Reasons for cycling and well-being levels of cycling individuals

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to examine the reasons for cycling and well-being levels of individuals who ride bicycles.

Method

This study was conducted using a screening model with 230 participants, with approval from the Dicle University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee. Data were collected using the Well-Being Scale and Koçak’s Reasons for Cycling Questionnaire, and analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics and parametric tests were applied for normally distributed data; groups were compared using the Independent Samples T-Test and ANOVA, with Tukey post-hoc tests for significant differences. Additionally, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between reasons for cycling and psychological well-being, and simple linear regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive effect of reasons for cycling on psychological well-being.

Results

According to the research findings, no significant difference was found based on gender, income level, or duration of bicycle use. However, in terms of marital status, married individuals were found to have higher psychological well-being levels than single individuals. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of age, with participants aged 39 and above having higher well-being levels than those aged 18–28 and 29–38 age range. Analysis based on the education level variable revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups. According to the Tukey test results, university graduates were found to have higher levels of well-being than middle school graduates. In terms of employment status, public employees were found to have higher well-being levels than unemployed individuals. Furthermore, a positive and statistically significant correlation was found between the total score for reasons for cycling and psychological well-being (r = .244, p < .000). Simple linear regression analysis revealed that the total score for reasons for cycling is a significant predictor of psychological well-being (R² = 0.059, F(14, 380) = 15.485, p < .000). Accordingly, each unit increase in the total score for reasons for cycling corresponded to a 0.178 unit increase in psychological well-being (B = 0.178, β = 0.244, t = 3.792, p < .000).

Conclusion

As a result of this study, it was concluded that the participants used bicycles mostly for travelling and relaxation. It was observed that individuals who used bicycles for these purposes also had high levels of well-being.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-025-03738-1.

Background

Well-being is a multidimensional construct that refers to an individual’s overall satisfaction with their life, as well as their capacity to maintain emotional, psychological, and social functioning [1, 2]. Well-being is not limited to experiencing momentary happiness or positive emotions; it also includes adding meaning to their life, achieving their goals, and fulfilling their potential [3]. Individuals with high well-being can cope with stress more effectively, establish healthier social relationships, and experience greater life satisfaction [4–6]. Therefore, well-being is an important concept in terms of psychological well-being at the individual level and social harmony and productivity at the societal level.

Today, especially considering the stress factors created by the fast pace of life, urbanization, and digitalization, maintaining and increasing individuals’ well-being has become increasingly critical [7]. At this point, it is important to theoretically examine hedonic and eudaimonic models of well-being to better understand the psychological foundations of the concept of well-being. The hedonic approach focuses on individuals experiencing positive emotions and enjoying life, while the eudaimonic approach is concerned with individuals’ self-actualization, living a purposeful life, and inner development [8]. It is thought that cycling may contribute to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being by supporting both physical and mental health, or may indirectly direct this contribution; however, the literature explaining this relationship with a clear theoretical model is still limited.

Today, physical activity-based behaviors are increasingly important among approaches to improving individual well-being [9, 10]. In this context, cycling not only supports physical health but can also positively impact well-being through psychological factors such as stress management, mental relaxation, interaction with nature, and life satisfaction [11, 12].

In cities, motorized transportation has led to environmental problems such as air pollution, noise, and traffic congestion, as well as health threats such as respiratory diseases and stress [13]. For example, according to 2019 data from the World Health Organization, approximately 4.2 million premature deaths occur worldwide each year due to air pollution-related health problems [14]. To mitigate these negative impacts, cycling stands out as an environmentally friendly and sustainable solution. Bike paths support the physical health of individuals and reduce carbon emissions in cities by providing a safe alternative for transportation, sightseeing, and sports without disrupting motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic [15].

A bicycle, a means of transportation, is a two- or three-wheeled, geared or non-geared vehicle that can be powered by human power or an electric motor and can be used for different purposes [16]. The bicycle is a means of transportation that allows people to move without the need for an energy source. Compared to other transportation methods, it is known for its quieter operation and reducing noise pollution in the environment. Preferring the use of bicycles has positive effects on human health [17]. Cycling offers people a healthy activity in harmony with nature and in the fresh air. This activity allows people to come together and meet cycling groups and have a pleasant time as an economic hobby [18]. Especially recently, cycling on weekends has attracted the attention of many people for hobby and recreational purposes [19]. Bicycle is a means of transportation and sports that can be used at any time and on any route without any time constraints. The fact that cycling is suitable for different age groups offers an important advantage that promotes a healthy life [20]. Research conducted worldwide reveals that regular cycling is effective in the management of various health problems such as stress, obesity, and high blood pressure [21–23]. According to studies conducted in recent years in particular, cycling improves cardiovascular health, increases bone density, reduces the risk of osteoporosis, supports muscle strength, and improves coordination [24]. A 2018 study conducted in the European Union stated that the risk of premature death due to physical activity in individuals who cycle is reduced by 24% [25]. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the health benefits of cycling and highlight cycling as a tool to encourage a sustainable lifestyle.

Connor and Brown stated that cycling strengthens social communication and interpersonal ties [26]. Ardahan and Mert listed the factors that motivate individuals to use bicycles as experiencing nature, developing skills to cope with difficult conditions, desire for recognition, sensitivity to the ecological system, using bicycles as a means of transportation, physical activity and weight management, experiencing a sense of freedom and the need to socialize [27]. In this context, cycling stands out as a leisure activity that strengthens social ties and increases interpersonal communication, beyond being just a physical activity. According to Brown et al. it was observed that individuals who participate in cycling activities establish closer relationships with their social environment and their self-confidence increases [28]. Thus, cycling is considered a holistic activity that supports both the physical, social and psychological well-being of individuals.

This study aims to contribute to understanding the reasons for cycling and its effects on well-being. When the literature was examined, it was observed that although there were studies examining the level of well-being with cycling, these studies were generally built on the basis of physical health. It is thought that it will encourage cycling to be seen as an activity that benefits individuals’ mental and social health beyond transportation. In addition, studies conducted in Turkey sample are limited. This research was planned due to the gap in the literature. In this respect, the study aims to expand the limited research in the existing literature by increasing individual and social awareness of the reasons for cycling.

Method

Research model

The aim of this research is to examine the reasons for cycling and the welfare levels of individuals who use bicycles. This quantitative study employs a descriptive, comparative, and correlational research design based on the screening model. Necessary approvals were obtained from the Dicle University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee prior to the study (letter dated 05.03.2024 and numbered 668516). The main objective of this study is to examine the effects of the reasons for cycling on the well-being levels of individuals. The survey on the reasons for cycling allows us to analyze the motivations of individuals to ride bicycles in detail, revealing the psychosocial tendencies and expectations of the participants towards this behavior. Thus, the data obtained through the survey provides the information necessary to achieve the main objective of the study. In this context, measuring the reasons for cycling of individuals through the survey is directly compatible with the objectives of determining the relationships between their cycling habits and their well-being levels.

Problem statements

1. Do participants’ reasons for cycling and their levels of well-being differ significantly across variables such as gender, age, marital status, and income?

2. Do participants’ reasons for cycling and their levels of well-being differ significantly across variables such as education level, employment status, and duration of cycling?

3. Is there a significant relationship between participants’ total scores for reasons for cycling and their levels of psychological well-being?

Research group

The study was conducted on bike paths and in bicycle parking areas in the Serdivan district of Sakarya province, a district where bicycle use is prevalent, at various times during the week and weekend. Participants were interviewed face-to-face in these areas, the purpose of the study was explained, and data was collected on a voluntary basis. To increase participant diversity, interviews were conducted with individuals who commute to work or school in the morning, and with individuals who use bicycles for sports, transportation, or recreation in the afternoon and evening. Participants from different ages, income levels, and education levels were included in the study to represent socio-demographic diversity. This approach aimed to ensure that the sample reflects general trends in bicycle use and the demographic structure of Serdivan.

Certain inclusion criteria were applied to select individuals for the study. First, participants were required to be 18 years of age or older as a basic requirement. For the purpose of the study, participants were required to be regular cycling enthusiasts. To this end, the question “Do you cycle at least once a week?” was added to the information form, and individuals who answered “yes” to this question were included in the study. Those who answered “no” were excluded. Thus, only individuals who cycled at least once a week were included in the study. This criterion was set as the minimum level that would demonstrate that cycling is a part of individuals’ routines and was chosen to maintain sample diversity and include individuals with diverse motivations. Furthermore, this criterion ensured that participants had a specific cycling habit, allowing for a more consistent assessment of the relationship between cycling and psychological well-being.

The Serdivan district, thanks to its flat plains, offers favorable conditions for cycling, and residents use bicycles for a variety of purposes, including transportation, sports, and recreation. Therefore, the region was selected as an appropriate sample for the study purposes. G*Power analysis indicated that 210 participants would be sufficient; however, a total of 230 participants were selected through purposive sampling.

Table 1 shows that the majority of the individuals who participated in the study were female, between the ages of 29–38, single, with an income of 17,000 TL or less, high school graduates, unemployed and had been cycling for 3 years or more.

Table 1.

Frequency and percentage distributions of participants’ demographic information

Demographic Variables	Subgroups	Frequency (f)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	117	50.6
	Male	113	48.9
Age	18–28	93	40.4
	29–38	109	47.4
	39 and older	28	12.2
Marital status	Married	32	13.9
	Single	198	86.1
Income status	17,000 TL and below	126	54.8
	170,001 TL and 35,000 TL	62	27.0
	35,001 TL and above	42	18.3
Education status	Middle school	20	8.7
	High school	146	63.2
	University	64	27.7
Employment status	Public	22	9.5
	Special	52	22.5
	Not working	156	67.5
Cycling use time	Less than 1 year	34	14.7
	1–3 years between	19	8.2
	3 years and more	177	76.6

Data collection tools

In addition to the seven-question demographic information form prepared by the researchers, the Well-Being Scale, consisting of eight items on a seven-point Likert scale developed by Diener [29] and adapted into Turkish by Telef [30], was used. Additionally, the Reasons for Bicycle Use Questionnaire, developed by Koçak [31], was used as a data collection tool in the study.

Psychological well-being scale

The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale developed by Diener [29] and adapted to Turkish by Telef [30] was found to be 0.87. The Cronbach’s alpha value obtained in this study is 0.851. The scale consists of eight items and has a 7-point Likert-type structure. There are no reverse items in the scale. The highest score that can be obtained from the scale calculated from the total score is 56, and the lowest score is 8. A high score from the scale indicates that the person has high psychological resources and strengths.

Reasons for cycling survey

This questionnaire is a part of the Reasons and Benefits of Cycling questionnaire developed by Koçak [31]. In our study, the “Reasons for Cycling” questionnaire developed by Koçak (2016) was selected to determine the reasons for individuals to use bicycles. The Reasons for Cycling questionnaire consists of 17 items and uses a three-item Likert-type scale. The response options of the questionnaire are ‘1-Disagree’ (1.00–1.66.00.66), ‘2-Partially Agree’ (1.67–2.33), and ‘3-Agree’ (2.34–3.00.34.00). In the study conducted by Koçak [31], the Cronbach’s alpha value calculated for the total score of the Reasons for Cycling questionnaire was reported as 0.875. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value calculated according to the total score was found to be 0.855.

Data analysis

After the data collection process was completed, the obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 25.00. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used in the evaluation of the data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze whether the data were normally distributed [32, 33]. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is recommended when the sample size is greater than 50, and the Shapiro-Wilk test is recommended when it is smaller than 50 [34]. Since the sample size was greater than 50 in this study, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied, and p >.05 was obtained. Since the data were determined to be normally distributed, parametric tests were used in the analyses. The Independent Samples t-test was used to examine the differences between two groups, and the ANOVA test was used to determine the differences between three or more groups. When a significant difference was detected as a result of the ANOVA test, the Tukey test was applied among the post-hoc tests to determine which groups caused the difference. Additionally, the Tukey test was used in post-hoc analyses due to equal variances between groups.

Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the total score for reasons for cycling obtained from the questionnaire and the total score of the Psychological Well-Being Scale. Additionally, simple linear regression analysis was used to determine the predictive effect of psychological well-being on the total score for reasons for cycling.

Effect size (η²) was also calculated to demonstrate the practical significance of the differences. Eta squared was used to assess the magnitude of the effect between groups. According to Cohen’s (1988) classification, η² values ​​between 0.01 and 0.06 are considered small effects, values ​​between 0.06 and.14 are considered medium effects, and values more 0.14 are considered large effects [35]. The assumptions of regression analysis (independence, homoscedasticity, and normality of residuals) were tested and met. No multicollinearity was observed (VIF < 2). Residual plots indicated homoscedasticity, and the Shapiro-Wilk test supported normality. Also, all analyses in this study were conducted at a 95% confidence interval.

Results

According to Table 2, the mean score in the descriptive statistics of the well-being of individuals riding bicycles was found to be 41.01 ± 9.33.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of participants’ well-being

	N	Min	Max	x̄	Sd
Well-being	230	8.00	56.00	41.01	9.33836

When Table 3 is examined, it can be seen that the reasons for cycling that the participants agree with the most are traveling (x̄=2.78), relaxing (x̄=2.58), getting rid of boredom and stress (x̄=2.53), protecting my health (x̄=2.52), liking cycling (x̄=2.50) and utilizing my free time (x̄=2.50) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of participants’ reasons for using bicycles

	N	Min	Max	x̄	Sd
Integration with nature	230	1.00	3.00	2.41	0.68598
Protecting my health	230	1.00	3.00	2.52	0.68493
Having an area of ​​interest, appealing to me	230	1.00	3.00	2.43	0.68160
Getting rid of boredom and relieving stress	230	1.00	3.00	2.53	0.67824
Desire to get out of routine	230	1.00	3.00	2.34	0.75884
Relax	230	1.00	3.00	2.58	0.65448
As it is perceived to enhance work efficiency	230	1.00	3.00	1.80	0.78800
Desire to be with my friends	230	1.00	3.00	2.30	0.80581
Desire to acquire new skills	230	1.00	3.00	1.97	0.83022
Easily join a group of friends	230	1.00	3.00	1.68	0.78799
Influence of those around me	230	1.00	3.00	1.69	0.80037
Setting a good example for my family	230	1.00	3.00	1.68	0.83114
Getting rid of loneliness	230	1.00	3.00	1.76	0.86495
Loving the sport of cycling	230	1.00	3.00	2.50	0.66576
Evaluating my free time	230	1.00	3.00	2.50	0.63210
Providing ease of transportation	230	1.00	3.00	2.47	0.70353
Traveling	230	1.00	3.00	2.78	0.51903

The findings showed that there was a positive and statistically significant relationship between the total score of reasons for cycling and the level of psychological well-being (r =.244, p <.000) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Pearson correlation results between participants’ total scores for reasons for cycling and their psychological well-being levels

		Psychological well-being	Total score for reasons for cycling
Psychological well-being	Pearson correlation	1	0.244
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	230	230
Total score for reasons for cycling	Pearson correlation	0.244	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	230	230

The effect of psychological well-being on the total score for reasons for cycling was examined using regression analysis. The model was found to be significant (R =.244, R² = 0.059, F (14,380) = 15.485, p <.000). A one-unit increase in psychological well-being score corresponds to a 0.178-unit increase in the total score for reasons for cycling (B = 0.178, β = 0.244, t = 3.792, p <.000) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Regression analysis results of the predictive effect of total score of reasons for cycling on psychological well-being level

	B	β	R	R2	F	t	P
Constant	30.647		0.244	0.059	14.380	15.485	0.000
Psychological well-being	0.178	0.244				3.792	0.000

Table 6 shows the results of the independent sample t-test for the well-being levels of the individuals participating in the study according to gender and marital status variables. In the analysis conducted according to the gender variable, no statistically significant difference was found between the well-being levels of female participants (N = 117, 𝑥̄=40.19, SD = 9.11) and male participants (N = 113, 𝑥̄=41.86, SD = 9.53) (t=−1.359, p =.176).

Table 6.

Independent sample T test results of well-being levels according to gender and marital status of the individuals participating in the study

Variables		N	x̄	Sd	df	T	P	η²
Gender	Female	117	40.19	9.11	228	−1.359	0.176
	Male	113	41.86	9.53
Marital status	Married	32	44.15	7.53	228	2.064	0.040	0.08
	Single	198	40.51	9.51

In the analysis conducted according to the marital status variable, a statistically significant difference was found between the well-being levels of married participants (N = 32, 𝑥̄=44.15, SD = 7.53) and single participants (N = 198, 𝑥̄=40.51, SD = 9.51). When the mean values ​​were examined, it was found that married participants had higher well-being levels than single participants (t = 2.064, p =.040, η²=0.018). The effect size for the marital status variable was calculated as η²=0.018. This value is interpreted as a small effect.

Table 7 shows the ANOVA test results for comparing the well-being levels of individuals according to age, income and education level variables.

Table 7.

Anova test results of well-being levels according to age, income status and education level of the individuals participating in the study

Variables		N	x̄	Sd	F	P	Tukey	η²
Age	18–28	93	39.22	10.55	8.470	0.000	A-C B-C	0.069
	29–38	109	40.94	8.32
	39 and older	28	47.25	5.63
Income status	17000tl and below	126	39.71	9.73	2.841	0.060	-
	170001tl and 35000tl	62	42.90	8.91
	35001tl and above	42	42.14	8.24
Education status	Middle School	20	36.45	10.18	3.753	0.025	A-C	0.032
	High School	146	40.83	9.44
	University	64	42.85	8.38

In the analysis conducted according to the age variable, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (F = 8.470, p <.001). According to the Tukey test results, well-being levels of participants aged 39 and over (𝑥̄=47.25, SD = 5.63) were determined to be higher than those in the 18–28 age groups (𝑥̄=39.22, SD = 10.55) and 29–38 age groups (𝑥̄=40.94, SD = 8.32). The effect size was calculated as η²=0.069. This value is interpreted as a medium effect.

In the analysis conducted according to the income status variable, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (F = 2.841, p =.060).

In the analysis conducted according to the education level variable, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (F = 3.753, p =.025). According to the Tukey test results, university graduates (𝑥̄=42.85, SD = 8.38) had higher well-being levels than secondary school graduates (𝑥̄=36.45, SD = 10.18). The effect size was calculated as η²=0.032. This value is interpreted as a small effect.

In the analysis conducted according to the employment status variable, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (F = 6.731, p =.001). According to the Tukey test results, well-being levels of participants working in the public sector (𝑥̄=47.27, SD = 6.39) were determined to be higher than those not working (𝑥̄=39.83, SD = 9.36). The effect size was calculated as η²=0.056. This value is interpreted as a small effect.

In the analysis based on the bicycle usage duration variable, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (F = 2.615, p =.072).

When Table 8 is examined, the 6 most preferred reasons among the reasons for cycling and the scores of those who answered “somewhat agree (2 points) or agree (3 points)” to these reasons on the well-being scale can be seen. Among the reasons for using bicycles, the statement “to travel” is the one that is most frequently answered as “somewhat agree (2 points) or agree (3 points)”. To this statement, 219 participants answered “somewhat agree (2 points) or agree (3 points)”. The arithmetic mean of the well-being scale of individuals who use bicycles for sightseeing was 41.53. It can be seen that those who responded “somewhat agree (2 points) or agree (3 points)” to the statement “protecting my health” among the reasons for cycling (205 people) have the highest arithmetic mean (42.34) in the well-being scale.

Table 8.

Descriptive statistics of the well-being scale according to the most preferred reasons for cycling

	N	Min	Max	x̄	Sd
Traveling	219	8.00	56.00	41.53	8.84384
Relax	209	8.00	56.00	41.89	8.82066
Getting rid of boredom and relieving stress	206	8.00	56.00	41.59	9.06882
Protecting my health	205	8.00	56.00	42.34	8.38419
Loving the sport of cycling	208	8.00	56.00	41.89	8.92764
Evaluating my free time	213	8.00	56.00	41.63	8.92406

In Table 9, the well-being status of the participants was analyzed in two groups as below the arithmetic mean and above the arithmetic mean. When all participants are calculated together, it can be seen in Table 2 that the arithmetic mean of the well-being scale is 41.01. Accordingly, a grouping was made as below the arithmetic mean and above the arithmetic mean according to the number 41.01. When Table 10 is examined, it can be seen that the group with the highest number of points above the arithmetic mean from the well-being scale is the individuals who responded that they agree with the option of traveling among the reasons for cycling (112 people, 48.7%).

Table 9.

Comparison of participants’ well-being according to the most preferred reasons for cycling

Reasons for Cycling		Well-Being Scale
		Below Average	Above Average
Traveling	Disagree %	8 (%3.5)	3 (%1.3)
	Somewhat Agree %	14 (%6.1)	15 (%6.5)
	Agree %	78 (%33.9)	112 (%48.7)
Relax	Disagree %	17 (%7.4)	4 (%1.7)
	Somewhat Agree %	27 (%11.7)	28 (%12.2)
	Agree %	56 (%24.3)	98 (%42.6)
Getting rid of boredom and relieving stress	Disagree %	17 (%7.4)	7 (%3)
	Somewhat Agree %	31 (%13.5)	30 (%13)
	Agree %	52 (%22.6)	93 (%40.4)
Protecting my health	Disagree %	21 (%9.1)	4 (%1.7)
	Somewhat Agree %	30 (%13)	31 (%13.5)
	Agree %	49 (%21.3)	95 (%41.3)
Loving the sport of cycling	Disagree %	18 (%7.8)	4 (%1.7)
	Somewhat Agree %	30 (%13)	41 (%17.8)
	Agree %	52 (%22.6)	85 (%37)
Evaluating my free time	Disagree %	12 (%5.2)	5 (%2.2)
	Somewhat Agree %	37 (%16.1)	43 (%18.7)
	Agree %	51 (%22.2)	82 (%35.7)

Table 10.

Anova test results of well-being levels of the individuals participating in the study according to employment status and duration of cycling

Variables		N	x̄	Sd	F	P	Tukey	η²
Employment status	Public	22	47.27	6.39	6.731	0.001	A-C	0.056
	Special	52	41.90	9.29
	Not working	156	39.83	9.36
Cycling use time	Less than 1 year	34	37.67	9.71	2.615	0.072	-
	1–3 years between	19	40.84	8.66
	3 years and more	177	41.01	9.33

Discussion

When the well-being scale results were examined according to the most common reasons for cycling, it was seen that participants prioritized reasons such as traveling, relaxing, relieving boredom and stress, protecting their health, enjoying cycling, and enjoying their free time. These findings indicate that cycling meets not only physical but also psychological needs of individuals. Reasons such as “relieving boredom and stress” and “relaxing” in particular suggest that individuals use cycling to feel psychologically well. These findings, which demonstrate that cycling positively affects individuals’ psychological well-being, are consistent with previous studies [12, 36–39].

It was found that there was no significant difference in the psychological well-being of individuals who cycle based on their gender. Studies have shown that women who cycle face difficulties during activity due to their gender [40–42]. While women have a significant share of cycling in developed Western countries [43, 44], this rate is considerably lower in societies where women are less active in social life [45]. Reasons why women do not cycle include factors such as lack of time, lack of female cyclists, inadequate bicycle paths, difficulty of cycling in traffic, and safety concerns [46, 47]. It has been stated that these factors cause women not to adopt cycling as much as men [48–50]. Broache, in a study with 365 female participants, revealed that feeling unsafe in traffic is the biggest obstacle for female cyclists [51]. It has also been emphasized that factors such as climatic conditions, topography, distance, and difficulties in carrying loads pose obstacles for women who do not cycle on a daily basis [52, 53]. While bicycle use decreases as income levels increase among men, it increases among women outside of higher-income groups [54]. While bicycles are often perceived as a “low-income means of transportation” by men, this perception is different for women [55]. Furthermore, it has been noted that the workload of tasks and responsibilities undertaken by women in patriarchal societies reduces bicycle participation rates [56]. All these findings suggest that cycling has an impact on environmental sustainability, the psychological state of individuals, social integration, and gender dynamics, and is particularly important in terms of gender-related differences.

When the marital status variable was examined, it was found that married individuals who cycle had higher levels of well-being than single individuals who cycled. The emotional and psychological support that married individuals receive from their partners positively affects their well-being levels [57, 58]. Marriage contributes to strengthening interpersonal relationships, reducing stress, and increasing general life satisfaction [59, 60]. It has been stated that cycling offers psychological benefits as well as improving physical health [61, 62]. Married individuals can combine these physical benefits with the opportunity to strengthen their social ties by spending time with their partners. This can increase both physical and emotional well-being. In the literature, it has been stated that married individuals doing sports activities together have positive psychosocial effects [63, 64]. However, Yerlikaya’s study suggested that single individuals benefit more from cycling and that this is because married individuals find car use more appropriate in family life [65].

An analysis conducted by age revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups. According to the Tukey test results, participants aged 39 and over had higher levels of well-being than those aged 18–28 and 29–38. The literature emphasizes that psychological resources such as stress management, life experience, and self-awareness, which develop with age, are important factors supporting well-being [66, 67]. Cycling becomes not only a physical activity but also a meaningful pursuit that provides contact with nature, social connection, mental relaxation, and time management with age [68, 69]. Furthermore, individuals’ motivations for participation in sports change with age, with health, recreation, and mental well-being becoming more prominent than competition [70, 71]. These research results suggest that individual and affordable sports like cycling may play a role in supporting life satisfaction, particularly in older age groups.

When the analysis results regarding individuals’ well-being levels are examined by age, a significant difference is observed. This study found that Individuals with higher age tend to report higher levels of well-being. The literature emphasizes that psychological resources such as stress management, life experience, and self-awareness, which develop with age, are important factors supporting well-being [66, 67]. Cycling becomes not only a physical activity but also a meaningful pursuit with age, providing contact with nature, social connection, mental relaxation, and time management [68, 69]. Furthermore, individuals’ motivations for participation in sports change with age, with health, enjoyment, and mental well-being becoming more prominent than competition [70, 71]. These research results suggest that individual and affordable sports like cycling may play a role in supporting life satisfaction, especially in older age groups.

In the analysis results conducted according to education status, it was observed that there was a statistically significant difference in well-being levels. In the study, it was determined that the average well-being scores increased with the increase in education level. Individuals with a higher level of education generally have access to more information and show higher awareness about adopting healthy lifestyles [72, 73]. Literature also supports that participation in physical activities increases with increasing education level [74, 75]. Educated individuals may tend to continue this activity regularly because they better understand the physical and psychological benefits of cycling. In addition, education can increase the opportunities for individuals to receive support by providing them with a wider social circle [76], which can have positive effects on well-being. It has been stated that individuals with lower levels of education generally have limited knowledge about healthy living issues and spend less time on physical activity [77, 78]. These research results show that physical activities become more meaningful for individuals with higher levels of education and that increased health awareness with education can contribute to well-being.

When looking at the working status, this study found that the average scores of individuals working in the public or private sector were higher than those who were not working. The order and routine that work provides to individuals’ lives plays an important role in psychological well-being [79, 80]. Working individuals often see physical activities such as cycling as a means of relieving stress after work or as an escape from the monotony of daily life [81, 82]. In this context, cycling can stand out as an activity that helps working individuals establish a work-life balance.

No significant difference was found in the psychological well-being of the individuals participating in the study based on the duration of cycling. However, it was observed that participants who had cycled for a longer period had higher average scores than others. It has been reported that cycling has positive effects on psychological well-being, especially in the face of the mental fatigue and stress caused by city life [83, 84]. Furthermore, such activities, undertaken independently and without a specific purpose, can support psychological elements such as self-awareness, inner balance, and mental refreshment [85, 86]. In conclusion, although no statistically significant difference was observed, increasing cycling duration contributes to increased well-being, suggesting that cycling may have positive effects on individuals in the long term.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study examines the relationship between individuals’ reasons for cycling and their psychological well-being, revealing that cycling is not just a physical activity but also closely linked to psychological well-being. Prominent reasons such as “relaxation,” “reducing stress and boredom,” and “enjoyment” suggest that individuals also use cycling as a tool for mental well-being.

The study findings indicate that demographic variables such as age, marital status, education, and employment status influence psychological well-being, while variables such as gender and duration of cycling do not produce significant differences. In this context, it can be argued that cycling contributes to individual well-being and that this contribution varies across different socio-demographic groups.

From a practical perspective, these results can provide guidance for municipalities, urban planners, and public health policymakers. Increasing bike lanes, providing safe riding environments, and integrating cycling into social norms are particularly important in urban planning strategies aimed at improving psychological well-being. Improving safe riding areas to encourage women’s cycling can contribute to reducing gender-based barriers.

This research offers a unique contribution to the literature by theoretically examining cycling within the framework of psychological well-being, not just physical health. Future research should explore the reasons for cycling in more nuanced and dimensional constructs and aim to gain a deeper understanding of individuals’ experiences through qualitative studies. Furthermore, comparative studies on the psychological impact of cycling across cultures, age groups, and specific groups (e.g., older adults, youth, women) are recommended.

Limitations

Because the study was conducted only in the Serdivan district of Sakarya province, the generalizability of the findings to other regions is limited. Furthermore, the sampling method and the inclusion of only participants aged 18 and over created limitations in reflecting the broader population. It is explicitly acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to all cyclists in Türkiye or other cultural contexts. Therefore, it is recommended that the study be replicated in different regions and using a random sampling method. The data used in the study were based on participant self-reports. This may introduce potential biases such as recall bias and social desirability effects, which may limit the accuracy and reliability of the results. The study has a cross-sectional design; therefore, while relationships between variables are revealed, causal inferences cannot be made. Future longitudinal studies are considered more appropriate to reveal the causal effects of regular cycling on psychological well-being. Factor analysis was not conducted in this study, thus limiting construct validity. Factor analysis is recommended in future studies to strengthen construct validity. The findings are limited to the study group only. If the study is to be repeated, it is recommended that it be conducted with a more representative sample using a random sampling method. However, detailed data such as the participants’ weekly cycling frequency and average session duration were not collected. This limits the ability to further analyze the relationship between the intensity and duration of cycling and psychological well-being. Also, the absence of these variables limits the interpretation of the strength and nature of the relationship between cycling behavior and well-being. Future studies should include frequency and duration measures to provide a clearer behavioral context. However, the minimum criteria established are considered sufficient to assess the effects of regular cycling on psychological well-being, which was the primary objective of the study. This deficiency is considered a limitation of the study, and it is recommended that such additional data be collected in future studies.

Abbreviation

WHO

World Health Organization

Authors' contributions

F.O.T designed the study, reviewed literature, collected the data, conducted data analyses, and prepared the manuscript. F.O.T, G.Ç and E.Ö provided supervision and advice on the conceptualization and conduction of the research.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

Data files associated with this study are available upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Human Research Ethics Committee, Dicle University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (letter dated 05.03.2024 and numbered 668516)., and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.