Erratum to: Commuting behaviour and urban form: a longitudinal study of a polycentric urban region in Denmark (Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, (2012), 112, 1 (2–14), DOI: 10.1080/00167223.2012.707806);Commuting behaviour and urban form: A longitudinal study of a polycentric urban region in Denmark

Geografisk Tidsskrift

Volumn 112, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 2-14

  Grunfelder, Julien ^a   Nielsen, Thomas Sick ^b  

^a DANISH FOREST LANDSCAPE RES INST   (Denmark)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Commuting distance; Commuting mode; Commuting time; Denmark; Location variables; Urban region

Indexed keywords

COMMUTING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TREND ANALYSIS; URBAN TRANSPORT;

DENMARK; JUTLAND;

EID: 84866855621     PISSN: 00167223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00167223.2015.1043758     Document Type: Erratum

References (52)

1. Aguilera, A. (2005). Growth in commuting distances in French polycentric metropolitan areas: Paris, Lyon and Marseille. Urban Studies, 42, 1537-1547.
2. Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century. London: Routledge.
3. Baudelle, G., & Peyrony, J. (2005). Striving for equity: Polycentric development policies in France. Built Environment, 31, 103-111.
4. Bonke, J. (2002). Tid og velfærd. Holbæk: Socialforskningsintituttet.
5. Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice. Toward a normative framework. Transportation Research D, 7, 265-284.
6. Cervero, R., & Wu, K.L. (1998). Sub-centring and commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Urban Studies, 35, 1059-1076.
7. Crane, R. (2007). Is there a quiet revolution in women's travel? Revisiting the gender gap in commuting Journal of the American Planning Association, 73, 298-316.
8. Crane, R., & Chatman, D.G. (2004). Traffic and sprawl: Evidence from US commuting, 1985 to 1987. In H.W. Richardson & C.C. Bae (Eds.), Urban sprawl in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 311-325). Aldershot: Ashgate.
9. Danish Ministry of the Environment. (2007). Spatial planning in Denmark. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of the Environment.
10. Denmark Statistics. (2011). Online resource. Retrieved May 2011 from www.dst.dk
11. DTU. (2011). The Danish national transport survey, retrieved August 2010 from www.dtu.dk/centre/modelcenter/TU.aspx
12. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 265-294.
13. Faludi, A. (2001). The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: Evidence from the North West metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 9, 663-676.
14. Giuliano, G., Agarwal, A., & Redfearn, C. (2008). Metropolitan spatial trends in employment and housing: Literature review. Paper prepared for the Committee on the Relationships among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Travelled, and Energy Consumption. Transportation Research Board and the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences.
15. Giuliano, G., & Dargay, J. (2006). Car ownership, travel and land use: A comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40, 106-124.
16. Giuliano, G., & Narayan, D. (2003). Another look at travel patterns and urban form: The US and Great Britain. Urban Studies, 40, 2295-2312.
17. Gordon, P., Kumar, A., & Richardson, H.W. (1989). Congestion, changing metropolitan structure and city size in the United States. International Regional Science Review, 12, 45-56.
18. Gordon, P., Richardson, H.W., & Jun, M.J. (1991). The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, 416-420.
19. Gordon, P., & Wong, H.L. (1985). The cost of urban sprawl: Some new evidence. Environment and Planning A, 17, 661-666.
20. Hanson, S. (1982). The determinants of daily travel-activity patterns: Relative location and socio-demographic factors. Urban Geography, 3, 179-202.
21. Hjorthol, R. (2000). Same city - different options: An analysis of the work trips of married couples in the metropolitan area of Oslo. Journal of Transport Geography, 8, 213-220.
22. 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, 25, 1-27.
23. Horner, M.W. (2007). A multi-scale analysis of urban form and commuting change in a small metropolitan area (1990-2000). The Annals of Regional Science, 41, 315-332.
24. Hovgesen, H.H., & Nielsen, T.A.S. (2005). Effekter af motorveje. In J.B. Nielsen & U. Egebjerg (Eds.), Byen, vejen og landskabet: Motorvej til fremtiden (pp. 15-42). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University, Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning and the Road Directorate.
25. Lee, B. (2007). 'Edge' or 'edgeless' cities? Urban spatial structure in the US metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000. Journal of Regional Science, 47, 479-515.
26. Levinson, D., & Kumar, A. (1994). The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 319-332.
27. Levinson, D., & Wu, Y. (2005). The rational locator re-examined. Transportation, 32, 187-202.
28. Meijers, E.J., & Burger, M.J. (2010). Spatial structure and productivity in the US metropolitan areas. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1383-1402.
29. Møller, T.H., Bro, P., Harder, H., & Nielsen, T.S. (2008). Boliglokalisering og andelen af regionale togrejser på Sjælland og i Østjylland, Denmark. Presentation at Trafikdage på Aalborg Universitet.
30. Næss, P. (2006). Urban structure matters: Residential location, car dependence and travel behaviour. London: Routledge.
31. Næss, P., & Jensen, O.L. (2004). Urban structure matters, even in a small town. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47, 35-57.
32. Næss, P., Røe, P.G., & Larsen, S.L. (1995). Travelling distances, modal split and transportation energy in thirty residential areas in Oslo. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38, 349-370.
33. Næss, P., & Sandberg, S.L. (1996). Workplace location, modal split and energy use for commuting trips. Urban Studies, 33, 557-580.
34. Nielsen, B. (2000). The Danish urban system. By- og Landsplanserien. Hørsholm: Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning.
35. Nielsen, T.S., & Hovgesen, H.H. (2005). Urban fields in the making: New evidence from a Danish context. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96, 515-528.
36. Nielsen, T.S., & Hovgesen, H.H. (2007). Pendling i Danmark, baggrund og udvikling [Commuting in Denmark]. Geografisk Orientering, 37, 296-300.
37. Nordregio. (2004). Potentials for polycentric development in Europe (ESPON 1.1.1 final report). Stockholm: Nordregio.
38. Orfeuil, J.P. (2003). La mobilité quotidienne. In: H. de Jouvenel, V. Lamblin, & J. Theys (Eds.), Radioscopie de la France en mutation, 1950-2030 L'évolution socio-économique, les modes de vie, les territoires, les villes, la mobilité et l'environnement en 40 dimensions. Paris: Association Futuribles International. http://portail.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/CETTEXST005344/28Lamobilitequotidienne.pdf.
39. Pochet, P., & Routhier, J.L. (2002). Mobilité résidentielle et allongement des distances domiciles-travail dans la région urbaine de Lyon. In F. Dureau & J.P. Levy (Eds.), L'accès à la ville. Les mobilités spatiales en questions (pp. 167-184). Paris: L'Harmattan.
40. Schwanen, T. (2002). Urban form and commuting behaviour: A cross-European perspective. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93, 336-343.
41. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F.M., & Dijst, M. (2001). Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 9, 173-186.
42. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F.M., & Dijst, M. (2004). The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behaviour in the Netherlands: A multilevel approach. Growth and Change, 35, 304-333.
43. Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., & Dieleman, F.M. (2002). A microlevel analysis of residential context and travel time. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1487-1507.
44. Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. (2005). What affects commute mode choice. Neighbourhood physical structure or preferences towards neighbourhoods? Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 83-99.
45. Sööt, S., Berman, J.G., & DiJohn, J. (2006). Emerging commuting trends: Evidence from the Chicago area. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 45(3), 109-123.
46. Stead, D. (2001). Relationships between land use, socio-economic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 499-528.
47. Susilo, Y.O., & Maat, K. (2007). The influence of built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands. Transportation, 34, 589-609.
48. Veneri, P. (2010). Urban polycentricity and the costs of commuting: Evidence from Italian metropolitan areas. Growth and Change, 41, 403-429.
49. Waterhout, B., Zonneveld, W., & Meijers, E. (2007). Polycentric development policies in Europe: Overview and debate. Built Environment, 31, 163-173.
50. Watts, M.J. (2009). The impact of spatial imbalance and socioeconomic characteristics on average distance commuted in the Sydney metropolitan area. Urban Studies, 46, 317-339.
51. Yang, J. (2005). Commuting impacts of spatial decentralization: A comparison of Boston and Atlanta. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 35(1), 69-78.
52. Yang, J. (2008). Policy implications of excess commuting: Examining the impacts of changes in the US metropolitan spatial structure. Urban Studies, 45, 391-405.