The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California

Cao, Mokhtarian, Handy, 2009, in Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2009.02.001
Location Northern California
Population General
Sample size 1682
Factor analysis type principal components, Oblique rotation
Stepwise regression nan
Removal of insignificant variables nan
Reviewed by AR

Abstract

Many studies have found that residents living in suburban neighborhoods drive more and walk less than their counterparts in traditional neighborhoods. This evidence supports the advocacy of smart growth strategies to alter individuals' travel behavior. However, the observed differences in travel behavior may be more of a residential choice than a travel choice. Applying the seemingly unrelated regression approach to a sample from Northern California, we explored the relationship between the residential environment and nonwork travel frequencies by auto, transit, and walk/bicycle modes, controlling for residential self-selection. We found that residential preferences and travel attitudes (self-selection) significantly influenced tripmaking by all three modes, and also that neighborhood characteristics (the built environment and its perception) retained a separate influence on behavior after controlling for self-selection. Both preferences/attitudes and the built environment itself played a more prominent role in explaining the variation in non-motorized travel than for auto and transit travel. Taken together, our results suggest that if cities use land use policies to offer options to drive less and use transit and non-motorized modes more, many residents will tend to do so. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Factors

Variable Pattern loading
Easy access to regional shopping mall (Res preference/perception) 0.854
Easy access to downtown (Res preference/perception) 0.83
Other amenities such as a pool or a community center available nearby (Res preference/perception) 0.667
Shopping areas within walking distance (Res preference/perception) 0.652
Easy access to the freeway (Res preference/perception) 0.528
Good public transit service(bus or rail) (Res preference/perception) 0.437
Variable Pattern loading
Attractive appearance of neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.78
High level of upkeep in neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.723
Variety in housing styles (Res preference/perception) 0.68
Big street trees (Res preference/perception) 0.451
Variable Pattern loading
Large back yards (Res preference/perception) 0.876
Large front yards (Res preference/perception) 0.858
Lots of off-street parking(garages or driveways) (Res preference/perception) 0.562
Big street trees (Res preference/perception) 0.404
Variable Pattern loading
Good bicycle routes beyond the neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.882
Sidewalks throughout the neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.707
Parking and open spaces nearby (Res preference/perception) 0.637
Good public transit service(bus or rail) (Res preference/perception) 0.353
Variable Pattern loading
Quiet neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.78
Low crime rate within neighborhood (Safety) 0.759
Low level of car traffic on neighborhood streets (Res preference/perception) 0.752
Safe neighborhood for walking (Safety) 0.741
Safe neighborhood for kids to play outdoors (Res preference/perception) 0.634
Good street lighting (Safety) 0.751
Variable Pattern loading
Diverse neighbors in terms of ethnicity, race, and age (Res preference/perception) 0.789
Lots of people out and about within the neighborhood (Res preference/perception) 0.785
Lots of interaction among neighbors (Res preference/perception) 0.614
Economic level of neighbors similar to my level (Res preference/perception) 0.476
Variable Pattern loading
I need a car to do many of the things I like to do (Convenience) 0.612
Getting to work without a car is a hassle (Convenience) 0.524
We could manage pretty well with one fewer car than we have (or with no car) (Convenience) -0.418
Traveling by car is safer overall than riding a bicycle (Safety) 0.402
I like driving (Mode-liking) 0.356
Variable Pattern loading
I like riding a bike (Mode-liking) 0.88
I prefer to bike rather than drive whenever possible (Mode-liking) 0.865
Biking can sometimes be easier for me than driving (Convenience) 0.818
I prefer to walk rather than drive whenever possible (Mode-liking) 0.461
I like walking (Mode-liking) 0.4
Walking can sometimes be easier for me than driving (Convenience) 0.339
Variable Pattern loading
I like taking transit (Mode-liking) 0.778
I prefer to take transit rather than drive whenever possible (Mode-liking) 0.771
Public transit can sometimes easier for me than driving (Convenience) 0.757
I like walking (Mode-liking) 0.363
Walking can sometimes be easier for me than driving (Convenience) 0.344
Traveling by car is safer overall than riding a bike (Safety) 0.338
Variable Pattern loading
The trip to/from work is a useful transition between home and work (Lifestyle) 0.683
Travel time is generally wasted time (Convenience) -0.681
I use my trip to/from work productively (Lifestyle) 0.616
The only good thing about traveling is arriving at your destination (Convenience) -0.563
I like driving (Mode-liking) 0.479
Variable Pattern loading
Traveling by car is safer overall than riding a bicycle (Safety) 0.489
Traveling by car is safer overall than walking (Safety) 0.753
Traveling by car is safer overall than taking transit (Safety) 0.633
The region needs to build more highways to reduce traffic congestion (Transport policy) 0.444
The price of gasoline affects the choices I make about my daily travel (Cost) 0.357
Variable Pattern loading
Fuel efficiency is an important factor for me in choosing a vehicle (Environmentalism) 0.679
I prefer to organize my errands so that I make as few trips as possible (Convenience) 0.617
I often use the telephone of the Internet to avoid having to travel somewhere (Lifestyle) 0.514
The price of gasoline affects the choices I make about my daily travel (Cost) 0.513
I try to limit my driving to help improve air quality (Environmentalism) 0.458
Vehicles should be taxed on the basis of the amount of pollution they produce (Transport policy) 0.426
When I need to buy something, I usually prefer to get it at the closest store possible (Convenience) 0.332

Models

Dependent variable Trip frequency by auto
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1319.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of autos 0.963 0
Age -0.053 0
Worker -3.288 0
Income 0.018 0.001
# of children(≤ 5 years old) -1.14 0.006
# of business types within 400 meters -0.224 0.004
physical activity options -0.411 0.066
perceived closeness to family 0.575 0.001
Constant 17.066 0
Dependent variable Trip frequency by auto
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1277.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of autos 0.935 0
Age -0.06 0
Worker -3.72 0
Income 0.016 0.004
# of children(≤ 5 years old) -1.356 0.001
# of business types within 400 meters -0.166 0.035
physical activity options -0.5 0.025
perceived closeness to family 0.525 0.002
Safety 0.523 0.022
Car dependent 0.766 0
Travel liking 0.581 0.001
Constant 17.829 0
Dependent variable Trips frequency by Transit
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1319.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of autos/# of driving-age(16-85) household members -0.693 0
Driver's license -4.465 0
Limitation on driving on the freeway 1.98 0.001
# of buisness types within 800 meters 0.047 0.015
Constant 5.372 0
Dependent variable Trip frequency by Transit
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1277.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of autos/# of driving-age(16-85) household members -0.556 0.001
Driver's license -5.088 0
# of institutional businesses within 800 meters 0.05 0.002
Good public transit service 0.214 0.004
Car dependent -0.184 0.016
Pro-transit 0.379 0
Pro-bike/walk -0.175 0.022
Constant 5.441 0
Dependent variable Trips by Walk/Bike
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1319.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of autos -0.548 0.014
# of bikes 0.837 0
Age -0.071 0
Worker -2.05 0
Education 0.566 0
Limitation on driving on the freeway 3.358 0.008
Limitation on walking -4.76 0
Neighborhood type(1:traditional; 0: suburban 2.111 0.011
# of business types within 400 meters 0.309 0
Distance to the nearest library(km) -0.45 0.043
Distance to the nearest theater(km) -0.608 0
Distance to the nearest post office(km) -0.737 0.001
Physical activity options 0.592 0.011
Socializing 0.437 0.05
Attractiveness 0.557 0.007
Constant 13.099 0
Dependent variable Trips by Walk/Bike
Model type Seemingly unrelated regression
Sample size 1277.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of bikes 0.24 0.036
Age -0.05 0
Worker -1.878 0
Limitation on walking -2.119 0.012
Neighborhood type(1:traditional; 0: suburban 3.541 0
# of business types within 400 meters 0.307 0
Distance to nearest theater(km) -0.438 0
Attractiveness 0.372 0.043
Perceived people out and about within the neighborhood 0.412 0.037
Accessibility 0.612 0.004
Physical activity options 0.532 0.01
Outdoor spaciousness -0.483 0.008
Safety of car -1.286 0
Pro-transit 1.482 0
Pro-bike/walk 1.903 0
Constant 9.678 0
Dependent variable Walking/biking frequency
Model type Random effects model of walking/biking
Sample size 1277.0
R2 0.475
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Coefficient p-value
# of bikes 0.225 0.054
Age -0.047 0
Worker -1.801 0
Limitation on walking -2.022 0.019
Neighborhood type(1:traditonal; 0 suburban) 3.586 0
# of business types within 400m 0.243 0.002
Distance to the nearest theater (km) -0.313 0.075
Attractiveness 0.403 0.034
Perceived people out and about within the neighborhood 0.382 0.057
Accessibility 0.593 0.006
Physical activity options 0.506 0.015
Outdoor spaciousness -0.457 0.015
Safety of car -1.222 0
Pro-transit 1.428 0
Pro-bike/walk 1.931 0
Constant 9.289 0

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