This study examines the practicality of smart growth strategies for already compact cities, testing whether zones with high-density development, mixed land use, and transit-oriented development result in shorter travel distances between jobs and housing in the Seoul metropolitan area of Korea. The findings, derived from spatial econometric models, reveal that high-density development does not always reduce these distances. Furthermore, greater subway accessibility induces a longer commuting distance. However, jobs-housing balance, a mixed-use variable, reduces commuting distances. The findings imply that smart growth principles should be applied together, not separately, for better planning results.
AnselinLuc. 2002. Under the Hood Issues in the Specification and Interpretation of Spatial Regression Models. Agricultural Economics27:247–67.
2.
AurandAndrew.2010. Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing?Urban Studies47 (5): 1015–36.
3.
ChristineBaeChang-HeeJunMyung JinParkHyeon. 2003. The Impact of Seoul’s Subway Line 5 on Residential Property Values. Transport Policy10:85–94.
4.
BoussauwKobeNeutensTijsWitloxFrank. 2012. Relationship between Spatial Proximity and Travel-to-Work Distance: The Effect of the Compact City. Regional Studies46 (6): 687–706.
5.
BuchananNickBarnettRossKinghamSimonJohnstonDoug. 2006. The Effect of Urban Growth on Commuting Patterns in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography14:342–54.
6.
BuehlerRalph.2011. Determinants of Transport Mode Choice: A Comparison of Germany and the USA. Journal of Transport Geography19 (4): 644–57.
7.
CerveroRobert.1996. Jobs-Housing Balance Revisited: Trends and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of American Planning Association62 (4): 492–509.
8.
CerveroRobertDuncanMichael. 2006. Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing?Journal of the American Planning Association72:475–90.
9.
CerveroRobertKockelmanKara. 1997. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transport and Environment2 (3): 199–219.
10.
ChristensenJack.2013. On Compact Cities. Lincoln Planning Review5 (1/2): 37–42.
11.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. White paper. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
12.
CorradoLuisaFingletonBernard. 2012. Where is Economics in Spatial Econometrics?Journal of Regional Science52 (3): 192–209.
13.
EwingReidPendallRolfChenDon. 2004. Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
14.
FengJianxiDijstMartinPrillwitzJanWissinkBart. 2013. Travel Time and Distance in International Perspective: A Comparison between Nanjing (China) and the Randstad (the Netherlands). Urban Studies50 (14): 2993–3010.
15.
FilionPierreMcSpurrenKathleen. 2007. Smart Growth and Development Reality: The Difficult Co-ordination of Land Use and Transport Objectives. Urban Studies44 (3): 501–23.
16.
GalsterGeorgeHansonRoyceRatcliffeMichael R.WolmanHaroldColemanStephenFreihageJason. 2001. Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring on Elusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate12:681–717.
17.
GiulianoGenevieveSmallKenneth A. 1993. Is Journey to Work Explained by Structure?Urban Studies30:1485–1500.
18.
GordonPeterKumarAjayRichardsonHarry W.1989. Congestion, Changing Metropolitan Structure, and City Size in United States. International Regional Science Review12:45–56.
19.
GordonPeterRichardsonHarry W.1997. Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?Journal of American Planning Association63 (1): 95–106.
20.
GordonPeterRichardsonHarry W.1991. The Commuting Paradox: Evidence from the Top Twenty. Journal of American Planning Association57 (4): 416–20.
21.
HainingRobert.2003. Spatial Data Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HornerMark W.MeffordJessica N.2007. Investigating Urban Spatial Mismatch Using Job-Housing Indicators to Model Home-Work Separation. Environment and Planning A39:1420–40.
23.
HuiChi ManYuKa Hung. 2013. Commuting Patterns of Residents within a High-Density Urban Development: A Study of Hong Kong. Habitat International39:201–13.
24.
JunMyung JinKimJae IkKwonJin HwiJeongJi Eun. 2013. The Effects of High-Density Development on Commuter Mode Choices in Seoul, Korea. Cities31:230–38.
25.
KainJohn F.1968. Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan Decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics82:651–70.
26.
LeSageJames P.2014. What Regional Scientists Need to Know about Spatial Econometrics. Review of Regional Studies44:13–32.
27.
LevineJonathan.1998. Re-thinking Accessibility and the Jobs-Housing Balance. Journal of the American Planning Association64:133–49.
28.
LinDongAllanAndrewCuiJianqiang. 2015. The Impact of Polycentric Urban Development on Commuting Behavior in Urban China: Evidence from Four Sub-centres of Beijing. Habitat International50:195–205.
29.
LooBecky, P. Y.ChowAlice. 2008. Changing Urban Form in Hong Kong: What are the Challenges on Sustainable Transportation?International Journal of Sustainable Transportation2:177–93.
30.
LopezRussHynezH. Patricia. 2003. Sprawl in the 1990s: Measurement, Distribution, and Trends. Urban Affair Review38 (3): 325–55.
31.
LoweC.1998. Patterns of Spatial Dispersion in Metropolitan Commuting. Urban Geography19 (3): 232–53.
32.
MaatKeesvan WeeBertSteadDominic. 2005. Land Use and Travel Behaviour: Expected Effects from the Perspective of Utility Theory and Activity-Based Theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32 (1): 33–46.
33.
MuellerJulie M.LoomisJohn B.2008. Spatial Dependence in Hedonic Property Models: Do Different Corrections for Spatial Dependence Result in Economically Significant Difference in Estimated Implicit Price?Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics33 (2): 212–31.
34.
NæssPetter.2005. Residential Location Affects Travel Behavior: But How and Why? The Case of Copenhagen Metropolitan Area. Progress in Planning63 (2): 167–257.
35.
NæssPetter.2010. Residential Location, Travel, and Energy Use in the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area. Journal of Transport and Land Use3 (3): 27–59.
36.
NeumanMichael.2005. The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (1): 11–26.
37.
PallagstKarina M.2007. Growth Management in the US. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
RandolphBillTiceAndrew. 2013. Who Lives in Higher Density Housing? A Study of Spatially Discontinuous Housing Sub-Markets in Sydney and Melbourne. Urban Studies50 (13): 2661–81.
40.
RichardsonHarry W.GordonPeter. 2001. Portland and Los Angeles: Beauty and the Beast. Paper presented at the 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference, Portland, June–July.
SongYan.2005. Smart Growth and Urban Development Pattern: A Comparative Study. International Regional Science Review28 (2): 239–65.
43.
Statistics Korea. 1995. Report on the Census on Basic Characteristics of Establishments. Daejeon, Korea: Statistics Korea.
44.
Statistics Korea. 2010. Report on the Census on Basic Characteristics of Establishments. Daejeon, Korea: Statistics Korea.
45.
SteadDominic.2001. Relationships between Land Use, Socioeconomic Factors, and Travel Patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B28 (4): 499–528.
46.
TravisiChiara M.CamagniRobertoNijkampPeter. 2010. Impacts of Urban Sprawl and Commuting: A Modeling Study for Italy. Journal of Transport Geography18:382–92.
47.
WangDonggenChaiYanwei. 2009. The Jobs-Housing Relationship and Commuting in Beijing, China: The Legacy of Danwei. Journal of Transport Geography17 (1): 30–38.
48.
WangFahui.2001. Explaining Intraurban Variations of Commuting by Job Proximity and Workers’ Characteristics. Environment and Planning B28:169–82.
49.
WilliamsKatieBurtonElizabethJenksMike. 2000. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. New York: Routledge.
50.
ZhaoPengjunLuBinRooGert. 2011. Impact of the Jobs-Housing Balance on Urban Commuting in Beijing in the Transformation Era. Journal of Transport Geography19:59–69.
