Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2014

Operationalizing Land Use Diversity at Varying Geographic Scales and Its Connection to Mode Choice: Evidence from Portland, oregon

Abstract

Although substantial consideration has been given to analyzing the relationship between land use diversity and travel behavior, the selection of the most suitable geographic scale for operationalizing these measures has received considerably less attention in the research. General consensus favors an examination of the complex relationship between travel behavior and such built environment measures explained at a finer spatial scale. The reasons for supporting a more disaggregate neighborhood scale include statistical advantages, such as a minimization of the modifiable areal unit problem, and more applied intentions, such as a preference for site-specific design measures seen as responsive to urban policy. Complementing this decision about how best to define the geographic extent of the built environment is the determination of which built environment measures are significantly related to travel mode choice. Of these measures, an increased diversity of land uses has often been linked with an individual's heightened likelihood for using transit, bicycling, and walking. This research advances the knowledge of which land use diversity measures best predict mode choice and explores the proper geographic scale for operationalizing these indicators. Seven diversity indexes represented at four geographic scales encompassing the origins and destinations of discretionary trips in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan region were examined with a series of multinomial logit models. This study, which introduced several indexes previously unrecognized in transportation research, suggests common diversity measures, and the most disaggregate spatial scale may not always best represent the link between land use diversity and nonautomotive travel.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Boarnet M., and Sarmiento S. Can Land-Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Non-Work Travel And Land-Use Characteristics. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1155–1169.
2. Reilly M., and Landis J. The Influence of Built-Form and Land Use on Mode Choice: Evidence from the 1996 Bay Area Travel Survey. IURD WP 2002-4(1). University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2003.
3. Krizek K. Operationalizing Neighborhood Accessibility for Land Use-Travel Behavior Research and Regional Modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 22, 2003, pp. 270–287.
4. Hess P. M., Moudon A. V., and Logsdon M. G. Measuring Land Use Patterns for Transportation Research. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 17–24.
5. Boarnet M. A Broader Context for Land Use and Travel Behavior, and a Research Agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2011, pp. 197–213.
6. Handy S. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Non-work Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58–66.
7. Handy S., Boarnet M., Ewing R., and Killingsworth R. How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity: Views from Urban Planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 2S, 2002, pp. 64–73.
8. Duncan M., Winkler E., Sugiyama T., Cerin E., du Toit L., Leslie E., and Owen N. Relationships of Land Use Mix with Walking for Transport: Do Land Uses and Geographical Scale Matter? Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 87, No. 5, 2010, pp. 782–795.
9. Ewing R., and Cervero R. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
10. Cervero R., and Kockelman K. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219.
11. Cervero R., and Duncan M. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, 2003, pp. 1478–1483.
12. Bhat C., and Gossen R. A Mixed Multinomial Logit Model Analysis of Weekend Recreational Episode Type Choice. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 38, 2004, pp. 767–787.
13. Rodriguez D., and Joo J. The Relationship Between Non-Motorized Mode Choice and the Local Physical Environment. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 9, 2004, pp. 151–173.
14. Frank L., Bradley M., Kavage S., Chapman J., and Lawton T. Urban Form, Travel Time, and Cost Relationships with Tour Complexity and Mode Choice. Transportation, Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 37–54.
15. Buehler R. Determinants of Transport Mode Choice: A Comparison of Germany and USA. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, 2011, pp. 644–657.
16. Forsyth A., Hearst M., Oakes J., and Schmitz K. Design and Destinations: Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity. Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2008, pp. 1973–1996.
17. Rajamani J., Bhat C. R., Handy S., Knaap G., and Song Y. Assessing Impact of Urban Form Measures on Nonwork Trip Mode Choice After Controlling for Demographic and Level-of-Service Effects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 158–165.
18. Heinen E., van Wee B., and Maat K. Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of Literature. Transport Reviews, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2010, pp. 59–96.
19. Nielsen T., Olaffson A., Carstensen T., and Skov-Petersen H. Environmental Correlates of Cycling: Evaluating Urban Form and Location Effects Based on Danish Micro-Data. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 22, 2013, pp. 40–44.
20. Pinjari A., Pendyala R., Bhat C., and Waddell P. Modeling Residential Sorting Effects to Understand the Impact of the Built Environment on Commute Mode Choice. Transportation, Vol. 34, 2007, pp. 557–573.
21. Hong J., Shen Q., and Zhang L. How Do Built-Environment Factors Affect Travel Behavior? A Spatial Analysis at Different Geographic Scales. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2014, pp. 419–440.
22. Zhang M., and Kukadia N. Metrics of Urban Form and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1902, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 71–79.
23. Mitra R., and Buliung R. Built Environment Correlates of Active School Transportation: Neighborhood and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 20, 2012, pp. 51–61.
24. Brownson R., Hoehner C., Day K., Forsyth A., and Sallis J. Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity: State of the Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 4S, 2009, pp. S99–S123.
25. Peet R. The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 5, 1974, pp. 285–307.
26. van Eck J. R., and Koomen E. Characterising Urban Concentration and Land-Use Diversity in Simulations of Future Land Use. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 42, 2008, pp. 123–140.
27. Shannon C. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, 1948, pp. 379–423.
28. Simpson E. Measurement of Diversity. Nature, Vol. 163, No. 4148, 1949, p. 688.
29. Frank L. D., and Pivo G. Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 44–52.
30. Kockelman K. M. Travel Behavior as Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 116–125.
31. Clifton K., Burnier C., and Akar G. Severity of Injury Resulting from Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes: What Can We Learn from Examining the Built Environment? Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 14, 2009, pp. 425–436.
32. Voorhees C., Ashwood J., Evenson K., Sirard J., Rung A., Dowda M., and McKenzie T. Neighborhood Design and Perceptions: Relationship with Active Commuting. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 42, No. 7, 2009, pp. 1253–1260.
33. Magurran A. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2004.
34. Hill M. Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences. Ecology, Vol. 54, No. 2, 1973, pp. 427–432.
35. Smith B., and Wilson J. A Consumer's Guide to Evenness Indices. Oikos, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1996, pp. 70–82.
36. Heip C. A New Index Measuring Evenness. Journal of the Marine Biology Association, Vol. 54, 1974, pp. 555–557.
37. Jost L. Entropy and Diversity. Oikos, Vol. 113, No. 2, 2006, pp. 363–375.
38. McIntosh R. An Index of Diversity and the Relation of Certain Concepts to Diversity. Ecology, Vol. 48, 1967, pp. 392–404.
39. Pielou E. Ecological Diversity. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1975.
40. Guo J., and Bhat C. Operationalizing the Concept of Neighborhood: Application to Residential Location Choice Analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15, 2007, pp. 31–45.
41. Ben-Akiva M., and Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2014
Issue published: January 2014

Rights and permissions

© 2014 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Steven R. Gehrke
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751.
Kelly J. Clifton
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 109

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 21

  1. Understanding the Relation of Psychological/Behavioral Factors and Cyc...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Heterogeneous impacts of global land urbanization on land-use structur...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. MoPeD meets MITO: a hybrid modeling framework for pedestrian travel de...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Defining Psychological Factors of Cycling in Tehran City
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Comparison of Fully Probabilistic and Partially Probabilistic Choice S...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Travel behavior on vacation: transport mode choice of tourists at dest...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Equitable active transport for female cyclists
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. A kilometer or a mile? Does buffer size matter when it comes to car ow...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Do People Desire to Cycle More During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Investiga...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Change in land use structure in urban China: Does the development of h...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Increasing Bicycling for Transportation: A Systematic Review of the Li...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Mobility design as a means of promoting non-motorised travel behaviour...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. The experienced mode choice set and its determinants: Commuting trips ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Operationalizing the neighborhood effects of the built environment on ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Study design impacts on built environment and transit use research
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Cycling or walking? Determinants of mode choice in the Netherlands
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Investigate an Appropriate Spatial Resolution for Large-scaled Pedestr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Urban Form, Growth, and Accessibility in Space and Time: Anatomy of La...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Bikeability – Urban structures supporting cycling. Effects of local, u...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. The Increasing Role of Latent Variables in Modelling Bicycle Mode Choi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. Representing pedestrian activity in travel demand models: Framework an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub