IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of destination choice models for pedestrian travel


  • Clifton, Kelly J.
  • Singleton, Patrick A.
  • Muhs, Christopher D.
  • Schneider, Robert J.


Most research on walking behavior has focused on mode choice or walk trip frequency. In contrast, this study is one of the first to analyze and model the destination choice behaviors of pedestrians within an entire region. Using about 4500 walk trips from a 2011 household travel survey in the Portland, Oregon, region, we estimated multinomial logit pedestrian destination choice models for six trip purposes. Independent variables included terms for impedance (walk trip distance), size (employment by type, households), supportive pedestrian environments (parks, a pedestrian index of the environment variable called PIE), barriers to walking (terrain, industrial-type employment), and traveler characteristics. Unique to this study was the use of small-scale destination zone alternatives. Distance was a significant deterrent to pedestrian destination choice, and people in carless or childless households were less sensitive to distance for some purposes. Employment (especially retail) was a strong attractor: doubling the number of jobs nearly doubled the odds of choosing a destination for home-based shopping walk trips. More attractive pedestrian environments were also positively associated with pedestrian destination choice after controlling for other factors. These results shed light on determinants of pedestrian destination choice behaviors, and sensitivities in the models highlight potential policy-levers to increase walking activity. In addition, the destination choice models can be applied in practice within existing regional travel demand models or as pedestrian planning tools to evaluate land use and transportation policy and investment scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Clifton, Kelly J. & Singleton, Patrick A. & Muhs, Christopher D. & Schneider, Robert J., 2016. "Development of destination choice models for pedestrian travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 255-265.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:255-265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.017

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. de Palma, Andre & Picard, Nathalie & Waddell, Paul, 2007. "Discrete choice models with capacity constraints: An empirical analysis of the housing market of the greater Paris region," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 204-230, September.
    2. Liang Ma & Jennifer Dill & Cynthia Mohr, 2014. "The objective versus the perceived environment: what matters for bicycling?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1135-1152, November.
    3. Schneider, Robert J. & Arnold, Lindsay S. & Ragland, David R., 2009. "A Pilot Model for Estimating Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Volumes," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3nr8h66j, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    4. Anas, Alex, 1983. "Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 13-23, February.
    5. Schneider, Robert J., 2013. "Theory of routine mode choice decisions: An operational framework to increase sustainable transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-137.
    6. Khan, Mobashwir & M. Kockelman, Kara & Xiong, Xiaoxia, 2014. "Models for anticipating non-motorized travel choices, and the role of the built environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 117-126.
    7. repec:eee:jotrge:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:111-122 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Lemp, Jason D. & Kockelman, Kara M., 2012. "Strategic sampling for large choice sets in estimation and application," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 602-613.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:eee:transa:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:255-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.