Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process

Abstract

Over the past years a substantial amount of studies has indicated that travel satisfaction is affected by a wide range of elements such as trip duration, travel mode choice and travel-related attitudes. However, what is less explored is that this travel satisfaction is not only an outcome of travel-related preferences and choices, but that travel satisfaction can also be a predictor of travel-related components. In this conceptual paper we tend to fill the gaps in the existing − albeit rather fragmented − literature concerning travel satisfaction. We provide an overview of the elements explaining travel satisfaction, and possible outcomes of travel satisfaction, with a focus on (i) subjective well-being, (ii) travel mode choice, (iii) travel-related attitudes, and (iv) the residential location. Furthermore, we suggest a continuous cyclical process including the four above mentioned elements in which travel satisfaction plays an essential role; a process which can result in the formation of travel habits.

Towards Carbon-Neutral Mobility in Finland: Mobility and Life Satisfaction in Day-to-Day Life

“…Furthermore, the literature on positive self-concepts [65] and motility [42,92] stresses that access to multiple modalities and pursuing skills and knowledge about them could establish a sense of freedom, competence and belonging, which, in turn, could generate confidence and the perception of attaining other life goals [92]. This also links to the literature on habits [36], highlighting the fact that knowledge of previous practices could be used in order to regain their use.…”

The relationship between overall happiness and perceived transportation services relative to other individual and environmental variables

“…In fact, while academic interests in travel happiness are relatively new (Chen et al., 2019; Singleton, 2019), over the last decade (see De Vos, 2019b; De Vos, Schwanen, Van Acker, & Witlox, 2013; Ettema, Gärling, Olsson, & Friman, 2010), studies have extensively explored various happiness determinants (Chen et al., 2019), focusing on trip and traveler characteristics (Zhu & Fan, 2018a, 2018b) although other dimensions such as the built environment and climate were also investigated (Abenoza, Cats, & Susilo, 2017; De Vos, Ettema, & Witlox, 2019; Park, 2017; Park & Kim, 2017). Frequently analyzed variables include travel modes (Morris, 2015; Morris & Guerra, 2015; Singleton, 2019; St‐Louis, Manaugh, van Lierop, & El‐Geneidy, 2014; Zhu & Fan, 2018b)—those for active travel, including walk and bike [but not for commute (Singleton, 2019)], and public transit were often found as the happiest and unhappiest modes, respectively, although the reciprocal relationship between mode choice and travel happiness was also conceptually acknowledged (De Vos, 2019b; De Vos et al., 2013; De Vos & Witlox, 2017)—activities/experiences on the way to the destination (De Vos et al., 2013; Ettema, Friman, Gärling, Olsson, & Fujii, 2012), presence/characteristics of companions (De Vos, 2019a; Zhu & Fan, 2018b), trip purposes (in relation to the compulsion level of the trip) (De Vos, Mokhtarian, Schwanen, Van Acker, & Witlox, 2016; Mokhtarian, Papon, Goulard, & Diana, 2015; Zhu & Fan, 2018b) and frequencies (Zhu & Fan, 2018a), and weather conditions at the time of the trip (Ettema, Friman, Olsson, & Gärling, 2017). In empirical studies on these variables, sociodemographics (e.g., gender, age, education, and income) were typically included for statistical control or as research variables (Chen et al., 2019; Zhu & Fan, 2018a) although analytical results on their impacts on travel happiness are mixed, except the consistent argument that older travelers are generally happier (Ingvardson & Nielsen, 2019; Singleton, 2019).…”

Existence, relatedness and growth needs as mediators between mode choice and travel satisfaction: evidence from Denmark

“…relate to individual difficulties, thus personalizing also the disutility. The results 8 empirically confirm previous studies suggesting similar relations (e.g.,De Vos and Witlox, 2017; 9 Schliselberg and Givoni, 2018).10Policy wise, the findings show that increased sense of self-efficacy, togetherness, and positive11 self-concepts are strong motivators of satisfaction. Hence, encouraging their development in 12 relation to sustainable modes and relevant branding may result in successful long-term shift 13 towards sustainable travel.…”

“…While 15 travel-liking attitudes can explain in part a higher satisfaction and higher preference for travel, the 16 "new mobilities" paradigm (Jensen 2009; Sheller and Urry 2006), suggests a complementary 17 explanation. According to the "new mobilities" paradigm, more than spatio-temporal movement, 18 travel has a deeper meaning for sense-making, satisfaction, social interaction and 19 identity-production, allowing us to achieve our functional needs along with higher-order 20 emotional needs of independence, self-actualization, self-esteem, and social needs (Jensen 2009). 21 These ideas extend the wider view of the long-identified instrumental, symbolic and affective 22 value of mode choice (e.g.…”

“…Growth need items related to developing self-concepts associated with physical ability,18 competencies (e.g., self-efficacy, overcoming challenges), self-identity related to environmental 19 sustainability and fitness, social self-concept (e.g., social status, prestige), self-actualisation and 20 self-esteem derived from a general optimism, and feeling of life satisfaction.21The perceived difficulties in the commute mode context were expressed as the perceived22 ease associated with using a specific mode. Travel difficulties are mode specific by definition: for 23 transit, they are its perceived accessibility, speed, price, crowding and reliability; for cycling, they24 are weather, hilliness, travel distance and traffic safety; for car use, they are travel expenses, 25 driving stress, perceived difficulties to find parking, traffic safety and traffic congestion.…”