IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i10p2812-d231903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical Study on the Boundary Space Form of Residential Blocks Oriented Toward Low-Carbon Travel

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Zhou

    (School of Architecture, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China)

  • Hui Ji

    (School of Architecture, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China)

  • Songtian Zhang

    (School of Architecture, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China)

  • Caiyun Qian

    (School of Architecture, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China)

  • Zixiong Wei

    (School of Architecture, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China)

Abstract

As one of the three major carbon sources in cities, urban mobility has posed severe challenges to the social environment. Promoting low-carbon travel for residents is an important measure for building a low-carbon city and mitigating climate change. However, to date, previous research on residents’ low-carbon travel has been more oriented toward urban planning, while quantitative research on the influence of the boundary space form of residential blocks on residents’ travel modes, which takes residential blocks as the research objects at the meso- and micro-level, is relatively rare. Residential blocks in China, which were built in the late 1990s, mostly have a large and gated spatial form. Individual residential blocks are often gated by fences, commercial buildings, and other forms of interfaces, forming an independent residential group. Long and closed boundary forms will have a certain impact on residents’ choice of low-carbon travel modes, such as walking, riding bikes, and so on. Taking Nanjing as an example, this paper explores the essential factors that impact residents’ travel behaviors from the perspective of the boundary space of residential blocks, combining the socio-economic attributes of residents, land use, and transit facilities, and there are four dimensions to the study, including the boundary block scale, types of boundary interface, density and distribution of accesses, and the slow-travel environment, proposing recommended values of the relevant indicators in a targeted manner. This paper selects 21 residential blocks in the main districts in Nanjing, conducting a related survey on the residents’ socio-economic attributes and travel characteristics, boundary space form, land use, and transit facilities. The data obtained from the survey are analyzed by correlation analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis, so as to screen out the key variables of the boundary space forms of the blocks that affect residents’ low-carbon travel. Meanwhile, on the basis of the appropriate share of low-carbon travel, the unary linear regression model is used to propose ideal recommended values of the key variables of the boundary space forms of the residential blocks. For instance, the block boundary density is recommended to be above 34.38 km/km², the permeability coefficient of the block interface should be above 0.43, the commercial interface ratio should be above 18.16 km/km², the density of accesses of the blocks is recommended to be above 246.71 km/km², and the cross-sectional ratio of the slow-travel roads should be above 0.5.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Zhou & Hui Ji & Songtian Zhang & Caiyun Qian & Zixiong Wei, 2019. "Empirical Study on the Boundary Space Form of Residential Blocks Oriented Toward Low-Carbon Travel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2812-:d:231903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2812/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2812/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    2. Louis Merlin, 2015. "Can the built environment influence nonwork activity participation? An analysis with national data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 369-387, March.
    3. Mercado, Ruben & Páez, Antonio, 2009. "Determinants of distance traveled with a focus on the elderly: a multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 65-76.
    4. Cao, Xinyu (Jason) & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L., 2009. "The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 548-559, June.
    5. Handy, Susan & Cao, Xinyu & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5b76c5kg, University of California Transportation Center.
    6. Okada, Akira, 2012. "Is an increased elderly population related to decreased CO2 emissions from road transportation?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 286-292.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caiyun Qian & Yang Zhou & Ze Ji & Qing Feng, 2018. "The Influence of the Built Environment of Neighborhoods on Residents’ Low-Carbon Travel Mode," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Susilo, Yusak O. & Waygood, E. Owen D., 2012. "A long term analysis of the mechanisms underlying children’s activity-travel engagements in the Osaka metropolitan area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 41-50.
    3. Susilo, Yusak O. & Waygood , E. Owen D., 2011. "A long term analysis of the mechanisms underlying children’s activity-travel engagements in the Osaka metropolitan area," Working papers in Transport Economics 2011:17, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    4. Lin, Tao & Wang, Donggen & Guan, Xiaodong, 2017. "The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 111-122.
    5. Faizeh Hatami & Jean-Claude Thill, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evaluation of the Built Environment’s Impact on Commuting Duration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Wang, Donggen & Lin, Tao, 2013. "Built environments, social environments, and activity-travel behavior: a case study of Hong Kong," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 286-295.
    7. Hou, Yuting & Yap, Winston & Chua, Rochelle & Song, Siqi & Yuen, Belinda, 2020. "The associations between older adults’ daily travel pattern and objective and perceived built environment: A study of three neighbourhoods in Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 314-328.
    8. Spears, Steven & Houston, Douglas & Boarnet, Marlon G., 2013. "Illuminating the unseen in transit use: A framework for examining the effect of attitudes and perceptions on travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 40-53.
    9. van Wee, Bert & De Vos, Jonas & Maat, Kees, 2019. "Impacts of the built environment and travel behaviour on attitudes: Theories underpinning the reverse causality hypothesis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    10. Aston, Laura & Currie, Graham & Kamruzzaman, Md. & Delbosc, Alexa & Teller, David, 2020. "Study design impacts on built environment and transit use research," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    11. De Vos, Jonas & Ettema, Dick & Witlox, Frank, 2018. "Changing travel behaviour and attitudes following a residential relocation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 131-147.
    12. Circella, Giovanni & Alemi, Farzad & Tiedeman, Kate & Berliner, Rosaria M & Lee, Yongsung & Fulton, Lew & Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Handy , Susan, 2017. "What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? PART II: The Impact of Residential Location, Individual Preferences and Lifestyles on Young Adults’ Travel Behavior in California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5kc117kj, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Ao, Yibin & Yang, Dujuan & Chen, Chuan & Wang, Yan, 2019. "Exploring the effects of the rural built environment on household car ownership after controlling for preference and attitude: Evidence from Sichuan, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 24-36.
    14. Chen, Na & Akar, Gulsah, 2016. "Effects of neighborhood types & socio-demographics on activity space," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 112-121.
    15. Zhong, Shaopeng & Bushell, Max, 2017. "Built environment and potential job accessibility effects of road pricing: A spatial econometric perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 98-109.
    16. Liang Ma & Jason Cao, 2019. "How perceptions mediate the effects of the built environment on travel behavior?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 175-197, February.
    17. Hu, Lingqian, 2017. "Changing travel behavior of Asian immigrants in the U.S," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 248-260.
    18. Zhao, Pengjun & Wan, Jie, 2021. "Land use and travel burden of residents in urban fringe and rural areas: An evaluation of urban-rural integration initiatives in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. Chowdhury, Tufayel & Scott, Darren M., 2020. "An analysis of the built environment and auto travel in Halifax, Canada," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-33.
    20. Hook, Hannah & De Vos, Jonas & Van Acker, Veronique & Witlox, Frank, 2022. "‘On a road to nowhere….’ analyzing motivations for undirected travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 148-164.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2812-:d:231903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.