Fact sheet Bicycle reward projects

In this respect it is important to take motions in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament on rush-hour avoidance into consideration. In concrete terms, this means that financial incentives and ANPR cameras can only be used in relation to large-scale roadworks.

The reward projects result in rush-hour avoidances because participants in the schemes exchange their car for a bicycle or e-bike, to save points or money during the period of the scheme (see also the case study about the bicycle reward project B-Riders). A few years ago, above all use was made of high discounts on the purchase of bicycles and/or e-bikes and e-bike 'try-out pools'.

Since journey registration by app has become possible, the reward system is now often focused on the use of the bicycle or e-bike in the form of a kilometre allowance or journey allowance. The rewards on offer range between €0.08 and €0.15 per kilometre or €1 to €4 per day, depending on the distance between home and work. This is a far lower amount than in previous projects with high discounts, whereby the focus of encouragement was not on use but purchase.

Accessibility effects

The table below is an overview of the recently completed interim evaluation of bicycle projects in the context of Optimising Use (Beter Benutten) [1].

These figures indicate that on average, participants achieve 0.2 to 0.8  instances of rush-hour avoidance per day (on average 0.55 instances of rush-hour avoidance per day). This means that projects of this type need approximately two active participants in rush-hour avoidance on a daily basis. In projects in which those who already cycle are allowed to participate, far more participants are needed in order to achieve the same number of instances of rush-hour avoidance. The table also shows that the total effect of these projects ranges from several hundred to several thousand instances of rush-hour avoidance every day.

Projects in which lower demands are imposed on participation are in principle at the low end of the range (in the region of 0.2 daily instances of rush-hour avoidance per participant). Projects in which only car drivers are allowed to participate are at the upper end of the range (towards 0.8). E-bike projects in which it is possible to earn back money towards the purchase of an e-bike on the basis of a journey allowance also generate more instances of rush-hour avoidance per participant. The higher purchase price of an e-bike means that only people who actually intend to make regular use of the e-bike will participate.

Long-term effects

There is little information about permanent behaviour change among (former) participants in bicycle reward projects. Data from a national panel survey in which a number of former participants in bicycle projects took part suggest that the rate of behaviour retention in the first two years is fairly high (60-80%), but does tend to decline in subsequent years [1].

Generally speaking, however, it can be concluded that behaviour retention among rush-hour avoidance cyclists would seem to be higher than among other rush-hour avoiders (including people who switch to public transport or who travel by car at a different time). This is for example reflected in the meta evaluation of rush-hour avoidance projects [2] (see the fact sheet Rush-hour avoidance). Follow-up measurements among participants in various Optimising Use projects in Maastricht provide an indicative picture that following participation, people tend to use the car during the rush-hour even less than in the period of participation in the projects. The footnote should however be added that in the two examples referred to above, the participants in question did not specifically take part in bicycle promotion projects, but participated in a broader range of projects.

Other effects

Regular cycling has a positive effect on health. The health effects of cycling are described in the fact sheet Cycling infrastructure.

Sustainability effects

In the case of a bike or e-bike journey as an alternative to a car journey in the rush-hour, based on figures from recent Optimising Use bicycle projects [1] an average journey length of 10 km can be assumed. Participants in these projects achieved an average score of 2.8 instances of rush-hour avoidance per week, together representing around 30 avoided car kilometres per week (in other words more than 10 km per instance of rush-hour avoidance). This in turn results in the following saved emissions per instance of rush-hour avoidance:

Moreover, participants in these bicycle projects also tend to cycle more often outside the rush hour, thanks to participation in the projects. These journeys do not result in any specific rush-hour avoidance, but do deliver a sustainability effect. In total, participants avoid around 55 car kilometres per week. If these effects are also counted, the figures from the table above can be doubled.

Variables affecting effects

Three principles that are important to behaviour-influencing in general are:

1. make it easy
2. make it attractive
3. seize the moment [3]

For bicycle reward projects, the following recommendations emerge:

1. Make it easy:
   a. The registration procedure must be simple.
   b. The app (or any other journey registration method) must be user-friendly.
2. Make it attractive:
   a. The existing projects include a web shop where you can exchange the points accumulated by cycling for a financial reward, gifts or a donation to a good cause. By offering a choice you make the project attractive to a broader audience.
   b. Also emphasise the positive effect on health. This is a permanent positive effect that extends beyond the reward period.
3. Seize the moment: consider the effect of the seasons. New cyclists have to cross a major barrier to start cycling in the winter. In other words, by preference do not start a project in the winter. If the reward period does coincide with the winter, you may consider increasing the reward amount.

Other behaviour principles that are often employed in bicycle reward projects are social influence and feedback. Social influence with regard to the target behaviour is achieved by using ambassadors. Ambassadors are people who bear as much similarity as possible to the participants (colleagues, other local residents), but who already cycle regularly and can talk about it enthusiastically. Feedback to the participants in respect of their participation behaviour and encouragement to cycle more often have also been shown to stimulate the target behaviour.

For a permanent behaviour change, participants must be able to get used to the new means of travel. The reward period must be long enough to bring this about. The minimum effective reward period is not known, but current projects assume a reward period of six months or more. Another way to make the behaviour permanent is to approach employers to encourage them to also offer cyclists a kilometre allowance (see the fact sheet on the approach to employers). For more examples of the use of behaviour principles, see the
Optimising Use Conduct Scheme [3] or the e-book Change is cool [4].

Costs (including VAT)

The total costs for the Optimising Use projects that were included in the interim evaluation on bicycle incentive/promotion projects amount to between €430,000 and €2,700,000. These figures are merely indicative because not all of these projects had been concluded when the evaluation was published. The costs include the reward costs and the project costs. The rewards amount to between €0.08 and €0.15 per kilometre or between €1 and €4 per working day, depending on the distance of travel between home and work. Assuming €0.08 and €0.15 per kilometre, this amounts to between €0.50 and €0.90 reward costs per instance of rush-hour avoidance (excluding project costs).

Variables affecting costs

• the reward per instance of rush-hour avoidance/extra bicycle journey
• the reward costs are generally set higher if only car drivers are permitted to participate, and in the case of e-bike reward projects. If anyone is allowed to participate, the rewards are often lower and more differentiated
• the extent to which the commuters use the (e-)bike during the reward period
• the duration of the project
• co-financing by the employer
• over the past few years the costs of organising such projects have fallen and it has become easier to engage parties from the market by using IMMA (Integrated Mobility Management Architecture), which allows experts from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to provide support for the project

Want to know more?

See https://wegwijs-beterbenutten.nl/fiets

Sources consulted

1. Tussenevaluatie fietsstimuleringsprojecten (Interim Evaluation of Bicycle Promotion Projects) (GoudappelCoffeng, 2017)
2. Meta-evaluatie spitsmijdenprojecten (Meta-evaluation of rush-hour avoidance projects) (MuConsult 2017)
3. Website Beter Benutten Gedragshuis, Keuzemogelijkheden voor de reiziger (Optimising Use Conduct Scheme Choices for the Traveller) https://beterbenutten.gedragshuis.nl/
4. Bicycle promotion E-book Change is Cool (MuConsult, XTNT, &Morgen, 2016)
5. Decisio (2016) Maatschappelijke Waarde en Investeringsagenda Fietsen Verantwoordingsrapportage (Social Value and the Cycling Investment Agenda, Accountability report) - http://tourdeforce2020.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Verantwoordingsrapportage.pdf
6. Evaluatie E-bike-actie Haaglanden (Evaluation of E-bike scheme, Haaglanden) (Mobycon, 2014)
7. Evaluatierapport Fietsactie Twente (Evaluation of Bike Scheme, Twente) (Twente Mobiel, 2015)
8. Non-response onderzoek e-fietsregeling Rijkswaterstaat (Rijkswaterstaat E-bike Scheme Non-response Study) (MuConsult, 2014)
9. Geclusterde effectmeting Goedopweg (Goedopweg Clustered Effect Measurement) (MuConsult 2017)