Determinants of residential dissonance: Implications for transit-oriented development in Brisbane

Abstract

Residential dissonance is the mismatch of land use patterns between individuals' actual and preferred neighbourhood type. It is a threat to land use based policy interventions, such as transit oriented development (TOD), aiming to enhance sustainable mobility behaviour. Dissonants in TOD are more likely to use the car and less likely to use public transport. They do not naturally adjust their preferences according to their surrounding land use patterns and continue their predisposition travel behaviour. Therefore, it is critical to identify dissonant groups to inform policy development to lessen the level of dissonance in TODs. This research identifies groups that are more likely to be dissonant in TOD/non-TOD areas in Brisbane. The living conditions of 6271 individuals were Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 09:45 31 May 2016 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 classified into TOD or non-TOD types based on a cluster analysis of built environmentalfactors. Individuals" preferred neighbourhoods were also categorised into TOD and non-TOD types based on a factor analysis of travel attitudes and preferences. Four unique groups were identified (dissonants and consonants in both TOD and non-TOD areas) when respondents" actual and preferred neighbourhood types were combined. Binary logistic regression analyses were employed to identify the determinants of residential dissonance in TOD/non-TOD areas. The results indicate that 30% of the respondents living in TOD areas are dissonants. Being male, having car availability at all times, and individuals with poor health condition were more likely to be dissonants in TOD areas in Brisbane.

Residential dissonance and walking for transport

“…Comparing the estimated shares of monthly walking distance, respondents living in the areas with the highest observed walkability walked all in all more than those living in lowwalkable areas, whereas respondents preferring high-walkable neighborhoods walked more than those preferring low-walkable neighborhoods. These results are generally in line with observations from earlier dissonance studies with no differentiation between active travel modes (Badland et al 2012;Kamruzzaman et al 2013Kamruzzaman et al , 2016aSchwanen and Mokhtarian 2005b). Results of the ordinal logistic regression analyses confirmed that low-walkability consonants had the lowest and high-walkability consonants the highest adjusted odds of walking a high share of their estimated number of monthly trips and travel distance.…”

“…Findings from non-walking-specific residential dissonance studies in the US and Australia suggest that in both urban and suburban settings, residents preferring high-walkable or transport-oriented residential environments are more likely to engage in active travel than residents with preference for car-oriented environments (Badland et al 2012;Kamruzzaman et al 2013Kamruzzaman et al , 2016aSchwanen and Mokhtarian 2005b). De Vos et al (2012) reported similar results in Flanders, Belgium, observing that urban consonants were the most frequent users of active transportation modes while travelling to leisure destinations, followed by rural dissonants, urban dissonants, and rural consonants.…”

“…Residential dissonance studies applying ego-centered measures define GIS-based built environment attributes within a pre-defined Euclidean or street-network distance buffer around each respondents' dwelling location. Kamruzzaman et al (2016a), for instance, classified respondents' home environments into transit-or non-transit-oriented developments based on public transport accessibility, employment and residential density, land-use mix and intersection density within an 800-m network distance buffer. Frank et al (2007) divided respondents into walkability quartiles based on the observed walkability within a 1-km network distance buffer and applied a walkability measure combining commercial floor area ratio, land-use mix, net residential density and street connectivity.…”

The Urban Liveability Index: developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure and evaluating associations with transport mode choice

“…In particular, the models also indicate that there is large variation in people’s preferences: people with stronger preferences towards active travel are more likely to move into more liveable neighbourhoods, if they can afford to do so. Indeed, previous studies have suggested a latent demand for more walkable communities, with the majority of people living in low walkable environments preferring instead to live in areas where they could walk to local amenities [52, 53]. However, other factors influence people’s choice of neighbourhoods, with the most important factors being housing affordability [54].…”

Compact City Reset: Towards Alternatives to Market-driven Density

“…Moreover, there is mounting evidence that people increasingly seek to live in more compact cities. Recent surveys find that a growing number of people prefer denser living environments over a detached house and yard (Newton et al 2017) and that most baby boomers want to live in a dense and walkable neighbourhood (Kamruzzaman et al 2016). Advocates argue that new density proposals respond to this latent market demand while producing more sustainable urban environments.…”