Analysis of the Influence of Environmental Characteristics of New Urban Developments on Directed and Undirected Travel (Case study: Five New Neighborhoods in the North of Isfahan)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Modern world faces a multitude of challenges regarding displacement including high fuel consumption, air pollution, congestion in streets, decrease in physical activities, insecurity of passers-by etc. most of which result from dependence on automobiles and the vehicle-stricken urban forms. Planners and public health officials are turning to land planning and urban design for help in reducing automobile use and related social and environmental costs. A growing number of empirical studies have contributed to the debate about the relationship between the built environment and pedestrian behavior.These studies found that residents living in traditional neighborhoods (characterized as high density, high accessibility, mixed land use, rectilinear street network, and so on) drive less and walk more than those living in suburban neighborhoods. The results of the some studies have been different and sometimes inconsistent and transferability of their primary findings to other countries has not been tested yet. Despite many studies in other countries, generally in Iran and particularly in Isfahan, this relation has not so far been investigated while new developments are incrementally emerging. In addition, the majority of previous studies ignore distinguishing between travel for utilitarian purpose and travel for its own sake while combination of these two types of travel is likely to lead to biased conclusion. Present research, which is a correlational study, aims to investigate the factors that affect travel behavior new urban development in Isfahan. In this regard, 5 new neighborhoods have been carefully selected. In fact, this study explores correlation between perceived built environment factors and two types of travels (travel to a certain destination/directed of travel and travel whit no particular destination in mind /undirected travel). Results show that, for directed travel, frequencies of trip by auto is significantly more than frequencies of trip by walking. While for undirected frequencies of trip by walking is more than frequencies of trip by auto. Also, results of negative binomial models, after controlling for attitudinal and sociodemographic factors, demonstrate that safety and accessibility negatively impact on directed driving and proximity, attractiveness of walking/cycling and accessibility positively impact on directed walking. For undirected travel, proximity and accessibility have negative association with frequencies of auto trips and safety has positive association with frequencies of walking trips. Finally accessibility may lead to the substitution of walking/biking for driving. the study offers a number of valuable insights into the relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel behavior. It shows that neighborhood characteristics are associated with individuals’ travel decisions, especially non-motorized travel frequency. mixed land uses tend to discourage auto travel and facilitate the use of non-motorized modes; the availability of walking/biking infrastructures are important predictors for non-motorized travel; and walking/biking behavior is also affected by the aesthetic quality and social context of the built environment. All these associations are present even after accounting for the influences of scio-economic and travel attitudes. Therefore, although this study does not definitely confirm causality between the built environment and travel behavior, it strongly suggests that the built environment itself influences individuals’ travel behavior.
 

Keywords

References

اطمینانی، رؤیا و سلطانی، علی (1392)، تأثیر توسعه پراکنده مناطق شهری بر الگوی سفرهای روزانه ساکنین شهرها، نشریه برنامه ریزی منطقه‌ای، 3(10)، 61-70.
سلطانی، علی و دیگران (1391)، تولید سفرهای درون شهری و تأثیرپذیری از تنوع کاربری زمین (نمونه موردی: چهار محدوده مسکونی در شهر شیراز)، مجله مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری منطقه‌ای، 3(12)، 1-16.
عباسی، حیدر و حاجی پور، خلیل (1393)، تحلیل تجربی تأثیر فرم شهر بر رفتار سفر خانوارها در محلات مختلف شهری شیراز، نشریه باغ نظر، 11(29)، 23-32.
 
Aditjandra, P.T, et al. (2013), The influence of neighbourhood design on travel behaviour: Empirical evidence from North East England, Transport Policy, 26, 54–65.
Bagley, M & Mokhtarian, P (2002), The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach, Annals of Regional Science, 36 (2), 279–297.
Boarnet, M.G & Crane, R (2001), The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies, Transportation Research A, 35 (9), 823–845.
Boarnet, G. M & Sarmiento, S (1998), Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics, Urban Studies, 35 (7), 1155–1169.
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.
Cao, X, Mokhtarian, P. L & Handy, S. L (2009a), The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of northern California, Transportation Research Part A, 43 (5), 548–559.
Cao, X, Mokhtarian, P.L, Handy, S.L (2009b), No particular place to go: an empirical analysis of travel for the sake of travel, Environment and Behavior, 41 (2), 233–257.
Cervero, R (1991), Land use and travel at suburban activity centers, Transportation Quarterly, 45, 479–491.
Cervero, R and Radisch, C (1996), Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods, Transport Policy, 3 (3), 127–141.
Cervero, R, & Duncan, M (2003), Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes. Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9), 1478–1483.
Cervero, R, & Kockelman, K (1997), Travel demand and the 3Ds. Density, diversity, and design, Transportation Research D, 2 (3), 199–219.
Dieleman, F. M, Dijst, M and Burghouwt, G (2002), Urban form and travel behaviour: microlevel household attributes and residential context, Urban Studies, 39 (3), 507–527.
Etminani Ghasrodashti, R, Ardeshiri, M, (2015), Modeling travel behavior by the structural relationships between lifestyle, built environment and non-working trips, Transportation Research Part A,78, 506–518
Ewing, R and Cervero, R (2010), Travel and the Built Environment , Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (3), 265 — 294.
Ewing, R, DeAnna, M & Li, S (1996), Land use impacts on trip generation rates, Transportation Research Record, 1518, 1–7.
Forsyth A, et al. (2008), Design and Destinations, Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity, Urban Studies,45, 1977.
Frank, LD & Pivo, G (1995), Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking, Transportation Research Record, 1466, 44–52.
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.
Handy S, et al. (2002), How the Built Environment Affects Physical ActivityViews from Urban Planning,American, Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 (2S), 64 –73.
Handy, S(1996b), Understanding the link between the built environment and nonwork travel behavior, Journal Planning Education Research,15,183–98.
Handy, S. L, Cao, X, & Mokhtarian, P. L (2005), Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidencefrom Northern California,Transportation Research D, 10 (6),427–444.
Krizek, K (2003), Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? Journal of the American Planning Association, 69 (3), 265–281.
Lin, J. J and Hsiao, P. C (2006), Strategy development of mixed land use for restraining trip generation in Taipei City, Taiwan, TransportationResearch Record, 1983, 167–174.
Naess, P (2006), Residential location affects travel behavior—But how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area, Progress in Planning, 63 (1), 167–257.
Ryan, R. M, & Deci, E. L (2001), On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Shay, E, Fan, Y, Rodriguez, D. A, & Khattak, A. J (2006), Drive or walk? Utilitarian trips within a neo-traditional neighborhood, Transportation Research Record, 1985, 154–161.
Sommer, B, Sommer, R(1997), A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques, fourth ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Steuteville, Robert(2004), New urban neighborhoods make big gains, New Urban News, 9 (1), 1–6.
Van wee, B (2011), Evaluating the impact of land use on travel behaviour: the environment versus accessibility, Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 1530–1533.
Wong, C (2006), Indicators for Urban and Regional Planning: The interplay of policy and methods, Routledge, London and New York.
Zegras, P. C (2010), The built environment and motor vehicle ownership and use: Evidence from Santiago de Chile, Urban studies, 47(8), 1793-1817.
Zhang, M (2004), The role of land use in travel mode choice: evidence from Boston and Hong Kong, Journal of the American planning Association, 70 (3), 344–360.
 
 
 
 
Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning
Volume 20, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2015
Pages 59-70

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics