Urban Structures and Travel Behaviour

In line with theoretical considerations, a number of empirical studies reviewed in this paper show that urban structural variables influence the inhabitantsÌ amount of transport and their choice of means of conveyance. This appears to be true across city sizes. The location of the residence relative to the city centre is the urban structural characteristic which, according to our analyses, exerts the strongest influence on travelling distances, modal split between car and non-motorized transport, and energy use for transport. The distance from the residence to the downtown area is a key factor influencing the accessibility to a number of facility types. Population densities at a local scale as well as for the city as a whole are also important to the amount of travel and the use of cars. In addition, a high road capacity contributes to the increase of the proportion of commuters travelling by car in the peak period

Tempest in a teapot: The exaggerated problem of transport-related residential self-selection as a source of error in empirical studies

JTLU vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 57-79 (2014)While numerous studies have investigated influences of built environment characteristics on travel behavior, many scholars are concerned about the confounding effect of residential self-selection. This paper argues that the existence of transport-attitude-based residential self-selection hardly represents any threat to the validity of the basic knowledge on how residential location within urban contexts influences travel behavior. The causal mechanisms by which residential location influences travel behavior exist regardless of whether or not transport-related residential self-selection occurs. Moreover, the cases presented in this paper suggest that residential self-selection based on attitudes to travel is unlikely to represent any great source of error for parameter estimates of the effects of residential location variables on travel behavior as long as “traditional” demographic and socioeconomic variables have already been accounted for. The doubts raised by certain scholars about the implications of attitude-based residential self-selection for the validity of the knowledge base of land use and transportation policies thus appear to be not very well-founded

‘New urbanism’ or metropolitan-level centralization? A comparison of the inuences of metropolitan-level and neighborhood-level urban form characteristics on travel behavior

JTLU vol 4, no 1, pp 25-44 (2011)Based on a study in the Copenhagen Metropolitan Area, this paper compares the influences of macro-level and micro-level urban form characteristics on the respondents’ traveling distance by car on weekdays. The Copenhagen study shows that metropolitan-scale urban- structural variables generally exert stronger influences than neighborhood-scale built-environment characteristics on the amount of car travel. In particular, the location of the residence relative to the main city center of the metropolitan region shows a strong effect. Some local scale variables often described as influential in the literature, such as neighborhood street pattern, show no significant effect on car travel when provisions are made to control for the location of the dwelling relative to the city center

Design Literacy – from primary education to university level

The main purpose for this study is to further develop knowledge of design education. Design has a wide impact on society, seen in a consumer perspective in light of sustainability issues. Design education – from primary to university level – is in this project regarded as a key issue for developing a sustainable society as the choices general public take when it comes to design, touches the core of consumerism. In the Kyoto Design Declaration, The International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (Cumulus) declared that …to contribute to sustainable social, environmental, cultural and economic development for current and future generations, the Cumulus members will commit themselves to accepting their part in the further education of our youth within a value system where each of us recognizes our global responsibility to build sustainable, human-centred, creative societies. Worldwide environmental problems are closely linked to an increasing amount of waste and pollution related to the production, transportation and consumption of artefacts. Designers, decision makers, investors and consumers hold different positions in the design process, but they all make choices that will influence our future environment. In order to solve some of the crucial global challenges, designers and lay people must cooperate; for this purpose, awareness of design qualities from a sustainable perspective is necessary. We include such an awareness of quality, longevity and sustainability in the design process of artefacts and solutions in our understanding of design literacy. It refers to concerns and practices such as democratic participation in the processes, developing and using ethical responsibility, and understanding and supporting sustainable aspects of production and consumption. We have chosen to use the concept ‘design literacy’ to address the complex matter of objectives and content in design education at the primary, lower secondary, upper secondary, and university levels. In selecting this term, we acknowledge that research on multiple literacies has received considerable debate and redefinition within several areas of educational research (Coiro et al., 2008); it is no longer bound to the understanding of literacy as the ability to read and write verbal text (Moats, 2000). We draw on work in areas such as visual literacy (Stankiewicz, 2003), media literacy (Buckingham, 2003; Erstad, 2010), and ecological literacy (Stegall, 2006). Design literacy in this project is connected both to the creation and understanding of artefacts and images in a broad sense, and is not limited to only graphic design (Heller, 2004). When we use design literacy in this project, we include a wide perspective of artefacts and professions and choose a broad interpretation of design (Simon 1969). There is a move toward understanding design products and processes as composed of symbiotic hybrids between design products, media types, services, architecture, communicative spaces, networks and modes of creation, production, and exchange (Knutsen & Morrison, 2010). We regard design literacy as a competence not only for the professional designer, but also for lay people in their position as users, decision makers, and consumers

Response to Van Wee and Boarnet

N. A

Residential location, travel, and energy use in the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area. Journal of transport and land use

Abstract: is paper presents the results of a study examining the in uence of residential location on travel behavior in the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area, China. e location of the dwelling relative to the center hierarchy of the metropolitan area is found to exert a considerable in uence on the travel behavior of the respondents. On average, living close to the center of Hangzhou contributes to less overall travel, a higher proportion of trips by bicycle and on foot, and lower consumption of energy for transport. e location of the dwelling relative to the closest second-order and third-order center also in uences travel, but not to the same extent as proximity to the city center. ese geographical differences in travel behavior are independent of residential preferences and of attitudes toward transport and environmental issues, and therefore cannot be explained by residential self-selection

Residential Location, Travel, and Energy Use in the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area

This paper presents the results of a study examining the influence of residential location on travel behavior in the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area, China. The location of the dwelling relative to the center hierarchy of the metropolitan area is found to exert a considerable influence on the travel behavior of the respondents. On average, living close to the center of Hangzhou contributes to less overall travel, a higher proportion of trips by bicycle and on foot, and lower consumption of energy for transport. The location of the dwelling relative to the closest second-order and third-order center also influences travel, but not to the same extent as proximity to the city center. These geographical differences in travel behavior are independent of residential preferences and of attitudes toward transport and environmental issues, and therefore cannot be explained by residential self-selection.travel behavior; urbanization

The urban density in two Nordic capitals – comparing the development of Oslo and Helsinki metropolitan regions

Situated in northern Europe, the capital regions of Helsinki, and Oslo have many similar premises concerning urban development. However, the structure of the two regions differs by many measures. We explore the differences in urban density and its development in the both regions and the policy instruments that have affected them. Differences are identified by comparing the population densities of urban settlements and the mean distances from residents and workplaces to the city centres of Oslo and Helsinki using GIS methodology and existing literature. In the Oslo region, the population density shifted from a decreasing trend to an increasing one in the late 1980s. In contrast, the Helsinki region only started to densify in the 2010s. Also, the mean distance of residents and workplaces from the city centre is farther in Helsinki. The long period of low-density housing development and the creation of jobs outside centres in Helsinki is related to weaker political steering towards a compact urban form. In Oslo, regulations such as a greenbelt policy but also physical factors, led to densification relatively early. Lagging in densification policies, Helsinki could learn from the experiences of steering land use and mobility in Oslo, which would need additional research

Which D’s are the important ones? The effects of regional location and density on driving distance in Oslo and Stavanger

Based on a study in the Greater Oslo and Greater Stavanger urban areas in Norway, this paper employs quantitative and qualitative research methods to investigate the influences of residential location and neighborhood characteristics on car driving distances. Cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal analyses show that built environment characteristics — especially the distance from the dwelling to the main city center — influence driving distances in both urban areas. In Stavanger, the impact of inward moving seems to be larger than that of outward moving, possibly reflecting self-selection to the inner city. In the relatively monocentric Greater Oslo, the distance to the city center has a stronger impact on weekday driving than on weekend driving. In the more polycentric Greater Stavanger, where the importance of downtown as a destination for commuting is weaker, the distance to the city center has similar effects on weekday and weekend driving. In Greater Stavanger, distance to the secondary center Sandnes also plays a role although the impact is small. Population density and job density have impacts in Greater Oslo but not in Greater Stavanger, where we instead find a weak effect of local-area job surplus. There is no tendency toward compensatory increased weekend driving among inner-city dwellers in either Greater Oslo or Greater Stavanger