, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 491–519 | Cite as

A meta-analysis of the relationship between density and travel behavior

  • Tae-Hyoung Tommy Gim


To generalize the relationship between density and travel behavior, previous research proceeded with three approaches: metropolitan-level studies describing tendencies on an international scale, area-specific studies extrapolating their outcomes to other areas, and research syntheses pooling descriptive or quantitative outcomes of the studies. However, little research investigated the contextual effect of study areas on the density–travel relationship. Thus, this study conducts meta-analysis to investigate how the magnitude of the relationship differs between two areas that have been frequently studied: the United States and Europe. A pre-test shows that the way of measuring density and travel behavior does not affect the variation in study outcomes, whereas a post-test or sensitivity analysis indicates that the rigor of research designs and statistical techniques affects the variation. The main test finds that the density–travel relationship is significantly stronger in Europe than in the United States. The magnitude difference between the areas is maintained after controlling for confounders, including research design and technical rigor.


Density Travel behavior Meta-analysis Meta-ANOVA Meta-regression 



The author is grateful to Prof. Brian Stone, Prof. Jeremy Diem, Prof. Jiawen Yang, Dr. Joonho Ko, Prof. Michael Elliott, Prof. Patricia Mokhtarian, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.


  1. Anderson, W.P., Kanaroglou, P.S., Miller, E.J.: Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban Stud. 33(1), 7–35 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badoe, D.A., Miller, E.J.: Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transp. Res. D 5(4), 235–263 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, K., Jeffery, R.W., Crawford, D.A., et al.: Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev. Med. 47(3), 294–298 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banister, D.: Energy use, transport and settlement patterns. In: Breheny, M.J. (ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form, pp. 160–181. Pion, London (1992)Google Scholar
  5. Banister, D., Watson, S., Wood, C.: Sustainable cities: transport, energy, and urban form. Environ. Plan. B 24(1), 125–144 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatley, T.: Green urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Bento, A.M., Cropper, M.L., Mobarak, A.M., et al.: The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. 87(3), 466–478 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boarnet, M., Crane, R.: The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. A 35(9), 823–845 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. Boarnet, M.G., Sarmiento, S.: Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Stud. 35(7), 1155–1169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boehmer, T., Hoehner, C., Wyrwich, K., et al.: Correspondence between perceived and observed measures of neighborhood environmental supports for physical activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 3(1), 22–36 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. Bohte, W., Maat, K., van Wee, B.: Measuring attitudes in research on residential self-selection and travel behaviour: a review of theories and empirical research. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 325–357 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brander, L.M., van Beukering, P., Cesar, H.S.J.: The Recreational Value of Coral Reefs: A Meta-Analysis. Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken (IVM) Working Paper 06/07. Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Breheny, M.J.: The contradictions of the compact city: a review. In: Breheny, M.J. (ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form, pp. 138–159. Pion, London (1992)Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, N., Barnett, R., Kingham, S., et al.: The effect of urban growth on commuting patterns in Christchurch, New Zealand. J. Transp. Geogr. 14(5), 342–354 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34(5), 535–556 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 359–395 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cervero, R.: Land use and travel at suburban activity centers. Transp. Q. 45(4), 479–491 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. Cervero, R.: Rail-oriented office development in California: how successful? Transp. Q. 48(1), 33–44 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. Cervero, R.: Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp. Res. D. 7(4), 265–284 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cervero, R., Gorham, R.: Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 61(2), 210–225 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.: Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. D. 2(3), 199–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chung, J.-H., Goulias, K.G.: Sample selection bias with multiple selection rules: application with residential relocation, attrition, and activity participation in Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Transp. Res. Rec. 1493, 128–135 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. Churchman, A.: Disentangling the concept of density. J. Plan. Lit. 13(4), 389–411 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooper, H.M., Hedges, L.V.: The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  25. Crane, R., Crepeau, R.: Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transp. Res. D. 3(4), 225–238 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dill, J.: Transit use and proximity to rail: results from large employment sites in the San Francisco, California, Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1835, 19–24 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. e Silva, J., Golob, T.F., Goulias, K.G.: Effects of land use characteristics on residence and employment location and travel behavior of urban adult workers. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977, 121–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Egger, M., Smith, G.D., Phillips, A.N.: Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Br. Med. J. 315(7121), 1533–1537 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellen, R.F.: Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  30. Ewing, R.: Beyond density, mode choice, and single-purpose trips. Transp. Q. 49(4), 15–24 (1995)Google Scholar
  31. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec. 1780, 87–113 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76(3), 265–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ewing, R., DeAnna, M., Li, S.-C.: Land use impacts on trip generation rates. Transp. Res. Rec. 1518, 1–7 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., Chen, D.: Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. 1831, 175–183 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Forsyth, A., Oakes, J.M., Schmitz, K.H., et al.: Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Stud. 44(4), 679–697 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frank, L.D., Pivo, G.: Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp. Res. Rec. 1466, 44–52 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. Frank, L.D., Stone Jr, B., Bachman, W.: Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the Central Puget Sound: methodological framework and findings. Transp. Res. D. 5(3), 173–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Furnée, C.A., Groot, W., van den Brink, H.M.: The health effects of education: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Publ. Health 18, 417–421 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Garcia, D., Riera, P.: Expansion versus density in Barcelona: a valuation exercise. Urban Stud. 40, 1925–1936 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Giuliano, G., Dargay, J.: Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transp. Res. A. 40, 106–124 (2006)Google Scholar
  41. Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., Smith, M.L.: Meta-analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications (1981)Google Scholar
  42. Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Long, L.: Panels for Transportation Planning: Methods and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  43. Greenwald, M., Boarnet, M.: Built environment as determinant of walking behavior: analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland. Oregon. Transp. Res. Rec. 1780, 33–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hall, P.: The future of the metropolis and its form. Reg. Stud. 31(3), 211–220 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, P.: Sustainable Cities or Town Cramming? Planning for a Sustainable Future. London, Spon (2001)Google Scholar
  46. Handy, S.L.: Regional versus local accessibility: implications for non-work travel. Transp. Res. Rec. 1400, 58–66 (1993)Google Scholar
  47. Handy, S.L.: Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 15(3), 183–198 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Handy, S.L.: Critical Assessment of the Literature on the Relationships Among Transportation, Land Use, and Physical Activity. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 282. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, (2005a)Google Scholar
  49. Handy, S.L.: Smart growth and the transportation–land use connection: what does the research tell us? Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 28(2), 146–167 (2005b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Handy, S.L., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. D. 10(6), 427–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hedges, L.V., Olkin, I.: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, Academic Press (1985)Google Scholar
  52. Holden, E., Norland, I.T.: Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo Region. Urban Stud. 42(12), 2145–2166 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Huang, J., Lub, X.X., Sellers, J.M.: A global comparative analysis of urban form: applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82, 184–197 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jenks, M., Williams, K., Burton, E.: Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. New York, Spon (2000)Google Scholar
  55. Kenworthy, J.R., Laube, F.B.: Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transp. Res. A. 33, 691–723 (1999)Google Scholar
  56. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., Laidet, L.: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2), 125–158 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kockelman, K.M.: Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1607, 116–125 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krizek, K.J.: Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69(3), 265–281 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leck, E.: The impact of urban form on travel behavior: a meta-analysis. Berkeley Plan. J. 19, 37–58 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. Levinson, D.M., Kumar, A.: Density and the journey to work. Growth Change 28(2), 147–172 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Light, R.J., Pillemer, D.B.: Summing up: the Science of Reviewing Research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  62. Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B.: Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications (2001)Google Scholar
  63. Loutzenheiser, D.R.: Pedestrian access to transit: model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around Bay Area rapid transit stations. Transp. Res. Rec. 1604, 40–49 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ma, J., Goulias, K.: Systematic self-selection and sample weight creation in panel surveys: the Puget Sound Transportation Panel case. Transp. Res. A 31(5), 365–377 (1997)Google Scholar
  65. Maat, K., Timmermans, H.: Influence of land use on tour complexity: a Dutch case. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977, 234–241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maat, K., van Wee, B., Stead, D.: Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. Environ. Plan. B 32, 33–46 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McCormack, G.R., Giles-Corti, B., Lange, A., et al.: An update of recent evidence of the relationship between objective and self-report measures of the physical environment and physical activity behaviours. J. Sci. Med. Sport 7(1), 81–92 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McGinn, A.P., Evenson, K.R., Herring, A.H., et al.: Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J. Urban Health 84(2), 162–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Messenger, T., Ewing, R.: Transit-oriented development in the Sun Belt. Transp. Res. Rec. 1552, 145–153 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Meurs, H., van Wee, B.: Land use and mobility: a synthesis of findings and policy implications. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct Res. 3(2), 219–233 (2004)Google Scholar
  71. Mindali, O., Raveh, A., Salomon, I.: Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at old statistics. Transp. Res. A. 38, 143–162 (2004)Google Scholar
  72. Mitchell, R.B., Rapkin, C.: Urban Traffic: A Function of Land Use. Columbia University Press, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  73. Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transp. Res. B. 42, 204–228 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Næss, P.: Residential location affects travel behavior—but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Prog. Plan. 63(2), 167–257 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Næss, P., Jensen, O.B.: Urban structure matters, even in a small town. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 47(1), 35–57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Newman, P.W.G., Kenworthy, J.R.: Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 55(1), 24–37 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nivola, P.S.: Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  78. Passini, R.: Wayfinding in Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  79. Pillemer, D.B., Light, R.J.: Synthesizing outcomes: how to use research evidence from many studies. Harv. Educ. Rev. 50(2), 176–195 (1980)Google Scholar
  80. Pipkin, J.S.: Disaggregate models of travel behaviour. In: Hanson, S. (ed.) Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 188–218. The Guilford Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  81. Rajamani, J., Bhat, C.R., Handy, S.L., et al.: Assessing impact of urban form measures on nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transp. Res. Rec. 1831, 158–165 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D.: Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann. Behav. Med. 25(2), 80–91 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schimek, P.: Household motor vehicle ownership and use: how much does residential density matter? Transp. Res. Rec. 1552, 120–125 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schwanen, T.: Urban form and commuting behaviour: a cross-European perspective. J. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 93, 336–343 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F.M., Dijst, M.: Car use in Netherlands daily urban systems: does polycentrism result in lower commute times? Urban Geogr. 24(5), 410–430 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F.M., Dijst, M.: The Impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: a multilevel approach. Growth Change 35(3), 304–333 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T.: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  88. Smith, M.L., Glass, G.V.: Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am. Psychol. 32, 752–760 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith, M.L., Glass, G.V., Miller, T.I.: The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1980)Google Scholar
  90. Snellen, D., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H.: Urban form, road network type, and mode choice for frequently conducted activities: a multilevel analysis using quasi-experimental design data. Environ. Plan. A. 34, 1207–1220 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stead, D.: Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environ. Plan. B 28, 499–528 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stead, D., Marshall, S.: The relationships between urban form and travel patterns: an international review and evaluation. Eur. J Transp. Infrastruct. 1(2), 113–141 (2001)Google Scholar
  93. Sultana, S., Weber, J.: Journey-to-work patterns in the age of sprawl: evidence from two midsize Southern metropolitan areas. Prof. Geogr. 59(2), 193–208 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sun, X., Wilmot, C.G., Kasturi, T.: Household travel, household characteristics, and land use: an empirical study from the 1994 Portland Activity-Based Travel Survey. Transp. Res. Rec. 1617, 10–17 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Susilo, Y.O., Maat, K.: The influence of built environment to the trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands. Transportation 34(5), 589–609 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Trochim, W.M.K., Donnelly, J.P.: The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog Publishing, Mason (2006)Google Scholar
  97. van de Coevering, P., Schwanen, T.: Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North-America. Transp. Policy 13(3), 229–239 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. van Diepen, A.M.L.: Trip making and urban density: comparing British and Dutch survey data. In: Roo, G.D., Miller, D. (eds.) Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development: A Critical Assessment of Policies and Plans from an International Perspective, pp. 251–259. Hampshire, Ashgate (2000)Google Scholar
  99. van Diepen, A.M.L., Voogd, H.: Sustainability and planning: does urban form matter? Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 4, 59–74 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vance, C., Hedel, R.: The impact of urban form on automobile travel: disentangling causation from correlation. Transportation 34(5), 575–588 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wampold, B.E.: The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings. L. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2001)Google Scholar
  102. Zegras, P.C.: Influence of land use on travel behavior in Santiago. Chile. Transp. Res. Rec. 1898, 175–182 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zhang, M.: The role of land use in travel mode choice: evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 70, 344–360 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhang, M.: Travel choice with no alternative: can land use reduce automobile dependence? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 25(3), 311–326 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhao, H.: Toward a Comprehensive Hazard-Based Duration Framework to Accommodate Nonresponse in Panel Surveys. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of City and Regional PlanningGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations