Analysing the Effects of Land Use on the Choice of Intra-Zonal Trip Destinations – A Comparison Between Weekday and Weekend Travel
Among the studies on the land use – travel relationship, few investigated it regarding weekend travel and destination choice. This study accordingly evaluates how the land use - destination choice relationship differs between weekdays and weekends using two multinomial logistic regression models in which the destination is classified into three types: microzone inside, microzone outside - macrozone inside, and macrozone outside. Major findings are that the choice of automobile alternatives for travel and their ownership are associated with the choice of the microzone inside while employment and income contribute to external trips. Among land use variables, nighttime population density turns out to be the only land use variable that consistently increases internal trips in all cases, regardless of the zone size and weekday - weekend difference, whereas daytime population density does not become significant in any case. Also, land use entropy and street connectivity are found to discourage a trip that moves from the microzone to the macrozone and transit system variables to facilitate a trip that goes beyond the microzone. Particularly, between two types of transit system variables, the choice of the microzone is likely to be associated with low bus stop density on weekdays and low metro station density on weekends.
Mitchell RB, Rapkin C. Urban Traffic: A Function of Land Use. New York: Columbia University Press; 1954.
Levinson H, Wynn FH. Effects of density on urban transportation requirements. Highway Research Record. 1963;2: 38-64.
Ewing R, Bartholomew K, Winkelman S, Walters J, Chen D. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 2008.
Environmental Protection Agency. Our built and natural environments: A technical review of the interactions among land use, transportation, and environmental quality. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 2013.
Handy S, Mokhtarian P. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2008;75(1): 95-6.
Badoe DA, Miller EJ. Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transportation Research D. 2000;5(4): 235-63.
Næss P. Residential location affects travel behavior—but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning. 2005;63(2): 167-257.
Handy SL. Smart growth and the transportation–land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review. 2005;28(2): 146-67.
Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002;23(2, Supplement 1): 64-73.
Stopher PR, Ahmed A, Liu W. Travel time budgets: new evidence from multi-year, multi-day data. Transportation. 2017;44(5): 1069-82.
Raux C, Ma T-Y, Cornelis E. Variability in daily activity-travel patterns: the case of a one-week travel diary. European Transport Research Review. 2016;8(4): 26.
Kim S, Song M, Chung JH. A study on weekdays and weekends travel patterns and trip maker’s characteristics in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Proceedings of the 65th Korean Society of Transportation Conference, Goyang, Korea. Korean Society of Transportation; 2011. p. 77-82.
Oh S, Ryu J-Y. Need for transportation infrastructure investment in consideration of the demand for weekend leisure travel. Anyang, Korea: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements; 2007.
Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH, Hearst M. Does Residential Density Increase Walking and Other Physical Activity? Urban Studies. 2007;44(4): 679-97.
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003;25(2): 80-91.
Rajamani J, Bhat CR, Handy S, Knaap G, Song Y. Assessing the impact of urban form measures on nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transportation Research Record. 2003;1831: 158-65.
Korea Transport Institute. 2010 Weekend Travel Survey. Gwacheon, Korea: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; 2011.
Suh D-H, Jang Y-J, Lee S-I. Analyzing urban structural relationship between work trip and weekend leisure trip in consideration of compensatory mechanism: A case study for the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Journal of Korea Planning Association. 2011;46(7): 89-101.
Jang Y-J, Lee S-I. An impact analysis of the relationship between the leisure environment at people’s places of residence in Seoul and their leisure travel on weekends. Journal of the Korea Planning Association. 2010;45(6): 85-100.
Goulias KG, Kitamura R. Recursive Model System for Trip Generation and Trip Chaining. Transportation Research Record. 1989;1236: 59-66.
Goulias KG, Pendyala RM, Kitamura R. Practical method for the estimation of trip generation and trip chaining. Transportation Research Record. 1990;1285: 47-56.
Lee Y, Washington S, Frank LD. Examination of relationships between urban form, household activities, and time allocation in the Atlanta Metropolitan Region. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2009;43(4): 360-73.
Liu RR, Deng Y. Developing statewide weekend travel-demand forecast and mode-choice models for New Jersey. In: Sloboda BW, editor. Transportation Statistics. Fort Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing; 2009. p. 231-48.
Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2010;76(3): 265-94.
Beatley T. Green Urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2000.
Van Diepen AML, Voogd H. Sustainability and planning: Does urban form matter? International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2001;4: 59-74.
Ewing R. Beyond density, mode choice, and single-purpose trips. Transportation Quarterly. 1995;49(4): 15-24.
Pipkin JS. Disaggregate models of travel behaviour. In: Hanson S, editor. Geography of Urban Transportation. New York: The Guilford Press; 1995. p. 188-218.
Zhang M. The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2004;70(3): 344-60.
Gim T-HT. Land use, travel utility, and travel behavior: An analysis from the perspective of the positive utility of travel. Papers in Regional Science. 2018;97(Supp 1): 169-193. Available from: doi:10.1111/pirs.12239
Demissie MG, Phithakkitnukoon S, Kattan L. Trip distribution modeling using mobile phone data: Emphasis on intra-zonal trips. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2019;20(7): 2605-17.
Manout O, Bonnel P. The impact of ignoring intrazonal trips in assignment models: A stochastic approach. Transportation. 2019;46(6): 2397-417.
Gim T-HT. An analysis of the relationship between land use and weekend travel: Focusing on the internal capture of trips. Sustainability. 2018;10(2): 425.
Gim T-HT. Full random coefficients multilevel modeling of the relationship between land use and trip time on weekdays and weekends. Sustainability. 2017;9(10): 1824.
Troped PJ, Wilson JS, Matthews CE, Cromley EK, Melly SJ. The Built Environment and Location-Based Physical Activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;38(4): 429-38.
Ogilvie D, Mitchell R, Mutrie N, Petticrew M, Platt S. Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2008;5(1): 43.
Lin J-J, Yu T-P. Built environment effects on leisure travel for children: Trip generation and travel mode. Transport Policy. 2011;18(1): 246-58.
Witten K, Blakely T, Bagheri N, Badland H, Ivory V, Pearce J, et al. Neighborhood Built Environment and Transport and Leisure Physical Activity: Findings Using Objective Exposure and Outcome Measures in New Zealand. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2012;120(7): 971-7.
Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(9): 1478-83.
Greenwald MJ. The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: Evidence and implications. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2006;11(6): 432-46.
Cervero R. Jobs-Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association. 1989;55(2): 136-50.
Cervero R, Duncan M. 'Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2006;72(4): 475-90.
Levine J. Rethinking Accessibility and Jobs-Housing Balance. Journal of the American Planning Association. 1998;64(2): 133-49.
Wang D, Chai Y. The jobs–housing relationship and commuting in Beijing, China: the legacy of Danwei. Journal of Transport Geography. 2009;17(1): 30-8.
Giuliano G, Small KA. Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure? Urban Studies. 1993;30(9): 1485-500.
Choi S, Choo S, Kim S. Exploring the influences of compact development on zone-based travel patterns: A case study of the Seoul metropolitan area. Transportation Letters. 2020;12(5): 316-328.
Park K, Sabouri S, Lyons T, Tian G, Ewing R. Intrazonal or interzonal? Improving intrazonal travel forecast in a four-step travel demand model. Transportation. May 2019. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11116-019-10002-0
Handy SL. Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence: Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use, and physical activity. TRB Special Report 282, 2005.
Zhang M, Kone A, Tooley S, Ramphul R. Trip internalization and mixed-use development: A case study of Austin, Texas. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research; 2009.
Soltani A, Ivaki YE. The influence of urban physical form on trip generation, evidence from metropolitan Shiraz, Iran. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2011;4(9): 1168-74.
Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A. What makes travel 'local': Defining and understanding local travel behaviour. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2012;5(3).
Sadek AW, Wang Q, Su P, Tracy A. Reducing vehicle miles traveled through smart land-use design. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and Department of Transportation; 2011.
Zhang L, Hong JH, Nasri A, Shen Q. How built environment affects travel behavior: A comparative analysis of the connections between land use and vehicle miles traveled in US cities. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2012;5(3): 40-52.
Hong J, Shen Q, Zhang L. How do built-environment factors affect travel behavior? A spatial analysis at different geographic scales. Transportation. 2014;41(3): 419-40.
Gim T-HT. Testing the reciprocal relationship between attitudes and land use in relation to trip frequencies: a nonrecursive model. International Regional Science Review. 2016;39(2): 203-27.
 Boarnet MG, Sarmiento S. Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies. 1998;35(7): 1155-69.
Kwan M-P, Weber J. Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use–travel interaction. Applied Geography. 2008;28(2): 110-23.
Ding C. The GIS-based human-interactive TAZ design algorithm: examining the impacts of data aggregation on transportation-planning analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 1998;25(4): 601-16.
Sultana S, Weber J. Journey-to-work patterns in the age of sprawl: Evidence from two midsize Southern metropolitan areas. Professional Geographer. 2007;59(2): 193-208.
Greenwald M, Boarnet M. Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Non-work Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record. 2001;1780: 33-42.
Bhatta BP, Larsen OI. Are intrazonal trips ignorable? Transport Policy. 2011;18(1): 13-22.
Handy SL, Clifton KJ. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation. 2001;28(4): 317-46.
Boarnet M, Crane R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research A. 2001;35(9): 823-45.
Gim T-HT. Influences on trip frequency according to travel purposes: a structural equation modeling approach in Seoul, South Korea. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2011;38(3): 429-46.
Gim T-HT. A comparison of the effects of objective and perceived land use on travel behavior. Growth and Change. 2011;42(4): 571-600.
Maat K, van Wee B, Stead D. Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2005;32: 33-46.
Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation Research Record. 2001;1780: 87-113.
Korean Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport. Ridership of urban rail transit by year 2017. Available from: http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1259
Stone B, Mednick AC, Holloway T, Spak SN. Is compact growth good for air quality? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2007;73(4): 404-18.
Allen H. Bus reform in Seoul, Republic of Korea: Case study prepared for Global Report on Human Settlements 2013. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme; 2013.
Hupkes G. The law of constant travel time and trip-rates. Futures. 1982;14(1): 38-46.
Marchetti C. Anthropological invariants in travel behavior. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1994;47(1): 75-88.
Holden E, Norland IT. Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: Household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo Region. Urban Studies. 2005;42(12): 2145-66.
Copyright (c) 2020 Tae-Hyoung Tommy Gim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).