An Analysis of the Relationship between Land Use and Weekend Travel: Focusing on the Internal Capture of Trips

Abstract

Weekend travel has not been duly considered in academics and practice regarding its relationship with land use. A lack of consideration is notable in terms of how land use internalizes weekend travel. Thus, by separating the internal and external travel of the traffic analysis zone, this study analyzes the land use effect on weekend travel in comparison with that on weekday travel. Two structural equation models, each of which is specified for weekday and weekend travel, construct the same sample and their results become comparable. At the travel variable level, the models find consistent results: Stronger effects are made on internal travel than on external travel and particularly, on trip frequency than on travel time. This implies that compact land use causes a stronger addition of internal trips and a less strong reduction of external trips, that is, changes in destinations rather than in total travel time. At the factor level, unlike the weekday model in which the sociodemographic factor exerts a stronger effect, the weekend model presents that land use more strongly affects travel patterns. This magnitude difference is explained by the different flexibility of compulsory weekday travel and discretionary weekend travel in relation to the choice of trip destination and frequency.

Quantile regression on the nonlinear relationship between land use and trip time

“…In the same context, the entropy measure is incapable of reflecting the aesthetic values of the land uses (Christian et al, 2011) and evaluating the physical composition of the neighbourhood (the entropy can have the same value whether a land use is concentrated in a certain section or is evenly distributed throughout the neighbourhood) (Cervero & Gorham, 1995; Handy, 1996; Kitamura, Mokhtarian, & Laidet, 1997). Meanwhile, studies (Gim, 2017, 2018a) conducted in Seoul tended to find the entropy insignificant. Thus, either way, this result supports the finding of previous studies conducted in Western areas, as well as in Seoul, using QR as a more rigorous technique.…”

“…These opposite results may be because, for commuting as utilitarian travel (commuters should arrive at their offices on time and as quickly as possible), subway is usually chosen in Seoul rather than bus because of its superior mechanical characteristics, such as speed and punctuality (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001). Alternately, considering that jobs in Seoul are mostly located outside residential neighbourhoods (Gim, ), the result may be related to the tendency that subway is used particularly for long‐distance external trips (Gim, 2018a), whereas bus is chosen for short‐distance neighbourhood internal trips as well as for the long‐distance trips.…”

A Spatial Zoning Model of Municipal Administrative Areas Based on Major Function-Oriented Zones

“…In conclusion, the M-MSZ can be used to solve the problems of urban and rural co-ordination and regional coordination such as delimiting EPLs of urban and rural areas in MAAs, determining land use functions of MAAs, evaluating the suitability of land exploitation in MAAs, and formulating the timetable of land development in MAAs. However, the M-MSZ is limited in its contribution to various transmission flows such as in the planning of city traffic, population, economy, and tourism [102]. Although the M-MSZ is based on the mathematical derivation and comprehensive determination, there are still some subjective judgments such as the expert survey, the questionnaire survey of the factors affecting the choice of living space and its examination, and requires further verification of many more samples and regions.…”

Analysing the Effects of Land Use on the Choice of Intra-Zonal Trip Destinations – A Comparison Between Weekday and Weekend Travel

“…However, despite this suspicion, few attempted tour-based and destination-choice studies, each of which can test whether trip-chaining is facilitated instead of isolated trips and whether external trips are replaced by internal trips. The lack of tour-based and destination-choice studies made it impossible to conduct a meta-analysis of trip-chaining and destination internalization and of the two measures, the studies on destination internalization were even fewer [24,31,32], and the accumulation of such studies was urgently requested [24,33]. In response to the request, this study evaluates the destination choice among other travel measures.…”