What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?
Introduction
In the USA and Europe land use based solutions to transportation problems have rapidly gained in popularity over the past decade. The principles of New Urbanism (in the USA) or the Compact City (Europe) have found a solid place in the profession’s thinking. This popularity is not least the result of numerous empirical studies demonstrating that living in higher density, mixed use neighborhoods is associated with less car use compared to living in low density, suburban environments (for example, Frank and Pivo, 1994, Næss et al., 1995).
The academic literature is, however, equivocal about the effect of neighborhood characteristics on reducing car use in general and for commuting in particular. It is not completely clear, for instance, how important land use characteristics are in the explanation of commute behavior. While urban form dimensions at the neighborhood level affect commute mode choice or commute length (Cervero, 1996a, Cervero, 2002), other variables appear to be more important. This is particularly true for sociodemographic factors, such as gender, household composition, and income. However, travel-related attitudes or lifestyle variables may also be more important. Although not specifically focusing on commute travel, Kitamura et al. (1997) found that attitudes are more strongly associated with travel than are land use characteristics.
In addition, the relationship between urban form and commute behavior may not be a direct one. Recently a number of authors have claimed that residential location choice is not exogenous to the association between land use variables and travel behavior (Boarnet and Crane, 2001, Cervero and Duncan, 2002, Handy, 1996, Sermons and Seredich, 2001, Srinivasan and Ferreira, 2002, Van Wee et al., 2003). They argue that a household with a predisposition toward a certain type of travel “self-selects” a residential location enabling the pursuit of that preferred type of travel. For example, households whose members prefer to travel by public transit choose to reside for that very reason in a location providing easy access to transit infrastructure. If this is true, the commonly observed correlations between land use configuration and travel behavior do not so much reflect direct causality but complex relationships of these factors with others, such as attitudes toward travel. This suggests a need for studies of the interdependence of different types of residential locations, commute behavior characteristics, and attitudes toward travel and land use. To the best of our knowledge little work has thus far been done on this subject.
This paper is positioned in a series of studies designed to enhance our understanding of the complex relationships among residential location, commute behavior, and attitudes toward travel and land use. We focus on the concept of residential neighborhood type dissonance, or mismatch between preferred and actual type of residential location, as a way to assess the comparative roles of the built environment and residential self-selection in travel behavior choices. Our basic question is simple: do mismatched individuals travel more like the matched residents of the neighborhood they actually live in, or more like the matched residents of the kind of neighborhood they prefer to live in? The former outcome suggests that the effects of the built environment outweigh personal predispositions; the latter outcome suggests the converse.
Schwanen and Mokhtarian (submitted for publication) begins this series of studies by exploring the role of attitudes toward travel and land use in residential location choice. In Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2004), we model dissonance itself as a function of demographic and attitudinal characteristics. Three papers follow to evaluate the impact of dissonance on travel behavior: Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2003) compares non-commute trip frequencies of matched and mismatched urban and suburban residents; in the present paper, we compare the commute mode choice of consonant and dissonant workers; and Schwanen and Mokhtarian (in press) completes the picture by examining the role of dissonance in mode-specific distances traveled for all purposes. Each study uses data from the same survey of commuters in three neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area: the urban neighborhood of North San Francisco and the (different types of) suburban communities of Concord and Pleasant Hill. Because land use preferences and realities are taken into account as well as sociodemographics, mobility limitations, personality traits, and lifestyle factors, the empirical analyses presented in these studies offer deeper insights into the nature of the influence of land use characteristics on travel behavior.
The study background and hypotheses tested here are detailed in the following section. The paper then proceeds to a description of the data available for this study, as well as definitions of the variables used in the empirical analysis. Section 4 investigates the impact of neighborhood dissonance on commute mode choice through descriptive analysis, and Section 5 presents a multinomial logit analysis in which sociodemographic factors, mobility limitations, personality factors and lifestyle types are included as control variables. The paper concludes with a summary of the results and a discussion of the implications for land use and transport policy.
Section snippets
Study background
Mode choice for commute trips is probably the dimension of travel behavior that has been studied most thoroughly. Conventional wisdom holds that workers act as rational consumers and choose the mode providing the highest utility. This utility is typically a function of objective price or level of service factors—travel time and travel cost—and taste variables, usually represented by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of households and sometimes supplemented by locational variables (
Data
The data used for this study comprise responses to a 14-page questionnaire that collected information on a variety of travel and related issues. The survey was mailed in May 1998 to 8000 randomly selected households of three neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Half were mailed to the urban neighborhood of North San Francisco (Fig. 2); the other half were split evenly between the contiguous suburbs of Concord and Pleasant Hill (Fig. 3). A randomly selected adult member of the household
Descriptive analysis
Not surprisingly, the driver/passenger in a personal vehicle category dominates the mode split: 76.9% of the respondents in the whole sample commute by this alternative. The second largest share is that for bus/ferry (9.7%), which is due to the large number of North San Francisco residents in the total sample. Segmented by neighborhood, we see that the personal vehicle class is even more dominant for suburban respondents (88.5%). The differences with North San Francisco are marked: although the
Multinomial logit analysis
Although the descriptive analysis suggests that the level of neighborhood type dissonance affects commute mode choice, the question remains whether this holds true after other factors—sociodemographics, mobility limitations, personality and lifestyle types, and travel attitudes (Table 2)—are taken into account.
A convenient and common functional form for analyzing the influence of potential explanatory variables on a categorical dependent variable is the multinomial logit (MNL) model. The MNL
Discussion and conclusion
This paper has sought to enhance our understanding of the complicated relationships among residential location, commute behavior, and attitudes toward land use and travel. We have investigated to what extent commute mode choice differs not only by residential neighborhood but also by the presence and level of mismatch between a commuter’s current and preferred type of neighborhood. Hence, the work reported here provides insights into the question of the relative importance of individuals’
Acknowledgments
The University of California Transportation Center funded the collection of the data used for this study, with further analysis also supported by the Daimler-Chrysler Corporation. Part of the research reported here was carried out during a visit of the first author to the Institute of Transportation Studies of the University of California, Davis. This visit was sponsored by a SYLFF grant from the Tokyo Foundation with additional subsidy from the Travel Fund of the Netherlands National Science
References (39)
- et al.
Transportation-land use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling
Transportation Research D
(2000) Mixed land uses and commuting: evidence from the American Housing Survey
Transportation Research A
(1996)Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework
Transportation Research D
(2002)- et al.
Travel demand and the 3 Ds: density, diversity and design
Transportation Research D
(1997) - et al.
Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods
Transport Policy
(1996) - et al.
A Monte Carlo study of tests for the independence of irrelevant alternatives property
Transportation Research B
(1996) - et al.
Greenhouse gas emissions and Australian commuters’ attitudes and behavior concerning abatement policies and personal involvement
Transportation Research D
(1998) Mobilizing meanings of mobility: car users’ constructions of the goods and bads of car use
Transportation Research D
(2003)- et al.
An attitudinal modal choice model
Transportation Research
(1976) - et al.
Assessing traveler responsiveness to land and location based accessibility and mobility solutions
Transportation Research D
(2001)
Travel behavior at the household level: understanding linkages with residential choice
Transportation Research D
A methodology for the disaggregate, multidimensional measurement of residential neighbourhood type
Urban Studies
Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand
Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel
Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area
Transportation
Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis
The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review
Journal of Planning Literature
Settlement-identity: psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society
Environment and Behavior
Cited by (394)
A gendered perspective on ride-hail use in Los Angeles, USA
2024, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesCommuting and its spillover effects on subjective well-being: Evidence from China
2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentTelework, travel times, and peak hour avoidance in England: An overview using travel times across five weekdays
2024, Travel Behaviour and SocietyThe node-place model, accessibility, and station level transit ridership
2023, Journal of Transport GeographyRole of income on travel behavior in polluted air
2023, Journal of Transport and Health