Physical planning can benefit from deeper insight into the space-use options that individuals have. This paper examines how individuals’ uses of space are related to urban form factors at their residences, after controlling for traffic congestion, weather, and individual or household characteristics. The behavioral data analyzed came from the 2006 Greater Triangle Region Travel Study in North Carolina. Individuals’ uses of space were measured by daily activity space–the minimum convex polygon that contains all the daily activity locations–and daily travel distance, and were estimated by the use of spatial regression models. The results showed that the residents of densely developed neighborhoods with more retail stores and better-connected streets generally have a smaller area of daily activity space and a shorter daily travel distance. In addition, urban form factors were compared in terms of their importance in explaining individuals’ space-use behavior. It was found that retail mix and street connectivity are key factors relating to individuals’ uses of space, whereas building density was less important. The findings shed light on possible land use solutions toward the better coordination of services in space.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2001.
2.
SongY.GeeG.FanY. and TakeuchiD.Do Physical Neighborhood Characteristics Matter in Predicting Traffic Stress and Health Outcome?Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 10, 2007, pp. 164–176.
3.
DijstM.Action Space as Planning Concept in Spatial Planning. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 14, No. 21999, pp. 163–182.
4.
ChapinF. S.Human Activity Patterns in the City.John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1974.
5.
BuliungR. N., and KanaroglouP. S.Urban Form and Household Activity–Travel Behavior. Growth and Change, Vol. 37, No. 22006, pp. 174–201.
6.
HägerstrandT.What About People in Regional Science?Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 24, 1970, pp. 7–21.
7.
KimH.-M. and KwanM.-P.Space–Time Accessibility Measures: A Geocomputational Algorithm with a Focus on the Feasible Opportunity Set and Possible Activity Duration. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003. pp. 71–91.
8.
BurnsL. D.Transportation, Temporal and Spatial Components of Accessibility.Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1979.
9.
MillerH. J.Modeling Accessibility Using Space–Time Prism Concepts Within Geographical Information Systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 31991, pp. 287–301.
10.
KwanM.-P.Gender and Individual Access to Urban Opportunities: A Study Using Space–Time Measures. Professional Geographer, Vol. 51, No. 21999, pp. 210–227.
11.
BeckmannM. J.GolobT. F. and ZahaviY.Travel Probability Fields and Urban Spatial Structure. 1. Theory. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 15, No. 51983, pp. 593–606.
12.
SchonfelderS. and AxhausenK. W.Activity Spaces: Measure of Social Exclusion?Transportation Policy, Vol. 10, No. 42003, pp. 273–286.
13.
ZahaviY.The UMOT Project.Report No. DOT-RSPA-DBP-20-79-3. Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., and Ministry of Transport, Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn, 1979.
14.
BuliungR. N. and KanaroglouP. S.A GIS Toolkit for Exploring Geographies of Household Activity/Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 14, 2006, pp. 35–51.
15.
LynchK.Managing the Sense of a Region.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1976.
16.
GoodchildM. F. and JanelleD. G.The City Around the Clock: Space–Time Patterns of Urban Ecological Structure. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 16, No. 61984, pp. 807–820.
17.
BattyM.Thinking About Cities as Spatial Events. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 29, 2003, pp. 1–2.
18.
EttemaD.Latent Activities: Modeling the Relationship Between Travel Times and Activity Participation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 171–180.
19.
BhatC. R. and MisraR.Discretionary Activity Time Allocation of Individuals Between In-Home and Out-Of-Home and Between Weekdays and Weekends. Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 21999, pp. 193–209.
20.
YamamotoT. and KitamuraR.An Analysis of Time Allocation to In-Home and Out-Of-Home Discretionary Activities Across Working Days and Non-Working Days. Transportation, Vol. 26, 1999, pp. 211–230.
21.
YeX. and PendyalaR. M.Model of Daily Time Use Allocation Using Fractional Logit Methodology.Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 2006.
22.
FanY. and KhattakA. J.What Can Activity Engagement Tell Us About Daily Drive Time and Walking Time?Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 2007.
23.
EwingR. and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
24.
CraneR.The Impacts of Urban Form on Travel: A Critical Review. In Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel, by M. G. Boarnet and R. Crane, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
25.
BadoeD. A. and MillerE.Transportation–Land Use Interaction: Empirical Finding in North America, and Their Implications for Modeling. Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 5, No. 42000, pp. 235–263.
26.
BoarnetM. G. and CraneR.Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel.Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
27.
KhattakA. J. and RodriguezD.The Impact of Neo-Traditional Developments on Traveler Behavior. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 62005, pp. 481–500.
28.
KockelmanK. M.Travel Behavior as a Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 116–125.
29.
HandyS. L.Smart Growth and the Transportation–Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 22005, pp. 146–167.
30.
BaronJ.Thinking and Deciding, (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
31.
AjzenI.The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179–211.
32.
LevineN.CrimeStat III: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations.Version 3.0. Ned Levine & Associates, Houston, Tex., and National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., 2004.
33.
EbdonD.Statistics in Geography, (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1985.
