Applied Mobilities

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapm20

E-bike as a technological innovation system in

China: transition to the stage of institutionalized
certainty?

Dennis Zuev

To cite this article: Dennis Zuev (2020): E-bike as a technological innovation system
in China: transition to the stage of institutionalized certainty?, Applied Mobilities, DOI:
10.1080/23800127.2020.1764237

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2020.1764237

Published online: 04 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapm20
APPLIED MOBILITIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2020.1764237

ARTICLE

E-bike as a technological innovation system in China:

transition to the stage of institutionalized certainty?
Dennis Zuev
CIES-ISCTE, IUL Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper aims at discussing the current stage of development of Received 5 June 2019
e-bike as a technological innovation system in China. The article Accepted 30 April 2020
looks at the evolution of the e-bike mobility system from sponta- KEYWORDS
neous emergence through fractional restrictions to the current Electric bike; China;
stage with signs of institutionalized certainty. It is argued that the institutionalization;
current transitional dynamics are characterized by the processes of technological innovation
standardization, wider incorporation of e-bike in bike-sharing system
schemes, regulation of charging infrastructure and “smartification”
of e-bike mobility. These processes are likely to have influence on
practices of e-bike mobility: the shifting meanings, the relevance of
new skills and competences and transforming sociomaterial
arrangements. The current transition dynamics is marked by the
rising global significance of urban micro-mobility and the increas-
ing role of electric two-wheelers oriented at fueling mobility as
a service.

1. Introduction
China is a unique case for learning about paradoxes of low carbon mobility transition and
specifically e-mobility. It presents us with a complex story, where different electric
mobility innovations are both supported and contested among different user groups
and in different urban contexts. Electric two wheeler (E2W) has become a common means
of transportation in China and has had astonishing growth (Cherry and Cervero 2007;
Cherry et al. 2016). It is also one of the potential pathways of low-carbon mobility
transition in China (Tyfield 2017). There are already over 200 million urban residents in
China for whom electric two-wheelers (e-scooters and pedelecs) are the most important
transport mode (ITDP Report 2017). The popularity of E2W means that China has already
become a natural laboratory for testing and experimenting with the e-bikes as a potential
niche in electric mobility transition elsewhere. The key lesson from China is thus grasping
the complexity of “bads” and “goods” that come together with electric two-wheeler
(E2W).1
China remains the world’s largest manufacturer, consumer and exporter of E2Ws with
sales growing exponentially until 2014. Currently, it accounts for 92% of the global market
in E2 W sales and has been predicted to remain the global leader in the years to come
(Navigant Research, 2016). The ownership of electric two-wheelers (E2Ws) in China

CONTACT Dennis Zuev tungus66@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. ZUEV

exceeds the car-ownership, with the latter growing annually at a record pace of over 10%
(Wu et al. 2014, Xinhuanet, 2017). Despite cautious attitude towards e-bikes in some first-
tier cities, such as capital city Beijing, there are still 3 mln. E2Ws there, with the number
growing steadily by 15% per year (China Daily, 2018). Not only China produces e-bikes
(scooters, pedelecs) for the domestic market, it is also “responsible” for sustaining the
ever-growing fleet for e-scooter-based “micro-mobility revolution” in European cities and
North America.
Electric two-wheelers in China are found in a variety of types and shapes, with two
major types being electric scooter-kind and pedelec kind, both powered by electric motor
using different types of battery (Li-Ion or LeadAcid). The e-bike manufacturing in China
has experienced steady growth despite the lack of explicit state support and has been
treated with much less enthusiasm and media hype unlike the electric vehicle (EV) – the
real focus of government attention. Despite its enduring association with “low-tech” it has
been a more sensitive sector than high-tech EV production and in fact experienced
significant state interference, albeit not very public in shape of tax cuts for R&D, attracting
capital at discounted rates and nonpayment of land-use rights (Zuev, Tyfield, and Urry
2019).
Considering the significance of the e-bike as a manufacturing sector and as a mode of
transportation this article poses a question: how the meanings, skills and sociomaterial
arrangements of e-bike mobility practices transform with the new policy regulations and
measures, and how incorporation of e-bikes in mobility business strategies may affect
quotidian practices of e-bike mobility. Ultimately, what is characteristic of the current
transition dynamics in e-bike mobility and how will the practices in transition shape,
configure and order the future of E2W mobility in Chinese cities. The article reflects on the
existing literature and empirical data collected during fieldwork in China during
2014–2017. The fieldwork consisted of several sessions of data collection via interviews,
focus-group interviews and participant observation in three major Chinese cities:
Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing.2 The additional data on current stage of the e-bike
mobility come from analysis of media, business reports and government documents.
This article will introduce the theoretical framework of the study, namely the attempt
to merge the mesolevel perspective of e-bike as a technological innovation system
(sociotechnical innovation studies) and micro-level perspective of e-bike mobility as
a bundle of social practices in transition (social practice theory). It will give a short review
of the existing literature on the e-bike mobility in China, emphasizing the need for deeper
understanding of the transformations of e-bike mobility as a system and its implications
for Chinese urban life. The theoretical explanation of the framework will be followed by
the socio-historical analysis of the e-bike mobility as an evolving technological innovation
system. Specifically, the article will focus on the current stage of the institutionalized
certainty highlighting the key changes and their impact on practices related to e-bike
mobility.

1.1. Understanding mobility politics in China and the place of E2W

Drawing on the concepts of mobility system as “a distinct sociotechnical and sociomaterial
system and constellation that enables specific movements” (Sheller and Urry 2006;
Kharlamov 2016) and technological innovation system (Markard and Truffer 2008) it is
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 3

argued that e-bike in China is best analyzed as a prominent system embedded in the
current urban mobility in China. E-bike is a significant part in the larger emerging
e-mobility system in China (Tyfield and Zuev 2018), as it enables diverse kinds of journeys
and supports various lifestyles for diverse groups of population. This article will aim at
converging the socio-technical transition studies with social practice theory to under-
stand the dynamics of systemic transition by exploring the interconnected changes at the
current stage of development and their impact on “practices in transition” (Spaargaren
et al 2012).
Low-carbon transitions are different from historically emergent systems, as they are
purposive and goal-oriented, where entrepreneurs exploit the commercial opportunities
offered by new technology (Geels et al 2017) or indeed, take advantage of opportunities
offered by emerging pressures, risks and crises. With a considerably more pronounced
emphasis on technology, socio-technical transitions literature offers framework for ana-
lysis of large-scale phenomena – systemic transitions, but essentially is not delving into
analysis of the demand side (user practices), and supply systems remain the primary units
of analysis (Spaargaren et al 2012). The analysis of wider societal change and transition
dynamics in complex systems, such as mobility, should however consider the intercon-
nected bundles of social practices, as modes of ordering and determining energy demand
(Hui and Walker 2018). Social practice theory provides a relevant vantage point to
approach the social in mobility practices in transition as a part of larger consumer culture,
where focus is on the conditions surrounding the practical carrying out of social life
(Halkier et al. 2011). The objects and their use are central in understanding sustainable
consumption (Shove et al. 2012; Spaargaren 2003, Roepke 2009) and consumption
practices are the arena of resistance, power contestation and challenges of promoting
sustainable consumption and instigating behavior change. Without understanding multi-
ple ways in which things are used it is hard to reach the logics of their practical use. Social
practices are “organized spatial-temporal manifolds of human activity” (Schatzki 2010)
and can be analyzed as “nexuses of doings and sayings” (Schatzki 1996), comprised of
multiple elements: corporeal, mental, cognitive (knowledge), emotional and material
(Reckwitz 2002) or materialities, meanings and competences (Shove et al. 2012).
While attempts have been made to connect two perspectives of sociotechnical transi-
tions with social practice theory (Spaargaren et al. 2012) with focus on “consumption
junctions”, as a crucial point for production and consumption practices and their domi-
nant rationalities. Such studies remain few and relatively unfocused on the cultural
politics behind the social practices. E-bike mobility in its turn has been analyzed exten-
sively from the point of multiple-level perspective (Lin 2016; Lin, Wells, and Sovacool
2017, 2018), or the components of social practices (meanings, skills and material arrange-
ments) in the e-bike mobility system (Tyfield et al. 2014; Zuev 2018; Zuev, Tyfield, and Urry
2019) – where social practice were considered as a theoretical access point to examine the
politics in sociotechnical transitions. At the same current phase of the e-bike mobility
system and its influence on the practices in transition has been fairly under investigated.
It is important for scholars in sustainability to engage with the study of e-bikes
(electric two-wheelers or E2W) as a key area for innovations in low carbon mobility
transitions and as a potential pathway. Particularly, in the current period of “micro-
mobility revolution” in urban transportation, the e-bike occupies a central role in
promoting the idea of sustainable urban mobility futures. E-bikes are increasingly
4 D. ZUEV

important in the emerging system of electric mobility in Europe as they satisfy various
demands of the urban and rural population such as commuting, leisure, extended
mobility (access) and reconnection with space (Spencer et al. 2019). E-bikes make part
of the e-velomobility system (Behrendt 2018) and help to support a healthy and
alternative to short car journeys (Jones, Harms, and Heinen 2016), but in Europe they
are still seen as a vehicle for older adults (Van Cauwenberg, de Bourdeaudhuij, and
Clarys et al. 2018) and used for recreational purposes. Several countries (Austria,
Belgium, Sweden) have rolled out subsidy programs for pedelecs and electric cargo
bicycles.3 But the large-scale transition to e-bikes is slow and yet there are very few seen
on the streets. Some places have been more resistant to undertaking transition to
electric scooters (Taiwan), where motor scooters are still preferred due to several
reasons (price and maintenance), but E2W is slowly creeping in other societies
(Hansen, 2017). China is however a unique case of the most complex embeddedness
of E2W in urban mobility and social life.
In China the e-bike remains an integral part of urban mobility culture and constitutes
an emerging mobility system that lies at the boundary of informal and formal domains,
where informal practices and infrastructure intersect with formal practices and socio-
material arrangements. Talamini and Ferreira (2019) through their study of informal e-bike
taxi service in Shenzhen suggested that informal transportation service provided by
e-bike taxis enlarges the catchment area of the rapid transit system and thus reduces
the social exclusion of rural enclaves in the city. One of the first studies of informal e-bike
taxi service in Shenzhen also showed that practice of informal transportation service is an
essential part of the quotidian everyday resistance to the “civilizing” project of the state
(Zuev et al 2019).
Perseverance of informal e-bike taxi service in many Chinese cities, despite its illegal
condition indicates consistent demand and ever-present lack of alternative transportation
(Talamini and Ferreira 2019; Zuev 2018). In the case of informal e-bike taxi service one can
conclude, that the assemblage of the migrant workers willing to provide this service and
e-bike as an affordable means of transportation support other practices of informal
nocturnal work and thus evolve in parallel with them.
In China e-bike has emerged as a key part of a complex sociotechnical landscape,
which evolved along with another dominant or competing regime of automobility
and niches of bike-sharing, public transit, EV mobility and ride-hailing mobility. E-bike
in China does not fit into the narrow boxes of “niche” or “regime”. The same applies
to many other Asian societies, where automobility and private car ownership have
grown recently competing with traditional or dominating two-wheeler mobility (see
the case of Vietnam (Hansen, 2017), Thailand (Sengers 2016) or Taiwan (Yang 2010).
In China e-bike mobility continues to dominate urban mobility landscape in
many second and third tier cities, and compounds mobility politics due to resulting
dependencies, infrastructure, bound to formal and informal practices and multiplicity of
“communities of practice” (Wenger 1998). However, this regime has not been on the
favored side in the low-carbon mobility politics in China (Tyfield et al. 2014), losing
position to the regime of automobility and EV-mobility, the latter actively supported by
the government as the high-tech priority cornerstone in technonationalist agenda. Only
recently, electric two-wheeler has become a new focus for understanding the mobility
politics in China and urban mobility innovation (Tyfield et al. 2014, Tyfield and Zuev 2017),
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 5

in relation to diverse forms of urban mobility in China, specifically bike-sharing (Spinney

and Lin 2018, Yang et al. 2019).
Researchers of social practices have emphasized importance of understanding the
connecting tissue in social practices, indeed the connecting tissue is composed of
“multiple registers” (Blue and Spurling 2017). In this respect, e-bike as a technology
and a core material element of urban mobility is a connecting tissue in Chinese cities as
a vehicle aiding diverse livelihoods. The meanings and values of e-bike mobility are
intertwined with specific sociomaterial arrangements (infrastructure, space and vehicle
use) and knowledge (skills) producing distinct identities and visions of e-bike as an
urban livelihood basis. Some of these identities are contested between users and within
families and are associated with social stigmas (lower social class of the users) and risks
(such as unsafe riding behavior or theft). They are fluid and coevolving as the hybrid
practices of different vehicle use have emerged and support regimes have either
penalized and stigmatized the use of e-bikes or allowed them to coexist along with
other mobility options (Zuev 2018).
To understand the implications of E2W mobility globally, and the future of E2W in
China specifically, one has to raise the historical awareness of how the new system
emerged and trace the gradual normalization of the technology. As Hui and Walker
suggest, the changing relations within multiple practices need to be investigated not
only within the “objective space”, but as historically constituted. This historical constitu-
tion of practice as it is argued in this article also needs to take into consideration the
institutional conditions, and institutionalization is often taken for granted (Geels at al
2017) but the full understanding of how the new niches emerge and replace the incum-
bent regime is possible by looking at the historical stages or turning points and multiple
transitions of the regime, where changes of the social practices can be observed.
The provided socio-historical timeline in the next section allows to see how the e-bike
has passed through several stages as a contentious object of mobility governance and
arena of resistance in China. This periodization is useful for understanding the history of
relations between technology, institutions and evolution of framings and meanings of
e-bike mobility. For instance, the two periods of fractional restriction and institutionalized
certainty overlap, as the ideological meanings of the E2W evolve from being mass “no-
brand” vehicles used primarily by rural migrants to “smart” scooters with distinctive
brand(s).

2. The socio-historical continuum of e-bike mobility as a technological

innovation system in China
The case of e-bike as a technological innovation system in China presents us with an
example of transition where the periods of development of technology (e-bike) and
innovative process are not very clear cut. The process of innovation adoption can be
characterized as loops of fragmented adoption with fractional restriction in line with
evolving socio-material and discursive arrangements. The narrative of ecological civiliza-
tion as it has emerged and became prominent (Geall and Elly 2018) has been appro-
priated on the everyday level by the common urban residents, who see e-bike mobility as
primarily practical but also ecologically friendly (huanbao) way of transportation. This
discursive change regarding the role of e-bikes in urban mobility and specifically, their
6 D. ZUEV

“safety” is an essential part of the social dynamics in the socio-technical transition as it

transformed the discursive conditions facilitating anchoring of practices in local settings.
In China itself one can observe a new stage of development of e-bike as a technological
innovation system (Markard and Truffer 2008) as it has passed the stage of fractional
regulation to a new phase of further standardization in 2018. The three key phases of
constitution of e-bike mobility system in China can be described as follows: spontaneous
growth, fractional restriction, institutionalized certainty. With each phase one can associate
the change of practices of the e-bike mobility, which have undergone transition at both
“ends” of consumption and production.
The first phase of spontaneous growth or “structured uncertainty” (Breznitz and
Murphree, 2013) was characterized by fuzzy policies and fragmented governance, when
e-bike manufacturing experienced strong market growth from 1999 to 2007. Structured
uncertainty, was an institutional condition that cemented multiplicity of action and
development trajectories without legitimizing a specific course or form of behavior as
the proper one. Within the context of spontaneous growth, mass adoption of e-bikes was
largely stimulated by the national scale ban of motorcycles in all major Chinese cities. The
high demand for a substitute-mode of transportation energized the highly dynamic
regional technovation (Ruan, Hang, and Wang 2014) in several provinces and cities. The
already existing socio-material arrangements connected to the acceptance of the two-
wheeler and its versatility, as well as spatial arrangements (existing bike lanes, large
parking lots designed for bicycles). E-bikes became ubiquitous type of two-wheeler kind
of “hopeful monstrosity” (Schot and Geels 2007), and an object for disciplining and
control. The period of spontaneous growth does not imply disorganized chaos, but
management of emerging problems and tensions between different users in different
places. For instance, crucial process of commercialization of e-bike takes place, as the
object becomes a key consumer product and more and more actors are becoming
dependent on it as they are engaged in manufacturing, trade and using the product for
diverse activities.
The second phase of fractional restriction of bans and adoption (2008–2016) was
marked by fragmented tolerance for e-bikes across cities with almost unanimous accep-
tance in the interior regions. The first tier cities moved in to ban them in city centers or
limited their use on major arteries (as in Beijing) or gradually imposed the obligatory
registration (Chengdu, Shanghai). The year 2016 was a turning point as campaigns against
e-scooters in Shenzhen attracted national and foreign media attention, where e-bikes
were defended as valuable means of production for thousands of migrants working in
deliveries, express deliveries and informal taxi service. The slow-down due to prohibition
was seen as a hurdle to the growing e-commerce industry. During this stage e-bike has
been already embedded in the transportation landscape, but for the users and entrepre-
neurs E2W system could still be conceived as “unprotected space” (Birtchnell, Harada, and
Waitt 2018) and a fairly ignored low carbon mobility innovation niche (Tyfield et al. 2014).
Authorities of first tier cities step in but can not ban them entirely, and e-bikes
continued to serve fringe areas and urban villages (chengzhongcun) and residential
areas inside city, such as Shekou in Shenzhen. At the same time e-bike appeared as the
target of hate among the growing driving class and among pedestrians, who increasingly
associated e-bike users as low class (low suzhi) citizens, thus contributing to popular
stigmatization of the e-bike users. Despite the lack of official statistics confirming the role
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 7

of e-bikes in the traffic accidents, stigmatization occurred largely due to the safety risks,
which were attributed to risk behavior of the E2W riders, such as overspeeding, carrying
adult passengers (and sometimes even entire families), running red lights, riding in the
wrong direction and mobile phone use while riding (Du et al. 2013).
Police campaigns aimed at seizing illegal e-bikes and punishing informal unlicensed use
in Shenzhen (2016 were criticized by the media and citizens as the targeted precariat was
taken on sympathetically and supported in maintaining their means of production (e-bikes)
crucial for the booming multibillion e-commerce and food-delivery business (Economist,
2017). Fractional restriction period reflects very well the “improvised regulation” (Bourdieu
1997) in the mobility governance across China, where “fragmented authoritarianism”
remains one of the major structural political conditions (Lieberthal 1992; Mertha 2009).
Fragmented authoritarianism for e-bike mobility meant decentralized decision-making
where decisions were “worked out” between diverse levels of bureaucracy, local authorities
and central government, rather than being dictated solely by Beijing.
The third (current) phase can be termed as the shift towards institutionalized certainty
partly driven by the agenda on smart cities and smart and shared e-mobility, being
situated within eco-civilizational discourse, where strategic focus is given to sustainable
and low carbon innovation. The key phenomenon in this period is the ongoing growth of
bike-sharing giants in China and merging of e-bike and bike-sharing technologies.
Specifically, Mobike, the leading bike-sharing operator in China launched e-bike sharing
in the interior provinces in order to tackle with the oversupply in big cities with less risk for
public loss of face and allowing more space for experimentation. In the interior, Mobike
was already facing a very strong competitor – Hellobike which since its launch focused
on second and third tier (prefecture-level cities) with a population of under five million.4
Both operators became major competitors in incorporation of e-bikes in bike-sharing
schemes and have increased their stakes in developing private public partnership in
e-bike charging infrastructure.
The most recent developments demonstrate the retreat of the Chinese bike-sharing
back to domestic market which could be explained by the financial problems and
realization of “overstretching” its fit which could lead to ultimate failure, as has been
the case of prominent low-carbon mobility innovation start-ups who unrealistically raised
expectations and downplayed persistent risks (see Sovacool, Lance, and Orsato 2017).
As such, the e-bike mobility undergoes the transition from the initial phase of struc-
tured uncertainty (Breznitz and Murphree 2011), that is the state where patterns of
behavior of both – manufacturers and users were not routinized, and without any of
the actors knowing in advance which behaviors or paths would be appropriate – to the
phase of what can be termed as institutionalized certainty, with the new institutional
conditions suggesting and signaling more centralized regulation. The push for institutio-
nalized certainty is not a matter only of domestic urge to add the E2W agenda to the low-
carbon urban mobility agenda, but coinciding with the unravelling stage of global urban
“micro-mobility” revolution where China already occupies an important position as the
innovator, producer and experienced experimenter in E2W governance.
In the current stage of growing institutionalized certainty four essential changes help
us understand the normalization of e-bike and of e-bike mobility practices in transition.
This current stage of the E2W development will be covered in the next section, where
normalization of e-bike mobility is discussed in more detail.
8 D. ZUEV

3. Normalization of e-bike mobility: towards institutionalized certainty?

As (Brommelstroet et al. 2017) suggest, the relational qualities of mobility practices – that
is relations of different practice users and their surroundings remain under-addressed.
And the current stage of E2W development in China is characterized by the prominence of
the competition for space in e-bike urban mobility politics. The changing spatiality of
e-bike mobility related to the practices of parking, charging and riding reveals the con-
testation of urban space by different types of road users vocally claiming their right to the
road. As automobility regime facilitated the expansion of road infrastructure, often at the
expense of previously built bicycle lanes, e-bikes came to occupy the marginal position
between the pedestrian, bicycle and car spaces, also filling in the narrow passages
between the apartment blocks in the residential areas and between the road lanes.
Needless to say, this process of contestation and positioning in between and in the cracks
of the existing sociomaterial arrangement led to conflicts, negative attitudes and the
heightened stigmatization of e-bike as a material object and its users framed as citizens
with low suzhi (or “low quality citizens” – i.e. with the lack of education, little consideration
of traffic rules and general culture) that imperil the safety of other more “civilized” urban
space users. The contestation of space unfolded along another dimension of infrastruc-
ture, namely parking spaces and charging. While in China as a ”kingdom of bicycles”
considerable amount of space was occupied by single-level bike parking, the scarcity of
land space for parking was aggravated as bike-sharing schemes sprawled (from 2016 on).
Bike-sharing explosive growth in 2016–2018 also signified the scarcity of parking space
available for electric two-wheeler users, who had to learn to share previously marginal
spaces near subway stations with bike-sharing. Despite the bans and nearly illegal status
of e-bike use and sales during the fractional restriction period, e-bike has remained the
key mobility tool even in the first tier cities (Zuev 2018). Moreover, the discourse on smart
mobility has allowed electric two-wheeler to find protection under cover of the “smart-
ness” frame and high-tech design. The recent developments surrounding e-bike in China
revolve around a hype of a “smart” e-bike (mostly pedelec) developed directly by different
electronics giants, such as Xiaomi, or indirectly investing in smart e-mobility via creation of
e-bike reliant services (food-delivery service of Ele.me, provided by Alibaba).
The following evidence shows that there is an ongoing (yet low-key) institutionaliza-
tion of E2W, suggesting controlled backstage experimentation with the e-bike mobility in
the interior provinces rather than complete extinction of the e-bike as a transport regime
(Lin, 2018). It is likely that e-bikes in China are making a detour through backstage
experimentation for an eventual return to the first tier cities as redesigned high-tech two-
wheelers. The following four aspects relate to the current stage of e-bike mobility devel-
opment in China, but are equally instrumental to understanding of the future of e-bike
mobility and normalization of e-bike as an everyday form of mobility in China.

● Updating national standards.

● Diversification and incorporation of e-bike in public bike-sharing schemes (PBSS).
● Centralization of e-bike charging infrastructure.
● “Smartification” of the e-bike.

Each of these four aspects will be examined in detail below.

 APPLIED MOBILITIES 9

3.1. Updating national standard for e-bikes

In 2018 new set of regulation and obligatory licensing has been introduced to take effect
in 20195, which is to replace temporary licensing that has been going on already but
never formally enforced. This first major change in regulatory framework since 1999 when
the first national standard was issued demonstrates not only the effort of institutionaliza-
tion of e-bike mobility, but manifests the effort to transform the practices of movement by
e-bike.
The criticism of the outdated standards has been wide heard from e-bike dealers who
primarily commented on the fact that no customer would purchase an e-bike for riding at
the speed of 20 km/h and that the tempo of urban life has long changed and accelerated
without the city authorities noticing this (Interviews, Shenzhen, 2017).
Dealers and customers in e-bikes shops in Shekou district in Shenzhen reflected, that
the speed was a key drawcard of the e-bike, and a technical loophole existed for tinkering
with the vehicle allowing it in effect to reach over 60 km/h. The absence of reliable public
transportation meant that e-bike use by local residents was unofficially allowed by police,
despite the official ban.
The new “standardized” or “appropriate” speed for e-bike is one of the major changes,
which demonstrated how the old sociomaterial arrangement of the practices is being
reconfigured. The new standard could be considered largely a measure of “civilizing” the
users, reconsidering the correctness of the social practice (Alkemeyer and Buschmann
2017). While the new regulation suggested the speed of 25 km/h nationally, which was
seen as improvement, some of municipalities came with their own versions of what was
“acceptable” speed. For instance, Beijing municipality, on the contrary announced that
the allowed speed would be reduced to 15 km/h rather than increased according to the
new standard. Again, this being an indication of “fragmented authoritarianism” and the
power relations dynamics in China reflecting the degree of power of local authorities in
decision making – in adoption of national standard or bending the rules according to their
own “localized” preferences or “needs”. Thus, even adoption of national standards for
already embedded technology meant multiple trajectories of transition – with some
powerful agents sticking to their own rules of transition.
Obligatory licensing at the same time has been already under way in many cities, while
first tier cities announcing enforcement only with the new national standard in effect.
Another significant change is liberal allowance of 55 kg of the allowed weight for the
scooter. The weight has been an important feature as some of the manufacturers of smart
scooters had to adjust their production of vehicles, that would clearly satisfy the legal
regulations.
The implications of the new national standard however will reach beyond the simple
regulation of the speed limits or the acceptable size of the vehicle. The new standard is
perhaps an important symbolic political move meant to demonstrate all the stakeholders
on both ends of e-bike mobility – producers, businesses and consumers the interest from
the state to impose new official vision of the e-bike mobility as an important subject for
regulation, disciplinary control and governance. The new standard is also a step in
institutionalization of the e-bike mobility – indeed its inclusion on the agenda of urban
mobility transition via proposed disciplining or reinvigoration of both manufacturers and
10 D. ZUEV

users, who now will be obliged to follow the fresh, but not very radically different
technical specifications.
The incorporation of e-bike mobility in the “shared mobility” mode constitutes another
essential element in the current stage of e-bike mobility development and will be
discussed in the next section.

3.2. Incorporation of e-bike by bike-sharing schemes

Commuting is one of the most significant travel practices of our time (Bissell, 2018) and
the e-bike has been essential to commuting as a “practice of inhabiting the city”
(Plyushteva 2018) and continuous learning about potential arrangements for travelling.
E-bike in China is used by 25–60% of the users according to various case-studies (Lin,
Wells, and Sovacool 2017), e-bikes are specifically popular in “extreme commuting” (Nie
and Sousa-Poza 2018) with commutes of over two hours long. E-bike has always been
crucial element in home to work commuting, considerably alleviating the long commu-
tes from the city core to the surrounding suburbs or as a supplementary tool for first-
last mile journeys in commuting practice arrangement. The outbreak of SARS in 2005
increased the popularity of e-bike in commuting, driving people from public transporta-
tion and associated risks of contracting disease or any other unwilling contact with
fellow passengers.
The popular bike-sharing in Chinese cities starting from 2017 however never reached
out to suburbs and remained clustered in the central areas – a characteristic situation with
“shared mobility” within the capitalist mode of production (Zuev and Nitschke forth-
coming). Bike-sharing was not aimed at changing the commuting practice, but instead
adding an extra choice to the already existing mobility options in the city center. The
boom of bike-sharing had significant impact on e-bike mobility in urban areas as diverse
issues related to oversharing: parking, the use of space on the road and around metro
stations came to the foreground – causing frictions between bike-sharing and e-bike users
(Interview, Beijing, 2017).
Since 2018 bike-sharing and ride-hailing firms in the run of diversifying their businesses
and search for additional sources of income turned to e-bike sharing. The idea of
incorporation of e-bike in bike-sharing schemes precisely aimed at providing shared two-
wheelers to commuters and extending commuting distance of the traditional bikes from
three to five km. Due to the fact that some cities in China decided to ban e-bike sharing
completely, Mobike relaunched its e-bike sharing in the interior provinces (Sichuan and
Guizhou),6 which have been more e-bike friendly, thus offering an e-bike user experience
without ownership – particularly popular among migrants, who thus access E2 W option
without the risk of losing the vehicle to theft or maintaining it. E-bike was proclaimed by
Mobike as an “essential complement to existing businesses” (China Daily, 2018),7 being
adopted into a package of mobility services and aimed at long distance commuters in
China, who would prefer to use e-bike rather than squeezing into and fighting for an
empty seat in the public transportation.
Another significant mobility entrepreneur in China – Didi Chuxing ventured on the path
towards a greater ambition of becoming “a world-leading transportation platform” (BP,
2019). This goal put it in expanding beyond ride-hailing and four-wheels to the sectors
that address short distance trips and two-wheelers. Due to the first tier cities making it
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 11

clear that they would not support e-bike sharing, Didi ventured in the South of China8 and
using its massive user-base has challenged other bike-sharing schemes by attempting to
capitalize from the existing bike-sharing companies by integrating them in its own
application as “features,” where the user receives the convenience of not opening, or
even installing any bike-sharing app9 – thus demonstrating once again the power of the
app-mediated innovation in the hands of a digital disruptor.
As bike-sharing was successful, mobility service companies such as Didi or Mobike saw
e-bikes as a complementary niche service to satisfy the growing demands for mid-travel
journeys. At the same time bike rental market reached saturation and electric bike rental
became a convenient extension, with expectation of duplicating the bike rental success.
Interestingly, not only companies specializing in mobility services but also “digital capital”
players such as Xiaomi and Lenovo, entered into the e-bike related business. For instance,
Hong Kong based and Lenovo backed start-up Migo is planning to advance with e-scooter
sharing in Asian cities, where two-wheeler use is wide-spread but bike-sharing is not
a common cultural practice (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand). But the key obstacle to E2W
sharing in South East Asia is the entrenched belief, that scooter is an object to be owned
by an individual and not to be used collectively as a public good.
The ongoing incorporation of the e-bike in diversification of bike-sharing mobility
service shows that e-bikes are already becoming a new arena for mobility entrepreneurs
in China and may successfully upscale in terms of technology and infrastructure. One
question related to the infrastructure development is whether the big companies will
develop (smart) charging and parking infrastructure exclusively for their fleet or this
would be a common good? There is a high probability, that there will be a divide between
the individual and mobility service e-bikes, resulting in new divides and frictions regard-
ing the use of space.
Beside, it is worth noting that the process of upscaling is locality specific. Struggles
between the forces of socio-technical change and stability will unfold with different
degree of success due to diverse factors, such as support of the local authorities, will-
ingness of the businesses to experiment with this technology and users attracted to this
technology. In China this is particularly the case of third and fourth tier cities, which are to
experience the inflow of rural migrant during the new urbanization stage (according to
New Urbanization Plan 2014–2020).10 Whereas the first tier cities that imposed bans or
restrictions on e-bike use and e-bike sharing are waiting to see how the twin “hopeful
monstrosity” of e-bike and dockless bike-sharing experimentation happens in the back-
stage – promoted by the few survivors of the bike-sharing boom in China in 2016–2018.
The incorporation of E2W into bike-sharing schemes is a strange form of hopeful
monstrosity, where two controversial forms of mobility innovation – the e-bike and free-
floating bike-sharing – have coevolved and merged. Both have proved to be the char-
acteristic features of the modern two-wheeler urban mobility in China, and their adoption
has happened at a staggering scale and speed.
While e-bike mobility experienced a period of ups and downs, bans and permissions,
dockless bike-sharing has had a much shorter period of evolution and been hailed as a
unique Chinese innovation. Bike-sharing transformed two-wheeler mobility in China as it
helped to put Chinese citizens back on two wheels, at the same time reconfiguring the
vision of two-wheeler as a public good and promoting China as a part of the global
“sharing economy” (Spinney and Lin 2018). It also served the national prestige by reviving
12 D. ZUEV

the almost lost status and identity of the “kingdom of bicycles”, that was “replaced” by
other ideas of bike-friendly urbanity (such as “Copenhagenize your city” index) where
bicycle is regarded as an important transport mode and core part of identity of the city or
country itself, proud to manifest its two-wheeler friendly status (Guardian, 2016).

3.3. Centralizing e-bike-charging infrastructure

The incorporation of the e-bikes into PBSS is not only driven by the rationale of getting
more potential commuters on two wheelers. The main purpose in reconfiguring the
public-bike sharing by adding e-bikes is to reconsider the idea of two-wheeler commute
as a tiring and uncomfortable journey. It is also a large experiment on upgrading public
charging infrastructure as with the growth of the e-bike spontaneous charging has been
a typical feature of the small and big cities. David Bissell in his study of commuting, shows
how waiting for new transport infrastructure to materialize has become endemic condi-
tion of urban life (Bissell 2018). While large-scale transport infrastructure projects take
a significant time, the modest changes of already existing infrastructural arrangements
can significantly improve the transit lives of urban citizens.
The city of Hangzhou was one of the first cities in China that had over 10 years
experience of managing the largest municipal bicycle-sharing scheme in the world,
which has been recently set off for changing the commuting practice by offering
a public e-bike sharing service. The e-bike sharing gave a user choice to either rent
a bicycle, or rent a bike with a portable battery as a package. Importantly, the service
provider was experimenting with charging infrastructure, based on photovoltaic power
stations providing continuous energy to charge the batteries.11 The new approach to
changing the infrastructural arrangement from spontaneous to fixed clearly marked one
of the biggest changes contrasting the spontaneous growth stage where e-bike charging
was a highly disorganized and ad hoc. The important stage unfolding in e-bike develop-
ment is thus an attempted centralization and regulation of the public e-bike charging
infrastructure.
Hence, one of the developments accompanying the new loop of E2 W institutionaliza-
tion concerned an important transition in sociomaterial arrangement of charging prac-
tices related to the spatiality of the practice itself, precisely to where and how the e-bikes
could be charged. A number of accidents related to unsafe charging prompted the local
authorities to advance in the area of basic infrastructure provisions for e-bike users, who
have been largely left to spontaneous charging development such as the use of ubiqui-
tous fast-charging yellow boxes or cables extending from apartment or office windows
(Zuev 2018). The fire accidents caused by inadequate charging infrastructure happened
before, but when a high-profile accident happened in the capital city in 2018. The
discourse regarding e-bikes as “unsafe” was largely associated with the absence of
standard charging infrastructure and despite that the residents continued to use and
charge e-bikes via improvised arrangements. Similarly with the lack of reliable transporta-
tion, the lack of charging infrastructure was not a deterrent for e-bikes to survive and to
serve as a connecting tissue ultimately disregarding and overcoming the absence of
normal elements provided by the authorities. The citizens disregarding the authorities,
avoiding head-on conflict showed persistently the lacking elements essential for the
livable community, which relied on E2Ws and needed significant upgrade. In this respect,
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 13

it was the bottom-up feedback loop from “civilized” citizens to the “civilizing” government
(see in more detail Zuev et al 2019).
Besides the upgrades in charging infrastructure development, disciplining measures
such as demerit system and annual safety checks were also adopted by authorities. As in
the case of EV-charging infrastructure, significant power of supervision still belongs to
residential property management companies (wuye) and as in the case with more pro-
tected niche of electric vehicles, wuye has been unwilling to collaborate in allotting the
charging infrastructure space due to the profitability of parking space rental (Tyfield and
Zuev 2018).
The institutional effort to improve charging infrastructure for residential communities
can be seen as a move to promote learning about the safety of the practice. Interestingly,
the initiative to upgrade charging infrastructure has come from the Ministry of Emergency
Management, and executed by the Office of Work Safety Committee.12 Thus the expecta-
tions for safety of e-bikes charging are to be enforced by safety commissions rather than
transportation units.13 And following the official discourse on safety of e-bike mobility,
mobility entrepreneurs, such as Hellobike moved in to expand the network of smart
charging infrastructure for their newly bike-sharing schemes. The campaign for charging
safety upgrades results from interactions between diverse and unlikely partners – such as
the quality supervision, construction and public security authorities with objective to
control or stop the illegal tinkering with e-bikes, standardizing electrical circuits and the
installation of overload protection devices as well as the use of fireproof materials.
The transition in e-bike public charging affects not only the provision of material
infrastructure, but regulation and learning via new materially embedded or emplaced
standards. Besides the change of two key elements in e-bike mobility (speeding and
charging), transition in practice also implied “smartification” of e-bike charging, when
users of PBSS could swap batteries via a simple scan of a QR code. The “smartification of
cycling” (Nikolaeva et al. 2019) is particularly visible in the development of “new “scripts”
(Akrich 1992) of e-bike innovation, where “smart e-scooter” design promoted by manu-
facturers aims at luring the new digital class, which is familiar with the nexus of data-
mobility sharing.

3.4. E-bike as a smart vehicle

One of the essential characteristics, that facilitates normalization of electric bikes is the
claim of their “smartness.” The “smartness” of e-bike is an essential element of transition of
e-bike mobility from a low-tech consumer product to a product associated with the urban
mobility of the future. The “smart mobility” discourse and an overall belief in the empow-
erment provided by big data affords presentation of smart e-scooters as constitutive of
the identity of the young digital urban citizens.
In relation to this, intriguing is the phenomenon of the singular manufacturer of smart
E2W mobility, the Beijing based start-up turned company Niu technologies, which since
the launch of its first smart e-scooter in December 2015 has met zero competition in PRC
and has experienced successful growth via the city-partner network domestically and
abroad. One of the key elements of this success is the fact, that Niu offered a radically new
“script” to e-bike as a mobility innovation. The sleek two-wheeler, distinctive in its design,
competitive in price mediated a scenario that many domestic users were happy to
14 D. ZUEV

accept – a two wheeler that would not be associated with the “low class,” and would not
be interpreted as the thing of the past, but through its appealing design would be seen as
an empowering gadget rather than a simple “vehicle” and would represent the vision of
the smart urban mobility future.
Currently, NIU is the largest lithium-ion battery-powered e-scooters company in China,
ranked third in the European medium-end e-motorcycle market regarding sales volume in
2017. Niu unlike its sound-alike NIO EV manufacturer has already proved to have more
substance than hype, with Beijing youngsters asserting that “authentic” and not shanzhai
(knock-off) is the true attractive feature of NIU scooters (Zuev 2018). Despite its design and
appearance NIU is still a modular innovator, or a very characteristic Chinese second
generation innovator, which has assembled some of the key ingredients which are not
indigenous (e.g. Panasonic battery pack, Bosch hub motor) to create an indigenous novel
product appearance. The company is proud of its design achievements and does not
conceal, that design is a Sino-European collaborative outcome, and not a purely native
feature. It is the system of promoting and distributing the product and perhaps the mode
of adapting to the current technological zeitgeist that make NIU unique and worthwhile
investigation as a mobility entrepreneur.
While there are over a hundred e-scooter brands in China, most of them are targeted at
the low-end Chinese market. NIU is riding the consumption upscaling trend where
Chinese consumers, especially middle-class millennials, want higher quality and exclusive
design products. NIU has managed to more than double its addressable market in China
due to regulations, specifically limits regarding weight, which would make over 95% of
the existing lead-acid E2Ws noncompliant. NIU booth prominent at the Milan EICMA show
in 2017 and 2018 was an important part of the “economy of appearance” (Tsing, 2000),
featuring high-tech products made in China, a part of the strategic Made in China 2025
program (Zenglein and Holzman, 2019). Being a rare Chinese vehicle manufacturer which
has already made inroads outside China, particularly in Europe not hiding but vocalizing
its own brand.
The few risks for NIU are both domestic: the new e-bike standard and international: the
multiplication of competitors (Gogoro, Kymco). To be compliant with the new regulations,
NIU has to reengineer the N-Series to satisfy the safety standard of electric motorcycles
instead of electric bicycles. It has already adapted some of the new regulations regarding
weight when designing a NIU UM series scooter, a hybrid between pedelec and scooter,
to conform to the new standard. The heavier N-Series will be sold as electric motorcycles
in China, and users may be required to obtain registration or riding licenses, which may
adversely affect sales and further adoption by the young and middle class users.
Another advantage for NIU is the unrolling trend for “smart mobility” and associated
big data accumulation. NIU, similar to many other mobility entrepreneurs such as Mobike
or Didi Chuxing is not only a scooter manufacturer but the data aggregating company. It
aggregates over a billion kilometers of riding data, which comprise different driving
habits, modes of acceleration, and energy consumption. The collection of mobility
intelligence based on user riding data is a significant tradable asset for NIU, making it
one of the companies that can successfully negotiate with the authorities as having
leverage with the possessed knowledge. The data aggregated from the users has diverse
implications for “dataveillance” ((Van Dijck 2014) and even “moral delegation” (Aldrich,
1992) when devices are designed to control the moral behavior of their users. Surprisingly,
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 15

the NIU users in Beijing did not react negatively to the fact of sharing data with the
company and did not express their distrust that the data could be abused (Interviews,
Beijing, 2017). This is in line with studies confirming, that users of various platforms are
ready to trade their personal data for the services and opportunities provided in exchange
(Serafinelli and Cox 2019).
The instance of NIU demonstrates how deep-seated are the attraction and persuasive-
ness of the smart mobility future, where the real-city factors influencing everyday riding
habits are uncovered and controlled by the company to create improved and purpose-
built urban vehicle.14 The emphasis on the “smartness” of the object in NIU U scooter
series aims at attracting the digital mobile citizen, where cloud computing technology
acts as a private scooter analyst, helping with processing of driving data and supplying
diagnosis for diverse issues regarding the vehicle. This will ultimately change the practice
of mere physical movement into an “optimized intelligent riding” where movement
experience is enhanced by learning about and modifying personal driving habits. The
smart charging and smart design are two features that are currently affecting the transi-
tion of e-bike mobility in China, with both of them suggesting the shift of e-bikes towards
“smartification,” the shift affecting the two-wheeler mobility (Nikolaeva et al. 2019). The
broader embrace of the e-bikes by public bike-sharing operators in China, which has
broader global implications for the “micro-mobility” revolution increasingly incorporating
e-bikes.
The discussed processes of standardization, incorporation of e-bikes in PBSS, charging
infrastructure regularization, and smartification have tremendous effects for transition of
the e-bike practices in terms of shifting meanings, sociomaterial arrangement and com-
petences (skills). The implications for the future of electric-bike mobility are several: the
updated standards as the sign of attention from authorities are likely to give a boost to the
manufacturing, the regularization of charging infrastructure will improve the public
opinion of e-bike via improved safety, the smartification will allow further upmarketing
of the e-bike as smart and connected vehicles.
And the adopters of PBSS may stimulate wider use of e-bikes for commuting. The
negative implications include AI-facilitated increased surveillance and moral control of
the users, while contestation of urban space will continue between as the charging
infrastructure and e-bike sharing stations will occupy more public space.

4. Conclusions
Since the beginning in 2012 China has put its big bet on electric vehicles, as the key
technology for facilitating its low-carbon mobility transition and thus imagining it as
a single transition pathway. Recent phenomena of the expansive growth of bike-sharing
schemes and gradual institutionalization of e-bike – the subject of this article may
suggest a new governance shift toward support of manifold transition pathways in
urban mobility.
While in China the e-bike has been an embedded transportation mode, it is under-
going further and deeper institutionalization and incorporation into the sociomaterial
arrangement of Chinese urbanity. We are currently observing the unfolding of a new
phase of development of e-bike as a technological innovation system in China – the phase
of institutionalized certainty. But as any certainty in China, it is still characterized by
16 D. ZUEV

improvised regulation, which affects the system transition on the whole and individual
practices of e-bike manufacturers and consumers. Being forced to follow the new stan-
dard, the consumers and producers are coevolving in adaptation of e-bike being reima-
gined and redesigned as an acceptable innovation and increasingly an essential part of
“smartification” in urban mobility. This process of reconfiguration affects the constitutive
elements of e-bike mobility practices: meanings, skills and materiality. The adopted new
national standard is a turning point in the normalization of e-bike mobility system, and
although one has to consider impact of such regulatory measures in China with caution, it
will have its influence on emerging players in E2W mobility and will have more immediate
implications for e-bike infrastructure planning and further domestication. The standardi-
zation and redesign will contribute to new meanings of the e-bike as an acceptable,
improved version of the E2W, the smartification process contributing to the new status of
E2W as a high-tech product, which requires new skills apart of riding and charging – the
skills of managing a “smart and connected device”.
The new models of e-bikes: compact, standardized and with license plate will be an
enduring feature of the new urban transportation scheme in Chinese cities (Future of
Urban Mobility in China, 2017). Specifically, this refers to pedelec variety of e-bike, which is
increasingly integrated in PBSS in smaller and rural cities across China. One of the crucial
implications of the e-bike incorporation into bike-sharing schemes is the fact that there
might actually be less cycling, but more e-cycling, meaning more shared e-bikes in smaller
cities, while bigger cities will squeeze E2Ws to the fringes of the cities and persisting urban
villages. There E2Ws will continue to be used as convenient everyday transportation for
family needs and informal taxi service. One should however note, that the urban structure
in Chinese cities has been rapidly changing, with manufacturing, construction and retail
sectors being suburbanized to urban fringes, while housing locations have also been
largely suburbanized and thus leaving few options to commuters but the e-bike or
combination of the e-bike and metro or other public transportation.
Despite setbacks domestically, e-bike mobility system will continue adapting to the
new regulatory and normative rules. Adaptation means a complex process of bridging the
“structural holes” between manufacturers, users and mobility entrepreneurs. This adapta-
tion and institutionalization process is accompanied by steady growth of many sectors of
the economy which are essentially powered by e-bikes (e-commerce and the growth of
delivery start-ups).
China remains on the center stage of the ongoing urban two-wheeler and micro-
mobility revolution despite the unfavorable conditions that have emerged with trade-war
with US and EU antidumping measures aimed at “reshoring” of e-bike manufacturing in
Europe. The Chinese mobility entrepreneurs at the same time are both expanding their
sphere of influence abroad (NIU) and recoiling it, while focusing on the domestic market
(Mobike). China has already proven that it was capable of outpacing the leading auto-
motive manufacturers in EV innovation and adoption (Tyfield and Zuev 2018), and now
demonstrating yet another dominance in the area of micro-mobility innovation.
The export of Chinese e-bikes and other two-wheelers remains steady, diversifying and
meeting zero competitors. The import of e-bikes to Europe from the People’s Republic of
China increased by 15% (Bike Europe 2019), despite the 48.5% antidumping duty levied
on them, next to an import tax of 14%. Due to trade wars, there is an ongoing relocation of
manufacturing facilities for e-bikes and components. Some of them are being “reshored”
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 17

from mainland China to Taiwan, Vietnam and Cambodia, thus suggesting a more dis-
tributed manufacturing pattern. Whether this will undermine the regal position of China
as an important production center is a question for further investigation. The changes
come faster than most traditional players can prepare for, and with added politics of
production and distribution China will need to reinvent its e-bike manufacturing. It will
need to add more structure to counter uncertainties furnished by the trade wars and
antidumping process to make e-bike mobility an important protected niche which con-
tributes to CleanTech industry globally and domestically, taking advantage of the
momentum when electric scooters are exploding in popularity.

Notes
1. The revision of this text was provided by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal
through the Strategic Financing of the R&D Unit UID/SOC/03126/2019.
2. The fieldwork was possible thanks to the ECPR funded Project Grant Low Carbon Innovation in
China (ES/K006002/1), 2014–16.
3. https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/ecf%E2%80%99s-swedish-member-achieves-multi-
million-government-funding-e-bikes-and-it%E2%80%99s.
4. https://www.techinasia.com/hellobike-beats-mobike-ofo.
5. https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2018/05/18/new-national-guidelines-restrict-speeds-
new-electric-bikes-under-25kmh.
6. http://www.timeoutshanghai.com/features/News-City_life/56769/Mobike-is-rolling-out-
a-new-fleet-of-electric-bikes.html.
7. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201807/06/WS5b3ebe92a3103349141e10b7.html.
8. http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2018/01/12/didi-continues-pivot-two-wheeled-mobility-
beta-test-electric-bike-rental.
9. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/09/didi-declares-war-on-chinas-bike-sharing-startups/.
10. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/infrastructures-central-role-in-
china-new-urbanization.
11. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201705/19/WS59bbe304a310ded8ac189c0c.html.
12. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201805/19/WS5affbe70a3103f6866ee9673.html.
13. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201805/19/WS5affbe70a3103f6866ee9673.html.
14. https://www.niu.com/en/u-series/.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K006002/1].

ORCID
Dennis Zuev http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8322-9748
18 D. ZUEV

References
Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology, Building Society:
Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Alkemeyer, T., and N. Buschmann. 2017. “Learning in and across Practices: Enablement as
Subjectivation.” In The Nexus of Practices. Connections, Constellations, Practitioners, edited by
A. Hui, T. Schatzki, and E. Shove. New York: Routledge.
All you need to know on EU’s anti-dumping measures for e-bikes imported from China. 2019.
“White Paper.” Bike Europe. Accessed 23 March 2019. https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regula
tions/nieuws/2019/02/new-bike-europe-whitepaper-on-all-e-bike-dumping-implications-
10135177
Anfinsen, M., V. A.Lagesen, and M. Ryghaug. 2018. “Green and Gendered? Cultural Perspectives on
the Road Towards Electric Vehicles in Norway.” Transportation Research Part D. Online First.
Behrendt, F. 2018. “Why Cycling Matters for Electric Mobility: Towards Diverse, Active and
Sustainable E-mobilities.” Mobilities 13 (1): 64–80. doi:10.1080/17450101.2017.1335463.
Birtchnell, T., T. Harada, and G. Waitt. 2018. “On the Verge of Change: Maverick Innovation with
Mobility Scooters.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition 27: 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.
eist.2017.11.002.
Bissell, D. 2018. “Transit Lives.” In How Commuting Is Transforming Our Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Blue, S., and N. Spurling. 2017. “Qualities of Connective Tissue in Hospital Life. How Complexes of
Practices Change.” In The Nexus of Practices. Connections, Constellations, Practitioners, edited by
A. Hui, T. Schatzki, and E. Shove. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1997)
BP Press Release. 2019. BP and DiDi Join Forces to Build Electric Vehicle Charging Network in China.
Breznitz, D., and M. Murphree. 2011. Run of the Red Queen. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brömmelstroet, M. T., A. Nikolaeva, M. Glaser, M. S. Nicolaisen, and C. Chan. 2017. “Travelling
Together Alone and Alone Together: Mobility and Potential Exposure to Diversity.” Applied
Mobilities 2 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/23800127.2017.1283122.
Cherry, C., H. Yang, L. R. Jones, and M. He. 2016. “Dynamics of Electric Bike Ownership and Use in
Kunming, China.” Transport Policy 45: 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.09.007.
Cherry, C., and R. Cervero. 2007. “Use Characteristics and Mode Choice Behaviour of Electric Bike
Users in China.” Transportation Policy 14 (3): 247–257. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.005.
Daily, China (2018) Beijing seeks safer charging of electric bicycles.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/
201804/03/WS5ac2d20ea3105cdcf6515e08.html. Accessed 12 March 2020
Du, W., J. Yang, B. Powis, X. Zheng, J. Ozanne-Smith, L. Bilston, and M. Wu. 2013. “Understanding
On-road Practices of Electric Bike Riders: An Observational Study in a Developed City of China.”
Accident Analysis and Prevention 59: 319–326. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.011.
Geall, S., and A. Elly. 2018. “Narratives and Pathways Towards an Ecological Civilization in
Contemporary China.” China Quarterly 236: 1175–1196. doi:10.1017/S0305741018001315.
Geels, F.W. et al (2017). Sociotechnical Transitions for Deep Decarbonisation. Joule. 1(3), November:
463-479.
Halkier, B., T. Katz-Gerro, and L. Martens. 2011. “Applying Practice Theory to The Study Of
Consumption: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” Journal Of Consumer Culture 11
(1): 3–13. doi:10.1177/1469540510391765.
Hansen, A. 2017. “Hanoi on Wheels: Emerging Automobility in The Land Of The Motorbike.”
Mobilities 12 (5): 628–645. doi:10.1080/17450101.2016.1156425.
Hui, A., and G. Walker. 2018. “Concepts and Methodologies for a New Relational Geography of
Energy Demand: Social Practices, Doing-places and Settings.” Energy Research&Social Science 36:
21–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.032.
Hui, A., T. Schatzki, and E. Shove. 2017. The Nexus of Practices. Connections, Constellations,
Practitioners. New York: Routledge.
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 19

ITDP Report. 2017. 中国 电动自行车的发展与 展望. Guangzhou: Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy.
Jones, T., L. Harms, and E. Heinen. 2016. “Motives, Perceptions and Experiences of Electric Bicycle
Owners and Implications for Health, Wellbeing and Mobility.” Journal of Transport Geography 53:
41–49. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.04.006.
Kharlamov, N. 2016. Mobility Systems. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: John Wiley&
Sons.
Lieberthal, K. 1992. “Introduction: The “Fragmented Authoritarianism” Model and Its Limitations.” In
Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in post-Mao China, edited by K. G. Lieberthal and
D. M. Lampton. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lin, X. 2016. “Future Perspective of Electric Bicycles in Sustainable Mobility in China.” PhD Thesis.
Cardiff University: Cardiff, UK.
Lin, X., P. Wells, and B. Sovacool. 2017. “Benign Mobility? Electric Bicycles, Sustainable Transport
Consumption Behaviour and Socio-technical Transitions in Nanjing, China.” Transportation
Research Part A 103: 223–234.
Lin, X., P. Wells, and B. K. Sovacool. 2018. “The Death of a Transport Regime? the Future of Electric
Bicycles and Transportation Pathways for Sustainable Mobility in China.” Technological
Forecasting & Social Change 132: 255–267. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.008.
Markard, J., and B. Truffer. 2008. “Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-level Perspective.
Towards and Integrated Framework.” Research Policy 37 (4): 596–615. doi:10.1016/j.
respol.2008.01.004.
Mertha, A. 2009. ““Fragmented Authoritarianism 2.0”: Political Pluralization in the Chinese Policy
Process.” The China Quarterly 200: 995–1012. doi:10.1017/S0305741009990592.
Nie, P., and A. Sousa-Poza. 2018. “Commute Time and Subjective Well-being in Urban China.” China
Economic Review 48: 188–204. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2016.03.002.
Nikolaeva, A., M. Te Brömmelstroet, R. Raven, and J. Ranson. 2019. “Smart Cycling Futures: Charting
a New Terrain and Moving Towards a Research Agenda.” Journal of Transport Geography 79:
102486. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102486.
Plyushteva, A. 2018. “Commuting and the Urban Night: Nocturnal Mobilities in Tourism and
Hospitality Work.” Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. 11(3):407-421
Reckwitz, A. 2002. “Toward a Theory Of Social Practices: a Development in Culturalist Theorizing.”
European Journal Of Social Theory 5(): 243–263. doi: 2 doi:10.1177/13684310222225432.
Research, Navigant. (2016). Electric bicycles Li-Ion and SLA E-bikes: Drivetrain, motor, and battery
technology trends. Competitive landscape, and global market forecasts. Executive summary.
https://www.navigantresearch.com/wpassets/brochures/MF-EBIKE-16-Executive-Summary.pdf.
Accessed 12 March 2020
Roepke, I. 2009. “Theories Of Practice – New Inspiration for Ecological Economic Studies.” Ecological
Economics 68(): 2490–2497. doi: 10 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015.
Ruan, Y., C. C. Hang, and Y. M. Wang. 2014. “Government’s Role in Disruptive Innovation and
Industry Emergence: The Case of the Electric Bike in China.” Technovation 34 (12): 785–796.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.003.
Schatzki, T. 1996. Social Practices: a Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and The Social.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527470.
Schatzki, T. 2010. “Materiality and Social Life.” Nature and Culture 5 (2): 123–149. doi:10.3167/
nc.2010.050202.
Schot, J., and F. W. Geels. 2007. “Niches in Evolutionary Theories of Technical Change.” Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 17 (5): 605–622. doi:10.1007/s00191-007-0057-5.
Sengers, F. 2016. Transforming Transport in Thailand: Experimenting for Transitions in Sustainable
Urban Mobility. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Serafinelli, E., and A. Cox. 2019. “Privacy Does Not Interest Me’. A Comparative Analysis of Photo
Sharing on Instagram and Blipfoto.” Visual Studies 34 (1): 67–78. doi:10.1080/
1472586X.2019.1621194.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. “The New Mobilities Paradigm.” Environment and Planning A: Economy
and Society 38 (2): 207–226. doi:10.1068/a37268.
20 D. ZUEV

Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. “The Dynamics Of Social Practice.” In Everyday Life and
How It Changes, . Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446250655.
Sovacool, B. K., N. Lance, and R. J. Orsato. 2017. “Stretching, Embeddedness, and Scripts in
a Sociotechnical Transition: Explaining the Failure of Electric Mobility at Better Place (2007–-
2013).” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 123 Online first: 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.05.037.
Spaargaren, G. 2003. “Sustainable Consumption: a Theoretical and Environmental Policy
Perspective.” Society & Natural Resources 16 (8): 687–701. doi:10.1080/08941920309192.
Spaargaren, G., P. Oosterveer, and A. Loeber. 2012. Food Practices in Transition. Changing Food
Consumption, Retail and Production in The Age Of Reflexive Modernity. London: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203135921.
Spencer, B., T. Jones, L. Leyland, C. M. van Reekum, and N. Beale. 2019. “Instead of “Closing Down” at
Our Ages . . . We’re Thinking of Exciting and Challenging Things to Do’: Older People’s
Microadventures Outdoors on (E-)bikes.” Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning
19 (2), Online First: 124–139. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2018.1558080.
Spinney, J., and W. I. Lin. 2018. “Are You Being Shared? Mobility, Data and Social Relations in
Shanghai’s Public Bike Sharing 2.0 Sector.” Applied Mobilities 3 (1): 66–83. doi:10.1080/
23800127.2018.1437656.
Talamini, G., and D. P. Ferreira. 2019. “An Informal Transportation as a Feeder of the Rapid Transit
System. Spatial Analysis of the E-bike Taxi Service in Shenzhen, China.” Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives 1: 100002. doi:10.1016/j.trip.2019.100002.
The Economist. 2017. “China’s Food-delivery Business Is Booming. So Is Waste.” Accessed 23
February 2019. https://www.economist.com/china/2017/10/19/chinas-food-delivery-business-is-
booming-so-is-waste
The New York Times. 2016. “Beijing’s Electric Bikes, the Wheels of E-commerce, Face Traffic
Backlash.” Accessed 23 February 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/asia/beijing-
traffic-electric-bikes.html
Tian, Wu, Hongmei Zhao, and Ou. Xunmin. 2014. “Vehicle Ownership Analysis Based on Gdp per
Capita in China: 1963–2050.” Sustainability 6: 4877–4899. doi:.
Tsing, A.L. 2000. “Inside The Economy Of Appearances.” Public Culture 12 (1): 115-144. doi:10.1215/
08992363-12-1-115.
Tyfield, D. 2017. “Innovating innovation—Disruptive Innovation in China and the Low-carbon
Transition of Capitalism.” Energy Research & Social Science 37: 266–274. doi:10.1016/j.
erss.2017.10.024.
Tyfield, D. 2017. Liberalism 2.0 And the Rise of China: Global Crisis, Innovation and Urban Mobility.
London & New York: Routledge.
Tyfield, D., and D. Zuev. 2018. “Stasis, Dynamism and Emergence of the E-mobility System in China:
A Power Relational Perspective.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 126: 259–270.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.006.
Tyfield, D., D. Zuev, P. Li, and J. Urry (2014). Low carbon innovation in Chinese urban mobility:
Prospects, politics and practices (STEPS Working Paper 71). Brighton: STEPS Centre.
Van Cauwenberg, J., I. de Bourdeaudhuij, P. Clarys, et al. 2018. “E-bikes among Older Adults: Benefits,
Disadvantages, Usage and Crash Characteristics.” Transportation Online First. doi: 10.1007/
s11116-018-9919-y.
Van Dijck, J. 2014. “Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data between Scientific Paradigm
and Ideology.” Surveillance & Society 12 (2): 197–208. doi:10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Yang, C.-J. 2010. “Launching Strategy for Electric Vehicles: Lessons from China and Taiwan.”
Technological Forecasting&Social Change 77 (5): 831–834. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.01.010.
Yang, T., Y. Li, and S. Zhou. 2019. “System Dynamics Modeling Of Dockless Bike-sharing Program
Operations: a case Study Of Mobike in Beijing, China.” Sustainability 11(): 1601. doi: 6 doi:10.3390/
su11061601.
 APPLIED MOBILITIES 21

Zenglein, M. J., and A. Holzman (2019) Evolving Made in China 2025. China’s industrial policy in the
quest for global tech leadership. MERICS Papers on China. No 8. July. Mercator Institute for China
Studies: Berlin.
Zuev, D. 2018. Urban Mobility in Modern China: The Growth of E-bike. Cham: Palgrave McMillan.
Zuev, D., and L. Nitschke. forthcoming. “(Un)Sustainability.” In Elgar Handbook Methods and
Applications for Mobilities, edited by M. Buscher, M. Freudendal-Pedersen, and S. Kesselring.
Edward Elgar.Cheltenham.
Zuev, D., D. Tyfield, and J. Urry. 2019. “Where Is the Politics? E-bike Mobility in Urban China and
Civilizational Government.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition 30: 19–32.
doi:10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.002.