Proximity-centered accessibility has gained increasing attention in transport and land-use planning, but research remains strongly focused on walking and dense urban environments. This study examines the potential of cycling, particularly e-bikes, to enable proximity-centered accessibility across different rural spatial contexts. With Germany as a case study, we develop a methodological approach for measuring cycling-based accessibility at the municipal level. We combine the quantity and diversity of destinations that can be reached within 30 min, thus using the underlying principles of the x-minute city as an analytical framework to assess accessibility beyond urban cores in less densely populated areas. In a large-scale analysis of rural Germany, accessibility is calculated for different bicycle types and safety needs regarding infrastructure through different assumptions in the routing process. The results reveal substantial spatial differences in cycling-based accessibility. Accessibility systematically decreases towards more rural settlement structures, primarily reflecting lower densities of reachable destinations, while functional diversity remains comparatively robust. E-bikes considerably expand accessibility compared with conventional bicycles, with particularly pronounced benefits in less densely populated areas, although they do not eliminate underlying spatial disparities in opportunity provision. Moreover, location-quotient analyses reveal systematic differences in the functional composition of accessible opportunities across spatial contexts and cycling scenarios. Overall, the findings highlight the considerable potential of cycling and especially e-bikes to extend proximity-centered accessibility beyond dense urban environments, while also demonstrating its dependence on settlement structure, infrastructure and provision of amenities. The proposed open-data framework provides a transferable approach for evaluating cycling-based proximity-centered accessibility in heterogeneous rural contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: