Examining the effects of the built environment on auto ownership in two Norwegian urban regions

Drivers of Car Ownership in a Car-Oriented City: A Mixed-Method Study

“…McIntosh et al [20] categorized cities into motorization-oriented and trafficlimiting archetypes and found nearly 50% lower car-use rates in the latter than in the former. Besides, Cao et al [12] found more green spaces to reduce car ownership and use, although the impact was weak in their study.…”

“…Several studies have found a high correlation between transport energy use and density [9][10][11][12]. Typically, it is claimed that this is not only correlation but causality, partially due to shortening distances and partially due to car ownership reduction, e.g., [12,13]. Newman and Kenworthy [10] found that transport energy use grows exponentially below a threshold of 30 inhabitants per hectare.…”

“…Income has a strong impact between low and middle incomes on their motorization level [33,34], but at higher-income levels, car ownership's income elasticity diminishes significantly [19,21,35]. Economic growth and rising incomes have very recently changed the mobility cultures completely from active and public transport orientation to car travel orientation in developing countries such as China [34] and Mexico [33]; but, for example, in the affluent Nordic countries, for the majority of the population income may not be a decisive factor anymore in choosing whether to possess and use a car or not [12]. The life course situation, and changes therein, have been suggested as influential factors, e.g., having a child leading to car purchase [36,37], and affecting the residential location choices [36].…”

How interventions in master plans affect public transport competitiveness versus cars: a case study of two small and two medium-sized city regions

“…Research has shown that cities with a monocentric structure have a higher share of public transport passengers compared with polycentric cities, where the share of car drivers is higher (Engebretsen et al, 2018;Naess, Strand et al, 2019;Naess, Tønnesen et al, 2019;Wolday, 2018;Wolday et al, 2019). Dense, compact cities are easier to provide with a good public transport service and have a higher share of public transport passengers, whereas low-density and sprawling urban development tends to increase the use of private cars (Cao et al, 2019;Graham et al, 2018;Naess et al, 2017Naess et al, , 2018Naess, Strand et al, 2019;Naess, Tønnesen et al, 2019). An exception to this is small cities, where transport in the city center more often involves walking or cycling, while public transport and the car are more attractive for longer trips, such as commutes to other cities (Wolday, 2018).…”

Modeling dynamics in household car ownership over life courses: a latent class competing risks model

“…Previous studies on the relationships between car ownership and socio-demographics, land use, and other life cycle decisions such as residential decision at a particular instance in time, typically ignoring the dynamics, have applied a variety of different models of analysis (e.g. Potoglou and Kanaroglou 2008;Anowar et al 2014a, b;Guerra 2015;Cao et al 2019). However, examining car ownership decisions from a dynamic perspective is needed since the level of car ownership evolved over time.…”