E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials -

Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes,

Age, and Gender

Klemens Weigl

1,2,3 a

, Verona Pircher

2 b

, Justin Hanslmeier

2 c

and Mira Scheuvens

3 d

Faculty of Information Management and Media, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences,

Moltkestraße 30, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

Department of Psychology, Catholic University Eichst

att-Ingolstadt, Germany

Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

Keywords:

E-Cargo Bikes, Wood vs. Carbon Fibre, Semantic Differential, Buying Intention, Environmental Attitudes,

Cycling per Week, Age, Gender.

Abstract:

E-Cargo bikes are often promoted in the context of climate change and sustainability as a great alternative to

cars. Even though the number of E-Cargo bikes increases worldwide, it is unclear whether innovative bike

frame materials such as wood and carbon ﬁbre may play an important role for interested cyclists. Hence, we

conducted an exploratory cross-sectional online questionnaire study and collected data from 292 participants

in Germany (147 female, 144 male, one diverse; age range: 18 to 88 years). They completed scales, such as

a semantic differential and buying intention, both for E-Cargo bikes made of wood and carbon ﬁbre, respec-

tively, as well as a questionnaire on environmental attitudes. We found that respondents who reported greater

values on pro-environmental attitudes favoured wooden E-Cargo bikes. However, we observed no preference

between E-Cargo bikes made of wood vs. carbon ﬁbre. Additionally, we uncovered a gender effect for pro-

environmental attitudes. Therefore, we conclude that cyclists do not prefer wood or carbon ﬁbre as a bike

frame material for E-Cargo bikes. Women seem to be more interested in wooden E-Cargo bikes than men,

while articulating more pro-environmental attitudes that could impact environmental campaigns on green mo-

bility.

1 INTRODUCTION

Given global challenges like climate change and ac-

celerating urbanisation, developing sustainable con-

cepts is essential (Hess and Schubert, 2019; Kreye

et al., 2024). The transport sector is particularly crit-

ical here, as it accounts for a considerable propor-

tion of greenhouse gas emissions (Kreye et al., 2024).

Consequently, mobility solutions that reduce green-

house gases are becoming increasingly relevant (Hess

and Schubert, 2019). One notable example is an E-

Cargo bike, which combines traditional cargo bikes

with electric assistance (Hess and Schubert, 2019).

E-Cargo bikes are an important part of the trans-

port transition, offering an alternative to motorised

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2674-1061

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0274-0739

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8371-1278

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6961-905X

vehicles in private settings (Carracedo and Mostoﬁ,

2022). They provide numerous beneﬁts, including

the potential to reduce emissions, air pollution, and

noise (Athanasopoulos et al., 2024; Vasiutina et al.,

2021). In urban trafﬁc, E-Cargo bikes can help allevi-

ate congestion and parking issues, and they may en-

able quicker journeys (Athanasopoulos et al., 2024).

They also offer high transport capacity and can be

used by individuals without a driver’s license (Hess

and Schubert, 2019; Mantecchini et al., 2025). Eco-

nomically, they often have lower purchase and op-

erating costs than motorised vehicles (Dybdalen and

Ryeng, 2022).

Despite these advantages, E-Cargo bikes face

several challenges that hinder widespread adoption.

These include inadequate infrastructure, such as a

lack of dedicated cycle paths and suitable parking

spaces, along with safety concerns in road trafﬁc

(Hess and Schubert, 2019; Marincek et al., 2024).

Operational limitations, such as restricted range,

238

Weigl, K., Pircher, V., Hanslmeier, J. and Scheuvens, M.

E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials - Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes, Age, and Gender.

DOI: 10.5220/0013746600003988

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Spor t Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2025), pages 238-245

ISBN: 978-989-758-771-9; ISSN: 2184-3201

speed, load capacity, and dependence on weather con-

ditions, can affect their attractiveness and efﬁciency

(Dybdalen and Ryeng, 2022; Riggs, 2016). Further-

more, acquisition costs and insufﬁcient information

can affect acceptance among potential users (Car-

racedo and Mostoﬁ, 2022; Heinrich et al., 2016).

While pragmatic factors are well-documented, this

study explores how the material itself inﬂuences user

perception. Therefore, this study compares the mate-

rials wood and carbon.

1.1 Wood vs. Carbon

The growing emphasis on sustainable practices has

driven a re-evaluation of materials in production sys-

tems (Hegab et al., 2023). This shift is particu-

larly relevant for material selection, where environ-

mental beneﬁts are gaining importance, especially for

consumers with stronger sustainability values (Graf,

2021). Consequently, wood, as a vital renewable and

biodegradable resource, is increasingly central to a fu-

ture bioeconomy (Gold and Rubik, 2009; Goldhahn

et al., 2021). The perception of wood among con-

sumers is frequently favourable, encompassing asso-

ciations with aesthetics, contributions to well-being,

and eco-friendliness, leading to common descriptions

of the material as warm and soft (Gold and Rubik,

2009; Kaputa et al., 2021). Despite these favourable

perceptions, concerns regarding its durability and

maintenance persist (Gold and Rubik, 2009; Harju,

2022).

Traditionally, many sporting goods, and by exten-

sion other products requiring speciﬁc characteristics,

have relied on wood and wood composite products

to meet demands for lightweight and rigidity (Zhang,

2013). Notwithstanding, carbon ﬁbre reinforced com-

posite materials have gained attention as an alter-

native with mechanical properties that are generally

higher than those of wood (Zhang, 2013).

1.2 Age and Gender Effects

The use of cargo bikes varies with demographic fac-

tors such as age and gender (Carracedo and Mostoﬁ,

2022). A study found gender-speciﬁc differences in

the use of privately owned cargo bikes for trips in-

volving children (Riggs and Schwartz, 2018). Their

ﬁndings show that while 56 per cent of men utilise

cargo bikes for these family-related journeys, a higher

percentage of 78 per cent of women do the same

(Riggs and Schwartz, 2018). This trend highlights

that women are more likely to rely on cargo bikes

for transportation needs associated with family activ-

ities (Riggs and Schwartz, 2018). Meanwhile, a re-

search paper suggests that E-cargo bike users are typ-

ically male, highly educated, and in their late thirties

or early forties (Carracedo and Mostoﬁ, 2022). They

often belong to households with children and cars,

representing an upper-to-middle-class socioeconomic

stratum (Carracedo and Mostoﬁ, 2022).

These differences in attitudes toward new tech-

nologies between genders and age groups may stem

from women and older individuals being more cau-

tious in their evaluations (Weigl et al., 2022). They

often rate the positive aspects of these technologies

lower, show reduced tendencies to early adoption, and

express more concerns compared to men (Weigl et al.,

2022). Additionally, women typically exhibit lower

levels of trust and higher levels of distrust in vehi-

cles, coupled with signiﬁcantly higher instances of

non-clinical anxiety when compared to men, which

could exacerbate their safety concerns (Weigl, 2020).

1.3 Present Study

The ﬁrst research objective of the present cycling

study was to investigate different bike frame materi-

als, such as wood vs. traditional bike frame materials

(e.g., carbon ﬁbre), of E-Cargo bikes in the context

of buying intention, environmental attitudes, and cy-

cling per week. The second objective was to study

any age or gender effects (or a possible interaction)

on the aforementioned factors of both wood and tra-

ditional bike frame materials. Hence, we postulated

the following three research questions (RQs):

1. RQ1: How are the associations of the perceptions

of different bike frame materials, such as wood

vs. traditional bike frame materials (e.g., carbon)

of E-Cargo bikes, with buying intention, environ-

mental attitudes, age, and cycling per week?

2. RQ2: How are the ratings of different bike frame

materials, such as wood vs. traditional bike frame

materials (e.g., carbon) of an E-Cargo bike?

3. RQ3: How is the inﬂuence of age and gender, or

a potential interaction effect, on the factor mean

scores of the semantic differential for wood and

traditional cycling material, and environmental at-

titudes?

2 METHOD

2.1 Participants

We collected data from 292 respondents in Germany

(147 female, 144 male, one diverse) with an age range

from 18 to 88 years (M = 41.54 years, SD = 18.36).

E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials - Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes,

Age, and Gender

239

All participants were ﬂuent in German and had nor-

mal or corrected-to-normal vision. Sixty-nine were

unmarried or single, 80 in a relationship, 114 mar-

ried, 14 divorced, and three widowed (twelve gave no

answer). One hundred ﬁfty resided in a big city (>

100.000), 83 in a medium city (20.000 to 100.000),

27 in a small town (5.000 to 20.000), 15 in a small

town or village (< 5.000 inhabitants), six near a city,

and eleven in the countryside. Two hundred and

ninety-one reported that they were able to cycle, and

268 were in possession of a valid driving licence.

Eighty-ﬁve commuted by public transport, and 115

by car. Six used ride-sharing frequently, and 30 only

seldom (256 never used it). Car-sharing was often

used by two, and seldom by 24 (266 did not use it).

Two hundred eighty were German citizens. Forty-

eight participants had completed vocational training

(14 a vocational-company training (apprenticeship)

and 34 a vocational-school training). Ninety-nine had

achieved a higher education entrance qualiﬁcation, 13

had a high school diploma, 42 held a bachelor’s de-

gree, 74 had a master’s degree, 12 had a doctorate,

and one had completed a postdoctoral qualiﬁcation

(habilitation). Three were not educated.

2.2 Study Design

We conducted an online questionnaire study using

an exploratory, cross-sectional within-subjects design

to compare two different E-Cargo bike frame mate-

rials: wood and carbon ﬁbre. Therefore, we col-

lected the data using the questionnaires listed in the

following subsection (cf. 2.3) and assessed demo-

graphic questions, such as age, self-reported gender,

and the frequency of cycling per week (cf. more de-

tails in section 2.1). The two categorical variables

were two age groups (18-39; 40+) and gender (fe-

male, male), yielding a 2 × 2 between-subjects de-

sign (e.g., for studying environmental attitudes as in

RQ3). However, for the main investigation of RQ3,

a repeated-measures MANOVA was applied to the

factor mean scores of the semantic differential, with

the bike frame material serving as the within-subjects

(repeated-measures). Hence, we employed a 2 × 2

× 2 between-within-subjects design for the repeated-

measures MANOVA analysis, focusing on the three

categorical variables: age groups (18-39; 40+ years)

and gender (female, male), both as between factors;

wood vs. carbon (within). The dependent variables

(DVs) were the mean factor scores of the question-

naires, speciﬁcally the semantic differential and buy-

ing intention, for both wood and carbon ﬁbre, as well

as environmental attitudes.

2.3 Materials

To address the research questions, this study em-

ployed previously validated scales established in the

literature. All items were translated into German us-

ing the back-translation method to ensure linguistic

and conceptual equivalence. Mean scores were com-

puted for each scale, with higher values indicating

higher levels of the respective construct, except for

purchase intentions, which were reverse-coded.

Perception and Evaluation. The perception of the

two E-Cargo bikes (wooden and conventional) was

assessed using a semantic differential scale based on

Graf (Graf, 2021). Participants rated eight bipolar ad-

jective pairs (e.g., “robust - fragile”) on a 5-point scale

ranging from -2 to +2. These items captured both gen-

eral and environmentally relevant product attributes.

The internal consistency of the scale was high (Cron-

bach’s α = .86). To ensure that the evaluation differ-

ences could be attributed solely to the presented ma-

terial, participants were shown corresponding images

of the two E-Cargo bikes without any price or perfor-

mance information.

Environmental Attitudes. Environmental attitudes

were measured using a validated short scale de-

veloped by Geiger and Holzhauer (Geiger and

Holzhauer, 2020), consisting of nine items covering

environmental knowledge, concern, and self-reported

behaviour (e.g., “Human-caused environmental prob-

lems such as deforestation or plastic in the oceans up-

set me”). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Lik-

ert scale (1 = do not agree at all to 5 = fully agree).

The scale showed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s

α = .71).

Purchase Intentions. Participants’ purchase inten-

tions for both the wooden and conventional E-Cargo

bikes were measured using a scale adapted from

Kaushal and Kumar (Kaushal and Kumar, 2016),

comprising four items per bike type (e.g., “I intend

to buy a wooden E-Cargo bike”), rated on a 7-point

Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly dis-

agree). Previous studies reported satisfactory internal

consistency for this scale (Cronbach’s α = .82 − .92).

Besides demographic questions, we applied an-

other questionnaire, which is beyond the scope of the

present study.

For presenting the E-Cargo bike with a wooden

bike frame, we used the original picture from bi-

cycle manufacturer rethink. This cycling company

creates and develops E-Cargo bikes with a wooden

bike frame in Germany. This original picture was

used, and a layer with carbon ﬁbre was placed on the

wooden bike frame to mimic a carbon E-Cargo bike.

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

240

2.4 Procedure

This study was administered via SoSci Survey

(Leiner, 2024). Data collection took place between

December 2023 and January 2024. The questionnaire

required approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete.

Participants were recruited through personal invita-

tions within student social circles, with efforts made

to ensure an almost gender- and age-balanced sample.

Access to the survey was restricted via personalised

access codes, allowing only invited and authorised in-

dividuals to participate. Contact persons were avail-

able throughout the survey period to answer ques-

tions or provide technical support. Ethical standards

were strictly adhered to: participation was voluntary,

anonymous, and could be discontinued at any time

without consequences. No deception, coercion, in-

vasive procedures, or risks to participants’ well-being

were involved. Only adults (18+ years) were eligible

to participate. No sensitive data were collected, and

no ﬁnancial incentives were offered. As all ethical re-

quirements were met, no formal ethics approval was

deemed necessary.

Prior to participation, individuals received a brief

introduction outlining the study’s purpose and a gen-

eral overview of the topic (E-Cargo bikes). Partic-

ipants were required to give informed consent and

conﬁrm acknowledgement of the data protection pol-

icy. Then, they entered a personalised participant ID

and veriﬁcation code to validate their eligibility and

ensure data integrity. The main survey began with

a semantic differential scale (Graf, 2021), followed

by an additional questionnaire beyond the scope of

the present study. Next, environmental attitudes were

measured using a validated short scale (Geiger and

Holzhauer, 2020). Following this, purchase inten-

tions were assessed separately for both the wooden

and the conventional E-Cargo bikes (Kaushal and Ku-

mar, 2016). At the end of the questionnaire, partic-

ipants provided sociodemographic information (e.g.,

age, gender, cycling habits).

2.5 Statistical Analyses

We set the overall signiﬁcance level to α = .05 and

reported the results with p < α as statistically signif-

icant. For the correlational investigations, we applied

the Bonferroni-Holm approach (Holm, 1979). Hence,

we applied IBM

SPSS

Statistics, version 29.0.1.0

(IBM Corp., 2023) for analysing the data.

It is worth noting that the collected data using

the Likert scale response format should commonly be

analysed with nonparametric statistical procedures.

Nevertheless, since we did not directly use the raw

data, but the aggregated mean scores, we applied

parametric statistical analyses for our analyses of this

pilot study. In future studies, the visual analogue

slider scale response format (Weigl and Forstner,

2021) should be applied.

For the MANOVA analyses (Pillai, 1955) Pil-

lai’s trace was applied, which is considered to be

more robust and powerful, especially for departures

from homogeneity of variance-covariances, and for

uneven groups (i.e., unequal groups) and small cell

sample sizes and because not all statistical prereq-

uisites were met (Ates¸ et al., 2019; Seber, 1984).

However, the MANOVA enables the testing of two

or more DVs without inﬂating the familywise error

rate (Type I error), while investigating interaction ef-

fects at the same time. Further statistical analyses

are described in more detail in the results section.

The data set and pictures of the E-Cargo bike (wood

and carbon ﬁbre) included in the online questionnaire

are shared via the Open Science Framework (OSF):

https://osf.io/r8mpw/ .

3 RESULTS

Initially, the factor mean scores for the semantic dif-

ferential and buying intention, for both wood and car-

bon, were computed, as well as for environmental at-

titudes. Then, the statistical prerequisites were stud-

ied. Although normality was not met when using

Shapiro-Wilk test (which is likely to depart from the

approximation of the normal distribution, especially

for fairly large data sets), the additional test statistics,

such as skewness and kurtosis (i.e., skewness and kur-

tosis were satisfactory and between -1.96 and +1.96

(Field, 2013)), box and QQ plots, indicated a rela-

tively reasonable distributional assumption of normal-

ity, except for buying intention.

3.1 RQ1: Correlational Findings for

Different Bike Frame Materials:

Wood vs. Carbon

Based on the results of the investigation of the statis-

tical prerequisites, we applied Spearman’s nonpara-

metric rank-order correlation coefﬁcient to obtain the

correlational ﬁndings, as shown in Table 1. Because

of multiple testing, we applied the Bonferroni-Holm

corrected α level (Holm, 1979) on the obtained p val-

ues using an online calculator for α adjustment (Hem-

merich, 2016) to control the familywise error rate. Ul-

timately, we identiﬁed a reasonable negative correla-

tion between the ratings of the semantic differential

E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials - Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes,

Age, and Gender

241

for wood and the buying intention of wood, as well

as between the semantic differential for carbon ﬁbre

and the buying intention of carbon ﬁbre. Furthermore,

we uncovered a negative correlation between environ-

mental attitudes and the buying intention of a wooden

E-Cargo bike. It is worth noting that the ratings on the

semantic differential scale range from 1 (negative) to

5 (positive), and for buying intention, from 1 (yes) to

7 (no). Hence, a negative correlation indicates a pos-

itive association. Additionally, we observed a posi-

tive association between environmental attitudes and

the ratings of the semantic differential of a wooden E-

Cargo bike, as well as between the buying intention of

a wooden E-Cargo bike and one with a carbon frame.

Finally, we found a positive association between the

factor score of the ratings of the semantic differential

of wooden E-Cargo bikes and age.

Table 1: Bivariate correlations (nonparametric, Spearman)

of the factor mean scores of the semantic differential and

buying intention, both for wood and traditional cycling

frame materials, respectively, as well as environmental atti-

tudes, age, and cycling per week.

Variable

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. SD W –

2. SD T .13 –

3. BI W -.44* -.02 –

4. BI T -.08 -.26* .59* –

5. Env A .22* .03 -.20* -.12 –

6. Age .18* .14 .04 .02 -.07 –

7. Cyc -.04 .05 -.03 -.08 .13 .06

N = 292

Abbreviations of the mean factor scores: SD =

semantic differential; BI = buying intention; T = traditional

frame material; W = wood; Env A = environmental

attitudes; Cyc = cycling per week;

*Signiﬁcant at the Bonferroni-Holm corrected α level

(Holm, 1979) on the obtained p values using an online

calculator for α adjustment (Hemmerich, 2016).

3.2 RQ2: Comparison of Different Bike

Frame Materials: Wood vs. Carbon

To study RQ2, we applied a dependent two-sample t-

test. We found that the ratings of the semantic differ-

ential of different bike frame materials of an E-Cargo

bike, such as wood vs. traditional bike frame ma-

terials (e.g., carbon), did not show a substantial dif-

ference (t(291) = −1.11, p = .269). Although it is

in general not necessary to denote the means and the

standard deviations in case of a non-signiﬁcant result,

we want to report them because of the quite similar

ratings on the mean factor scores such as M

(Wood)

3.46, SD = 0.72 and M

(Carbon)

= 3.51, SD = 0.57.

We identiﬁed a similar ﬁnding for the ratings of buy-

ing intention, again, showing no substantial difference

between wood and carbon as frame material used for

an E-Cargo bike (t(291) = 0.69, p = .493; M

(Wood)

6.18, SD = 1.17; M

(Carbon)

= 6.13, SD = 1.34).

3.3 RQ3: Investigation of Age Groups

and Gender Effects

For the investigation of RQ3, we applied a repeated-

measures MANOVA on the factor mean scores of

the semantic differential, with the bike frame mate-

rial serving as the within-subjects factor (repeated-

measures: for the comparison of both materials,

which were presented consecutively). Additionally,

we performed an ANOVA on the mean factor score of

environmental attitudes. As mentioned in section 2.2,

we employed a 2 × 2 × 2 between-within-subjects de-

sign for the MANOVA analysis, focusing on the three

categorical variables: between factor: age groups (18-

39; 40+ years) and gender (female, male); within:

wood vs. carbon.

First, we observed no interaction effect for any

of the combinations with the within-factor: material

* gender (F(1, 287) = 3.78, p = .053, η

= .013),

material * age (F(1, 287) = 1.41, p = .235, η

.005), material * age * gender (F(1, 287) = 3.15, p =

.077, η

= .011). However, we revealed an interac-

tion effect for age * gender (F(1, 287) = 5.26, p =

.023, η

= .018), with younger women stating larger

values than men. This effect changes for females

and males older than 40 years, with males reporting

slightly larger values than females. Moreover, we

observed a main effect for age group (F(1, 287) =

15.22, p =< .001, η

= .050), with older participants

reporting more positive values on the semantic differ-

ential than younger ones (due to lack of space, de-

tailed descriptive statistics are provided via the OSF

repository, cf. section 2.5). Furthermore, we found

no main effect for material (F(1, 287) = 1.26, p =

.263, η

= .004) and none for gender (F(1, 287) =

2.39, p = .124, η

= .008).

Second, we performed the ANOVA analysis on

the mean factor score of environmental attitudes (as

a single DV) and observed an interaction effect of age

* gender (F(1, 287) = 15.04, p =< .001, η

= .050),

with younger men reporting substantially smaller val-

ues than women. This effect changes for respondents

older than 40 years, with values that are almost the

same for females and males (due to space constraints,

detailed descriptive statistics are provided in the OSF

repository, cf. section 2.5). Furthermore, we revealed

a main effect for gender (F(1, 287) = 20.47, p =<

.001, η

= .067), with women denoting larger values

than men. However, we identiﬁed no age group effect

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

242

(F(1, 287) = 0.6, p = .801, η

= .000).

4 DISCUSSION

In this questionnaire study, we aimed to investigate

the perception and attitudes towards different bike

frame materials of E-Cargo bikes, such as wood and

carbon ﬁbre. In doing so, we assessed a semantic

differential and buying intention for both wood and

carbon ﬁbre (presented as pictures), as well as envi-

ronmental attitudes and the frequency of cycling per

week. Moreover, we investigated the effects of age

and gender (or a possible interaction between age and

gender) on the mean factor scores of both wood and

carbon ﬁbre as E-Cargo bike frame materials.

4.1 RQ1: Correlational Findings for

Different Bike Frame Materials:

Wood vs. Carbon

The ﬁrst two negative correlations draw a consistent

picture of positive associations (cf. section 3.1) within

the ratings of wooden E-Cargo bikes and those with

carbon frames. However, there were no associations

between wood and carbon, which underlines the con-

sistency of these results.

The further correlational ﬁndings indicate that

people who report more positive ratings on a wooden

E-Cargo bike also express more positive environ-

mental attitudes. Interestingly, this positive asso-

ciation with environmental attitudes was not found

for E-Cargo bikes with carbon frames. Hence, pro-

environmental attitudes may positively inﬂuence the

perception of wooden E-Cargo bikes. This ﬁnding is

consistent with research indicating that solid wood is

considered more natural and environmentally friendly

than synthetic materials (Zhang et al., 2023). How-

ever, the same study also demonstrated that synthe-

sised material products were perceived as less eco-

friendly than less processed materials (Zhang et al.,

2023). This suggests that the favourable perception of

wood may not extend to applications where its natural

appearance is not maintained (Zhang et al., 2023).

Additionally, we observed that participants will-

ing to buy an E-Cargo bike are generally interested in

buying it independently of the frame material, such

as wood or carbon. Our ﬁndings align with broader

e-bike adoption research that emphasises factors be-

yond speciﬁc frame materials. For instance, a study

reported that high costs and infrastructure barriers of-

ten suppress actual purchase intentions for electric

two-wheelers (Pyakurel et al., 2025). Therefore, con-

sumers, while interested in novel transportation op-

tions, may nonetheless prioritise practical considera-

tions when making purchasing decisions.

Finally, the positive association between the fac-

tor score of the ratings of the semantic differential of

wooden E-Cargo bikes and age is somewhat surpris-

ing, as it was not observed for the ratings of the se-

mantic differential of the carbon E-Cargo bikes. This

discrepancy could be attributed to a higher perceived

value of natural materials, such as wood, among older

participants (Hencov

a and Kotradyov

a, 2023).

4.2 RQ2: Comparison of Different Bike

Frame Materials: Wood vs. Carbon

Taken together, the ﬁndings of the comparison of

wood and carbon ratings given by the participants

indicate no preference for either wood or carbon as

the frame material of an E-Cargo bike. Interestingly,

the mean buying intention was rather low for both

frame materials on the scale ranging from 1 (= yes)

to 7 (= no; M

(Wood)

= 6.18, SD = 1.17; M

(Carbon)

6.13, SD = 1.34). This could also be affected by the

ratings of the pictures presented in the online ques-

tionnaire of the E-Cargo bikes, which are made of

wood or carbon. However, none of the participants

was exposed to either of them. Hence, none of them

could test those E-Cargo bikes in real-world settings,

which could have substantially affected the assigned

ratings. These ﬁndings are consistent with previous

research indicating that consumers’ evaluations can

differ depending on whether products are assessed on-

line or in person (Dzyabura et al., 2019).

4.3 RQ3: Investigation of Age Groups

and Gender Effects

The investigation of RQ3 was separated into two anal-

yses stages: First, for the semantic differential ap-

plied to rate wooden and carbon ﬁbre bike frames,

it revealed not only a relatively small interaction ef-

fect of age and gender when focusing on the effect

size, but also more substantial effect for age group,

revealing that older respondents (40+ years) were rat-

ing E-Cargo bikes better than younger ones (18 to 39

years). However, these ﬁndings contrast with research

on the acceptance of truly novel technologies, where

younger demographics often exhibit higher positive

evaluations and earlier adoption (Weigl et al., 2022)

Second, regarding environmental attitudes, we

identiﬁed a relatively large main effect of gender, con-

sidering the effect size, and also a fairly large one

(although not very large) for the interaction effect of

age and gender. Notably, it is interesting that younger

E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials - Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes,

Age, and Gender

243

men (18 to 39 years old) assign substantially smaller

values than younger women (stating the largest val-

ues). However, for respondents older than 40 years,

both females and males report almost the same values

for environmental attitudes. Nevertheless, it is essen-

tial to note that women are assigning slightly larger

values than men. This ﬁnding aligns with general ob-

servations that women demonstrate a stronger inclina-

tion towards sustainability considerations than men.

Still, it contradicts the ﬁndings that the age group

plays no role in these attitudes (Weigl et al., 2022).

4.4 Limitations and Future Research

This study provides valuable insights into the inﬂu-

ence of material choice on purchase decisions for E-

Cargo bikes, but it is subject to several limitations.

Its scope focused mainly on material perception, ex-

cluding traditional materials such as steel and alu-

minium, as well as pragmatic factors such as cost and

weight. The simulated product presentation further

limited ecological validity, as participants could nei-

ther interact with nor test ride the bikes. The carbon

ﬁbre model, presented only as a graphical illustration

rather than a photograph, may also have biased per-

ceptions. In addition, prior familiarity with the mate-

rials was not assessed, and relevant sociodemographic

factors, such as commuting distance and family situ-

ation, or psychological aspects, such as green product

scepticism, were not considered. Finally, while pur-

chase intentions were measured, the underlying moti-

vations were not systematically explored.

Future research should integrate real-world expo-

sure, for example, through test rides and rely on high-

ﬁdelity visualisations to ensure accurate representa-

tion of materials. It should also include cost, weight,

and traditional materials, while considering sociode-

mographic and psychological aspects.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory online questionnaire study investi-

gated how different frame materials, i.e., wood ver-

sus carbon ﬁbre, may inﬂuence perceptions, buying

intention, and environmental attitudes regarding E-

Cargo bikes. Although participants with stronger

pro-environmental attitudes tended to rate wooden

bikes more favourably, overall preferences between

wood and carbon did not signiﬁcantly differ. More-

over, gender and age effects emerged selectively,

with women expressing greater environmental con-

cern and a somewhat stronger interest in wooden

frames. These ﬁndings suggest that while material

choice alone may not drive purchasing decisions, it

interacts with demographic and psychological factors.

6 HIGHLIGHTS

• No preference was found for innovative bike

frame materials such as wood or carbon ﬁbre for

E-Cargo bikes.

• Participants with stronger pro-environmental at-

titudes rated wooden E-Cargo bikes more

favourably.

• Women reported more pro-environmental atti-

tudes than men in this context.

• Buying intention was rather low for E-Cargo bikes

in general, regardless of the bike frame material.

• Testing E-Cargo bikes in real-life settings could

positively affect buying intention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For the sequence of authors, we applied the SDC

approach. We are grateful to Steffen S

ohner from

rethink

bikes for providing pictures of E-Cargo

bikes with a wooden bike frame material. Further-

more, we are very thankful to the 14 psychology mas-

ter students who collected the data, particularly to

Luisa Sonkol and Lukas Gillmeister, who also as-

sisted in the initial data management. Finally, we are

grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable

comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Ates¸, C., Kaymaz,

O., Kale, H. E., and Tekindal, M. A.

(2019). Comparison of Test Statistics of Nonnormal

and Unbalanced Samples for Multivariate Analysis

of Variance in terms of Type-I Error Rates. Com-

putational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine,

2019:1–8.

Athanasopoulos, K., Chatziioannou, I., Boutsi, A.-M., Tsin-

genopoulos, G., Soile, S., Chliverou, R., Petrakou, Z.,

Papanikolaou, E., Karolemeas, C., Kourmpa, E., et al.

(2024). Integrating cargo bikes and drones into last-

mile deliveries: Insights from pilot deliveries in ﬁve

greek cities. Sustainability, 16(3):1060.

Carracedo, D. and Mostoﬁ, H. (2022). Electric cargo bikes

in urban areas: A new mobility option for private

transportation. Transportation Research Interdisci-

plinary Perspectives, 16:100705.

Dybdalen,

A. and Ryeng, E. O. (2022). Understanding how

to ensure efﬁcient operation of cargo bikes on winter

icSPORTS 2025 - 13th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

244

roads. Research in Transportation Business & Man-

agement, 44:100652.

Dzyabura, D., Jagabathula, S., and Muller, E. (2019). Ac-

counting for discrepancies between online and ofﬂine

product evaluations. Marketing Science, 38(1):88–

106.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS

statistics. SAGE.

Geiger, S. M. and Holzhauer, B. (2020). Weiterentwicklung

einer Skala zur Messung von zentralen Kenngr

oßen

des Umweltbewusstseins. Umweltbundesamt Dessau-

Roßlau.

Gold, S. and Rubik, F. (2009). Consumer attitudes to-

wards timber as a construction material and towards

timber frame houses–selected ﬁndings of a represen-

tative survey among the german population. Journal

of cleaner production, 17(2):303–309.

Goldhahn, C., Cabane, E., and Chanana, M. (2021). Sus-

tainability in wood materials science: An opinion

about current material development techniques and

the end of lifetime perspectives. Philosophical Trans-

actions of the Royal Society A, 379(2206):20200339.

Graf, E. (2021). Banken auf dem Holzweg?: Eine

empirische Untersuchung der Bewertung von Kred-

itkarten aus Holz.

Harju, C. (2022). The perceived quality of wooden building

materials—A systematic literature review and future

research agenda. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 46(1):29–55.

Hegab, H., Shaban, I., Jamil, M., and Khanna, N. (2023).

Toward sustainable future: Strategies, indicators, and

challenges for implementing sustainable production

systems. Sustainable Materials and Technologies,

36:e00617.

Heinrich, L., Schulz, W. H., and Geis, I. (2016). The impact

of product failure on innovation diffusion: the exam-

ple of the cargo bike as alternative vehicle for urban

transport. Transportation research procedia, 19:269–

271.

Hemmerich, W. A. (2016). Statistikguru: Rechner zur Ad-

justierung des α-Niveaus.

Hencov

a, M. and Kotradyov

a, V. (2023). Colour in the en-

vironment for older adults. Alfa. Archit. Pap. Fac. Ar-

chit. Des. Stud, 28:15–23.

Hess, A.-K. and Schubert, I. (2019). Functional percep-

tions, barriers, and demographics concerning e-cargo

bike sharing in switzerland. Transportation research

part D: transport and environment, 71:153–168.

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multi-

ple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics,

6(2):65–70.

IBM Corp. (Released 2023). IBM SPSS Statistics for Win-

dows, Version 29.0.1.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kaputa, V., Mat’ov

a, H., Oravcov

a Triznov

a, M., and

aboreck

a-Petrovi

cov

a, J. (2021). Perceptions of en-

vironmental sustainability of wood products. In Pro-

ceedings of the 14th International Scientiﬁc Confer-

ence WoodEMA.

Kaushal, S. and Kumar, R. (2016). Inﬂuence of Attitude To-

wards Advertisement on Purchase Intention: Explor-

ing the Mediating Role of Attitude Towards Brand Us-

ing SEM Approach. IUP Journal of Marketing Man-

agement, 15(4).

Kreye, K., Kasten, P., Appenfeller, D., Steinbach, I., Zim-

mermann, M., Greinus, A., and Peter, M. (2024).

Verkehrssektor auf Kurs bringen: Szenarien zur Treib-

hausgasneutralit

at 2045: Abschlussbericht.

Leiner, D. J. (2024). SoSci Survey (Version

3.5.02) [Computer software]. Available at

https://www.soscisurvey.de.

Mantecchini, L., Nanni Costa, F. P., and Rizzello, V. (2025).

Last Mile Urban Freight Distribution: A Modelling

Framework to Estimate E-Cargo Bike Freight Attrac-

tion Demand Share. Future Transportation, 5(1):31.

Marincek, D., R

erat, P., and Lurkin, V. (2024). Cargo bikes

for personal transport: A user segmentation based on

motivations for use. International Journal of Sustain-

able Transportation, 18(9):751–764.

Pillai, K. C. S. (1955). Some new test criteria in multivari-

ate analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics,

26(1):117–121. Publisher: Institute of Mathematical

Statistics.

Pyakurel, B., Thapa, B. S., and Nepal, S. R. (2025). Explor-

ing Factors Driving Consumer’s Purchase Intention

Towards Electric Two-Wheelers. The Batuk, 11(1):1–

15.

Riggs, W. (2016). Cargo bikes as a growth area for bicycle

vs. auto trips: Exploring the potential for mode substi-

tution behavior. Transportation research part F: traf-

ﬁc psychology and behaviour, 43:48–55.

Riggs, W. and Schwartz, J. (2018). The impact of cargo

bikes on the travel patterns of women. Urban, Plan-

ning and Transport Research, 6(1):95–110.

Seber, G. A. F. (1984). Multivariate Observations. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Vasiutina, H., Szarata, A., and Rybicki, S. (2021). Evalu-

ating the environmental impact of using cargo bikes

in cities: A comprehensive review of existing ap-

proaches. Energies, 14(20):6462.

Weigl, K. (2020). The Impact of Regular Outdoor Cy-

cling and Gender on Technology Trust and Distrust

in Cars, and on Anxiety. In Proceedings of the 8th

International Conference on Sport Sciences Research

and Technology Support - icSPORTS, pages 83–89.

INSTICC, SciTePress.

Weigl, K. and Forstner, T. (2021). Design of Paper-Based

Visual Analogue Scale Items. Educational and Psy-

chological Measurement, 81(3):595–611.

Weigl, K., Steinhauser, M., and Riener, A. (2022). Gen-

der and age differences in the anticipated acceptance

of automated vehicles: insights from a questionnaire

study and potential for application. Gender, Technol-

ogy and Development, 27(1):88–108.

Zhang, J. Z. (2013). Study on carbon ﬁber composite ma-

terials in sports equipment. Applied Mechanics and

Materials, 329:105–108.

Zhang, Y., Song, Y., and Luo, J. (2023). The effect of sus-

tainable and natural looking on perceived aesthetics

and eco-friendliness in building material evaluation.

Buildings, 13(2):483.

E-Cargo Bikes: Investigation of Innovative Bike Frame Materials - Wood vs. Carbon Fibre and the Impact of Pro-Environmental Attitudes,

Age, and Gender

245