Case Study

Impact of Neighborhood Walkability on Trip Generation

and Trip Chaining: Case of Los Angeles
Jeongwoo Lee, Ph.D. 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to test whether a compact neighborhood design is associated with trip-chaining behavior. Trip
chaining is regarded as a growing phenomenon in travel and activity behavior because people seek to minimize the travel time and cost
required to accomplish their daily activities based on the available time budget and other needs. In this study, trip-chaining patterns were
examined over a survey day, giving insight into the association between land use and the planning of the trip and its distance, as well as the
preferred mode of transportation. A tour consists of a combination of individual trips, including all of the stops that are made along the way. A
series of multivariate models was used separately for different types of tours segmented into simple (one destination) and complex (more than
one destination), and into work and nonwork tours. The results confirmed the idea that trip chaining diminishes the likelihood of using
nonmotorized modes of transportation. In addition, local land use and walkability have a limited effect on work-related tours, but these
factors are significantly related to nonwork tours. A resident who lives in a more walkable neighborhood is likely to take simple, albeit
more frequent nonwork tours and conduct their nonwork activities on foot or by public transport, which reduces their use of vehicles during
the day. These findings lead to the conclusion that there is more opportunity to use urban design policies to influence nonwork tours than work
tours. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000312. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Trip chaining; Neighborhood walkability; Travel behavior; Tour-based approach; New urban design.

Introduction for controlling residential selection biases, and the incorporation

The context of land-use and transportation planning in California
has changed dramatically over the past few years after the
enactment of the California Global Warming Solutions Act
(Assembly Bill 32), which set the goal of reducing statewide
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. California Senate
Bill 375 requires the state’s metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) to develop goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases
by doing a better job of coordinating the planning of land use
and transportation. There is almost unanimous agreement among
policymakers and practitioners that the highest priority for
achieving this goal should be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita (Shaheen et al. 2009). Strategies for the reduction
of VMT that are addressed most commonly by policymakers
generally involve smart growth and transit-oriented development.
These land-use policies focus on increasing population densities
and increasing the development of land for mixed uses to facilitate
the use of transit and to encourage nonmotorized transportation
modes, such as walking and riding bicycles.
However, changing people’s travel behaviors is a complex
undertaking. Many factors can be motivators or barriers to the
accomplishment of this goal, and the factors vary depending on
individual characteristics and preferences. In recent years, there
has been extensive research specifically addressing the role of
the built environment in determining travel behavior. This research
has included the development of a sound methodological
framework using microlevel data, the development of strategies
1 been very little research that considered the effect of destination
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, 44-404, Daehak-ro 93,
Nam-Gu, Ulsan 44610, South Korea. E-mail: jeongwoo@ulsan.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 3, 2014; approved on
August 10, 2015; published online on November 4, 2015. Discussion per-
iod open until April 4, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488.
of the effects of activity patterns in a model to estimate the link
between the built environment and daily travel patterns.
The results of recent research have indicated that modeling the
relationships between land use and travel behavior can be improved
by the use of tour-based modeling rather than trip-based modeling
(Frank et al. 2008; Shiftan 2008). A tour consists of a combination
of individual trips, including all of the stops that are made along the
way. By using tours rather than individual trips as a unit of analysis,
tour-based modeling can examine interactions across trip decisions
when such scheduling decisions are made, thereby allowing the
management of the time and space constraints associated with
making trips. By determining the constraints and opportunities
for participation in various activities, this approach provides a
holistic view that facilitates the analysis of travel and explains
how the built environment influences travelers’ behaviors.
In this study, trip-chaining patterns were examined during the
day of the survey, giving insight into the association between land
use and the planning and distances of trips, as well as the choice of
mode for making the trips. The analyses presented here vary from
previous research. First, the study investigated whether the choice
to chain multiple trips is likely to be a function of the residential
environment and of the availability of other services near home and
work. Second, it was possible to use an integrative approach in the
analysis because of the richness of the matched, built-environment
data that were available both at the origins and destinations of the
trips. Third, the analysis explored the effects of neighborhood
attributes on the use of different modes of travel for different
purposes (work travel versus nonwork travel). To date, there has
land-use patterns on trip-chaining patterns, and no research has
addressed the explicit factors that affect travel patterns and choices
for nonwork trips. It is possible that residents who live and travel in
places that are more pedestrian and transit supportive take more
simple tours, i.e., fewer intermediate stops. They likely take shorter
home-based, nonwork tours and conduct their nonwork activities

© ASCE 05015013-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 on foot or by public transport, reducing the use of vehicles during
the day.
Data from the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey
(California Add-on) of Los Angeles County, California, were used
in this research. The data included all of Los Angeles County,
which has 88 incorporated cities and several unincorporated areas.
The county includes the dense urban core of the city of Los Angeles
and several smaller cities, as well as many suburban neighborhoods
and a sizable rural area. The cases considered in this paper are a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
subset of broader research planned for the future, and the scope of
the research could be expanded to include other metropolitan
areas. However, the case study of Los Angeles County will aid
in evaluating the effects of land-use and transportation strategies
in a sprawling, auto-oriented, urban spatial structure.
Literature Review
Urban planners and transportation professionals have studied the
relationships between land use and travel behavior. Many recent
studies of travel behavior have provoked methodological debates.
The most prominent methodological debate relates to the causality
between the built environment and travel behavior. Bagley and
Mokhtarian (2002) posited that personal characteristics and
propensities are critical factors that influence travel behavior. That
is, individual demographic status (e.g., race, ethnicity), socioeco-
nomic status (e.g., age, gender, income), and lifestyle are related to
one’s propensity and needs for activity. The results of these studies
implied that the association between the built environment and
travel behavior was insufficient to establish causality. The role
of attitudinal propensity and self-selection is essential to the
analysis of the effect of residential location on travel demand. There
have been several attempts to control for self-selection bias, such as
studies using longitudinal data (e.g., Handy et al. 2006) and
studies using structural equation models and instrumental variables
(e.g., Bagley and Mokhtarian 2002; Bento et al. 2005).
Recently, some publications in the literature have stated that a rich
set of sociodemographic and socioeconomic variables might
partially alleviate the self-selection effect (Bhat and Guo 2007),
and, later, this study used multivariate analysis to account for
the effect of individual socioeconomic status and lifestyle.
Beyond the residential selection debates, there has been some
solid evidence of an association between land use and travel
behavior. Much of the high-quality research on travel behavior that
uses individual travel data has found a relationship between land
use and travel after controlling for the self-selection effect
(Brownstone and Golob 2009; Boarnet and Sarmiento 1998). Most
of these studies have focused on trip-based modeling, and they have
provided a useful framework of a straightforward means of
predicting travel outcome by examining each trip in isolation.
Recent improvements in this line of research have included
tour-based modeling.
Tour-based modeling is a step toward an activity-based
approach. Advocates of the activity-based approach (e.g., Bhat
and Koppelman 1999; Kitamura 1988; Bowman and Ben-Akiva
2001) have concluded that individuals tend to optimize their
entire activity patterns rather than just maximizing the utility of
separate trip choices (Maat et al. 2005). Most importantly,
activity-based travel theory views most travel as an activity-driven
demand (Bowman and Ben-Akiva 2001). If trips are induced by
activities, then the conventional, trip-based modeling that considers
trips discretely will provide, at best, only simple adjustments for
the behavioral analysis of travel (Kitamura 1988). Tour-based
modeling improves the model’s ability to capture tour-based travel
© ASCE 05015013-2
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013
demand, such as the choice between individual trips on one tour.
Tour-based modeling tries to illuminate the complex interactions in
travel behavior and activities by focusing on the sequential decision
structure (Bhat and Koppelman 1999). This can offer a better
understanding of the effect of land-use strategies on the various
travel behavior decisions by analyzing the combinations of all trips
and activity patterns. For example, the use of tour-based modeling
may show that most commuters tend to rely on private vehicles
when they need to go shopping on the way back from work. How-
ever, if they are accustomed to shopping in their neighborhoods as a
single trip that is separate from commuting, there is a high likeli-
hood that they will choose a nonmotorized mode for shopping
(Shiftan 2008).
Previous research that used tour-based modeling (also known as
trip chains–based modeling) considered chained (linked) travel in
which two or more activities were connected. The results of this
research indicated that the complexity of travel is an impediment
to changing the transport mode and that chained trips are more
likely to be taken by private vehicles (de Nazelle et al. 2010).
Similarly, Krygsman et al. (2007) identified a relationship between
transport mode and chaining behavior, but there was no evidence of
this relationship when location factors of intermediate activities
were considered within a tour.
The empirical results are mixed in terms of the effects of land
use on trip-chaining behavior. Analyzing the relationships between
the type of tour and neighborhood access, Krizek (2003a) found
that higher levels of accessibility were associated with a larger
number of tours, but the tours were less complex. Maat and
Timmermans (2006) studied the complexity and frequency of tours
and found that higher densities resulted in a greater number of tours
and more chained trips.
Although the recent literature has reported notable develop-
ments in theoretical conceptualizations and analytical methodolo-
gies, questions remain regarding how the local environment
influences an individual’s planning of a trip and its complexity.
Investigating these factors by using the land-use attributes of the
origins and destinations in the trip would be an important addition
to the current research, which was focused on the residential
environment.
Methods
Research Design
Fig. 1 shows a conceptual model of the tour-based modeling that
was conducted. Tours represent the foundation of current activity-
based transportation research. The literature most often defines a
tour as a “home-to-home loop.” This study extended Bowman
and Ben-Akiva’s (2001) study in which it was concluded that tour
patterns are conditioned by the scheduling of the day’s activities.
Scheduling activities involves a set of choices, including the agenda
of activities, the priorities of the activities, arranging the activities in
a sequence, and choosing the locations of activities and the time
spent at those locations. Conversely, the choice of activity patterns
also is affected by the alternative tours that are available. The pro-
pensity to chain multiple trips in a single tour may alter the indi-
vidual activity patterns. In combination, these activities and tour
patterns have direct influence on VMT and the choice of mode.
This study was based on the assumption that personal and
household characteristics influence activities and tour patterns.
The characteristics of all of the people involved, their households,
and their neighborhoods were merged into the data set of the tours.
Hagerstrand (1970) and Rosenbloom (1989) pointed out that there
J. Urban Plann. Dev.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the study factors that influence VMT and
the choice of mode
were gender differences in the travel patterns, and, in this study, it
was hypothesized that there were differences in terms of the choice
of trip chaining; VMT; and choice of mode based on different
responsibilities, i.e., whether they are personal or household
responsibilities. Other personal and household-related attributes
that must be explored in a model are age, race, income, family
lifestyle, and the possession of a driver’s license.
The purposes of this study were (1) to test whether the built
environments at a tour’s origin (home) and its destination locations
have an important role in chaining trips, distances of trips, and the
choice of mode for making the trips; and (2) to test whether chaining
trips is the potential barrier for convincing those who use cars to use
transit or nonmotorized modes of travel instead. Fig. 1 shows that, in
this study, it was assumed that travelers jointly consider both the
origin and the destinations of the tour when they decide their travel
patterns; thus, one integrated framework was developed for consid-
ering the characteristics of the built environment at both the home
and a tour’s destinations, as well as the detailed characteristics of
individuals and households. This approach provided information
on how people would reduce their VMT or shift their modes of travel
to alternatives other than the use of cars if the quality of the built
environment were enhanced at the local level.
In this study, a consistent set of travel behavioral variables was
examined, providing insight into the association of the built
environment with the planning of a trip, the distance of the trip,
and the choice of the mode of transportation for the trip. The results
obtained for different tours that had different purposes were
compared. Therefore, since there may be differences between work
and nonwork activities, two separate submodels were developed for
the allocation of daily activities. Chains that included a journey to
work were classified as work tours, and all others were classified as
nonwork tours.
It is important to acknowledge that modeling the effects of land
use on travel demand can always raise the issue of self-selection.
Some authors uphold the fact that travelers can choose neighbor-
hoods that have attributes consistent with their needs, travel
abilities, and preferred modes of transportation. Although the effect
of self-selection may be present and unavoidable, the existing
literature has indicated that the relationship that has been observed
between land use and travel behavior cannot be explained entirely
by the self-selection effect (Næss 2009).
Measuring the Built Environment
Research in planning and urban design has indicated that individ-
uals who live in compact urban neighborhoods engage in more
nonmotorized trips and make fewer daily car trips than suburban
© ASCE 05015013-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013
residents. Specific land-use variables, such as residential density,
land-use mix, and street connectivity, have been identified as
key components of compact urban form that affect walking in
the local environment (Frank et al. 2010).
In this study, Frank’s composite measure of walkability was
used as the proxy of the compact urban form to examine the built
environment’s association with the planning and chaining of
trips. The reason a composite measure was used rather than single
variables in a model was that some of the measures of environmen-
tal variables were highly correlated with one another. In addition to
the need to avoid multicollinearity among the objective measures of
environmental variables, inclusion of a walkability measure would
help examine the influence of a combination of built-environment
factors on travel behavior in the sense that there could be synergy
between environmental factors. For example, land-use mix is often
found in high-density areas.
The concept of walkability relies on a combination of four
variables, i.e., residential density, street connectivity, land-use
mix, and retail floor area (Frank et al. 2010). Values for the four
components were normalized using a z-score, meaning that a
normalized street connectivity score of 1 would indicate one stan-
dard deviation above the average in the category. The walkability
index was calculated as the sum of the z-scores for the four factors,
and the following equation was used:
Walkability index ¼ zðstreet connectivityÞ þ zðresidential densityÞ
þ zðland-use mixÞ þ zðretail and commercial servicesÞ ð1Þ
Land-use data, street centerline data, employment data, and cen-
sus data were integrated spatially using a geographical information
system (GIS) to create the walkability index for the origins
(i.e., home locations) and destinations of the tours. To do this,
the index was measured based on the radius of a 400-m (0.25-
mi) Euclidean buffer around the respondents’ residential areas
and around the destinations of the tours. The 400-m buffer was
chosen to correspond with evidence in the literature on the effect
of bus transit on travel behavior (O’Sullivan and Morrall 1996).
The next section provides details of the measures.
Street Connectivity
In the empirical literature, it has been posited that a more connected
street network system potentially influences active travel by provid-
ing travelers with a greater number of route options, providing
more direct routes to destinations, and making walking and riding
a bicycle more feasible (Cervero and Radisch 1996; Boarnet and
Crane 2001; Saelens et al. 2003). The grid pattern is viewed as the
archetype of a highly connected street pattern. In that regard, this
study used the measures of densities of intersections to measure
connectivity of streets. The number of intersections (four-way
nodes) within a 400-m area was calculated around the location
of each household. Multiple steps were taken to measure and
improve the accuracy of the data. Since the study focused only
on the local network of streets that possibly would be used by
pedestrians, all other nonlocal streets were removed from the data
set, including highways, freeways, expressways, and access ramps.
After removing the nodes created at the street segments that do not
directly connect to other portions of the local street network,
nodes were created at the four-way intersections using the data
of centerlines of the street network.
Land-Use Mix
The land-use mix variable was measured with an entropy measure
using Eq. (2). Six types of land development were measured,
i.e., residential, commercial, office, industrial, educational, and
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 open space. This widely used metric presents the level of
integration of different types of land uses, such as residential
and commercial uses. The value of higher mixed diversity will
be close to 1, and zero indicates single land use within a 400-m
buffer around the location of each household
P
− Jj¼1 Pj  lnðPjÞ
Land-use diversity ¼ ð2Þ
lnðJÞ
where Pj = proportion of land development type of the jth parcel;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
household location traffic analysis zones (TAZs) i was estimated
by summing the number of jobs in TAZs j and travel time Cði; jÞ
PN −0.0994×Cði;jÞ
j¼1 Ej × exp
Ti ¼ ð3Þ
maxk∈½1;N fT i g
where T i = index of regional transit accessibility to jobs for TAZi
(household location); Ej = number of jobs available in TAZj ;
Cði; jÞ = travel time (in-vehicle þ walk access þ transfer waitþ
initial wait time) from TAZi to centroid TAZj ; and N = number

and J = number of different types of land development. of TAZs.

Proximity to Retail Stores
Retail stores and commercial activities within walking distance
were identified as important factors that are believed to stimulate
pedestrian activity. Previous studies used the variable of retail floor
area as one of components of the walkability index (Frank et al.
2010; Sundquist et al. 2011). However, because of the limited data,
it was decided in this study to use retail employment data to
measure the proximity to retail stores and commercial services.
To measure the concentration of retail stores and commercial
services in the study area, employment data were used by industry
sector based on the North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) code from InfoUSA 2008, a third-party provider
of commercial data. Using the geo-coded location of the business
establishments, this study mapped the distribution of retailers and
calculated the total number of employees in the retail establish-
ments within a 400-m buffer around the locations of the
households. The retail trade sector includes establishments engaged
in retailing merchandise and providing after-sales services
(e.g., automobile dealers and supply stores).
Transit Accessibility
In addition to the local character of the development within a neigh-
borhood, regional accessibility is important in terms of an associ-
ated mobility strategy at a regional level (Krizek 2003b; Handy
1993). Transit accessibility was measured in a gravity-based model
developed by Hansen (1959). The accessibility of transit from
Transit accessibility score was weighted by the maximum value
of T i , and it ranged from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no accessibility
and 1 indicating the best accessibility to employment. The
impedance factor for trips was calculated by using the inverse
of the average commuting distance for the Los Angeles region
in 2009. Total transit time was estimated by summing the in-vehicle
time, access time, transfer time, and wait time in order to develop
transit level of service inputs to the models. Peak-hour travel time
was measured at the level of TAZs based on the minimum path
skims across local bus networks. All of the data on travel time
and sources were extracted from the origin-destination (OD)
matrices for local bus components in the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) regional model.
Data
Table 1 shows the list of variables considered in the model. The
individual was the unit of analysis. Explanatory variables included
household-level variables, such as socioeconomic status, lifestyle,
and household structure, as well as land-use variables of the place
of residence and the place of employment. Data for personal travel
behavior and any household variables came from the Los
Angeles County sample, a subset of the 2009 National Household
Transportation Survey for California NHTS-CA Add-on (Fig. 2). A
subsample of these data was used for the analysis, including only
people who were 16 and older and who responded to the travel
survey on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Trips exceeding

Table 1. Summary of Variables Used in the Models

Class Variable Description Data source
Dependent variables Number of tours Total number of tours per day (nonwork) NHTS-CA
Number of chains Average number of chains in a tour (work/nonwork) NHTS-CA
VMT Miles traveled by private vehicle (work/nonwork) NHTS-CA
Individual characteristics Age Age of respondents NHTS-CA
Gender Gender of respondents NHTS-CA
Race Race of respondents NHTS-CA
Driver Licensed drivers NHTS-CA
Worker Worker status NHTS-CA
Household characteristics Income Household income NHTS-CA
Lifestyle Households with children/no children NHTS-CA
Number of vehicles Number of vehicles per person in a household NHTS-CA
per person
Land-use attributes of Distance to CBD Distance to the CBD from household location NHTS-CA
home location HRA Regional transit accessibility at home location Regional transportation model
HLU1 Street connectivity of home location Network data
HLU2 Residential density of home location Census data
HLU3 Land-use mix of home location Parcel data
HLU4 Proximity to the retail employment of home location InfoUSA
Land-use attributes of WRA Regional transit accessibility at work location Regional transportation model
work location WLU1 Street connectivity of work location Network data
WLU2 Residential density of work location Census data
WLU3 Land-use mix of work location Parcel data
WLU4 Proximity to the retail employment of work location InfoUSA

© ASCE 05015013-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 160.9 km (100 mi) were excluded from the full samples in order to
eliminate atypical cases. This resulted in a total of 6,834 tours per-
formed by 4,231 respondents residing in 2,171 households.
Note that different data were collected in different years during
the period from 2008 to 2010. The travel survey was conducted
from April 2008 through May 2009. A few land-use attributes used
in this study came from the 2010 census. The parcel-level land-use
and street-network data were obtained from 2009 data provided by
the SCAG. However, possible temporal changes in land-use
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
patterns over the period may not have been large enough to have
had significant influence on the travel behavior of regional
residents.
Model Specification
The hypothesis of this study was that neighborhoods’ walkabilities
and the characteristics of households are associated with several
assessments of personal mobility, i.e., planning and chaining of
a trip, distance of the trip, and choice of the mode of transportation
for the trip. A series of regression models was developed to test
this hypothesis with regard to the characteristics of tours. The
complexity, frequency, and distance of travel were compared
to household and geographical characteristics. Four outcome
variables were estimated independently in separate regression
models developed with identical structures to ensure consistency
between the models. The models were consistent internally with
regard to the definition and estimation of costs on which travel
choices are based. The models had a feedback mechanism among
the tour complexity, tour distance, and mode split.
Fig. 2. Study area and household location (Los Angeles County data from NHTS-CA 2009)
© ASCE 05015013-5
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013
A Poisson regression model was used to predict the number of
tours because of the nature of the count data (i.e., integer number),
while linear regression models were used to predict the average
number of trips within a tour. Tobit regressions were estimated
for the measures of daily travel distance by private vehicle because
those are left censored (i.e., several respondents reported no driv-
ing). The proportion of left-censored observations was about 15%.
This percentage does not include those who made no trips, because
the sample included only respondents who took at least one trip on
the day of the survey. The models were run separately for two
different types of tours, i.e., work tours and nonwork tours. The
equations for the regression model to test the significance of the
tour characteristics with respect to neighborhood walkability are
as follows:
The number of trips per tour ¼ fðNW; RA; HH; PSÞ ð4Þ
The number of tours per day ¼ fðNW; RA; HH; PSÞ ð5Þ
The distance traveled per day ¼ fðNW; RA; HH; PSÞ ð6Þ
where NW = neighborhood walkability; RA = regional accessibil-
ity; and the control variables include HH, which denotes the
household-level travel demand variables, including socioeconomic
status and lifestyle, and PS denotes the person-level attributes, such
as age, gender, race, work status, and the possession of a driver’s
license.
Finally, multinomial logit (MNL) models were used to measure
the overall effect of the built environment on mode choice of tours.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 The unit of mode choice analysis was a tour. These models
estimated alternative-specific travel-time variables that reflected
the attractiveness of the alternative mode, given in Eq. (7):
expðβ 0 X ij Þ
PðijÞ ¼ P 0 ð7Þ
j∈CðmÞ expðβ X ij Þ

where PðijÞ = probability of person i choosing a dominant mode j;

CðmÞ = choice set of modes available to person i; X ij = vector of
explanatory variables; and β = set of parameters to be estimated.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Three modes of travel were considered in this study, and the

primary mode of the tour was determined based on the following
priority sequence: transit > drive > walk=bike. For instance, if a
tour comprised three segments of trips (home to work, work to
shopping, shopping to home) made by the following three
Fig. 3. Proportion of trip chaining within a work/nonwork tour
modes, transit, walk, drive, then the tour’s primary mode would
be considered transit.
Travel times between zones were extracted from the origin-
with that used in previous studies (Owen et al. 2007; Sallis et al.
destination matrices of travel time by all modes at the level
of the TAZs. To link the TAZ-level data with each trip segment, 2009; Sundquist et al. 2011).
the TAZs for each trip’s origin and destination were identified. Fig. 4 compares a low-walkability neighborhood to a high-
The model included travel-time skims from one TAZ to others walkability neighborhood based on the distribution of the shares
as inputs to trip distribution, and these skims were available for of transportation by the type of tour. Neighborhood residents in
automobile and transit modes. Walking travel times were estimated high-walkability neighborhoods made more walking, biking, and
based on street network distances by using ArcView Network transit trips, and they also made fewer automobile trips than
Analyst (ArcGIS) in GIS. residents in low-walkability neighborhoods.
Note that the MNL model assumes that individual tour patterns Different travel patterns were evident between work and non-
are predetermined and that the choice of mode is determined work tours. First, it was confirmed that travelers were more likely
subsequently. One may argue that the choice of mode could be to drive if they were on tours that included work stops. In contrast, a
made first, which could lead to different tour patterns. The findings traveler was more likely to use a nonmotorized mode if the tour
from the previous literature showed bidirectional causality between contained only non-work-related stops. This was more prevalent
tour complexity and mode choice, but the literature found that the in the high-walkability neighborhoods than in the low-walkability
marginal effects of a complex tour on mode choice were much neighborhoods. This was likely because the above-mentioned,
greater than the other way around (Ye et al. 2007). This supports nonwork tours contained maintenance (e.g., shopping) or leisure
the conclusion that the choice of tour mode is driven by tour activities. These activities often are satisfied in the range of services
formation. In addition, the MNL model assumes that the odds ratio
for a mode choice among three alternatives is independent of other
alternatives. This assumption was tested using the Hausman test
(Hausman and McFadden 1984), which indicated that there
was no statistical basis for rejecting the “independence of irrelevant
alternatives” (IIA) assumption for all alternatives.

Results

Descriptive Statistics
In this study, work tours were distinguished from nonwork tours.
Fig. 3 illustrates the basic descriptive statistics that show the
usefulness of studying trip chaining. Almost 21% of all tours
involved commuting, and about 45% of commuting trips were
complex tours that linked two or more two intermediate stops.
In the case of nonwork tours, which accounted for about 79%
of all tours, 35% of the tours were complex tours that had multiple,
nonwork stops. The proportions of trip chaining were slightly
greater among commute tours than noncommute tours.
Low- and high-walkability neighborhoods were compared to
determine whether these differences led to different distributions
of tour patterns and travel modes. The neighborhoods were
categorized as two different types based on the distribution of
the walkability index scores. A low-walkability neighborhood
was identified as a neighborhood within the first, second, third,
Fig. 4. Share of transportation modes by different purposes of tours
and fourth deciles of the walkability index scores, while those
and neighborhood types (LW = low-walkability neighborhood; HW =
within the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles were defined
high-walkability neighborhood)
as high-walkability neighborhoods. This approach was consistent

© ASCE 05015013-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 trips and affect the distance of travel, multivariate models were
developed and used, as described below.

Regression Results for Tour Complexity and VMT

Regression results of tour complexity and VMT are shown in
Tables 3 and 4. First, household socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics helped to explain people’s travel behaviors. As
expected, household income strongly affected the numbers of tours,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

chains, and travel distance by private vehicle. Higher-income

Fig. 5. Share of transportation modes by different types of tours and
neighborhood types (LW = low-walkability neighborhood; HW = high-
walkability neighborhood)
in highly walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, whereas commuting
tours are less likely to be taken locally (Krizek 2003a).
Similarly, Fig. 5 shows that travelers were more likely to drive if
they were on tours that linked intermediate stops. In contrast, a
traveler was more likely to use a nonmotorized mode if the tour
contained only single stops.
A Student’s t-test was used to determine the statistical
significance of differences among travel complexity, frequency,
and distance across each type of neighborhood, and the differences
were considered significant if the P values of the t-test were equal to
or less than 0.05. Table 2 shows that people who lived in neighbor-
hoods that had a higher level of walkability had fewer stops during
their tours. That is, travelers in such neighborhoods tended to travel
to a greater degree in the context of short-trip chains with fewer
stops. Conversely, people in neighborhoods with lower levels of
walkability tended to chain more intermediate stops and had more
tours per day. The distance traveled was the most significant differ-
ence between the people in the two types of neighborhoods.
The descriptive statistics presented above consistently showed
that neighborhood walkability may have an important influence
on the type of travel behavior. To further understand the extent
to which neighborhoods’ attributes explain the tendency to chain
households traveled longer distances and linked multiple stops
in a single tour. Also, they tended to make more tours per day.
The vehicles/person ratio was a particularly important element
for the number of chains for nonwork tours. Those who had more
vehicles per person in the household were likely to travel longer
distances and to make stops more often for nonwork tours. This
is consistent with the expectation that private vehicles are used
to a greater extent in the context of complex, multiple-stop trip
chains. Households with children traveled longer distances and
made more tours for nonwork activities, attributable to children’s
dependency of mobility. This supports the view that travel demand
is derived from the demand for daily activities (Bowman and
Ben-Akiva 2001).
Several individual characteristics also were associated with indi-
vidual travel outcome. Young travelers were less likely to chain
trips, and they tended to engage in smaller numbers of nonwork
tours during the weekdays. The effect of gender on tour formation
was mixed. Women tended to link multiple stops for nonwork
tours, while the estimated coefficients for gender showed a less
definitive pattern for trip chaining for work tours. This may be
because women made more intrahousehold trips for nonwork
activities and shared more of the responsibility for childcare
(Rosenbloom 2006). Moreover, the average numbers of tours
and chains for nonwork tours were affected significantly by the
possession of a driver’s license and work status. Drivers tended
to chain trips and to take greater numbers of nonwork tours. Work-
ers also made more frequent trips, but they had a less definitive
pattern for trip chaining and distance for nonwork activities. This
may be because their travel time budget might constrain the work-
ers’ nonwork activities during the weekdays.
The geographical characteristics also had an important effect on
VMT. In the case of nonwork tours, the longer distance to the
central business district (CBD) was associated significantly with
the longer travel distance by private vehicle. That is, central city
households tended to take shorter trips than households in the
suburbs, all else being equal. Most importantly, local land-use
effects occurred after household characteristics and geographical
effects were controlled. People who were located in high-
walkability neighborhoods took significantly shorter trips, and they
were less likely to link stops for both work and nonwork tours.

Table 2. T-Tests of Tour Complexity, Frequency, and Distance by Neighborhood Types

Variable Walkability level Mean SD Mean difference SE difference P (significance)
Number of tours Low walkability 3.30 2.356 0.292a 0.110 0.008
High walkability 3.00 2.242
Number of trips Low walkability 2.94 1.081 0.120b 0.053 0.023
High walkability 2.82 1.120
VMT Low walkability 63.65 72.640 20.215a 3.298 0.000
High walkability 43.44 63.282
Note: SD = standard deviation; SE = standard error.
a
Significance at 99%.
b
Significance at 95%.

© ASCE 05015013-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 Table 3. Regression Results for the Number of Trips and Number of Tours
Work tour Nonwork tour
Number of tours per day
Number of trips per tour Number of trips per tour (Poisson)
Variable Coeff. P (significance) Coeff. P (significance) Coeff. P (significance)
a a b
Constant 2.553 0.000 2.492 0.000 0.172 0.023
Individual Age (16–24) −0.433b 0.012 −0.157c 0.076 −0.212a 0.000
White 0.177c 0.057 −0.051 0.373 0.027 0.444
0.252a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Female 0.047 0.572 0.000 0.014 0.649

Driver −0.155 0.657 0.272a 0.002 0.174a 0.002
Worker NA NA −0.089 0.110 0.153a 0.000
Household Income (kdollar) 0.004a 0.002 0.000 0.671 0.001b 0.027
With children 0.072 0.460 −0.030 0.641 0.148a 0.000
Number of vehicles 0.123 0.266 0.137b 0.028 −0.045 0.247
per person
Land use Distance to work −0.001 0.725 NA NA NA NA
Work walkability 0.033b 0.012 NA NA NA NA
Home walkability −0.024c 0.064 −0.022 0.054 0.012c 0.083
Distance to CBD NA NA 0.002 0.629 0.000 0.910
— Number of Number of Number of
observations ¼ 1,076 observations ¼ 2,582 observations ¼ 2,582
— Adj R2 ¼ 0.031 Adj R2 ¼ 0.023 LR chi2 ¼ 60.78
— Prob > F ¼ 0.000 Prob > F ¼ 0.000 Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000
— — — Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.0084
Note: Coeff. = coefficient; NA = not applicable.
a
Significance at 99%.
b
Significance at 95%.
c
Significance at 90%.

Table 4. Tobit Regression Results for VMT

Work tour Nonwork tour
VMT VMT
Variable Coeff. P (sig.) Coeff. P (sig.)
a b
Constant 1.684 0.000 0.354 0.020
Individual Female −0.012 0.898 0.103c 0.091
Driver 0.352 0.316 0.941a 0.000
Household Income (kdollar) 0.006a 0.000 0.002b 0.022
With children 0.428a 0.000 0.109 0.121
Number of vehicles per person 0.748a 0.000 0.414a 0.000
Land use Home walkability −0.016 0.363 −0.065a 0.000
Home transit accessibility −2.092a 0.000 −1.226b 0.019
Home Distance to CBD NA NA 0.007c 0.079
Destination walkability 0.018 0.250 −0.014 0.369
Destination transit accessibility −0.217 0.409 0.753c 0.087
— Number of Number of
observations ¼ 703 observations ¼ 2,011
—
(48 ¼ left-censored observations)
(342 ¼ left-censored observations) — LR chi2 ¼ 157.56
LR chi2 ¼ 322.00
— Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000 Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000
— Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.0663 Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.0476
Note: Coeff. = coefficient; NA = not applicable.
a
Significance at 99%.
b
Significance at 95%.
c
Significance at 90%.

These results seem to be in line with the findings of previous stud-
ies, which show that higher levels of neighborhood access matters,
in particular as they relate to formation of tours (Krizek 2003a).
The models were tested using the z-scores of the walkability.
The effect of walkability on tour formation was mixed. For work
tours, walkability of the workplace had a positive influence on the
number of chains, while residential walkability had a negative ef-
fect on the complexity of tours. Intuitively, whether or not the land
use around work locations offers more opportunities for nonwork
activities is relevant when travelers chain their trips to draw advan-
tages from the affluent environment of their places of employment.
For nonwork tours, the results showed that people in higher levels

© ASCE 05015013-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 of residential walkability tended to chain fewer intermediate stops,
but they had a greater number of nonwork tours per day. In other
words, people made less complex tours, but they tended to leave
home more often for nonwork activities when they lived in a highly
walkable area. Thus, one may argue that VMT savings of walkabil-
ity appear to be ambiguous in that the results represent a fraction of
nonwork activities. Given results from the previous descriptive
analyses, which indicated that a large portion of the nonwork tours
were short, many of these frequent nonwork tours may have been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to use transit or walk if he or she has a multipurpose demand
irrespective of her or his socioeconomic characteristics.
The mode-choice model was tested using the binary variables of
walkability. The analysis classified the origins and destinations as
low-walkability (first through fourth deciles) and high-walkability
(seventh through tenth deciles) neighborhoods based on ten deciles
of walkability index scores, as defined in the sample description.
Therefore, four dummy variables were created to indicate trips with
a walkable (or not-walkable) origin-destination combination. The

conducted locally in one’s own neighborhood. In order to further
explore whether most of these tours were pursued by nonmotorized
means (i.e., walking and biking) or transit mode, mode-choice
models were used in this study, and their results are provided in
the next section.
Mode-Choice Model Results
Table 5 presents the results from the mode-choice models. The car
is the base unit of comparison. The models here are comprehensive
in that they included variables of travel time differential between
the alternatives in order to reflect the popularity of the alternatives.
The results showed that a shorter travel time aboard transit relative
to the car increased the transit use, consistent with theory. Similarly,
a longer travel time via walking relative to the car lowered the prob-
ability of walking versus driving, all other things being equal.
Several attribute factors of a tour also affected travelers’ choice
of mode for making the trips. People’s tour patterns were affected
by the time their trips began. Travelers were more likely to
commute via walking or cycling when their trips began during
the morning period of peak traffic. The results also confirmed
the hypothesis that trip chaining is a barrier to the propensity to
use a nonautomobile mode. This means that a traveler is less likely
results showed that a good walkability of origins could potentially
reduce driving and encourage walking. People who live in a neigh-
borhood that is more pedestrian and transit supportive conduct their
nonwork activities by walking or cycling. However, the evidence
showed that this was the case only when both the origin and the
destination neighborhoods were walkable. People who travel to
destinations that have a high level of walkability tend to rely on
private vehicles for their nonwork activities if they live in a
low-walkability area. This finding likely reflected the fact that
people are more likely to drive from outside of the immediate
neighborhood to shop and spend leisure time at the more busi-
ness-concentrated (mostly walking-oriented) centers that are larger
than the local resident-based market. A key contributor to transit
use was transit accessibility rather than walkability. That is, good
regional transit accessibility appeared to be far more important than
neighborhood attributes for the use of public transportation for both
work and nonwork trips.
Discussion
To test the relationship between neighborhood walkability and
travel behavior, tour-based models were developed in this study
to investigate the sequence and combinations of all trips and

Table 5. Multinomial Logit Model Results for Mode Choice

Work tour Nonwork tour
Transit Walk/bike Transit Walk/bike
Variable Coeff. P (sig.) Coeff. P (sig.) Coeff. P (sig.) Coeff. P (sig.)
Alternative specific constant −0.947 0.286 −0.540 0.956 −1.315 a
0.000 1.563 a
0.000
Individual Female 0.339 0.291 −0.289 0.493 −0.081 0.691 −0.226b 0.020
Driver 0.378 0.637 −2.228a 0.006 −0.026 0.908 −0.461a 0.000
Household Income (kdollar) −0.011b 0.035 −0.003 0.577 −0.019a 0.000 −0.005a 0.000
Number of vehicles per person −4.325a 0.000 −0.035 0.944 −3.006a 0.000 −0.288b 0.013
Land use Walkability_LO_LDc −0.559 0.484 0.405 0.562 −0.467 0.267 −0.264d 0.050
Walkability_LO_HDc 0.342 0.536 0.551 0.488 −0.621 0.220 −0.979b 0.021
Walkability_HO_LDc 0.279 0.548 0.532 0.408 0.484 0.140 0.066 0.718
Walkability_HO_HDc 0.439 0.312 0.820 0.142 −0.234 0.404 0.337b 0.011
Home transit accessibility 2.645b 0.043 3.203d 0.097 2.913a 0.006 1.851b 0.049
Destination transit accessibility 2.673a 0.000 −1.717 0.431 2.891a
0.001 −0.582 0.530
Tour characteristics Tour complexityc −0.725b 0.037 −0.134 0.775 −0.068 0.757 −1.103a 0.000
Tour starts in AM peak (7:00–9:00)c 0.470 0.145 1.345a 0.002 0.193 0.395 0.358 0.103
Travel time differential Transit time−driving time −0.002a 0.005 NA NA −0.001b 0.027 NA NA
Walking time−driving time NA NA −0.011a 0.000 NA NA −0.021a 0.000
— Number of observations ¼ 1,149 Number of observations ¼ 4,241
— LR chi2 ¼ 280.20 LR chi2 ¼ 2023.11
— Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000 Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000
— Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.3581 Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.3719
Note: Car is the base alternative; Coeff. = coefficient; NA = not applicable.
a
Significance at 99% (Walkability_LO_LD = low walkability of origin and low walkability of destination; Walkability_LO_HD = low walkability of origin
and high walkability of destination; Walkability_HO_LD = high walkability of origin and low walkability of destination; Walkability_HO_HD = high
walkability of origin and high walkability of destination).
b
Significance at 95%.
c
Dummy variable.
d
Significance at 90%.

© ASCE 05015013-9 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013

 activity patterns. Travelers make strategic decisions about their
daily tour activities, not just about their single trips. Travelers seem
to make different decisions concerning trip chaining and frequency,
and these decisions are affected by household structure, lifestyle,
and the land-use attributes of their residences and workplaces.
Canvassing the results, residential land use has a strong influ-
ence on trip generation and trip chaining, a result that was robust
across the tour purposes studied in this paper. People who live in
places that are more pedestrian and transit supportive take fewer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
chained nonwork tours. They conduct their nonwork activities
on foot or by public transport, enabling reduced vehicle use during
the day. This confirmed the concept that New Urban Designs with
higher density, mixed land uses, grid-pattern street networks, and
proximity to the locations of commercial activities will decrease the
number of miles that private vehicles travel. There was some evi-
dence of induced automobile travel for nonwork trips to destina-
tions in a compact location. This finding indicated that the
reduced generation of automobile trips to walkable destinations
is not as robust as the evidence for trips from walkable residences.
These findings suggest that future interventions that are de-
signed to reduce car travel should target the creation of residential
environments that better accommodate the needs of nonwork
activities. These types of nonwork trips can be encouraged, for in-
stance, by providing a convenient pedestrian environment, along
with sites for recreational activities that are closer to residential
neighborhoods and by making the neighborhood environment safer
and easier to navigate, especially for children to walk, ride a bike,
or use the transit by protecting them from the danger of traffic and
by enhancing public safety (Lee 2013).
In view of the evidence concerning the automobile’s dominance
of chained trips, there was limited a priori expectation regarding the
role of a nonautomobile mode in conducting several activities in a
chained trip. This evidence does not suggest that it is infeasible for
travelers to use nonautomobile modes of travel for organizing
multiple activities into daily trip chains. Given the fact that many
automobile users link trips on their way to and from work, it is
expected that a local balance of jobs and housing will encourage
people to commute by transit and bikes to some extent, because
they will be able to run errands on the way to and from work.
The findings and limitations of this study point to the need for
additional analyses and research. This study relied on cross-
sectional data that limit causal relationships and may be affected
by unexpected situational variables at the time of assessment. It
also is true that the absence of detailed street data, such as the exist-
ence of sidewalks, was a limitation of this study. For example, it is
possible that the status of the sidewalks could be correlated with
travelers’ propensity to walk to their destinations, because the con-
nectivity and quality of sidewalks could determine the level of
safety of the pedestrian environment (Ha et al. 2011). Furthermore,
pedestrians’ perceptions about walkability could vary according to
different sidewalk environments (Kim et al. 2013).
This research indicated the need for additional scholarly atten-
tion in terms of improved methods. First, in this paper, the need for
incorporating the interrelationship among mode choices, trip chain-
ing, and VMT was visualized. Therefore, complex relationships
among these travel variables should be explored by using some
type of discrete-continuous modeling approach in future studies.
Second, since multiple tours can be taken in a day, a better under-
standing of connections between the tours is critical because people
tend to organize their activities within a daily schedule (Rasouli and
Timmermans 2014). Thus, there may be substantial interactions
across tour decisions when decisions are made about scheduling
in order to manage the time and space constraints associated with
making trips. A model that incorporates the duration of activities
© ASCE 05015013-10
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013
and the time of day will help broaden our understanding of how
tour decisions are constrained by activity schedules.
Acknowledgments
This paper is the modified version of a part of the author’s disserta-
tion, The built environment, tour complexity, and active travel.
Data collection for this research was supported by the California
Department of Transportation and the Southern California Associa-
tion of Governments. The author thanks Genevieve Giuliano and
Marlon Boarnet for their constructive comments on an earlier
version of this paper and the anonymous referees for their careful
review and useful questions. This work was supported by the
Research Fund of University of Ulsan.
References
ArcGIS [Computer software]. ESRI, Redlands, CA.
Bagley, M. N., and Mokhtarian, P. L. (2002). “The impact of residential
neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling
approach.” Ann. Reg. Sci., 36(2), 279–297.
Bento, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Mobarak, A. M., and Vinha, K. (2005). “The
effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States.”
Rev. Econ. Stat., 87(3), 466–478.
Bhat, C. R., and Guo, J. Y. (2007). “A comprehensive analysis of built
environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto
ownership levels.” Transp. Res. Part B: Method., 41(5), 506–526.
Bhat, C. R., and Koppelman, F. S. (1999). “Activity-based modeling of
travel demand.” Handbook of transportation science, Springer,
New York, 35–61.
Boarnet, M., and Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of
urban form on travel, Oxford University Press, New York.
Boarnet, M. G., and Sarmiento, S. (1998). “Can land-use policy really af-
fect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and
land-use characteristics.” Urban Stud., 35(7), 1155–1169.
Bowman, J. L., and Ben-Akiva, M. E. (2001). “Activity-based disaggregate
travel demand model system with activity schedules.” Transp. Res. Part
A: Policy Pract., 35(1), 1–28.
Brownstone, D., and Golob, T. F. (2009). “The impact of residential
density on vehicle usage and energy consumption.” J. Urban Econ.,
65(1), 91–98.
Cervero, R., and Radisch, C. (1996). “Travel choices in pedestrian versus
automobile oriented neighborhoods.” Transp. Policy, 3(3), 127–141.
de Nazelle, A., Morton, B. J., Jerrett, M., and Crawford-Brown, D. (2010).
“Short trips: An opportunity for reducing mobile-source emissions?”
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ., 15(8), 451–457.
Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., and Lawton, T. K. (2008).
“Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity
and mode choice.” Transportation, 35(1), 37–54.
Frank, L. D., et al. (2010). “The development of a walkability index:
Application to the neighborhood quality of life study.” Br. J. Sports
Med., 44(13), 924–933.
Ha, E., Joo, Y., and Jun, C. (2011). “An empirical study on sustainable
walkability indices for transit-oriented development by using the ana-
lytic network process approach.” Int. J. Urban Sci., 15(2), 137–146.
Hägerstraand, T. (1970). “What about people in regional science?” Reg.
Sci., 24(1), 7–24.
Handy, S. (1993). “Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for
nonwork travel.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1400, 58–66.
Handy, S., Cao, X., and Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). “Self-selection in the
relationship between the built environment and walking: Empirical evi-
dence from northern California.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 72(1), 55–74.
Hansen, W. (1959). “How accessibility shapes land use.” J. Am. Inst.
Plann., 25(2), 73–76.
Hausman, J., and McFadden, D. (1984). “Specification tests for the multi-
nomial logit model.” Econometrica: J. Econ. Soc., 52(5), 1219–1240.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Kim, S., Choi, J., and Kim, S. (2013). “Roadside walking environments and
major factors affecting pedestrian level of service.” Int. J. Urban Sci.,
17(3), 304–315.
Kitamura, R. (1988). “An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis.”
Transportation, 15(1), 9–34.
Krizek, K. J. (2003a). “Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based
travel.” Transportation, 30(4), 387–410.
Krizek, K. J. (2003b). “Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for
land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling.” J. Plann.
Educ. Res., 22(3), 270–287.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur" on 10/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Krygsman, S., Theo, A., and Timmermans, H. (2007). “Capturing tour
mode and activity choice interdependencies: A co-evolutionary logit
modelling approach.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 41(10),
913–933.
Lee, J. (2013). “Perceived neighborhood environment and transit use in
low-income populations.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board,
2397(1), 125–134.
Maat, K., and Timmermans, H. (2006). “Influence of land use on tour
complexity: A Dutch case.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board,
1977(1), 234–241.
Maat, K., Van Wee, B., and Stead, D. (2005). “Land use and travel
behaviour: Expected effects from the perspective of utility theory
and activity-based theories.” Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des., 32(1),
33–46.
Næss, P. (2009). “Residential self-selection and appropriate control
variables in land use: Travel studies.” Transp. Rev., 29(3), 293–324.
NHTS-CA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration California).
(2009). 〈http://nhts.ornl.gov/〉.
O’Sullivan, S., and Morrall, J. (1996). “Walking distances to and from
light-rail transit stations.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board,
1538, 19–26.
© ASCE 05015013-11
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2016, 142(3): 05015013
Owen, N., et al. (2007). “Neighborhood walkability and the walking
behavior of Australian adults.” Am. J. Preventive Med., 33(5), 387–395.
Rasouli, S., and Timmermans, H. (2014). “Activity-based models of travel
demand: Promises, progress and prospects.” Int. J. Urban Sci., 18(1),
31–60.
Rosenbloom, S. (1989). “Trip chaining behaviour: A comparative and cross
cultural analysis of the travel patterns of working mothers.” Gender,
Transport and Employment, Gower Publishing Company, U.K., 75–87.
Rosenbloom, S. (2006). “Understanding women’s and men’s travel
patterns.” Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Rep. of a
Conf., Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 7–28.
Saelens, B., Sallis, J., and Frank, L. (2003). “Environmental correlates of
walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design,
and planning literatures.” Ann. Behav. Med., 25(2), 80–91.
Sallis, J. F., et al. (2009). “Neighborhood built environment and
income: Examining multiple health outcomes.” Soc. Sci. Med.,
68(7), 1285–1293.
Shaheen, S. A., Bejamin-Chung, J., Allen, D., and Howe-Steiger, L.
(2009). “Achieving California’s land use and transportation greenhouse
gas emission targets under AB 32: An exploration of potential policy
processes and mechanisms.” Institute of Transportation Studies,
UC Davis.
Shiftan, Y. (2008). “The use of activity-based modeling to analyze the
effect of land-use policies on travel behavior.” Ann. Reg. Sci., 42(1),
79–97.
Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H., and
Arvidsson, D. (2011). “Neighborhood walkability, physical activity,
and walking behavior: The Swedish neighborhood and physical activity
(SNAP) study.” Soc. Sci. Med., 72(8), 1266–1273.
Ye, X., Pendyala, R. M., and Gottardi, G. (2007). “An exploration of the
relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining
patterns.” Transp. Res. Part B: Method., 41(1), 96–113.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.