Why people use their cars while the built environment imposes cycling

Journal of Transport and Land Use

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 53-62

  Van Acker, Veronique ^a   Derudder, Ben ^a   Witlox, Frank ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

(mis)match; Belgium; Built environment; Mode choice; Perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877294982     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19387849     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.v6i1.288     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Badoe, D. A. and E. J. Miller. 2000. Transportation-land use interaction: Empirical fndings in North America, and their implications for modelling. Transportation Research D, 5(4): 235-263. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X.
2. Bagley, M. N. and P. L. Mokhtarian. 2002. Te impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. Annals of Regional Science, 36(2): 279-297. doi:10.1007/s001680200083.
3. Bartholomew, K. and R. Ewing. 2009. Land use-transportation scenarios and future vehicle travel and land consumption. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1): 13-27. doi:10.1080/01944360802508726.
4. Boussauw, K., E. Zwerts, and F. Witlox. 2009. "Mobiel Vlaan-deren." In: L. Vanderleyden, M. Callens and J. Noppe (eds.), De sociale staat van Vlaanderen, 279-312. Brussels: Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering. [in Dutch]
5. Crane, R. 2000. The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1): 3-23. doi:10.1177/08854120022092890.
6. Dakin, A, J. Murdie, Robert A. "Factoral ecology of metropolitan Toronto 1951-1961" (Book review). Tow n Planning Review, 42(1): 100-101. http://liverpool.metapress.com/content/y92jv1067u17v111/fulltext.pdf.
7. Ewing, R. and R. Cervero. 2001. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record, 1780: 87-114. doi:10.3141/1780-10.
8. Gärling T., R. Gillhom, and A. Gärling. 1998. Reintroducing attitude theory in travel behaviour research: The validity of an interactive interview procedure to predict car use. Transportation, 25(2): 129-146. doi:10.1023/A:1005004311776.
9. Geurs, K., and B. van Wee. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2): 127-140. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
10. Golob, T. F., A. D. Horowitz, and M. Wachs. 1979. Attitude-behavior relationships in travel demand modeling. In: D. A. Hensher and P. R. Stopher (eds.), Behavioural Travel Demand Modeling, 739-757. London: Croom Helm.
11. Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Handy, S. 2002. Travel behaviour-land use interactions: An overview and assessment of the research. In: H. S. Mah-massani (ed.), In perpetual motion: Travel behavior research opportunities and application challenges, 223-236. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
13. Handy, S. 2005. Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use and physical activity. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
14. Johnston, R. J. 1978. Residential area characteristics: Research methods for identifying urban sub-areas analysis and factorial ecology. In: D.T. Herbert, and R.J. Johnston (eds.), Social areas in cities: Processes, patterns and problems, 175-217. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
15. Kesteloot C. 2003. Verstedelijking in Vlaanderen: Problemen, kansen en uitdagingen voor het beleid in de 21ste eeuw. In: L. Boudry, P. Cabus, E. Corijn, E. De Rynck, C. Kesteloot, and A. Loeckx (eds.), De eeuw van de stad, 15-39. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. [in Dutch]
16. Kitamura, R., P. L. Mokhtarian, and L. Laidet. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in fve neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24(2): 125-158. doi:10.1023/A:1017959825565.
17. Lauwers D. 1991. Ruimtelijke aspecten van de fleproblema-tiek. In: R. Poté (ed.), Files in Vlaanderen, 48-60. Leuven, Belgium: Garant. [in Dutch]
18. Parkany E., R. Gallagher, and P. Viveiros. 2004. Are attitudes important in travel choice? Transportation Research Record, 1984: 127-139. doi:10.3141/1894-14.
19. Punj, G. N. and D. W. Stewart. 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20: 134-148. doi:10.2307/3151680.
20. Scheiner J. and C. Holz-Rau. 2007. Travel mode choice: Affected by objective or subjective determinants? Transportation, 34(4): 487-511. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9112-1.
21. Schwanen, T. and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2005a. What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled. Transportation Research D, 10(2): 127-151. doi:10.1016/j. trd.2004.11.002
22. Schwanen, T., and P. L. Mokhtarian. 2005b. What affects commute mode choice: Neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1): 83-99. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.11.001.
23. Stead, D. and S. Marshall. 2001. The relationships between urban form and travel patterns: An international review and evaluation. European Journal on Transport Infrastructure and Research, 1(2): 113-141. http://www.ejtir.tbm.tudelft.nl/issues/2001_02/pdf/2001_02_01.pdf
24. Stead, D., J. Williams, and H. Titheridge. 2000. Land use, transport and people: Identifying the connections. In: K. Williams, E. Burton, and M. Jenks (eds.), Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, 174-186. London: E. and F.N. Spon.
25. Tardif, T. J. 1977. Causal inferences involving transportation attitudes and behavior. Transportation Research, 11(6): 397-404. doi:10.1016/0041-1647(77)90004-1.
26. Togersen, J. 2006. Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: A panel study approach. Transportation Research A, 40(8): 621-638. doi:10.1016/j. tra.2005.11.004.
27. Van Acker, V., B. van Wee, and F. Witlox. 2010. When transport geography meets social psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 30(2): 219-240. doi:10.1080/01441640902943453.
28. Van Acker, V. and F. Witlox. 2005. Exploring the relationships between land-use system and travel behaviour concepts: some first findings. Solstice, 16(1): 1-18. http://hdl.handle. net/2027.42/60310
29. Van Acker, V. and F. Witlox. 2010. 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, 18(1): 65-74. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006.
30. Van Acker, V. and F. Witlox. 2011. Commuting trips within tours: How is commuting related to land use? Transportation, 38(3): 465-486. doi:10.1007/s11116-010-9309-6.
31. van Wee, B. 2002. Land use and transport: Research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(4): 259-271. doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00041-8.
32. van Wee, B., H. Holwerda, and R. van Baren. 2002. Preferences for modes, residential location and travel behaviour: The relevance for land-use impacts on mobility. European Journal on Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2(3/4): 305-316. http://www.ejtir.tbm.tudelft.nl/issues/2002_03-04/ pdf/2002_03-04_08.pdf.
33. Verhetsel, A., I. Tomas, and M. Beelen. 2007. De kracht van het Alonso-Muth model. Het woon-werkverkeer in en rond de Belgische grootsteden. Ruimte en Planning, 27(3): 9-28.