Lifestyles, choice of housing location and daily mobility: the lifestyle approach in the context of spatial mobility and planning

Abstract

Joachim Scheiner is a research assistant at the University of Dortmund. His main research interests are travel behaviour and choice of location in the context of societal structures and spatial development. His most recent publication is Die Angst der Geographie vor dem Raum (2002).

Social inequalities in travel behaviour: trip distances in the context of residential self-selection and lifestyles

“…However, at this early stage the lifestyle concept was still based to a large extent on socio-demographic differences. Since the 1990s lifestyles have been seen rather as being based on values, attitudes, perceptions, leisure behaviour and consumption, a view introduced by sociologists (e.g., Müller, 1992;Schulze, 1995; see for the transport context Bagley and Mokhtarian (2002), Kitamura et al (1997), and Scheiner and Kasper (2003)). Götz et al (1997) transformed the lifestyle concept into 'mobility styles' that are mainly based on travel mode preferences.…”

“…In recent years two interrelated strands of research have become prominent in this context. Firstly, the 'classical' socio-demographic differentiation of travel has been challenged by lifestyle-oriented approaches that claim to be more appropriate in individualised, affluent societal contexts (Ohnmacht et al, 2009;Scheiner and Kasper, 2003) where a majority of the population can afford to choose from various options in their consumer (and, more specifically, travel) behaviour. Typically, lifestyle approaches to travel include subjective attitudes, values, housing or leisure preferences and wishes, rather than just the mere objective circumstances of daily life, such as employment, age or gender roles.…”

Embodying Flexibility: Experiencing Labour Flexibility through Urban Daily Mobility in Santiago de Chile

“…Research in this area is particularly dedicated to workers' employment access (Cervero, Rood, and Appleyard 1995;Cervero, Sandoval, and Landis 2002;Raphael and Rice 2002;Sanchez, Shen, and Peng 2004;Cebollada 2009); housing location in relation to employment opportunities (Cervero, Sandoval, and Landis 2002;Martinez 2005); or the trends in workplace and housing location and workers' mobility patterns (Scheiner and Kasper 2003;Escolano and Ortiz 2006;Lucas 2006). Much less research is devoted to the implications of daily mobility in contemporary modes of work in cities or to employers' responsibility in valuing daily mobility issues and employment, issues which need to be placed at the centre of the debate about the current production model's success.…”

Impacts of self-selection and transit proximity on commute mode choice: evidence from Taipei rapid transit system

“…Starting from Alonso's (1964) location theory that workers trade-off between commuting and housing costs, current residential location theory becomes more delicate: consumers seek a dwelling unit that maximizes their utility by weighting a list of residence attributes-tenure, size (Clark et al 1996), cost (McFadden 1978-and neighborhood traits-amenities, crime levels, quality of schools (Clark et al 2006), accessibility to work and non-work activities (Waddell 1993;Weisbrod et al 1980), and ethnic composition and social network (Scheiner and Kasper 2003)-both contributing to the supply of housing. The attributes of individuals/households compose the demand for residential location, including socioeconomic characteristics like age, household size, number of children, personality/life style (e.g., status seeker, workaholic; Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2007), and attitudes about family, labor, leisure, environment, land use, travel (Salomon and Ben-Akiva 1983), neighborhood image (Bagley and Mokhtarian 2002), number of workers, and life cycle.…”