle net-
work of 134 km of paths that amount at about 12.9% of the street
length. Szczecin is a maritime centre with an economy based on two
major shipping companies, where summers are colder and rainier than
Poznan because of the high humidity related to cyclonic systems from
the Atlantic Ocean. The bicycle sharing system counts 400 bicycles over
35 stations serving about 400,000 inhabitants, with a plan for addi-
tional 300 bicycles and 46 stations by the end of the year. The bicycle
network consists of 98 km of bicycle routes that are however chaotic
and disconnected. Gorzow Wielkopolski is a smaller city of parks and
gardens, where summers are relatively warm and winters are snowy.
Alongside a functional public transport system for the about 120,000
inhabitants, there is no bicycle sharing and a very limited bicycle net-
work without plans for expansion but with earmarked investments for
this purpose.
The survey was designed to investigate the relations in the hy-
pothesised behavioural framework and was accordingly divided into
three different parts (all the variables and items are presented in detail
in section 3).
The first part collected information about socioeconomic char-
acteristics and habitual travel behaviour of the respondents.
Socioeconomic characteristics included age, gender, education, income,
commuting distance, cycling purpose (i.e., recreational, transport, both,
none), and city of residence. Habitual travel behaviour comprised the
measure of the frequency of driving a car, using public transport, cy-
cling, e-cycling and walking on a 5-point Likert scale from “rarely” to
“daily”. Moreover, attitudes towards cycling and e-cycling were mea-
sured with 5-point Likert scale items from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”. The phrasing of the items was adopted from a
140
Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146
Context
Intention to use a
conventional bicycle
Intention to use an
electric bicycle
previous survey focusing on tourists cycling in Copenhagen (Kaplan
et al., 2015).
The second part presented a hypothetical scenario where the bicycle
sharing system in Copenhagen (for details, see Kaplan et al., 2015) was
implemented in the three cities and the option of conventional and
electric bicycles was given at the same cost. Given the likely limited
exposure of the respondents to electric bicycles, the scenario was de-
signed as a future-oriented mental time travel with the aim of having all
respondents being equally informed on the system as well as electric
cycling (Berntsen and Bohn, 2010). The dependent variables were the
intentions of using conventional and electric bicycles and they were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale from “rarely” to “frequently”: spe-
cifically, the bicycle sharing systems were presented with the aid of
pictures for the future-oriented mental time travel exercise, and then
the respondents were asked to rate on the Likert scale the intention to
use the system if it had conventional or electric bicycles. The in-
dependent variables were the purpose for using either type of bicycle
(i.e., commuting, errands, recreation, socialisation with friends, going
out at night), and attitudes about easiness or difficulty with cycling in
general and e-cycling in particular.
The third part measured the existence, relatedness and growth
needs from the ERG theory. Psychometric items were expressed on a 5-
point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”: (i) ex-
istence needs were measured in terms of the practical function of cy-
cling to move from the origin to destination of the trip while being safe
on the road; (ii) relatedness needs were measured in terms of the social
function of cycling to fulfil a sense of belonging and togetherness; (iii)
growth needs were measured in terms of the feeling of self-actualisation
and self-esteem from cycling. For all three dimensions, the original
items from Alderfer (1969) were adapted to the cycling context.
Moreover, items about cycling performance (Moore and Healy, 2008)
were adopted for the existence dimension, items about electric bicycle
S. Kaplan et al.
use (Kaplan et al., 2015) were used for the relatedness dimension, and
items about travel satisfaction (Susilo and Cats, 2014) were adopted for
the growth dimension.
For this exploratory study, the survey was advertised via social
media and professional websites in the three cities because of budget
limitations. The snowball recruitment reached about 900 potential re-
spondents from the three cities in proportion with their population. At
the same time, the distributions of gender, age, education and income
were collected for the Polish population from the OECD database with
the purpose of calculating weights for the collected observations.
Notably, the survey was administered in Polish between March and
April 2016 and a raffle was offered to incentivise participation.
2.3. Hybrid bivariate ordered model
The intentions to use conventional and electric bicycles in the
proposed bicycle sharing system in the three cities were measured on a
5-point Likert scale from “rarely” to “daily”, and hence two ordered
probit models were considered for each of the two dependent variables.
The intentions were then expressed as a function of the respondents’
socioeconomic characteristics, habitual travel behaviour, and lower and
higher order needs from the ERG theory.
The dependent variables were modelled at the person level and this
implied that correlation across the error terms existed given that the
same respondent related to the same unobserved factors. Accordingly, a
bivariate ordered probit model was specified where the error terms
were assumed to follow a bivariate normal distribution to capture their
correlation, similar to previous examples in the travel behaviour con-
text (e.g., Emmerink et al., 1996; Ferdous et al., 2010; Dias et al., 2017).
The model specification included both observable (i.e., socio-
economic characteristics, habitual travel behaviour) and latent (i.e.,
attitudes towards cycling and e-cycling, measures of human needs)
variables. Hence, a latent variable model was specified with measure-
ment and structural equations, and then was jointly estimated with the
intention models to obtain a hybrid bivariate ordered model. This im-
plies that the observable variables might have both a direct (as pre-
dictors of the two ordered probit models) and an indirect (as predictors
of the latent variables) effect on the intentions to use conventional or
electric bicycles (Vij and Walker, 2016).
Initially, measurement equations of the latent variable model were
specified according to the results of an exploratory factor analysis
In = αXn* + υn (1)
where In is a vector of R indicators corresponding to the survey answers
of respondent n, Xn* is a vector of L unobserved traits of respondent n, α
is a vector of R parameters to be estimated, and υn is a vector of nor-
mally distributed error terms with a mean vector of zeros and covar-
iance matrix Ψυ .
Then, the latent variables were related to the observed variables in
the structural equations of the latent variable model:
Xn* = γXn + ωn (2)
where Xn* is a vector of L unobserved traits of respondent n, Xn is a
vector of K observed characteristics of respondent n, γ is a (L × K)
matrix of parameters to be estimated, and ωn is a vector of L normally
distributed error terms with a mean vector of zeros and covariance
matrix Ψω .
Defining p and q as the indices for the categories of the dependent
variables that were expressed over P and Q categories, the two ordered
probit models were specified as follows:
141
Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146
f n* = β*f Xn* + βf Xn + εn where fn = p if δp − 1 < f n* < δp, δ0 = −∞,
δP = +∞
gn* = βg* Xn* + βg Xn + ηn where gn = q if χq − 1 < gn* < χq , χ0 = −∞,
χQ = +∞
(3)
where the latent variables and f n* gn*
indicate the propensity of a re-
spondent n to intend to use a conventional and an electric bicycle in the
bike sharing system of their city (i.e., the larger their values, the higher
the propensity). The variables fn and gn are the expressions of intention
that were observed in the survey over the 5-point Likert scales.
A joint bivariate standard normal distribution was assumed to
capture the correlation between the vectors εn and ηn . The estimated
parameters included the elements of the vectors β*f , βf , βg* and βg , the
(P-1) thresholds δp (−∞ < δ1 < … < δp < … < δP − 1 < + ∞) and the (Q-
1) thresholds χq (−∞ < χ1 < … < χq < … < χQ − 1 < + ∞). The para-
meters were estimated by maximising the log-likelihood function and
defining a binary indicator In (p , q) that is equal to 1 if respondent n
chose category p for the first dependent variables and category q for the
second dependent variable, and 0 otherwise.
Given this model specification, the joint probability of respondent n
to have the intention to use the conventional and the electric bicycle
was expressed as:
Pr (fn = p , gn = q) = Pr (δp − 1 < f n* < δp and χq − 1 < gn* < χq )
= Pr (dn, p − 1 < εn < dn, p and cn, q − 1 < ηn < cn, q)
= Φ2 (dn, p, cn, q; θ) − Φ2 (dn, p − 1, cn, q; θ) − Φ2 (dn, p, cn, q − 1; θ)
+ Φ2 (dn, p − 1, cn, q − 1; θ) (4)
where dn, p = δp − β*f Xn*
+ βf Xn , cn, q = χq − βg* Xn*
+ βg Xn , Φ2 is the bi-
variate cumulative normal distribution function, and θ is the correla-
tion parameter to be estimated. Given that the variables Xn∗ are latent,
the joint probability required integration over their distribution
(Walker and Ben-Akiva, 2002; Vij and Walker, 2016):
Pr (fn = p, gn = q)=
∫ Φ2 ⎜⎛fn = p, gn = q Xn , Xn* ; β*f , βf , βg* , βg , δp, χq , θ⎞⎟ h In (In Xn , Xn* ; α , Ψυ) h Xn∗
∗ ⎝ ⎠
Xn
(Xn* Xn ; γ , Ψω ) dXn*
(5)
where Φ2 (·) is the bivariate probability in eq. (4), h In (·) is the dis-
tribution of the indicators, and h Xn∗ (·) is the distribution of the latent
variables. The log-likelihood function took then the following form:
N P Q
logL = ∑ ∑ ∑ ωn In (p, q) Pr (fn = p, gn = q)
n=1 p=1 q=1 (6)
where ωn is the weight of observation n, and the weights are normalised
in that their sum is equal to the number of observations.
The log-likelihood function was coded in PythonBiogeme 2.5
(Bierlaire, 2016) and the maximisation of the function was performed
by simulation via 1000 draws from the Modified Latin Hypercube
Sampling algorithm (Hess et al., 2006).
3. Results
3.1. Sample characteristics
The survey received 717 complete responses from the three Polish
cities, and the sample characteristics are presented in Table 1. As the
respondents were recruited via social media and professional networks,
there is a skewness towards young and educated Polish citizens. How-
ever, weights ωn were calculated for each observation n by normalising
the collected sample with respect to the information about the
S. Kaplan et al. Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146

Table 1
Sample characteristics.
Questions Answers % Answers %

Sociodemographic characteristics
Gender Male 42.5 Female 57.5
Age < 20 years old 17.6 45–54 years old 11.3
21–28 years old 45.3 55–64 years old 4.0
28–35 years old 20.5 > 65 years old 1.4
Education Primary school 5.3 High school 37.7
Middle school 13.8 Higher education 43.2
Income Much lower than average 11.6 Higher than average 12.4
Lower than average 44.4 Much higher than average 7.5
Average 11.3 Not answered 12.8
Residence Poznan 41.2 Szczecin 25.4
Gorzow 33.4
Commuting distance < 1 km 9.3 10–20 km 12.7
1–5 km 33.6 20–30 km 4.3
5–10 km 35.5 > 30 km 4.6
Driving license Yes 73.1 No 26.9

Current transport habits

Car use Rarely 21.9 A few times per week 22.3
A few times per month 18.8 Daily 26.8
Once a week 10.2
Public transport use Rarely 31.6 A few times per week 19.4
A few times per month 18.7 Daily 23.8
Once a week 6.5
Bicycle use Rarely 24.2 A few times per week 26.3
A few times per month 24.0 Daily 15.3
Once a week 10.2
Walk for transport Rarely 3.8 A few times per week 30.4
A few times per month 15.9 Daily 34.3
Once a week 15.6
Car availability Yes 43.6 No 56.4
Bicycle availability Yes 75.8 No 24.2
Utilitarian cycling Yes 28.9 No 61.1
Recreational cycling Yes 69.8 No 20.2
Ever used an electric bicycle Yes 6.7 No 93.3

Future use of the bicycle sharing system

Intention to use the system with a Rarely 26.0 A few times per week 27.4
conventional bicycle A few times per month 24.0 Daily 13.2
Once a week 9.3
Intentions to use the system with an Rarely 35.7 A few times per week 23.0
electric bicycle A few times per month 23.7 Daily 7.1
Once a week 10.6
Cycle for commuting purposes With a conventional bicycle 39.1 Would not cycle 16.7
With an electric bicycle 44.2
Cycle for errand purposes With a conventional bicycle 27.0 Would not cycle 40.2
With an electric bicycle 32.8
Cycle for recreation purposes With a conventional bicycle 61.9 Would not cycle 23.8
With an electric bicycle 14.3
Cycle for socialisation purposes With a conventional bicycle 64.5 Would not cycle 26.0
With an electric bicycle 9.5
Cycle for going out purposes With a conventional bicycle 17.8 Would not cycle 60.0
With an electric bicycle 22.1

distribution of the population of the cities by gender, age, education
and income.
The sample was composed mainly by students and young profes-
sionals, and accordingly quite well educated as well as quite young in
age, living in the three cities in proportion with their population.
Females were the slight majority among the respondents, and the in-
come related to the student status in that it was mainly average or
lower. The sample contained a good number of cyclists, prevalently for
recreational purposes and mostly without experience with electric bi-
cycles. The latter trait was not surprising as electric bicycles are not
popular yet in Poland and in general throughout driving-oriented re-
gions, but it was not considered influential because of the level of detail
in the description of the scenario.
As for the future use of the bicycle sharing system, the use of a
conventional bicycle appeared more likely than the use of an electric
one. Moreover, both types of bicycle were definitely considered for
commuting purposes and possibly for recreation and socialisation
purposes. The difference was that there appeared to be equal preference
for commuting purposes, while the conventional bicycle was largely
preferred for recreation and socialisation purposes. Lastly, cycling did
not seem appealing to run errands and to go out, and in both cases it
was regardless of the type of bicycle.
3.2. Estimates of the hybrid bivariate ordered model
The estimation of the hybrid bivariate ordered model required ex-
tensive specification testing in order to obtain the best model for ex-
plaining the relations between the intentions to use conventional and
electric bicycles in the bicycle sharing systems and the socio-
demographic characteristics, travel habits, attitudes and needs of the
respondents.
Initially, an exploratory factor analysis was performed to verify

142
S. Kaplan et al. Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

Estimates of the measurement equations of the latent variables.
Existence estimate t-stat
Existence estimate t-stat
I would easily cycle up hill 1.324 13.39
I think cycling could be a good transport option to saves 1.000 – I would not mind cycling in cold or rainy weather 1.063 13.03
time I would easily prepare myself to work after cycling 1.298 13.14
Cycling might help me save money 1.039 21.21 I think it would not annoy pedestrians if I would cycle on 0.961 14.85
I think cycling could help me exercise and stay in shape 1.148 20.60 the sidewalk
I think cycling could help me do more activities during the 1.037 22.98 I would not be concerned about battery on my way 0.824 14.97
day It would not be problematic to find dock stations often 0.830 13.37
Cycling could help me reach more places 1.059 22.09 enough
Cycling could increase my travel independence and 1.138 22.83
flexibility Note: the estimates of the constants and the standard deviations are omitted for
Cycling would be good for my health 1.027 17.49
brevity.
E-cycling will make me look fancy 0.870 22.82
E-cycling will make me be active 0.977 24.55
E-cycling will make me be a responsible citizen 1.094 27.21 whether the latent variables emerged as hypothesised in the beha-
E-cycling will make me socialize more 1.008 25.20 vioural framework. The items revealed that the sample had excellent
E-cycling will make me more sportive 0.894 22.99 internal reliability, as the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.944, and excellent
E-cycling will make me care more about the environment 1.009 26.47
sampling adequacy to factor analysis, as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin mea-
Relatedness estimate t-stat sure was 0.941. The exploratory analysis revealed the existence of five
I would join cycling activities with other people 1.000 – factors as expected: (i) existence needs, (ii) relatedness needs, (iii)
Cycling would make me feel more part of the community 1.175 22.20 growth needs, (iv) instrumental value of electric bicycles, and (v) ea-
I feel that I can enlarge my social network with cycling 1.045 21.24
siness of cycling. Consequently, the hybrid bivariate model included 53
activities
I think my friends would be happy that I cycle 1.011 19.17
measurement equations that expressed the relations between the survey
My family has good opinions about cycling for recreation 0.880 17.65 items and the latent variables, and five structural equations that cap-
I like to cycle because I like to feel the city vibes 1.087 20.40 tured the relations between the latent variables and the observed
I feel that I would make a difference if I would cycle 1.274 21.22 characteristics of the respondents.
I think that if more people would cycle, policy makers 1.109 19.87
Then, several hybrid bivariate models were estimated and both
would care more
I can see future cycling culture in Poland 1.021 18.60 observed and latent variables were retained in the model if the asso-
I can see the need of change in cycling policy in Poland 1.009 19.04 ciated parameters were significant at the 0.10 level. Table 2 through 4
E-bicycles would revolutionize cycling culture in Poland 1.007 27.11 present the estimates of respectively the measurement equations, the
structural equations and the hybrid bivariate ordered model. The log-
Growth Estimate t-stat
I have a lot of good memories related to cycling as a child 1.000 –
likelihood of the presented best model is equal to −2755.06 and the
Cycling can become my new hobby 1.106 20.91 adjusted McFadden rho-square is equal to 0.446. Likelihood ratio tests
I would enjoy sharing photos taken on bike trips with my 0.893 16.87 reveal that the hybrid bivariate ordered model is to be preferred to two
social network separate ordered models (LRT = 278.76, df = 1, p = 0.000) as well to a
Cycling is important for me because I consider myself as a 0.906 16.79
bivariate model without unobserved traits (LRT = 173.19, df = 5,
sport person
Cycling would make me feel proud of myself that I do 1.321 22.80 p = 0.000). The correlation between the error terms confirms further
something good for environment the need for estimating a bivariate model, as its value is equal to 0.325
Cycling would make me feel like I am part of something 1.421 22.81 and it is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 confidence level.
bigger and something good
The measurement equations in Table 2 were specified according to
Cycling would make me contribute to making the city an 1.355 23.00
absolutely wonderful place to live in
the results of the exploratory factor analysis. Existence needs relate
Bicycle sharing might finally solve the issue with finding 1.147 20.39 mainly to both cycling and e-cycling as both contribute to improve
parking slots for cars travel independence and mobility, and to feel more active personally,
socially and for the environment. Relatedness needs associate mainly
Instrumental value of electric bicycles Estimate t-stat
with measures of the feeling of being part of a community, making a
E-bicycle sharing would save me time because it is fast 1.000 –
E-bicycle sharing would be cheaper than having my own e- 0.807 22.95 difference by cycling, having good vibes from cycling, and also getting
bike the impression that Poland has margins of improvements when it comes
E-bicycle sharing would be easier since I will not have to 0.806 20.72 to cycling policies. Growth needs link mainly to the feeling of self-ac-
care about solving technical issues
tualisation for being part of something important and something that
E-bicycle sharing would be convenient for me because of 0.804 20.55
the GPS and route planning option
grows with the contribution of the self. The two additional dimensions
E-bikes would be much more comfortable alternative to 0.912 23.29 concerned the instrumental value of the electric bicycle, especially
regular bikes because of all the time and money savings as well as the attraction of
I like e-bicycles because they are innovative technology 0.933 24.03 innovative technology, and the easiness of cycling, especially in relation
I would e-cycle to work more often because is not that 0.732 18.73
to covering longer distances, managing in mixed traffic and getting
physically demanding
I would e-cycle because I love technical innovations 0.948 23.79 ready for work after cycling.
E-bicycles might be an interesting, environmentally 0.996 26.84 The structural equations in Table 3 reveal the relations between the
friendly and fast way of transport five latent variables and the observed traits of the survey respondents.
High-tech gadgets would attract people 1.035 27.95 Demographics are relevant as female respondents are more likely to
Thanks to the battery, I could e-cycle for longer distances 0.972 26.27
have lower existence and relatedness needs, while age plays a role at
Easiness of cycling Estimate t-stat the lower level (where existence needs increase after young age, only to
I feel safe to cycle even if the infrastructure is not 1.000 – decrease when getting older) that is different from the one played at the
developed enough higher level (where relatedness needs decrease and growth needs in-
I do not think that it would be a problem to leave my shared 0.832 13.10
crease with age). Living in Szczecin is related to higher existence and
bicycle (e.g., outside a store)
I do not think cycling disturbs traffic and causes danger 1.237 13.75 relatedness needs.
I would easily cycle the distance to my work/university 1.610 13.25 Current travel habits relate to both lower and higher order needs, as
motorised travel is associated with a lower probability of having

143
S. Kaplan et al. Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146

Table 3 Table 4
Estimates of the structural equations of the latent variables. Estimates of the hybrid bivariate ordered model.
Existence estimate t-stat Intention to cycle with a conventional bicycle estimate t-stat

Car use daily −0.265 −2.03 Male 0.339 3.35

Walking daily 0.292 1.80 Age lower than 35 years old 0.378 2.00
Conventional cycling for commuting 0.250 2.57 Age between 36 and 55 years old 0.264 2.56
Conventional cycling for errands 0.273 3.07 Recreational cycling 0.889 7.17
Electric cycling for errands 0.169 1.86 Commuting cycling 1.567 13.54
Electric cycling for recreation and going out 0.230 2.71 Likely use of bicycle sharing daily 0.420 2.52
Enthusiastic about conventional bicycles 0.331 1.98 Conventional cycling for commuting 0.309 2.05
Like electric bicycles 0.435 2.23 Conventional cycling for recreation or socialisation or 0.440 1.99
Enthusiastic about electric bicycles 0.625 3.29 going out purposes
Poznan −0.200 −2.29 Existence 0.330 5.81
Gorzow −0.253 −1.89 Relatedness 0.348 6.82
Female −0.152 −2.15 Growth 0.245 4.78
Age between 36 and 55 years old 0.536 2.39 Easiness of cycling 0.541 9.45
Constant 0.455 12.75 δ1 0.148 0.67
δ2 1.252 4.26
Relatedness estimate t-stat δ3 1.712 4.65
Recreational cycling 0.259 3.89 δ4 3.079 6.89
Likely use of bicycle sharing use daily 0.229 2.54
Conventional cycling for recreation and socialisation and 0.257 3.74 Intention to cycle with an electric bicycle estimate t-stat
going out purposes Male −0.453 −2.20
Electric cycling for recreation and socialisation and going 0.155 2.35 Age lower than 35 years old −0.803 −2.46
out purposes I cycle more than 15 km per day 1.351 2.89
Enthusiastic about conventional bicycles 0.345 2.35 Electric cycling for commuting 0.612 1.76
Enthusiastic about electric bicycles 0.571 3.71 Electric cycling for recreation or socialisation or going out 0.380 1.83
Poznan −0.165 −2.27 purposes
Gorzow −0.378 −3.48 Existence 0.232 2.18
Female −0.146 −2.62 Relatedness 0.203 1.97
Age under 20 years old 0.521 2.26 Growth −0.233 −2.59
Age between 46 and 55 years old 0.381 2.66 Instrumental value of electric bicycles 0.501 4.05
Higher education 0.274 1.79 χ1 3.581 3.18
Constant 0.358 12.79 χ2 4.003 3.51
χ3 4.289 3.52
Growth estimate t-stat χ4 5.242 4.34
Walking a few times per week or daily 0.430 1.90
Bicycle sharing availability and use 0.260 1.81 Correlation of the error terms estimate t-stat
Conventional cycling for commuting −0.338 −2.34 Θ 0.325 2.94
Conventional cycling for recreation and socialisation and 0.330 2.03
going out purposes
Like or enthusiastic about conventional bicycles 0.350 1.87
existence needs while sustainable travel is related with a higher pro-
Age between 21 and 35 years old −0.359 −1.96
Age over 35 years old −0.612 −2.17
pensity of having all three levels of needs. Conventional cycling for
Constant 0.791 5.21 commuting purposes relates to a higher likelihood of satisfying ex-
istence needs and a lower probability of fulfilling growth needs, while
Instrumental value of electric bicycles estimate t-stat either type of cycling for errands associates with a higher propensity of
Car use daily 0.236 2.13
satisfying existence needs. Intuitively, a higher probability of fulfilling
Recreational cycling −0.195 −2.44
Commuting cycling 0.177 2.40 relatedness needs is associated with current cycling with either type of
Electric cycling for commuting 0.209 2.06 bicycle for recreation, socialisation or going out purposes.
Electric cycling for recreation purposes 0.321 1.70 Enthusiasm is related to a higher propensity of satisfying all three
Electric cycling for going out 0.189 2.41
levels of needs when it comes to conventional bicycles, but a lower
Like or enthusiastic about conventional bicycles 0.386 2.29
Like electric bicycles 0.859 4.63
likelihood of satisfying growth needs when it comes to electric bicycles.
Enthusiastic about electric bicycles 1.173 6.47 As for the instrumental value of electric bicycles, female and older
Female 0.343 5.11 respondents have a higher probability of giving a higher value. Easiness
Age over 55 years old 1.023 2.53 of cycling is perceived as higher by male and older respondents. Current
I cycle more than 20 km per day −0.337 −1.94
cycling habits (in particular for commuting purposes) and in general
Constant 0.483 15.09
enthusiasm about both conventional and electric bicycles are positively
Easiness of cycling estimate t-stat related to giving a higher instrumental value of electric bicycles and
Car use a few times per week or daily −0.214 −3.48 perceiving a higher easiness of cycling. On the other hand, currently
Recreational cycling 0.136 2.89
owning and using frequently a car is negatively associated with the
Commuting cycling 0.206 4.49
Conventional cycling for commuting 0.287 4.58
perception that cycling and e-cycling are easy. Interestingly, the in-
Electric cycling for commuting 0.211 3.43 strumental value of electric bicycles is higher when electric bicycles are
Enthusiastic about conventional or electric bicycles 0.251 2.40 considered for commuting, recreation and going out purposes, while
Poznan −0.140 −2.87 the perception of easiness of cycling is higher when either type of bi-
Gorzow −0.295 −3.71
cycle is considered for commuting purposes.
Female −0.122 −3.14
Age between 36 and 55 years old 0.414 2.52 The hybrid bivariate ordered model reveals that a higher likelihood
Age over 55 years old 0.480 2.26 of satisfying the three needs is related to a stronger intention of using a
Owning a driving license −0.116 −2.59 conventional and an electric bicycle within the bike sharing systems of
Owning a car −0.151 −2.66
the three Polish cities. All the relations are positive with the exception
Income higher or a lot higher than average −0.148 −2.39
Constant 0.142 5.50
of the satisfaction of growth needs being negatively related to the in-
tention of cycling with an electric bicycle. Intuitively, perceiving a

144
S. Kaplan et al.
higher instrumental value of the electric bicycle correlates with a
stronger intention of using an electric bicycle, while feeling higher
easiness of cycling relates to a stronger intention of using a conven-
tional bicycle.
Direct effects are observed about socioeconomic characteristics, as
males are more incline to cycle with a conventional bicycle and females
are more likely to cycle with an electric bicycle. Younger respondents
are more likely to use both bicycles with respect to older ones, and
higher income respondents are more probable to express the intention
of cycling with a conventional bicycle. Experience with both recrea-
tional and commuting cycling is associated positively with a stronger
intention of cycling with a conventional bicycle, and so is the intention
to use this type of bicycle for every purpose other than running errands.
Similarly, the intention to use the electric bicycle for all purposes except
running errands is positively correlated with the likelihood of currently
having experienced an electric bicycle.
4. Discussion and conclusions
This study aimed at investigating how existence, relatedness and
growth needs relate to the intention to use conventional and electric
bicycles within a newly proposed bicycle sharing system in a driving-
oriented region. A survey collected answers about the intention to use
conventional and electric bicycles, the measures of needs, and the so-
cioeconomic characteristics and the travel habits of a sample of in-
habitants of three Polish cities with different infrastructure character-
istics. A hybrid bivariate ordered model captured complex relations that
emphasised in particular how socioeconomic characteristics and travel
habits related to the intention of using both types of bicycle directly and
indirectly.
Limitations should be acknowledged in that the sample was re-
cruited via word of mouth and was not representative of the Polish
population. Weights were used in the model to make the sample reflect
the population in terms of gender, age, education, and income dis-
tributions. However, attitudes towards cycling could be different from
the ones of the general population even after correcting for socio-de-
mographics. This is the reason why the findings cannot be generalised
across Poland or other driving-oriented regions, although the estimates
from the multivariate model are informative because of the rigorous
econometric procedure that produces unbiased parameter estimates
and the weighting procedure that corrects for sample characteristics
(Wooldridge, 2009). Accordingly, the findings from the model propose
some interesting perspective that future research could extend to other
samples from other countries and possibly from cycling-oriented
countries where in particular the feeling about cycling being for health
purposes and hence electric bicycles being less enticing could be ver-
ified.
Firstly, the model findings emphasise gender differences in the
preference for the type of bicycle: males have a stronger intention to use
conventional bicycles, while females exhibit a stronger intention to use
electric bicycles. This relates to the fact that give a lower perception of
the easiness to cycle and a higher perception of the instrumental value
of electric bicycles. Possibly, males intend to use conventional bicycles
because of the advantages related to physical activity (Maibach et al.,
2009; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011), while females would prefer to over-
come barriers such as distance and topography with the assistance of an
electric motor (Kingham et al., 2001; Dickinson et al., 2003). The latter
might also explain why females give more instrumental value to electric
bicycles and show more enthusiasm than males about electric bicycles
(Fyhri and Fearnley, 2015; Kaplan et al., 2015).
Secondly, the model estimates suggest age differences in the pre-
ference for the type of bicycle: younger respondents expressed stronger
intentions to use conventional bicycles, while older ones showed the
same propensity for electric bicycles. Similar findings were observed in
Portland (Dill and Voros, 2007) and Copenhagen (Kaplan et al., 2015).
Possibly, the advantages related to physical activity are more attractive
145
Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146
for the younger population (Maibach et al., 2009; Rojas-Rueda et al.,
2011), although they show enthusiasm for the electric bicycles because
of their interest in technological innovation (Kaplan et al., 2015; Jones
et al., 2016).
Thirdly, future intentions to cycle are related to current travel habits
in a straightforward way, as active travellers show a higher likelihood
of intending to cycle than motorised travellers. Likely, cycling and ac-
tive travel are lifestyle choices rather than travel preferences (Prato
et al., 2017) and habitual choices are script-based and likely dependent
on the satisfaction of needs (Gärling et al., 2002; Gärling and Axhausen,
2003; De Vos and Witlox, 2017). Interestingly, the theme of fulfilling
needs is also the main theme of this study.
Fourthly, and most relevantly, the model findings indicate relations
between the intentions to use conventional and electric bicycles and
needs framed according to the ERG theory (Alderfer, 1969). Regardless
of the type of bicycle, the proposed sharing system answers not only the
basic needs of mobility of the respondents, but also the intermediate
needs of belonging and relatedness. Accordingly, it is plausible to
imagine that bicycle sharing system could be advertised not only as the
solution to move from the origin to the destination of a trip, but also as
the travel mode to increase the social and relational aspects of the
travellers’ experience. Notably, similar findings were observed for
public transport systems in Mexico and Colombia (Salvá et al., 2015),
where the popularity of these systems lied in the trend of the young
population to share how cool they were on social media.
While differences in the fulfilment of these needs exist by gender
and age, where females and younger respondents appear to have a
lower propensity to fulfil existence and relatedness needs, the most
glaring difference emerges when looking at the type of bicycle that the
respondents intend to use. While a stronger intention of using a con-
ventional bicycle is related to a higher propensity to satisfy growth
needs, the opposite is observed for the use of an electric bicycle.
Moreover, a negative relation is observed between commuting by
conventional bicycle and growth needs. These findings suggest that
travellers’ well-being from the fulfilment of self-actualisation needs
does not come from habitual behaviour, but rather from improving
oneself via physical activity that implies actual pedalling.
Lastly, the findings of this study suggest that driving-oriented re-
gions need certainly to have functional and efficient bicycle sharing
systems that could entice travellers to move towards sustainable
transport, and might want to market them as cool to motivate travellers
with the enthusiasm for the novelty (Kaplan et al., 2015) and the social
value for the travellers themselves. However, planning for the use of
electric bicycles might be less effective, as the advantages in terms of
overcoming barriers such as distance and topography might be offset by
disadvantages in terms of losing the physical activity benefit. This
would in turn translate into not satisfying growth needs related to
feeling better about oneself.
Future research avenues could look at understanding possible cul-
tural differences by extending this study to different regions with an eye
on not only driving-oriented, but also cycling-oriented ones. Moreover,
future research avenues could look at investigating initiatives empha-
sising the relational and social value of cycling as an inclusive travel
experience. Lastly, future research avenues could look at analysis
whether cycling could be marketed as increasing self-esteem and self-
actualisation, thus providing travellers with a more personal perspec-
tive about the advantages of cycling.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their
stimulating comments that helped improve significantly a previous
version of the manuscript.
S. Kaplan et al.
References
Alderfer, C.P., 1969. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organ. Behav.
Hum. Perform. 4, 142–175.
Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol.
Rev. 84, 191–215.
Berntsen, D., Bohn, A., 2010. Remembering and forecasting. The relation between au-
tobiographical memory and episodic future thinking. Mem. Cognit. 38, 265–278.
Bierlaire, M., 2016. PythonBiogeme: a Short Introduction. Report TRANSP-OR 160706,
Series on Biogeme. Transport and Mobility Laboratory. School of Architecture, Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Brzeziński, A., 2015. Problemy wdrażania strategii transportowych w dużych miastach na
przykładzie Warszwy (in Polish). Logistyka 2, 5139–5149.
Cherry, C., Weinert, J., Yang, X.M., 2009. Comparative environmental impacts of electric
bikes in China. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 14, 281–290.
Cherry, C., Yang, H., Jones, L., He, M., 2016. Dynamics of electric bike ownership and use
in Kunming China. Transport Pol. 45, 127–135.
Daley, M., Rissel, C., 2011. Perspectives and images of cycling as a barrier or facilitator of
cycling. Transport Pol. 18, 211–216.
de Vos, J., Mokhtarian, P.L., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2016. Travel mode
choice and travel satisfaction: bridging the gap between decision utility and experi-
enced utility. Transportation 43, 771–796.
de Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2013. Travel and Subjective well-
being: a focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transport Rev. 33,
421–442.
de Vos, J., Witlox, F., 2017. Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel
satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract.
106, 364–373.
Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M., Astroza, S., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R., 2017. A
behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services.
Transportation 44, 1307–1323.
Dickinson, J.E., Kingham, S., Copsey, S., Pearlman Hougie, D.J., 2003. Employer travel
plans, cycling and gender: will travel plan measures improve the outlook for cycling
to work in the UK? Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 8, 53–67.
Dill, J., Rose, G., 2012. Electric bikes and transportation policy: insights from early
adopters. Transport. Res. Rec. 2314, 1–6.
Dill, J., Voros, K., 2007. Factors affecting bicycling demand: initial survey findings from
the Portland, Oregon, region. Transport. Res. Rec. 2031, 9–17.
Emmerink, R.H., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., van Ommeren, J.N., 1996. Variable message
signs and radio traffic information: an integrated empirical analysis of drivers' route
choice behaviour. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 30, 135–153.
Ferdous, N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.R., Meloni, I., 2010. A multivariate ordered-response
model system for adults' weekday activity episode generation by activity purpose and
social context. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 44, 922–943.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2013. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature.
Transport Rev. 33, 148–165.
Fyhri, A., Fearnley, N., 2015. Effects of e-bikes on bicycle use and mode share. Transport.
Res. Transport Environ. 36, 45–52.
Gärling, T., 2017. Travel-related feelings: review, theoretical framework, and numerical
experiments. Transportation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2017.
1300399.
Gärling, T., Axhausen, K.W., 2003. Introduction: habitual travel choice. Transportation
30, 1–11.
Gärling, T., Eek, D., Loukopoulos, P., Fujii, S., Johansson-Stenman, O., Kitamura, R.,
Pendyala, R., Vilhelmson, B., 2002. A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel
demand management on private car use. Transport Pol. 9, 59–70.
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., Maat, K., 2010. Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the lit-
erature. Transport Rev. 30, 59–96.
Hess, S., Train, K.E., Polak, J.W., 2006. On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube
Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice.
Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 40, 147–163.
Hiscock, R., Macintyre, S., Ellaway, A., Kearns, A., 2002. Means of transport and onto-
logical security: do cars provide psychosocial benefits to their users? Transport. Res.
Transport Environ. 7, 119–135.
Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P., 2007. Cycling and Society. Ashgate, Burlington, VT.
Jensen, O.B., 2009. Flows of meaning, cultures of movements – urban mobility as
meaningful everyday life practice. Mobilities 4, 139–158.
Jones, T., Harms, L., Heinen, E., 2016. Motives, perceptions and experiences of electric
bicycle owners and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. J. Transport
Geogr. 53, 41–49.
Kaplan, S., Manca, F., Nielsen, T.A.S., Prato, C.G., 2015. Intentions to use bike-sharing for
holiday cycling: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Manag.
47, 34–46.
Kingham, S., Dickinson, J., Copsey, S., 2001. Travelling to work: will people move out of
their cars. Transport Pol. 8, 151–160.
146
Transport Policy 71 (2018) 138–146
Lindsay, G., Macmillan, A., Woodward, A., 2011. Moving urban trips from cars to bi-
cycles: impact on health and emissions. Aust. N. Z. J. Publ. Health 35, 54–60.
Maibach, E., Steg, L., Anable, J., 2009. Promoting physical activity and reducing climate
change: opportunities to replace short car trips with active transportation. Prev. Med.
49, 326–327.
Mann, E., Abraham, C., 2006. The role of affect in UK commuters' travel mode choices: an
interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br. J. Psychol. 97, 155–176.
Mateo-Babiano, I., 2016. Pedestrian's needs matters: examining Manila's walking en-
vironment. Transport Pol. 45, 107–115.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 2001. How derived is the demand for travel? Some con-
ceptual and measurement considerations. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 35, 695–719.
Montgomery, B.N., 2010. Cycling trends and fate in the face of bus rapid transit: case
study of Jinan, Shandong Province, China. Transport. Res. Rec. 2193, 28–36.
Moore, D.A., Healy, P.J., 2008. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115,
502–517.
Morris, E.A., Guerra, E., 2015. Mood and mode: does how we travel affect how we feel?
Transportation 42, 25–43.
Muetze, A., Tan, Y.C., 2007. Electric bicycles: a performance evaluation. IEEE Ind. Appl.
Mag. 13, 12–21.
Parkin, J., Wardman, M., Page, M., 2007. Models of perceived cycling risk and route
acceptability. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39, 364–371.
Plazier, P.A., Weitkamp, G., van den Berg, A.E., 2017. “Cycling was never so easy!” an
analysis of e-bike commuters' motives, travel behaviour and experiences using GPS-
tracking and interviews. J. Transport Geogr. 65, 25–34.
Polish Transport Ministry, 2015. Strategia Rozwoju Transportu Do 2020 Roku (Z
Perspektywą Do 2030 Roku). (retrieved on June 6, 2016). http://mib.gov.pl/media/
3511/Strategia_Rozwoju_Transportu_do_2020_roku.pdf.
Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., Handy, S., 2014. Experiences of
electric bicycle users in the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behaviour and
Society 2014, 37–44.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2006. Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Pol. 13, 265–279.
Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2011. The health risks
and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact
assessment study. Br. Med. J. 343 d4521.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psycology 52, 141–166.
Salvá, J.R., Sierra, M., Alanis, A.K.J., Kaplan, S., Prato, C.G., 2015. Role of social climate
in habitual transit use by young adults to work and leisure activities. Transport. Res.
Rec. 2512, 22–30.
Scheepers, E., Wendel-Vos, W., van Kempen, E., Panis, L.I., Maas, J., Stipdonk, H.,
Moerman, M., den Hertog, F., Staatsen, B., van Wesemael, P., Schuit, J., 2013.
Personal and environmental characteristics associated with choice of active transport
modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up to 7.5 kilometers in The
Netherlands. PLoS One 8, e73105.
Sheller, M., Urry, J., 2006. The new mobilities paradigm. Environ. Plann.: Economy and
Science 38, 207–226.
Shliselberg, R., Givoni, M., 2018. Motility as a policy objective. Transport Rev. 38,
279–297.
Sigurdardottir, S.B., Kaplan, S., Møller, M., Teasdale, T., 2013. Understanding adoles-
cents' intentions to commute by car or bicycle as adults. Transport. Res. Transport
Environ. 24, 1–9.
Susilo, Y.O., Cats, O., 2014. Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-
modal trips by different traveler groups. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 67, 366–380.
Tight, M., Timms, P., Banister, D., Bowmaker, J., Copas, J., Day, A., Drinkwater, D.,
Givoni, M., Gühnemann, A., Lawler, M., Macmillen, J., Miles, A., Moore, N., Newton,
R., Ngoduy, D., Ormerod, M., O'Sullivan, M., Watling, D.P., 2011. Visions for a
walking and cycling focussed urban transport system. J. Transport Geogr. 19,
1580–1589.
Vandenbulcke, G., Dujardin, C., Thomas, I., Geus, B., Degraeuwe, B., Meeusen, R., Panis,
L.I., 2011. Cycle commuting in Belgium: spatial determinants and ‘re-cycling’ stra-
tegies. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 45, 118–137.
van der Kloof, A., Bastiaanssen, J., Martens, K., 2014. Bicycle lessons, activity partici-
pation and empowerment. Case Studies on Transport Policy 2, 89–95.
Vij, A., Walker, J., 2016. How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable
models are latently useful. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 90, 192–217.
Walker, J., Ben-Akiva, M.E., 2002. Generalized random utility model. Math. Soc. Sci. 43,
303–343.
Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B.G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., Beevers,
S., Chalabi, Z., Chowdhury, Z., Cohen, A., Franco, O.H., Haines, A., Hickman, R.,
Lindsay, G., Mittal, I., Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., Woodward, A., Roberts, I., 2009. Public
health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land trans-
port. Lancet 374, 1930–1943.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2009. Introductory Econometrics, fourth ed. South-Western Cengage
Learning, Mason, OH.