IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v32y2005i1p33-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use and Travel Behaviour: Expected Effects from the Perspective of Utility Theory and Activity-Based Theories

Author

Listed:
  • Kees Maat

    (OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Bert van Wee

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Dominic Stead

    (OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Assumptions about the effects of various land-use characteristics on travel patterns have found their way into diverse concepts of planning and design, such as the compact city and neighbourhood-design principles. In general, these concepts aim at reducing travel distances and reducing car-travel speed, as it is assumed that as travel distances are shorter, individuals will travel less, and the relative competitive position of slower modes is increased. Although some literature supports the link between land use and travel behaviour, for the greater part limited effects have been concluded, whereas in others it has been concluded that there is virtually no effect. We argue that the effects fall short of the expectations advocated by the land-use concepts, because of shortcomings behind assumptions concerning the relationships between land use and travel behaviour. We argue that utility-based and activity-based theories add some extra insights. Various behavioural responses in terms of travel-time changes are possible, depending on whether travel time is minimised, benefits maximised, or activity patterns optimised. It is concluded that the contribution of compact urban designs to reduction on travel may not be as straightforward as is suggested by their advocates. In any case, a simplified distance-oriented and trip-oriented approach is unable to examine complex behaviour, and a broader framework of space and time is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kees Maat & Bert van Wee & Dominic Stead, 2005. "Land Use and Travel Behaviour: Expected Effects from the Perspective of Utility Theory and Activity-Based Theories," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(1), pages 33-46, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:33-46
    DOI: 10.1068/b31106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b31106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b31106?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crane, Randall & Crepeau, Richard, 1998. "Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel?: Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4pj4s7t8, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Crane, Randall, 1998. "Travel By Design?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3pc4v6jj, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Genevieve Giuliano & Kenneth A. Small, 1993. "Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 30(9), pages 1485-1500, November.
    4. Danielle Snellen & Aloys Borgers & Harry Timmermans, 2002. "Urban Form, Road Network Type, and Mode Choice for Frequently Conducted Activities: A Multilevel Analysis Using Quasi-Experimental Design Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(7), pages 1207-1220, July.
    5. Lothlorien Redmond & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2001. "The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 179-205, May.
    6. Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Michael N. Bagley, 2002. "The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 36(2), pages 279-297.
    7. Marlon G. Boarnet & Sharon Sarmiento, 1998. "Can Land-use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and Land-use Characteristics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(7), pages 1155-1169, June.
    8. Eran Feitelson & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 2001. "Transport and Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1780.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang, Shuo & Fan, Yingling & Deng, Wei & Cheng, Long, 2019. "Do built environment effects on travel behavior differ between household members? A case study of Nanjing, China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 360-370.
    2. Chen, Yulin, 2019. "Neighborhood form and residents' walking and biking distance to food markets: Evidence from Beijing, China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 340-349.
    3. Xin Guan & Xin Ye & Cheng Shi & Yajie Zou, 2019. "A Multivariate Modeling Analysis of Commuters’ Non-Work Activity Allocations in Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Jen-Jia Lin & An-Tsei Yang, 2009. "Structural Analysis of How Urban Form Impacts Travel Demand: Evidence from Taipei," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(9), pages 1951-1967, August.
    2. Cynthia Chen & Hongmian Gong & Robert Paaswell, 2008. "Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 285-299, May.
    3. Xinyu Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2012. "The connections among accessibility, self- selection and walking behaviour: a case study of Northern California residents," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 5, pages 73-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Cao, Xinyu, 2006. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07q5p340, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Lara Engelfriet & Eric Koomen, 2018. "The impact of urban form on commuting in large Chinese cities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1269-1295, September.
    6. Tae-Hyoung Gim, 2012. "A meta-analysis of the relationship between density and travel behavior," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 491-519, May.
    7. Bumsoo Lee & Peter Gordon & James E. Moore & II & Harry W. Richardson, 2005. "Residential Location, Land Use and Transportation: The Neglected Role of Nonwork Travel," Working Paper 8581, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    8. Bento, Antonio M. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Mobarak, Ahmed Mushfiq & Vinha, Katja, 2003. "The impact of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3007, The World Bank.
    9. Cao, XinYu, 2007. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1n90z8h8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    10. Cao, Xinyu & Mokhtarian, Patricia & Handy, Susan, 2008. "Examining The Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behavior: Methodologies and Empirical Findings," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt08x1k476, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Javier Asensio, 2002. "Transport Mode Choice by Commuters to Barcelona's CBD," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 1881-1895, September.
    15. Xinyu Cao & Patricia Mokhtarian & Susan Handy, 2007. "Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 535-556, September.
    16. Joseph DeSalvo & Sisinnio Concas, 2013. "The Effect of Density and Trip-Chaining on the Interaction between Urban Form and Transit Demand," Working Papers 0413, University of South Florida, Department of Economics.
    17. Daniel G Chatman, 2009. "Residential Choice, the Built Environment, and Nonwork Travel: Evidence Using New Data and Methods," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1072-1089, May.
    18. Safirova, Elena A. & Houde, Sébastien & Harrington, Winston, 2007. "Spatial Development and Energy Consumption," RFF Working Paper Series dp-07-51, Resources for the Future.
    19. Abdul Pinjari & Ram Pendyala & Chandra Bhat & Paul Waddell, 2007. "Modeling residential sorting effects to understand the impact of the built environment on commute mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 557-573, September.
    20. Arlie Adkins & Carrie Makarewicz & Michele Scanze & Maia Ingram & Gretchen Luhr, 2017. "Contextualizing Walkability: Do Relationships Between Built Environments and Walking Vary by Socioeconomic Context?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(3), pages 296-314, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirb:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:33-46. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.