Social satisfaction, commuting and neighborhoods

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 30, Issue , 2013, Pages 110-116

  Delmelle, Elizabeth C ^a   Haslauer, Eva ^b   Prinz, Thomas ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG   (Austria)

^c Research Studio iSpace   (Austria)

Author keywords

Commuting; Social satisfaction; Social sustainability; Urban form

Indexed keywords

CAR OWNERSHIP; COMMUTING; HEALTH STATUS; NEIGHBORHOOD; POPULATION DENSITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL NETWORK; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; URBAN SOCIETY; URBAN TRANSPORT;

AUSTRIA; VIENNA;

EID: 84877337555     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Axhausen K. Social networks and travel: some hypotheses. Social Dimensions of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives 2005, 90-108. Ashgate, London. K. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter, G. Rudinger (Eds.).
2. Banister D., Bowling A. Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport Policy 2002, 11(2):105-115.
3. Besser L.M., Marcus M., Frumkin H. Commute time and social capital in the US. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 2008, 34:207-211.
4. Bonsang E., van Soest A. Satisfaction with social contacts of older Europeans. Social Indicators Research 2012, 105:273-292.
5. Bramley G., Power S. Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, 36:30-48.
6. Bramley G., Dempsey N., Power S., Brown C., Watkins D. Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:2125-2142.
7. Brueckner J.K., Largey A.G. Social interaction and urban sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics 2008, 64(1):18-34.
8. Carrasco J.A., Miller E.J. Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social networks approach. Transportation 2006, 33(5):463-480.
9. Cass N., Shove E., Urry J. Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Sociological Review 2005, 53:539-555.
10. City government of Vienna, 2009. Department 18: City development and city planning. Viennese Quality of Life Studies, Workshop report 102.
11. Christian T.J. Automobile commuting duration and the quantity of time spent with spouse, children, and friends. Preventative Medicine 2012, 55:215-218.
12. Church A., Frost M., Sullivan K. Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy 2000, 7:195-205.
13. du Toit L., Cerin E., Leslie E., Owen N. Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability?. Urban Studies 2007, 44:1677-1695.
14. Farber S., Páez A. My car, my friends, and me: a preliminary analysis of automobility and social activity participation. Journal of Transport Geography 2009, 17:216-225.
15. Farber S., Páez A. Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of automobile oriented land-use and travel. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19:782-793.
16. Freeman L. The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties: an explanatory analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 2001, 67:69-2001.
17. Glaeser E., Gottlieb J. Urban resurgence and the consumer city. Urban Studies 2006, 43(8):1275-1299.
18. Hanibuchi T., Kondo K., Nakaya T., Shirai K., Hirai H., Kawachi I. Does walkable mean sociable? Neighborhood determinants of social capital among older adults in Japan. Health and Place 2012, 18:229-239.
19. Helliwell J.F., Putnam R. The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 2004, 359:1435-1446.
20. House J.S., Landis K.S., Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science 1988, 241:540-545.
21. Leyden K.M. Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 2003, 93:1546-1551.
22. Lu X., Pas E. Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A - Policy and Practice 1999, 33:1-18.
23. Lund H. Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2002, 21(3):301-312.
24. Lund H. Testing the claims of new urbanism - local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association 2003, 69:414-429.
25. Neutens, T., Farber, S., Delafontaine, M., Boussau, W.K., in press. Spatial variation in the potential for social interaction: a case study in Flanders (Belgium). Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.06.007.
26. Nguyen D. Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital. Environment and Planning B 2010, 37:610-627.
27. Preston J., Rajé F. Accessibility, mobility and transport related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(3):151-160.
28. Putnam R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community 2000, Touchstone, New York.
29. Talen E. Sense of community and neighborhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Studies 1999, 36:1361-1379.
30. Umberson D., Montez J.K. Social relationships and health: a flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2010, 51:554-566.
31. Urry J. Social networks, travel, and talk. British Journal of Sociology 2003, 54:155-175.
32. van den Berg P.E.X., Arentze T., Timmermans H.J.P. New ICTs and social interaction: modeling communication frequency and communication mode choice. New Media & Society 2012, 14(6):987-1003.
33. Wood L., Shannon T., Bulsara M., Pikora T., McCormack G., Giles-Corti B. The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: an exploratory study of the built environment, social capital, and residents' perceptions of safety. Health and Place 2008, 14:15-31.
34. Wood L., Frank L.D., Giles-Corti B. Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine 2010, 70(9):138-1390.