Walking (and cycling) to well-being: Modal and other determinants of subjective well-being during the commute

By P. Singleton. Travel Behaviour & Society, 2018

218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Although transportation’s impacts on physical health are relatively well-established, the relationship between transportation and subjective well-being (SWB) has been the subject of recent focus. Policymakers attempt to improve the health and well-being of populations through interventions to improve transportation experiences and promote sustainable transport modes, while researchers studying these connections seek valid and reliable measures of SWB in the travel domain. Studies consistently find travel by walking and bicycling to be rated more positively than automobile travel, yet many use single measures of travel SWB, obscuring nuanced variations between modes. Using the results of a Portland, Oregon, survey of nearly 700 commuters, this study investigates modal differences and other potential determinants of detailed, multidimensional measures of travel SWB. Specifically, the Satisfaction with Travel Scale as well as new measurement models of travel affect (distress, fear, attentiveness, and enjoyment) and travel eudaimonia (security, autonomy, confidence, and health) are examined for variations between modes. Structural equation models predicting the latent variable constructs as a function of trip and traveler characteristics yield valuable behavioral and psychological insights. Walking and bicycling rated much higher on measures of physical and mental health, confidence, positive affect, and overall hedonic well-being, suggesting significant benefits of physically active commutes. However, cycling commuters scored higher on distress and fear and lower on security, highlighting the value of multidimensional measures of travel SWB. Enhancing the quality of the traveling experience by various modes—such as making bicycling feel safer through protected infrastructure—could significantly improve commuters’ well-being.

Subfields: Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Social Psychology, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/daa7d45df50db350c2f340c25729703b54ca2c04

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

1. J. De Vos
2. P. Singleton
3. Dick Ettema
4. A. Woodward
5. Kirsty Wild
6. A. Davis
7. Adam Martin
8. Ben Clark

In Social Psychology

1. J. De Vos
2. P. Singleton
3. A. Woodward
4. Kirsty Wild
5. Dick Ettema
6. Samuel Chng
7. A. Davis
8. Adam Martin

In Transportation

1. J. De Vos
2. P. Singleton
3. Dick Ettema
4. A. Woodward
5. Kirsty Wild
6. Kiron Chatterjee
7. A. Davis
8. Adam Martin

Citations in the corpus

• Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction (2018, background): “…and Uzzel, 2007; Handy and Thigpen, 2018; Lancée et al., 2017; Legrain et al., 2015; Mao et al., 2016; Mokhtarian et al., 2015; Morris and Guerra, 2015; Olsson et al., 2013; Páez and Whalen, 2010; Singleton, 2018; Smith, 2017; St-Louis et al., 2014; Ye and Titheridge, 2017; Zhu and Fan, 2018).”
• Discussing the “positive utilities” of autonomous vehicles: will travellers really use their time productively? (2019, background): “True, if we assume AV riders will feel more like today’s auto or transit passengers, then we would expect them to feel significantly less distressed (less upset, frustrated, angry, stressed, and hostile) than drivers, according to recent research (Singleton, 2018).”
• From attitude to satisfaction: introducing the travel mode choice cycle (2021, unknown): “…mode in fl uences travel satisfaction; active travel mostly results in high levels of trip satisfaction, while the use of motorised modes (especially the bus) results in relatively low satisfaction levels (e.g. De Vos et al., 2016; Morris & Guerra, 2015b; Singleton, 2019b; St-Louis et al., 2014).”
• Travel and cognitive dissonance (2020, background): “Although most of them found a clear effect of the used travel mode on travel satisfaction (e.g., De Vos et al., 2016a; Morris & Guerra, 2015; Singleton, 2019)2, only a few also looked at travel satisfaction levels according to whether the chosen mode was valued or even preferred.”
• Satisfaction-induced travel behaviour (2019, unknown): “…E-cycling; 2) Car Handy & Thigpen (2018) United States Commute trips Overall level of satisfaction 1) Walking; 2) Cycling; 3) Train; 4) Car; 5) Bus Singleton (2018) United States Most recent commute trip to work (adjusted) STS 1) Walking; 2) Cycling; 3) PT; 4) Car Waygood et al.…”
• Why are cyclists the happiest commuters? Health, pleasure and the e-bike (2019, background): “Cyclists are time and again found to be the most satisfied commuters (Avila-Palencia et al., 2017; Gatersleben and Uzzell, 2007; Martin et al., 2014; Paige Willis et al., 2013; Singleton, 2018; Smith, 2017; St-Louis et al., 2014).”
• Commuting and wellbeing: a critical overview of the literature with implications for policy and future research (2019, background): “Singleton (2019) refers to these eudaimonic aspects of travel as travel”
• The effect of COVID-19 and subsequent social distancing on travel behavior (2020, unknown): “Since studies have indicated that active travel results in the experience of positive emotions (e.g., De Vos et al., 2016; Singleton, 2019), especially walking and cycling should be stimulated.”