Relationships between Land Use, Socioeconomic Factors, and Travel Patterns in Britain

Abstract

IntroductionOne of the criticisms sometimes made about empirical studies concerned with the relationships between land use and travel patterns is that the socioeconomic dimension is excluded. Empirical research, for example, suggests that higher densities are associated with less travel, but this could be a consequence of the variation in income (or some other socioeconomic characteristic) with density, rather than the effect of land use per se. In this paper I examine the relationships between land use, socioeconomic characteristics, and travel patterns. I identify some of the main land-use and socioeconomic characteristics that affect travel patterns and discuss whether there is the potential for land-use planning policies to reduce travel. The paper is based on extensive analysis of both national and local travel survey data in Britain, exploring relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns.2 Interactions between land use, socioeconomic characteristics, and travel patterns Over the last few decades there has been a wide range of research concerning the interaction between land-use patterns (1) and travel [see Stead and Marshall (2001) for a critical review of the research from 1980 onwards]. This research has resulted in a wide range of literature concerning interactions between land use and travel patterns. However, the identification of relationships between land-use characteristics and travel patterns is complicated by the fact that different land-use characteristics are often associated with different socioeconomic factors, and that socioeconomic characteristics may also affect travel patterns (see Stead et al, 2000). The variation in socioeconomic characteristics increases the difficulty in establishing the precise relationships between land-use characteristics and travel patterns, and adds complexity to the comparison of travel patterns in different areas. It is also possible that there may be interactions between land-use and socioeconomic characteristics, adding further complexity to Abstract. In this paper I extend the debate about land use and urban form. I contend that many empirical studies that have examined the relationships between land use and travel patterns have omitted to consider the socioeconomic dimension, leading to simplistic views about land use and travel. I report the results of a study into the relationships between land use, socioeconomic characteristics, and travel patterns by using data from national and local travel surveys in Britain. The results of the study show that the variation in travel patterns often owes more to socioeconomic reasons that to land-use characteristics. However, land-use planning may still have a significant effect on influencing travel patterns.

The influence of built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands

“…Moreover, the commuting distance model shows that the commuter's workplace (and commuting distance) is barely influenced by factors relating to urban forms and travel accessibility and more by other factors, such as job market that reflect individual abilities and preferences and the job location distribution. These findings support the argument that individual and other factors are more crucial in determining the travel behaviour of commuters than the built environment and accessibility (Schwanen et al 2003;Timmermans et al 2003;Stead 2001).…”

“…Some of this research supports the view that various aspects of land use are linked with travel patterns or travel behaviour (for example, Banister 1997;Cervero and Kockelman 1997;Ewing 1995;Frank and Pivo 1994;Meurs and Haaijer 2001;Naess and Sandberg 1996;Newman and Kenworthy 1989;Stead 2001), although in most of this literature only limited effects have been found.…”

Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship

“…Note also that older persons not only travel because they want to participate in activities, the travelling itself can have certain socializing opportunities. Ride-sharing for non-work trips is, therefore, found to increase by age (Boarnet and Sarmiento, 1998;Dargay and Hanly, 2004;Schwanen et al, 2004;Stead, 2001).…”

“…After all, in high-density areas public transport is organized more efficiently (more routes, higher frequency of services) and higher densities are also associated with higher levels of congestion (Schwanen et al, 2004). Also, in dense areas people tend to travel shorter distances and they spend less time travelling on average (Cervero and Kockelman, 1997;Dargay and Hanly, 2004;Hammadou et al, 2008;Kitamura et al, 1997;Schwanen et al, 2004;Stead, 2001).…”

“…Spatial design however also relates to site design, and dwelling and street characteristics. Neighbourhoods characterized by small block sizes, a complete sidewalk system, the absence of cul-de-sacs and limited residential parking tend to encourage walking and cycling (Cervero and Kockleman, 1997;Hess et al, 1999;Stead, 2001). Meurs and Haaijer (2001) noted that, although characteristics of the dwelling, street, and neighbourhood may influence modal choice, this is only true for shopping and social or recreational purposes.…”