Different destination, different commuting pattern? Analyzing the influence of the campus location on commuting
Keywords:University campus, Commuting, Destination, Student, Staff
AbstractThere is a vast literature on the relationship between built environment and travel, emphasizing the importance of built environment as a determinant of travel. However, the majority of studies focuses on the characteristics of origins and neglects the influence that the destination might have on travel, despite the already demonstrated importance of destinations to explain travel. In this paper, we test the relationship between residential and workplace built environment and the commuting pattern of staff and students of the University of Lisbon, a multi-campus university. Data was obtained through a dedicated travel survey, containing 1474 georeferenced individuals. Chi-square analyses were developed to analyze differences between staff and students and between different campuses. A logistic regression model was developed to explain car commuting, controlling for socio-demographic data. Two different models were developed for students and staff. Our results show the built environment and associated multimodal accessibility of the campuses are important explanatory variables of commuting. Free parking at the campus is crucial for car commuting, especially for students. These results emphasize the importance of measuring destinations as explanatory variables and promoting good urban integration of the campus in the city, increasing its multimodal accessibility.
Adams, E. J., Bull, F. C., & Foster, C. E. 2016. Are perceptions of the environment in the workplace neighbourhood associated with commuter walking? Journal of Transport and Health 3(4), 479–84. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2016.01.001
Akar, G., & Clifton, K. J. 2009. Influence of individual perceptions and bicycle infrastructure on decision to bike. Transportation Research Record, 2140, 165–72. doi:10.3141/2140-18
Balsas, C. 2003. Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. Transport Policy, 10(1), 35–49.
Bertolini, L. 1996. Nodes and places: Complexities of railway station redevelopment. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 331–45.
Bertolini, L. 1999. Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), 199–210.
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. 2009. Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), 203–226. doi:10.1080/15568310802178314
Chatman, D. G. 2003. How density and mixed uses at the workplace affect personal commercial travel and commute mode choice. Transportation Research Record, 1831(1), 193–201.
Christiansen, P., Engebretsen, Ø., Fearnley, N., & Hanssen, J. U. 2017. Parking facilities and the built environment: Impacts on travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95(January), 198–206.
Delmelle, E. M., & Delmelle, E. C. 2012. Exploring spatio-temporal commuting patterns in a university environment. Transport Policy, 21(0), 1–9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.007
Dong, H., Ma, L., & Broach, J. 2015. Promoting sustainable travel modes for commute tours: A comparison of the effects of home and work locations and employer-provided incentives. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(6), 150106050204007. doi:10.1080/15568318.2014.1002027
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the built environment—A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–94.
Field, T., Diego, M., & Sanders, C. E. 2001. Exercise is positively related to adolescents’ relationships and academics. Adolescence, 36(141), 104–10.
Forsyth, A., Hearst, M., Oakes, J. M., & Schmitz, K. H. 2008. Design and destinations: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Studies, 45, 1973–96. doi:10.1177/0042098008093386
Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. 2004. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87–96. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.04.011
Frank, L. D, Devlin, A. Johnstone, S., & van Loon, J. 2010. Neighborhood design, travel, and health in metro Vancouver: Using a walkability index. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Frank, L. D, Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E., Saelens, B. E., & Bachman, W. 2006. Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 75–87. doi:10.1080/01944360608976725
Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. 2005. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 117–25. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.001
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. 2010. Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96. doi:10.1080/01441640903187001
Khattak, A., Wang, X., Son, S, & Agnello, P. 2011. Travel by university students in Virginia. Transportation Research Record, 2255(1), 137–45. doi:10.3141/2255-15
Kwan, M.-P. 2012. The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 958–68. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.687349
Lavery, T. A., Páez, A., & Kanaroglou, P. S. 2013. Driving out of choices: An investigation of transport modality in a university sample. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 57, 37–46. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.09.010
Limanond, T., Butsingkorn, T., & Chermkhunthod, C. 2011. Travel behavior of university students who live on campus: A case study of a rural university in Asia. Transport Policy, 18(1), 163–71. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.006
Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. 2011. Validating walkability indices: How do different households respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(4), 309–15. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.009
McNeil, N. 2011. Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transportation Research Record, 2247, 53–63. doi:10.3141/2247-07
Miller, H. J. 2007. Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geography Compass, 1(3), 503–535.
Millward, H., Spinney, J., & Scott, D. 2013. Active-transport walking behavior: Destinations, durations, distances. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 101–10. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.11.012
Miralles-Guasch, C., & Domene, E. 2010. Sustainable transport challenges in a suburban university: The case of the autonomous University of Barcelona. Transport Policy, 17(6), 454–463. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.012
Park, Y. M., & Kwan, M. P. 2017. Individual exposure estimates may be erroneous when spatiotemporal variability of air pollution and human mobility are ignored. Health and Place, 43(February), 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.10.002
Rodríguez, D. A., & Joo, J. 2004. The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 9(2), 151–73. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2003.11.001
Shannon, T., Giles-Corti, B., Pikora, T., Bulsara, M., Shilton, T., & Bull, F. 2006. Active commuting in a university setting: Assessing commuting habits and potential for modal change. Transport Policy, 13(3), 240–253. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.11.002
Tolley, R. 1996. Green campuses: Cutting the environmental cost of commuting. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(3), 213–217. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(96)00022-1
Vale, D. S. 2015. Transit-oriented development, integration of land use and transport, and pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place model with pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography, 45, 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.04.009
Vale, D. S. 2013. Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analyzing the impacts on commuting behavior as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use center in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 38–48. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.003
Vale, D. S., & Pereira, M. 2016. Influence on pedestrian commuting behavior of the built environment surrounding destinations: A structural equations modeling approach. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 730–741. doi:10.1080/15568318.2016.1144836
Wang, C.-H., Akar, G., & Guldmann, J.-M. 2015. Do your neighbors affect your bicycling choice? A spatial probit model for bicycling to The Ohio State University. Journal of Transport Geography, 42,(January), 122–130. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.12.003
Weber, J., & Kwan, M.-P. 2002. Bringing time back in: A study on the influence of travel time cariations and facility opening hours on individual accessibility. Professional Geographer, 54(2), 226–240.
Whalen, K. E., Páez, A., & Carrasco, J. A. 2013. Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 31(0), 132–42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.008
Zhou, J. 2012. Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(7), 1013–1029. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2012.04.001
Zhou, J. 2014. From better understandings to proactive actions: Housing location and commuting mode choices among university students. Transport Policy, 33, 166–175. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.03.004
Zhou, J. 2016. Proactive sustainable university transportation? Marginal effects, intrinsic values and university students’ mode choice. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(9), 815–824. doi:10.1080/15568318.2016.1159357
How to Cite
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) 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. 3) 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.