Historically, research that has analyzed the effect of land use on travel demand has concentrated on a few key indicators, notably, mode choice, vehicle miles traveled, and number of trips. This literature has focused primarily on the effects of individual land use variables; for example, what is the effect of land use mix or population density on mode choice? It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the isolated impact of particular measures of land use on individual and household transportation behavior is small, but when these measures are dealt with by using a clustered approach, their combined influence becomes less ambiguous in direction and greater in magnitude. This paper contributes to the transportation and land use literature by examining the effect of clusters of land use indicators on activity spaces, an emerging but traditionally ignored indicator of transportation behavior. Regression analysis results point to a significant relationship between large and dispersed activity spaces, low levels of population and employment density, and low levels of public transit accessibility and land use mix.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EwingR., and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
2.
EwingR., and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–285.
3.
BentoA.M., CropperM. L., MobarakA.M., and VinhaK.The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 87, No. 3, 2005, pp. 466–478.
4.
BoarnetM.G., and SarmientoS.Can Land-Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link Between Non-Work Travel and Land-Use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169.
5.
LinJ., and LongL.What Neighborhood Are You In? Empirical Findings of Relationships Between Household Travel and Neighborhood Characteristics. Transportation, Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 739–758.
6.
ShayE., and KhattakA.J.Automobiles, Trips, and Neighborhood Type: Comparing Environmental Measures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2007, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 73–82.
7.
KrizekK.Operationalizing Neighborhood Accessibility for Land Use: Travel Behavior Research and Regional Modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 22, 2003, pp. 270–287.
8.
RivaM., ApparicioP., GauvinL., and BrodeurJ.-M.. Establishing the Soundness of Administrative Spatial Units for Operationalizing the Active Living Potential of Residential Environments: An Exemplar for Designing Optimal Zones. International Journal of Health Geographics, Vol. 7, No. 43, 2008, pp. 1–13.
9.
Miranda-MorenoL. F., BettexL., ZahabiS. A. H., KreiderT. M., and BarleP.. Simultaneous Modeling of Endogenous Influence of Urban Form and Public Transit Accessibility on Distance Traveled. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2255, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 100–109.
10.
RossN.A., TremblayS., KhanS., CrouseD., TremblayM., and BerthelotJ.-M. Body Mass Index in Urban Canada: Neighborhood and Metropolitan Area Effects. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 3, 2007, pp. 500–508.
11.
LeckE.The Impact of Urban Form on Travel Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis. Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol. 19, 2006, pp. 37–57.
12.
GershoffE.T., PedersonS., and AberJ.L.Creating Neighborhood Typologies of GIS-Based Data in the Absence of Neighborhood-Based Sampling: A Factor and Cluster Analytic Strategy. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, Vol. 37, 2009, pp. 35–47.
13.
KamruzzamanM., HineJ., GunayB., and BlairN.. Using GIS to Visualize and Evaluate Student Travel Behaviour. Journal of Transport Behaviour, Vol. 19, 2009, pp. 13–32.
14.
ManaughK., Miranda-MorenoL. F., and El-GeneidyA.. Neighborhood Travel Behaviour: A Factor and Cluster Analysis to Understand Travel Behavior in the Montréal Metropolitan Region. Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2010, pp. 627–646.
15.
KestensY., LebelA., DanielM., ThériaultM., and PampalonR.. Using Experienced Activity Spaces to Measure Foodscape Exposure. Health and Place, Vol. 16, 2010, pp. 1094–1103.
16.
BuliungR.N., and KanaroglouP.S.A GIS Toolkit For Exploring Geographies of Household Activity/Travel Behaviour. Journal of Transportation Geography, Vol. 14, 2006, pp. 35–51.
17.
RaiR.K., BalmerM., RieserM., VazeV.S., SchonfelderS., and AxhausenK.W.Capturing Human Activity Spaces: New Geometries. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2021, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 70–80.
18.
LeBeauJ. L.The Methods and Measures of Centrography and the Spatial Dynamics of Rape. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1987, pp. 125–140.
19.
ShermanJ.E., SpencerJ., PreisserJ. S., GeslerW.M., and ArcuryT.A.. A Suite of Methods for Representing Activity Space in a Healthcare Accessibility Study. International Journal of Health Geographics, Vol. 4, 2005.
20.
Lee-GosselinM., Miranda-MorenoL. F., ThériaultM., and KreiderT.. Evolution of Travel and Daily Activity Patterns and ICTs. Presented at 4th Specialist Meeting of the Network ICTs, Île d'Orléans, Quebec, Canada, Oct. 2009.
21.
FanY., and KhattakA.J.Urban Form, Individual Spatial Footprints, and Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2082, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 98–106.
22.
ManaughK., and El-GeneidyA.. What Makes Travel Local? Defining and Understanding Local Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport and Land Use, forthcoming.
23.
FreundP., and MartinG.Hyperautomobility, the Social Organization of Space, and Health. Mobilities, 2007, pp. 37–49.
24.
FrumkinH.Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports, Vol. 117, 2002, pp. 201–217.
25.
MarshallJ.D., McKoneT. E., DeakinE., and NazaroffW.W.Inhalation of Motor Vehicle Emissions: Effects of Urban Population and Land Area. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 39, 2005, pp. 283–295.
26.
CalthorpeP.The Next American Metropolis. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1993.
27.
Canada Census Digital Boundary File. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2006.
28.
Enquête Origine-Destination 2003 et 2008. Agence Métropolitaine de Transport. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2008.
2001 Census of Population, Montréal (862 Areas). Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2001.
31.
Enquête sur le Travail, le Milieu de Travail et les Employés. In 2001 Census (CD-ROM), Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2001.
32.
Enquête sur le Travail, le Milieu de Travail et les Employés. In 2006 Census (CD-ROM), Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2006.
33.
NewmanP., and KenworthyJ.Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
34.
ShearmurR.Travel From Home: An Economic Geography of Commuting Distances in Montreal. Urban Geography, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2006, pp. 330–359.
35.
NewmanM. C.Regression Analysis of Log-Transformed Data: Statistical Bias and Its Correction. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 12, 1993, pp. 1129–1133.
