Modeling travel behavior by the structural relationships between lifestyle, built environment and non-working trips

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 78, Issue , 2015, Pages 506-518

  Etminani Ghasrodashti, Roya ^a   Ardeshiri, Mahyar ^b  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Built environment; Lifestyle; Non working trips; Structural equation model; Travel behavior

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMICS; LAND USE; URBAN TRANSPORTATION;

BUILT ENVIRONMENT; LIFESTYLE; NON-WORKING TRIPS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TRAVEL BEHAVIORS;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

DEVELOPING WORLD; LIFESTYLE; MOBILITY; MODELING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; URBAN TRANSPORT;

FARS; IRAN; SHIRAZ;

EID: 84938500043     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.016     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50:179-211.
2. Ajzen, I., 2001. Attitudes: In the Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. In: Craighead, W.E., Nemeroff, C.B. (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York.
3. Anable J., Gatersleben B. All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transp. Res. Part A 2005, 39(2-3):163-181.
4. Bagley M.N., Mokhtarian P.L. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2002, 36(2):279-297.
5. Benedikter, R., Juergensmeyer, M., Anheier, H., 2011. Lifestyles. SAGE Encyclopedia of Global Studies.
6. Boarnet M., Crane R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. Part A 2001, 35(9):823-845.
7. Boarnet M., Sarmiento S. Can land-use policy really affect travel behavior? A study of the link between non-work travel. Urban Stud. 1998, 35(7):1155-1169.
8. Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp. Res. Part D 2002, 7(4):265-284.
9. Cervero R., Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part D 1997, 2(3):199-219.
10. Cervero R., Murakami J. Effects of built environments on vehicle miles traveled: evidence from 370 U.S. metropolitan areas. Environ. Plan. Part A 2010, 42(2):400-418.
11. Chatman D.G. How density and mixed uses at the workplace affect personal commercial travel and commute mode choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 1831:193-201.
12. Chatman D.G. Deconstructing development density: quality, quantity and price effects on household non-work travel. Transp. Res. Part A 2008, 42(7):1008-1030.
13. Collantes G.O., Mokhtarian P.L. Subjective assessments of personal mobility: what makes the difference between a little and a lot?. Transp. Policy 2007, 14:181-192.
14. Cooper J., Ryley T., Smith A. Contemporary lifestyles and the implications for sustainable development policy: lessons from the UK's most car dependent city; Belfast. Cities 2001, 18:103-113.
15. Crane R. The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review. J. Plan. Lit. 2000, 15(1):3-23.
16. Ecorys, 2008. Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Brussels/Rotterdam.
17. EIA, 2014. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iran, International Energy Data and Analysis (accessed 22.07.14). http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=IRN.
18. Etminani Ghasrodashti, R., 2009. The investigation of urban density on car dependency: a case study of three urban districts in Shiraz (Master Thesis) Shiraz University, Iran.
19. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1780:87-114.
20. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76(3):265-294.
21. Ewing R., Schroeer W., Greene W. School location and student travel: analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1895:55-63.
22. Ewing, R., Greenwald, M.J., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, M., Cervero, R., Thomas, J., 2009. Measuring the Impact of Urban form and Transit Access on Mixed Use Site Trip Generation Rates. Portland Pilot Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
23. Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Attitudes and opinions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1972, 487-544.
24. Frank L.D., Bradley M., Kavage S., Chapman J., Lawton K. Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation 2008, 35(1):37-54.
25. Ganzeboom H. Leefstijlen in Nederland: Een verkennende studie 1988, Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, Rijswijk.
26. Greenwald M.J., Boarnet M.G. The built environment as a determinant of walking behavior: analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1780:33-43.
27. Handy S. Regional versus local accessibility: implications for nonworking travel. Transp. Res. Rec. 1993, 1400:58-66.
28. Handy S. Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part D 1996, 1(2):151-165.
29. Handy S.L., Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. D 2005, 10(6):427-444.
30. Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis 2009, Oxford University Press, New York. first ed.
31. Hildebrand E.D. Dimensions in elderly travel behaviour: a simplified activity-based model using lifestyle clusters. Transportation 2003, 30:285-306.
32. Hoyle R.H. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling 2012, The Guilford press, New York. first ed.
33. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 20(1):90-98.
34. Kitamura R. Formulation of trip generation models using panel data. Transp. Res. Rec. 1988, 1203:60-68.
35. Kitamura R. Life-style and travel demand. Transportation 2009, 36:679-710.
36. Lee J.S., Nam J., Lee S.S. Built environment impacts on individual mode choice: an empirical study of the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2014, 8:447-470.
37. Masoumi H. Modeling the travel behavior impacts of micro scale land-use and socio-economic factors. J. Land Use, Mobility Environ. 2013, 2:235-250.
38. Mokhtarian P.L., Cao X.Y. Examining the impacts of residential self selection on travel behaviour: a focus on methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B 2008, 42:204-228.
39. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transp. Res. Part A 2001, 35:695-719.
40. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I., Redmond L.S. Understanding the demand for travel: it's not purely 'derived'. Innov.: Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2001, 14:355-380.
41. Mont, O., 2007. Concept paper for the International Task Force on Sustainable Lifestyles. Paper Presented At Third International Expert Meeting on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Stockholm.
42. Ory David., Mokhtarian P. Modeling the structural relationships among short-distance travel amounts, perceptions, affections, and desires. Transp. Res. Part A 2009, 43:26-43.
43. Reichman S. Instrumental and life style aspects of urban travel behavior. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977, 649:38-42.
44. Salomon I., Ben-Akiva M. The use of the life-style concept in travel-demand models. Environ. Plan. Part A 1983, 15:623-638.
45. Scheiner J. Social inequalities in travel behaviour: trip distances in the context of residential self-selection and lifestyles. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18:679-690.
46. Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood dissonance on distance traveled. Transp. Res. Part D 2005, 10:127-151.
47. Shiraz Municipality Official Website, 2014. (accessed 15.10.14). http://www.eshiraz.ir/main/en/index.
48. Soltani A., Esmaeili Y. The influence of urban physical form on trip generation, evidence from metropolitan Shiraz, Iran. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2011, 4(9):1168-1174.
49. Soltani A., Etminani Ghasrodashti R. The impact of urban density on car dependency, a case study of three residential districts of region 1, Shiraz. Urb. Reg. Res. J. 2010, 5:139-154.
50. Stead D., Marshall S. The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastructure Res. 2001, 1(2):113-141.
51. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G.A., Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6:81-97.
52. Susilo Y., Williams K., Lindsay M., Dair K. The influence of individuals' environmental attitudes and urban design features on their travel patterns in sustainable neighborhoods in the UK. Transp. Res. Part D 2012, 17:190-200.
53. The guardian, 2014. Iran's Government Steps Up Efforts to Tackle Pollution (accessed 03.10.14). http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/mar/10/irans-government-steps-up-efforts-to-tackle-pollution.
54. Van Acker V., Mokhtarian P., Witlox F. Car availability explained by the structural relationships between lifestyles, residential location, and underlying residential and travel attitudes. Transp. Policy 2014, 35:88-99.
55. Van Wee B. Land use and transport: research and policy challenges. J. Transp. Geogr. 2002, 10:259-271.
56. Zegras, P.C., 2007. The Built Environment and Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: Evidence from Santiago de Chile. Paper Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.