Many people find some intrinsic value in travel itself. This leads to excess travel, which can have important (mode-specific) secondary effects. Society would benefit if individuals satisfied more of their desire for travel by choosing to walk or bike rather than drive. However, our understanding of the determinants of travel for its own sake and the role of the residential environment in shaping it is limited. Using data collected from 1,682 respondents in Northern California, this study explores environmental correlates of traveling out of the house with no particular destination in mind, controlling for attitudinal and sociodemographic factors. We found that the generation of such “undirected travel” is influenced by attitudes but residential environment characteristics also matter. Specifically, proximity to business, not living on a cul-de-sac, and aesthetic qualities encourage undirected walking/biking. We speculate that providing neighborhood-based physical activity options may lead to the substitution of walking/biking for driving.
Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research A, 39, 163-181.
2.
Arentze, T.A., & Timmermans, H.J.P. (2005). Information gain, novelty seeking and travel: A model of dynamic activity-travel behavior under conditions of uncertainty. Transportation Research A, 39(2-3), 125-145.
3.
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
Bekhor, S., Ben-Akiva, M.E., & Ramming, M.S. (2006). Evaluation of choice set generation algorithms for route choice models. Annals of Operations Research, 144, 235-247.
5.
Boarnet, M.G., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of urban form on travel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Burden, D., & Lagerwey, P. (1999). Road diets: Fixing the big roads. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from http://www.walkable.org/download/rdiets.pdf
7.
Cao, X., Handy, S.L., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2006). The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, 33(1), 1-20.
8.
Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2003). Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health , 93, 1478-1483.
9.
Cirillo, C., & Axhausen, K.W. (2006). Evidence on the distribution of values of travel time savings from a six-week diary. Transportation Research A, 40, 444-457.
10.
Crane, R., & Crepeau, R. (1998). Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research D, 3, 225-238.
11.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
12.
Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R.J. (2002). Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Preventive Medicine, 35, 601-611.
13.
Handy, S.L. (1996). Urban form and pedestrian choices: A study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record, 1552, 135-144.
14.
Handy, S. (2006). The road less driven. Journal of American Planning Association, 72, 274-278.
15.
Handy, S.L., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2006). Self-selection in the relationship between built environment and walking: Evidence from Northern California. Journal of American Planning Association, 72(1), 55-74.
16.
Handy, S., Weston, L., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2005). Driving by choice or necessity ? Transportation Research A, 39, 183-203.
17.
Hensher, D.A., & Rose, J.M. (2005). Respondent behavior in discrete choice modeling with a focus on the valuation of travel time savings. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 8(2), 17-30. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_08_number_02/
18.
Hupkes, G. (1982). The law of constant travel time and trip-rates . Futures, 14(1), 38-46.
19.
Jones, P.M. (1978). Destination choice and travel attributes. In D. Hensher & Q. Dalvi (Eds.), Determinants of travel choice (pp. 266-311). New York: Praeger.
20.
Marchetti, C. (1994). Anthropological invariants in travel behavior . Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 47(1), 75-88.
21.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2005). Travel as a desired end, not just a means. Transportation Research A, 39(2-3), 93-96.
22.
Mokhtarian, P.L., & Salomon, I. (2001). How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research A , 35, 695-719.
23.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., & Redmond, L.S. (2001). Understanding the demand for travel: It's not purely "derived." Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 14, 355-380.
24.
Ory, D.T., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2005). When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transportation Research A, 39(2-3), 97-123.
25.
Parkany, E., Du, J., Aultman-Hall, L., & Gallagher, R. (2006). Modeling stated and revealed route choice: Consideration of consistency, diversion and attitudinal variables. Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board , Washington, DC. Paper No. 06-0579 on the conference CD.
26.
Redmond, L.S., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2001). The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount . Transportation, 28, 179-205.
27.
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8, 179-193.
28.
Richardson, A.J. (2003). Some evidence of travelers with zero value of time. Transportation Research Record, 1854, 107-113.
29.
Salomon, I., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (1998). What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies? Transportation Research D, 3(3), 129-140.
30.
Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Steg, L. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research A, 39, 147-162.
32.
Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine. (2005, January). Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence (Special Rep. No. 282). Washington, DC. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr282.pdf
