Understanding the effect of built environment on travel behavior has been an important research issue in transportation, geography, and urban planning. Geographic scales for travel behavior research have started attracting attentions in recent years. In this research, we proposed a method to extract suitable geographic scales of built environment influence on travel behavior with different travel purposes. We designed a modeling framework to examine different types of corresponding scales that affect the relationships between travel behavior and the built environment. The scale-correspondence covers the aspects of geography, model, and indicators. In a real travel data supported case study, the results show a stronger and more explainable influence from built environment on travel distance and travel mode choices at scale-corresponding models than that with the non-scale-corresponding models. We discovered that all three types of scale correspondence can reduce the geographic-contextual uncertainty in both travel and built environment contexts. The results of this study offer methodological insights that may facilitate further research investigating travel behaviors.
HansonS.HuffJ.Classification Issues in the Analysis of Complex Travel Behavior. Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1986, pp. 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00148620
2.
BuliungR. N.RoordaM. J.RemmelT. K.Exploring Spatial Variety in Patterns of Activity-Travel Behavior: Initial Results from the Toronto Travel-Activity Panel Survey (TTAPS). Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 697–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9178-4
3.
GongY.LinY.DuanZ.Exploring the Spatiotemporal Structure of Dynamic Urban Space Using Metro Smart Card Records. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 64, 2017, pp. 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.02.003
4.
RenM.LinY.JinM.DuanZ.GongY.LiuY.Examining the Effect of Land-Use Function Complementarity on Intra-Urban Spatial Interactions Using Metro Smart Card Records. Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1607–1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09977-7
5.
PushkarA. O.HollingworthB. J.MillerE. J.A Multivariate Regression Model for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Alternative Neighborhood Designs. Presented at 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
6.
BoarnetM.CraneR.The Influence of Land Use on Travel Behavior: Specification and Estimation Strategies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2001, pp. 823–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(00)00019-7
7.
EwingR.CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of The American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
8.
WangD.ZhouM.The Built Environment and Travel Behavior in Urban China: A Literature Review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 52, 2017, pp. 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.031
9.
MitraR.BuliungR. N.Built Environment Correlates of Active School Transportation: Neighborhood and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2012, pp. 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.009
10.
RoofK.OleruN.Public Health: Seattle and King County’s Push for the Built Environment. Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2008, pp. 24–27.
11.
EwingR.CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001. 1780: 265–294.
12.
CerveroR.KockelmanK.Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
13.
MunshiT.Built Environment and Mode Choice Relationship for Commute Travel in the City of Rajkot, India. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 44, 2016, pp. 239–253.
14.
McFaddenD.Modelling the Choice of Residential Location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, Vol. 673, 1977, pp. 72–77.
15.
CerveroR.Mixed Land-Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1996, pp. 361–377.
16.
Heres-Del-ValleD.NiemeierD.CO Emissions: Are Land-Use Changes Enough for California to Reduce VMT? Specification of a Two-Part Model with Instrumental Variables. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2011, pp. 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.04.001
17.
MaatK.TimmermansH. J. P.A Causal Model Relating Urban Form with Daily Travel Distance Through Activity/Travel Decisions. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 32, 2009, pp. 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060902861285
18.
WangD.ChaiY.LiF.Built Environment Diversities and Activity–Travel Behavior Variations in Beijing, China. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.008
19.
OpenshawS.The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, 1984.
20.
FotheringhamA. S.WongD. W.The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Environment Plan A: Economy and Space, Vol. 23, No. 7, 1991, pp. 1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.1068/a231025
21.
ZhangM.KukadiaN.Metrics of Urban Form and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005. 1902: 71–79.
22.
BiehlA.ErmagunA.StathopoulosA.Community Mobility MAUP-ing: A Socio-Spatial Investigation of Bikeshare Demand in Chicago. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 66, 2018, pp. 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.008
23.
YangL.HuL.WangZ.The Built Environment and Trip Chaining Behavior Revisited: The Joint Effects of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem and Tour Purpose. Urban Studies, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2018, pp. 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017749188
24.
HongJ.ShenQ.ZhangL.How do Built-Environment Factors Affect Travel Behavior? A Spatial Analysis at Different Geographic Scales. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2014, pp. 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9462-9
25.
GehrkeS. R.CliftonK.Operationalizing Land Use Diversity at Varying Geographic Scales and Its Connection to Mode Choice: Evidence from Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol 2453, No. 1, 2014, pp. 128–136. https://doi.org/10.3141/2453-16
26.
EwingR.TianG.GoatesJ. P.ZhangM.GreenwaldM. J.JoyceA.KircherJ.GreeneW.Varying Influences of the Built Environment on Household Travel in 15 Diverse Regions of the United States. Urban Studies, Vol. 52, No. 13, 2015, pp. 2330–2348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014560991
27.
GehrkeS. R.WangL.Operationalizing the Neighborhood Effects of the Built Environment on Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 28, 2020, p. 102561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102561
28.
KwanM.-P.The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 102, No. 5, 2012, pp. 958–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.687349
29.
GoodchildM. F.A GIScience Perspective on the Uncertainty of Context. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 108, No. 6, 2018, pp. 1476–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1416281
30.
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D.Gannon-RowleyT.Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social Processes and New Directions in Research. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28, 2002, pp. 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114
31.
ChaixB.Geographic Life Environments and Coronary Heart Disease: A Literature Review, Theoretical Contributions, Methodological Updates, and a Research Agenda. Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100158
32.
GongL.JinM.LiuQ.GongY.LiuY.Identifying Urban Residents’ Activity Space at Multiple Geographic Scales Using Mobile Phone Data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2020, p. 241. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9040241
33.
TurnerM. G.DaleV. H.GardnerR. H.Predicting Across Scales: Theory Development and Testing. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 3, No. 3–4, 1989, pp. 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00131542
34.
GibsonC.OstromE.AhnT. K.Scaling Issues in the Social Sciences: A Report for the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Ecology and Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1997, p. 8. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.
SunB.ErmagunA.DanB.Built Environmental Impacts on Commuting Mode Choice and Distance: Evidence from Shanghai. Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment, Vol. 52, Part B, 2017, pp. 441–453.
37.
SchwanenT.DielemanF. M.DijstM.The Impact of Metropolitan Structure on Commute Behavior in the Netherlands: A Multilevel Approach. Growth and Change, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2004, pp. 304–333.
38.
ChenC.GongH.PaaswellR.Role of the Built Environment on Mode Choice Decisions: Additional Evidence on the Impact of Density. Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2008, pp. 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9153-5
39.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4
40.
GriffithD. A.Spatial Autocorrelation. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (Kempf-LeonardK., ed.), 3rd ed.Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005, pp. 581–590.
