What Factors Contribute to Higher Travel Happiness? Evidence from Beijing, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Travel happiness has drawn increasing attention in recent years. However, the empirical research in developing countries’ context is very limited, and few studies consider both cognitive and affective evaluations during traveling. This study uses web-based survey data collected in Beijing, China, and applies multiple regression analysis to examine impacts of sociodemographic attributes, travel characteristics, residential environment, mode consonance, self-evaluation, and health conditions, on travel happiness. Satisfaction with Travel Scale (STS) is used to measure travel happiness. Results show that for trips using active travel modes, traveling by walking has higher travel happiness than by nonmotor vehicles. For those trips traveling by motor vehicles, company shuttle bus trips have the highest travel happiness ratings, followed by automobile trips and public transport trips. Transport mode consonance is significantly positively correlated with travel happiness. Residential environment, self-reported optimism, and daily happiness have great positive impacts on travel happiness. Living in suburban areas is more satisfying for walking and car trips, but travel frequency, travel duration, and perceived travel time length have significant negative effects on travel happiness. Public transport use with friends is enjoyable, but unpleasant with work partners. More happiness when listening to music/radio or reading during traveling is demonstrated. Finally, policy implications and potential extended research topics are recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".