Analyzing the relationship between land use and travel behavior in Bime, Moniriye and Golestan districts

Document Type : Research Paper



In recent decades, the question how we could reduce the frequency of auto mode and increase frequency of the other modes- walk and transit- is a challenged for urban planners. Many planning researchers and practitioners believe that individuals rely on automobiles partly to travel from place to place because land uses are separated and spread out. By contrast, when certain design features such as higher development densities and continuous sidewalks are combined with the mixed land uses, many expect residents of these communities to drive less and walk and bike more, on average. Tehran has been blamed for high levels of automobile travel and Traffic congestion, high travel time. So the primary purpose of this study was to investigate how relative associations between travel behavior and land use patterns where people live and non-work destination impact modal choice and frequency of travel modes in three different development patterns in Tehran. In fact this study wants to answer two questions: 1) whether patterns of travel behavior to non work destinations at neighborhood level are different? And a key question which is largely unanswered: 2) whether patterns of land development of neighborhoods affect travel behavior of residents? And particularly, whether pattern of neighborhood land development influences travel behavior or whether travel attitudes and preferences and socio-demographic characteristics influence travel behavior? In other words, whether differences in the built environment are associated with differences in travel behavior, after accounting for socio-demographic characteristics and for attitudes and preferences? More specifically, environments where residents are closer to destinations and have viable alternatives to driving are in fact associated with less driving. Here factor analysis, linear regression analysis are used to investigate the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and travel behavior while taking into account the role of travel preferences and neighborhood preferences in explaining this relationship. This study explored the relationship between the residential environment and non work travel frequencies by auto, transit, and walk/bicycle modes. In fact, a multivariate analysis of cross sectional data in three different land development patterns of neighborhoods of Tehran-Monirye, Koye-Bime and Koye-Golestan shows that there are differences in travel behavior between neighborhoods. Koye-Golestan (as a car-oriented neighborhood) largely is influenced by attitudes in contrast to Koye-Bime (as a conventional neighborhood), and Monirye (as a traditional neighborhood) land use characteristics are mostly affect on travel behavior. In general, however the number of autos that residents have as a socio-demographic characteristics and auto pro-travel attitude as a travel behavior attitude index largely influence on travel behavior, distance to transit, land use diversity as well as destination accessibility as land use index significantly influenced frequency by travel modes to non work destinations in neighborhoods. Taken together, our results suggest that if cities use land use policies to offer options to drive less and use transit and non-motorized modes more, many residents will tend to do so.


Bagley, M.N & Mokhtarian, P.L (2002), The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach, The Annals of Regional Science, 36, pp.279–297.
Boarnet & Compin (1999), Transit-Oriented Development in San Diego County, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), pp.80-95.
Boarnet, M.G & Crane, R (2001), The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies, Transportation Research A, 35 (9), pp.823– 845.
Boer, R; Zheng, Y; Overton, A; Ridgeway, G & Cohen,D (2007), Neighborhood Design and Walking Trips in Ten U.S. Metropolitan Areas, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4, pp.298-304.
Cao, X; Handy, S.L & Mokhtarian, P.L (2006a), Neighborhood design and vehicle type choice: Evidence from Northern California, Transportation Research Part D, 11, 133–145.
Cao, X; Handy, S.L & Mokhtarian, P.L (2006b), The influences of the built environment and residential selfselection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation, 33(1), pp.1–20
Cao, X; Mokhtarian, P.L & Handy, S.L (2007a), Cross-sectional and quasi-panel explorations of the connection between the built environment and auto ownership, Environ. Plan. A., 39, pp.830–847
Cao, X; Mokhtarian, P.L & Handy, S.L (2007b), Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach, Transportation, 34, pp.535-556.
Cao, X; Mokhtarian, P.L & Handy, S.L (2009a), Examining the Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behaviour: A Focus on Empirical Findings, Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.359–395.
Cao, X; Mokhtarian, P.Lm & Handy, S.L (2009b), The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California, Transportation Research Part A, 43, pp.548–559.
Cao, X; Mokhtarian, P.L & Handy, S.L (2010), Neighborhood Design and the Accessibility of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis in Northern California, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4, pp.347–371.
Cervero, R (2002), Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework, Transportation Research Part D, 7, pp.265–284.
Cervero, R & Kockelman, K (1997), Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design, Transportation Research D, 2(3), pp.199–219.
Cervero, Robert; Sarmiento, Olga L; Jacoby, Enrique; Gomez, Luis Fernando & Neiman, Andrea (2009), Influences of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogot_a, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3, pp.203–226.
Circella, G; Mokhtarian, P & Handy, S (2008), Land Use, Attitudes, and Travel Behaviour Relationships: A Cross-Sectional Structural Equations Model for Northern California, Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington, DC (January).
Crane, R (2000), The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretative review, Journal of Planning Literature, 15 (1), pp.3–23.
Crane, R & Crepeau, R, (1998), Does neighborhood design influence travel? a behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data, Transport-D, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.225-238.
Ewing, Reid & Cervero, Robert (2010), Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp.265-294.
Ewing, R; Greenwald, M. J; Zhang, M; Walters, J; Feldman, M; Cervero, R; … Thomas, J (2009), Measuring the impact of urban form and transit access on mixed use site trip generation rates—Portland pilot study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Frank, L; Bradley, M; Kavage, S; Chapman, J & Lawton, T.k (2008), Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice, Transportation, 35, pp.37–54.
Greenwald, Michael J (2006), The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: Evidence and implications, Transportation Research Part D, 11, pp.432–446
Handy, S; Cao, X & Mokhtarian, P (2005), Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California, Transport. Res. D, 10(6), pp.427–444
Handy, S. L & Clifton, K. J (2001), Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel, Transportation, 28, pp.317-346.
Handy, Boarnet & Ewing, Killingsworth (2002), How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity Views from Urban Planning, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), pp.64-73.
Khattak, A.J & Rodriguez, R (2005), Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: a case study in USA, Transportation Research Part A, 39, pp.481–500.
Kockelman, K. M (1997), Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land use mixing and land use balance: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation Research Record, 1607, pp.116-125.
Næss, P (2006), Accessibility, Activity Participation and Location of Activities: Exploring the Links between Residential Location and Travel Behaviour, Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.627–652.
Rodriguez, D. A & Joo, J (2004), The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment, Transportation Research D, 9(2), pp.151–173.
Tracy, Andrew J; Su, Peng; Sadek, Adel W & Wang, Qian (2011), Assessing the impact of the built environment on travel behavior: a case study of Buffalo, New York, Transportation, 38, pp.663–678.
Zhang, Ming (2004), The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice, Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp.344-363.