Residential location and travel behavior in Hangzhou metropolitan

area

Preliminary results

Professor Petter Næss

Aalborg University and Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research

Research questions of the Hangzhou Metropolitan Area study:

• Which relationships exist between the location of the residence within the urban structure and travel behavior when taking into consideration demographic, socioeconomic as well as attitudinal factors?

• Does the location of the residence within the urban structure influence the range and frequency of activities in which people engage?

• On which rationales do people base their choices of activity locations and travel modes?

• Are the relationships between residential location and travel behavior different among different subgroups of the population?

• Is the effect of a residential situation where the need for everyday transportation is low, offset by a tendency to compensate this by making more frequent and long trips during vacations and weekends?

Macro-level social factors, e.g.:•level of affluence•prevailing values•social classes

Geographical distribution and design of buildings

Mutual location of functions within the building stock

Transport system:•road capacity•public transport service•parking conditions

Transport behavior•amount of transport•modal split

Actors’ resources, needs, wishes

Methods of the Hangzhou metropolitan area study

• Registration of urban structural conditions, including the distances from each respondent’s dwelling to various centers and facilities

• Qualitative interviews of 28 households – Semi-structured, each lasting about an hour and a half – Focus on the interviewees’ activity participation,

location of activities, travel modes and routes

(to be continued on next slide)

Methods of the Hangzhou metropolitan area study (continued)

• Questionnaire survey among inhabitants of 30 selected residential areas (3155 respondents)– Travel distances by different modes during one whole week – Location of any workplace or place of education– Annual driving distance with the household’s car(s)– Changes in the amount of travel among respondents who have

moved during the latest 5 years – Perception of being dependent of car travel in order to reach

daily activities– Frequency of participation in different activities – Holiday trips – Attitudes to transport and environmental issues

(to be continued on next slide)

Methods of the Hangzhou metropolitan area study (continued)

• Detailed travel diary survey Saturday - Tuesday (27 respondents) – Location of the various trip ends – Purpose, length, mode and travel time of each trip – Driving distance of the household’s car(s) (based on

odometer registration) – Changes in activity participation and car ownership

among respondents who have moved during the latest 5 years

– Flights and other trips outside the local region

Interview areas(distance from downtown Hangzhou as the crow flies in parenthesis)

• Xixi Road, Hangda new village (2.5 km)

• Cuiyuan residential area no. 3 (5.0 km)

• Banshan town (11.0 km)

• Zhuangtang town (13.3 km)

• Xiaoshan downtown area (15.2 km)

36

40

1

39

3738

30

3435

31 32

33

27

2829

24 2526

1920

22 23

211516 17 18

111213

14

7

8 910

2 34

65

Legend: Location with 100 or more respondents

Location with 50 – 99 respondents

Location with 10 – 49 respondents

Overall life-forms, lifestyles and rationales influencing activity participation

(number of interviews indicating the rationale in parentheses)

Life-forms and lifestyles:

• Wage-laborer life-form (7)

• Career-oriented life-form (5)

• Life-form of the self-employed (3)

• Upper middle-class, consumerism-oriented lifestyle (3)

• Middle-class, culture-oriented lifestyle (6)

• Money-making lifestyle (3)

Rationales:

• Wish for social contact (17)

• Physical exercise/fitness (6)

• Esthetics (5)

• Caretaking/family obligations (7)

• Distance decay (9)

Rationales for location of activities (number of interviews indicating the rationale in parentheses)

• Choosing the best facilities:– Choosing facilities where the

instrumental purpose of the activities can best be met (25)

– Choosing facilities where social contacts can be maintained (11)

– Choosing facilities matching the interviewees’ cultural, esthetic and symbolic preferences (10)

– Variety-seeking (4)

• Minimizing the friction of distance:– Minimizing the spatial

traveling distance (25)

– Minimizing travel time (3)

– Minimizing the stress or physical efforts of traveling to the destination (7)

– Minimizing economic expenses associated with the trip (not explicitly indicated, but hardly unimportant)

Conditions contributing to:High priority attached to choosing the best facility:• Specialized job skills• Specialized leisure interests and

‘exclusive’ cultural taste • Much time available• High mobility resources• Many facilities available in the

local area of the dwelling, enabling residents to choose

• Short distance from the local facilities to the closest competing concentration of facilities

High priority attached to distance minimizing:• Non-specialized job skills• Non-specialized leisure interests

and ‘non-sophisticated’ cultural taste

• Little time available• Low mobility resources• Few facilities available in the

local area of the dwelling, restricting residents’ possibilities for choice

• Long distance from the local facilities to the closest competing concentration of facilities

Ways of coping with conflicting incentives of rationales for activity location

• A ‘threshold distance’ approach, where all facilities within this threshold are in principle considered as relevant locations. Which of them to choose is then based on a ‘best facility’ rationale

• An algorithm of first trying the closest facility and then moving further on if necessary, e.g. first visiting the closest vegetable market, and then traveling to the second closest if the desired commodities are not available at the first location

• Internet-based survey of facilities (notably shops) in order to avoid unnecessary travel

Rationales for choice among modes of travel (number of interviews indicating the rationale in parentheses)

Concerning the efficiency of the movement:• Time-saving (9)

• Flexibility (6)

• Expansion of the radius of action (1)

• Money-saving (6)

Concerning the process of moving:• Comfort (7)

• Limitation of physical efforts (8)

• Relaxation (3)

• Safety (1)

• Aversion against frustration (3)

• Physical exercise (4)

• Enjoyment of surrounding environment (1)

• Affective dislike or preference for a particular mode (3)

• Habits (2)

• Demonstration of wealth and status (3)

Trip distance is an important intermediate criterion for choice of travel mode

• Walking is typically preferred for the shortest trips

• Bike is typically preferred for other trips within acceptable biking distance

• Motorized modes (car, e-bike, bus, taxi) are typically preferred for trips beyond that distance.

Conditions influencing the emphasis attached to the various rationales for modal choice

• Individual mobility resources: people who do not have any private motor vehicle at their disposal are excluded from choosing these modes

• Physical stamina of the body: People who are physically in good form may have a wide radius of action by bike or by foot, while people with reduced ability for movement by non-motorized modes may depend on motorized conveyance even for very short distances

• Availability of time: A tight schedule may increase the importance of a time-saving rationale

• Trip chaining: The travel mode is usually set by the most distant destination

• Traveling together with family members or friends

• Economic constraints, inducing people to give a high priority to a money-saving rationale

• Cultural predisposition, influencing which types of rationales are considered to be important and legitimate

• Trip purpose, where rationales of comfort and relaxation appear to be more important for trips in connection with entertainment and leisure activities

Influences of rationales for location of activities on the relationship between residential location and the amount of travel

Rationales for activity location Relationship with dist. to downtown

Hangzhou

Relationship with dist. to closest local center

Choosing facilities where the instrumental purpose can best be met

++ -

Choosing facilities where social contacts can be maintained

+ +

Choosing facilities matching cultural, esthetic and symbolic preferences

+ -

Variety-seeking (+) -

Minimizing spatial traveling distance + ++

Minimizing travel time + +

Minimizing stress or physical efforts of traveling to the destination

- +

Minimizing economic expenses (+) ++

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Dist. from the residential area to downtown Copenhagen (km)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp

ecte

d t

ota

l tra

vel d

ista

nce

Mo

n-F

ri (

km)