Studies in the residential self-selection literature, which use attitudinal factors to model the jointness of residential and travel-related choices, assume a unidirectional impact from attitudes to behavior; however, such an assumption may be violated under several circumstances. In this current study, we allow the error terms of the attitudinal factors to be correlated with the main outcomes as we jointly model residential choice, auto-ownership level, and rank-based modal preferences. In our joint model, we use green lifestyle propensity and luxury lifestyle propensity as the two stochastic latent constructs. The empirical data for this study is drawn from the 2019 multi-city Transformative Technologies in Transportation survey for the city of Austin that elicited information with respect to individuals’ residential location, auto-ownership, and modal preferences through a stated preference experiment in a futuristic autonomous vehicle environment. Results indicate significant unobserved correlations between the latent constructs and the main outcomes; ignoring such endogeneity leads to underestimations of the “true” causal effect of high-density neighborhood (HDN) living on travel-related choices, which can have consequences for policy-making. In our analysis, the “true” causal effect of HDN living on auto-ownership suggests that, on average, the auto-ownership level would reduce by about 29% when an individual is shifted from a non-HDN to a HDN. Furthermore, the probability of using the bicycle mode for non-work pursuits is estimated to increase by 8%, and that of using a private vehicle is estimated to decrease by 3.1%, when individuals are moved from a non-HDN to a HDN.
BhatC. R.GuoJ. Y.A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007, pp. 506–526.
2.
GuanX.WangD.CaoX. J.The Role of Residential Self-Selection in Land Use-Travel Research: A Review of Recent Findings. Transport Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2020, pp. 267–287.
3.
NairG. S.BhatC. R.PendyalaR. M.LooB. P. Y.LamW. H. K.On the Use of Probit-Based Models for Ranking Data Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 229–240.
4.
BhatC. R.A New Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) to Jointly Model Mixed Types of Dependent Variables. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 50–77.
5.
AjzenI.The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1991, pp. 179–211.
6.
BhatC. R.MondalA.A New Flexible Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) With an Application to Examine the Effect of High Density Neighborhood Living on Bicycling Frequency. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 164, 2022, pp. 244–266.
7.
MaddalaG. S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (No. 3). Cambridge University Press, MA, 1983.
8.
LavieriP. S.BhatC. R.Investigating Objective and Subjective Factors Influencing the Adoption, Frequency, and Characteristics of Ride-Hailing Trips. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 105, 2019, pp. 100–125.
9.
BhatC. R.New Matrix-Based Methods for the Analytic Evaluation of the Multivariate Cumulative Normal Distribution Function. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 109, 2018, pp. 238–256.
10.
AsmussenK. E.MondalA.BhatC. R.A Socio-Technical Model of Autonomous Vehicle Adoption Using Ranked Choice Stated Preference Data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 121, 2020, p. 102835.
11.
ZhuM.HuX.LinZ.LiJ.WangS.WangC.Intention to Adopt Bicycle-Sharing in China: Introducing Environmental Concern into the Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 7, No. 33, 2020, pp. 41740–41750.
12.
BlazaninG.MondalA.AsmussenK. E.BhatC. R.E-Scooter Sharing and Bikesharing Systems: An Individual-Level Analysis of Factors Affecting First-Use and Use Frequency. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 135, 2022, p. 103515.
13.
KimS. H.MokhtarianP. L.CircellaG.Will Autonomous Vehicles Change Residential Location and Vehicle Ownership? Glimpses From Georgia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 82, 2020, p. 102291.
HaddadA. J.MondalA.BhatC. R.Eat-in or Eat-Out? A Joint Model to Analyze the New Landscape of Dinner Meal Preferences. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 147, 2023, p. 104016.
17.
MenonN.BarbourN.ZhangY.PinjariA. R.ManneringF.Shared Autonomous Vehicles and Their Potential Impacts on Household Vehicle Ownership: An Exploratory Empirical Assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2019, pp. 111–122.
18.
MoD.ChenX. M.ZhangJ.Modeling and Managing Mixed On-Demand Ride Services of Human-Driven Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 157, 2022, pp. 80–119.
WooldridgeJ. M.Selection Corrections for Panel Data Models Under Conditional Mean Independence Assumptions. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1995, pp. 115–132.
21.
SolonG.HaiderS. J.WooldridgeJ. M.What are We Weighting for?Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2015, pp. 301–316.
22.
XiaoC.McCrightA. M.A Test of the Biographical Availability Argument for Gender Differences in Environmental Behaviors. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2014, pp. 241–263.
23.
AstrozaS.GarikapatiV. M.BhatC. R.PendyalaR. M.LavieriP. S.DiasF. F.Analysis of the Impact of Technology Use on Multimodality and Activity Travel Characteristics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2666: 19–28.
24.
StrapkoN.HempelL.MacIlroyK.SmithK.Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Reevaluating Gender Socialization. Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2016, pp. 1015–1031.
25.
Stokburger-SauerN. E.TeichmannK.Is Luxury Just a Female Thing? The Role of Gender in Luxury Brand Consumption. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 7, 2013, pp. 889–896.
26.
MulderC. H.LausterN. T.Housing and Family: An Introduction. Housing Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2010, pp. 433–440.
27.
BhatC. R.A Comprehensive Dwelling Unit Choice Model Accommodating Psychological Constructs Within a Search Strategy for Consideration Set Formation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 161–188.
28.
LiuX.VedlitzA.ShiL.Examining the Determinants of Public Environmental Concern: Evidence From National Public Surveys. Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 39, 2014, pp. 77–94.
29.
ClementsB.Exploring Public Opinion on the Issue of Climate Change in Britain. British Politics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2012, pp. 183–202.
KahnK.Work and Wealth. A Report From the 2017 Aspen Institute Economic Security. The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., 2018.
32.
HenagerR.CudeB. J.Financial Literacy and Long-and Short-Term Financial Behavior in Different Age Groups. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2016, pp. 3–19.
33.
FisherC.BashyalS.BachmanB.Demographic Impacts on Environmentally Friendly Purchase Behaviors. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2012, pp. 172–184.
34.
FranzenA.VoglD.Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2013, 1001–1008.
35.
PhilippssenJ. S.AngeolettoF. H. SoaresSantanaR. G.Education Level and Income are Important for Good Environmental Awareness: A Case Study From South Brazil. Ecología Austral, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2017, pp. 39–44.
36.
ThomasG. O.FisherR.WhitmarshL.MilfontT. L.PoortingaW.The Impact of Parenthood on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Legacy Hypothesis. Population and Environment, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2018, pp. 261–276.
37.
StrazdinsL.LoughreyB.Too Busy: Why Time is a Health and Environmental Problem. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 12, 2007, pp. 219–221.
38.
AwanU.AbbasiA. S.Environmental Sustainability Through Determinism the Level of Environmental Awareness, Knowledge and Behavior Among Business Graduates. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Science, Vol. 5, No. 9, 2013, pp. 505–515.
39.
BülbülH.BüyükkeklikA.TopalA.ÖzoğluB.The Relationship Between Environmental Awareness, Environmental Behaviors, and Carbon Footprint in Turkish Households. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27, No. 20, 2020, pp. 25009–25028.
40.
PearsonA.SchuldtJ.Romero-CanyasR.BallewM.Larson-KonarD.Diverse Segments of the US Public Underestimate the Environmental Concerns of Minority and Low-Income Americans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 115, No. 49, 2018, pp. 12429–12434.
41.
WenzP.Environmental Justice. In Thinking About the Environment (CahnM. A.O’BrienR., eds.), Routledge, NY, 2015, pp. 214–220.
42.
BanzhafS.MaL.TimminsC.Environmental Justice: The Economics of Race, Place, and Pollution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2019, pp. 185–208.
43.
EtezadyA.ShawF. A.MokhtarianP. L.CircellaG.What Drives the Gap? Applying the Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition Method to Examine Generational Differences in Transportation-Related Attitudes. Transportation, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2021, pp. 857–883.
44.
De VosJ.AlemiF.Are Young Adults Car-Loving Urbanites? Comparing Young and Older Adults’ Residential Location Choice, Travel Behavior and Attitudes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 132, 2020, pp. 986–998.
45.
ClarkB.ChatterjeeK.MeliaS.Changes in Level of Household Car Ownership: The Role of Life Events and Spatial Context. Transportation, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2016, pp. 565–599.
46.
MoosM.From Gentrification to Youthification? The Increasing Importance of Young Age in Delineating High-Density Living. Urban Studies, Vol. 53, No. 14, 2016, pp. 2903–2920.
47.
ClarkB.LyonsG.ChatterjeeK.Understanding the Process that Gives Rise to Household Car Ownership Level Changes. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 55, 2016, pp. 110–120.
48.
PrietoM.BaltasG.StanV.Car Sharing Adoption Intention in Urban Areas: What are the Key Sociodemographic Drivers?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 101, 2017, pp. 218–227.
49.
GiurgeL. M.WhillansA. V.WestC.Why Time Poverty Matters for Individuals, Organisations and Nations. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 10, 2020, pp. 993–1003.
50.
ShirgaokarM.Lanyi-BennettK.I’ll have to Drive There: How Daily Time Constraints Impact Women’s Car Use Differently than Men’s. Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1365–1392.
51.
SkuladottirH.HalldorsdottirS.Women in Chronic Pain: Sense of Control and Encounters With Health Professionals. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 18, No. 7, 2008, pp. 891–901.
52.
LeungE.PaolacciG.PuntoniS.Man Versus Machine: Resisting Automation in Identity-Based Consumer Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 55, No. 6, 2018, pp. 818–831.
53.
GardnerN.CuiJ.CoiacettoE.Harassment on Public Transport and Its Impacts on Women’s Travel Behaviour. Australian Planner, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2017, pp. 8–15.
54.
KaplanD. H.Transportation Sustainability on a University Campus. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2015, pp. 173–186.
55.
SingletonP. A.GoddardT.Cycling by Choice or Necessity? Exploring the Gender Gap in Bicycling in Oregon. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2598: 110–118.
56.
AkarG.FischerN.NamgungM.Bicycling Choice and Gender Case Study: The Ohio State University. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 5, 2013, pp. 347–365.
57.
OthmanK.Public Acceptance and Perception of Autonomous Vehicles: A Comprehensive Review. AI and Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2021, pp. 355–387.
58.
FaberK.van LieropD.How Will Older Adults Use Automated Vehicles? Assessing the Role of AVs in Overcoming Perceived Mobility Barriers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 133, 2020, pp. 353–363.
59.
SiegfriedA. L.BayneA.BeckL. F.FreundK.Older Adult Willingness to Use Fully Autonomous Vehicle (FAV) Ride Sharing. Geriatrics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2021, p. 47.
60.
GilibertM.RibasI.MaslekarN.RosenC.SiebeneichA.Mapping of Service Deployment Use Cases And User Requirements for an On-Demand Shared Ride-Hailing Service: MOIA Test Service Case Study. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2019, pp. 598–606.
61.
ZhongH.LiW.BurrisM. W.TalebpourA.SinhaK. C.Will Autonomous Vehicles Change Auto Commuters’ Value of Travel Time?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 83, 2020, p. 102303.
62.
DongH.Rail-Transit-Induced Gentrification and the Affordability Paradox of TOD. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 63, 2017, pp. 1–10.
63.
ShardaS.AstrozaS.KhoeiniS.BaturI.PendyalaR. M.BhatC. R.Do Attitudes Affect Behavioral Choices or Vice-Versa: Uncovering Latent Segments Within a Heterogeneous Population. Presented at 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Compendium of Papers, Washington, D.C., January 2019.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
