Actor Perspectives

  • Chris De GruyterEmail author
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


This chapter presents the second set of research results by detailing the findings from interviews conducted with industry representatives. The aim of the chapter is to gain an appreciation for the perspectives of industry actors involved in travel planning for new residential developments.


Interview Participant Future Expectation Residential Development Property Manager Implementation Challenge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Addison & Associates. (2008). Delivering travel plans through the planning process—Research report. London, UK: Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  2. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Davison, L., Enoch, M., & Ison, S. (2010). European experience of travel plans: An expert perspective. Paper presented to 12th World Conference in Transportation Research, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2010.Google Scholar
  4. De Gruyter, C., Rose, G., & Currie G (2015). ‘Enhancing the impact of travel plans for new residential developments: Insights from implementation theory’, Transport Policy, 40, 24–35.Google Scholar
  5. Enoch, M., & Ison, S. (2008). Expert perspectives on the past, present and future of travel plans in the UK: Research report. Department for Transport and the National Business Travel Network.Google Scholar
  6. Hendricks, S. (2008). Four challenges to incorporating transportation demand management into the land development process. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no., 2046, 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Llewellyn, R., Tricker, R., & Paton, D. (2014). Travel plans: A critical comparison of the application of land use planning processes in England and Scotland. Transport, no. iFirst, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. North Carolina, USA: Family Health International.Google Scholar
  10. Richardson, A. J., Ampt, E. S., & Meyburg, A. H. (1995). Survey methods for transport planning (1st edn). Eucalytpus Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rye, T., Green, C., Young, E., & Ison, S. (2011a). Using the land-use planning process to secure travel plans: An assessment of progress in England to date. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rye, T., Welsch, J., Plevnik, A., & de Tomassi, R. (2011b). First steps towards cross-national transfer in integrating mobility management and land use planning in the EU and Switzerland. Transport Policy, 18, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wynne, L. (2013). Travel planning and the land-use planning system: Understanding the effectiveness of travel planning requirements in NSW Development Control Plans. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Yeates, S., & Enoch, M. (2012). Travel plans from the developer perspective. Paper presented to 91st Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  15. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edn). California, US: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Transport StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations