عنوان مقاله [English]
Modern world faces a multitude of challenges regarding to displacement including high fuel consumption, air pollution, congestion in streets, decrease in physical activities, insecurity of passers-by and etc. Most of them are resulted by automobiles and vehicle-stricken urban forms. Planners and public health officials try more to develop land planning and urban designing for reducing automobile use and social-environmental costs. A growing number of empirical studies have investigated the relationship between the built environment and pedestrian behaviors. Most of them are based on the assumption that travel is a derived demand, or that the travel demand is derived from the demand for activities and movements. In other words, they assume that individuals travel in order to reach a destination or participate in an activity; they do not travel simply for the sake of travel. According to derived demand theory, these studies provided evidence of a correlation between the built environment and pedestrian behaviors. Many studies found that residents living in traditional neighborhoods (characterized as high density, high accessibility, mixed land use, rectilinear street network, and so on) would drive less and walk more than those living in suburban neighborhoods. Also, several studies showed that there are not significant relationship between urban form and travel behavior. The results of such studies on travel demand have been summarized in recent years. Many individual studies have been carried out in various countries with different objectives and methods in order to analyze urban relationships and travel behavior (type of vehicle), which have achieved various results and which are not generalizable. This paper aims to generalize the result of previous studies using meta-analysis approach. The present study has initially analyzed the dimensions of the study with a detailed review of empirical studies using a descriptive-analytical method to organize a summary of any literature to change them into a typology, but there is no best rationale for doing, yet. These studies can be usefully organized in any number of ways, for example, by travel purpose (joumey-to-work travel vs. shopping vs. trip chains, etc.), by analytical method (simulations vs. regressions, etc.), by the characterization and measures of urban form (trip ease vs. street layout vs. composite measures of density, accessibility, or pedestrian features, etc.), by the choice of other explanatory variables (travel costs vs. travel opportunities vs. characteristics of the built environment or of travelers, etc.), or by the nature and level of detail in the data. This process would be useful to choose appropriate studies as sample case. In fact, in order to combine the result of studies, these studies should have several things in common. As they analyze effects of the built environment on travel choices, all these studies are controlled statistically for confounding influences on travel behavior and sociodemographic influences in particular. They use different statistical methods because the outcome variables differ from study to study. Almost all them arebased on sizeable samples and have been carried out with a disaggregate approach. After choosing the study analysis model, composition and generalization of the results of study has been conducted in the area of city form and travel behavior by using a meta-analysis method and by calculating Elasticities (amount of sensitivity). Elasticitieswere obtained from the individual studies in our sample case in different ways including copping them from published studies where they were reported explicitly, calculatingthem from regression coefficients and the mean dependent and independent values. Most commonly, they were obtained directly from the studies of Ewing and Cervero (2001, 2010). Elasticities have been computed for individual studies and pooled them to produce weighted averages. In addition; in the studies which Elasticity was not available, significant sign of regression has been used. The most important findings of the study indicate that there are variety relationships between urban form variable and mode choice. As mentioned, density, diversity and design are three components of urban form. For every component some indicators have been defined. Among different indicators, “population density”, “distance to shopping centers” and “intersection density” have more positive and generalizable effects on walking or cycling. Distance to shopping centers has the strongest relationship. Also block size has a negative effect on walking or cycling. “Population density”, “percentage of intersections on crossroads” and also “distance to nearest station” have more effects on using public transportation. Percentage of intersections on crossroads has different effect on walking or cycling and using public transportation. It influences on walking or cycling negatively but influences positively on using public transportation. Moreover, it can be said that “population density”, “gross residential and employment density” and “land use mix” have significantly negative effects on using automobiles (p<.001).
-- Badoe, D. A., & Miller, E. J. (2000). Transportation-Land-use Interaction. Empirical Findings in North America,
and the Implications for Modeling, Transportation Research D, 5(4), 235–263.
-- Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2008). Land use-Transportation Scenarios and Future Vehicle Travel and Land
Consumption. A Meta-Analysis, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 1–15.
-- Bhat, C. R., & Eluru, N. (2009). A Copula-Based Approach to Accommodate Residential Self-Selection Effects in
Travel Behavior Modeling, Transportation Research B, 43(7), 749–765.
-- Boarnet, M. G., & Crane, R. (2001). The Influence of Land use on Travel Behavior. Specification and Estimation
Strategies, Transportation Research A, 35(9), 823–845.
-- Borenstein, M., et al. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis, Chichester, UK. Wiley.
-- Button, K., & Kerr, J. (1996). Effectiveness of Traffic Restraint Policies. A Simple Meta-Regression Analysis,
International Journal of Transport Economics, 23(2), 213–225.
-- Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L. & Handy, S. L. (2009b). The Relationship between the Built Environment and Non
Work Travel. A Case Study of Northern California, Transportation Research Part A, 43(5), 548–559.
-- Cervero, R. (2002a). Built Environments and Mode Choice. Toward a Normative Framework, Transportation
Research D, 7(4), 265–284.
-- Cervero, R. (2002b). Induced Travel Demand. Research Design, Empirical Evidence, and Normative Policies,
Journal of Planning Literature, 17(1), 3–20.
-- Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2003), Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes. Evidence from the San Francisco
Bay Area, American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1478–1483.
-- Cervero, R., & Gorham,R. (1995). Commuting in Transit Versus Automobile Neigborhoods, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 61(3), 210-225.
-- Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel Demand and the 3Ds. Density, Diversity, and Design, Transportation
Research D, 2(3), 199–219.
-- Chen, C., & McKnight, C. E. (2007). Does the Built Environment Make a Difference? Additional Evidence for the
Daily Activity and Travel Behavior of Homemakers Living in New York City and Suburb, Journal of Transport
Geography, 15(5), 380–395.
-- Crane, R. (1996). On Form versus Function. Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It? Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 15(2), 117–126.
-- Douglas G. (1991). Planning on the Fringe. The Impact of Land Use Strategies on Congestion Prepared for the
Third National Conference Transportation on Solutions for Small and Medium-Sized Areas, October.
-- Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2003).The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial
Property Value. A Meta-Analysis, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. TI-2004-023/3
-- Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the Built Environment, Transportation Research Record, 1780,
-- Ewing, Reid & Cervero, Robert. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 76(3), 265-294.
-- Ewing, R., DeAnna, M. & Li, S. (1996). Land use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates, Transportation Research
Record, 1518, 1–7.
-- Forsyth A. et al. (2008). Design and Destinations. Factors Influencing Walking and Total Physical Activity, Urban
Studies, 45, 1977.
-- Greenwald, M. J., & Boarnet, M. G. (2001). The Built Environment as a Determinant of Walking Behavior. Analyzing
Non-work Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record, 1780, 33-43.
-- Gordon, P. & Richardson H. W. (1989). Gasoline Consumption and Cities. A Reply, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 55, 342-346.
-- Jones P. M., et al. (1991). Understanding Travel Behavior. Journal of the American Planning Association, Gower,
-- Handy, S. L. (1993). Regional versus Local Accessibility. Implications for Non-work Travel, Transportation Research
Record, 1400, 58-66.
-- Handy, S. L., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). Correlation or Causality between the Built Environment and
Travel Behavior? Evidence from Northern California, Transportation Research D, 10(6), 427-444.
-- Handy, S. L., & Clifton, K. J. (2001). Local Shopping as a Strategy for Reducing Automobile Travel, Transportation,
-- Handy S. et al. (2002). How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity Views from Urban Planning, American,
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 64-73.
-- Handy, S. (1996a). Metodologise for Exploring the Link between Urban Form and Travel Behavior, Transportation
Research D, 1( 2), 151-165
-- Handy, S. (1996b). Understanding the Link between the Built Environment and Non-work Travel Behavior, Journal
Planning Education Research, 15, 183-98.
-- Hess, P. M. et al. (1999). Site Design and Pedestrian Travel, Transportation Research Record, 1674, 9-19.
-- Holtzclaw, J. et al. (2002). Location Efficiency. Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto
Ownership and Use-studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, Transportation Planning and Technology,
-- Kenworthy, J. (2010). Urban Planning and Transport Paradigm Shifts for Surviving the Post-Petroleum Age in
Cities, ISTP, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.
-- Khattak, A. J., & Rodriquez, D. (2005). Travel Behavior in Neo Traditional Neighborhood Developments. A Case
Study in USA, Transportation Research A, 39(6), 481–500.
-- Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Laidet, L. (1997). A Micro-Analysis of Land use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods
in San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation, 24(2), 125–158.
-- Kitamura R. & Kermanshah M. (1984). Sequential Model of Interdependent Activity and Destination Choices,
Transportation Research, 987, 81-89.
-- Kockelman, K. M. (1997).Travel Behavior as a Function of Accessibility, Land use Mixing, and Land use Balance.
Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation Research Record, 1607, 116–125.
-- Kuby, M., Barranda, A., & Upchurch, C. (2004). Factors Influencing Light-Rail Station Boardings in the United
States, Transportation Research A, 38(3), 223–258.
-- Lau, J., et al. (2006). The Case of the Misleading Funnel Plot. British Medical Journal, 333 (7568), 597–600.
-- Leck, E. (2006). The Impact of Urban form on Travel Behavior. A Meta-Analysis, Berkeley Planning Journal, 19,
-- Lin J. & Yang A. (2009). Structural Analysis of How Urban Form Impacts Travel Demand. Evidence from Taipei,
Urban Studies, 46, 1951.
-- Lund, H. M. (2003). Testing the Claims of New Urbanism. Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring
Behaviors, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 414–429.
-- Melo, P. C., Graham, D. J., & Noland, R. B. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Estimates of Urban Agglomeration Economies,
Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(3), 332–342.
-- Moradimasihi, V. (Ed). (2004). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (Vol. 1), Tehran: Process and Urban Planning
-- Naess, P. (2005). Residential Location Affects Travel Behavior—But How and Why? The Case of Copenhagen
Metropolitan Area, Progress in Planning, 63(1), 167–257.
-- Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (2006). Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence. Opolis. An
International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies, 2(1), 35–52.
-- Pickrell, D., & Schimek, P. (1999). Growth in Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use. Evidence from the Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey, Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 2(1), 1–17.
-- Reilly, M. K. (2002, January). Influence of Urban form and Land use on Mode Choice. Evidence from the 1996
Bay Area Travel Survey, Paper Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
-- Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling. Findings
from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80–91.
-- Soltani, A. (2011). Essays on Urban Transportation. A Case of Sustainability Approach, University of Shiraz,
-- Tompa, E., et al. (2008). A systematic Review of Disability Management Interventions with Economic Evaluations.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(1), 16–26.
-- Waygood, E. O. D., et al. (2009, January). Children in Transit Oriented Development. Travel Patterns, Independence,
and Exercise, Paper Presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
-- Zhang, M. (2004). The Role of Land use in Travel Mode Choice. Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 344–361.