| Literature DB >> 30158467 |
Xiaoquan Wang1, Chunfu Shao2, Chaoying Yin3, Chengxiang Zhuge4.
Abstract
Although the impacts of built environment on car ownership and use have been extensively studied, limited evidence has been offered for the role of spatial effects in influencing the interaction between built environment and travel behavior. Ignoring the spatial effects may lead to misunderstanding the role of the built environment and providing inconsistent transportation policies. In response to this, we try to employ a two-step modeling approach to investigate the impacts of built environment on car ownership and use by combining multilevel Bayesian model and conditional autocorrelation (CAR) model to control for spatial autocorrelation. In the two-step model, the predicting car ownership status in the first-step model is used as a mediating variable in the second-step car use model. Taking Changchun as a case study, this paper identifies the presence of spatial effects in influencing the effects of built environment on car ownership and use. Meanwhile, the direct and cascading effects of built environment on car ownership and use are revealed. The results show that the spatial autocorrelation exists in influencing the interaction between built environment and car dependency. The results suggest that it is necessary for urban planners to pay attention to the spatial effects and make targeted policy according to local land use characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: built environment; car ownership; car use; multilevel Bayesian model; spatial autocorrelation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30158467 PMCID: PMC6165495 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15091868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study region and traffic analysis zones.
Descriptive statistics of socio-economic and travel-related characteristics.
| Variable Name | Variable Description | Min | Max | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Car ownership | 1, if one or more cars are available; 0, otherwise | 0 | 1 | 0.18 |
| Hukou | 1, local hukou; 0, otherwise | 0 | 1 | 0.95 |
| Household income 1 | 1, household income yearly is less than 20,000 (RMB); 0, otherwise (around US$3 thousand) | 0 | 1 | 0.25 |
| Household income 2 | 1, household income yearly is between 20,000–100,000 (RMB); 0, otherwise (around US$3–15 thousand) | 0 | 1 | 0.73 |
| Household income 3 | 1, household income yearly is less than 100,000 (RMB); 0, otherwise (around US$15 thousand) | 0 | 1 | 0.02 |
| Household size | Number of household members | 1 | 9 | 2.71 |
| Household student | Number of household students | 0 | 4 | 0.33 |
Descriptive statistics of built environment characteristics.
| Variable Name | Variable Description | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population density | Population density per square kilometer at the TAZ level | 0.34 | 0.22 |
| Intersection density | Intersection density per square kilometer at the TAZ level | 0.59 | 0.17 |
| Transit station density | Transit station density per square kilometer at the TAZ level | 10.50 | 5.91 |
| Distance to CBD | Euclidean distance from residence to CBD (unit: km) | 4.8 | 2.91 |
| Land use mix | A measure of the composition of residential buildings, hotels, restaurants, supermarkets, parks, squares, malls, schools, hospitals, banks, and government departments | 33.38 | 17.83 |
Note: CBD: central business district.
Multilevel Bayesian Logistic regression of household car ownership.
| Variable | Mean | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5% | 97.5% | ||
| Socio-demographics at household level | |||
| Hukou | 0.91 | 0.79 | 1.04 |
| Household income 1 (reference: Household income 2) | −0.17 | −0.25 | −0.09 |
| Household income 3 (reference: Household income 2) | 0.43 | 0.30 | 0.56 |
| Household size | 0.03 | −0.05 | 0.11 |
| Household student | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.12 |
| Built environment at TAZ level | |||
| Residential density | −0.51 | −0.31 | −0.71 |
| Land use mix | −0.23 | −0.37 | −0.10 |
| Distance to CBD | 0.09 | −0.03 | 0.23 |
| Transit station density | −0.09 | −0.14 | −0.04 |
| Intersection density | −0.08 | −0.14 | −0.02 |
|
| 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.11 |
|
| 1.23 | 0.76 | 1.71 |
Note: CI: confidence interval. TAZ: traffic analysis zone.
Multilevel Bayesian Normal regression of household VKT (vehicle kilometers traveled).
| Variable | Mean | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5% | 97.5% | ||
| Socio-demographics at household level | |||
| Predicted car ownership status | 2.19 | 1.85 | 2.53 |
| Hukou | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.11 |
| Household income 1 (reference: Household income 2) | −0.19 | −0.28 | −0.11 |
| Household income 3 (reference: Household income 2) | 0.39 | 0.18 | 0.61 |
| Household size | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.12 |
| Household student | 0.42 | −0.09 | 0.93 |
| Built environment at TAZ level | |||
| Residential density | −0.10 | −0.17 | −0.03 |
| Land use mix | −0.07 | −0.15 | 0.01 |
| Distance to CBD | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Transit station density | −0.12 | −0.17 | −0.08 |
| Intersection density | −0.11 | −0.32 | 0.10 |
|
| 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.49 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.23 |
Elasticities of household VKT with built environment variables.
| Variable | Elasticity of VKT via Car Ownership | Combined Elasticity of VKT |
|---|---|---|
| Residential density | −0.01 | −0.02 |
| Land use mix | −0.01 | −0.01 |
| Distance to CBD | − | 0.12 |
| Transit station density | −0.03 | −0.08 |
| Intersection density | −0.04 | −0.04 |
Note: Adapted from [31], we used the and represent the baseline total VKT generated and new VKT estimated after applying 10% increase for the variable of interest. The is obtained using the coefficient estimates from the regression model (Table 4), in which the predicted car ownership status is used. Then a 10% increase of the target variable and we update the new status of the predicted car ownership status according to the discrete choice model. is generated by using the regression coefficients and the predicted number of car ownership. The elasticity can be calibrated by .