The question of whether characteristics of urban form influence travel behaviour has a long tradition in transportation and urban planning. Positive evidence has been found, however, that serious methodological objections can be raised against many of these studies. Often no explicit attempt was made to disentangle the effects of spatial characteristics against personal and household characteristics. In addition, if both kinds of variables were included in the analysis, researchers were often not aware of the specific statistical problems that relate to the fact that the observations are made at different levels of aggregation. In this paper, therefore, the authors adopt a multilevel analysis to examine the relationship between urban form and travel behaviour.
CerveroRGorhamR, 1995, “Commuting in transit versus automobile neighbourhoods”Journal of the American Planning Association61210–225
10.
de KlerkL A, 1980Op Zoek naar de Ideale Stad [In search of the ideal city] (Van Loghum Slaterus, Deventer)
11.
FlorezJ, 1998, “Urban development patterns and their relationships with travel behaviour”, paper presented at the 26th European Transport Conference, Loughborough, September; copy available from the author
12.
FrankL DPivoG, 1994, “Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single occupant vehicle, transit and walking”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1466, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 37–43
13.
FriedmanBGordonS PPeersJ B, 1994, “Effect of neotraditional neighbourhood design on travel characteristics”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1466, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 63–70
JacobsenN L S, 1997, “Household density and public transport: a practical and pragmatic study of urban land use and city transport”, paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Urban Planning and the Environment, Groningen, May; copy available from the author
22.
KitamuraRMokhtarianP LLaidetL, 1997, “A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighbourhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area”Transportation24125–148
NasarJ L, 1997, “Neo-traditional development, auto-dependency and sense of community”, in Space Design and Management for Place Making Eds AmielM SVischerJ C, EDRA refereed papers 2839–43
25.
NæssPSandbergS L, 1996, “Workplace location, modal split and energy use for commuting trips”Urban Studies33557–580
26.
NæssPRoeP GLarsenS, 1995, “Travelling distances, modal split and transportation energy in thirty residential areas in Oslo”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management38349–370
27.
OwensS E, 1986Energy, Planning and Urban Form (Pion, London)
SchimekP, 1996, “Land use, transit and mode split in Boston and Toronto”, paper presented at the ACSP/AESOP joint international congress, July, Toronto; copy available from the author
30.
SnijdersT A BBoskerR J, 1999Multilevel Analysis (Sage, London)
