How Micromobility affects Health
Emerging micromobility options such as e-bikes and e-scooters can improve accessibility and connectivity for vulnerable population groups, such as those with physical limitations or without access to a car [1], [2]. Compared to biking or walking, electric micromobility (EMM) vehicles are often more accessible to users with lower interest in or capacity for physical activity, while still providing exercise and outdoor enjoyment [1], [2], [3]. For instance, e-bikes are favored by older adults as a form of physical activity and can encourage micromobility use for distances over 3 miles typically covered by cars [4], [5], [6]. An observational study found that starting to e-bike may increase overall biking frequency among older adults, potentially extending the number of years they are able to bike [4], [5], [6]. Despite being less physically demanding than conventional biking, e-biking offers many of the same cardiovascular benefits [5], [7].
In addition to health benefits from access, physical activity, and outdoor enjoyment, increased EMM vehicle usage has the potential to reduce air pollution from cars by substituting car trips and improving access to public transit. EMM vehicles can address the first-mile-last-mile problem, supporting the use of public transit [8], [9]. They also provide an alternative mode of transportation for short trips, which can help alleviate overcrowding on public transport and support social distancing when necessary [8]. Moreover, EMM vehicles may contribute to noise pollution reduction, which is linked to adverse health effects such as cognitive impairment in children and sleep disturbance [9]. However, studies indicate that not all EMM vehicles have the same environmental health benefits; e-scooters, for instance, may have a negative environmental impact compared to the modes they replace (for example, they may replace pedestrian trips) [9], [10], [11]. Additionally, the collection vehicles used for relocating and charging EMM vehicles in shared vehicle programs can contribute to emissions, particularly in less densely populated areas [9].
Safety remains a primary concern for public health regarding EMM usage, and is discussed in more detail in the section devoted to safety impacts. Cyclists, including e-bike users, are vulnerable to injuries and fatalities from collisions with cars. Electric scooter usage can also result in serious injuries, especially head and limb injuries, exacerbated by low helmet usage [9], [12]. Injuries to pedestrians from e-scooter riders on sidewalks are another significant concern [9]. Providing separate, designated infrastructure for EMM can enhance safety [1].
Future research could include the development of best practices for maximizing public health benefits of micromobility programs, as well as further analysis of the health impacts of different micromobility modes.
References
A. Bretones et al., “Public Health-Led Insights on Electric Micro-mobility Adoption and Use: a Scoping Review,” J. Urban Health, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 612–626, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11524-023-00731-0.
T. G. J. Jones, L. Harms, and E. Heinen, “Motives, perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 53, pp. 41–49, May 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.04.006.
Aslak Fyhri et al., “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., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 681–695, May 2017, doi: 10.1080/15568318.2017.1302526.
Jessica Bourne et al., “The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review.,” J. Transp. Health, vol. 19, p. 100910, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100910.
Taylor H Hoj et al., “Increasing Active Transportation Through E-Bike Use: Pilot Study Comparing the Health Benefits, Attitudes, and Beliefs Surrounding E-Bikes and Conventional Bikes.,” JMIR Public Health Surveill., vol. 4, no. 4, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.2196/10461.
Jelle Van Cauwenberg, J. Van Cauwenberg, Bas de Geus, B. de Geus, Benedicte Deforche, and B. Deforche, “Cycling for transport among older adults : health benefits, prevalence, determinants, injuries and the potential of e-bikes,” pp. 133–151, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76360-6_6.
Thomas Mildestvedt et al., “Getting Physically Active by E-Bike : An Active Commuting Intervention Study,” vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 120–129, 2020, doi: 10.5334/paah.63.
Gabriel Dias et al., “The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 13, pp. 7084–7084, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13137084
J. Glenn et al., “Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 17, no. 17, p. 6344, 2020, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176344.
Joseph A. Hollingsworth, J. A. Hollingsworth, Brenna Copeland, B. Copeland, Jeremiah X. Johnson, and J. X. Johnson, “Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 14, no. 8, p. 084031, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8.
Anne de Bortoli et al., “Consequential LCA for territorial and multimodal transportation policies: method and application to the free-floating e-scooter disruption in Paris,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 273, p. 122898, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122898.
-
T. K. Trivedi et al., “Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use,” JAMA Netw. Open, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. e187381–e187381, 2019.
Note: Mobility COE research partners conducted this literature review in Spring of 2024 based on research available at the time. Unless otherwise noted, this content has not been updated to reflect newer research.