Residential location choice and its effects on travel satisfaction in a context of short-term transnational relocation

Authors

  • Mayara Moraes Monteiro Faculdade de engenharia da Universidade do Porto and Technical University of Denmark, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Transport Division, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2220-7486
  • João de Abreu e Silva CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7893-2671
  • Nuno Afonso CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
  • Jesper Bláfoss Ingvardson Technical University of Denmark, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Transport Division, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0609-5165
  • Sousa Jorge Pinho de Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1952

Keywords:

transnational relocation, residential location choice, residential satisfaction, travel satisfaction, temporary residents

Abstract

Temporary opportunities for studying and working abroad have been growing globally and intensifying the movement of highly skilled temporary populations. To attract this group, cities need to address their residential and mobility needs. This study focuses on factors influencing residential and travel satisfaction of transnational temporary residents, highlighting the occurrence of residential self-selection, its impacts on residential and travel choices and on derived levels of satisfaction. We have estimated a Bayesian Structural Equations Model and found that lower levels of residential satisfaction (residential dissonance) are associated with lower rents, living farther away from the place of study or work, and having higher transport expenditures. In contrast, higher levels of residential satisfaction (residential consonance) are related to individuals’ stronger preferences for active modes, lower levels of public transport use, and reduced transport monthly expenditures, which suggest shorter commuting distances. These findings reveal the tradeoffs involving residential location, monthly rent, and transport expenditures, highlighting that providing good public transport connections can reduce the burden of commuting distances. Our results indicate that better transport supply and land-use balance near the residence can improve both residential and travel satisfaction.

Author Biography

Mayara Moraes Monteiro, Faculdade de engenharia da Universidade do Porto and Technical University of Denmark, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Transport Division, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Monteiro, Mayara Moraes a,b

a Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

b Technical University of Denmark, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Transport Division, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, maymmo@dtu.dk

References

Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9

Aultman-Hall, L., Roorda, M., & Baetr, B. W. (1997). Using GIS for evaluations of neighborhood pedestrian accessibility. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 123(1), 10–17.

Barreira, A. P., Nunes, L. C., Guimarães, M. H., & Panagopoulos, T. (2019). Satisfied but thinking about leaving: The reasons behind residential satisfaction and residential attractiveness in shrinking Portuguese cities. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 23(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2018.1447390

Beimborn, E. A., Greenwald, M. J., & Jin, X. (2003). Accessibility, connectivity, and captivity: Impacts on transit choice. Transportation Research Record, 1835, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3141/1835-01

Bergstad, C. J., Gamble, A., Gärling, T., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Ettema, D., … & Olsson, L. E. (2011). Subjective well-being related to satisfaction with daily travel. Transportation, 38(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9283-z

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00236-0

Burbidge, S. K. (2012). Foreign living experience as a predictor of domestic travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.002

Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2012). Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia: Role of dwelling design, neighborhood and neighbors. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.597592

Cao, J. (2013). The association between light rail transit and satisfactions with travel and life: Evidence from Twin Cities. Transportation, 40(5), 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9455-8

Cao, X. J., & Ettema, D. F. (2014). Satisfaction with travel and residential self-selection: How do preferences moderate the impact of the Hiawatha light rail. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(3), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v7i3.485

Chadbourne, M. (2014). Residential satisfaction in the changing urban form. In Adelaide: A comparative analysis of Mawson Lakes and Craigburn Farm, South Australia (Ph.D. thesis). University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, Adelaide, Australia.

Chapman, D. W., & Lombard, J. R. (2006). Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction in fee-based gated and nongated communities. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 769–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406287164

Chatman, D. G. (2009). Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: Evidence using new data and methods. Environment and Planning A, 41(5), 1072–1089. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4114

Chowdhury, S., Zhai, K., & Khan, A. (2016). The effects of access and accessibility on public transport users’ attitudes. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.1.7

de Abreu e Silva, J. (2014). Spatial self-selection in land-use–travel behavior interactions: Accounting simultaneously for attitudes and socioeconomic characteristics. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v7i2.696

de Abreu e Silva, J., & Goulias, K. (2009). Structural equations model of land-use patterns, location choice, and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2135, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.3141/2135-13

De Vos, J. (2019). Satisfaction-induced travel behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 63, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.03.001

De Vos, J., Derudder, B., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2012). Reducing car use: Changing attitudes or relocating? The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.005

De Vos, J., Ettema, D., & Witlox, F. (2018). Changing travel behavior and attitudes following a residential relocation. Journal of Transport Geography, 73(October), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.10.013

De Vos, J., Mokhtarian, P. L., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2016). Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: Bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility. Transportation, 43(5), 771–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9619-9

Dinç, P., Özbilen, E., & Bilir, M. B. (2014). A multi-dimensional scale for measuring residential satisfaction (rs) in mass housing projects. Indoor and Built Environment, 23(6), 864–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X13484619

El-Geneidy, A., Grimsrud, M., Wasfi, R., Tétreault, P., & Surprenant-Legault, J. (2014). New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation, 41(1), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9508-z

Findlay, A. M. (2011). An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of international student mobility. International Migration, 49(2), 162–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00643.x

Frenkel, A., Bendit, E., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Residential location choice of knowledge-workers: The role of amenities, workplace and lifestyle. Cities, 35, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.005

Friman, M., & Gärling, T. (2001). Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. II. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00004-7

Glover, P. (2011). A comparison between domestic and international students’ trip characteristics: Evidence from an Australian university. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766711420834

Guiver, J. W. (2007). Modal talk: Discourse analysis of how people talk about bus and car travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.004

Gunn, L. D., King, T. L., Mavoa, S., Lamb, K. E., Giles-Corti, B., & Kavanagh, A. (2017). Identifying destination distances that support walking trips in local neighborhoods. Journal of Transport and Health, 5, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.009

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. In Statistica Neerlandica (7th ed., Vol. 16, Issue 1). London: Pearson Education Limited. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.1962.tb01184.x

Hinton, P., McMurray, I, & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS explained. London: Routeledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797298

Hur, M., & Morrow-Jones, H. (2008). Factors that influence residents’ satisfaction with neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 619–635.

Instituto Nacional de Estatística. (2012). Censos 2011 Resultados Definitivos - Portugal. Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Estatística.

Kockelman, K. M. (1997). Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land-use mixing, and land-use balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record, 1607, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.3141/1607-16

Kuptsch, C., & Pang, E. F. (Eds.). (2006). Competing for global talent. Brighton, UK: International Institute for Labor Studies.

Langlois, M., van Lierop, D., Wasfi, R. A., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Chasing sustainability: Do new transit-oriented development residents adopt more sustainable modes of transportation? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2531(2531), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/2531-10

Litman, T. (2007). Land-use impacts on transport (term paper). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54876-5

Lotfi, S., Despres, C., & Lord, S. (2019). Are sustainable residential choice also desirable? A study of household satisfaction and aspirations with regard to current and future residential location. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(1), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9631-4

Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.010

Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/0017-4815.00113

Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.044

Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). The importance of neighborhood type dissonance in understanding the effect of the built environment on travel behavior. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.718

Milakis, D., Efthymiou, D., & Antoniou, C. (2017). Built environment, travel attitudes and travel behaviour: Quasi-Longitudinal analysis of links in the case of Greeks relocating from US to Greece. Sustainability, 9(10), 1774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101774

Monteiro, M. M., de Abreu e Silva, J., Haustein, S., & Pinho de Sousa, J. (2021). Urban travel behavior adaptation of temporary transnational residents. Journal of Transport Geography, 90, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102935

Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). MPlus user’ guide (8th edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Næss, P. (2005). Residential location affects travel behavior — But how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning, 63(2), 167–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2004.07.004

Næss, P. (2014). Tempest in a teapot: The exaggerated problem of transport-related residential self-selection as a source of error in empirical studies. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(3), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtly.v7i3.491

OECD. (2019). International Migration Outlook 2019 - Chapter 1. In Recent developments in international migration movements and policies (International migration outlook). Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e35eec-en

Olsson, L. E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., & Fujii, S. (2013). Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0003-2

Ory, D. T., Mokhtarian, P. L., Redmond, L. S., Salomon, I., Collantes, G. O., & Choo, S. (2004). When is commuting desirable to the individual? Growth and Change, 35(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2004.00252.x

Páez, A., Scott, D. M., & Morency, C. (2012). Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.016

Prato, C. G., Bekhor, S., & Pronello, C. (2005). Methodology for exploratory analysis of latent factors influencing drivers’ behavior. Transportation Research Record, 1926, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.3141/1926-14

Redmond, L. S., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2001). The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount. Transportation, 28(2), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010366321778

Riaño, Y., & Piguet, E. (2016). International student migration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199874002-0141

Salzberger, T., & Koller, M. (2010). Investigating the impact of cognitive dissonance and customer satisfaction on loyalty and complaint behaviour. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 9(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v9i1.2148

Scheiner, J. (2014). Residential self-selection in travel behavior: Toward an integration into mobility biographies. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(3), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v7i3.439

Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3039

Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2007). Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2007.9521598

St-Louis, E., Manaugh, K., van Lierop, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 26(PART A), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.07.004

UNESCO. (2020). Education: Outbound internationally mobile students by host region. Retrieved from http://www.sophia.ac.jp/eng/content/download/31978/302437/file/2014_05_gaikokujingauksei.pdf

van Acker, V., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Witlox, F. (2011). Going soft: On how subjective variables explain modal choices for leisure travel. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(2), 115–146. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2011.11.2.2919

Wang, D., & Lin, T. (2019). Built environment, travel behavior, and residential self-selection: A study based on panel data from Beijing, China. Transportation, 46(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9783-1

Wolday, F., Næss, P., & Cao, X. (Jason). (2019). Travel-based residential self-selection: A qualitatively improved understanding from Norway. Cities, 87, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.029

Downloads

Published

2021-09-16

How to Cite

Monteiro, M. M., de Abreu e Silva, J., Afonso, N., Ingvardson, J. B., & Jorge Pinho de , S. (2021). Residential location choice and its effects on travel satisfaction in a context of short-term transnational relocation. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1952

Issue

Section

Articles