Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 65-74

  Van Acker, Veronique ^a   Witlox, Frank ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Car ownership; Car use; Ghent; Structural equation model

Indexed keywords

CAR OWNERSHIP; CAR USE; ESTIMATION METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL DEMAND;

BELGIUM; BENELUX; EAST FLANDERS; EURASIA; EUROPE; GHENT; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 70449700263     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Bagley M.N., and Mokhtarian P.L. The impact of residential neighborhood type in travel behavior: a structural equation modeling approach. Annals of Regional Science 36 2 (2002) 279-297
2. Ben-Akiva M., and Atherton T.J. Methodology for short-range travel demand predictions: analysis of carpooling incentives. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 11 (1977) 224-261
3. Bhat C.R., and Gossen R. A mixed multinomial logit model analysis of weekend recreational episode type choice. Transportation Research B 38 9 (2004) 767-787
4. Bhat C.R., and Guo J.Y. A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research B 41 (2007) 506-526
5. Boarnet, M.G., Sarmiento, S., 1998. Can land use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel and land use characteristics. Paper Presented at the Lincoln Land Institute TRED Conference, October 1998.
6. Boussauw K., and Witlox F. Introducing a commute-energy performance index for Flanders. Transportation Research A 43 5 (2009) 580-591
7. Byrne B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
8. Cao S., Handy S.L., and Mokhtarian P.L. The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behaviour: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33 (2006) 1-20
9. Cao S., Mokhtarian P.L., and Handy S.L. Cross-sectional and quasi-panel explorations of the connection between the built environment and auto ownership. Environment and Planning A 39 4 (2007) 830-847
10. Cao S., Mokhtarian P.L., and Handy S.L. Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34 5 (2007) 535-556
11. Cervero R., and Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3D's: density, diversity and design. Transportation Research D 2 3 (1997) 199-219
12. Chen C., Gong H., and Paaswell R. Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation 35 (2008) 285-299
13. Chung J.-H., Kim S., Lee Y.-K., and Choi Y.-S. Multilevel structural equation model for activity participation and travel behaviour. Data from the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Transportation Research Record 1898 (2004) 52-60
14. Cook R.D. Detection of influential observations in linear regression. Technometrics 19 1 (1977) 15-18
15. Cook R.D. Influential observations in linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74 365 (1979) 169-174
16. Cook R.D., and Weisberg S. Residuals and Influence in Regression (1982), Chapman and Hall, London
17. Dargay J.M. Determinants of car ownership in rural and urban areas: a pseudo-panel analysis. Transportation Research E 38 (2002) 351-366
18. Dargay, J., Hanly, M., 2004. Land Use and Mobility. Paper Presented at the World Conference on Transport Research. Istanbul, Turkey, July 2004.
19. Dieleman F.M., Dijst M., and Burghouwt G. Urban form and travel behaviour: micro-level household attributes and residential context. Urban Studies 39 3 (2002) 507-527
20. Ewing R., Haliyur P., and Page G.W. Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transportation Research Record 1466 (1994) 53-62
21. Frank L.D., and Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicles, transit and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466 (1994) 44-52
22. Gao S., Mokhtarian P.L., and Johnston R.A. Exploring the connections among job accessibility, employment, income, and auto ownership using structural equation modeling. Annals of Regional Science 42 (2008) 341-356
23. Geurs K.T., and van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (2004) 127-140
24. Giuliano G., and Dargay J. Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transportation Research A 40 (2006) 106-124
25. Gorham R. Comparative neighborhood travel analysis: an approach to understanding the relationship between planning and travel behaviour. In: Mahmassani H.S. (Ed). In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behavior Research Opportunities and Application Challenges (2002), Pergamon, Amsterdam 237-259
26. Hammadou H., Thomas I., Verhetsel A., and Witlox F. How to incorporate the spatial dimension in destination choice models: the case of Antwerp. Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (2008) 153-181
27. Handy S.L. Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: what does the research tell us?. International Regional Science Review 28 2 (2005) 146-167
28. Handy S.L., Cao X.Y., and Mokhtarian P.L. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research D 10 6 (2005) 427-444
29. Hanson S., and Pratt G. Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography. Economic Geography 64 4 (1988) 299-321
30. Hayduk L.A. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Essentials and Advances (1987), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
31. Hess P.M., Moudon A.V., Snyder M.C., and Stanilov K. Site design and pedestrian travel. Transportation Research Record 1674 (1999) 9-19
32. Hu L., and Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 1 (1999) 1-55
33. Kitamura R., Mokhtarian P.L., and Laidet L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24 2 (1997) 125-158
34. Kline R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2005), Guilford Press, New York
35. Kockelman K.M. Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance. Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record 1607 (1997) 116-125
36. Krizek K.J. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood scale urban form matter?. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 3 (2003) 265-281
37. Levinson H., and Wynn F. Effects of density on urban transportation requirements. Highway Research Record 2 (1963) 38-64
38. Madden J.F. Why women work closer to home. Urban Studies 18 (1981) 181-194
39. McNally M.G., and Kulkarni A. Assessment of influence of land use-transportation system on travel behaviour. Transportation Research Record 1607 (1997) 105-115
40. Meurs H., and Haaijer R. Spatial structure and mobility. Transportation Research D 6 (2001) 429-446
41. Mokhtarian P.L., and Gao X.Y. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transportation Research B 42 3 (2008) 204-228
42. Muthén B. Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics 22 (1983) 43-65
43. Oud J.H.L., and Folmer H. A structural equation approach to models with spatial dependence. Geographical Analysis 40 (2008) 152-166
44. Pinjari A.R., Pendyala R., Bhat C.R., and Waddell P.A. Modeling residential sorting effects to understand the impacts of the built environment on commute mode choice. Transportation 34 5 (2007) 557-573
45. Rajamani J., Bhat C.R., Handy S., Knaap G., and Song Y. Assessing impact of urban form measures on nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transportation Research Record 1831 (2003) 158-165
46. Raykov T., and Marcoulides G.A. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
47. Satorra A. Asymptotic robust inference in the analysis of mean and covariance structures. In: Marsden P.V. (Ed). Sociological Methodology 1992 (1992), Blackwell, Oxford 249-278
48. Scheiner J., and Holz-Rau C. Travel mode choice. Affected by objective or subjective determinants?. Transportation 34 4 (2007) 487-511
49. Schimek P. Household motor vehicle ownership and use: How much does residential density matter?. Transportation Research Record 1552 (1996) 120-125
50. Schwanen T., and Mokhtarian P.L. What if you live in the wrong neighbourhood? The impact of residential neighbourhood type dissonance on distance travelled. Transportation Research D 10 (2005) 127-151
51. Schwanen T., and Mokhtarian P.L. What affects commute mode choice. Neighbourhood physical structure or preferences toward neighbourhoods?. Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 83-99
52. Schwanen T., Dijst M., and Dieleman F.M. A microlevel analysis of residential context and travel time. Environment and Planning A 34 (2002) 1487-1507
53. Schwanen T., Dieleman F.M., and Dijst M. The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: a multilevel approach. Growth and Change 35 3 (2004) 304-333
54. Simma A., and Axhausen K.W. Interactions between travel behaviour, accessibility and personal characteristics: the case of upper Austria. European Journal on Transport Infrastructure and Research 3 2 (2003) 179-197
55. Soltani A. Exploring the impacts of built environments on vehicle ownership. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 5 (2005) 2151-2163
56. Stead D. Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B 28 4 (2001) 499-528
57. Stead D., and Marshall S. The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. European Journal on Transport Infrastructure and Research 1 2 (2001) 113-141
58. Van Acker V., and Witlox F. Exploring the relationships between land-use system and travel behaviour concepts: some first findings. Solstice 16 2 (2005)
59. Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., submitted for publication. Commuting trips within tours: How is commuting related to land use? Transportation.
60. Van Acker V., Witlox F., and van Wee B. The effects of the land use system on travel behaviour: a structural equation modelling approach. Transportation Planning and Technology 30 4 (2007) 331-354
61. Van Acker, V., van Wee, B., Witlox, F., in press. When transport geography meets social psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, doi:10.1080/01441640902943453.
62. Whelan G. Modelling car ownership in Great Britain. Transportation Research A 41 (2007) 205-219
63. Witlox F. Evaluating the reliability of reported distance data in urban travel behaviour analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (2007) 172-183
64. Yu C.-Y. Evaluating Cutoff Criteria of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Binary and Continuous Outcomes (1999), University of California, Los Angeles
65. Yu K.-H., and Bentler P.M. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology 30 (2000) 165-200
66. Zhang M. The role of land use in travel mode choice. Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association 70 3 (2004) 344-360
67. Zwerts, E., Nuyts, E., 2001. Onderzoek Verplaatsingsgedrag Stadsgewest Gent (Januari 2000-Januari 2001). Deel 3A: Analyse Personen Vragenlijst. Provinciale Hogeschool Limburg, Hasselt (in Dutch).