Journeys are changing – how can future journeys be joyful?

Mobility has become essential for our modern way of life. It provides people with access to services, opportunities, entertainment and health. Mobility is traditionally associated with progress, contributing to, and a consequence of, economic development in industrialised countries (Andrews et al., 2006). Nevertheless, the environmental impacts of current mobility have been questioned and the industry is facing the challenge to shift its paradigms towards new and more sustainable mobility (Gott, 2009).

Ettema et al. (2013) demonstrate the connection between wellbeing and good access to mobility. However, the Office for National Statistics (2014) discovered that those who commute report lower levels of happiness and satisfaction, higher anxiety and a reduced feeling that their activities are meaningful than those who don’t commute. The motivations behind mobility appear critical to wellbeing; people enjoy travelling it appears, but on their terms. Whilst mobility may foster economic prosperity and for some bring wellbeing (De Vos et al., 2015) efficient mobility provision is an increasing issue for the UK’s future (Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2016).

Shifting work and leisure patterns, congestion, sustainability and autonomous vehicles pose significant challenges, changes and opportunities in transport. These future challenges and changes also present opportunities for the development of more inclusive vehicle designs (Alessandrini et al., 2015) thereby extending the impact of mobility wellbeing to a greater number of people. Advances in autonomous technologies could provide solutions for mobility for those with limited access to transport as shown by concepts demonstrated in the Gateway project (Greenwich Automated Transport Environment, 2018) shifting interaction from ‘human to human’ to ‘human to machine’. However, the Connections project at the Royal College of Art (RCA) with rural communities in Ireland (Kunur & Gheerawo, 2007) found that access to transport is not the only mobility aspiration respondents have for their transport, and that fears of social isolation and loss of privacy are also present as mobility changes occur. Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) discuss these social concerns in relation to autonomous vehicles and the additional risk of technology encouraging urban sprawl. Meyer et al. (2017) and Guerra (2016) suggest autonomy will reduce the viability of public transport for all but the most highly trafficked areas and Currie (2018) argues future predictions of autonomy are already being used as a rationale for limiting public transport spending.

A new mobility paradigm is therefore needed, one that builds with greater empathy and understanding of design for wellbeing, to ensure that the technological opportunity of mobility is met with solutions that are increasingly human-centred, inclusive and ‘joyful’. The ‘joyful journey’, is defined in this chapter as not only a journey that is enjoyable, bringing pleasure or happiness, but one that is imbued with meaning and that might be described as such in spite of difficulty or hardship faced in completing a journey.

Advances in computing, navigation and autonomy are creating a technology push (Di Stefano et al., 2012) with the social benefits of future transport solutions redolent to those mooted for the online social network revolution. As with autonomy, social media promised increased social connectivity. However, we are beginning to understand some of the unintended consequences that social media is having, for example social exclusion and challenges to mental wellbeing (Baccarella et al., 2018). The potential unintended consequences of autonomous mobility in this context are therefore worthy of exploration. For example, in rural areas where the connections between the social and transport are complex and interwoven, autonomy could improve transport accessibility but degrade wellbeing by fostering social exclusion.

Designing for positive experiences requires user involvement (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013). In the joyful journeys research we have begun by identifying and understanding the positive attributes of current rural journeys so that the most appropriate features can be built into new journeys. For current journeys, both those that are public and private, the research aim is to understand what makes a journey joyful and subsequently identify the tools required to design meaningful future mobility experiences.

In this chapter we discuss historical perspectives of enjoyable journeys and the exploratory studies undertaken with travellers to understand where joyful journeys occur now and how they might be undertaken in the future. Finally, we offer reflections on how these studies might be incorporated into future solutions and designs that put subjective wellbeing (SWB) at the centre of travel.

Choreography of mobility

‘Joyful journeys’ is a stage of the Choreography of mobility research project being carried out by the RCA and Loughborough University School of Design and Creative Arts. The Choreography of mobility project is an attempt to rethink how we design our journeys. It explores the concept of mobility wellbeing in the transition from materiality to immateriality, the transition from physical products to services of future mobility designs. The project explores the importance of social empathy to wellbeing and proposes to design mobility as a collective subject, observing the dynamics and interactions between people, vehicles, internalities and externalities, as part of a choreography.

Exploring methods to investigate joyful journeys

Experiencing joyful journeys and mobility wellbeing has a direct link to established research in SWB. Until recent developments in mobile technology the majority of SWB travel studies were captured through surveys and interviews undertaken after completing a journey. Friman et al. (2018) highlight the gaps in SWB transport research, and the Joyful journeys project seeks to explore these gaps, particularly the contributions of the physical vehicle and the functional nature of mobility, which are layered with meaning, and contribute to wellbeing. Through investigating the extremes and contrasting joyful and joyless travel, urban and rural, old and young, commuting and leisure, it seeks to expose the differing perceptions about key mobility aspects between age groups, countryside and city.

Our research employed a mix of contextual methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) as a means of discovering the components that make up current joyful journeys in the context of SWB. An exploratory user-centred approach to understanding the whole journey experience was used, undertaking the following stages to explore qualitatively how those travelling express wellbeing about their journeys:

1. 1. Journey shadowing and interviews. Four semi-structured interviews with older people exploring how interviewees express their experiences during their journeys.
2. 2. Current and future journey mapping and rating. Thirty-seven respondents at the London Design Festival and a workshop with eight participants at Loughborough University School of Design and Creative Arts.

Journey shadowing and interviews

The research began by seeking out joyful journeys that were part of everyday mobility but outside the requirements of commuting. At this first stage the research began by engaging with those in a position to be able to choose or ‘choreograph’ the journeys they make, creating journeys that are intended to be pleasurable (Figure 6.1). Retired or semi-retired older age groups in a rural context were selected to investigate how the most joyful journeys might be choreographed. These investigations were with people in a position to choose how they travelled in an environment that was pleasant and aspirational, all outside the purposes of commuting: the drive, the lift, the bus journey and the cycle ride.

Figure 6.1  Giving a lift – Journey shadowing and interview 1.

Four journey shadows and interviews took place in rural North Norfolk, making use of researcher familiarity with the area. Journey shadowing and semi-structured interviews were selected to provide deep qualitative data, particularly useful when investigating the intangible elements of services (Penin, 2018). These methods allowed for the gathering of insights on general behaviour, actions and social interactions, rather than collecting specific information from individuals.

The use of video and semi-structured interviews (Kallio et al., 2016) was chosen as a means of engaging respondents in their environment during the activity, allowing participants to add context and inspiration to their responses.

Key questions and responses are shown in Table 6.1, covering observations from the journey, current experiences and thoughts about the future, capturing people’s perceptions, emotions and aspirations.

Discussion of journey shadowing and interviews

For all the interviewees, as their need to commute has diminished, the psychosocial in mobility wellbeing came to the fore. Interview 1 (where the purpose of driving was to provide a lift) perhaps gives the best indication of how SWB can be promoted in mobility. Comparing the actions of the lift provider onto the six factors presented by Hassenzahl et al. (2013) suggests that providing lifts can create not only the social benefits necessary for SWB but the competence and stimulation as a car driver. Musselwhite (2018) reports that for older people the car can be a critical part of maintaining wellbeing satisfying utility, psychosocial and aesthetic needs and that ‘transport provision beyond the car neglects psychosocial needs of mobility and sporadically meets practical and aesthetic needs depending upon the wider social context’ (p. 235).

After the introduction of bus passes in England for older people in 2008, bus travel, particularly in rural communities, has taken on a richer purpose and meaning according to Andrews et al. (2012). Outside the requirements of the commute and without the pressure of time the bus is a social entity for many older users. These attributes suit the nature of the rural bus; its progress is often considerably slower than the car and its use requires planning and preparedness only marginally different in practice than the earliest omnibus. Rural cycling too now exists increasingly as a leisure and social activity than a functional one, suiting the lifestyles of those able to choreograph their journeys.

All the interviewees reported a social aspect to their joyful journeys, but this social element did not come to the fore when they described how they imagined future transport.

Current and future journey mapping and rating

Journey shadow video as provocation

Design provocations are used to start a discussion and engage people’s imagination to produce their own responses. To explore what future SWB might be like a provocation piece for the London Design Festival used the video of the first journey shadow and interview. Through editing and augmentation with illustrations, festival attendees were encouraged to explore their current journeys and how they would like to choreograph their future journeys (see Figures 6.2 and 6.3). This video explores a journey in the countryside, where people independently organise lifts to the local church. The interview shows surprising social aspects of mobility and the significance of experiences of driving and sharing. At the same time, it presents a view about the comfort provided by technology and innovation, from handle-start to flying cars. The attention to these issues is enhanced by the addition of drawn animated cartoon inserts to the video. The casual drawings style adopted aims to connect to the audience and invite them to also make drawings in response to the video.

Figure 6.3  Video provocation installation at the 2018 London Design Festival.

Figure 6.2  Still from video provocation.

Drawing by Luka Kille-Speckter.

Workshop at Loughborough Design School

To further validate the methodology the exercise was repeated with eight younger people, PhD students, as part of a formal workshop at Loughborough University. The responses were intended to facilitate the beginnings of journey choreography. The participants were asked to watch the video provocation and then asked (without conferring) to create visual descriptions of their current, joyful and future journeys. They were then asked to rate these using a radar diagram with the key factors attributed to SWB as identified by Hassenzahl et al. (2013). The definitions of these factors were made available and the visual responses were used to promote group discussions. (See Figure 6.4.)

Figure 6.4  Example of participants’ response in the video provocation workshop.

Discussion of observations from research, SWB, modal choice and future journeys

The participants of the workshop reported the most pleasurable current journeys were walking or cycling, and they featured a connectedness to the environment as a positive factor. By contrast their joyful journeys were often imbued with meaning – the expectation of meeting with a loved one rather than just the pleasure of the journey itself. The radar ratings revealed overall that regular journeys undertaken by cycle or foot scored almost as highly as those described as joyful journeys. Future journeys, however, were generally seen as more negative than their contemporary counterparts. Future journey maps included travel by autonomous vehicles and respondents reported lower perceived levels of connectedness and popularity but increased security. Youthful predictions of future travel were overall focused on autonomous vehicles and appeared less adventurous than those from older people in the journey shadow interviews.

Whilst pop and rock music were selected as soundtracks for current journeys, future journeys were described mostly through jazz music. (See Figure 6.5.)

Figure 6.5  A workshop respondent’s radar maps of wellbeing factors for current cycling journey (a), joyful car journey (b) and future autonomous vehicle journey (c).

Investigating future joyful journeys

As vehicles become more refined, they can become increasingly like other transport and stationary environments we experience. The budget bus, train and aeroplane ride are arguably similar to the waiting lounges that often precede them. In these similar environments, passengers rely increasingly on the electronic, virtual and augmented for security, information and entertainment. For example, online journey planning is now considered a normal part of the mobility of many. Both in the public and private transport domain, connected devices now form part of the information and entertainment landscape of journeys – for example, the high level of use in the UK of Smartphones for navigation (Statista, 2017).

Aesthetic properties in transport have been traditionally associated with the vehicle itself, the physicality of the object creating emotive resonance (Bayley, 2012). The potential transition to intelligent and autonomous vehicles and the muted ‘mobility as a service’ (Smith et al., 2018) could extend the scope of potential emotive resonance to digital components and graphic representations of movement. This scope extends from simple interfaces of navigation systems, which might include avatars, to interaction with complex artificial intelligence.

Modal choice for regular journeys is based to a large degree on practical and financial constraints; mobility as function. This focus, with an emphasis on controlling the natural environment and the utilitarian corresponds to Maslow’s first two levels of the hierarchy of human needs: physiological and safety needs. Transport has expanded to include social needs, belongingness, love needs, cognitive needs and aesthetic needs. As the remit of mobility has expanded through history the objects that transport us have become imbued with more complex, subjective meaning: mobility as beauty.

However, the physicality of transport is being eroded by the virtual experience. Nevertheless, it is possible to design with these new mobility components and add in values that promote SWB, to create more joyful and beautiful mobility experiences that, in turn, could encourage wellbeing. Design has the capacity to facilitate the complete joyful journey, including, but venturing beyond, the transporting object, in order to avoid the potential monotony, exclusion and resulting loss of SWB that automation could bring.

The promises of future autonomous vehicles, reduced cost, increased efficiency and ease of use, makes it probable that increased amounts of time will be spent travelling. The technology that will enable our future travel may make our vehicles more sterile and foster the melancholy that Certeau describes occurring in the isolation and confines of the railway carriage. In this future transport of the amalgamated personal and public, travel frustration may increase, as on occasion the vehicles inevitably slow or stop. It is possible these situations may become more frustrating than current congestion if perceived personal control is no longer possible.

More time spent travelling, virtually connected but physically alone, could mean a lonely autonomous future. Humans are of course social, emotive physical beings. As commuters become increasingly disconnected from those around them, they may not easily be able to share their frustrations. A challenge for nurturing mobility wellbeing in future journeys is to allow and encourage social interactions and experiences of the natural world and its sensual joys; safe and secure regular travel that can be less cossetted and allow for the stimulation and relatedness of pleasant sights, sounds and smells. These factors question the form and function of the autonomous vehicle and how these desirable experiences might translate into future designs that will promote wellbeing.

Conclusions and implications for designers

The social import of ‘Joyful journeys’ has become apparent through this explorative research. For both young and old, many of the joyful journeys involved engaging with others and with the environment. They were ‘choreographed’ in the sense that mode travel time, vehicle, musical accompaniment, distractions and company were chosen. The selected soundtrack of these journeys reflected both the landscape and the attitude of their aspirational journeys. These individual journeys are a reminder of individual actions and a contrast to how we might see urban travel where logistics and congestion can dictate possibilities.

The provocation video shows how the act of driving can be treasured, as well as creating empowerment for both the driver and the driven. When designing future mobility, in particular SWB in mobility, a cognisant effort is required to design for all of Hassenzahl’s (2013) six factors linked to wellbeing. Future vehicle autonomy, whilst making possible transport for those who are currently excluded, also risks creating new types of social exclusion. For example, a future of driverless pods may make a local bus service and the lift-giving car driver redundant – removing an important social aspect of a rural community. A joyful journey is facilitated by the vehicle and its design, not as might be the case for the autonomous vehicle, dictated by it. However, autonomy also creates a potential to increase social inclusion as well as creating opportunities for others to assist those who are less able to undertake these journeys. Autonomy creates opportunities to control our journeys more, and to choreograph the elements that make up the experience. Current travel creates limits to distractions, which may result in uncommunicated but wanted time away from usual day to day pressures. Whilst driving we may be limited (legally) to audio distraction, the potential for other distractions with autonomy however, becomes an almost limitless continuation of our other activities, risking further social ‘siloing’ or exclusion.

This ‘Joyful journeys’ project suggests some key areas that can assist designers and planners in considering future mobility. Transport is only one component of mobility. The social component of unintended or intended interactions occurring both inside and outside social or family groups appears to be a key component of joyful journeys. Using journey shadowing and semi-structured interviews to determine the ‘joyful’ is a first step in choreographing and allowing space for these elements in new modes and design solutions. Music, cognitive maps and rating wellbeing elements of journeys could also provide insight into SWB factors. Through considering not just the functional, but the joyful journey, new types of differential, social and meaningful journey experiences can be choreographed and, in so doing, some of the potential potholes of vehicle autonomy can be avoided.

References

1. Alessandrini, A., Campagna, A., Delle Site, P., Filippi, F., & Persia, L. (2015). Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 5, 145–160.
2. Andrews, D., Nieuwenhuis, P., & Ewing, P.D. (2007). Living systems, ‘total design’ and the evolution of the automobile: The significance and application of holistic design methods in automotive design, manufacture and operation. Design and Information in Biology from Molecules to Systems. WIT Press, 13, 381–446.
3. Andrews, G., Parkhurst, G., Susilo, Y.O., & Shaw, J. (2012). The grey escape: Investigating older people’s use of the free bus pass. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35, 3–15.
4. Baccarella, C.V., Wagner, T.F., Kietzmann, J.H., & McCarthy, I.P. (2018). Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal, 36, 431–438.
5. Bayley, S. (2012). Cars: Freedom, Style, Sex, Power, Motion, Colour, Everything. UK: Hachette.
6. Brendon, P. (1991). Thomas Cook: 150 Years of Popular Tourism. London: Secker (Martin) & Warburg Ltd.
7. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8. Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (2016). A Transport Journey to a Healthier Life: A Discussion Paper on How Transport Policy and Procedure Can Contribute to the Health and Wellbeing Agenda. London: Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation.
9. Currie, G. (2018). Lies, damned lies, AVs, shared mobility, and urban transit futures. Journal of Public Transportation, 21, 3.
10. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2015). How satisfying is the scale for travel satisfaction? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 121–130.
11. Desmet, P.M.A., & Pohlmeyer, A.E. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5–19.
12. Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41, 1283–1295.
13. Dickinson, J.E., & Dickinson, J.A. (2006). Local transport and social representations: Challenging the assumptions for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 192–208.
14. Ericson, K. (1984). The Wanderjahre: New lessons from an old way of learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 16, 42–46.
15. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M., & Moerdijk, S. (2013). The road to happiness: Measuring Dutch car drivers’ satisfaction with travel. Transport Policy, 27, 171–178.
16. Fagnant, D.J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181.
17. Freedman, A. (2002). Commuting gazes: Schoolgirls, salarymen, and electric trains in Tokyo. The Journal of Transport History, 23, 23–36.
18. Friman, M., Ettema, D., & Olsson, L.E. (2018). Travel and wellbeing: future prospects. In Quality of Life and Daily Travel (pp. 255–265). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
19. Gardner, C. (2018). iPhone. In L. Schofield (Ed.), The Future Starts Here (pp. 28–34). London: V&A Publishing.
20. Golledge, R.G. (1999). Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21. Gott, P. (2009). Is Mobility As We Know It Sustainable? SAE Technical Paper. SAE International.
22. Greenwich Automated Transport Environment (2018). This is Just the Beginning: Positioning the UK at the Forefront of Automated Mobility. Greenwich: Greenwich Automated Transport Environment Project.
23. Guell, C., Panter, J., Jones, N.R., & Ogilvie, D. (2012). Towards a differentiated understanding of active travel behaviour: Using social theory to explore everyday commuting. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 233–239.
24. Guerra, E. (2016). Planning for cars that drive themselves: Metropolitan Planning Organizations, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36, 210–224.
25. Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke, M., Len, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International Journal of Design, 7, 21–31.
26. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
27. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72, 2954–2965.
28. Knox, B., & Fagles, R. (1990). Homer, The Iliad (Trans. Robert Fagles ). New York, NY: Penguin.
29. Kunur, M., & Gheerawo, R. (2007). Connections-Mobility, Ageing and Independent Living. London: The Helen Hamlyn Research Centre.
30. Lorenz, O. (2018). Does commuting matter to subjective well-being? Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 180–199.
31. Meyer, J., Becker, H., Bösch, P.M., & Axhausen, K.W. (2017). Autonomous vehicles: The next jump in accessibilities? Research in Transportation Economics, 62, 80–91.
32. Moscardo, G. (2010). The shaping of tourist experience: the importance of stories and themes. In Morgan, M., Lugosi, P. & Ritchie, J. (Eds.), The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives. Aspects of Tourism, pp. 43–58. Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications.
33. Musselwhite, C. (2018). Mobility in Later Life and Wellbeing. In Quality of Life and Daily Travel (pp. 235–251). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
34. Office for National Statistics, . (2014). Measuring National Well-being, Commuting and Personal Well-being. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105232639/; http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/commuting-and-personal-well-being--2014/index.html.
35. Penin, L. (2018). An Introduction to Service Design: Designing the Invisible. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
36. Richardson, T. (2015). Walking Inside Out: Contemporary British Psychogeography. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield International.
37. Smith, G., Sochor, J., & Karlsson, I.C.M. (2018). Mobility as a service: Development scenarios and implications for public transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 592–599.
38. Statista. (2017). Share of navigation application use on smartphones in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2017 [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved March 09, 2019, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/717382/use-of-smartphone-navigation-applications-in-the-uk/
39. Stradling, S.G., Anable, J., & Carreno, M. (2007). Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 98–106.
40. Tester, K. (2014). The Flaneur (RLE Social Theory). London: Routledge.
41. Towner, J. (1985). The grand tour: A key phase in the history of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 12, 297–333.
42. Watt, I. (1997). Myths of Modern Individualism: Faust, Don Quixote, Don Juan, Robinson Crusoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.