Acceso abierto

Exploring the Role of Socio-Economic and Built Environment Driving Factors in Shaping the Commuting Modal Share: A Path-Analysis-Based Approach


Cite

Fig. 1

Location of the city of Djelfa on highlands band (Benslimane et al. 2009).Source: own elaboration.
Location of the city of Djelfa on highlands band (Benslimane et al. 2009).Source: own elaboration.

Fig. 2

Djelfa in images, composed by authors.
Djelfa in images, composed by authors.

Fig. 3

Conceptual model explaining the need of commuting.Source: own study.
Conceptual model explaining the need of commuting.Source: own study.

Fig. 4

Maximum values (B standardised) for the impact of the drivers related to: (a) – socio-economic characteristics of households, (b) – the built environment. P – positive; N – negative.Source: own compilation.
Maximum values (B standardised) for the impact of the drivers related to: (a) – socio-economic characteristics of households, (b) – the built environment. P – positive; N – negative.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 5

Study area and types of housings in the municipality of Djelfa. 1 – Very compact individual housing, 2 – Identical individual housing, 3 – Individual housing of housing estate type, 4 – Discontinuous collective housing, 5 – High continuous collective housing, and 6 – Village housing. The discontinuous line represents the study area.Source: own study.
Study area and types of housings in the municipality of Djelfa. 1 – Very compact individual housing, 2 – Identical individual housing, 3 – Individual housing of housing estate type, 4 – Discontinuous collective housing, 5 – High continuous collective housing, and 6 – Village housing. The discontinuous line represents the study area.Source: own study.

Fig. 6

Method framework.Source: own study.
Method framework.Source: own study.

Fig. 7

Comparison between survey's and census data.Source: own compilation.
Comparison between survey's and census data.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 8

Mesh representing home-to-work trips. Green colour – homes; yellow colour – workplaces; grey arrows – the main directions for commuting. Markings are carried out in Google earth (2015).Source: own study.
Mesh representing home-to-work trips. Green colour – homes; yellow colour – workplaces; grey arrows – the main directions for commuting. Markings are carried out in Google earth (2015).Source: own study.

Fig. 9

Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and modal share.Source: own compilation.
Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and modal share.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 10

Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and the modal share of the car.Source: own compilation.
Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and the modal share of the car.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 11

Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and the modal share of walking and transit.Source: own compilation.
Hypothetical causal pathways between variables and the modal share of walking and transit.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 12

Path analysis of the modal share of the car.Source: own compilation.
Path analysis of the modal share of the car.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 13

Path analysis of the modal share of public transit.Source: own compilation.
Path analysis of the modal share of public transit.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 14

Path analysis of the modal share of walking.Source: own compilation.
Path analysis of the modal share of walking.Source: own compilation.

Fig. 15

Synthesis of the effects of the built environment and socio-economic drivers in shaping the modal share of the car, public transit and walking.Source: own compilation.
Synthesis of the effects of the built environment and socio-economic drivers in shaping the modal share of the car, public transit and walking.Source: own compilation.

Number of studies selected per country.

CountryAlgeriaBelgiumCanada ChinaDenmarkinternationalNorwayNetherlandsUKUSA
Number of studies121 6121329

Presentation of the papers chosen for the literature review.

AuthorsCountryPeriodData sourcesStudy scaleSensitivity analysis methodSample sizeMobility typeDriversExplanatory power of modal
CSLSEBE
Acker and Witlox (2010)Belgium2000–2001Survey on behaviour of travellers in Ghent on people aged 18 and overCityStructural equation modelling2,500 householdsXXXXXR2 = 20.1%
Breheny (1995)Wales, UK1961–1991Aggregated data from Ecotec project (1993)NationalInterpolation from data from Ecotec project (1993)Ecotec project sample (1993)XXXX
Brownstone and Golob (2008)California, USA2001National Household Transportation Survey. Aggregate dataNationalStructural equation modelling2,079 householdsXXXXXR2 = 0.37 and 0.42
Calabrese et al. (2012)Massachusetts, USA2011Deducted by detecting signal of mobile phones carried out by AirSagMetropolitan areaMultiple linear regression1,101 householdsXXXXXR2 = 49.40% and 56.48%
Newman and Kenworthy (1989)32 cities of different countries1980Collection of fuel consumption data and calculation of density excluding rural areas. Urban planning agency of different countries. Aggregate dataCityBivariate correlation analysis32 citiesXXXXX/
Cervero and Murakami (2010)USA2003Data collected from Highway Statistics. Department of CommerceNationalStructural equation modelling370 urban areasXXXXCFI (>0:900) 0.969NFI (>0:950) 0.961NNFI (>0:900) 0.942
Cervero and Radisch (1995)USA1990–1991Bay Area Travel questionnaire surveyNeighbourhoodBinary logistic regression2 neighbourhoods: 620 households for non-commuting and 840 households for commutingXXXXXPseudo R2 = 0.29, Predicted cases = 88.6%
Chen et al. (2007)NY, USA1997/1998Household surveyMetropolitan areaStructural equation modelling2,089 tripsXXXR2 = 0.45 and 0.58
Dargay (2004)UK1970–1995Survey of family spendingNationalSemi-logistic regression256 pseudo panelsXXXXXR2 = 0.989
Dieleman et al. (2002)Netherlands1996National Mobility Survey in NetherlandsNationalMultinomial logistic regression70,000 householdsXXXXXR2 = 0.31
Ding et al. (2017)Baltimore, USA2001Household surveyMetropolitan areaStructural equation modelling3,519 householdsXXX/
Feng et al. (2013)China and Netherlands2008Household survey on mobility in both countriesCityMultiple linear regression2,989 respondents for 10 districts in China and 1,322 respondents for RandstadXXXXXChina: R2 = 0.115Randstad: R2 = 0.124
Handy et al. (2005)California, USA2003e-mail questionnaire carried out on 8 neighbourhoodsDistrict in metropolitan areaLinear regression1,466 respondentsXXR2 = 0.16R2 adjusted = 154
Holden and Norland (2005)Oslo, Norway2003Questionnaire distributed by mailRegionalLinear regression650 for daily trips, 778 for leisure travel, and <100 respondents per zone (eight zones selected for the study)XXXXR2 = 0.231 for commuting
Karathodorou et al. (2010)42 countries1995Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport (1999) for 100 countries and car occupancy from Mobility in Cities database (2006)CitiesLinear regression84 citiesXXXXR2 = 0.61
Khan et al. (2014)Seattle, USA2006Questionnaire/Puget Sound Regional CouncilMetropolitan areaRegression modelling10,510 respondents of 4,741 householdsXXXX/
Kitamura et al. (1997) Attitude is very important more than the others.San Francisco, USA1994Questionnaire. And land use information is obtained from Metropolitan Transportation CommissionNeighbourhoodMultiple linear regression5 neighbourhoods, 640 respondentsXXXXR2 = 0.2125
Limtanakool et al. (2006)Netherlands1996National Mobility Survey conducted by telephone interview and questionnaireRegionalBinary logistic regressionCommuting:2,326Shopping: 932Leisure: 3,072XXXXX
Ma et al. (2014)China2007QuestionnaireNeighbourhoodLogistic regression60 households, 699 trips of 10 neighbourhoodsXXXXXPseudo R2 = 0.16
Manaugh et al. (2009)Montréal, Canada2003Origin-destination surveyNeighbourhoodLinear regression17,000 tripsXXXSE: R2 = 0.06; SE+BE modal: R2=0.40
Marique (2013)Belgium20012001 Socio-economic surveyNationalMultiple linear regression966,247 respondentsXXXR2 = 0.457
Næss (2010)Hangzhou, China2005Qualitative interview and questionnaire in 40 urban areasUrban zoneMultiple linear regression28 interviews3,150 questionnaire respondentsXXXR2 = 0.189
Naess (2014)Hangzhou, China and Copenhagen, Denmark2005Interview and questionnaireRegionalLinear regression1,932 questionnaires for Copenhagen and 3,150 for HangzhouXXXCopenhagen:R2 = 0.233Hangzhou: = 095
Pan et al. (2009)Shanghai, China2001QuestionnaireNeighbourhoodMultiple logistic regression1,709 respondents in 4 neighbourhoodsXXXXPseudo R2 = 0.2714
Zhang et al. (2014)Zhongshan, China2010QuestionnaireNeighbourhoodLinear regression25,618 respondentsXXXXXPseudo R2 = 0.2823
Baouni et al. (2013)Algiers, Algeria2013QuestionnaireRegionalBivariate correlation175 respondents
Bakour (2016)Algiers, Algeria2004Household survey conducted by an organisationCityLinear regression1,200 respondentsXR2 = 0.5–0.9

Descriptive statistics.

VariablesNTypeMinMaxAVGStd dev
Accessibility
Outward journey time (min.)175Continuous220020.5918.26
Home-to-work distance (m)162Continuous5018,0002,206.911,966.96
Number of bus rotations150Continuous031.200.556
Density
Plot ratio*139Continuous0.171.000.590.32
Built density*139Continuous0.603.202.020.74
Design
Distance to centre (m)*148Continuous17.592,659.181,219.54696.57
Distance from national road (m)*151Continuous25.622,569.231,163.83629.94
Average number of floors (n)*139Continuous2.006.003.791.08
Block's area (m2)*139Continuous77036,0617,398.839,150.32
Housing type (1: collective, 2: individual)184Nominal121.540.50
Distance to public transit
Distance to public transit (housing zone) (0: < 300, 4: > 1 km)173Ordinal1.004.002.32370.98
Distance to public transit (work zone) (0: < 300, 4: > 1 km)172Ordinal0.004.001.69190.97
Bus frequency184Continuous0.005.002.46201.56
Diversity
Mixed use index (from 5 to 40)*175Continuous123624.235.38
Households’ socio-economic characteristics
Household's average age*42Continuous16.3343.8027.16818.44
Respondent age120Continuous277043.9510.82
Round trip frequency172Continuous141.660.51
Household's education level46Continuous2.005.003.52300.77
Respondent's education level174Ordinal043.261.06
Number of cars owned184Continuous020.600.57
Profession (1: public, 2: liberal)181Nominal131.190.52
Income (from 15,000 to +60,000 Da)181Ordinal142.150.95
Occupancy rate per housing139Continuous2125.341.87
Modal share
Public transit (1: TC, 0: others)184Nominal0.001.000.310.46
Car (1: vehicle, 0: others)184Nominal0.001.000.260.44
Walking (1: MAP, 0: others)184Nominal0.001.000.420.49

Models fit indices.

Modal sharedfχ2Probability level (> 0.05)RMSE(< 0.06 or 0.08)**NFI(> 0.9 or > 0.95)***CFI(> or closer to 0.95)***
Car5939.350.9770.0000.9541.000
Transit3421.200.9570.0000.9641.000
Walking3428.030.7550.0000.9491.000

Projection of explanatory variables for the modal share of walking and transit.

Axes
1234567
Home-to-work distance−0.0190.787−0.122−0.0790.198−0.252−0.022
Outward journey time−0.1130.0320.0580.0460.8370.305−0.062
Number of bus rotations−0.0180.318−0.1140.0530.827−0.2310.002
Built density0.9350.027−0.0030.043−0.061−0.022−0.020
Plot ratio0.974−0.0220.0140.109−0.012−0.010−0.005
Housing type0.8850.0160.0880.239−0.1030.0760.141
Distance from national road−0.1670.779−0.1350.146−0.0670.3080.053
Distance to centre0.4470.676−0.1600.133−0.0170.3940.044
Block's area0.5760.2010.029−0.1140.0790.479−0.063
Average number of floors0.8740.2830.035−0.085−0.0120.0280.017
Mixed use index0.406−0.2200.0070.565−0.0950.1890.128
Distance to public transit (housing)0.147−0.0030.0680.7150.324−0.075−0.273
Bus frequency0.228−0.0920.0450.773−0.193−0.0620.124
Distance to public transit (working zone)−0.279−0.391−0.1700.4780.4030.1770.244
Profession−0.009−0.2200.0240.093−0.0370.5240.122
Respondent age−0.091−0.1730.8550.141−0.0260.201−0.119
Respondent's education level−0.0460.141−0.733−0.0850.0900.399−0.075
Income0.001−0.1110.470−0.1020.0580.6090.470
Number of cars owned0.0980.2130.004−0.0770.0690.0190.880
Occupancy rate per housing0.0700.1000.752−0.0940.0220.063−0.039
Walking's modal share0.0090.724−0.1000.132−0.198−0.2380.025
Transit's modal share0.0180.3820.179−0.0210.2210.2450.695

Projection of variables in PCA space.

Axes
1234567
Home-to-work distance0.2530.6510.0740.036−0.2630.1310.394
Outward journey time0.2590.1810.3910.5050.2180.499−0.085
Number of bus rotations0.1680.5360.3960.2740.096−0.2980.495
Built density (COS)0.8330.2950.1870.056−0.158−0.1830.075
Plot ratio (CES)0.8890.2950.1450.113−0.110−0.1930.083
Housing type0.8290.2580.2460.2120.021−0.0040.153
Distance from national road0.4360.5970.1740.274−0.3040.2200.222
Distance to centre0.6770.4500.0810.245−0.1770.2110.276
Block's area0.709−0.0570.0180.214−0.053−0.0650.237
Average number of floors0.870−0.115−0.057−0.004−0.0410.253−0.093
Mixed use index0.4520.4240.283−0.2260.074−0.2920.021
Distance to public transit (housing)−0.2970.2020.6290.3440.0980.2370.055
Bus frequency0.4590.063−0.1970.1650.2910.5710.248
Distance to public transit (work zone)0.131−0.0440.3950.1940.7070.0150.165
Profession−0.218−0.182−0.114−0.2790.2700.2630.352
Respondent age−0.0650.596−0.0260.654−0.2170.119−0.025
Respondent's education level0.2870.471−0.041−0.3180.148−0.2920.465
Income0.096−0.3080.4830.5960.274−0.1800.201
Number of cars owned0.0320.2340.6160.1610.5320.070−0.204
Occupancy rate per housing−0.0790.3270.1650.5510.3310.016−0.230
Car's modal share0.1940.3340.6330.0590.3980.177−0.232

Results of Pearson's bivariate correlation.

CarWalkingPublic transit
CorrelationSigCorrelationSig.CorrelationSig
Accessibility
Home-to-work distance (m)0.247**0.002−0.407**0.0000.214**0.006
Outward journey time (min.)−0.1000.187−0.308**0.0000.431**0.000
Number of bus rotations0.1280.118−0.329**0.0000.237**0.004
Density
Built density (COS)−0.0710.4080.0870.306−0.0260.757
Plot ratio (CES)−0.0370.6620.0820.336−0.0520.546
Design
Housing type0.0210.8020.0350.673−0.0550.501
Distance from national road0.205*0.011−0.287**0.0000.1110.175
Distance to centre0.1490.072−0.336**0.0000.212**0.010
Block's area0.1400.100−0.280**0.0010.1640.054
Average number of floors0.0470.584−0.1190.1620.0820.339
Diversity
Mixed use index−0.0690.3620.1260.096−0.0640.399
Distance to public transit
Distance to public transit (housing)−0.1250.1000.0080.9140.0990.194
Bus frequency−0.0700.3430.1130.126−0.0510.492
Distance to public transit (work zone)0.0450.559−0.0100.898−0.0310.687
Households’ socio-economic characteristics
Profession0.198**0.008−0.1150.123−0.0600.421
Respondent age−0.0860.3490.1580.084−0.0790.388
Respondent's education level−0.0040.962−0.0370.6280.0790.302
Income0.204**0.006−0.0860.247−0.1240.097
Number of cars owned0.459**0.000−0.182*0.013−0.267**0.000
Occupancy rate per housing−0.0860.3100.0770.368−0.0040.967
eISSN:
2081-6383
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
4 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Geosciences, Geography