The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach

Bagley and Mokhtarian, 2002, in Annals of Regional Science

doi:nan
Location San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Population Other (specify)
Sample size 515
Factor analysis type nan, nan rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables yes
Reviewed by MWC

Abstract

. Using a system of structural equations, this paper empirically examines the relationship of residential neighborhood type to travel behavior, incorporating attitudinal, lifestyle, and demographic variables. Data on these variables were collected from residents of five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1993 (final N=515), including “traditional” and “suburban” as well as mixtures of those two extremes. A conceptual model of the interrelationships among the key variables of interest was operationalized with a nine-equation structural model system. The nine endogenous variables included two measures of residential location type, three measures of travel demand, three attitudinal measures, and one measure of job location. In terms of both direct and total effects, attitudinal and lifestyle variables had the greatest impact on travel demand among all the explanatory variables. By contrast, residential location type had little impact on travel behavior. This is perhaps the strongest evidence to date supporting the speculation that the association commonly observed between land use configuration and travel patterns is not one of direct causality, but due primarily to correlations of each of those variables with others. In particular, the results suggest that when attitudinal, lifestyle, and sociodemographic variables are accounted for, neighborhood type has little influence on travel behavior.

Factors

Models

Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Constant Residential location: traditional 1.822 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Residential location: suburban -1.034 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Pro-high density 0.204 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Pro-driving -1.407 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Pro-transit -0.046 0.272 direct_effect
Constant Ln vehicle miles 3.838 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Ln transit miles 0.823 0.002 direct_effect
Constant Ln walk/bike miles 0.16 0.0 direct_effect
Constant Commute distance (miles) -3.313 0.231 direct_effect
Age Residential location: traditional -0.018 0.0 direct_effect
Age Residential location: suburban 0.009 0.009 direct_effect
Female Pro-driving 0.543 0.0 direct_effect
Female Ln vehicle miles -0.812 0.0 direct_effect
Household size Residential location: traditional -0.081 0.055 direct_effect
Ln number of people under age 16 Pro-high density -0.328 0.0 direct_effect
Sq number of vehicles Residential location: traditional -0.761 0.0 direct_effect
Sq number of vehicles Ln vehicle miles 1.652 0.0 direct_effect
Sq number of vehicles Ln transit miles -0.87 0.0 direct_effect
Years lived in Bay Area Pro-driving 0.004 0.028 direct_effect
Ln adventurer Ln vehicle miles 0.554 0.017 direct_effect
Culture-lover Residential location: suburban -0.178 0.0 direct_effect
Culture-lover Pro-high density 0.23 0.0 direct_effect
Hobbyist Residential location: suburban -0.099 0.006 direct_effect
Homebody Residential location: suburban 0.217 0.0 direct_effect
Nest-builder Residential location: traditional -0.143 0.0 direct_effect
Nest-builder Pro-high density -0.14 0.0 direct_effect
Outdoor enthusiast Pro-high density 0.106 0.004 direct_effect
Relaxer Pro-high density 0.042 0.104 direct_effect
Pro-alternatives Residential location: suburban -0.07 0.117 direct_effect
Pro-alternatives Ln walk/bike miles 0.026 0.034 direct_effect
Pro-drive alone Pro-transit 0.178 0.0 direct_effect
Pro-environment Pro-transit 0.161 0.0 direct_effect
Pro-growth Ln transit miles -0.058 0.039 direct_effect
Pro-pricing Residential location: traditional 0.108 0.002 direct_effect
Pro-pricing Residential location: suburban -0.074 0.026 direct_effect
Time-satisfied Pro-driving -0.109 0.002 direct_effect
Work-driven Pro-high density 0.092 0.011 direct_effect
Pro-high density Residential location: traditional 0.591 0.0 direct_effect
Pro-driving Pro-high density -0.702 0.0 direct_effect
Pro-driving Ln walk/bike miles -0.082 0.046 direct_effect
Pro-transit Ln transit miles 0.286 0.011 direct_effect
Residential location: suburban Commute distance (miles) 2.149 0.005 direct_effect
Ln vehicle miles Pro-driving 0.226 0.0 direct_effect
Ln vehicle miles Commute distance (miles) 2.213 0.0 direct_effect
Ln transit miles Commute distance (miles) 5.732 0.0 direct_effect
Ln walk/bike miles Ln vehicle miles -7.201 0.042 direct_effect
Commute distance (miles) Residential location: suburban 0.059 0.009 direct_effect
Commute distance (miles) Ln transit miles 0.065 0.001 direct_effect

The Attitudes and Travel Database is produced with support from the Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks at Arizona State University, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the US Department of Transportation through Grant No. 69A3551747116.

sha256:a08d9e369743bf7e6d1c40d27347318209b40a7fb1543813fdcf31b898918815