biblio.ugent.

be

The UGent Institutional Repository is the electronic archiving and dissemination platform for all
UGent research publications. Ghent University has implemented a mandate stipulating that all
academic publications of UGent researchers should be deposited and archived in this repository.
Except for items where current copyright restrictions apply, these papers are available in Open
Access.

This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of:

Assessing objective and subjective spatial influences of modal choice

Van Acker, V., Derudder, B. & F. Witlox

In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference 2010.

To refer to or to cite this work, please use the citation to the published version:

Van Acker, V., Derudder, B. & F. Witlox (2010). Assessing objective and subjective spatial
influences of modal choice. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference,
11/10/2010-13/10/2010, Glasgow.
 ASSESSING OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE SPATIAL INFLUENCES
OF MODAL CHOICE

V. Van Acker, B. Derudder, F. Witlox

Department of Geography, Ghent University

1. INTRODUCTION

Common studies on the interaction between land use and travel behaviour might come
across as deterministic: travel behaviour tends to be explained by objective spatial
characteristics of the land use patterns without considering the underlying behavioural
mechanisms. Higher densities, more diversity and better local accessibility are often believed
to result in less car use, more public transport and more cycling and walking (for a more
comprehensive review, see, e.g., Badoe and Miller, 2000; Crane, 2000; Stead et al., 2000;
Ewing and Cervero, 2001; Stead and Marshall, 2002; van Wee, 2002; Handy, 2002, 2005;
Van Acker and Witlox, 2005; Bartholomew and Ewing, 2009). However, not all people that
reside in high-density, diverse and accessible neighbourhoods travel by definition by public
transport or walk and bike instead of using their cars. This is (partly) due to differences in
more subjective and behavioural influences such as perceptions (Van Acker et al., 2010). It
might be possible that one person perceives the residential neighbourhood as unsafe
preventing him or her to walk, whereas another person feels it is relatively safe to walk
around. Only recently, attempts are made to incorporate such subjective influences into land
use-travel behaviour interaction models (e.g., Kitamura et al., 1997; Bagley and Mokhtarian,
2002; van Wee et al., 2002; Scheiner and Holz-Rau, 2007). However, almost none of these
studies questions whether these subjective influences correspond to the objective reality. For
example, a neighbourhood is objectively evaluated as pedestrian friendly (e.g., low motorized
traffic levels, availability of sidewalks), but an individual with a specific lifestyle might still
consider this neighbourhood as unsafe. Therefore, it would be interesting to balance
objective variables against more subjective variables. One exception is the series of studies
by Schwanen and Moktharian (2003, 2005a, b) which focuses on the concept of residential
neighbourhood type dissonance, or mismatch between preferred and actual type residential
location. They found that travel behaviour of the mismatched individuals corresponds to the
matched residents of the actual neighbourhoods, suggesting that the influence of land use
patterns remain important despite mismatched spatial preferences. However, it might be
interesting to know also how people perceive their current residence and how this
corresponds with the objectively measured land use characteristics of that residential
neighbourhood. This would offer insights in the accuracy of someone‟s spatial knowledge
about their actual residential neighbourhood. For example, the distance between the
residence and the nearest bus stop can objectively be measured but there are no guarantees
that a short distance might also perceived as such. Especially non-public transport users
might not be aware that a bus stop is within close distance of their residence. In this paper,
we will focus on the travel consequences of such (mis)matched spatial perceptions.
Therefore we use data from an Internet survey on lifestyles and leisure mobility in Flanders
(Belgium) which also questioned the respondents‟ perceptions of their current residential
neighbourhood. By adding spatial information from other land use databases, spatial
perceptions can be balanced against the objective spatial characteristics of the respondents‟
current residential neighbourhood. The consequences of the (mis)matched spatial
perceptions on modal choice for leisure trips will thus be evaluated.
2. DATA AND MEASUREMENT OF KEY VARIABLES

Current travel surveys generally lack information on subjective influences such as

perceptions. Therefore, we conducted an Internet survey between May 2007 and October
2007. In this section, we describe the study background characteristics, and the
measurement of objective spatial characteristics and subjective spatial perceptions.

2.1 Description of the Sample

The survey was made known to students and staff members of the University of Antwerp and
the Faculty of Sciences at Ghent University, and an announcement was published in regional
information magazines of several villages in the larger urban region of Ghent (Flanders,
Belgium). In total, 2,363 persons completed the survey, of which 1,878 were retained after
data cleaning for further analyses. Figure 1 illustrates the residential locations of these
respondents.

Figure 1 Locations of respondents in Flanders

Antwerp
Ghent

#
# #
# #
#
# ### #
#

# #
# ## # # # #
#
# # ##
## # # #
#
# # #
#
# ## # ## # ##
# # #
# #
# ## #
# # ### ## # # #
## ## #
# # # # ## # # # #
#
# # ## ## # # # #
# # # # # #
## #
# # ## # ### # #
#### ##
### # # # ## # # #
##### ### # #
# #
# # # ### # #
# # # # # # #
# # #
# # # # #
### ## # # #### # ## # #
## # # ## #
#
## # #
#
## # # # #
# # #
#
## # # ## #
# #
# #
# #
#
#
##
# # # ## # #
# ## # # #
## # ## # # #
# ## # # # # # # ## ### ## ###
### # ###### ### ### # #
# # # # # # # #
### ##
####
## #
#
# ## ## # # #
######
#
##
#
##
#
#
##
# #
##
##### ##
###
###
##### # # #
#
## # ## #
# # # # # #
# ##
## ##
## # ###
##
## # ###
# #
# # ## #
## #
## ### # ## #
# # # # # #
# ## # ###
##
######
## ### ## ## ### ## #
# # # # #
# # # ## ###### ##
# ## #
#
# # # # # # # # # # ## #### ### #
# #
# #
## # ## ##
##
### #### ###
# ###### # # ## #
## # # # # ## # ######## ## ## ######### ### # # # #
# ### # # ##
# # ## ##### ## ## ## # # #### ## # # #
## # ####### # # ## ###### # # # ## # #
#
# # # ##### #
## # # ## # #
# # # # # # #### # ### # #
# #
# # # # # # # #
# ### ## # # ## # # #
# # #### ## # # # #
# # # ## # ## #
# # # # ## # ## # # ##### ### # # ## ###
# # # ## # # #
# ### # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # ## # # # #
# # # # # #
# # # # # # ### # ## # #
# ## # # # #
# #
##
# #
# # # ## # # # ### #
# # #
## # ## # #
## # ## # ## # # # # #
# ###### #
# ## #
# #
#
# # # # # # #
# ### # ## # # #
# #### # # #### ##
#
# #
####
### #
######### ##
#
#
#
#
# ## ### ###### # ### # # # #
#
# ## # ## #
############
## # #
#### # # # # # #
# # # # # # ##### #### #######
# # ##
#
## # # # ##### ##
####
### #####
###
# #####
##
# # # ### ### # # # # #
# # ## ##
####
# ##
#
## # ##
##
# ### # ##
# # # #
# # # # ### #
# ##### # ## # # # ## # #
# ## ### ## # # #
#
# # # # # ## # # ## # ## #
#
# # # ## # # # # # #
# # # # # # ## #
#
#
#
# # #
## # # # ### #
# ## # #
#
#
# # #
# ## # ## # #
### # # ## #
# #
# # # # # # #
# ## # #
## #
##
#
#
# # # # # # #
# # # #
# # # # # #
# # # # # #
# ## # #
#
# # # ## # # #
# # #
#
## # #
# #
#
# #
# #
## # # #
# # # # # #
#
# ## # # # #
# #
# # # # #
# # # # ##
# # ## # # ## #
# # # # ##
# # ### # # #
# #
# # # #
# ### # # # #
# #
#### # # # # #
#
#
#
## ## #
# # # # #
# # # # # #
## # #
# # #
# # #
# # # #
# # ##
# # # #
# #
# #
#
# #
# #
#
# # #
# # #
# ##
# # #
#
## # #
#

lo c a t io n re s p o n d e n t
30 0 30 Km
#

h ig h w a y

Despite our efforts, we did not obtain a well-balanced sample as can be seen in Table 1.
Women, married couples, people with full-time employment and younger people are
overrepresented. But the most remarkable difference is in education. Highly-educated
respondents are heavily overrepresented in the sample: 66% has a college or university
degree, which is considerably higher than the average of 25% for Flanders. Although the
sample is not representative of the entire population of Flanders, we feel that this does not
devalue it for our research purposes and results. Our purpose is to model relationships
among variables, not to ascertain the univariate distributions of variables in isolation. Our
analysis can still properly capture the conditional influence of having a given level of
education on travel behaviour, even if the proportion of people having that amount of
education differs between our sample and the population. The sample also permits
demonstration of our premise that, conditional on a given level of education, subjective
variables such as personal perceptions can still explain a significant additional amount of
variance in modal choices.
Table 1 Socio-economic and demographic description of the sample
Sample (survey) Reference (Flanders)
Gender, female 58.7% 51.1%
Marital status
single 23.6% 37.7%
married/cohabiting 74.5% 62.3%
Education
primary school 0.2% 20.7%
secondary school, 1.5% 21.6%
3 years
secondary school, 32.4% 33.4%
6 years
college, university 66.0% 24.7%
Employment, full-time 82.4% 76.3%
Monthly household income
0-749 € 9.6% 0-833 € 19.1%
750-1,499 € 6.7% 834-1,666 € 32.1%
1,500-2,249 € 14.2% 1,667-2,500 € 21.2%
2,250-2,999 € 18.6% 2,501-3,333 € 10.4%
3,000-3,749 € 24.8% 3,334-4,166 € 6.6%
3,750-4,499 € 13.2% + 4,167 € 10.5%
4,500-5,249 € 6.2%
5,250-5,999 € 3.8%
+ 6,000 € 2.9%
Possession driving licence 81.5% 81.0%
Average age 30.6 years 40.8 years
Average car ownership 1.4 cars/household 1.2 cars/household

2.2 Subjective Spatial Perceptions

Although the survey was not designed to question perceptions, it contained 16 statements on
how respondents perceive their current residential neighbourhood. Respondents were first
asked to indicate which aspects except price (e.g., quietness, presence of green areas, close
to work, traffic safety, …) would influence a supposed residential location choice. Then, they
had to indicate on a five-point Likert scale how satisfied they are with these importantly-rated
aspects in their current residential neighbourhood. From these 16 statements, we selected
only those statements that are relevant and can be related to the physical characteristics of
the residential neighbourhood. Statements such as “To what extent are you satisfied with
traffic safety in the neighbourhood were you currently live?” were thus not selected. The
scores on these selected statements were then factor analyzed (principal axis factoring,
promax rotation, 39.4% variance explained) into two underlying dimensions that influence
how respondents perceive their residence (see Table 2): (i) having access to various facilities
(typically for urban neighbourhoods), and (ii) the presence of open space and quietness
(typically for suburban or rural neighbourhoods).
Table 2 Pattern matrix for perception factors
Perception factor 

and quietness
Accessibility

Open space
To what extent are you
satisfied with these aspects of
the neighbourhood were you
currently live? 
close to leisure activities 0.701
close to shops, groceries 0.681
close to public transport 0.461
close to work 0.367
close to family, friends 0.365
quietness 0.811
presence of green areas 0.801
Note:
Only factor loadings higher than 0.300 (in magnitude) are
reported since these loadings characterize the factors to a
large extent.

In a subsequent step, respondents with similar scores on these two perception factors were
grouped together by means of a cluster analysis (Ward‟s method, squared Euclidean
distance). Doing so, we found three clusters reflecting whether respondents perceive their
residential neighbourhoods as urban, suburban or rural (see Table 3)

Table 3 Description of the perception clusters

Perception cluster 
Suburban
Urban

Rural

Perception factor
accessibility 0.061 0.434 -1.316
open space and quietness -1.112 0.608 0.175
N 529 878 314

2.3 Objective Spatial Characteristics

By geocoding the respondent‟s address, we could add spatial information from various land
use and transportation databases in order to calculate several spatial characteristics of the
respondent‟s residence. For this study, we calculated two additional spatial characteristics
that can be related to the spatial perception described earlier (see also Van Acker and
Witlox, 2010a, b): (i) local accessibility, and (ii) built-up index. We use the number of people
that can be reached by car within 5 minutes as a proxy for local accessibility in general. For
each residence, accessibility is calculated using the regional travel demand forecasting
model Multimodal Model Flanders. It is basically the sum of the number of people of every
census tract in the region, weighted by the travel time from the residence to these census
tracts. Travel time is calculated in ArcGIS 9.2 as the fastest path by car along the road
network. We restricted this travel time to 5 minutes in order to detect differences in local
accessibility. After all, our study area has a limited geographical scale so that differences in
accessibility are more important on a local level (e.g., within 5 minutes) than a regional level
(e.g., within 60 minutes). The built-up index equals the percentage of built-up surface at the
census tract level. It can be considered as a proxy for built-up density. It is derived from the
land use database of the Agency of Spatial Information Flanders which offers a
categorization between built-up surfaces and open surfaces.

By performing a cluster analysis, neighbourhoods with similar scores on these two spatial
characteristics are grouped together so that the clusters describe various residential
neighbourhood types (see Table 4) ranging from urban, suburban to rural neighbourhoods.

Table 4 Description of the neighbourhood clusters

Spatial cluster 

Suburban
Urban

Rural
Spatial characteristic
local accessibility 114,026 54,396 17,400
built-up index 0.884 0.727 0.412
N 90 274 664

3. (MIS)MATCHED SPATIAL PERCEPTIONS AND ITS TRAVEL CONSEQUENCES

After having specified the respondents‟ spatial perceptions and the diverse neighbourhood
types, we can balance these two against each other and determine whether respondents
perceive their residence in a correct way.

3.1 Size of (Mis)Matched Spatial Perceptions

Table 5 illustrates that almost 40% of all respondents correctly perceive their residential
neighbourhood (see figures in grey, on the diagonal) and have, what we call, matched spatial
perceptions. The large amount of spatial mismatch is thus striking. Moreover, respondents
tend to overrate the urbanized character of their residence (see larger figures in red
compared to figures in green). For example, more than half of all respondents who reside in
a rural neighbourhood perceive their residence as suburban, whereas this figure is only 10%
in the reverse situation (i.e., residing in a suburban neighbourhood but perceiving it as rural).
This urbanized perception can be explained by the long-lasting tradition of suburbanization
that exists in Belgium and goes back to the nineteenth century. After all, influenced by its
housing policy and transport policy, a commuting culture has always existed in Belgium. Due
to inexpensive public transport season tickets and a well-established network of railways and
tramways, people were no longer compelled to reside nearby their jobs located within the city
and they moved toward green, safe and quiet residential neighbourhoods outside the city
centre. This was even more encouraged by the housing policy which promoted inexpensive
social house-construction in garden cities, and provided subsidies and fiscal compensations
for individual home-ownership. As a consequence, some form of suburbanization already
existed in Belgium from the second half of the nineteenth century (Lauwers, 1991; Kesteloot,
2003; Verhetsel et al., 2007; Boussauw et al., 2009). This process of extensive
suburbanization led to a highly fragmented urbanized space evoking the impression that
every square meter is densely built-up.
Table 5 Size of (mis)matched spatial perceptions
Perception cluster  Urban Suburban Rural Total

Spatial cluster 
Urban N 170 121 27 318
% within spatial cluster 53.5% 38.1% 8.5% 100.0%
% within perception cluster 33.3% 14.6% 9.4% 19.6%
% of Total 10.5% 7.4% 1.7% 19.6%
Suburban N 202 239 53 494
% within spatial cluster 40.9% 48.4% 10.7% 100.0%
% within perception cluster 39.6% 28.8% 18.5% 30.4%
% of Total 12.4% 14.7% 3.3% 30.4%
Rural N 138 469 207 814
% within spatial cluster 17.0% 57.6% 25.4% 100.0%
% within perception cluster 27.1% 56.6% 72.1% 50.1%
% of Total 8.5% 28.8% 12.7% 50.1%
Total N 510 829 287 1,626
% within spatial cluster 31.4% 51.0% 17.7% 100.0%
% within perception cluster 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 31.4% 51.0% 17.7% 100.0%

3.2 (Mis)Matched Spatial Perceptions and Modal Choices

We start our analysis of modal choices with the formulation of two possible hypotheses.
Several studies point out that subjective influences such as perceptions are important
determinants of modal choices (e.g., Tardiff, 1977; Golob et al., 1979; Gärling et al., 1998;
Parkany et al., 2004; Thogersen, 2006). Consequently, it seems plausible that respondents
with mismatched perceptions will choose for those travel modes that correspond with their
spatial perceptions. For example, someone residing in a suburban neighbourhood but
perceiving it as urban might be more likely to use public transport or walk and bike than his
matched neighbour. Or in other words, modal choices of this mismatched suburbanite
correspond more to the modal choices of a machted urbanite (see „Hypothesis 1‟). However,
if perceptions are not crucial to modal choices, the influence of the residential neighbourhood
itself might become more important. If this is the case, then all inhabitants within a particular
neighbourhood type should make similar modal choices, despite any (mis)matched spatial
perceptions (see „Hypothesis 2‟).
Figure 2 Hypothesized relationships between (mis)matched spatial perceptions
and modal choices

Hypothesis 1: spatial perceptions are crucial

Public transport share / Bike, on foot share

urban perception
Car share

urban perception
suburban perception suburban perception
rural perception rural perception

urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood
neighbourhood neighbourhood

Hypothesis 2: residential neighbourhood is crucial

Public transport share / Bike, on foot share

Car share

urban perception urban perception

suburban perception suburban perception
rural perception rural perception

urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood
neighbourhood neighbourhood

Our data suggests that both hypotheses are true, depending on the neighbourhood type and
spatial perception that is considered (see Figure 3).

For example, residing in an urban neighbourhood clearly discourages car use 3a). Car use is
almost equally high for all respondents residing in an urban neighbourhood. Whether
someone perceives this neighbourhood as urban or not, it seems not to influence the
decision to use the car. An urban residential neighbourhood is clearly an important
determinant of car use. However, this does not hold for a suburban or rural neighbourhood.
Perceptions become more important. A suburban resident but who perceives his/her
residence as urban (rural), tends to act as a matched urbanite (matched ruralite) and uses
less often (more often) the car.

The influence of (mis)matched spatial perceptions on the share of public transport (3b) and
walking/cycling (3c) is less obvious. At first sight it seems that an urban neighbourhood
encourages the use of public transport, and walking/cycling. Even though some mismatched
urbanites perceive their urban residence as suburban, they rather behave as matched
urbanites and are more likely to use public transport and walk/cycle more often than they
actually would do so by virtue of their spatial perception. This association is less clear for
mismatched urbanites who perceive their neighbourhood as rural (instead of urban). Their
share of public transport and walking/cycling is lower than that of a matched urbanite
(suggesting that it is not only about the spatial environment), yet still considerably higher than
a matched ruralite (suggesting that perceptions are not the only influences as well). More or
less similar patterns are found for rural dwellers, but modal choices of suburban dwellers are
clearly more influenced by spatial perceptions than by the suburban neighbourhood itself.
Mismatched suburbanites have similar modal choices than their matched counterparts. For
example, someone who perceives his/her suburban residence as urban (rural), also behaves
as a matched urbanite (ruralite) and choose more often (less often) to use public transport,
and to walk/cycle.

Figure 3 Influence of (mis)matched spatial perceptions on modal choices

100.00 3a
88.7
90.00 86.0
81.2
80.00 74.5 73.9
70.2 69.3
68.2 66.7
70.00

60.00
car share

urban perception
50.00 suburban perception
rural perception
40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood
neighbourhood

100.00 3b
90.00

80.00

70.00
public transport share

59.5
60.00 57.1
54.0 urban perception
51.9
50.00 suburban perception
42.8
38.9 rural perception
40.00 37.2
34.0 35.0

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood
neighbourhood

100.00 3c
86.0 87.1
90.00
81.8
79.1
80.00 77.2
74.1
70.3 69.6
70.00
62.3
bike, on foot share

60.00
urban perception
50.00 suburban perception
rural perception
40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
urban neighbourhood suburban rural neighbourhood
neighbourhood
4. CONCLUSIONS

This paper aimed at contributing to the research on the interaction between land use and
travel behaviour by evaluating the objective and subjective spatial influences of modal
choices. Whereas most studies only use objectively measured variables such as population
density, land use mix and accessibility to characterize land use patterns, some researchers
recently argued in favour of including more subjective variables as well. After all, due to
differences in more subjective and behavioural influences such as individual perceptions, it
remains possible that not all urban dwellers travel by definition by public transport or walk
and bike more often compared to their suburban and rural counterparts. Whereas one
person might perceive his/her residence as unsuitable to walk or cycle around, another
person might perceive this in a totally different way. Recent land use-travel behaviour
interaction studies are aware of such subjective influences, but tend to neglect the question
whether these subjective influences correspond to the objective reality. Therefore, this paper
aimed at describing the size of spatial (mis)match between perceptions and reality in the first
place.

The dataset we used, stemming from a 2007 Internet survey on lifestyles and leisure mobility
in Flanders (Belgium) allowed us to compare the respondent‟s perceptions of their current
residential neighbourhood (perceived as urban, suburban or rural) with objectively measured
neighbourhood type (urban suburban or rural). Doing so, our analysis results point out that
spatial mismatch occurs to a large degree. Only 40% of all respondents perceive his/her
residence in a correct way. Moreover, due to the long-lasting tradition of suburbanization
which resulted in the ubiquitous impression of Flanders as one densely built-up area, many
respondents tend to overrate the urbanized character of their residential neighbourhood.

Furthermore, this paper pointed out how these (mis)matched spatial perceptions, and thus
the accuracy of someone‟s spatial knowledge, influence modal choices. If these spatial
perceptions are crucial to modal choices, then it seems plausible that respondents with
mismatched perceptions choose for those travel modes that correspond with their spatial
perceptions. Our analyses suggest that it is only true for suburbanites. Among all
suburbanites, public transport, cycling and walking (car use) is highest among mismatched
suburbanites who perceive their residence as urban (rural). Within the suburbs, residents are
thus able to choose for those travel modes that fit within their perception of the residence.
However, spatial perceptions are not always the only determinants of modal choices. In other
cases, the residential neighbourhood itself becomes more important. Especially in urban
neighbourhoods, it seems that high densities and high local accessibility almost automatically
result in a lower car share, a higher public transport share and more walking and cycling.
Differences in how respondents perceive their urban residence seemed less important:
matched and mismatched urbanites tend to make similar modal choices. The influence of
(mis)matched spatial perceptions thus clearly depends on the residential neighbourhood type
and the travel mode considered.

Based on our findings, one important recommendation can be made for spatial planning
policies. Spatial planning policies aimed at densifying and providing facilities at
neighbourhood level can contribute to a more sustainable mobility (less car use, more public
transport, more walking and cycling), especially if these policies are developed in an urban
neighbourhood. After all, our findings suggest that within such an urban neighbourhood,
modal choices are mainly influenced by the urban characteristics and not by personal
perceptions as such. However, our results also point out similar planning policies developed
outside an urban neighbourhood will not automatically have the same result and will only be
successful for a specific group of residents that perceive their residence as urban.

REFERENCES

Badoe, D. A., Miller, E. J. (2000) Transportation-land use interaction: Empirical findings in

North America, and their implications for modeling, Transportation Research D, 5 (4) 235-
263.

Bagley, M. N., Mokhtarian, P. L. (2002) The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel
behavior: A structural equations modeling approach, Annals of Regional Science, 36 (2) 279-
297.

Bartholomew, K., Ewing, R. (2009) Land use-transportation scenarios and future vehicle
travel and land consumption, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75 (1) 13-27.

Boussauw, K., Zwerts, E., Witlox, F. (2009) Mobiel Vlaanderen. In: Vanderleyden, L.,
Callens, M., Noppe, J; (eds.) De sociale staat van Vlaanderen 2009, Studiedienst van de
Vlaamse Regering, Brussel.

Crane, R. (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: An interpretive review, Journal of
Planning Literature, 15 (1), 3-23.

Ewing, R., Cervero, R. (2001) Travel and the built environment: a synthesis, Transportation
Research Record, 1780, 87-114.

Gärling, T., Gillhom, R., Gärling, A. (1998) Reintroducing attitude theory in travel behaviour
research. The validity of an interactive interview procedure to predict car use, Transportation,
25 (2), 129-146.

Golob, T. F., Horowitz, A. D., Wachs, M. (1979) Attitude-behavior relationships in travel

demand modelling. In: Hensher, D. A., Stopher, P. R. (eds.) Behavioural Travel Demand
Modeling, Croom Helm, London.

Handy, S. (2002) Travel behaviour - land use interactions: An overview and assessment of
the research. In: Mahmassani, H.S. (ed.) In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behavior Research
Opportunities and Application Challenges. Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Handy, S. (2005) Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships among

Transportation, Land Use and Physical Activity, Transportation Research Board,
Washington.

Kesteloot, C. (2003) Verstedelijking in Vlaanderen: Problemen, kansen en uitdagingen voor

het beleid in de 21ste eeuw. In: Boudry, L., Cabus, P., Corijn, E., De Rynck, E., Kesteloot,
C., Loeckx, A. (eds.) De eeuw van de stad, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap,
Brussel.
Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., Laidet, L. (1997) A micro-analysis of land use and travel in
five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation, 24 (2) 125-158.

Lauwers, D. (1991) Ruimtelijke aspecten van de fileproblematiek. In: Poté, R., (ed.) Files in
Vlaanderen, Leuven, Garant.

Parkany, E., Gallagher, R., Viveiros, P. (2004). Are attitudes important in travel choice?,
Transportation Research Record, 1984 127-139.

Scheiner, J., Holz-Rau, C. (2007) Travel mode choice: Affected by objective or subjective
determinants?, Transportation, 34 (4) 487-511.

Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005a) What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The
impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled, Transportation
Research D, 10 (2) 127-151.

Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L. (2005b) What affects commute mode choice: Neighborhood
physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?, Journal of Transport Geography
13 (1) 83-99.

Stead, D., Marshall, S. (2001) The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An
international review and evaluation, European Journal on Transport Infrastructure and
Research, 1 (2) 113-141.

Stead, D., Williams, J., Titheridge, H. (2000) Land use, transport and people: Identifying the
connections. In: Williams, K., Burton, E., Jenks, M. (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form,
E. and F.N. Spon, London.

Tardiff, T. J. (1977) Causal inferences involving transportation attitudes and behaviour,

Transportation Research, 11 (6) 397-404.

Thogersen, J. (2006). Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: A

panel study approach, Transportation Research A, 40 (8) 621-638.

Van Acker, V., van Wee, B., Witlox, F. (2010) When transport geography meets social
psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour, Transport Reviews, 30 (2) 219-
240.

Van Acker, V., Witlox, F. (2005) Exploring the relationships between land use system and
travel behaviour concepts: some first findings, Solstice, 16 (1) 1-18.

Van Acker, V., Witlox, F. (2010a) Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel
behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual
relationship, Journal of Transport Geography, 18 (1) 65-74.

Van Acker, V., Witlox, F. (2010b) Commuting trips within tours: How is commuting related to
land use ?, Transportation (accepted for publication).
van Wee, B. (2002) Land use and transport: Research and policy challenges, Journal of
Transport Geography, 10 (4) 259-271.

van Wee, B., Holwerda, H., van Baren, R. (2002) Preferences for modes, residential location
and travel behaviour: The relevance for land-use impacts on mobility, European Journal on
Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2 (3/4) 305-316.

Verhetsel, A., Thomas, I., Beelen, M. (2007) De kracht van het Alonso-Mutch model. Het
woon-werkverkeer in en rond de Belgische grootsteden, Ruimte en Planning, 27 (3) 9-28.