Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 93, Issue 9, 2003, Pages 1478-1483

  Cervero, Robert ^a   Duncan, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BICYCLE; CAR; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYCLING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EXERCISE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SEASHORE; UNITED STATES; URBAN AREA; URBAN POPULATION; WALKING; ARTICLE; CITY PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; POPULATION DENSITY; RESEARCH; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; STATISTICS;

BICYCLING; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CITY PLANNING; COMMUNITY HEALTH PLANNING; DATA COLLECTION; ENVIRONMENT DESIGN; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; POPULATION DENSITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH; SAN FRANCISCO; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; WALKING;

EID: 0141498139     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Frank LD. Land use and transportation interaction: implications for public health and quality of life. J Plann Education Res. 2000;20:6-22.
2. Schmid T, Pratt M, Howze E. Policy as intervention: environmental and policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1207-1211.
3. Pratt M, Macera CA, Wang G. Higher direct medical costs associated with physical inactivity. Physician Sports Med 2000;28(10):63-70.
4. Crane R. The impacts of urban form on travel: a critical review. J Plann Literature. 2000;15:3-23.
5. Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation Res Rec. 2001;1780:87-113.
6. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1985.
7. Untermann R. Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co; 1984.
8. Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Dzewaltowski DA, Owen N. Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2S):5-14.
9. Lynch K. Good City Form. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1981.
10. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Res D. 1997;2:199-219.
11. Walters G, Ewing R, Schroeer W. Adjusting computer modeling tools to capture effects of smart growth, or poking at the project like a lab rat. Transportation Res Rec. 2000;1722:17-26.
12. Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Res D. 2002;7:265-284.
13. MORPACE International Inc. Bay Area Travel Survey 2000: Final Report. Oakland, Calif: Metropolitan Transportation Commission; 2002. Data available at: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/BATS/BATS2000. Accessed September 20, 2002.
14. ABAG Projections 2002: City, County and Census Tract Forecasts 2000-2025. Oakland, Calif. Association of Bay Area Governments; 2002.
15. Southworth M, Owens PM. The evolving metropolis: studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. J Am Plann Assoc. 1993;59:271-287.
16. Ewing R. Best Development Practices. Chicago: Planners Press; 1996.
17. Cervero R. America's Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link. Boston: Unwin-Hyman; 1989.
18. Cambridge Systematics Inc. The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Technology Sharing Program; 1994.
19. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D. Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America; 2002.
20. Thurstone LL. Multiple Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1947.
21. Ernst M, McCann B. Mean Streets 2002. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project; 2002.
22. Hu PS, Young JR. Summary of Travel Trends: 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 1999.
23. Cervero R. Mixed land uses and commuting: evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Res A. 1996;30:361-377.
24. Pucher J, Komanoff C, Schimek P. Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promoting bicycling. Transportation Res A. 1999;33:625-654.
25. Crane R, Crepeau R. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Res D. 1998;3:225-238.
26. Handy S, Clifton K. Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: possibilities and practices. J Transportation Statistics. 2002;4:67-78.
27. Cervero R, Radisch C. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile-oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy. 1996;3:127-141.
28. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activities: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2S):64-73.