Cycling subjective experience: A conceptual framework and methods review

Abstract

When evaluating cycling subjective experiences (CSE), mobility researchers have questioned the depictions of cycling as an efficient, fast, and solitary mobility mode. By reframing cycling in terms of its emotional impact on the cyclist, research to date has explored dimensions such as fun, relaxation, and sociability of cycling experiences. Yet, these insights have not been integrated into a holistic understanding of CSE. Addressing this gap, this paper asks: what is the CSE exactly and how do we measure it? We selected and analysed in-depth 50 articles with the aim of unpacking the innate characteristics of CSE. The paper makes a contribution to the research on CSE by presenting a novel framework that clarifies the relationships within existing literature, and identifies measurement methods aligned with this framework. The three interrelated core aspects of CSE are 1) sensory interpretation, 2) affective states, and 3) cognitive construction. Additionally, the three identified methods are 1) retrospective, 2) interceptive, and 3) mobile methods. Notably, retrospective surveys and interviews emerged as the dominant methods employed in the field. However, there has been a growing interest in mobile methods, which enable the collection of real-time and context-specific data, thereby enhancing the generalizability of research findings. Through our analysis we have found that the positive values of cycling experiences have been largely ignored in our sample of studies, revealing a bias of researchers to focus on mobility as a disutility. Based on our findings, we urge planners and scholars to rethink their implicit efforts to mitigate the negative effects of cycling experiences and look for opportunities to optimize for positive cycling experiences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.