Household travel decision chains: Residential environment, automobile ownership, trips and mode choice

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 88-110

  Shay, Elizabeth ^a   Khattak, Asad J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b Old Dominion University   (United States)

Author keywords

Active living; Built environment; Mode choice; Travel

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LIVING; AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP; BUILT ENVIRONMENT; DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES; HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL; MODE CHOICE; RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT; RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS; TRAVEL; TRAVEL BEHAVIORS; TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING;

AIR QUALITY; HOUSES; MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

AIR QUALITY; CAR OWNERSHIP; EMISSION; NUMERICAL MODEL; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL DEMAND;

EID: 80052546206     PISSN: 15568318     EISSN: 15568334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2011.560363     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Abreue Silva J, Goulias KG. 2008. Using structural equations modeling to unravel the influence of land use patterns on travel behavior of urban adult workers of Puget Sound region. University of California Transportation Center, Working Paper 1365661.
2. Barnes G, Thompson K, Krizek K. 2006. A longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
3. Bhat CR. 2005. A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: Formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39(8):679-707.
4. Bhat CR, Guo JY. 2006. A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
5. Bhat CR, Koppelman FS. 2006. A Self-Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models. US Department of Transportation.
6. Boarnet MG, Sarmiento S. 1998. Can land-use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies 35(7): 1155-1169.
7. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA., Brennan LK, Bacak SJ. 2001. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 91(12):1995-2003.
8. Burbidge SK, Goulias KG. 2009. Evaluating the impact of neighborhood trail development on active travel behavior and overall physical activity among suburban residents. Transportation Research Board, 88th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
9. Cao Z, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL. 2010. Neighborhood design and the accessibility of the elderly: An empirical analysis in Northern California. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 4(6):347-371.
10. Cervero R. 1996. Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 23(4):373-394.
11. Cervero R, Gorham R. 1995. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association 61(2):210-225.
12. Cervero R, Kockelman K. 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity and design. Transportation Research D 2(3):199-219.
13. Cervero R, Radisch C. 1995. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile-oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy 3(3):127-141.
14. Cervero R, Sarmiento OL, Jacoby E, Gomez LF, Neiman A. 2009. Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogota. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 3:203-226.
15. Cho EJ, Rodriguez D, Song Y. 2008. The role of employment subcenters in residential location decisions. Journal of Transport and Land Use 1(2):121-151.
16. Chu Y-L. 2007. Automobile ownership analysis using ordered probit models. Transportation Research Record 1805:60-67.
17. Crane R. 1996. On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it? Journal of Planning Education and Research 15:117-126.
18. Crane R, Crepeau R. 1998. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research D 3(4):225-238.
19. Daly A. 1981. Applicability of disaggregate models of behavior: A question of methodology. Transportation Research Part A: General 16(5-6):363-370.
20. Doyle S, Kelly-Schwartz A, Schlossberg M, Stockard J. 2006. Active community environments and health: The relationship of walkable and safe communities to individual health. Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1):19-31.
21. Evenson KR, Herring AH, Huston SK. 2005. Evaluating change in physical activity with the building of a multi-use trail. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 28:177-185.
22. Ewing R, Cervero R. 2001. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record 1780:87-114.
23. Frank L, Bradley M, Kavage S, Chapman J, Lawton TK. 2008. Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation 35(1):37-54.
24. Gardenhire AD, Sermons MW. 1999. Understanding automobile ownership behavior of low-income households: How behavioral differences may influence transportation policy. Transportation Research Circular E-C026.
25. Giles-Corti G, Donovan RJ. 2002. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine 54:1793-1812.
26. Golob T. 2003. Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 37(1):1-25.
27. Golob TF. 1990. The dynamics of household travel time expenditures and auto ownership decisions. Transportation Research Part A: General 24(6):443-463.
28. Handy SL. 2006. Questioning assumptions 1. Do new urbanists walk more? Planning 72(1):36-37.
29. Helling A. 2000. The effect of residential accessibility to employment on men's and women's travel. Women's Travel Issues Second National Conference, Baltimore MD, 1996.
30. Hensher DA, Greene WH. 2002. Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: Alternative normalizations. Transportation Research Part B 36:1-17.
31. Hess DB, Ong PM. 2002. Traditional neighborhoods and automobile ownership. Transportation Research Record 1805.
32. Holtzclaw J, Clear R, Dittmar H, Goldstein D. Haas P. 2002. Location efficiency: Neighborhood and socio-economic characteristics determine auto ownership and use: Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Transportation Planning and Technology 2(1).
33. Jara-Diaz SR, Martinez FJ. 1999. On the specification of indirect utility and willingness to pay for discrete residential location models. Journal of Regional Science 39(4): 675.
34. Khattak AJ, Rodriguez DA. 2005. Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in the USA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39(6):481-500.
35. Kim S, Ulfarsson GF. 2004. Travel mode choice of the elderly: Effects of personal, household, neighborhood, and trip characteristics. Transportation Research Record 1894:117-126.
36. Kitamura R, Mokhtarian P, Laidet L. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24:125-158.
37. Koppelman FS, Wen C-H. 1998. Alternative nested logit models atructure, properties and estimation. Transportation Research Part B 32:289-298.
38. Krizek KJ. 2003. Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel. Transportation 30(4):387-410.
39. Matthies E, Kuhn S, Kloeckner CA. 2002. Travel mode choice of women: The result of limitation, ecological norm, or weak habit? Environment & Behavior 34(2):163-177.
40. McDonald NC. 2005. Does residential density affect the travel "gender gap"? Conference on Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
41. McFadden D. 1999. Rationality for economists? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1).
42. Morency C, Trepanier M, Demers M. 2011. Walking to transit: An unexpected source of physical activity. Transport Policy 18(6):800-806.
43. Moudon AV, Hess PM, Snyder MC, Stanilov K. 1997. Effects of site design and pedestrian travel in mixed-use, medium-density environments. Transportation Research Record 1578:48-55.
44. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 1998. Travel estimation techniques for urban planning, NCHRP Report #365, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
45. Nelson AC. 2004. Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
46. Northridge ME, Sclar E, Biswas P. 2003. Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: A conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities. Journal of Urban Health 80:556-590.
47. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. 2004. Understanding environmental influences on walking; Review and research agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(1):67-76.
48. Paulley N, Balcombe R, Mackett R, Titheridge H, Preston J, Wardman M, Shires J, White P. 2006. The demand for public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transport Policy 13:295-306.
49. Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. 2003. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Social Science & Medicine 56:1693-1703.
50. Rodriguez DA, Arunachalam S, Frey HC, Hanna A, Khattak A, Morton BJ, Rouphail N, Song Y. 2010. Advanced modeling system for forecasting regional development, travel behavior, and spatial pattern of emissions. Final report, EPA STAR #R831835, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/ display.abstractDetail/abstract/7389
51. Rodriguez DA, Joo J. 2004. The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D 9:151-173.
52. Saelens B, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. 2003. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health 93(9).
53. Sallis JF, Johnson MF, Calfas KJ, Caparosa S, Nichols JF. 1997. Assessing perceived physical environmental variables that may influence physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise Sport 68(4):345-351.
54. Shay E, Khattak AJ. 2007. Autos, trips, and neighborhood type: Comparing environmental measures. Transportation Research Record 2010:73-82.
55. Talen E. 1999. Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies 36(8):1361-1379.
56. Train KE. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Policy Information, Travel Monitoring. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ travel/tvt/trends/.
58. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. COMMUTER Model User Manual for Analysis of Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction and Commuter Choice Incentive Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation, EPA420-R-00-016 October 2000.
59. Walton D, Sunseri A. 2010. Factors influencing the decision to drive or walk short distances to public transport facilities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 4(4):212-226.