Exploring the connections among residential location, self-selection, and driving: Propensity score matching with multiple treatments

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 44, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 797-805

 

^a Jason)   (United States)

Author keywords

Land use; Residential location; Smart growth; Transportation; Travel behavior; Treatment effect

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LAND USE; LOCATION; TRANSPORTATION;

BUILT ENVIRONMENT; DRIVING BEHAVIOR; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; REGIONAL LOCATIONS; RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS; SMART GROWTH; TRAVEL BEHAVIORS; TREATMENT EFFECTS;

HOUSING;

LAND USE; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; TRANSPORTATION; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; URBAN AREA;

NORTH CAROLINA; RALEIGH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77957893247     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2010.07.010     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bagley M.N., Mokhtarian P.L. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science 2002, 36:279-297.
2. Bhat C.R., Eluru N. A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2009, 43:749-765.
3. Brownstone D., Golob T.F. The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of Urban Economics 2009, 65:91-98.
4. Buliung R.N., Kanaroglou P.S. Urban form and household activity-travel behavior. Growth and Change 2006, 37:172-199.
5. Burbidge S., Goulias K. Evaluating the impact of neighborhood trail development on active travel behavior and overall physical activity of suburban residents. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2009, 2135:78-86.
6. Cao X. Disentangling the influence of neighborhood type and self-selection on driving behavior: an application of sample selection model. Transportation 2009, 36:207-222.
7. Cao X. Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environment and Planning A 2010, 42:487-504.
8. Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L., Handy S.L. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews 2009, 29:359-395.
9. Cervero R. Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: a product of self-selection and public policies. Environment and Planning A 2007, 39:2068-2085.
10. Cervero R., Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health 2003, 93:1478-1483.
11. Chatman D.G. Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence using new data and methods. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:1072-1089.
12. Crane R., Crepeau R. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D - Transport and Environment 1998, 3:225-238.
13. D'Agostino R.B.J. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 1998, 17:2265-2281.
14. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2001, 1780:87-114.
15. Frank L.D., Saelens B.E., Powell K.E., Chapman J.E. Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?. Social Science & Medicine 2007, 65:1898-1914.
16. Handy S. Question assumptions 1: do new urbanists walk more?. Planning 2006, 72:36-37.
17. Ingram, G.K., Carbonell, A., Hong, Y.-H., Flint, A., 2009. Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
18. Joh K., Boarnet M., Nguyen M., Fulton W., Siembab W., Weaver S. Accessibility, travel behavior, and new urbanism: case study of mixed-use centers and auto-oriented corridors in the South Bay region of Los Angeles, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2008, 2082:81-89.
19. Kitamura R., Mokhtarian P.L., Daidet L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 1997, 24:125-158.
20. Lechner M. Program heterogeneity and propensity score matching: an application to the evaluation of active labor market policies. Review of Economics and Statistics 2002, 84:205-220.
21. Mokhtarian P.L., Cao X. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2008, 42:204-228.
22. Næss P. Accessibility, activity participation and location of activities: exploring the links between residential location and travel behaviour. Urban Studies 2006, 43:627-652.
23. Næss P. Residential self-selection and appropriate control variables in land use: travel studies. Transport Reviews 2009, 29:293-324.
24. Oakes M.J., Johnson P.J. Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. Methods in Epidemiology 2006, 370-392. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. M.J. Oakes, J.S. Kaufman (Eds.).
25. Pinjari A., Eluru N., Bhat C., Pendyala R., Spissu E. Joint model of choice of residential neighborhood and bicycle ownership: accounting for self-selection and unobserved heterogeneity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2008, 2082:17-26.
26. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
27. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1984, 79:516-524.
28. Salon, D., 2006. Cars and The City: An Investigation of Transportation and Residential Location Choices in New York city. Phd Dissertation, PhD Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis.
29. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2003. Does dissonance between desired and current neighborhood type affect individual travel behaviour? An empirical assessment from the San Francisco Bay Area. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (ETC), Strasbourg, France.
30. Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13:83-99.
31. Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2005, 10:127-151.
32. Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine, 2005. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
33. Zhou B., Kockelman K. Self-selection in home choice: use of treatment effects in evaluating relationship between built environment and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2008, 2077:54-61.