IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt07q5p340.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, Xinyu

Abstract

Suburban sprawl has been widely criticized for its contribution to auto dependence. Numerous studies have found that suburban residents drive more and walk less than residents in traditional neighborhoods. Accordingly, smart growth programs have been advocated as a means to reduce auto travel. However, most studies have established only an association between the built environment and travel behavior, but not a causal relationship. Their connection may be more a matter of residential choice than of travel choice. For example, residents preferring walking may selectively live in walkable neighborhoods and thus walk more. If so, the effects of land use policies may be overstated. Using data collected from 1682 respondents living in four traditional and four suburban neighborhoods in Northern California in 2003, this dissertation explored this causal link by employing a quasi-longitudinal research design and controlling for residential self-selection (namely, residential preferences and travel attitudes). Specifically, we investigated the influence of the built environment on various measurements of personal travel choices including uses of different modes (driving, transit, walking, and biking), trip frequencies for different purposes (overall travel, nonwork travel, shopping travel, and strolling), auto ownership, and vehicle type choice. The results showed that residential preferences and travel attitudes have pervasive influences on all measurements of travel choices. The results also provide some encouragement that land-use policies designed to put residents closer to destinations and provide them with alternative transportation options will actually lead to less driving and more walking. Taking the evidence from all our analyses together, however, neighborhood design appears to have a stronger influence on walking than on driving. In other words, the residential environment promoted by smart growth programs may be an effective strategy to encourage walking but have less effect on driving, especially after attitudinal predispositions are accounted for. Given that walking is an inadequate substitute for driving, the smart growth movement seems to be more of a solution to public health problems than to transportation problems. Even so, it will give residents a choice to drive less and walk more and this choice is highly valued by a large proportion of respondents in our data as well as in other studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt07q5p340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/07q5p340.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan & S, Lothlorien, 2001. "Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived'," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5bh2d8mh, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Kenworthy, Jeffrey R. & Laube, Felix B., 1999. "Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 691-723.
    3. Mindali, Orit & Raveh, Adi & Salomon, Ilan, 2004. "Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at old statistics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-162, February.
    4. Cervero, Robert, 1996. "Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 361-377, September.
    5. Golob, Thomas F., 2003. "Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Cameron, A Colin & Windmeijer, Frank A G, 1996. "R-Squared Measures for Count Data Regression Models with Applications to Health-Care Utilization," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(2), pages 209-220, April.
    7. Jonathan Levine & Aseem Inam, 2004. "The Market for Transportation-Land Use Integration: Do Developers Want Smarter Growth than Regulations Allow?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 409-427, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sen, Sudeshna, 2006. "Household vehicle type holdings and usage: an application of the multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-53, January.
    10. Boarnet, Marlon G. & Anderson, Craig L. & Day, Kristen & McMillan, Tracy & Alfonzo, Mariela, 2006. "Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School Legislation: Urban Form Changes and Children's Active Transportation to School," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3vd3g3jm, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Berkovec, James & Rust, John, 1985. "A nested logit model of automobile holdings for one vehicle households," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 275-285, August.
    12. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1983. "Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 507-512, March.
    13. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    14. Schwanen, Tim & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "What if You Live in the Wrong Neighborhood? The Impact of Residential Neighborhood Type Dissonance on Distance Traveled," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5hh713d6, University of California Transportation Center.
    15. Gayer, Ted, 2001. "The Fatality Risks of Sport-Utility Vehicles, Vans, and Pickups," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt87r277n4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    16. Xinyu Cao & Susan Handy & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2006. "The Influences of the Built Environment and Residential Self-Selection on Pedestrian Behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX," Transportation, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2004. "What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 201-222, March.
    19. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, May.
    20. Bhat, Chandra R. & Pulugurta, Vamsi, 1998. "A comparison of two alternative behavioral choice mechanisms for household auto ownership decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 61-75, January.
    21. Schwanen, Tim & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4nq9r1c9, University of California Transportation Center.
    22. Golob, Thomas F., 2001. "Joint models of attitudes and behavior in evaluation of the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 495-514, July.
    23. 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.
    24. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 97-123.
    25. Ted Gayer, 2001. "The Fatality Risks of Sport-Utility Vehicles, Vans, and Pickups," Econometrics 0103001, EconWPA.
    26. Cervero, Robert & Radisch, Carolyn, 1996. "Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 127-141, July.
    27. Susan Handy & Kelly Clifton, 2001. "Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 317-346, November.
    28. Handy, Susan L., 1992. "Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7gs0p1nc, University of California Transportation Center.
    29. Handy, Susan & Weston, Lisa & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "Driving by choice or necessity?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 183-203.
    30. Khattak, Asad J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2005. "Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 481-500, July.
    31. 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: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(1), pages 33-46, January.
    32. Ted Gayer, 2001. "The Fatality Risks of Sport-Utility Vehicles, Vans and Pickups," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2001_10, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    33. Boarnet, Marlon & Crane, Randall, 2001. "The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 823-845, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Bradley, Thomas H., 2013. "Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle market modeling Studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 190-203.
    3. Seung-Nam Kim, 2016. "Two traditional questions on the relationships between telecommuting, job and residential location, and household travel: revisited using a path analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 56(2), pages 537-563, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences;

    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:cdl:uctcwp:qt07q5p340. 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: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.