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: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/07q5p340.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Golob, Thomas F., 2003. "Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Crane, Randall, 1998. "Travel By Design?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3pc4v6jj, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1983. "Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 507-512, March.
    24. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. Ted Gayer, 2001. "The Fatality Risks of Sport-Utility Vehicles, Vans, and Pickups," Econometrics 0103001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    30. Cervero, Robert & Radisch, Carolyn, 1996. "Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 127-141, July.
    31. Susan Handy & Kelly Clifton, 2001. "Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 317-346, November.
    32. Hazel Morrow‐Jones & Elena Irwin & Brian Roe, 2004. "Consumer Preference for Neotraditional Neighborhood Characteristics," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 171-202.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cao, XinYu, 2007. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1n90z8h8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Cao, Xinyu (Jason) & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L., 2009. "The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 548-559, June.
    3. Cao, Xinyu & Mokhtarian, Patricia & Handy, Susan, 2008. "Examining The Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behavior: Methodologies and Empirical Findings," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt08x1k476, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. 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.
    5. Metin Senbil & Ryuichi Kitamura & Jamilah Mohamad, 2009. "Residential location, vehicle ownership and travel in Asia: a comparative analysis of Kei-Han-Shin and Kuala Lumpur metropolitan areas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 325-350, May.
    6. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Cao, Xinyu, 2008. "Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 204-228, March.
    7. Xinyu Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2012. "The connections among accessibility, self- selection and walking behaviour: a case study of Northern California residents," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 5, pages 73-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof & Bhat, Chandra R. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Residential self-selection effects in an activity time-use behavior model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 729-748, August.
    9. Tae‐Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2021. "Quantile regression on the nonlinear relationship between land use and trip time," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(4), pages 1055-1077, August.
    10. Jacques, Cynthia & Ahmed M. El-Geneidy, Ahmed M. El-Geneidy, 2014. "Does travel behavior matter in defining urban form? A quantitative analysis characterizing distinct areas within a region," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14.
    11. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    12. Lara Engelfriet & Eric Koomen, 2018. "The impact of urban form on commuting in large Chinese cities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1269-1295, September.
    13. Wang, Tingting & Chen, Cynthia, 2012. "Attitudes, mode switching behavior, and the built environment: A longitudinal study in the Puget Sound Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1594-1607.
    14. Tae-Hyoung Gim, 2012. "A meta-analysis of the relationship between density and travel behavior," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 491-519, May.
    15. Jen-Jia Lin & An-Tsei Yang, 2009. "Structural Analysis of How Urban Form Impacts Travel Demand: Evidence from Taipei," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(9), pages 1951-1967, August.
    16. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica Y., 2007. "A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 506-526, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Jie Lin & Liang Long, 2008. "What neighborhood are you in? Empirical findings of relationships between household travel and neighborhood characteristics," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 739-758, November.
    19. Li, Jingjing & Kim, Changjoo & Sang, Sunhee, 2018. "Exploring impacts of land use characteristics in residential neighborhood and activity space on non-work travel behaviors," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 141-147.
    20. Faizeh Hatami & Jean-Claude Thill, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evaluation of the Built Environment’s Impact on Commuting Duration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.

    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.

    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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.