The connections among accessibility, self- selection and walking behaviour: A case study of northern california residents

Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning: Challenges for Europe and North America

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 73-95

  Cao, Xinyu ^a   Mokhtarian, Patricia L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b University of California Davis   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881711083     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781781000113.00012     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Babbie, E.R., 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th edition. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
2. Bagley, M.N., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2002. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. Annals of Regional Science 36(2), 279-297.
3. Bhat, C.R., Eluru, N., 2009. A copula- based approach to accommodate residential self- selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 43(7), 749-765.
4. Bhat, C.R., Guo, J.Y., 2007. A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 41(5), 506-526.
5. Boarnet, M.G., Anderson, C.L., Day, K., McMillan, T., Alfonzo, M., 2005. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation - urban form changes and children's active transportation to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2), 134-140.
6. Boarnet, M. G., Sarmiento, S., 1998. Can land- use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non- work travel and land- use characteristics. Urban Studies 35(7), 1155-1169.
7. Boer, R., Zheng, Y., Overton, A., Ridgeway, G.K., Cohen, D.A., 2007. Neighborhood Design and Walking Trips in Ten US Metropolitan Areas. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32(4), 298-304.
8. Brownstone, D., Golob, T.F., 2009. The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of Urban Economics 65(1), 91-98.
9. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York.
10. Cao, X., 2008. Is Alternative Development Undersupplied? Examination of Residential Preferences and Choices of Northern California Movers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2077, 97-105.
11. Cao, X., 2009. Disentangling the influence of neighborhood type and self- selection on driving behavior: An application of sample selection model. Transportation 36(2), 207-222.
12. Cao, X., 2010. Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratifi cation on the propensity score. Environment and Planning A 42(2), 487-504.
13. Cao, X., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P., 2006. The influences of the built environment and residential self- selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX., Transportation 33(1), 1-20.
14. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S., 2007. Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34(5), 535-556.
15. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L., 2009. Examining the impacts of residential self- selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical fi ndings. Transport Reviews 29(3), 359-395.
16. Cervero, R., 2007. Transit- oriented development's ridership bonus: A product of self- selection and public policies. Environment and Planning A 39, 2068-2085.
17. Cervero, R., Duncan, M., 2003. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay area. American Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1478-1483.
18. Chatman, D.G., 2009. Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: Evidence using new data and methods. Environment and Planning A 41, 1072-1089.
19. Chen, C., Gong, H., Paaswell, R., 2008. Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: Additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation 35(3), 285-299.
20. Crane, R., Crepeau, R., 1998. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 3(4), 225-238.
21. El- Geneidy, A.M., Levinson, D.M., 2006. Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Twin Cities, MN.
22. Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Powell, K.E., Chapman, J.E., 2007. Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? Social Science and Medicine 65(9), 1898-1914.
23. Gelman, A., 2005. Analysis of variance - why it is more important than ever. Annals of Statistics 33(1), 1-53.
24. Greene, W.H., 2007. LIMDEP 9.0 Econometric Modeling Guide. Econometric Software, Plainview, NY.
25. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2006. Self- selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: Empirical evidence from Northern California. Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1), 55-74.
26. Joh, K., Boarnet, M., Nguyen, M., Fulton, W., Siembab, W., Weaver, S., 2008. 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 2082, 81-89.
27. Khattak, A.J., Rodriguez, D., 2005. Travel behavior in neo- traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39(6), 481-500.
28. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., Daidet, L., 1997. A micro- analysis of land use and travel in fi ve neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2), 125-158.
29. Krizek, K., 2000. Pretest-posttest strategy for researching neighborhood- scale urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1722, 48-55.
30. Krizek, K.J., 2003. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood- scale urban form matter? Journal of the American Planning Association 69(3), 265-281.
31. Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.J., 2008. Planning for Place and Plexus: Metropolitan Land Use and Transport. Routledge, New York, USA and London, UK.
32. Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X., 2008. Examining the impacts of residential selfselection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 42(3), 204-228.
33. Næss, P., 2009. Residential self- selection and appropriate control variables in land use: Travel studies. Transport Reviews 29(3), 293-324.
34. Pinjari, A., Eluru, N., Bhat, C., Pendyala, R., Spissu, E., 2008. 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 2082, 17-26.
35. Pinjari, A., Pendyala, R., Bhat, C. Waddell, P., 2007. Modeling residential sorting effects to understand the impact of the built environment on commute mode choice. Transportation 34(5), 557-573.
36. Ramanathan, R., 2002. Introductory Econometrics with Applications. Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
37. Rodriguez, D.A., Khattak, A.J., Evenson, K.R., 2006. Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1), 43-54.
38. Scheiner, J., Holz- Rau, C., 2007. Travel mode choice: Affected by objective or subjective determinants? Transportation 34(4), 487-511.
39. 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. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (ETC), Strasbourg, France.
40. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2004. The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31(5), 759-784.
41. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005a. What affects commute mode choice: Neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? Journal of Transport Geography 13(1), 83-99.
42. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005b. 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 10(2), 127-151.
43. Snijders, T., Bosker, R., 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. SAGE Publications, London.
44. Sommer, B.B., Sommer, R., 1997. A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York. Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine. 2005. Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
45. Vance, C., Hedel, R., 2007. The impact of urban form on automobile travel: Disentangling causation from correlation. Transportation 34(5), 575-588.
46. Zhou, B., Kockelman, K., 2008. 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 2077, 54-61.