Satisfaction with travel and residential self-selection: How do preferences moderate the impact of the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit line?

Cao, Xinyu; Ettema, Dick

doi:10.5198/jtlu.v7i3.485

Cited by 112 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the total effects of two socio-demographic variables -age and income -are significantly and positively associated with SWB, as reported in Table 4. This finding is also consistent with previous studies (Cao & Ettema, 2014;Diener & Suh, 1997).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Transport disadvantage, social exclusion, and subjective well-being: The role of the neighborhood environment—evidence from Sydney, Australia

Kent

Mulley

2018

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the effects of the neighborhood environment on transport disadvantage, social exclusion, personal health and subjective well-being (SWB) using survey data collected in Sydney, Australia. The data is analyzed using structural equation modelling (SEM). Overall, our model supports the hypothesis that a walkable neighborhood environment helps to reduce transport disadvantage and increase social inclusion. Neighborhood density has negative effects on both physical and mental health, but a positive effect on SWB. Further, a cohesive neighborhood environment is associated with less transport disadvantage, more engagement in political and civic activities, more social help, better mental health and higher SWB. By contrast, perception of crime in a neighborhood is associated with more transport disadvantage and worse physical health. Neighborhood aesthetics and the neighborhood social environment have stronger effects on SWB than other neighborhood environment characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Transport disadvantage, social exclusion, and subjective well-being: The role of the neighborhood environment—evidence from Sydney, Australia

Kent

Mulley

2018

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Silva (2014) describes the overall conclusions reached on RSS as 'mixed' with earlier studies tending to conclude that RSS is more influential than land-use factors (Kitamura et al, 1997) while more recent studies suggest that the opposite is the case (Bhat and Guo, 2007). Based on the extensive review of empirical results by Cao et al (2009), it appears that while RSS is found to contribute to the influence of the built environment on travel, much research has found an independent effect of the built environment on travel behaviour beyond self-selection (Cao and Ettema, 2014;Silva, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Is travel based residential self-selection a significant influence in modal choice and household location decisions?

Humphreys

Ahern

2019

Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T This paper examines if residential self-selection can be observed in the population of the Greater Dublin Area and analyses the interactions that occur between travel choices and household location decisions. The research is based on data collected through a postal survey issued in April 2014.The paper outlines the differences observed in travel behaviour across contrasting land-use areas; with the findings showing higher use of sustainable modes for residents of denser, mixed-use urban areas with greater public transport options. Travel-based residential self-selection is a contributory factor to modal split characteristics but not to an extent that would invalidate the positive role of land-use measures in promoting sustainable travel. The study found that while transport is an important factor in choosing where to live, it is not the primary factor for all residents and its role is dependent on the characteristics of the respondent involved.The key conclusion is that residential self-selection does not occur to such an extent that it is more important than land-use factors in determining modal-split characteristics. However, it remains a significant contributory factor for certain populations when sustainable modes are considered. The paper highlights the importance of taking self-selection tendencies and housing characteristics into account when creating land-use-transport policies to reduce car dependency and discusses the role of the urban region in producing self-selection behaviour.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is also possible that satisfaction with a particular trip affects travel-liking attitudes, instead of the other way around. Recently, Cao and Ettema (2014) also claimed that people move to locations that allow them to have 'happy travel'. This suggests a reciprocal relationship between the residential location choice and travel satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to De Vos et al (2015a) − using the same data as this study − suburban residents experience more positive feelings during travel and evaluate their trip more positively compared to urban residents, and this for all travel modes. Also Cao and Ettema (2014) indicate that travel satisfaction is lower in high-density neighbourhoods compared to lowdensity suburbs, although public transport availability seems to positively affect travel satisfaction. It is not directly clear, however, why travel satisfaction differs according to the residential location.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do people live in urban neighbourhoods because they do not like to travel? Analysing an alternative residential self-selection hypothesis

Vos

Witlox

2016

Travel Behaviour and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has indicated that mode-specific attitudes can affect travel mode choice through the residential location choice. According to the principle of residential self-selection, people will try to choose a residential neighbourhood that enables them to travel with as high a share as possible of their amount of travel with their preferred mode. In this study, however, we will analyse whether differences in travel distance, travel time and travel satisfaction in urban versus suburban neighbourhoods are due to travel-liking attitudes, the residential location or a combination of both. Results of this study − analysing leisure trips within the city of Ghent (Belgium) − indicate that suburban respondents are, compared to urban respondents, more satisfied with their trips, which are also longer in time and distance. Suburban respondents also have a more positive stance towards travelling, suggesting a possible residential self-selection process. Travel lovers might prefer a residential neighbourhood where travel distances and travel time are relatively high, while people who do not like to travel might prefer to live in a neighbourhood that enables more short-distance and less travel-time intensive trips. This study suggests that especially people who do not like to travel self-select themselves in urban neighbourhoods in order to limit travel distance and travel time. In contrast, respondents with a more positive stance towards travelling are equally distributed in urban and suburban neighbourhoods. Results also indicate that travel distance and travel time are mainly affected by respondents' residential neighbourhood, while travel satisfaction is mainly affected by travel-liking attitudes. KeywordsResidential self-selection; Travel behaviour; Travel liking; Travel satisfaction IntroductionPrevious research has shown that walking, cycling and public transport use are significantly higher in compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods than in low-density neighbourhoods, while car use is significantly lower (e.g., Cao et al., 2009;Cervero, 1996;Ewing and Cervero, 2010;Mokhtarian and Cao, 2008). This can be partly explained by the physical appearances of these neighbourhoods. Low densities and diversities in suburban neighbourhoods result in higher average trip distances, encouraging car use. Besides, the dispersed land use pattern of these neighbourhoods makes it difficult to efficiently organise public transport services, resulting in low frequencies and long average distances to public transport stops. In urban neighbourhoods, average travel distances are shorter due to a more compact and mixed-use pattern, stimulating active travel and making it easier to organise high-frequency public transport within walking distance of a substantial share of the neighbourhoods' residents. As a consequence, urban planners have − since the 1990s − tried to reduce negative effects of (long-distance) car use, such as congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, by encouraging the development of compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods...

show abstract

Satisfaction with travel and residential self-selection: How do preferences moderate the impact of the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit line?

Cited by 112 publications

References 39 publications

Transport disadvantage, social exclusion, and subjective well-being: The role of the neighborhood environment—evidence from Sydney, Australia

Transport disadvantage, social exclusion, and subjective well-being: The role of the neighborhood environment—evidence from Sydney, Australia

Is travel based residential self-selection a significant influence in modal choice and household location decisions?

Do people live in urban neighbourhoods because they do not like to travel? Analysing an alternative residential self-selection hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About