The literature on the relationship between the built environment and travel has identified population density and the mix of land uses as key characteristics of the urban form that affect travel patterns. However, in cities with strong sociospatial disparities it is not clear if these characteristics apply in the same way. In this paper we use regression analysis to estimate the influence of the spatial growth pattern of Santiago, Chile, on the environmental impact of commuting. Our findings can be summarized in three points: The travel impact increases as the city spreads out because of the monocentric nature of Santiago; the environmental impact of commuting could be reduced by containing commuters within the area where they live; and the use of public transport reduces the impact, but the modal choice depends not only on the effectiveness of the transport system but also on the characteristics of the urban form and other socioeconomic determinants. Consequently, we propose to reorient the growth pattern in three ways: redirecting land-use policy to promote development within the already built area, developing compact areas where residential and economic activities are mixed, and facing sociospatial disparities as a way to encourage the use of public transport. This would reduce the environmental impact of commuting while, at the same time, tackling sociospatial segregation.
BanisterDWatsonSWoodC, 1997, “Sustainable cities: Transport, energy, and urban form”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24125–143
2.
BentoA MCropperM LMobarakA MVinhaK, 2005, “The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States”Review of Economics and Statistics87466–478
3.
CamagniRGibelliM CRigamontiP, 2002, “Urban mobility and urban form: The social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion”Ecological Economics40199–216
4.
CerveroR, 1996, “Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice30361–377
5.
CerveroRDuncanM, 2006, “Which reduces vehicle travel more: Jobs–housing balance or retail–housing mixing?”Journal of the American Planning Association72475–490
6.
CerveroRMurakamiJ, 2010, “Effects of built environments on vehicle miles traveled: Evidence from 370 US urbanized areas”Environment and Planning A42400–418
7.
CraneR, 2000, “The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review”Journal of Planning Literature153–23
8.
DammertL, 2004, “¿Ciudad sin ciudadanos? Fragmentación, segregación y temor en Santiago”EURE (Santiago)3087–96
9.
DucciM E, 1997, “Chile: El lado obscuro de una política de vivienda exitosa”EURE (Santiago)2399–115
10.
EwingR, 1997, “Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?”Journal of the American Planning Association63107–126
11.
EwingR, 2008, “Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: A literature review”, in Urban Ecology Ed. ZumBrunnenC, (Springer, New York) pp 519–535
12.
EwingRCerveroR, 2010, “Travel and the built environment—a meta-analysis”Journal of the American Planning Association76265–294
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, 44–52
15.
GaletovicAJordánR, 2006, “Santiago: ¿Dónde estamos?, ¿Hacia dónde vamos?”, in Santiago. Dónde Estamos y Hacia Dónde Vamos Ed. GaletovicA, (Centro de Estudios Públicos, Santiago de Chile) pp 25–72
16.
GaletovicAPodujeI, 2006, “¿Quién es Santiago?”, in Santiago. Dónde Estamos y Hacia Dónde Vamos Ed. GaletovicA, (Centro de Estudios Públicos, Santiago de Chile) pp 3–24
17.
GiulianoGNarayanD, 2003, “Another look at travel patterns and urban form: The US and Great Britain”Urban Studies402295–2312
18.
GiulianoGSmallK A, 1993, “Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?”Urban Studies301485–1500
19.
GlaeserE LKahnM E, 2003, “Sprawl and urban growth”, DP 2004, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
20.
GobillonLSelodHZenouY, 2007, “The mechanisms of spatial mismatch”Urban Studies442401–2427
21.
HandyS, 1996, “Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior”Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment1151–165
22.
HandySCaoXMokhtarianP, 2005, “Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California”Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment10427–444
23.
HidalgoR, 2007, “¿Se acabó el suelo en la gran ciudad?: Las nuevas periferias metropolitanas de la vivienda social en Santiago de Chile”EURE (Santiago)3357–75
24.
JanoschkaM, 2002, “El nuevo modelo de la ciudad latinoamericana: Fragmentación y privatización”EURE (Santiago)2811–20
25.
JordánRRehnerJSamaniegoJ L, 2010Metropolitan Panorama Latin America. Volume I: Megacities and SustainabilityECLAC, Santiago de Chile, http://www.eclac.cl/dmaah/
26.
JunM, 2004, “The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting”Urban Studies411333–1348
27.
MaKBanisterD, 2007, “Urban spatial change and excess commuting”Environment and Planning A39630–646
28.
MIDEPLAN, 2006Encuesta De Caracterización Socioeconómica NacionalMinisterio de Planificacion, Santiago de Chile, http://www.mideplan.cl/casen/
29.
MillerEIbrahimA, 1998, “Urban form and vehicular travel: Some empirical findings”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1617, 18–27
30.
MonzónA, 2005, “Gestión del transporte metropolitano”, in Gobernar las Metrópolis Eds RojasECuadrado-RouraJ RGüellJ M Fernández (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Washington, DC) pp 409–470
31.
NewmanP W GKenworthyJ R, 1989, “Gasoline consumption and cities”Journal of the American Planning Association5524–37
32.
NewmanPKenworthyJ R, 2000, “Sustainable urban form: The big picture”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form Eds WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM, (E&FN Spon, London) pp 109–121
RickwoodPGlazebrookGSearleG, 2008, “Urban structure and energy—a review”Urban Policy and Research2657–81
35.
VignoliJ Rodríguez, 2008, “Movilidad cotidiana, desigualdad social y segregación residencial en cuatro metrópolis de América Latina”EURE (Santiago)3449–71
36.
RojasE, 2005, “Las regiones metropolitanas de América Latina. Problemas de desarrollo y gobierno”, in Gobernar Las Metrópolis Eds RojasECuadrado-RouraJ RGüellJ M Fernández, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Washington, DC), pp 35–62
37.
RojasEVillaescusaE RodriguezWegelinE, 2004Volver Al Centro. La Recuperación De Áreas Urbanas CentralesBanco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Washington, DC
38.
SabatiniFCáceresGCerdaJ, 2001, “Segregación residencial en las principales ciudades chilenas: Tendencias de las tres últimas décadas y posibles cursos de acción”EURE (Santiago)2721–42
39.
SchwanenTDijstMDielemanF M, 2004, “Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: The Netherlands experience”Urban Studies41579–603
40.
SECTRA, 2006Encuesta de Origen y Destino de Viajes en HogaresSecretaría de Planificación de Transporte, Santiago de Chile, http://sintia.sectra.cl/
41.
SII, 2005Base De Datos Del Servicio De Impuestos InternosServicio de Impuestos Internos, Santiago de Chile, http://www.sii.cl.estadisticas
42.
TieboutC M, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditures”Journal of Political Economy64416
43.
TokmanA, 2006, “El Minvu, la política habitacional y la expansión excesiva de Santiago”, in Santiago. Dónde Estamos y Hacia Dónde Vamos Ed. GaletovicA, (Centro de Estudios Públicos, Santiago de Chile) pp 489–522
44.
da G TorresH, 2008Social and Environmental Aspects of Peri-urban Growth in Latin American MegacitiesUnited Nations Expert Group Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development, UN, New York, http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_PopDist/
45.
TravisiC MCamagniRNijkampP, 2006, “Analysis of environmental costs of mobility due to urban sprawl—a modelling study on Italian cities”, DP TI 2006-042/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam
46.
van de CoeveringPSchwanenT, 2006, “Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North-America”Transport Policy13229–239
47.
ZhaoPLüBde RooG, 2010, “Urban expansion and transportation: The impact of urban form on commuting patterns on the city fringe of Beijing”Environment and Planning A422467–2486
