EN中文

PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY >

2024 , Vol. 43 >Issue 12: 2365 - 2381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2024.12.004

Reviews

The impact of active travel on residents’ psychological health and well-being: Effects, pathways, and policy implications

  • WANG Hongyu , 1 ,
  • MA Liang , 1, * ,
  • HUANG Yan 1 ,
  • LIN Jian 1, 2, 3
Expand
  • 1. College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • 2. Key Laboratory of National Territory Spatial Planning, Development and Protection, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100871, China
  • 3. Center of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

Received date: 2024-04-04

  Revised date: 2024-10-17

  Online published: 2024-12-23

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42171190)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42371199)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42171247)

Fold

Abstract

With the increased rate of urbanization, health problems resulting from the distant separation of jobs and housing as well as increased reliance on motorized travel have become increasingly prominent. As a healthy and sustainable mode of transportation, active travel holds significant positive potential for achieving the peak emission and carbon neutrality goals and realizing the Healthy China strategy. The impact of active travel on residents' physical health has garnered significant interest among scholars in geography, transportation, and urban planning. However, research on its impact on psychological health and well-being is still in an early stage. This study aimed to contribute to this area by providing a systematic summary of the empirical effects surrounding the relationship between urban active travel and psychological health and well-being, drawing on relevant journal publications in China and internationally. The results of our review show that the majority of the studies have confirmed the positive impacts of active travel on psychological health and well-being. However, these impacts were also moderated by personal and spatial factors, resulting in heterogeneity. Furthermore, this study found that the impact path of active travel on psychological health and well-being is complex, involving the joint action of multiple direct and indirect factors. The main action paths include: the direct effect of intrinsic characteristics, the mediation effect of individual physiological functions, the moderating effect of the physical environment, and the mediation effect of the social environment. In addition, psychological health and well-being can also have a feedback effect on active travel behaviors by influencing travel willingness. Finally, based on the current status of the research conducted, this article also put forward relevant recommendations for improvement, especially to provide new ideas for conducting similar research in China. These findings offer insights for promoting active travel through policy measures and urban planning strategies, and facilitating the research and development of healthy cities in China.

Key words： active travel; psychological health; well-being; healthy city; geographical environment; international research progress

Cite this article

WANG Hongyu , MA Liang , HUANG Yan , LIN Jian . The impact of active travel on residents’ psychological health and well-being: Effects, pathways, and policy implications[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2024 , 43(12) : 2365 -2381 . DOI: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2024.12.004

目前，心理问题已经成为全球性的主要健康挑战[1]，其重要性在《“健康中国2030”规划纲要》中被明确强调[2]。研究预测，2013—2025年，中国居民的心理健康负担预计将增长10%[3]。尤其是，城市化引发的社会、经济和环境问题使城市居民面临更高的心理健康风险，如焦虑、抑郁和情绪障碍。交通出行，作为城市生活的重要方面，对居民的心理健康与福祉产生显著影响，并可能成为心理危机的重要诱因之一。例如，城市蔓延和职住分离导致居民经历长时空的通勤，进一步加剧了通勤人群的疲劳、抑郁和压力[4-5]。在此背景下，随着学科交叉性的不断强化，地理、交通和规划等学科开始深入探讨交通出行与公共健康之间的关系，以及城市环境在出行过程中对居民健康和幸福感产生的直接或间接效应。
积极交通出行(以下简称“积极出行”)，国际上通称“active travel”或“non-motorized travel”，是一种依靠人类自身身体活动而非外部动力的交通出行模式，作为私家车出行的环保替代方案，不仅对减少碳排放和空气污染具有重要意义，而且为提升公共健康开辟了新路径[6]。众多研究探讨了积极出行对居民生理健康的影响及其作用机制，并且对相关知识进行了全面整理[7⇓-9]。目前，虽然已有研究综述了积极出行与抑郁症[10]、心理压力[11]和幸福感[12-13]等单一维度的联系，但尚缺乏对心理健康与福祉影响的系统总结。对于积极出行如何影响心理健康与福祉以及城市环境(规划干预手段)在其中扮演怎样的角色等问题依然缺乏系统的知识和理论框架。
鉴于此，本文通过回顾国内外相关期刊文献，构建了“行为、环境—健康与福祉”理论框架。在此基础上，进一步梳理并归纳了积极出行对心理健康与福祉的影响及其异质性效应，系统总结了作用路径，以丰富和完善现有交通地理和出行行为理论，并为积极出行和公共健康的规划策略及政策提供建议。需要明确的是，本文关注的积极出行主要涵盖有明确起讫点和交通目的的出行行为，包含通勤、通学、办事和外出购物等功利性出行，但不包括“以运动或休憩为目的，即仅为满足参与健康活动或获得愉悦体验等派生性需求的休闲出行”[14]。此外，本文界定积极交通模式为“依靠人力为空间移动的动力”[15]的交通方式 ① ，包含传统的步行、自行车和滑板等，以及使用机械辅助(而非完全替代)人力的新型交通工具，如助力电动车(E-bike)和电动踏板车(E-scooter)等。

1 文献检索与统计

本文参照现有文献[16]，设定了以下5项纳入标准：(1) 文献发表于核心期刊；(2) 探讨积极出行的功利性交通行为；(3) 研究人群不限；(4) 实证结果揭示了积极出行对心理状态或长期心理健康与福祉影响的结果；(5) 排除未经同行评议或未正式出版的文献。文献检索自权威数据库Web of Science、Scopus、PubMed和中国知网(图1)，最终纳入85篇文献(截至2024年8月)。
图1 文献筛选纳入的规则和流程

注：英文文献检索采用代码组合规则："travel*" OR "transport" OR "transportation" OR "commut*" OR "cycling" OR "cycle" OR "bicycling" OR "bike" OR "walk*" AND "mental health" OR "mental distress" OR "psychological health" OR "psychological function" OR "psychological distress" OR "well-being" OR "satisfaction" OR "emotion" OR "mood" OR happiness" OR "sadness" OR "positive affect*" OR "negative affect*" OR" anxiety" OR "depress*" OR "stress"。

Fig.1 Rules and procedures for literature selection and inclusion

本文对来源期刊所属的学科类别进行了排序，结果显示：交通研究领域的文献数量居首，亦有涉及公共卫生、经济学、环境、医学、工程、心理学和地理学等学科(表1)，这表明研究主题具有明显的跨学科特征。在区域分布方面，英美等西方国家的研究案例较为充分，而近两年来，在中国开展的案例研究迅速增长，远超其他国家。在研究设计上，其中83篇文献采用了量化研究，包括68篇横截面研究、9篇纵向研究、3篇结合横向与纵向的研究、2篇准纵向研究以及1篇队列研究。相较之下，纯定性研究数量较少(仅2篇)，还有3篇定量研究中加入了定性分析用于补充分析研究结果和深入解释特定现象。
表1 相关研究信息统计(按频次顺序排列)

Tab.1 Related research statistics (sorting by frequency)

序
号		 关键词 发文作者国家 来源期刊 学科类别
关键词 频次/次 国家 频次/次 来源期刊 频次/次 学科类别 频次/次
1 通勤
(commuting/commute)		 29 中国 22 Journal of Transport & Health 10 交通运输 52
2 主观幸福感
(subjective well-being)		 23 英国 13 Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice		 8 交通科学与技术 23
3 积极交通/出行
(active transport/travel)		 15 美国 11 Travel Behaviour and Society 8 公共环境和职业卫生 22
4 自行车骑行
(bicycling/cycling)		 13 加拿大 6 Transportation 7 经济学 14
5 心理健康
(mental health)		 12 瑞典 6 Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 7 环境研究 12
6 身体活动
(physical activity)		 11 荷兰 5 Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour		 7 医学类 7
7 积极通勤
(active commuting)		 9 日本 5 Preventive Medicine 7 土木工程 7
8 出行满意度
(travel satisfaction)		 9 澳大利亚 5 Transport Policy 3 应用心理学 7
9 步行(walking) 8 西班牙 3 地理科学进展 2 环境科学 5
10 压力(stress) 7 挪威 3 Environment International 2 地理学 3

2 理论框架与研究要素

在出行过程中，出行者所接触的城市地理环境，即物理环境(包括建成环境和自然环境等)以及社会环境，都与其健康状况密切相关，因此仅考虑单一的出行行为指标存在较大局限。现有研究分别展示了城市环境对心理状态、生活质量和出行行为的影响[17⇓-19]。例如，城市环境既可以通过个体感官(如绿色和开放空间带来愉悦感和惬意感)[20]来直接影响居民心理状态，又可以通过影响出行体验[21-22]和社交活动[23]等间接途径来施加作用；建成环境(“5Ds”特征、可步行性等)[24-25]和社会环境(社会规范和社区氛围等)[26]也能够直接影响交通出行的态度、偏好和频率。此外，不同社会经济属性的人群对环境的主观感知存在差异[22]，这些差异调节了环境对心理健康[23]的影响。综上，个体因素、城市环境、积极出行和健康福祉之间存在复杂的相互作用关系。基于“行为—环境”和“环境—健康”的研究范式，融合公共卫生领域的社会生态模型，并考虑空间和个体社会经济属性，本文尝试构建“行为、环境—健康与福祉”理论框架(图2)。依据该理论框架，本文首先系统总结了研究中涉及的多个维度的研究要素及其测量方法。
图2 “行为、环境—健康与福祉”理论框架

Fig.2 A framework of research on "travel behaviour/environment-health and well-being"

心理健康与福祉的概念复杂且多维，不同学派和专家对其定义和测度指标存在不同的理解。目前广泛形成的共识是，心理健康强调个体在情感、情绪、认知、行为和社会功能等方面的良好或正常状态[27-28]，而心理福祉则更关注个体的生活满意度、幸福感和自我实现的人生价值[29-30]。两者是相互包含且关联密切的概念[31]，通常会被结合在一起以更全面地评估整体心理健康状态。基于此，本文按照相同或相似的概念将其总结为4大类：情感状态、幸福感(满意度)、精神困扰和整体心理健康状况(表2、表3)。目前，关于幸福感(满意度)的研究最为广泛，朱菁等[12]的综述文章提供了重要参考。在测量技术上，回溯性指标的评估通常使用李克特量表(Likert-type Scale)或语义差异量表(Semantic Differential Scales)等工具，而实时测量则多依赖于手机应用程序。
表2 相关研究涉及的心理健康与福祉概念

Tab.2 Concepts of psychological health and well-being addressed in relevant research

分类 子分类 原文表述 文献数量/篇
情感状态
affective state		 情感健康 affective/emotional wellbeing 9
情绪 mood 9
快乐/愉悦度 happiness/pleasantness 4
幸福感(满意度)
well-being (satisfaction)		 出行满意度 travel/trip/journey satisfaction/experience 23
主观幸福感 subjective wellbeing/happiness 11
生活满意度 life satisfaction 11
自我实现幸福感 eudaimonic wellbeing 4
精神困扰
psychological distress		 压力感 stress 15
抑郁症 depressive symptoms/depression 8
心理障碍 psychological/mental distress/complaints 6
精神疲劳 mental fatigue 3
总体心理健康水平
psychological wellbeing		 心理健康状态 psychological/mental health/wellbeing 11
表3 积极出行和心理健康与福祉指标的测量

Tab.3 Measurement of indicators of active travel and psychological health and well-being

变量内容 指标说明 测量工具/数据来源
心理健康指标(因变量) 情感状态 情绪评级、情感量表、情绪量表、愉悦度评级、情绪效价和唤醒度、定性数据 5级情绪图标标尺(Five-graded Scale of Mood Icons)、瑞典核心情感量表(Swedish Core Affect Scale)、出行情绪量表(Travel Mood Scale, TMS)、情景情绪状态量表(Profile Mood States Scale)、瞬时情绪简要清单(Brief Momentary Mood Checklist)、自拟指标评级量表、自拟问题评分、文本描述和照片、访谈记录
幸福感
(满意度)		 出行满意度、主观幸福感、生活满意度和自我实现满足感等主观评价 出行满意度量表(Satisfaction with Travel Scale, STS)、儿童出行满意度量表(STS-C)、出行体验量表(Journey Experience Scale， JES)、世界卫生组织5项幸福指数(WHO-5 Well-Being Index)、全球生活满意度问题(Global Life Satisfaction Question)、坎特里尔阶梯(Cantril Ladder)生活满意度问题、生活满意度量表(Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS)、繁荣量表(Flourishing Scale)、工作场所幸福问题库(Workplace Well-being Question Bank)、理想/实际通勤时间差、自拟指标评级量表、自拟问题评分
精神困扰 压力、焦虑、抑郁等精神状态；身心疲惫状态；部分生理性指标 一般健康问卷(General Health Questionnaire，GHQ)、学龄儿童健康行为症状量表(Health Behavior in School-aged Children Symptom Check List, HBSC-SCL)、凯斯勒心理困扰量表(Kessler Psychological Distress Scale，K10)、抑郁焦虑压力量表(Depression Anxiety Stress Scale，DASS-21)、压力感知量表(Perceived Stress Scale，PSS)、流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D)、自测抑郁量表(Self-rating Depression Scale，SDS)、儿童抑郁量表(Children's Depression Inventory，CDI)、老年抑郁量表(Geriatric Depression Scale，GDS)、患者健康问卷(Patient Health Questionnaire，PHQ-2)、全球校园学生健康调查问卷、自拟指标评级量表、自拟问题评分、焦点小组讨论文本
总体心理
健康度		 心理健康状态的主观评价 医学结果研究简表(Medical Outcomes Study Short Form，SF-8)、12项一般健康问卷(12-item General Health Questionnaire，GHQ-12)、5项心理健康量表(5-item Mental Health Scale，MHI-5)、精神内容总结(Mental Component Summary，MCS-8)、SF12问卷心理成分得分(SF12-MCS)、自拟问题评分
积极出行指标(自变量) 包含积极出行在内的不同交通模式比较 出行模式、出行模式的持续时间或交通距离、基于不同出行目的的交通模式、出行模式的纵向变化、不同出行模式的纵向时间变化 全国统一调查、调查问卷、出行(日记)记录、调查机构数据、智能地图计算、访谈记录、焦点小组讨论文本
是否采用积极交通模式 结合给定时间内积极出行的累计时间、频率及意愿，判定是否属于积极出行 全国统一调查、调查问卷、调查机构数据
积极出行时长 给定时间内积极出行累计时间长度、通过频率和日均持续时间估算出给定时间内积极出行总时长 调查问卷、出行时间记录工具、智能地图计算
积极出行频率 给定时间内积极出行累计频率 调查问卷、调查机构数据
针对积极出行行为，现有研究主要涵盖步行(72篇)、自行车出行(74篇)和(助力)电动自行车出行(12篇)三种方式。大多数研究将不同的交通模式，包括积极出行，作为分类自变量，而少数研究关注积极出行的频率、持续时间、出行态度、偏好以及选择原因等指标(表3)。部分纵向研究也会将模式转换与积极出行的频率变化作为研究变量，从而进行因果推断。测量工具主要采用问卷调查，辅以日重建法(day reconstruction method，DRM)、体验抽样法(experience sampling method，ESM)、生态瞬间评估(ecological momentary assessment，EMA)等技术来缩小误差。
在环境研究中，影响健康和出行行为的城市环境通常被划分为建成环境和社会环境。建成环境被广泛地总结为“5Ds”的度量指标，包括密度(density)、设计(design)、多样性(diversity)、目的地可达性(destination accessibility)以及到公交站点距离(distance to transit)[32]。少量研究也会将建成环境扩展到“6Ds”甚至“8Ds” ① 维度[33]。一些特定变量如蓝绿空间的面积，以及综合性指标例如步行和骑行指数，也被用来描述建成环境的特征(表4)。除反映建成环境特征具体指标而外，个体与环境之间的交互作用也会对心理健康效应产生影响。因此，环境暴露的时长和频率等指标也被一些研究所采纳。在社会生态模型的框架下，影响居民出行行为的城市环境范畴得以拓展，并纳入了社会环境指标，例如社会规范、经济水平、犯罪率、社区凝聚力等[34-35]。此外，居民对环境的评价感知也被视为反映环境特征的重要指标，但不同人群对于相同客观环境的主观感知存在差异[36]。
表4 其他变量指标汇总

Tab.4 Summary of indicators for other variables

研究要素 变量内容 具体指标 数据来源
建成环境变量 客观空间参数指标 “5Ds”指标：密度(density：建筑密度、人口密度、路网密度、路口密度、人均道路面积)、设计(design：植被覆盖率、绿地率、绿视率、坡度、街区尺寸)、多样性(diversity：土地利用百分比或混合熵指数)、可达性(destination accessibility：交通距离、交通可达性、空间位置、基础设施、邻避设施)、距公共交通站点距离(distance to transit：交通设施距离、公交车站密度、火车站密度)；步行指数、骑行指数；所在地分类；蓝绿空间情况(面积、邻近度) 开放数据平台；开放街道地图；导航软件；GIS数据；遥感卫星图像；手机App数据；Walk Score®数据；全国统一调查；调查机构数据；调查问卷；现场调查数据
主观空间质量评价 交通环境评价：污染度、事故率、噪声、拥堵情况；(社区)基础设施和服务评价；居住环境评价 调查问卷
社会环境变量 社会环境参数指标 区域剥夺指标(贫困指数)；社区安全性(犯罪率、犯罪频率)；社区教育水平 全国统一调查；调查问卷
主观社会环境评价 社区安全评价；社区友好度评价；社会信任和凝聚力评价 全国统一调查；调查问卷
个人社会经济属性及其他影响因素(控制变量) 个人特征 社会经济地属性：性别、年龄、职业、收入、种族、民族、户籍、教育程度、婚姻状态、家庭构成、就业状况、工作性质、工作时长、住房情况、驾照情况、拥有汽车数量；偏好与态度：个人偏好、家庭习惯、出行态度；个人健康指标：健康状况、BMI指数、身体活动情况、久坐行为、抽烟酗酒情况；居住(生活)区域等 全国统一调查；调查机构数据；调查问卷
其他控制指标 所处城市的相关情况：季节、气候、天气、文化、城市规模、城市经济水平、城市化水平(率)、环境污染指标和公交车辆保有量等；出行成本 全国统一调查；城市GDP数据；公共开放信息；政府公开数据；空气监测仪数据；交通成本估算；调查问卷
居民的社会经济属性影响其参与的活动、出行行为及心理状况。因此，在交通和出行研究中，关键的人口统计学指标(表4)通常被纳入分析中以进行控制。为增强分析结果的可靠性，必须同时控制其他可能产生影响的外部变量(表4)，如季节、天气条件和空气污染程度等。

3 积极出行对居民心理健康与福祉的影响及其路径

基于“行为、环境—健康与福祉”框架，本文梳理了积极出行对心理健康与福祉的总体影响效应；其次，探讨个体的社会经济属性、出行偏好和态度以及地理空间差异对影响效果产生的异质性；最后，系统总结积极出行影响心理健康与福祉的相关作用路径，识别重要的中介变量、调节要素和作用路径等。

3.1 积极交通出行对心理健康与福祉的影响效应

3.1.1 总体效应

多数研究表明，积极出行(或从其他模式转向积极交通)有助于促进和改善心理健康与福祉，但影响效果在不同出行情景下可能存在差异。相较于机动化出行模式，各年龄群体在积极出行过程中均保持了良好的心理状态。积极出行的特定模式可能带来不同的影响。一些研究发现，仅自行车出行会产生显著的正面影响，步行的身体活动强度不足以影响心理健康[37]。同时，积极出行的强度(如频次、时间和距离)和成本，也与心理健康相关。可达范围涵盖更多目的地[38]、持续时间较长[39]和累积频率足够多[40]才能提升出行者的满意度。然而，不同研究的结论存在差异，即对于“剂量—反应”关系尚存争议[37]。例如，不同研究中积极出行累计时间的变化对心理健康的影响结果可能截然相反[41⇓-43]。总体上，当考虑到出行特征的复杂性时，不同出行方式的心理感知差异会减小[44]。与其他出行目的相比，积极通勤(学)较少带来积极情绪和满意度，且更易引起疲劳[45]。这是因为通勤通常是沿着重复的单一路线，并需遵守固定时间表，导致出行体验乏味[46]。具体总结见表5。
表5 积极出行对心理健康与福祉的影响效应总结

Tab.5 Summary of the impact of active travel on psychological health and well-being

类别 整体情况 特定出行模式
正相关 负相关 无相关 仅骑行 仅步行 仅电动骑行
正相关 负相关 正相关 负相关
情感状态 [47⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓-60] — [5,61⇓⇓-64] [65-66] — — —
幸福感
（满意度）		 [38⇓-40,57,52,58⇓⇓-61,67⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓-89]；[90]仅高收入人群；[91]仅女孩 [92]；[44]相对私家车；[93]相对公共交通 [94] [95] — [96-97] [78,84,98]
精神困扰 [47] [5,40,56,58,63,68,72,79,99100101102103104105106107108-109]；[110-111]仅男性；[83]仅女性 [53,97,112⇓⇓⇓-116] — [117] — —
总体心理健康水平 [42-43,118-119] — [41,83,116,120-121] [37,117] — — —

注：本表总结了相关涉及文献。整体情况中，部分文献序号后的文字说明代表研究结果仅针对部分人群或仅相较于特定模式，无文字说明代表研究结果未强调特定人群和模式；正相关表示正向关联且结果显著，负相关表示负向关联且结果显著，无相关表示结果不显著；与精神困扰负相关意味着改善或促进心理健康；“—”表示不存在对应的研究结果。

3.1.2 个体差异

积极出行对心理健康与福祉的影响存在个人社会经济属性上的异质性。一般而言，积极出行对男性、未婚者、高收入和高学历人群存在积极影响，而对于女性、已婚者、低收入和低学历人群的积极影响较弱甚至可能产生负面影响。性别层面上，女性通常比男性更容易感知到交通压力[107]，而且对出行安全更加敏感，这可能与性别间的生理差异、女性较强的健康意识以及更为丰富的情感表达有关[68]。对于已婚人群，由于需要承担更多日常任务(如购物或接送家人)，积极交通模式可能难以满足其需求[77,83]。从职业类型看，久坐且缺少体力活动的白领人士更可能从积极出行中获益更多，而体力劳动者则不然[79]。高收入人群可能因追求休闲锻炼而主动选择积极出行，以获得更愉悦的出行体验[37,66]。相反，低收入群体受条件限制而被迫选择积极方式，因此出行错配率更高[41,49]。他们在选择出行模式时更多考虑成本和可预测性等工具因素，而非感觉和情绪等情感因素[90]。此外，时间灵活充裕的人在出行时不受时间约束，因此感受到的压力更少[58]。
除社会经济属性外，出行者的自我选择偏好和态度也发挥着重要的调节作用。首先，积极出行的心理效应可能因出行者对积极出行的态度而异[72]。偏好积极出行的人群往往热衷于此方式，并能适应更加剧烈的活动[66]。相反，被动采用该模式的出行者会产生较低的出行满意度[72]。那些习惯于机动化出行却愿意转向积极出行的群体通常承受的心理压力较低[105]。文化和社会环境差异，如家庭习惯和教育背景，塑造的不同观念也会影响个人对待不同出行方式的心理状态[69]。某些出行者的价值观，如重视锻炼和环保，能够调节其出行体验和满意度。这类群体在心理上更倾向于采用积极出行，并能减轻积极出行带来的弊端，如爬坡的劳累；相反，重视距离和便利性的人则截然相反[122]。未认识到积极出行的附加价值，可能导致他们对这种方式持消极态度[84]。

3.1.3 空间差异

除了个人社会经济属性指标，地理空间(通常是居住地)的差异也会影响积极出行的心理效应。居住在高度城市化区域或紧凑社区的居民对积极出行更满意，而居住在(对小汽车友好的)郊区或农村居民可能持有负面看法[39,92]。这主要归因于高城市化地区通常具备良好的职住平衡、高密度且多样化的城市空间、完善的交通基础设施以及良好的社会治安，这些使得出行者在从机动化出行转向积极模式时感受到的交通压力更小，并且在积极出行中获得心理补偿[43,77,107]。紧凑型社区的居民出行便利，总体出行时间短且交通环境更加宁静，这有助于提高积极出行满意度[73,77]。即使出行时间有所延长，居住在这些地区的积极出行者仍然能够享有更为轻松的出行体验[109]。然而，过高的城市密度却也可能限制居民日常生活上的空间流动性，并且增加空气污染、噪音污染以及拥挤环境下的暴露[123]，从而削弱积极出行对心理福祉的正面影响。而且，(超)大城市中更加混乱的交通环境会导致居民面临更复杂的交通状况和相对较高的出行压力[45]。

3.2 积极交通出行对心理健康与福祉的影响路径

根据现有文献分析，积极出行对心理健康与福祉的影响路径复杂，涉及多重直接和间接因素的共同作用(图3)，其中主要的作用路径包括：内在特征的直接影响、生理功能的中介影响、物理环境的调节影响以及社会环境的中介影响。此外，研究还指出，心理健康与福祉也会通过影响出行意愿，反向作用于积极出行行为。
图3 积极出行对心理健康与福祉影响的主要作用路径

注：“+”表示正向影响；“-”表示负向影响。

Fig.3 Pathways of impact of active travel on psychological health and well-being

3.2.1 内在特征的直接影响

城市居民心理健康与福祉和积极出行的时空优势紧密相关。研究表明，对大城市居民而言，缩短出行时间可以增加满意度，而出行时耗的增加则会对身心健康造成不利影响[100]。积极出行的时间优势(如低时耗、高时效以及更小的实际和理想出行时间差等)[58,80,117]和空间优势(如短距离、停车方便)[70,74,100]有助于促进更积极的心理状态。
除时空优势外，积极出行的内在特征还能带来良好的情绪价值和社会心理效益[59]。积极出行的自由与灵活性减轻了机动化出行的负面影响，如噪音污染和道路拥堵，从而促进积极的情绪反馈[40,67,74,104]。积极出行可以丰富出行经历，例如探索新路线或挑战更快的到达速度，为出行者带来新奇和冒险体验[47-48]。而部分出行者选择积极出行，是为了追求运动乐趣，并近距离享受周边环境，如途中的自然风光[47,50,72]。与可预测性弱的机动交通相比[102]，它更易融入居民日常生活，加强出行者的交通自主性和自我效能感[58,80]。此外，积极出行有助于出行者在生活与工作/学习之间实现更平稳的过渡，使其得以暂时摆脱繁重的压力和责任[53,63]。受益于更低的出行成本，积极出行者通常因节约费用而享有更高的出行满意度[108]。总体来看，积极出行的这些特征很大程度上满足了Ory等[124]提出的日常出行个性化需求，如好奇心、冒险心理、节约成本、追求多样化、高可预期性以及较少的交通规则限制等。

3.2.2 生理功能的中介影响

体力活动和感官刺激引发的生理功能变化是积极出行施加影响的重要中介路径。一方面，作为一种广泛认可的运动方式，积极出行不仅是中到高强度体力活动(MVPA)的重要来源，还能有效减少久坐行为和过度肥胖，有助于预防抑郁症和亚健康状态[40,78,88]。这一过程涉及体力活动触发的神经递质活动，包括通过释放多巴胺、血清素、肾上腺素和内啡肽等物质来改善情绪、提升兴奋感和注意力、增强认知功能，以及通过降低皮质醇来减轻抑郁水平[47,59,63,121]。此外，提高运动量还能够减少荷尔蒙分泌，从而减轻心血管应激反应，缓解生理压力[54,103,111]。另一方面，积极出行使得出行者能够借助身体移动更细致地感知环境，增强感官能力[125]。这种感官能力的提升促进了对生活场景的深入感知。例如，积极出行使人更专注于周遭环境，激发更多互动[54,111]，并深入体验现实，进而带来愉悦感和满足感[45]。

3.2.3 物理环境的调节影响

积极出行沿途环境的舒适性调节着出行者的心理状态。积极出行者直接暴露于物理出行环境中，并根据绿化率、拥挤度、空气质量和基础设施建设等空间指标来评价其行程[70]。特别是，友好的积极出行环境对心理健康有显著正面影响[10,68,78]。根据恢复理论，较低激活水平的建成环境，如含有自然元素的空间或令人愉悦的建筑，能为出行者提供精神休憩的场所，抵消城市喧嚣的负面效应[126]。积极出行者可自主选择途经的环境，从单调、宽阔和交通负荷大的主干道，到富有人情味的巷道和步行街。这些人性尺度的空间往往聚集了更多人群及活动，为出行体验增添了多样性。比起机动化出行，积极出行更容易接触到蓝绿空间等自然要素[99,111]，极大满足了人类对亲近自然的遗传性需求[127]。
然而，除了正向效应外，积极出行者由于更直接地暴露于外界环境，可能会受到噪音、环境污染、昏暗光照、恶劣天气以及极端温度等不利环境条件的影响[61,69,74]。这些因素可以直接或通过出行者的主观环境感知(如热舒适性、安全担忧等)对心理状态产生消极影响[98]。此外，在以机动车为导向的城市发展模式下，积极交通基础设施的缺乏以及机动车辆对出行空间的挤占，也显著增加了出行者的安全顾虑和心理负担[59,74]。

3.2.4 社会环境的中介影响

社会环境通过中介作用在积极出行和心理健康与福祉之间建立联系。积极出行的普及促进了更加和谐与包容的社会氛围[111]。一方面，积极出行的非隔离性使得公共空间中的人流聚集和社会交往增多，强化了社区的凝聚力[40,65,73]，满足了人类群居的天性[48,61,126]，减少了因人际关系缺失引发的负面心理效应[45,116]。另一方面，积极出行者倾向于居住在活动丰富、邻里融洽的社区，这类社区提供了丰富的社交机会和安全包容的环境，加强了居民的社区归属感[39]。同时，积极出行行为符合社会规范期待，通常受到家庭和社会网络的鼓励，有助于营造和谐的家庭氛围和友好的人际关系[128]，为维护健康的心理状态提供良好的社会支持。然而，如果居民长时间被限制在积极出行(特别是步行)可达的生活范围内生活，可能导致社交网络狭窄，缺乏足够的社交活动，从而引发内心不满[106]。

3.2.5 反馈效应路径

上述路径主要体现了积极出行对心理健康与福祉的单向影响，然而两者间实际还存在反向促进(或抑制)的反馈效应。良好的心理状态可以激发出行者采用积极交通方式的意愿[101]，这可能是因为体力活动与心理健康之间存在双向联系：心理状态较好的人更愿意参与体力活动，而体力活动不仅能改善他们的情绪，还能提升出行过程中的整体体验[66,95]。积极出行中获得的心理改善可被视作对出行者的精神激励，进一步激发了人们持续采用该模式的意愿，从而不断强化这种正面效益[58,120]。心理学理论将其解释为“记忆效用影响决策效用”，即对积极出行的正面评估会提高未来再次选择该模式的可能性[38]。相反，心理不适或困扰会阻碍人们进行包括积极出行在内的各类体力活动，从而抑制出行者选择积极出行的意愿。例如，患有抑郁症或面临抑郁风险的成年人通常更难开展日常体力活动[104]。然而，一项探索两者双向关系的纵向研究发现：积极出行对心理健康有显著影响，但心理健康对积极出行的反作用并不明显[120]。因此，未来的研究需要进一步探讨和验证这一机制。

4 总结与讨论

4.1 结论和政策启示

积极出行对于降低交通碳排放和改善居民健康福祉等方面具有重要贡献。自2012年以来，积极出行对心理健康与福祉的影响效应及机制逐渐成为国内外研究热点，特别是强化了对出行行为本身和出行过程中环境暴露的关注。其中，大部分实证研究结果支持积极出行对心理健康与福祉的正面作用，但具体效应可能因出行模式、强度和目的的不同而具有差异。这个影响效益还会受到个人因素(社会经济属性和态度偏好)以及空间因素的调节而产生异质性。积极出行对男性、白领等特征人群，以及持积极交通友好态度的群体的心理改善更为显著，而适当的高密度城市空间和紧凑发展的社区环境也更有利于积极出行者的心理状态。
在作用路径方面，首先，积极出行通过其低成本、时空优势以及带来的情绪和社会心理效益，直接提升心理健康和福祉水平。其次，积极出行能够通过实现体力活动、生理机能和感官能力等各方面的生理功能提升，间接地改善心理状态。此外，环境因素也不容忽视。由于积极出行充分暴露于外界物理环境中，建成环境和自然环境的友好或不利条件会相应调节其心理健康效应。同时，积极出行所营造的良好社会环境丰富了居民的社交活动，从而为维持良好的心理健康和幸福感提供支持。最后，居民心理健康状态会反向促进(或抑制)积极出行意愿，从而形成反馈循环。
通过规划和政策手段促进积极出行能够提升全民健康与福祉，本文发现可为政策制定提供启示。首先，发挥积极出行在心理层面的正向效用，需要明确推广积极出行的目标。这不仅包括维持原有积极出行者的习惯，还包括鼓励更多机动出行者转向积极交通模式，并且强调在生活出行中的普及。一些研究还观察到，积极出行带来的情绪变化可能对日常活动表现产生溢出效应，例如员工的工作绩效或学生的学习效率[48,129]。因此，可以重点针对部分人群进行推广，特别是那些日常缺乏体力活动的脑力工作者。其次，着力营造积极出行友好环境，为出行者带来安全、趣味和美观的环境体验，有益于发挥积极出行的健康效应。例如，将自然风景融入步道和自行车道设计，提升街道美学，创造愉悦的出行过程；适当实施交通宁静措施，限制机动车通行，减少机动交通带来的心理压力；在非机动道路上设置充足的行道树、遮阳棚和照明设施，以缓解负面暴露导致的消极情绪；为积极出行者提供适宜的城市广场和绿色开放空间，鼓励社交活动。再次，应考虑人群异质性，注重政策的个性化和包容性。针对不同社会经济属性和态度偏好的群体，实施差异化举措，满足各类人群的心理需求，例如增设监控缓解女性交通压力，或通过共享单车租赁优惠减轻低收入群体的经济负担等。

4.2 讨论与思考

随着中国高质量发展战略的实施和对提升居民福祉的倡导，开展积极出行与心理健康的相关研究具有重要的理论与实践意义。相较于国际研究的丰富和深入，中文期刊上的相关研究仍处于初级阶段，未来研究(特别是国内研究)依然有很大提升空间。
第一，现有研究主要聚焦于步行和自行车，对新兴积极模式和“积极交通+”的多式联运方式关注不足。特别是，在中国交通情境下，共享单车和(助力)电动车占有重要比例，需要更多地关注这些模式及多模式交通对健康与福祉的影响。第二，未来研究应尽量覆盖各类人群，避免人口统计偏差，或针对不同社会经济属性或态度偏好的人群开展研究，以精准解释特定群体的影响效应。第三，现有研究的数据多来源于大型城市，缺乏对于中小城市的关注和不同城市的比较。未来研究应拓展研究范围，加强对中小城市乃至乡村地区的研究。此外，实证研究可采用穿戴设备收集实时心理和出行数据，以提升数据精确度和时效性，减少回忆偏误。第四，多数研究依赖静态横截面研究，限制了对变量时间顺序的分析，难以有效排除其他变量的干扰。这类结果仅能揭示相关关系，对影响机制的解释存在局限。建议更多地采用纵向研究和自然(干预)试验方法，关注长期动态变化，增强因果机制推断的鲁棒性。此外，积极出行强度对心理健康与福祉的影响可能呈现阈值效应，而非简单的线性关系，这点也有待进一步的探讨与验证。
此外，国内研究应探索具有中国特色的研究主题和原创知识，从而形成适用于中国城市发展的本土化理论创新和实践指南。例如，探讨在中国城市特有的出行结构中，多类型或涉及多模式的积极出行方式是否对心理健康与福祉有不同影响?考虑到中国城市在机动化水平、环境特性和出行文化等方面与西方的显著差异，积极出行与心理健康之间的关系将呈现怎样的差异?这些都是需要深入探讨的问题。
本文也存在一定的局限性。首先，本文没有严格区分积极出行的模式类型和测度方式，而是依据基本特征将其视作整体概念。因此，未单独讨论不同积极出行模式本身可能存在的影响效应和机制的差异。其次，深入分析积极出行在多种影响因素中的相对效应大小，能够更清楚地揭示其对心理健康与福祉的具体贡献。这不仅有助于强化研究结论的科学性，还能为制定更加精准的公共政策提供依据。受限于篇幅和现有知识，仅总结了积极出行影响心理健康与福祉的方向性和具体路径，但未能量化积极出行对心理健康的影响效应。最后，总结的效应和机制是基于平均水平的普遍规律，可能无法解释某些特殊群体身上的互动关系。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
World Health Organization. Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health estimates[M]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2017.

[2]
新华社. 中共中央国务院印发《“健康中国2030”规划纲要》[J]. 中华人民共和国国务院公报, 2016(32): 5-20.

[Xinhua News Agency. The Central Committee of the Communist Party,The State Council of China issued the "Outline of healthy China 2030" Plan. Gazette of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2016(32): 5-20.]

[3]
Charlson F J, Baxter A J, Cheng H G, et al. The burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in China and India: A systematic analysis of community representative epidemiological studies[J]. The Lancet, 2016, 388: 376-389.

[4]
Lee D, Yun J, Lee N, et al. Association between commuting time and depressive symptoms in 5th Korean Working Conditions Survey[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2024, 34: 101731. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2023.101731.

[5]
符婷婷, 张艳, 柴彦威. 大城市郊区居民通勤模式对健康的影响研究: 以北京天通苑为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(4): 547-555.

DOI

[Fu Tingting, Zhang Yan, Chai Yanwei. Implications of commuting pattern for suburban residents' health in large Chinese cities: Evidences from Tiantongyuan in Beijing. Progress in Geography, 2018, 37(4): 547-555.]

DOI

[6]
周江评, 王江燕, 姜洋. 慢行交通的意义、国际研究进展和实践小结: 写给慢行交通“保卫战”中的中国城乡规划师[J]. 国际城市规划, 2012, 27(5): 1-5.

[Zhou Jiangping, Wang Jiangyan, Jiang Yang. Roles, state-of-the-art research and practices of non-motorized transportation: For Chinese urban and rural planners in the 'fight' of protecting non-motorized transportation. Urban Planning International, 2012, 27(5): 1-5.]

[7]
Dos Santos J B, Lima J P. Health determinants, applications, and methods: A systematic literature review on the relationships between the urban transport of people and health[J]. Transportation Research Record, 2023, 2678(1): 245-271.

[8]
Lorenzo E, Szeszulski J, Shin C, et al. Relationship between walking for active transportation and cardiometabolic health among adults: A systematic review[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2020, 19: 100927. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100927.

[9]
马静, 柴彦威, 符婷婷. 居民时空行为与环境污染暴露对健康影响的研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(10): 1260-1269.

DOI

[Ma Jing, Chai Yanwei, Fu Tingting. Progress of research on the health impact of people's space-time behavior and environmental pollution exposure. Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(10): 1260-1269.]

DOI

[10]
Marques A, Peralta M, Henriques-Neto D, et al. Active commuting and depression symptoms in adults: A systematic review[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(3): 1041. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17031041.

[11]
吴江洁, 孙斌栋. 发达国家通勤影响个人健康的研究综述与展望[J]. 世界地理研究, 2016, 25(3): 142-150.

[Wu Jiangjie, Sun Bindong. A review of the literature on the impact of commuting on personal health in developed countries. World Regional Studies, 2016, 25(3): 142-150.]

[12]
朱菁, 范颖玲. 国外出行幸福感研究进展及其对我国未来研究的启示[J]. 国际城市规划, 2018, 33(4): 74-83.

[Zhu Jing, Fan Yingling. Review of overseas studies on subjective well-being during travel and implications for future research in China. Urban Planning International, 2018, 33(4): 74-83.]

[13]
马静, 刘冠秋, 饶婧雯. 地理环境与时空行为对主观幸福感的影响研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41(4): 718-730.

DOI

[Ma Jing, Liu Guanqiu, Rao Jingwen. Progress of research on the impact of geographical context and spatiotemporal behavior on subjective well-being. Progress in Geography, 2022, 41(4): 718-730.]

DOI

[14]
石京, 龙昱茜. 新冠疫情对居民休闲出行影响研究[J]. 中国公路学报, 2022, 35(1): 238-251.

DOI

[Shi Jing, Long Yuxi. Research on the impacts of the COVlD-19 on individual's leisure travel. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2022, 35(1): 238-251.]

DOI

[15]
李晔. 慢行交通系统规划探讨: 以上海市为例[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2008(3): 78-81.

[Li Ye. A discussion on urban non-motorized traffic system planning: With a case study of Shanghai. Urban Planning Forum, 2008(3): 78-81.]

[16]
Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review[J]. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2017, 39(1): 93-112.

[17]
刘吉祥, 肖龙珠, 周江评, 等. 建成环境与青少年步行通学的非线性关系: 基于极限梯度提升模型的研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41(2): 251-263.

DOI

[Liu Jixiang, Xiao Longzhu, Zhou Jiangping, et al. Non-linear relationships between the built environment and walking to school: Applying extreme gradient boosting method. Progress in Geography, 2022, 41(2): 251-263.]

DOI

[18]
Mouratidis K. Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being[J]. Cities, 2021, 115: 103229. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103229.

[19]
仝照民, 安睿, 刘耀林. 建成环境对居民通勤方式选择的影响: 以武汉市城中村为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(12): 2048-2060.

DOI

[Tong Zhaomin, An Rui, Liu Yaolin. Impact of the built environment on residents' commuting mode choices: A case study of urban village in Wuhan City. Progress in Geography, 2021, 40(12): 2048-2060.]

DOI

[20]
Fan Y L, Das K V, Chen Q. Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: Assessing the cumulative impact[J]. Health & Place, 2011, 17(6): 1202-1211.

[21]
Le Gouais A, Panter J R, Cope A, et al. A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2021, 20: 100968. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968.

[22]
曹新宇. 社区建成环境和交通行为研究回顾与展望: 以美国为鉴[J]. 国际城市规划, 2015, 30(4): 46-52.

[Cao Xinyu. Examining the relationship between neighborhood built environment and travel behavior: A review from the US perspective. Urban Planning International, 2015, 30(4): 46-52.]

[23]
刘晔, 肖童, 刘于琪, 等. 城市建成环境对广州市居民幸福感的影响: 基于15 min步行可达范围的分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(8): 1270-1282.

DOI

[Liu Ye, Xiao Tong, Liu Yuqi, et al. Impacts of urban built environments on residents' subjective well-being: An analysis based on 15-minute walking distance. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(8): 1270-1282.]

[24]
Yoon H, Choi K, Kim J, et al. Neighborhood walkability, personal active travel, and health in Asian Americans: Does English proficiency matter?[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2021, 21: 101082. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101082.

[25]
朱玮, 庞宇琦, 王德. 自行车出行行为和决策研究进展[J]. 国际城市规划, 2013, 28(1): 50-55.

[Zhu Wei, Pang Yuqi, Wang De. Progress of research on bicycle travel behavior and decisions. Urban Planning International, 2013, 28(1): 50-55.]

[26]
Riggs W. Painting the fence: Social norms as economic incentives to non-automotive travel behavior[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2017, 7: 26-33.

[27]
World Health Organization. Prevention and promotion in mental health[M]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2002.

[28]
刘华山. 心理健康概念与标准的再认识[J]. 心理科学, 2001(4): 480-481.

[Liu Huashan. Re-conceptualization of mental health concepts and standards. Journal of Psychological Science, 2001(4): 480-481.]

[29]
Ryff C D, Keyes C L. The structure of psychological well-being revisited[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, 69(4): 719-727.

DOI PMID

[30]
Chida Y, Steptoe A. Positive psychological well-being and mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observational studies[J]. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2008, 70(7): 741-756.

DOI PMID

[31]
Headey B, Kelley J, Wearing A. Dimensions of mental health: Life satisfaction, positive affect, anxiety and depression[J]. Social Indicators Research, 1993, 29(1): 63-82.

[32]
Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010, 76(3): 265-294.

[33]
Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, et al. City planning and population health: A global challenge[J]. The Lancet, 2016, 388: 2912-2924.

[34]
Clark A F, Scott D M. Does the social environment influence active travel? An investigation of walking in Hamilton, Canada[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2013, 31: 278-285.

[35]
朱为模. 从进化论、社会—生态学角度谈环境、步行与健康[J]. 体育科研, 2009, 30(5): 12-16.

[Zhu Weimo. Environment, walking and health: An evolutionary, social-ecological view. Sport Science Research, 2009, 30(5): 12-16.]

[36]
Roda C, Charreire H, Feuillet T, et al. Mismatch between perceived and objectively measured environmental obesogenic features in European neighbourhoods[J]. Obesity Reviews, 2016, 17: 31-41.

[37]
Mytton O T, Panter J, Ogilvie D. Longitudinal associations of active commuting with wellbeing and sickness absence[J]. Preventive Medicine, 2016, 84: 19-26.

DOI PMID

[38]
De Vos J, Mokhtarian P L, Schwanen T, et al. Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: Bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility[J]. Transportation, 2016, 43(5): 771-796.

[39]
Páez A, Whalen K. Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2010, 44(7): 537-549.

[40]
Ma L, Ye R N, Wang H Y. Exploring the causal effects of bicycling for transportation on mental health[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 93: 102773. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102773.

[41]
Humphreys D K, Goodman A, Ogilvie D. Associations between active commuting and physical and mental wellbeing[J]. Preventive Medicine, 2013, 57(2): 135-139.

DOI PMID

[42]
Synek S, Koenigstorfer J. Health effects from bicycle commuting to work: Insights from participants of the German company-bicycle leasing program[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2019, 15: 100619. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100619.

[43]
Martin A, Goryakin Y, Suhrcke M. Does active commuting improve psychological wellbeing? Longitudinal evidence from eighteen waves of the British Household Panel Survey[J]. Preventive Medicine, 2014, 69: 296-303.

DOI PMID

[44]
Deng Y L, Wang L Y, Chen M W. Commuting and its spillover effects on subjective well-being: Evidence from China[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2024, 126: 104001. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.104001.

[45]
Mondal A, Bhat C R, Costey M C, et al. How do people feel while walking? A multivariate analysis of emotional well-being for utilitarian and recreational walking episodes[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2021, 15(6): 419-434.

DOI

[46]
Chen Z Y, van Lierop D, Ettema D. Travel satisfaction with dockless bike-sharing: Trip stages, attitudes and the built environment[J]. Transportation Research Part D:Transport and Environment, 2022, 106: 103280. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2022.103280.

[47]
Singleton P A. Walking (and cycling) to well-being: Modal and other determinants of subjective well-being during the commute[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2019, 16: 249-261.

DOI

[48]
Glasgow T E, Le H T K, Scott Geller E, et al. How transport modes, the built and natural environments, and activities influence mood: A GPS smartphone app study[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2019, 66: 101345. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101345.

[49]
Lancée S, Veenhoven R, Burger M. Mood during commute in the Netherlands: What way of travel feels best for what kind of people?[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2017, 104: 195-208.

[50]
Gatersleben B, Uzzell D. Affective appraisals of the daily commute: Comparing perceptions of drivers, cyclists, walkers, and users of public transport[J]. Environment and Behavior, 2007, 39(3): 416-431.

[51]
Adam Z, Walasek L, Meyer C. Workforce commuting and subjective well-being[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2018, 13: 183-196.

[52]
Friman M, Gärling T, Ettema D, et al. How does travel affect emotional well-being and life satisfaction?[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2017, 106: 170-180.

[53]
Jin Y, Carson V, Pabayo R, et al. Associations between utilitarian walking, meeting global physical activity guidelines, and psychological well-being among South Korean adolescents[J]. Journal of Transport and Health, 2019, 14: 100588. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100588.

[54]
Ramanathan S, O'Brien C, Faulkner G, et al. Happiness in motion: Emotions, well-being, and active school travel[J]. Journal of School Health, 2014, 84(8): 516-523.

[55]
Zhu J, Fan Y L. Commute happiness in Xi'an, China: Effects of commute mode, duration, and frequency[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2018, 11: 43-51.

[56]
Mokhtarian P L, Papon F, Goulard M, et al. What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey[J]. Transportation, 2015, 42(6): 1103-1128.

[57]
Fan Y, Brown R, Das K, et al. Understanding trip happiness using smartphone-based data: The effects of trip-and person-level characteristics[J]. Transport Findings, 2019. doi: 10.32866/7124.

[58]
LaJeunesse S, Rodríguez D A. Mindfulness, time affluence, and journey-based affect: Exploring relationships[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2012, 15(2): 196-205.

[59]
Kaplan S, Wrzesinska D K, Prato C G. Psychosocial benefits and positive mood related to habitual bicycle use[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2019, 64: 342-352.

DOI

[60]
Fyhri A, Ciccone A, Papaix C, et al. Does active transport lead to improved mood and performance? A panel study of travel changes during the Covid-19 lockdown in Norway[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2023, 94: 114-132.

[61]
Westman J, Olsson L E, Gärling T, et al. Children's travel to school: Satisfaction, current mood, and cognitive performance[J]. Transportation, 2017, 44(6): 1365-1382.

[62]
Glasgow T E, Geller E S, Le H T K, et al. Travel mood scale: Development and validation of a survey to measure mood during transportation[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2018, 59: 318-329.

[63]
Brutus S, Javadian R, Panaccio A J. Cycling, car, or public transit: A study of stress and mood upon arrival at work[J]. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2017, 10(1): 13-24.

[64]
Guell C, Panter J, Jones N R, et al. Towards a differentiated understanding of active travel behaviour: Using social theory to explore everyday commuting[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2012, 75(1): 233-239.

[65]
Westman J, Johansson M, Olsson L E, et al. Children's affective experience of every-day travel[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2013, 29: 95-102.

[66]
Morris E A, Guerra E. Mood and mode: Does how we travel affect how we feel?[J]. Transportation, 2015, 42(1): 25-43.

[67]
Sun S C, Yao Y K, Xu L Y, et al. The use of E-moped increases commute satisfaction and subjective well-being: Evidence from Shanghai, China[J]. Transport Policy, 2022, 117: 60-73.

[68]
Ma L, Ye R N. Utilitarian bicycling and mental wellbeing[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2022, 88(2): 262-276.

[69]
St-Louis E, Manaugh K, van Lierop D, et al. The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2014, 26: 160-170.

[70]
Friman M, Fujii S, Ettema D, et al. Psychometric analysis of the satisfaction with travel scale[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2013, 48: 132-145.

[71]
Olsson L E, Gärling T, Ettema D, et al. Happiness and satisfaction with work commute[J]. Social Indicators Research, 2013, 111(1): 255-263.

PMID

[72]
Handy S, Thigpen C. Commute quality and its implications for commute satisfaction: Exploring the role of mode, location, and other factors[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2019, 16: 241-248.

[73]
Mouratidis K, Ettema D, Næss P. Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2019, 129: 306-320.

[74]
Lades L K, Kelly A, Kelleher L. Why is active travel more satisfying than motorized travel? Evidence from Dublin[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2020, 136: 318-333.

[75]
Mazúrová B, Kollár J, Nedelová G. Travel mode of commuting in context of subjective well-being: Experience from Slovakia[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(6): 3030. doi: 10.3390/su13063030.

[76]
Smith O. Commute well-being differences by mode: Evidence from Portland, Oregon, USA[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2017, 4: 246-254.

[77]
Mao Z D, Ettema D, Dijst M. Commuting trip satisfaction in Beijing: Exploring the influence of multimodal behavior and modal flexibility[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016, 94: 592-603.

[78]
Ye R N, Titheridge H. Satisfaction with the commute: The role of travel mode choice, built environment and attitudes[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2017, 52: 535-547.

[79]
Clark B, Chatterjee K, Martin A, et al. How commuting affects subjective wellbeing[J]. Transportation, 2020, 47(6): 2777-2805.

[80]
Paige Willis D, Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A. Uniquely satisfied: Exploring cyclist satisfaction[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2013, 18: 136-147.

[81]
Page N C, Nilsson V O. Active commuting: Workplace health promotion for improved employee well-being and organizational behavior[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 7: 1994. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01994.

[82]
de Kruijf J, Ettema D, Dijst M. A longitudinal evaluation of satisfaction with e-cycling in daily commuting in the Netherlands[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2019, 16: 192-200.

DOI

[83]
Herman K M, Larouche R. Active commuting to work or school: Associations with subjective well-being and work-life balance[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2021, 22: 101118. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101118.

[84]
Liu Q H, Chen C L, Cao M Q. Exploring the relationship between the commuting experience and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 99: 103026. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.103026.

[85]
Wang X Q, Wang W F, Yin C Y, et al. Relationships of life satisfaction with commuting and built environment: A longitudinal analysis[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2023, 114: 103513. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2022.103513.

[86]
Wang X Q, Yin C Y, Shao C F. Reexamining the built environment, commuting and life satisfaction: Longitudinal evidence for gendered relationships[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2023, 125: 103986. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103986.

[87]
Yin C Y, Zhang J Y, Shao C F, et al. Commute and built environment: What matters for subjective well-being in a household context?[J]. Transport Policy, 2024, 154: 198-206.

[88]
Yin C Y, Zhang J Y, Shao C F. Relationships of the multi-scale built environment with active commuting, body mass index, and life satisfaction in China: A GSEM-based analysis[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2020, 21: 69-78.

[89]
陈玉豪, 井晓鹏, 熊海燕, 等. 居民通勤满意度与建成环境影响关系研究: 以西安市主城区为例[J]. 现代城市研究, 2023(3): 108-115.

[Chen Yuhao, Jing Xiaopeng, Xiong Haiyan, et al. Study on the relationship between residents' commuting satisfaction and the built environment impact: A case study of the main urban area of Xi'an. Modern Urban Research, 2023(3): 108-115.]

[90]
Ye R N, Titheridge H. The determinants of commuting satisfaction in low-income population: A case study of Xi'an, China[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2019, 16: 272-283.

[91]
Frömel K, Groffik D, Mitáš J, et al. Active travel of Czech and Polish adolescents in relation to their well-being: Support for physical activity and health[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(6): 2001. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062001.

[92]
Zhu Z J, Li Z G, Chen H S, et al. Subjective well-being in China: How much does commuting matter?[J]. Transportation, 2019, 46(4): 1505-1524.

DOI

[93]
Yin C Y, Shao C F, Dong C J, et al. Happiness in urbanizing China: The role of commuting and multi-scale built environment across urban regions[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2019, 74: 306-317.

[94]
Tran Y, Hashimoto N, Ando T, et al. The indirect effect of travel mode use on subjective well-being through out-of-home activities[J]. Transportation, 2023: 51(6): 2359-2391.

[95]
Morris E A. Should we all just stay home? Travel, out-of-home activities, and life satisfaction[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2015, 78: 519-536.

[96]
朱菁, 范颖玲, 樊帆. 大城市居民通勤幸福感影响因素研究: 以西安市为例[J]. 城乡规划, 2018(3): 43-53.

[Zhu Jing, Fan Yingling, Fan Fan. Factors affecting commute happiness of residents in big cities: A case study of Xi'an, China. Urban and Rural Planning, 2018(3): 43-53.]

[97]
Chng S, White M, Abraham C, et al. Commuting and wellbeing in London: The roles of commute mode and local public transport connectivity[J]. Preventive Medicine, 2016, 88: 182-188.

DOI PMID

[98]
刘冠秋, 马静, 柴彦威, 等. 居民日常出行特征与空气污染暴露对出行满意度的影响: 以北京市美和园社区为例[J]. 城市发展研究, 2019, 26(9): 35-42, 124.

[Liu Guanqiu, Ma Jing, Chai Yanwei, et al. The impact of residents' daily travel characteristics and air pollution exposure on travel satisfaction: A case study of Beijing. Urban Development Studies, 2019, 26(9): 35-42, 124.]

[99]
Rissel C, Petrunoff N, Wen L M, et al. Travel to work and self-reported stress: Findings from a workplace survey in south west Sydney, Australia[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2014, 1(1): 50-53.

[100]
Tajalli M, Hajbabaie A. On the relationships between commuting mode choice and public health[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2017, 4: 267-277.

[101]
Kleszczewska D, Mazur J, Bucksch J, et al. Active transport to school may reduce psychosomatic symptoms in school-aged children: Data from nine countries[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(23): 8709. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238709.

[102]
Sattler M C, Färber T, Traußnig K, et al. Cross-sectional association between active commuting and perceived commuting stress in Austrian adults: Results from the HOTway study[J]. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 2020, 19: 100356. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100356.

[103]
Sun Y, Liu Y, Tao F B. Associations between active commuting to school, body fat, and mental well-being: Population-based, cross-sectional study in China[J]. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2015, 57(6): 679-685.

[104]
Knott C S, Panter J, Foley L, et al. Changes in the mode of travel to work and the severity of depressive symptoms: A longitudinal analysis of UK Biobank[J]. Preventive Medicine, 2018, 112: 61-69.

DOI PMID

[105]
Avila-Palencia I, De Nazelle A, Cole-Hunter T, et al. The relationship between bicycle commuting and perceived stress: A cross-sectional study[J]. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(6). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013542.

[106]
Tsunoda K, Kitano N, Kai Y, et al. Transportation mode usage and physical, mental and social functions in older Japanese adults[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2015, 2(1): 44-49.

[107]
Legrain A, Eluru N, El-Geneidy A M. Am stressed, must travel: The relationship between mode choice and commuting stress[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2015, 34: 141-151.

[108]
Walsh A L, Sherwood Washington T, Petrunoff N, et al. "By the time I'm home, I'm not stressed anymore": A qualitative exploration of enablers of active commuting among office workers[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2024, 37: 101841. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2024.101841.

[109]
Tao Y H, van Ham M, Petrović A. Changes in commuting mode and the relationship with psychological stress: A quasi-longitudinal analysis in urbanizing China[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2024, 34: 100667. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100667.

[110]
Ohta M, Mizoue T, Mishima N, et al. Effect of the physical activities in leisure time and commuting to work on mental health[J]. Journal of Occupational Health, 2007, 49(1): 46-52.

PMID

[111]
Gu J Y, Chen S T. Association between active travel to school and depressive symptoms among early adolescents[J]. Children, 2020, 7(5): 41. doi: 10.3390/children7050041.

[112]
Kuwahara K, Honda T, Nakagawa T, et al. Associations of leisure-time, occupational, and commuting physical activity with risk of depressive symptoms among Japanese workers: A cohort study[J]. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2015, 12: 119. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0283-4.

PMID

[113]
Wang X Z, Rodríguez D A, Sarmiento O L, et al. Commute patterns and depression: Evidence from eleven Latin American cities[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2019, 14: 100607. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100607.

[114]
Fukai K, Kuwahara K, Chen S M, et al. The association of leisure‐time physical activity and walking during commuting to work with depressive symptoms among Japanese workers: A cross‐sectional study[J]. Journal of Occupational Health, 2020, 62(1): e12120. doi: 10.1002/1348-9585.12120.

[115]
Wang X Z, Liu T. The roads one must walk down: Commute and depression for Beijing's residents[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2022, 109: 103316. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2022.103316.

[116]
曹晨, 甄峰, 汪侠, 等. 基于结构方程模型的南京市就业者通勤行为特征对健康的影响研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(12): 2043-2053.

DOI

[Cao Chen, Zhen Feng, Wang Xia, et al. Study on the influence of commuting behavior characteristics of urban residents on health in Nanjing City based on structural equation model. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(12): 2043-2053.]

DOI

[117]
Avila-Palencia I, Int Panis L, Dons E, et al. The effects of transport mode use on self-perceived health, mental health, and social contact measures: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study[J]. Environment International, 2018, 120: 199-206.

DOI PMID

[118]
Scheepers C E, Wendel-Vos G C W, van Wesemael P J V, et al. Perceived health status associated with transport choice for short distance trips[J]. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2015, 2: 839-844.

DOI PMID

[119]
Zijlema W L, Avila-Palencia I, Triguero-Mas M, et al. Active commuting through natural environments is associated with better mental health: Results from the PHENOTYPE project[J]. Environment International, 2018, 121: 721-727.

DOI PMID

[120]
Kroesen M, De Vos J. Does active travel make people healthier, or are healthy people more inclined to travel actively?[J]. Journal of Transport & Health, 2020, 16: 100844. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100844.

[121]
Jacob N, Munford L, Rice N, et al. Does commuting mode choice impact health?[J]. Health Economics, 2021, 30(2): 207-230.

DOI PMID

[122]
Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A M. Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2013, 50: 198-208.

[123]
马亮, 黄言, 曹新宇. 城市环境对积极交通出行的影响: 中西方研究比较[J]. 地理科学, 2024, 44(2): 216-227.

DOI

[Ma Liang, Huang Yan, Cao Xinyu. Connections between the urban environment and active travel: Comparing studies on China and the western countries. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2024, 44(2): 216-227.]

DOI

[124]
Ory D T, Mokhtarian P L. When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2005, 39: 97-123.

[125]
Ferdman A. Well-being and mobility: A new perspective[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2021, 146: 44-55.

[126]
Ettema D, Smajic I. Walking,places and wellbeing[J]. The Geographical Journal, 2015, 181(2): 102-109.

[127]
Ta N, Li H, Chai Y W, et al. The impact of green space exposure on satisfaction with active travel trips[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 99: 103022. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.103022.

[128]
Arroyo R, Ruiz T, Mars L, et al. Influence of values, attitudes towards transport modes and companions on travel behavior[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2020, 71: 8-22.

[129]
Ma L, Ye R N. Does daily commuting behavior matter to employee productivity?[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2019, 76: 130-141.

DOI

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉