Unraveling the Influence of Perceived Built Environment on Commute Mode Choice Based on Hybrid Choice Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Relationship between Objective Built Environment and Travel Behavior
2.2. Evaluation Index System of the Perceived Built Environment
2.3. Relationship between Perceived Built Environment and Travel Behavior
2.4. Application of the HCM in Travel Behavior Analysis
3. Research Design
3.1. Variables Selection
3.1.1. Perceived Built Environment
3.1.2. Socio-Economic Characteristics
3.1.3. Commuting Characteristics
3.2. Data Description and Testing
3.2.1. Data Collection
3.2.2. Data Testing
3.3. Modeling Approach
4. Results and Implications
4.1. Results Analysis
4.2. Policy Implications
4.2.1. Enhance the Development of Mixed Land Functions near Residential and Workplace Areas
4.2.2. Position Public Transit Facilities Close to Residential and Workplace Areas
4.2.3. Improve the Attractiveness of Urban Buildings and Street Roads
4.2.4. Enhance Travel Safety in Residential Areas
4.2.5. Adjust Parking Convenience in Residential and Workplace Areas Appropriately
5. Conclusions and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mitra, R. Independent mobility and mode choice for school transportation: A review and framework for future research. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 21–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, K.; Jeffery, R.W.; Crawford, D.A.; Roberts, R.J.; Salmon, J.; Timperio, A.F. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCormack, G.R.; Cerin, E.; Leslie, E.; Du Toit, L.; Owen, N. Objective versus perceived walking distances to destinations—Correspondence and predictive validity. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 401–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, C.; Cao, X.Y.; Liu, C. How does the station-area built environment influence Metrorail ridership? Using gradient boosting decision trees to identify non-linear thresholds. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 77, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.Y. Heterogeneous effects of neighborhood type on commute mode choice: An exploration of residential dissonance in the Twin Cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 48, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, C.; Cao, X.Y.; Wang, Y.P. Synergistic effects of the built environment and commuting programs on commute mode choice. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jandy, S.; Boarnet, M.; Ewing, R.; Killingsworth, R. How the built environment affects physical activity—Views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 64–73. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.G.; Cao, X.Y. Impacts of the built environment on activity-travel behavior: Are there differences between public and private housing residents in Hong Kong? Transp. Res. Part A 2017, 103, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Hu, S.; Chen, X.; Zhao, L. The impact of urban built environment on residential choice of commuting mode: Based on empirical research in Fuzhou. Urban Dev. Stud. 2019, 26, 72–78. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.Y.; Ta, N. The impact of built environment in neighborhood and workplace on suburban residents’ commuting mode: A case study in Shanghai. World Reg. Stud. 2021, 30, 433–442. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, A.K.; Wen, F.; Herring, A.H.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Messer, L.C.; Laraia, B.A.; Evenson, K.R. Reliability and One-Year Stability of the PIN3 Neighborhood Environmental Audit in Urban and Rural Neighborhoods. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2018, 95, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yupei, J.; Feng, Z.; Honghu, S.; Wenwen, W. Research on the influence of urban built environment on daily walking of older adults from a perspective of health. Geogr. Res. 2020, 39, 570–584. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, S.Y.; Lin, S.N.; Li, Z.G.; Guo, Y. Influence of neighborhood environmental perception on self-rated health of residents in cities of China: A case study of Wuhan. Hum. Geogr. 2019, 34, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.Y.; He, Z.Y. The Effects of community built environment on residents’ sedentary behavior: A study in Nanjing. Mod. Urban Res. 2021, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Zhou, M. The built environment and travel behavior in urban China: A literature review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 574–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan ET, H.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: Evidence from a rapidly developing city in China. Transportation 2021, 48, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, B.; Lin, J.; Yin, C. Impacts of the built environment on social capital in China: Mediating effects of commuting time and perceived neighborhood safety. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 29, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann-Lunecke, M.G.; Mora, R.; Vejares, P. Perception of the built environment and walking in pericentral neighbourhoods in Santiago, Chile. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 23, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, C.; Zhen, F.; Jiang, Y.P. The influence of neighborhood environmental perception and individual health on commuting mode choice: A case study of Nanjing city, China. Geogr. Res. 2021, 40, 2823–2837. [Google Scholar]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.K.; Khaghani, M.M. Walking toward Metro Stations: The Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, M.V.; Heldt, T.; Johansson, P. The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2006, 40, 507–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.L.; Ben-Akiva, M.; Bolduc, D. Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 1095–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamargianni, M.; Polydoropoulou, A. Hybrid choice model to investigate effects of teenagers’ attitudes toward walking and cycling on mode choice behavior. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013, 2382, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyos, D.; Mariel, P.; Hess, S. Incorporating environmental attitudes in discrete choice models: An exploration of the utility of the awareness of consequences scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 1100–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.; McFadden, D.; Train, K.; Walker, J.; Bhat, C.; Bierlaire, M.; Bolduc, D.; Boersch-Supan, A.; Brownstone, D.; Bunch, D.S.; et al. Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges. Mark. Lett. 2002, 13, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.; Walker, J.; Bernardino, A.T.; Gopinath, D.A.; Morikawa, T.; Polydoropoulou, A. Integration of choice and latent variable models. In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behaviour Research Opportunities and Application Challenges; Mahmassani, H.S., Ed.; Pergamon: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 431–470. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hausman, J.; McFadden, D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1984, 52, 1219–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Latent Variable | Description (Respondents Give a Score from 1 to 5) | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Combined Reliability (CR) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Built Environment at residential place | |||||
Travel Road Conditions | Many roads to choose nearby residential place | 0.660 *** | 0.781 | 0.519 | 0.804 |
Roads nearby residential place are clean and tidy | 0.702 *** | ||||
Roads nearby residential place are well lit at night | 0.898 *** | ||||
Roads nearby residential place have walking paths and pedestrian crossings | 0.752 *** | ||||
Travel Safety | Security situation nearby residential place is very good | 0.767 *** | 0.771 | 0.540 | 0.747 |
Few traffic accidents nearby residential place | 0.821 *** | ||||
No obstacles on the roads nearby residential place (e.g., vehicles occupying the roads) | 0.695 *** | ||||
No fast-moving motor vehicles nearby residential place | 0.686 *** | ||||
Travel Esthetics | Good natural scenery nearby residential place (e.g., greenery at street level) | 0.856 *** | 0.880 | 0.697 | 0.887 |
Attractive cultural landscape nearby residential place (e.g., building style) | 0.825 *** | ||||
Destination accessibility | Easy access from residential place to nearby supermarkets or shopping malls | 0.826 *** | 0.812 | 0.580 | 0.814 |
Easy access from residential place to nearby parks or squares | 0.810 *** | ||||
Easy access from residential place to leisure and recreation areas | 0.811 *** | ||||
Public transit accessibility | Appropriate distance from residential place to nearest bus/metro station | 0.818 *** | 0.811 | 0.676 | 0.812 |
Satisfied with the number of bus/subway lines available nearby residential place | 0.864 *** | ||||
Satisfied with the accessible area of bus/subway nearby residential place | 0.755 *** | ||||
Parking convenience | Satisfied with the availability of car parking spaces nearby residential place | 0.813 *** | 0.779 | 0.558 | 0.787 |
Car parking charges are reasonable nearby residential place | 0.767 *** | ||||
Walking distance after parking is reasonable nearby residential place | 0.831 *** | ||||
Perceived Built Environment at workplace | |||||
Travel Road Conditions | Many roads to choose nearby workplace | 0.595 *** | 0.801 | 0.628 | 0.812 |
Roads nearby workplace are clean and tidy | 0.724 *** | ||||
Roads nearby workplace are well lit at night | 0.770 *** | ||||
Roads nearby workplace have walking paths and pedestrian crossings | 0.773 *** | ||||
Travel Safety | Security situation nearby workplace is very good | 0.660 *** | 0.831 | 0.572 | 0.841 |
Few traffic accidents nearby workplace | 0.744 *** | ||||
No obstacles on the roads nearby workplace (e.g., vehicles occupying the roads) | 0.739 *** | ||||
No fast-moving motor vehicles nearby workplace | 0.768 *** | ||||
Travel Esthetics | Good natural scenery nearby workplace (e.g., greenery at street level) | 0.796 *** | 0.794 | 0.609 | 0.895 |
Attractive cultural landscape nearby workplace | 0.703 *** | ||||
Destination accessibility | Easy access from workplace to nearest banks, tax bureau | 0.732 *** | 0.831 | 0.642 | 0.741 |
Easy access from workplace to nearest stores and restaurants | 0.795 *** | ||||
Easy access from workplace to leisure and entertainment venues | 0.819 *** | ||||
Public transit accessibility | Appropriate distance from workplace to nearest bus/metro station | 0.764 *** | 0.846 | 0.661 | 0.749 |
Satisfied with the number of bus/subway lines available nearby workplace | 0.781 *** | ||||
Satisfied with the accessible area of bus/subway nearby workplace | 0.636 *** | ||||
Parking convenience | Satisfied with the availability of car parking spaces nearby workplace | 0.676 *** | 0.803 | 0.595 | 0.807 |
Car parking charges are reasonable nearby workplace | 0.548 *** | ||||
Walking distance after parking is reasonable nearby workplace | 0.729 *** |
Variable | Description | Frequency |
---|---|---|
Socio-Economic Characteristics | ||
Gender | 1 = male | 46.3% |
2 = female | 53.7% | |
Age | 1 = below 30 years old | 33.89% |
2 = 31 to 40 years old | 47.26% | |
3 = 41 to 60 years old | 13.84% | |
4 = over 60 years old | 5.01% | |
Occupation | 1 = government-related job | 32.94% |
2 = company-related job | 52.74% | |
3 = others | 14.32% | |
Education | 1 = high school | 14.32% |
2 = bachelor | 79.47% | |
3 = postgraduate | 6.21% | |
Income (per year) | 1 = less than 100,000 Renminbi (RMB) | 21.00% |
2 = 110,000–300,000 RMB | 63.96% | |
3 = more than 300,000 RMB | 15.04% | |
Driver license | 1 = without a driver license | 18.38% |
2 = with a driver license | 81.62% | |
Car ownership | 1 = without car | 17.18% |
2 = with one car | 66.59% | |
3 = with more than one car | 16.23% | |
Household children | 1 = no children | 42.00% |
2 = one child or more | 58.00% | |
Commuting Characteristics | ||
Departure time | 1 = during peaking hours (7 a.m.–9 a.m. and 4 p.m.–8 p.m.) | 78.76% |
2 = others | 21.24% | |
Commuting distance | continuous variable | |
Commuting time | continuous variable |
MNL | HCM | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Transit | Cycling | Walking | Public Transit | Cycling | Walking | |
Socio-economic characteristics | ||||||
Constant | 1.485 | 1.294 | 3.670 ** | 0.659 | 3.938 ** | 4.553 ** |
Gender | 0.427 ** | 0.510 | 0.161 | 0.553 *** | 0.750 ** | 0.301 |
Age | 0.301 | −0.389 * | −0.718 *** | 0.356 * | −0.424 * | −0.762 *** |
Occupation | 0.128 * | 0.301 *** | 0.246 ** | 0.157 * | 0.353 *** | 0.292 ** |
Education | −0.308 * | 0.623 ** | 0.295 ** | −0.233 * | 0.724 ** | 0.446 ** |
Income (per year) | −0.259 ** | −0.881 ** | −0.257 * | −0.293 ** | −0.973 ** | −0.269 * |
Driver license | 2.166 ** | 1.260 | 2.389 | −2.197 ** | 1.331 | 2.461 |
Car ownership | −1.101 *** | −0.873 *** | −0.599 ** | −1.202 *** | −0.880 *** | −0.599 ** |
Household children | −0.599 *** | −0.503 ** | 0.686 *** | −0.662 *** | −0.501 ** | 0.788 *** |
Commuting Characteristics | ||||||
Departure time | 0.056 * | 0.196 * | 0.210 | 0.048 * | 0.364 | 0.119 |
Commuting distance | 0.129 | −0.550 * | −0.175 * | 0.114 | −0.627 * | −0.256 * |
Commuting time | 0.187 | −0.161 * | −0.476 * | 0.424 | −0.533 * | −0.618 * |
Perceived Built Environment at residential place | ||||||
Travel Road Conditions | 0.309 | 0.301 * | 0.479 * | |||
Travel Safety | 0.219 | 0.027 | 0.330 * | |||
Travel Esthetics | 0.627 | 1.107 ** | 0.196 * | |||
Destination accessibility | 0.314 ** | 0.200 | 0.254 * | |||
Public transit accessibility | 0.162 ** | 0.135 | 0.189 * | |||
Parking convenience | −0.185 * | 0.402 | 0.184 | |||
Perceived Built Environment at workplace | ||||||
Travel Road Conditions | 0.089 | 0.062 | 0.041 | |||
Travel Safety | 0.121 | 0.846 * | 0.363 | |||
Travel Esthetics | 0.420 | 0.685 ** | 0.152 | |||
Destination accessibility | 0.171 ** | 0.391 | 0.283 | |||
Public transit accessibility | 0.227 ** | 0.254 | 0.290 * | |||
Parking convenience | −0.049 * | 0.360 | 0.072 | |||
R2 | 0.292 | 0.372 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lu, H.; Gan, H. Unraveling the Influence of Perceived Built Environment on Commute Mode Choice Based on Hybrid Choice Model. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7921. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177921
Lu H, Gan H. Unraveling the Influence of Perceived Built Environment on Commute Mode Choice Based on Hybrid Choice Model. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(17):7921. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177921
Chicago/Turabian StyleLu, Huan, and Hongcheng Gan. 2024. "Unraveling the Influence of Perceived Built Environment on Commute Mode Choice Based on Hybrid Choice Model" Applied Sciences 14, no. 17: 7921. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177921