Strengthening Active Transportation Through Small Grants

Abstract

Bicycle use has been increasing in many countries for active, sustainable transportation and recreation. Bicycling can benefit an individual’s mental and physical health and contribute to a community’s well-being and desirability, and it is more environmentally sustainable than automobiles. Nonprofit organizations lead bicycle advocacy efforts in the USA, both for bicycling as recreation and as part of local transportation systems. Outride is one of the larger advocacy organizations, and it sponsors a unique grant system targeting grassroots bicycling organizations dedicated to increasing bicycling. Using the Bicycle Community Development Framework (BCDF) as a lens, this study aims to evaluate Outride’s efforts through an interpretative phenomenological approach (IPA) using semi-structured interviews to gather data regarding grant recipients’ experiences using Outride funds. Findings suggest fund recipients are increasing bicycling through programs and infrastructure development, but with more intentionality, could better support building bicycle communities. Regarding the BCDF, the recipients strongly promoted education, engineering, and equity & accessibility while fostering a sense of community, belonging, and empowerment in their participants.

1. Introduction

This project evaluates the Outride organization’s effort to encourage the active transportation method of bicycling, which can be an integral part of a community’s sustainable transportation efforts. Outride is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing research, programs, and funding to support communities and organizations in increasing the use of bicycling due to its individual and societal benefits [1]. Communities and organizations apply for the Outride Fund (recently changed to Outride Community Impact Grant) and applicants explain how the funds would be used to increase bicycling in their community [2]. Outride Fund grants are up to US$15,000; “small grants” for this project are ones up to US$15,000. The Bicycle Community Development Framework will be the lens to investigate Outride’s efforts to increase bicycling through the Outride Fund’s support for grassroots organizations [3]. Building a bicycle community can be a step in normalizing bicycling as a sustainable transportation option.

Sustainability is a common concern in much of the world and major efforts are underway to create better systems and processes to protect the environment. Transportation is often cited as a major polluter and contributor to climate change [4]. While cleaner fuel sources will play a major role in making transportation more sustainable, locally, active transportation methods such as bicycling can reduce transportation’s carbon footprint and provide positive health and social impacts for communities and individuals [5].

1.1. United Nations Sustainability

The United Nations defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [5].” The UN has 17 interconnected goals that contribute to the world’s overall sustainability. The interconnection between this research and the UN sustainability mission is mostly strongly evident in Goal 11, which focuses on implementing efficient, accessible, and ecologically friendly public transit while emphasizing the importance of bicycling and other active transit options.

The cost of investing in sustainable transit networks, often cited as a barrier, will be outweighed by the benefits to environmental health, economic development, quality of life and improved mobility access for historically marginalized groups [5]. Active transportation may receive fewer resources and press than most other sustainable transportation efforts, however it can successfully be planned and integrated into a community’s transportation ecosystem, as seen in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and other countries [6]. Therefore, the following sections review bicycle commuting and other forms of active transportation as a potential aid to sustainability issues by examining the benefits of bicycle commuting through the three sustainability pillars: environmental, economic and socio-cultural [5].

1.2. Environmental

Global implications of climate change and specifically automobile pollution are forcing nations and local communities to consider reducing their reliance on fossil fuel-powered transit methods and shift to alternative transportation systems [7,8,9]. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, and tackling this issue is complex due to political challenges and shifting national priorities, such as the case of the tumultuous engagement and eventual disengagement with the Paris Climate Accord by the US [10]. While federal leadership to reduce climate change is currently missing, local communities can align their sustainability goals with global sustainability objectives. Local European communities’ efforts have shown promising results, for example, in Novi Sad, Serbia focused on increasing bicycle commuting and reduced CO₂ emissions and positively changed behavior towards bicycle commuting [11]. Johansson et al. found that replacing car trips with bike trips for commutes under 30 min in dense Stockholm areas could reduce mean population exposure to nitrogen oxides and black carbon by about 7% [2]. Rojas-Rueda et al. showed significant CO₂ reductions when shifting to a mix of cycling and public transport [12]. Most studies comparing bicycles and automobiles focus on CO₂ emissions as a primary measure of environmental impact, as CO₂ is the most significant greenhouse gas emitted from transportation, a key driver of climate change, and is measurable.

1.3. Economic

Bicycle commuting offers economic benefits, particularly in healthcare cost reduction. Raza et al. found that bicycling increases physical activity without affecting an individual’s other recreational activities [13]. Gravett and Mundaca found that active transportation policies in Oxford, England, could avert 18–50 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions, prevent 62–256 premature deaths, and yield 3.45–11.28 billion pounds in benefits [14]. A Netherlands based study found that nationwide, bicycle commuting prevents 6500 deaths annually, increases life expectancy by six months, and reduces healthcare costs by 19 billion euros (3% of GDP) [15].

Countries with well-developed cycling networks can benefit economically from bicycle tourism. In Copenhagen, bicycle tourists support the local economy by spending on similar amenities as local bicycle commuters. Furthermore, tourism service providers recognize and complement the local bicycle culture with an increasing number of hotels providing bicycles to guests and offering rooms specifically designed for people with bicycles [16]. Similarly, Meschik found that bicycle tourism activity in an Austrian riverside town contributed over one million euros to the economy with residents often having favorable views toward tourists [17].

1.4. Socio-Cultural

Bicycling can support healthier, more accessible, and equitable communities while being a significant factor for health and well-being [6,18]. Bicycling can promote social equity and cohesion, as bicyclists have exhibited less bias than motorists towards marginalized groups when traveling through similar neighborhoods [19]. This finding suggests that encouraging bicycle use could foster more inclusive communities.

Furthermore, Gatersleben and Uzzell noted that active transportation modes like biking were moderately pleasurable, unlike the lack of stimulation from riding on public transit or the stress of driving [20]. Lajeunesse and Rodriguez found cyclists experienced less commute time dissonance and increased mindfulness, while Donaire-Gonzalez showed that bicycle commuting adds two hours of weekly physical activity, nearly meeting the recommended minimums [21,22].

1.5. Solutions Are Multifaceted

Possible solutions for reducing the overreliance on car transit and subsequent issues of automobile dependency include investing in mass or multi-modal transit and transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs). EVs may have a large potential for reducing CO₂ emissions, but battery and vehicle production and electricity generation challenges may introduce new environmental and social issues [23]. Multi-modal transit development, like integrating bicycles with buses and trains, has been explored, but commuters may have negative experiences, given that these modalities are often perceived and developed separately [24].

While bicycling has significant benefits, especially for sustainability, bicycle commuting rates vary as do approaches and strategies for increasing ridership. Countries with higher participation rates invest more in commonly used routes, bike parking, paths, and related infrastructure, leading to safer and more efficient cycling [5,15]. Strong public support and laws paired with the increasing cost of car transit can also promote cycling [5]. For example, NYC’s congestion pricing plan has reduced traffic times, created better walking and bicycling conditions, and will potentially generate billions of dollars, some of which may be invested in sustainable transportation, like electric buses [25]. However, Johansson et al. suggest that policies encouraging bicycling may be more effective for air quality improvement than congestion pricing [2]. While many strategies exist for developing bicycling, there is great variability in the context and implementation.

Successful bicycle commuting strategies require adaptation to local contexts, as Piatkowski & Bopp concluded in their review of 102 studies [26]. They found that individual health, physical activity, demographics, and psychological factors influence cycling decisions. Community interventions’ effectiveness depends on understanding these personal, social, and physical contexts. For instance, European nations benefit from strong EU support, which sets clear goals for integrating cycling into transportation planning [27]. Bicycling does not receive such favorable government support in the USA.

1.6. The United States Relies on Advocacy Groups to Promote Bicycling

While over half of US states include or mention bicycling in their transportation plans, there is a dearth of implementation outside a few cities, including but not limited to New York, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, Oregon, and several cities in California and Colorado [28]. The current US president suggests that bicycle lanes are bad and should be removed from New York City, even though research suggests these bike lanes make New York City streets safer for all users [29,30]. US governments’ (federal, state, and local) support for bicycling is often based on the administration. However, many nonprofit advocacy groups provide consistent and reliable leadership and support despite limited financial resources. These groups vary greatly by scale, organizational level, funding, and specific purpose, with most operating at the local grassroots level. However, four advocacy groups- League of American Bicyclists, PeopleForBikes, Adventure Cycling, and Outride—work to increase bicycling nationally. These and the local advocacy organizations are leading the efforts in the USA to increase bicycling for recreation and transportation.

The League of American Bicyclists (LAB), founded as the League of American Wheelmen in 1880, peaked at 103,000 members in 1898 [31]. LAB championed the Good Road Movement to combat rutted roads and antagonism from horsemen, pedestrians, and wagon drivers, and their efforts led to the national highway system [32]. The League swapped out Wheelmen (the term for bicyclists in the 1880s) with Bicyclists in 1994 and continues to be a prominent national organization advocating for bicycle education, safety, community development and for bicycling to be a centerpiece of the transportation system [33]. LAB is perhaps best known for its city, university, and business bicycle friendliness ranking system using five distinct community characteristics (5Es): Equity & Accessibility, Engineering, Education, Encouragement, and Evaluation & Planning. Aspects of the 5Es are standard characteristics found in contemporary bicycle master plans and appear logical, relatable, mostly tangible, and usually measurable, providing concrete objectives. The 5Es are part of the theoretical framework used in this study.

A second large advocacy organization, PeopleForBikes (originally Bikes Belong), was founded in 1999 by a collaboration of bicycle industry companies to coordinate advocacy efforts and have more representation in the US Congress [34]. Their primary efforts include infrastructure development, advancing bicycle agendas and business legislation, and increasing bicycle use [35]. A major initiative is the annual City Ratings, a data-driven program that identifies, evaluates, and compares cities and towns on the connectivity of safe bicycling routes [36].

Adventure Cycling Association (ACA) empowers and encourages bicycle journeys by providing routes, guides, maps, information, and inspiring stories from bicycle adventurers [37]. They also organize multiday bicycle trips across various USA regions, including cross-country journeys. ACA’s advocacy efforts address safety issues and promote bicycle access on ferries and trains, benefiting both the local cycling communities and bicycle travelers.

Outride is the youngest of these four advocacy groups, established in its current form in 2019, and advocates for inclusive cycling to enhance cognitive, social, emotional, and physical well-being [1]. Stronger, healthier individuals are better positioned to create stronger, healthier communities and societies. Outride operates two primary initiatives (1) Ride for Focus provides bicycles and curricula to middle school physical education programs, and the (2) Outride Fund awards grants to local organizations promoting cycling in their communities, with a streamlined application process and minimal fund use restrictions. Outride Fund applicants were only required to identify how their program would increase bicycling in their community. This flexibility is unique and is designed to empower organizations to use the money for their most pressing needs.

1.7. Bicycle Community Development Framework

This study evaluated the Outride Fund’s efforts to increase bicycling in the community, using the Bicycle Community Development Framework as a lens. See Figure 1.

This framework suggests a systematic process for developing a bicycle community, using the League of American Bicyclists’ Essential Elements of a Bicycle Friendly Community (5Es) as a basis of tangible attributes needed to encourage safe bicycle experiences [38]. However, the 5Es do not holistically capture factors for community development, which are better explained by the Approaches to Community Development and the Psychological and Behavioral Factors of Community Development boxes in Figure 1.

1.8. Approaches to Community Development

The Approaches to Community Development, the left side of Figure 1, describes three primary approaches to community development [39,40]. They may happen simultaneously, especially if several organizations are involved. The Self-Help and Technical Assistance approaches typically involve an outside organization’s support, while the Conflict approach may or may not initially have an outside organization’s support.

Table 1. Community development approaches.

Approach	Advantages	Disadvantages
Self-Help	Focuses on assets Builds community capacity Strengthens networks	Lengthy Complex Assumes potential and motivation exists
Technical Assistance	Provides expert know-how Solves technical issues	Can generate dependency Top-down Short-term time horizon
Conflict	Spurs creativity Redistributes power and resources	Requires efficient manager Could make things worse

provides the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Self-Help is an asset-based approach that supports residents in increasing their capacity to identify and solve problems. However, this approach is often slower than a technical assistance approach, and critical components include (1) resident ability and motivation and (2) patience by the funding agency [40]. This resident-driven approach usually involves volunteers in key leadership positions, which can contribute to a slower process.

The technical assistance approach relies on experts assisting in problem-solving, which usually results in a feasibility study or strategic plan [40]. This top-down approach requires significant investment, focus, and resources. It is criticized for not empowering or sufficiently including residents, leading to a dependency on experts.

The Conflict approach is associated with social actions (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations) to bring attention to an issue or injustice [40]. It should be a process, not an outcome, and can strengthen social networks and stimulate creative solutions. It may also make issues worse, create confusion, and deepen divisions [41].

In most cases, multiple approaches will be employed depending on the issue and its lifecycle, the capacity of the community, and funding sources. For example, some projects that require a specific expertise, such as feasibility studies, may require a Technical Assistance approach. In contrast, a Self-Help approach might be best in identifying key players and assisting in building capacity and organizational structure to the point of needing technical assistance. Finally, a Conflict approach might catalyze a specific community development effort or jumpstart a stalled effort.

1.9. Essential Elements of a Bicycle-Friendly Community (5Es)

The Bicycle Community Development Framework’s centerpiece is the League of American Bicyclists’ Essential Elements of a Bicycle Friendly Community (5Es) [33]. These elements evaluate communities, businesses, states, and universities in the League’s Bicycle Friendly programs. The 5Es represent tangible community attributes needed for safe cycling experiences and are commonly incorporated into bicycle master plans. They provide logical, relatable, and often measurable objectives for creating bicycle-friendly environments. See

Table 2. A brief explanation of the 5Es.

Equity & Accessibility	Ensuring that tangible efforts exist to ensure equitable access and correct for historical disparities and systemic inequities across each of the other 4 E’s.
Engineering	The physical environment is the key determinant in whether people bike. Infrastructure includes networks of safe places to ride, maintenance of facilities, and bike parking.
Education	Providing instruction on skill development and motorists’ and cyclists’ rights and responsibilities on the road increases rider safety and confidence.
Encouragement	Providing opportunities and incentives to ride including signage, maps, commuter challenges, bicycle-themed celebrations, such as participation in National Bike to Work Day.
Evaluation & Planning	Develop a comprehensive bicycle master plan in combination with dedicated funding, citizen support, and ideally a dedicated Bicycle Program Coordinator and Bicycle Advisory Committee.

for a brief explanation of each E.

1.10. Psychological and Behavioral Factors of Community Development

The 5Es don’t fully capture a bicycle community’s development factors, which can encourage cycling through support systems such as a sense of belonging, and identity [42,43]. Chen and Chancellor incorporated psychological and behavioral factors of community development into the model, as shown in Figure 1 and explained in

Table 3. Brief explanation of the psychological and behavioral factors of community development.

Sense of Community	Sociopsychological concepts such as networks, shared interests, and standards contribute to developing an individual’s sense of community [44,45]. Communities are connected by similar attitudes and feelings, and a stronger sense of community increases the likelihood of involvement in community affairs [46,47].
Sense of belonging	Sense of belonging is characterized by feeling valued and “fitting in” with individuals, groups, or environments, and the desire to strengthen these relationships [48,49]. Considered a basic human need it significantly impacts mental and physical health, well-being, and quality of life [50,51]. People with a strong sense of belonging demonstrate higher involvement levels (psychologically, socially, spiritually, or physically), emphasize the importance of their involvement, and develop a foundation for emotional and behavioral responses. Notably, this sense can be tied to an environment, not necessarily to people or organizations [48].
Empowerment	Empowerment involves individuals and groups, particularly those who are under-resourced or oppressed, gaining greater control over their lives and well-being through participation in relevant sociopolitical systems [52,53,54]. Empowered individuals are more capable of acquiring knowledge and resources to enhance their quality of life and reduce marginalization [55]. This process can foster a stronger sense of community and has been identified as a predictor of civic engagement [45].
Citizen participation	Community involvement in decision-making enhances members’ capacities and results in positive changes [56,57]. This participation has proven particularly effective in gaining support and minimizing conflict for infrastructure development projects [58].
Collective efficacy	Collective efficacy is a group’s shared belief in its ability to organize, plan, and execute actions to achieve specific goals [59]. It represents what group members are willing to do to improve their community [60]. This concept appears to be a natural outcome of empowered individuals who possess a strong sense of community and belonging.
Social networks	Social networks, as defined by, consist of points (people/groups) and lines (interactions) [61]. A well-functioning bicycle community organization’s social network would feature diverse points and lines, indicating collaborative efforts and social capital. To achieve bicycle-related infrastructure and policy projects, an organization’s network might need to include influential individuals, often elected officials.

[3]. These factors, prevalent in community development literature, apply to communities generally and capture the less tangible but crucial elements of building a bicycle community. Many of these interrelated factors impact behavior psychologically and socially.

1.11. Purpose Statement

This project evaluates the Outride organization’s efforts to increase bicycling which can be an integral part of a community’s sustainable transportation initiatives [2]. The Outride Fund has been expanding its reach and supporting various local and nonprofit programs. This study is the first to assess how Outride-funded programs align with the organization’s goal of promoting bicycling across the USA. The Bicycle Community Development Framework will be used to examine the Outride Fund’s impact on increasing bicycling in recipient communities [3].

This paper will next discuss the materials and methods used for data collection and analysis, followed by a presentation and then discussion of the results with suggestions for future research about the BCDF model, and ending with a conclusion of key findings and implications.

2. Materials and Methods

This exploratory study employed an interpretative phenomenological approach (IPA) to describe and evaluate Outride’s efforts to increase bicycling in communities. IPA methodology was employed to uncover how individuals interpret their experiences related to a shared phenomenon and is distinctive in its dual interpretation process [62,63]. The researcher collects first-person accounts of respondents’ experiences with a phenomenon to help the participants comprehend the phenomenon as they endeavor to make sense of their interactions with the phenomenon [63,64]. Data are collected through semi-structured, one-to-one interviews, allowing for a deeper discussion with each respondent.

2.1. Data Collection

Clemson University’s IRB approved this project, and Outride agreed to their name being used in scholarly publications. An Outride representative informed and encouraged participation from 123 identified Outride Fund recipient organizations. Sixty-six individual interviews were conducted, averaging 45 min each. Trained interviewers asked questions, took notes, and recorded interviews via Zoom, which provided initial transcriptions for comparison with interviewer notes. Open-ended questions focused on each organization’s mission, structure, programs, strengths, weaknesses, outcomes, and collaboration initiatives, allowing for maximum response latitude. Additional prompts were used as needed to elicit depth and breadth in responses.

2.2. Data Analysis

There are no prescribed IPA data analysis methods, however, this study followed suggested principles, including first focusing on (1) individuals and then the collective, and (2) the description before data interpretation [65]. There are two discovery stages through IPA: (1) interviewers are continually probing, clarifying, analyzing, and interpreting while note-taking, and (2) to most accurately describe and interpret the respondents’ experiences, data analysis requires multiple revisits to the data [66]. As suggested by Larkin et al., the coding process included a line-by-line analysis of the notes and transcripts. Through this immersive, iterative process, researchers sought to elicit respondents’ understanding of their experiences [67]. Themes emerged through code analysis [68]. To establish trustworthiness, guidelines from Nowell et al. were followed, including extended data engagement, a coding framework, triangulation of data collection modes (comparing transcriptions with interviewers’ notes), comparing, external feedback through peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation and agreement on coding and themes [69].

2.3. Research Process

Purpose: Evaluate the Outride organization’s efforts to increase bicycling through its Outride Fund recipients.

Data Collection: Conducted semi-structured interviews via Zoom with grant recipient organizational leaders following an interpretative phenomenological approach.

Data Analysis: Cleaned data, Zoom transcriptions and interviewer notes, before following IPA suggested principles including coding through line-by-line analysis to discover emerging themes.

Results: Compared and if appropriate described and themes through the BCDF.

Discussion: Explained results in context of Outride’s efforts to increase bicycling in grant funded communities.

3. Results

Outride’s efforts to increase bicycling in the community were evaluated through the Bicycle Community Development Framework (Figure 1), by analyzing themes and if appropriate, describing them through the framework’s components—Approaches to Community Development, the 5Es, and the Psychological and Behavioral Factors of Community Development. The semi-structured interviews began with questions about the organization’s history, purpose, and programs and

Table 4. Organization purpose.

Theme	Frequency	Percentage (%) *
Youth-focused	54	82%
Bicycling education	40	61%
Bikes as a tool for life lessons	25	38%
Rider development mountain bike/leagues	25	38%
Kids on bikes	15	23%
Mentoring	12	18%
Infrastructure development	20	30%
Community-focused riding	14	21%
Bicycle advocacy	13	20%

* All percentages are based on the 66 respondents, so 61% of all respondents indicated that Bicycling Education was their organization’s primary purpose. The percentage total is not 100%, as participants could have multiple responses.

illustrates the themes regarding the organizations’ purposes and most organizations had multiple purposes. Throughout the findings, themes are italicized followed by percentages, and quotes are provided for additional context.

Eighty-two percent of the organizations indicated they had a Youth-focus, and 61% mentioned that Bicycling education (safely riding a bike) was a key purpose. There were a lot of overlaps with the themes. For example, youth being able to ride a bike safely would be a prerequisite for other purposes. Infrastructure development (30%) was the most common non-youth-focused theme, and most of these efforts were dedicated to building pump tracks or mountain bike trails. Several organizations were developing infrastructure adjacent to school property or municipal parks to benefit students and the general public. Encouraging youth to bicycle to school can foster comfort, and habit, and ultimately build a community of cyclists from a young age.

3.1. Approaches to Community Development

Outride employed the Self-Help approach as the local bicycle program leaders, mostly volunteers, determined needs, problems, and solutions. The asset-based Self-Help approach demonstrated trust and spending flexibility, a unique aspect that the recipients highly value, as indicated by Interviewee #4 who received their grant during the COVID-19 pandemic, “The spending flexibility is great and unusual in my experience, we were initially going to buy bicycles, but since they were unavailable we bought a trailer to haul the bikes”. In addition, strengthening networks through collaboration occurred, as 100% of recipients reported that they collaborated or partnered with other organizations.

3.2. Essential Elements of a Bicycle-Friendly Community (5Es)

The 5Es, particularly Engineering and Education, are prevalent in community bicycling discussions. People desire safe places to ride, which includes infrastructure and education for bicyclists and drivers. While the bicycle community has little say over drivers’ education, 92% of Outride Fund recipients had a bicycling education component. Each recipient organization in the study contributed to at least two of the 5Es.

Equity and Accessibility, the first E, is emphasized by Outride, with 85% of recipients incorporating it in their organizational and programming efforts. The remaining 15% were public school-based programs where all students in a specific age group participated or open-access mountain bike trail builders. Several organizations prioritized infrastructure development near low-income and/or minority communities to increase accessibility by those community members. Interviewee #10’s organization grant money went toward developing a pump track in a small community and noted their track “will have an accessible loop for wheelchairs, adaptive bikes, and trikes, and if we are lucky enough to get another Outride grant we can purchase these items to loan out.” A midwestern regional mountain bike organization used their grant money for trail development on city property near a low-income community to “remove travel barriers for those residents, as we are trying to diversify the ridership in our area and provide more opportunities for more people” (Interviewee #43)

Engineering, the second E, involved pump track and mountain bike trail development. Thirty percent of recipients engaged in Engineering, emphasizing safe riding spaces as crucial for increasing ridership and a bicycling community. While some groups focused solely on trail building, most combined Engineering with programs. Interviewee #18 explained the combination of Engineering and programming

we will use these grant dollars to build a pump track next to an elementary school and near an existing trail network. Once complete, we’ll start programs like, group rides, bicycle camps, and bicycle training, which should increase use of the track.

The third E, Education, involved teaching safe riding, bicycle maintenance, or using bicycles for STEM education. Ninety-two percent of recipients provided education programs, while the remaining 8% focused solely on Infrastructure, which is needed for safe riding opportunities and programs. Three program used bicycles for STEM programs in schools. One respondent taught elementary kids STEM subjects through experiential opportunities of riding and maintaining bicycles and building a pump track on school property. Interviewee #41 explained that

the bicycle is a fun, exciting learning tool the kids love and I teach them how to use tools to work on their bike, and the pump track, how to ride safely…so topics like momentum, balance, pedal power, why wear a helmet, and other physics...being comfortable with tools is real important to help them be more self-sufficient.

The fourth E, Encouragement, as defined by LAB (See Table 2) includes 14% of recipients, primarily mountain bike trail organizations and advocacy groups that host bicycling events, races and rides. However, 95% of the organizations broadly interpreted Encouragement as contributing to the bicycling community by increasing ridership and promoting positive bicycling behaviors. Interviewee #19 noted

“that a large group of kids riding respectfully and safely is a rolling billboard promoting bicycling”, while Interviewee #45 commented that “biking is contagious, kids join our program and soon their parents are calling us to see if the brothers and sisters can join; some immigrant mothers that don’t drive have joined our “kids” program; we love it”.

The fifth E, Evaluation and Planning was most important to organizations focused on Infrastructure development (30%) and Bicycle advocacy (20%). These organizations planned extensively, but they and other organizations conducted very little if any, evaluation. In summary, each Outride Fund recipient helped increase bicycling and building a bicycle community by contributing to at least two of the 5Es.

3.3. Psychological and Behavioral Factors of Community Development

Community development literature suggests that several psychological and behavioral factors are important to building a community of people with shared goals and interests. Table 3 outlines the psychological and behavioral factors of community development from the BCDF: sense of community, sense of belonging, empowerment, citizen participation, collective efficacy, and social networks. Many themes contributed to multiple factors as readers will notice below.

The sense of community in this project operates at three levels: organization, bicycle community, and greater community. At the organizational level, participants participated due to shared interests. Organizations set and taught standards, fostering similar attitudes toward bicycling and aimed to produce Confident and skilled cyclists (76%), Lifelong cyclists (41%), and Responsible trail users (21%). Fifty-five percent encouraged Having fun as a standard, while 35% emphasized bicycling’s importance in youth programming for Building friendships.

Most recipients were not well integrated into the local bicycle community, and many recipients in smaller towns reported little to no coordinated bicycle community efforts. While all respondents collaborated with at least one bicycle shop, 44% collaborated with Bicycle clubs/organizations for promotion, volunteers, bike repairs, and event participation. While most collaborations were occasional, some Mountain bike/league teams regularly partnered with a local bicycle club by volunteering at each other’s events. Interviewee #9, organized and manages a youth mountain bike team that partners with local city officials and US Forest Service to maintain trails, she said: “the kids love it and we are instilling in them responsibility because we ride these trails all the time, and someone has to take care of them.”

Outride recipients effectively represented the bicycle community to the greater community, with 61% citing Community trust as an organizational strength. This trust stemmed from positive work, including 53% who Helped develop better citizens. Additionally, 44% Increased economic activity, likely contributing to 23% receiving Local tourism leaders’ support and 61% Receiving funding from local businesses/sponsors. Community respect was further evidenced by funding from various sources: 57% from Local individuals/private donors, 52% from Public charities acting as grant-makers, and 36% from the City/municipality. Interviewee #8’s organization develops mountain bike trails in a tourism-centric town and hosts fat tire events and races,

mostly in the wintertime when our community needs visitors because summer is already busy…we also groom trails in the winter even when there are no events to attract tourists. Yeah, the tourism people in town appreciate and support us.

Every programming organization prioritized creating a sense of belonging, Equity and Accessibility and ensuring all participants, especially underrepresented groups, felt they “fit in.” Thirty-two percent cited their Welcoming, supportive nature as a strength, 27% aimed for participants to Feel welcome within the bicycling community, and 32% noted they Welcomed youth not accepted, proficient, or comfortable in other sports. Efforts to foster belonging included creating Confident and skilled cyclists (76%), helping participants Engage with others—build/expand their community(58%), Have fun (55%), Build friendships (35%), and Lifelong cyclists (41%) to extend personal connections beyond the immediate program. One California-based professional (paid staff) organization extended a youth program to parents during the COVID-19 pandemic,

we were doing an Earn a Bike program with kids, but couldn’t ride much with these kids. We Zoomed with the kids about how to ride safely and decided to start giving bikes to adult family members, so at least someone could ride with the kids. The result of that was like beyond our possible wildest imagination, and we now ride with those families.

(Interviewee #14)

Some recipients noted that staff and volunteers also felt a sense of belonging. This is supported by organizational strength-related themes, Staff and volunteers are dedicated and responsible, (41%), the organization’s Longevity (41%), and Low staff/volunteer turnover rate (23%).

Empowerment is an essential issue in the USA, as evidenced by recent social movements where individuals and groups seek greater agency to promote equity and accessibility in society. Outride Fund recipients empowered youth (primarily) by developing Confident and skilled cyclists (76%). When discussing bicycling’s uniqueness, 55% of respondents said it was instrumental in Building confidence as participants set and met riding goals. Forty-seven percent said bicycling Encouraged self-sufficiency/independence through transportation. Fifty-two percent stated Confidence, self-sufficiency, and personal growth beyond cbiycling was a desired program outcome, 32% wanted Riders empowered to change their life/world, and 29% desired a Quality-of-life improvement for participants. Interviewee #6’s organization focused on urban youth in an economically depressed area, and he explained the value of the bicycling program to the youth,

there are significant benefits to these kids given their environment—they get out to natural areas, especially for kids with trauma, the challenge of riding the bike is a benefit- takes time to learn to improve and the self ownership as you must move the pedals, imparts physical and mental skills, analogy for the other aspects of life…if you can get good at cycling then you can get good at other things, build confidence, can be humbling, but you can get over it.

Citizen participation refers to program participants’ involvement in organizational decisions and the organization’s participation in decisions affecting the bicycle-oriented and greater communities. Many recipients offered youth opportunities to contribute meaningfully through Programmatic decision-making (56%), Bike maintenance (29%), Participant recruitment (24%), and Peer mentoring (20%). These roles required proactive and thoughtful engagement from youth, as their decisions impacted the program and organization, proving crucial for organizational success. Forty-four percent of recipients involved youth in Trail maintenance/community service projects. A smaller number of organizations (24%) worked with local government agencies, e.g., transportation departments, city councils, and health departments, for transportation safety suggestions. Interviewee #16 explained that their high school-oriented after-school and Saturday programs

used bicycling in really creative ways, like doing service learning projects with the DOT, where our kids learned about safe streets and urban planning through workshops by local professionals, and then they assessed streets and presented their findings and suggestions to the Community Board and DOT and the suggestions have been approved! We are now on our fourth project with the DOT.

Collective efficacy was strong with all organizations as they believed they achieved many desired outcomes even though most only tracked participation and did not conduct formal evaluations. Programming organizations noted that leaders, coaches, teachers, and mentors observed that participants rode more, increased their cycling skills and confidence, engaged with others, and had fun. Advocacy and trail development organizations reported successes, though slower than their preferred pace. Interviewee #47 explained that their early success of empowering participants with bicycle riding and mechanical abilities through a high school bicycle mechanics course prompted them to expand and broaden their goals. She explained that

the kids call my class life-tech, because we teach them how to write resumes, present themselves, business, profit and statements and about climate change and how the bicycle can save the world and you as a bike tech can save the world. If you can fix someone’s bike so they don’t need to drive a car, you’re changing the world, you know, oh my God, we can change the world!

Recipient organizations were part of social networks within their sphere, with 62% citing that Partners and collaborators are committed and reliable, while not surprisingly 100% Collaborated with bicycle shops. Other collaborators included Bicycle clubs/organizations (44%), Government agencies (24%) for safety suggestions, Local tourism entities (23%), and Bicycle advocacy groups (20%). Networks varied by mission: youth-focused organizations included schools, while trail-oriented and large event-producing organizations included local tourism officials.

4. Discussion

For bicycling to be an integral part of a community’s transportation system, bicyclists need (1) safety, which requires specific infrastructure and (2) to be part of a community that supports bicycling, perhaps similar to what automobiles currently enjoy in the US. The Bicycle Community Development Framework (BCDF) is a potential tool for researchers and bicycle advocates and suggests a model indicating factors for bicycling infrastructure and community [3]. Using the BCDF as a lens to evaluate the Outride Fund, this study found that the Outride Fund increased bicycling in various US communities through their asset-based, small grant program focused on grassroots local organizations. Recipients provided an array of programming, infrastructure development, and advocacy efforts, all of which contributed to increased bicycling, a part of the sustainable transportation mix. This section discusses the BCDF components interspersed with suggestions for Outride to increase its ability to enhance those components.

The Self-Help approach aided grant recipients in building community capacity and strengthening networks, as the stakeholders collaborated towards a common development goal. Outride Funds were for shorter-term programs or development opportunities, so the potential disadvantages of this approach—being lengthy and complex were not apparent [40]. Recipients appreciated this asset-based method, which was executed with trust and flexibility. Several recipients indicated they would appreciate information regarding operating non-profit bicycle-oriented organizations since many were volunteers working in other industries. Outride providing this type of educational training could benefit their efforts to increase bicycling and be an example of a hybrid Self-Help/Technical Assistance approach.

Each grant recipient increased bicycling in their area through efforts that relate to at least two of LAB’s 5Es. Education (92%), Equity & Accessibility (85%), and Engineering (39%) received the most attention from grant recipients. The high focus on Education is understandable, considering that training helps bicyclists better understand how to properly fit a helmet, know the rules of the road, and feel safer and more confident [70,71]. However, knowing the rules of the road and feeling safer doesn’t necessarily lead to fewer injuries or indicate that the individual bicycled more [71,72].

Bicycling infrastructure is credited with safer cycling, especially in high-density urban environments [73]. Bicycle lanes on roads effectively reduce car-bicycle collisions, but separated bicycle lanes are even better, as are traditional intersections, compared to small roundabouts [74,75]. Bicycle use in the US increased from 2011 to 2021 and bicycle injuries decreased during this period except for elderly male riders. The research team stressed the importance of wearing a helmet and using bicycle infrastructure separated from roadways [76].

Outride was founded in its current form in 2019, amid several social movements resulting from long-time social inequities and systemic oppression, e.g., Me Too and Black Lives Matter [43,77]. There has been a dearth of bicycle infrastructure and related resources in low-income communities, contributing to lower rates of bicycling in these communities [78]. Many organizations, including businesses, nonprofits, and governments, have created policies to address these issues, including national and local bicycle-oriented agencies. Therefore, it is unsurprising that grant recipients (85%) included Equity and Accessibility in their outreach efforts. Additionally, bicycling has long been considered predominantly a white male sport so in addition to pursuing Equity & Accessibility to build a more fair and just society, it is important to include other demographics to increase bicycling [78]. Contrary to this study’s findings, Elliot and Bopp noted a lack of local bicycle programming for underserved populations [78].

Each grant recipient contributed to community development as operationalized through the Psychological and Behavioral Factors of Community Development Framework (Table 3). The most emphasized factors were: (1) a sense of community, (2) a sense of belonging, and (3) empowerment. Sense of community was enhanced through participants’ shared interest of bicycling and the benefits that they derived from bicycling and their respective program. Shared interest is key to creating a sense of community, and being accepted by one’s community is important for those who bicycle for transportation [44,79].

Grant recipients understood that to build and maintain their program, they needed to ensure that each participant felt they belonged in the group. Maslow noted belonging as a human need; however, the connection may be to others or a place [48,50]. Mountain bike trail builders in this study spoke about bicyclists’ connection to trails and the surrounding areas, while some urban programming organizations indicated that their bicyclists had a stronger sense of belonging in a community when they bicycled in it regularly. Many grant recipients sought out youth who did not fit in other sports and ensured them they were welcome in program. Group rides and other events helped build a group identity and furthers the participants’ sense of belonging [80]. Empowerment can be connected to a sense of community and has been identified as an outcome of a bicycle program directed at underserved and resourced youth, which matches the findings in this study [45,81].

In summary, Outride Fund grants increased bicycling in their recipients’ respective communities. The following key features could be used by other nonprofits even if non bicycle related, as they could apply across mediums. First, the asset-based method, which demonstrated trust that each recipient knew best what their community needed was really appreciated by recipient organizations. This flexibility allowed for a more holistic approach to increase bicycling by supporting programming, infrastructure development, and advocacy efforts. Second, regarding the 5Es, recipients focused mostly on equity and accessibility, education, and engineering. Equity and accessibility are needed to increase cycling beyond the traditional users, white males, otherwise it will be difficult to encourage greater public use. Education is imperative to teach and instill safe riding practices, which engineering is important to ensure there are safe places to ride. Again, the principles are universally important for most other activities. Third, the most emphasized psychological and behavioral factors were as sense of community, a sense of belonging, and empowerment. Given the recipients’ focus on equity and accessibility and education, it is logical that these psychological and behavioral factors would be a result of those foci. These factors would create social connections and a comfort level that would encourage participation in an activity and are not unique to cycling programs. Therefore, Outride’s efforts contain lessons for other organizations seeing to increase participation in an activity.

One opportunity for Outride is to provide support on how to run small nonprofit organizations, especially volunteer organizations. While that might be a bit outside the current Outride mission, developing a short online course for grassroots bicycling organizations, might provide a significant boost in those organizations’ ability to increase bicycling for transportation and recreation. Another opportunity for Outride is to create an online gathering place, such as a listserv for these and similar organizations to meet, collaborate, and share ideas.

4.1. Limitations

Outride Fund recipients provided their experiences with the Outride Fund and how they spent Outride funds within their program. The recipients also provided their perceptions of the participants’ experiences, based upon observations and the participants’ behaviors and comments. For a more complete and deeper understanding of participants’ experiences, a study focused on them would be useful. This would better capture participants’ riding behavior outside of the programs and their psychological and behavioral factors of community development, as this study relied on the program providers experiences and perceptions.

Additionally, this study only included interviews from Outride Fund recipient organizations and while Outride funding criteria is very generous and broad not every applicant is funded. There are also many bicycle-oriented organizations who have not applied to the Outride Fund. It is possible that these Outride Fund recipients are different in a way that led to these results and a broader or different group of grass root bicycle-oriented organizations would respond differently.

4.2. Future Research Recommendations

The next two suggested studies include (1) replicate the BCDF aspects of this study, by interviewing bicycle-oriented advocacy groups that have a stronger focus on the bicycle as a transportation option, rather than bicycling in general. This would allow additional clarity on the BCDF model’s usefulness and accuracy and potential for refinement; (2) conduct a quantitative study to measure the BCDF model to determine the most important 5Es and psychological and behavioral factors that lead to the development of a bicycle community. Ultimately, creating a more parsimonious model that could be easily articulated in a best practices manual would be useful for organizations working to increase bicycling.

5. Conclusions

This study is the first to the authors’ knowledge of using the BCDF to evaluate an advocacy organization’s efforts to increase bicycling through the financial support of grassroots organizations. Understanding the factors in developing a bicycle community is of growing importance to aid in bicycling being a part of the sustainable transportation mix. This study reiterated the importance of bicycling infrastructure, as the lack of safe riding locations is a leading barrier to increasing bicycling in the USA. This project highlighted that small grants to dedicated and passionate grassroots bicycle-oriented organizations can (1) increase bicycling especially if those grants are asset-based and flexible, and (2) help build a bicycling community especially by strengthening participants sense of belonging and sense of community. Additional research on the BCDF model can aid in its refinement and measurement capability, which should enhance its ability to aid bicycle advocacy organizations in growing bicycling as both a recreation activity and a sustainable transportation option.