A comparison is made between the effects of three variable groups or factors—urban forms, sociodemographics, and attitudes—on the frequencies of trips for commuting, shopping, and leisure purposes. A structural equation model is developed as a common travel-purpose model and then modified for each travel purpose according to the outcomes of a survey conducted in Seoul, South Korea. The findings show that the strongest variable in each factor is the same as that shown in European and US research, but other strong variables in each factor and the relative strengths of the three factors differ according to travel purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BagleyM VMokhtarianP L, 2002, “The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach”The Annals of Regional Science36279–297
2.
BeatleyT, 2000Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities (Island Press, Washington, DC)
3.
BoarnetMCraneR, 2001, “The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies”Transportation Research A35823–845
4.
BohteWMaatKvan WeeB, 2009, “Measuring attitudes in research on residential self-selection and travel behaviour: a review of theories and empirical research”Transport Reviews29325–357
5.
CaoXMokhtarianP LHandyS L, 2007, “Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach”Transportation34535–556
6.
CerveroRGorhamR, 1995, “Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods”Journal of the American Planning Association61210–225
EwingRCerveroR, 2001, “Travel and the built environment: a synthesis”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1780, 87–113
9.
FrankLBradleyMKavageSChapmanJLawtonT K, 2008, “Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice”Transportation3537–54
10.
GolobT F, 2003, “Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research”Transportation Research B371–25
11.
HandyS LCaoXMokhtarianP L, 2005, “Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California”Transportation Research D10427–444
12.
HoldenENorlandI T, 2005, “Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo Region”Urban Studies422145–2166
13.
KitamuraRMokhtarianP LDaidetL, 1997, “A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation24125–158
14.
KrizekK J, 2003, “Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?”Journal of the American Planning Association69265–281
15.
MaatKvan WeeBSteadD, 2005, “Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3233–46
16.
MessengerTEwingR, 1996, “Transit-oriented development in the Sun Belt”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1552, 145–153
17.
MeursHvan WeeB, 2004, “Land use and mobility: a synthesis of findings and policy implications”European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research3219–233
18.
MillerE JIbrahimA, 1998, “Urban form and vehicular travel: some empirical findings”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1617, 18–27
19.
MitranyM, 2005, “High density neighborhoods: who enjoys them?”GeoJournal64131–140
20.
NæssP, 2009, “Residential self-selection and appropriate control variables in land use: travel studies”Transport Reviews29293–324
21.
NæssPJensenO B, 2004, “Urban structure matters, even in a small town”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management4735–57
22.
NivolaP S, 1999Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America (Natural Resources Defense Council, New York)
23.
OryD TMokhtarianP L, 2005, “When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel”Transportation Research A3997–123
24.
PipkinJ S, 1995, “Disaggregate models of travel behaviour”, in Geography of Urban Transportation Ed. HansonS (Guilford Press, New York) pp 188–218
25.
PucherJRenneJ L, 2003, “Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from 2001 NHTS”Transportation Quarterly5749–78
26.
Real Estate Serve, 2008Real Estate Investing (One and One Books, Seoul)
27.
SaelensB ESallisJ FFrankL D, 2003, “Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures”Annals of Behavioral Medicine2580–91
28.
SchimekP, 1996, “Household motor vehicle ownership and use: how much does residential density matter?”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1552, 120–125
29.
SchwanenTDielemanF MDijstM, 2004, “The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: a multilevel approach”Growth and Change35304–333
30.
SteadD, 2001, “Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28499–528
31.
StoneBMednickA CHollowayTSpakS N, 2007, “Is compact growth good for air quality?”Journal of the American Planning Association73404–418
32.
SultanaSWeberJ, 2007, “Journey-to-work patterns in the age of sprawl: evidence from two midsize southern metropolitan areas”The Professional Geographer59193–208
33.
van de CoeveringPSchwanenT, 2006, “Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North-America”Transport Policy13229–239
34.
van DiepenA M LVoogdH, 2001, “Sustainability and planning: does urban form matter?”International Journal of Sustainable Development459–74
35.
ZegrasP C, 2004, “Influence of land use on travel behavior in Santiago, Chile”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1898, 175–182
36.
ZhangM, 2006, “Travel choice with no alternative: can land use reduce automobile dependence?”Journal of Planning Education and Research25311–326
