Travel behaviour exists in both culture and the surrounding environment. It is crucial to understand it because it helps the policymakers to effectively develop the urban and transportation planning policies. Large scale mobility of people by motorized transport is making our cities polluted and more congested that ultimately affects urban assets. A single paradigm, e.g. land use or socio-demographics, might not clearly demonstrate people’s preferences, it is necessary to take several paradigms in isolation. This study examined the joint influence of multiple attributes that includes land use, socio-demographic and travel information on travel behaviour and particularly preferred travel mode. A structured questionnaire was designed and interviews were conducted to obtain the data. Multinomial logit model (MNL) was applied to estimate the relationships among variables. Furthermore, spatial maps were prepared to highlight the classification of land uses. It was estimated that with the increase in income level people switched from walking to riding a vehicle and most of them prefer to ride a vehicle for longer trips. It was further investigated that people prefer to walk or ride a vehicle in residential and commercial areas. Based on the results, several planning related policies were recommended.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Lynch, K.The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1960. 208 p.
2. Ewing, R., Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the transportation research board, Vol. 1780, issue 1, 2001. pp. 87–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/1780-10
3. McNally, M.G., Ryan, S. Comparative assessment of travel characteristics for neotraditional designs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1400, 1992, pp. 67−77.
4. Crane, R., Crepeau, R. Does neighbourhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and environment, Vol. 3, Issue 4, 1998, pp. 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00001-7
5. Pickrell, D. Transportation and Land Use. In Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy (J.A.Gomez-Ibanez, W.B.Tye and C.Winston eds.), Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999, pp. 403−435.
6. Boarnet, M. G., Crane, R. Travel by design: the influence of urban form on travel. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 224 p.
7. Frank, L., Pivo, G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1466, 1994, pp. 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(94)90012-4
9. Manaugh, K., Miranda-Moreno, L., El-Geneidy. A. The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home–work location, and demographics on commuting distances. Transportation, Vol. 37, Issue 4, 2010, pp. 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9275-z
10. Song, Y., Knaap, G. Quantitative classification of neighbourhoods: The neighbourhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2007, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800601072640
11. Southworth, M., Owens, P. The evolving metropolis: Studies of Community, Neighborhood, and Street Form at the Urban Edge Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 59, Issue 3, 2007, pp. 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975880
12. Wheeler, S. The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: Implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment: the international journal of justice and sustainability, Vol. 8, Issue 3, 2003, pp. 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830306656
13. Bhat, C.R., Guo, J.Y. A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007, pp. 506–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2005.12.005
14. Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X. Examining the Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behavior: A Focus on Methodologies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.07.006
15. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., Handy, S. L. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 359–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640802539195
16. Bohte, W., Maat, K., van Wee, B. Measuring attitudes in research on residential self-selection and travel behaviour: A review of theories and empirical research. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902808441
17. Song, Y., Knaap, G. Quantitative classification of neighbourhoods: The neighbourhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2007, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800601072640
18. Manaugh, K., Miranda-Moreno, L., El-Geneidy. A. The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home–work location, and demographics on commuting distances. Transportation, Vol. 37, Issue 4, 2010, pp. 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9275-z
19. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P., Laidet, L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, Issue 2, 1997, pp. 125–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017959825565
20. Crane, R., Crepeau, R. Does neighbourhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 3, Issue 4, 1998, pp. 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00001-7
21. Bagley, M., Mokhtarian, P. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 2002, pp. 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680200083
22. Cao, X., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P. The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, Vol. 33, 2006, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-005-7027-2
23. Boarnet, M. G., Sarmiento, S. Can Land use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and Land use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, Issue 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984538
24. Boarnet, M. G., Greenwald, M., McMillan, T. E. Walking, Urban Design, and Health: Toward a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X07311073
25. Dill, J., Voros, K. Factors Affecting Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings from the Portland, Oregon, Region. Transportation Research Record 2031, TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC, 2007. pp. 9−17.
26. Krizek, K. J., Johnson, P. J. Proximity to Trails and Retail: Effects on Urban Cycling and Walking. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 1. 2006, pp. 33−42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976722
27. Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., Che, D.Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute, 2008. 176 p.
29. Wang, D., Chai, Y., Li, F. Built environment diversities and activity–travel behaviour variations in Beijing, China. Journal of Transp. Geogr. Vol. 19, Issue 6, 2011, pp. 1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.008
30. Ma, J., Liu, Z., Chai, Y. The impact of urban form on CO2 emission from work and non-work trips: the case of Beijing, China. Habitat Int., Vol. 47, 2015, pp. 1–10.