IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v94y2016icp255-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of destination choice models for pedestrian travel

Author

Listed:
  • Clifton, Kelly J.
  • Singleton, Patrick A.
  • Muhs, Christopher D.
  • Schneider, Robert J.

Abstract

Most research on walking behavior has focused on mode choice or walk trip frequency. In contrast, this study is one of the first to analyze and model the destination choice behaviors of pedestrians within an entire region. Using about 4500 walk trips from a 2011 household travel survey in the Portland, Oregon, region, we estimated multinomial logit pedestrian destination choice models for six trip purposes. Independent variables included terms for impedance (walk trip distance), size (employment by type, households), supportive pedestrian environments (parks, a pedestrian index of the environment variable called PIE), barriers to walking (terrain, industrial-type employment), and traveler characteristics. Unique to this study was the use of small-scale destination zone alternatives. Distance was a significant deterrent to pedestrian destination choice, and people in carless or childless households were less sensitive to distance for some purposes. Employment (especially retail) was a strong attractor: doubling the number of jobs nearly doubled the odds of choosing a destination for home-based shopping walk trips. More attractive pedestrian environments were also positively associated with pedestrian destination choice after controlling for other factors. These results shed light on determinants of pedestrian destination choice behaviors, and sensitivities in the models highlight potential policy-levers to increase walking activity. In addition, the destination choice models can be applied in practice within existing regional travel demand models or as pedestrian planning tools to evaluate land use and transportation policy and investment scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Clifton, Kelly J. & Singleton, Patrick A. & Muhs, Christopher D. & Schneider, Robert J., 2016. "Development of destination choice models for pedestrian travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 255-265.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:255-265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416308412
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.017?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Palma, Andre & Picard, Nathalie & Waddell, Paul, 2007. "Discrete choice models with capacity constraints: An empirical analysis of the housing market of the greater Paris region," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 204-230, September.
    2. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    3. Liang Ma & Jennifer Dill & Cynthia Mohr, 2014. "The objective versus the perceived environment: what matters for bicycling?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1135-1152, November.
    4. Schneider, Robert J., 2013. "Theory of routine mode choice decisions: An operational framework to increase sustainable transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-137.
    5. Khan, Mobashwir & M. Kockelman, Kara & Xiong, Xiaoxia, 2014. "Models for anticipating non-motorized travel choices, and the role of the built environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 117-126.
    6. Clifton, Kelly J. & Singleton, Patrick A. & Muhs, Christopher D. & Schneider, Robert J., 2016. "Representing pedestrian activity in travel demand models: Framework and application," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 111-122.
    7. Lemp, Jason D. & Kockelman, Kara M., 2012. "Strategic sampling for large choice sets in estimation and application," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 602-613.
    8. Schneider, Robert J. & Arnold, Lindsay S. & Ragland, David R., 2009. "A Pilot Model for Estimating Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Volumes," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3nr8h66j, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    9. Anas, Alex, 1983. "Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 13-23, February.
    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. Berjisian, Elmira & Habibian, Meeghat, 2019. "Developing a pedestrian destination choice model using the stratified importance sampling method," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 39-47.
    2. Gen Hayauchi & Ryo Ariyoshi & Takayuki Morikawa & Fumihiko Nakamura, 2023. "Assessment of the Improvement of Public Transport in Hillside Cities Considering the Impact of Topography on Walking Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Bojing Liao & Pauline E. W. van den Berg & Pieter J. V. van Wesemael & Theo A. Arentze, 2020. "How Does Walkability Change Behavior? A Comparison between Different Age Groups in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Clifton, Kelly J. & Singleton, Patrick A. & Muhs, Christopher D. & Schneider, Robert J., 2016. "Representing pedestrian activity in travel demand models: Framework and application," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 111-122.
    5. Mingzhu Song & Kaiping Wang & Yi Zhang & Meng Li & He Qi & Yi Zhang, 2020. "Impact Evaluation of Bike-Sharing on Bicycling Accessibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Gehrke, Steven R. & Wang, Liming, 2020. "Operationalizing the neighborhood effects of the built environment on travel behavior," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Raoul S. Liévanos & Amy Lubitow & Julius Alexander McGee, 2019. "Misrecognition in a Sustainability Capital: Race, Representation, and Transportation Survey Response Rates in the Portland Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.

    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. Berjisian, Elmira & Habibian, Meeghat, 2019. "Developing a pedestrian destination choice model using the stratified importance sampling method," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 39-47.
    2. Qin Zhang & Rolf Moeckel & Kelly J. Clifton, 2024. "MoPeD meets MITO: a hybrid modeling framework for pedestrian travel demand," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1327-1347, August.
    3. Keunhyun Park & Dong-Ah Choi & Guang Tian & Reid Ewing, 2019. "Not Parking Lots but Parks: A Joint Association of Parks and Transit Stations with Travel Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-9, February.
    4. Gustav Bösehans & Ian Walker, 2020. "Do supra-modal traveller types exist? A travel behaviour market segmentation using Goal framing theory," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 243-273, February.
    5. Clifton, Kelly J. & Singleton, Patrick A. & Muhs, Christopher D. & Schneider, Robert J., 2016. "Representing pedestrian activity in travel demand models: Framework and application," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 111-122.
    6. Juwon Chung & Seung-Nam Kim & Hyungkyoo Kim, 2019. "The Impact of PM 10 Levels on Pedestrian Volume: Findings from Streets in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Arellana, Julián & Saltarín, María & Larrañaga, Ana Margarita & González, Virginia I. & Henao, César Augusto, 2020. "Developing an urban bikeability index for different types of cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 310-334.
    8. Nichols, Brice G. & Kockelman, Kara M., 2014. "Life-cycle energy implications of different residential settings: Recognizing buildings, travel, and public infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 232-242.
    9. Zuo, Ting & Wei, Heng & Liu, Hao & Yang, Y. Jeffrey, 2019. "Bi-level optimization approach for configuring population and employment distributions with minimized vehicle travel demand," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 161-172.
    10. Sun, Bindong & Liu, Jiahang & Yin, Chun & Cao, Jason, 2022. "Residential and workplace neighborhood environments and life satisfaction: Exploring chain-mediation effects of activity and place satisfaction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. H. M. Abdul Aziz & Nicholas N. Nagle & April M. Morton & Michael R. Hilliard & Devin A. White & Robert N. Stewart, 2018. "Exploring the impact of walk–bike infrastructure, safety perception, and built-environment on active transportation mode choice: a random parameter model using New York City commuter data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1207-1229, September.
    13. Schirmer, Patrick & van Eggermond, Michael & Axhausen, Kay, 2014. "The role of location in residential location choice models: a review of literature," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 7(2), pages 3-21.
    14. Ann, Hartell, 2015. "Contextualizing Location Affordability: Urban Sprawl and Foreclosure," SRE-Discussion Papers 2015/06, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    15. Liang Ma & Jason Cao, 2019. "How perceptions mediate the effects of the built environment on travel behavior?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 175-197, February.
    16. Kevin Chan & Steven Farber, 2020. "Factors underlying the connections between active transportation and public transit at commuter rail in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2157-2178, October.
    17. Kevin Fang & Susan Handy, 2019. "Skateboarding for transportation: exploring the factors behind an unconventional mode choice among university skateboard commuters," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 263-283, February.
    18. Schneider, Robert James, 2011. "Understanding Sustainable Transportation Choices: Shifting Routine Automobile Travel to Walking and Bicycling," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt06v2g6dh, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. Jindo Jeong & Jiwon Lee & Tae‐Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2022. "Travel mode choice as a representation of travel utility: A multilevel approach reflecting the hierarchical structure of trip, individual, and neighborhood characteristics," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(3), pages 745-765, June.
    20. Guo, Yuanyuan & He, Sylvia Y., 2021. "The role of objective and perceived built environments in affecting dockless bike-sharing as a feeder mode choice of metro commuting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 377-396.

    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:eee:transa:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:255-265. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.