Urban bicycle tourism: path dependencies and innovation in Greater Copenhagen

Abstract

During the latest decade, a renaissance of bicycling in urban transportation has occurred in many Western European cities. This opens up for a development of bicycle tourism as a form of urban sustainable tourism, taking advantage of improved infrastructure and facilities for cycling tourists. The aim of this study is to conceptualise the dynamics behind the development of urban bicycle tourism. This development may be viewed as an innovative process based on incremental changes in local socio-technological mobility systems. An analytical framework is proposed, based on the following categories: urban planning, bicycle tourism services, communication, and place making. In the analysis, evidence from the Greater Copenhagen region is used to contextualise particularly these perspectives of the development of urban bicycle tourism. In each of the four categories, evidence of innovative services or procedures supporting bicycle tourism was found. However, the most important source of incremental innovation is likely to be found on a systemic level, between the actors in the destination. It is also argued that the development of urban bicycle tourism is highly path dependent, related to the local bicycle culture. Bicycle tourism should not be viewed as isolated from the locals’ everyday cycling.

Keywords:

• Cycling
• bicycle tourism
• urban tourism
• mobility culture
• tourism geography
• Greater Copenhagen

Introduction

Urban tourism has recently gained increasing interest in tourism studies. This is both as a result of the growing economic importance of urban tourism, and of its sometimes negative social and ecologic impact, discussed in terms of over-tourism (Koens, Postma & Papp, 2018). However, in a recent literature review, Maxim (2016) concludes that studies of urban tourism are still generally underdeveloped, and that they have not considered environmental sustainability enough. This is surprising given that tourism to a very large degree is urban in character (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Despite difficulties in defining and measuring, Heeley (2011, p. 24) estimates that “cities account for roughly 40% of all international tourist arrivals [in Europe]”. Urban tourism is also increasing at a faster rate than tourism to other kinds of destination in Europe (Eurostat, 2016). Accordingly, the environmental effects of urban tourism have also become increasingly significant. In trying to mitigate the negative impact of urban tourism which to a large degree are caused by tourism transport, efforts to promote participation in non-motorised transport becomes particularly interesting.

In recent years, most European cities have witnessed a revival of urban cycling, although at different levels. In cities like London and Paris, cycling only makes up for a few percentages of daily travel whereas it is very significant in for instance Amsterdam and Copenhagen (Pucher & Buehler, 2012). Not only do locals use bicycles, but also tourists are influenced by recent developments. Cycling tourists has become an increasingly common sight in many European cities, such as Berlin and Copenhagen. There are obvious connections between local bicycle cultures and the possibilities of developing cycling for tourists. For example, Jonas Larsen’s (2015, 2017a) auto-ethnographic accounts of urban bicycle tourist experiences in different cities clearly show the influences of local bicycle cultures on cycling tourists.

In this context, the Greater Copenhagen Region has almost become emblematic as a forerunner for bicycle mobility. In 2017, a consultancy company ranked Copenhagen as the most bicycle friendly city in the world; the neighbouring Swedish city Malmö was ranked fifth (Copenhagenize Design Company, 2017). As seen in Figure 1, these two cities form parts of a functional multi-nodal region, Greater Copenhagen (Nilsson, 2018). The cross-border region is often presented as a role model for its sustainable urban development, in which cycling has a prominent role (Gössling, 2013; Larsen, 2017b; Lenhart, Bouteligier, Mol, & Kern, 2014). During the last decades, the region has witnessed an increasing importance of cycling as part of local transport. This increase started from an already high level of everyday cycling, seen in an international comparison (Gade Jeppesen, 2012; Gössling, 2013, Sweco, 2014). Today, only cities in the Netherlands can show similar market shares for cycling (Pucher & Buehler, 2012).

Figure 1. The Greater Copenhagen Region. Map: Lund University.

Unlike everyday cycling, it is rather difficult to get an accurate picture on the scale of bicycle tourism in Greater Copenhagen. Based on national data, it is estimated that 8 percent (130,000) of the tourists in the Danish part of Greater Copenhagen are bicycle tourists (Vejdirektoratet, 2016). A more recent survey estimate that 7 percent of foreign visitors use bicycles during their stay in Copenhagen (Seismonaut, 2017). In Skåne, the Swedish part of Greater Copenhagen Region, approximately 250,000 bicycle tourists were recorded in 2014 (Region Skåne, 2017). A problem with these data is that they build on tourists’ self-evaluation when answering the survey. They are also highly simplified, they ask if the tourists cycle, but not how she does it. However, the data point at urban bicycle tourism as a rather small but not insignificant market which is likely to be growing.

Aim

The development of urban cycling and bicycle tourism in Greater Copenhagen may be viewed as a case of best practice. It is reasonable to ask what makes the region successful in relation to the development of urban cycling and bicycle tourism. Are there any particular policies or innovations used that might be interesting for other regions as well? Although some improvements have taken place over the years, cycling is based on old technologies. It is therefore likely that the reasons for success need to be sought outside the purely technological sphere. In a study of European urban transport systems, Deffner et al. (2006) point to the necessity of including a multitude of factors when trying to understand urban mobility cultures: physical, technological, and socio-cultural ones. Urban mobility systems need to be understood as slowly developing cultural processes, highly dependent on place specific circumstances. Therefore, the development of urban bicycle tourism may be viewed as an innovative process based on incremental changes in local socio-technological mobility systems. With this background, the aim of this paper is to conceptualise the dynamics behind the development of urban bicycle tourism. Evidence from the Greater Copenhagen Region will be used to describe and analyse particular perspectives of this process.

Outline

After this introduction, a review of the literature on urban cycling, and bicycle tourism follows. The field of urban bicycle tourism is thus discussed in close relation to general cycling practices. Inspired by the concept of mobility culture and the reviewed literature, the analytical framework discusses four (categories of) factors which are likely to be important for understanding the development of urban bicycle tourism. In the methods section, some basic data about the Greater Copenhagen Region are presented, followed by an account of the methods used for the study. The findings discusses the development of urban bicycle tourism in the Greater Copenhagen Region based on the following factors: urban planning, bicycle tourism services, communication, and place making. The article ends with a concluding discussion, in which the implications of the study for development of bicycle tourism and innovation are discussed.

Urban cycling and tourism, an overview

In this article, it will be argued that there are close connections between local mobility cultures, more specifically local bicycle cultures, and the development of bicycle tourism. A challenge in analysing tourism mobility, for example bicycle tourism, is that transport systems in most of the literature are regarded as being separate from tourism. For this reason, this section include discussions about both urban cycling in general, and more specifically about bicycle tourism.

Urban cycling

Following the renaissance of urban cycling, a number of texts have discussed the role of cycling as a means of urban transport. Some have taken a broad perspective on urban cycling, comparing developments in different parts of the world, and looking at health issues, safety and security, gendered aspects of cycling, etc. (Dextre, Hughes & Bech, 2013; Parkin, 2012; Pucher & Buehler, 2012). Cycling has many advantages for urban planning, such as ecology, accessibility and use of space. Therefore a number of efforts have been made to promote cycling (Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2010; Pucher, Dill, & Handy, 2010) focussing on physical infrastructure such as bike lanes, commuting trails, inter-modal solutions at traffic nodes, bike-share schemes, and internet based smart mobility (Behrendt, 2016; Bendiks & Degros, 2013; Furth, 2012; Pucher et al., 2010; Zhang, Zhang, Duan, & Bryde, 2015). Much of this literature focuses on finding technical solutions, i.e. mainly emphasising a supply side perspective.

Another line of research argues that cycling policies ought to be analysed in a wider perspective. Gössling (2013) identifies three broad categories in analysing the relative success of Copenhagen’s cycling policies: Market based instrument (fees, subsidies, taxes and other cost policies); command and control approaches (infrastructure, planning, restrictions on car use etc.); and soft policy measures (public participation, marketing and information – also targeting tourists). The importance of the politics of mobility, emphasised by Gössling, is also apparent in other literature discussing sustainable urban transport (Banister, 2005; Hall, Le-Klähn, & Ram, 2018).

In comparing performances of urban cycling policies in the Netherlands, Harms, Bertolini, and Te Brömmelstroet (2016) use a diverse set of factors in the analysis: 1. Hardware: infrastructure; 2. Software: education, information and communication; 3. Org-ware: organisation and implementation of policy; and 4. Socio-spatial contexts factors. Similarly, a paper by Buehler and Pucher (2011) on transport policies in Freiburg, Germany, uses a broad perspective particularly pointing at the importance of public and political involvement, and the importance of long term planning. Taken together, these papers point at the importance of addressing cycling policies in a long-term perspective using a variety of both physical, political, and cultural factors.

As a complement, the importance of local social conditions in encouraging or discouraging cycling need to be emphasised. Aldred (2010, 2013) and Aldred and Jungnickel (2014) have studied local bicycle cultures in different locations in the UK. They conclude that the practice of cycling could, in the eyes of the public, be viewed as either something perfectly normal or as an almost subversive sub-cultural pursuit. In most UK cases, the act of cycling was a clear identity marker, closely related with class and social status. As a contrast, it is interesting to see that in some cities (such as Copenhagen) cycling tends to span most ages and social groups, thereby making a strong local bicycle culture possible (Freudenthal-Pedersen, 2015; Larsen, 2017b), Accordingly, in studying bicycle cultures both material and social culture need to be seriously examined. Some evidence suggests that cycling has a wider impact on cities as tourism destinations by transforming places and slowing down urban routes, i.e. influencing the dynamics of cities as lived space (Gehl, 2010; Gemzøe, 2013; Hedström, 2016).

Bicycle tourism

Most of the literature about cycling and tourism has had a rural focus. Already in the 1880s, touring bicycling became an organised form of outdoor leisure in Western Europa and the US (Jamieson, 2015). In Germany, the labour movement formed its own bicycle clubs for recreation and as a reaction to commercialised sports cycling (Leibbrand, 2014). Since then, rurality seems like a taken-for-granted precondition for bicycle tourism, and bicycle tourism is seen as a form of special interest tourism (Han, Meng, & Kim, 2017; Lamont, 2009). Bicycle tourism can be a form of sports tourism. There are a large number of bicycle events (including mountain bike and triathlon) based on active participation. For example, Vätternrundan, a 300 km competition in Sweden attracts 23,000 cyclists every year (Vätternrundan, 2018). In addition, bicycle races like the Tour de France draw large numbers of special interest tourists as spectators, but also bicycle tourists who want to be actively present by cycling the same routes as the real contenders (Lamont & McKay, 2012).

The literature on bicycle tourism has had a focus on the development and promotion of networks and bicycle trails in the UK (Lumsdon, 2000), New Zealand (Reis, Lovelock, & Jellum, 2014), Belgium (Cox, 2012), Austria (Meschik, 2012; Pröbstl-Haider, Lund-Durlacher, Antonschmidt, & Hödl, 2018), Germany (Rommelmann & Gross, 2016) and internationally in Europe (Lumsdon et al., 2009). The reviewed articles tend to focus on physical and organisational infrastructure, although Cox (2012) and in particular Dickinson and Lumsdon (2010) emphasise the experiential aspects of cycling.

Although mainly writing about rural cycling, the latter also widens the perspective: “Cycle tourism is not exclusively a rural tourism phenomenon. The use of the bicycle as part of the city tourism offer is enjoying a renaissance across Europe” (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010, p. 138). They point in particular at the increase of bike-shares in a series of European cities as a sign of this. Since their time of writing, the number of bike-share schemes have increased significantly. New business models and technologies have contributed to the success, as in cities like Paris where bike-shares have attracted both locals and tourists (Fishman, 2016; Fremiot, 2013). Attractions and activities targeting cycling tourists have become common. For example, in Berlin a number of different guided tours for tourists have been available for more than a decade (Nilsson, 2007). Parts of the bicycle trail along the former Berlin Wall have become minor attractions in themselves (Cramer, 2014; author’s observations). Cycling is becoming a tourist activity in its own right.

There are thus several categories of bicycle tourists. The category dominating in the literature are the proper bicycle tourists, for whom cycling is an important reason for travelling: for sports, long distance journeys or for taking multiple excursions. These kinds of bicycle tourists mainly visit rural areas. Another, less visible, category may be called holiday cyclists, for whom cycling forms part of the holiday experience but it is not their main focus (McKibbin, 2015). Such cyclists may not be regarded as proper bicycle tourists according to a narrow conceptualisation (cf. Lamont, 2009), but are nevertheless interesting as parts of urban tourism. They are tourists, or day trippers, who use bicycles in a much more mundane way than special interest bicycle tourists. They either cycle as a means of getting from one place to another, for instance from the city centres to the beaches of Malmö or Copenhagen, or they cycle for the pleasure of cycling and seeing something new. In this paper, we focus on these holiday cycling tourists as being part of urban tourism.

Analytical framework

The development of urban bicycle tourism may be viewed as an innovative process based on incremental change in local and regional socio-technological mobility systems. In order to understand the role of tourism in it, such a system needs to be treated holistically. Changes in local transport systems including modal split between means of transport are influenced by a wide range of material and non-material factors. This means that to understand the role of cycling and tourist cycling in an urban context, a view involving several different perspectives needs to be applied. Accordingly, the following analysis is inspired by the concept of urban mobility culture, because “[t]he term mobility cultures encompasses both material and symbolic elements of a transport system” (Klinger, Kenworthy, & Lanzendorf, 2013, p. 18). It was first introduced by Deffner et al. (2006) and is conceptualised as follows:

[The concept of] mobility culture stands for the totality of material and symbolic forms of mobility related practices. It involves infrastructure and spatial design as well as role models and transport policy discourses, attitudes of traffic participants, and underlying mobility and lifestyle orientations. It signifies the processual interrelations of mobility actors, infrastructure, and technologies as socio-technological systems. (Deffner et al., 2006, p. 4, author’s translation)

By operationalising the concept, the authors were able to create an analytical framework for studying urban transport systems in four European cities. In their framework, urban mobility culture is seen as being influenced by the following factors: political decisions and planning, the historically shaped environment, socio-economic situation and lifestyles, and communication (Deffner et al., 2006, p. 16). It is evident from their study that changes in urban mobility cultures generally are highly path and place dependent. If looking back on the literature on urban cycling with the concept of mobility culture in mind nearly all of it points to the importance of infrastructure, urban planning and regulations. However, socio-cultural factors often need to be further developed.

In analysing the role of student communities in the development of creative landscapes in Venice, Russo and Arias Sans (2007) come up with a model using a formal–informal, and a hardware–software dimension respectively. The formal hardware side refers to infrastructure, buildings and facilities. The formal software side refers in this context to academic life, teaching and events. The formal aspects of this creative landscape have much in common with infrastructure, planning and regulation. Innovative processes always seem to be dependent on material structures, and socio-political institutions. In relation to analysing destination development we might also add communication and destination marketing as important formal–software aspects. Marketing could be viewed as integrated part of tourism planning, and information is crucial in promoting public transport to tourists (Hall et al., 2018). Russo and Arias Sans (2007) refer informal hardware to public and private space, such as squares, bars or cinemas; informal software refers to lifestyles and creativity, i.e. things people do. In the model, the development of the creative landscape is influenced by all four categories.

If the development of bicycle tourism is viewed as an incremental innovative process, this model becomes interesting. Most importantly, Russo and Arias Sans (2007) point at the significance of the socio-cultural aspects of urban cultures, in particular the informal parts. Urban residents’ cycling habits may seem quite straight forward, it is about getting from one place to another in a convenient way, but we also know that cultural factors are important for the choice of transport (Aldred & Jungnickel, 2014). However, in order to take part in bicycle tourism the tourists need to have access to bicycles and to services and activities involving cycling, i.e. services which make it possible for urban tourists to actively experience cycling. These services could be viewed both as informal hardware and software, depending on context.

In a city, there is a connection between means of transport, speed of vehicles, and social interaction. Areas dominated by people walking or cycling make room for a larger variety of services and activities than those dominated by cars (Gehl, 2010). The informal hardware aspects of the urban landscape are becoming influenced by cycling. The potential dynamics of cycling in influencing street life may also influence the possibilities for tourists to actively experience cities. Looked at in this perspective, urban bicycle tourism becomes part of a place making process.

To summarise: based on the concept of urban mobility culture, the model of creative landscape development, and previous literature on urban bicycle development, the following factors stand out as being particularly interesting for analysing the development of urban bicycle tourism.

• Urban planning.

• Bicycle tourism services

• Communication

• Place making

Tourism is in a state of change, particularly in urban contexts with innovations like low-cost aviation and digital booking platforms have created new dynamics, including new spatial patterns for tourist activities and mobility. In this perspective, cities could be viewed as creative fields of innovation, in which relative novelties such as urban bicycle tourism may be interesting for urban tourism in general. There are innovative processes taking place within the factors mentioned above. However, it is likely that the interplay between these factors (and others) in the destination which together make the destination innovative.

Case study

Method

The study of the four factors mentioned in the analytical framework in the context of the Greater Copenhagen Region is primarily based on a document analysis, covering statistical material, policy and planning documents, visions and strategies from the local, regional, and national levels. Strategies and bicycle accounts from Copenhagen municipality, and the bicycle strategies from the Swedish Skåne Region have been particularly important. Marketing material from regional destination marketing organisations has also been examined, as well as material from private businesses and public organisations related to bicycle tourism. Media material, mainly from the press, was also used in the analysis. The document analysis has been complemented with on-site observations and informal interviews with actors in local businesses related to bicycle tourism. The empirical material has been thematised according to the four categories mentioned in the analytical framework: urban planning, tourism bicycle services, communication, and place making.

It also needs to be mentioned that the author is a permanent resident of the Greater Copenhagen Region, a daily commuter (by bicycle and train), and a frequent day-tripper to most parts of the region. Thereby, the analysis is inevitably influenced by the author’s local knowledge. Finally, it needs to be clarified that this is not a comparative study of two cities, the Greater Copenhagen Region is viewed as one case.

The Greater Copenhagen region

The Danish capital Copenhagen is the centre of a conurbation covering both the Danish and the Swedish sides of the Öresund straights. The area is similar to other large European regions, with most of its’ built up area within a 40 kilometres radius from central Copenhagen. Totally, the region counts around 3.9 million people, two thirds of them living in Denmark. Copenhagen with 775,000 inhabitants (1,320,000 in the metropolitan area) is the largest city; Malmö with 334,000 inhabitants is the largest one on the Swedish side (Danmarks statistik, 2018; SCB, 2018). Since the bridge between the countries was completed in the year 2000, trans-border integration has increased significantly: in infrastructure, labour market, and regional politics. In 2016, a mutual agreement was made to use the name Greater Copenhagen for marketing the whole region, taking advantage of the only well-known place brand (Nilsson, 2018).

In a Nordic perspective, both Copenhagen and Malmö are relatively dense cities (Danmarks statistik, 2018; SCB, 2018) which is an advantage for public transports, walking and cycling (Newman & Kenworthy, 1989). Both cities have relatively low levels of car ownership, in parts of central Copenhagen only one in five households owns a car. Bicycles are on the other hand widely used. In central Malmö, 24-34 percent of trips are made by bicycle (Sweco, 2014). In 2016, 64 percent of Copenhageners’ trips to work and study were made by bicycle, and there were for the first time more bicycles than cars occupying the central parts of Copenhagen (Astrup, 2016; Københavns kommune, 2017).

Malmö and Copenhagen share some physical features that make them favourable for cycling. Both cities are relatively flat, the highest point in Copenhagen reaches 30 metres above sea level and in Malmö 12 metres – in an area called the Hills. During most of the year, the climate is good for cyclists, summers are not particularly hot, springs and autumns are temperate. But, with average temperatures in winter around zero, the weather is highly unpredictable with frequent hard winds, snow and ice. Such conditions would supposedly not be favourable for cycling, but a substantial part of the population do cycle despite frequent bad weather.

Findings

Urban planning

Encouraging cycling has been a political priority in the region’s major cities Copenhagen and Malmö. Both cities have introduced transport strategies where cycling is seen as an important part of urban personal transport, as a means to mitigate environmental damage and to improve urban qualities of life. Developing sustainable transport plays an important part of both cities’ efforts to revitalise their urban fabric and improve the cities’ level of attraction. Therefore, it has been prioritised by the political leadership (Gössling, 2013; Lenhart et al., 2014). The respective city governments have used environmental strategies to enhance the cities’ profiles as international forerunners in urban sustainability. For example, Greater Copenhagen’s regional growth and development strategy (2015) emphasises fields like sustainable mobility, green growth, creativity and smart growth.

Greater Copenhagen has gained considerable international attention for a series of initiatives, programmes and networks directed at sustainability – not the least in relation to cycling: “Biking has been the most consistent and successful element in the green marketing of Copenhagen” (Anderberg & Clark, 2013, p. 602). Cycling is also an integrated part of the cities’ planning for sustainable transportation (Københavns kommune, 2007), at the same time as particular bicycle planning documents have been developed (Københavns kommune, 2011; Malmö stad, 2012). The ambition to develop the citizens’ cycling opportunities are very high. However, in Sweden considerable weaknesses remain. For example, the regional bicycle strategy for Skåne, Sweden (Region Skåne, 2017) points at difficulties in inter-modal connectivity between bicycles and public transport. In the same document, bicycle tourism is only discussed in relation to the development of rural bicycle lanes, urban contexts are not mentioned.

Urban spatial structures may influence modal split by increasing network densities, e.g. by planning residential areas along traffic routes. In this respect, Copenhagen makes an interesting example. During the post-war suburbanisation process, the expansion of the city followed the “finger model” whereby urban development took place along routes from the city centre and out, leaving green belts between them (Eiler Rasmussen, 1994). Starting from the 1980s, cycling opportunities along these routes were improved, and extended into a series of bicycle super highways connecting the city with its hinterland aimed at making commuting by bicycle as fast and as safe as possible. Between 2012 and 2016 this system was extended from 17 to 57 km. The bicycle highways are wide, marked with coloured surface, and clearly separated from both cars and pedestrians. In one of the busiest ones, Nørrebrogade, on average 48,000 cyclists passes daily, a 60 percent increase since 2008. In addition, 61 kilometres of green bicycle routes have been built to integrate cycling with parks and natural reserves (Ballhorn Provstgaard, 2013; Bendiks & Degros, 2013; Københavns kommune, 2017). Today, the system of bicycle lanes in and around Copenhagen is very well developed, although with extensive improvements planned.

The central city of Copenhagen is physically separated from the inner suburbs by the harbour and a series of artificial lakes, causing congestion on bridges and roads. In 2014 and 2016 two new bicycle bridges were built across the old harbour area, shortening travel distances and improving accessibility on two old bridges, with mixed traffic, that previously acted as bottlenecks. The bicycle bridges are connected to bicycle lanes leading to districts further out from the centre. One of them goes through the “free state” of Christiania, a self-governed area whose inhabitants enjoy an alternative life style. Christiania was founded by alternatives in 1971, and has gradually become a major tourist attraction off the beaten track. The bicycle lane was criticised by the inhabitants for bringing in fast bicycle traffic, thereby opening up the area and increasing the number of visitors (Politiken, 2015). This might seem like a paradox since motorised traffic is banned in Christiania, and the place is very much associated with everyday cycling, even having its own bicycle brand.

There are considerable differences in inter-modality within the Greater Copenhagen Region. On the Danish side, connections between public transports and cycling are well developed. The regional commuter trains (S-tog) are equipped with designated areas for bicycles, and you can bring them for free. Bicycles are not allowed on board national Swedish trains. On regional trains bicycles can be brought for a fee, but only outside rush hours, when there is space available (DSB, 2018; Rådmark, 2018; Skånetrafiken, 2018). However, with trains often fully occupied and lacking designated areas it is cumbersome to bring your bicycle along, particularly on the trains going over the bridge. Another issue related to inter-modality is parking spaces for bicycles at railway stations. This is serious problem, particularly along the main lines connecting Helsingborg, Lund, Malmö, Copenhagen and Roskilde. Generally, the parking situation for bicycles in Copenhagen is problematic, and a cause of much complaint (Københavns kommune, 2017). Solving problems at rail and bus stations might also benefit the accessibility for bicycle tourists (Hall et al., 2018). The problem is however difficult to solve in central locations due to the lack of space.

There are relatively few specific regulations for car traffic in Copenhagen, no toll fee and few speed reductions. Instead, efforts have focussed on clearly separating the different modes of traffic from one another, i.e. separating cyclists from both motorists and pedestrians. Together with the high number of cyclists in the streets, traffic becomes easy to understand. The local bicycle culture, including a high degree of respect for traffic rules, also seems to make traffic safe for cyclists, making it easy to behave correctly. As a result, accidents involving cyclists have reduced significantly during the last decade (Københavns kommune, 2017). Safe infrastructure and the presence of a high number of other cyclists seem to be an important explanation behind the success of cycling in Copenhagen. Malmö is lagging behind in developing separated bicycle infrastructure, there has been more focus on regulations for cars; speed limits have been reduced to 40 km/h in the central city. The pace is brought down for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists, but the struggle for space in the streets remains.

Copenhagen is clearly a role model in bicycle infrastructure (Gössling, 2013). Improved accessibility for bicycles, safer traffic conditions, and increasing numbers of locals riding bicycles create incentives for visitors to cycle too. Tourists can feel safe cycling around the city; they get the opportunity to go slow enough to connect to the city but still fast enough to be able to discoverer areas and attractions off the beaten track. In this way virtuous circles are created. Cyclists push motorists back from parts of the city, and streetscapes can develop in new directions (Gehl, 2010). Slowing down traffic by cycling or walking instead of driving opens up opportunities for other activities and businesses to flourish (Hedström, 2016). Furthermore, the home market helps build a demand for tourism attractions and businesses based on cycling. Apart from infrastructure, things like access to bicycles, guided tours, routes and other services contribute to making cycling attractive to tourists. Such services also have a broader impact on urban tourism landscapes.

Bicycle tourism services

In Copenhagen and Malmö, there are various ways for tourists to get access to bicycles. Many hotels have started to supply their guests with bicycles to rent or to use for free. For example, in January 2018, 11 out of 29 hotels in central Malmö (38%) provided their guests with bicycles, mostly for free (author’s calculation based on hotel webpages). In 2014, there were 2700 hotel bicycles available in Copenhagen, i.e. around 25 per hotel (Københavns kommune, 2015). In Malmö, there is a purpose-built hotel for guests using bicycles, providing them with bicycle parking, repair facilities, one free bicycle per room and access to cargo bikes. On the same premises, there is also a condominium with 55 flats designed for cyclists. Interestingly, they don’t have access to car parking, which otherwise is stipulated in planning regulations. The philosophy behind the project states that “it is a house for a modern, urban lifestyle – where it should be easy to live green and smart, with solutions for sharing resources, decreasing emissions, and adding something extra to life” (Ohboy, 2018, author’s translation). In this case, designed cycling has become a symbol for something more than mobility, it is about social, cultural and esthetic values.

Apart from at hotels, there are a number of rent-a-bike stations in both cities, but the main change recent years is that many bicycle shops have broadened their business with renting. Bike-share programmes were introduced already in the 1990s in Copenhagen. Availability is good, at least in the central districts. However, since most locals have their own bicycles the bike-shares depend on visitors – making the system less well developed than for instance in Paris. Maps are an often neglected source of tourism information, and a practical help to cyclists. They have the advantage of being language neutral (Hall et al., 2018), in particular traditional paper maps need little additional information to use. The route planning app “I Bike CPH” is available in both English and Danish (I Bike CPH, 2019).

There are a lot of guided bicycle tours available for tourists. Copenhagen’s official tourist information site have a list of seven companies, providing a wide range of different tours. Most of the tours cover the city’s most well-known tourist attractions, but there are also a number of tours visiting areas outside the city centre. This way they move into districts which only relatively recently have gained attention as targets for alternative tourism. Apart from that, two companies are specialised in presenting the city’s bicycle culture. There is even a specialised guided tour focussing on urban sustainable development, visiting a number of hotspots for green innovation (Greenenergytours, 2016). There are fewer and less regular bicycle tours in Malmö. The most well-known visits places of importance in the life of the native football star Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Z-turen, 2018). In both cities, there are also a number of suggested tours for tourists to take on their own.

Communication

The recent interest in everyday tourist experiences, taking place off the beaten track (Maitland & Newman, 2009), could be related to present views on what tourism is about. Tourism is no longer seen as something exceptional, taking place at specific times or places. Tourism could no longer be easily separated from other forms of mobility, and tourists are no longer seen as different from other visitors (Gale, 2008; Urry, 2007). An analysis of these changes lies behind WoCo’s (Copenhagen’s DMO) new strategy: “The end of tourism as we know it. Towards a new beginning of localhood”. The local travel experience in which “[l]ocals are the destination” is essential to the strategy. Contemporary visitors are seen as travellers, not as parts of mass tourism. These “temporary locals” want to take part in local life, not just stand by and gaze (WoCo, 2017). Cycling is a prioritised area in Copenhagen’s visitor strategy and is seen as an important aspect of localness in Greater Copenhagen (WoCo, 2017). In Copenhagen, cycling has been a vital part in building the city’s identity and image for a long time; the novelty recently lies in the integration of cycling into the new strategy where it becomes an essential part of the city’s “localhood”. Copenhagen municipality’s bicycle accounts point specifically at the branding value of Copenhagen as a bicycle city for attracting international visibility and visitors (Københavns kommune, 2011a, 2011b, 2015). The value of bicycle tourism is seen as a benefit in relation to public investment in bicycle infrastructure. Communicating such values to local taxpayers is a way of adding support for the bicycle strategy.

In the region’s promotion material references to cycling are very common. It is however interesting to make a comparison between the Swedish and the Danish parts of the region. In the Swedish material, cycling is predominantly seen in rural settings, as a part of nature-based tourism. These aspects are visible in Denmark as well, but the scope is much wider. Cycling is much more set in urban contexts, associated with a hip and modern lifestyle. Bicycles and cycling are also prevalent themes in magazines, travel sites, and in guidebooks about Copenhagen. For instance, books on Scandinavian design and lifestyle often highlight bicycles as lifestyle and design objects. Connection to other forms of sustainable consumption, such as organic foods and second hand shopping, are common (cf. Peuckert & Jepsen, 2016).

These images reinforces the region’s profile of being sustainable and progressive (cf. Anderberg & Clark, 2013; Nilsson, 2018). Greater Copenhagen likes to view itself as green, ecologically conscious, smart and innovatively connected; “where you can ride your bicycle to work, swim in the harbour, eat local organic food and use the power of nature to keep you warm […]” (GCSC, 2016). During the last couple of years “the bicycle girl” seems to have replaced “the little Mermaid” as an important symbol of Copenhagen (Hedström, 2016, p. 33). Media pictures of people, especially women, riding bicycles in the city often show people smartly dressed in all kinds of weather. This refers to the cities identity of being blond, smartly modern and well designed. As a visitor, you are invited to take part in this particular form of localness. Or as one bike rental company puts it: “Ride Copenhagen in style […] experience the city like a hip local” (Velorbis, 2017).

Cycling is thus a significant part of the image of Greater Copenhagen. Its importance works in two directions. Internally it has become part of the local identity, to be a Copenhagener is to ride a bicycle. It is also used to communicate the cities’ qualities to external actors, including tourists. It could be argued that the image of Greater Copenhagen is at least partly built on the local bicycle culture. It might even be that cyclists in themselves are a tourist attraction.

Place making

In Greater Copenhagen, there is a large group of urban people who use their bicycles a lot, people of all social groups, genders and age groups. They cycle to work, to school and for leisure without making a statement of it, because it’s practical, cheap, relatively fast and a nice exercise. Environmental motives are for instance less pronounced (Københavns kommune, 2017). These are people who sit upright when cycling, who wear normal clothing and travel at a reasonable speed. Most of them have access to a car but prefer cycling because it’s a long time habit (Freudenthal-Pedersen, 2015; Larsen, 2017b). It could be argued that this everyday cycling culture is very important for the new and hip cycling culture to prosper. Both categories share the same infrastructure and have similar demands on accessibility for bicycles, safety and amenities. These material circumstances are equally important for the development of bicycle tourism. In Greater Copenhagen, cycling becomes a way for visitors to take part of the local culture and experience the cities as the locals do; in other words to get an authentic experience of the local.

The relation between cycling and place making is evident in the media material provided for journalists. Among the downloadable images available on the Visit Copenhagen webpage, 55 were found under the label “bikes and biking”. The category “popular streets and squares” included 88 images, in 41 of them bicycles and cyclists were visible, in 11 as the main object (Visit Copenhagen, 2019). Bicycles are used visually as defining objects of many urban places in Copenhagen. Based on that and other material on the DMO’s website, it is fair to say that bicycles and cycling is an important part of the image of greater Copenhagen.

In some particular parts of Greater Copenhagen the presence of cyclists, including cycling tourists, make a significant imprint. In gentrifying central districts where car ownership is low, cycling has become a pronounced part of local culture. Bicycles are used for many purposes, for sports, for getting to work or school, and for local transports. In some districts like Nørrebro in Copenhagen and Möllevången in Malmö, we can see a development of micro-agglomerations of bicycle businesses providing services for both locals and visitors. We can also see the development of links between bicycle businesses and certain kinds of tourism related services. The presence of alternative businesses, such as craftspeople, shops, and restaurants with an ecological or social profile, tends to attract cycling tourists. These areas become meeting places for creative producers and consumers. Using examples from the Nørrebro district in Copenhagen, Hedström (2016) shows that the local cycling culture is a vital ingredient in creating the “buzz” which makes the district become an increasingly visited part of the city. The biking culture facilitates face-to-face contact and interaction between people. Evidently, a bicycle friendly local environment helps creating a particular local atmosphere which is likely to be attractive to visitors as well as to locals.

Cycling may thus be one element in the formation of alternative tourist sites, as we can see evidence of in the case of Greater Copenhagen. This formation is in line with experiences from other European cities where areas outside traditional tourist business districts have become increasingly attractive to visitors (Colomb, 2012; Maitland, 2010; Richards, 2014). The tourists taking part in alternative activities may constitute a minor part of all visitors (cf. Russo & Arias Sans, 2009) but they may nevertheless have considerable impact in particular urban districts. These new districts may form the basis for new authentic stories of the city, bypassing traditional ways of promoting tourism. “Such areas provide a means for cities to cater for a desirable niche market of practiced travellers by offering an experience that is distinctive because it is everyday” (Maitland, 2010, p. 183.). In Greater Copenhagen, cycling is a vital part of “the new tale of the town”.

Concluding discussion

It can be argued that the most important finding from this study is that bicycle tourism cannot be viewed separately from everyday cycling practices carried out by the resident population. In the Greater Copenhagen Region, cycling has been a common practice for decades. It has made it politically possible to develop a good, sometimes innovative, bicycle infrastructure, which in turn has encouraged more people to use bicycles on a daily basis. The regional bicycle culture is thus highly path dependent. Urban planning strategies and development of bicycle infrastructure also form the basic conditions for urban bicycle tourism to develop. The local bicycle culture creates an awareness among visitors about possible cycling activities, and cycling as part of the destination identity is reinforced. As seen in local development strategies, marketing material and media, cycling is emphasised as an authentic local experience. It becomes part of a specific form of localness, that visitors are expected to take part in. It is almost as if they are saying that Copenhagen is cycling. However, for such marketing efforts to be successful they have to be founded on a mobility culture in which cycling plays a significant part.

In analysing the dynamics behind the development of urban tourism cycling in Greater Copenhagen, insights from literature about urban mobility cultures, about bicycle tourism, and about alternative tourism were used. Based on this, four categories of factors were used as a framework for the analysis: urban planning, bicycle tourism services, communication, and place making. These factors are all important for the development of bicycle tourism, but the urban planning strategies build the necessary physical conditions which make it possible for the cultural aspects of cycling to develop. Furthermore, in each of these categories we find examples of incremental innovation, for example in traffic solutions, in the construction of a bicycle hotel, or in new forms of marketing using images of bicycles and cycling as part of the urban identity. However the most interesting point seems to relate to how a diverse set of factors interact in shaping good conditions for bicycle tourism, particularly in urban districts off the beaten track. We might call this an example of network innovation. The relations between cycling, local and tourist, and place making are complex and call for further research. This is particular relevant in non-traditional tourist districts, where flows of cycling tourists may influence localities in unforeseen ways.

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise the dynamics behind the development of urban bicycle tourism. As one of only a few articles with an urban perspective it brings new insights into the research on bicycle tourism. It emphasises that we need to look beyond only infrastructure, planning and regulations in order to understand the development of urban bicycle tourism. It depends as much on cultural change as it is a political matter, and as such it necessarily encompasses wide sections of society. It is also a slow process where path dependencies are an important ingredient.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Formas. Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development.