Journal of Transport and Land Use

Heterogeneity in mode choice behavior: A spatial latent class approach based on accessibility measures

Jaime Pablo Orrego-Oñate

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Kelly Clifton

Portland State University

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9368-2909

Ricardo Hurtubia

Universidad Católica de Chile

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3553-610X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2023.2115

Keywords: walkability, discrete choice modeling, latent class modeling, urban planning, travel behavior, built environment

---

Abstract

We propose a method to estimate mode choice models, where preference parameters are sensitive to the spatial context of the trip origin, challenging traditional assumptions of spatial homogeneity in the relationship between travel modes and the built environment. The framework, called Spatial Latent Classes (SLC), is based on the integrated choice and latent class approach, although instead of defining classes for the decision maker, it estimates the probability of a location belonging to a class, as a function of spatial attributes. For each Spatial Latent Class, a different mode choice model is specified, and the resulting behavioral model for each location is a weighted average of all class-specific models, which is estimated to maximize the likelihood of reproducing observed travel behavior. We test our models with data from Portland, Oregon, specifying spatial class membership models as a function of local and regional accessibility measures. Results show the SLC increases model fit when compared with traditional methods and, more importantly, allows segmenting urban space into meaningful zones, where predominant travel behavior patterns can be easily identified. We believe this is a very intuitive way to spatially analyze travel behavior trends, allowing policymakers to identify target areas of the city and the accessibility levels required to attain desired modal splits.

---

References

Adams, M. A., Todd, M., Kurka, J., Conway, T. L., Cain, K. L., Frank, L. D., & Sallis, J. F. (2015). Patterns of walkability, transit, and recreation environment for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(6), 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.024

Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bento, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Mobarak, A. M., & Vinha, K. (2005). The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1162/0034653054638292

Bierlaire, M. (2018). PandasBiogeme: A short introduction (TRANSP-OR 181219; Series on Biogeme, p. 22). Lausanne, Switzerland: Transport and Mobility Laboratory School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., Smith, K. R., Tribby, C. P., Miller, H. J., Jensen, W. A., & Tharp, D. (2016). Environmental, behavioral, and psychological predictors of transit ridership: Evidence from a community intervention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.010

Cao, X. (2010). Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(2), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4269

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6

Choi, K. (2018). The influence of the built environment on household vehicle travel by the urban typology in Calgary, Canada. Cities, 75, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.006

Clifton, K. J., Singleton, P. A., Muhs, C. D., & Schneider, R. J. (2016). Representing pedestrian activity in travel demand models: Framework and application. Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.03.009

Cox, T., & Hurtubia, R. (2021). Latent segmentation of urban space through residential location choice. Networks and Spatial Economics, 21, 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-021-09520-1

Cox, T., & Hurtubia, R. (2022). Compact development and preferences for social mixing in location choices: Results from revealed preferences in Santiago, Chile. Journal of Regional Science, 62(1), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12563

Ding, C., Cao, X., Yu, B., & Ju, Y. (2021). Non-linear associations between zonal built environment attributes and transit commuting mode choice accounting for spatial heterogeneity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 148, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.03.021

Duranton, G., & Turner, M. A. (2018). Urban form and driving: Evidence from US cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 108, 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2018.10.003

Eom, H.-J., & Cho, G.-H. (2015). Exploring thresholds of built environment characteristics for walkable communities: Empirical evidence from the Seoul metropolitan area. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.005

Etzioni, S., Daziano, R. A., Ben-Elia, E., & Shiftan, Y. (2021). Preferences for shared automated vehicles: A hybrid latent class modeling approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 125, 103013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103013

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766

Ewing, R., Greenwald, M. J., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, J., Cervero, R., & Thomas, J. (2009). Measuring the impact of urban form and transit access on mixed use site trip generation rates—Portland pilot study. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.

Feuillet, T., Commenges, H., Menai, M., Salze, P., Perchoux, C., Reuillon, R., ,,, & Oppert, J. M. (2018). A massive geographically weighted regression model of walking-environment relationships. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.03.002

Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., … & Owen, N. (2016). City planning and population health: A global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912–2924. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6

Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(8), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2

Guimpert, I., & Hurtubia, R. (2018). Measuring, understanding and modelling the walking neighborhood as a function of built environment and socioeconomic variables. Journal of Transport Geography, 71, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.07.001

Huang, R., Moudon, A. V., Zhou, C., & Saelens, B. E. (2019). Higher residential and employment densities are associated with more objectively measured walking in the home neighborhood. Journal of Transport & Health, 12, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.12.002

Hurtubia, R., Nguyen, M. H., Glerum, A., & Bierlaire, M. (2014). Integrating psychometric indicators in latent class choice models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 64, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.010

Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1989). A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 379. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172759

Kärmeniemi, M., Lankila, T., Ikäheimo, T., Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., & Korpelainen, R. (2018). The built environment as a determinant of physical activity: A systematic review of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax043

Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009

Kim, S., & Rasouli, S. (2022). The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of mobility-as-a-service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 159, 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.020

Koohsari, M. J., Sugiyama, T., Sahlqvist, S., Mavoa, S., Hadgraft, N., & Owen, N. (2015). Neighborhood environmental attributes and adults’ sedentary behaviors: Review and research agenda. Preventive Medicine, 77, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.05.027

Kroesen, M. (2019). Residential self-selection and the reverse causation hypothesis: Assessing the endogeneity of stated reasons for residential choice. Travel Behavior and Society, 16, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.05.002

Lefebvre-Ropars, G., Morency, C., Singleton, P. A., & Clifton, K. J. (2017). Spatial transferability assessment of a composite walkability index: The pedestrian index of the environment (PIE). Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.018

Lewis, S., & Grande del Valle, E. (2019). San Francisco’s neighborhoods and auto dependency. Cities, 86, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.017

Lin, T., Wang, D., & Guan, X. (2017). The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination? Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.004

Marquet, O., & Miralles-Guasch, C. (2015). The walkable city and the importance of the proximity environments for Barcelona’s everyday mobility. Cities, 42, 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.012

McCormack, G. R., & Shiell, A. (2011). In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-125

McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 104–142). New York: Academic Press.

Merlin, L. A. (2018). The influence of infill development on travel behavior. Research in Transportation Economics, 67, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.06.003

Oliva, I., Galilea, P., & Hurtubia, R. (2018). Identifying cycling-inducing neighborhoods: A latent class approach. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(10), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1431822

Oregon Modeling Steering Committee. (2011). Oregon travel and activity survey, 2009–2011. Salem, OR: Oregon Modeling Steering Committee.

Owen, A., & Levinson, D. M. (2015). Modeling the commute mode share of transit using continuous accessibility to jobs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.002

Poletti, F., Buckley, T., Noriega-Goodwin, D., & Padgham, M. (2020). Read, validate, analyze, and map files in the general transit feed specification (R package version 0.7.2.). Retrieved from https://rdrr.io/github/r-transit/tidytransit/

Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(7 Suppl), S550–S566. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4

Salon, D. (2015). Heterogeneity in the relationship between the built environment and driving: Focus on neighborhood type and travel purpose. Research in Transportation Economics, 52, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.008

Salon, D., Boarnet, M. G., Handy, S., Spears, S., & Tal, G. (2012). How do local actions affect VMT? A critical review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(7), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.006

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B., Doyle-Baker, P., & McCormack, G. (2018). Neighborhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Sarrias, M. (2019). Do monetary subjective well-being evaluations vary across space? Comparing continuous and discrete spatial heterogeneity. Spatial Economic Analysis, 14(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2018.1485968

Stevens, M. R. (2017). Does compact development make people drive less? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044

Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., … & Woodcock, J. (2016). Land use, transport, and population health: Estimating the health benefits of compact cities. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2925–2935. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30067-8

Stockton, J. C., Duke-Williams, O., Stamatakis, E., Mindell, J. S., Brunner, E. J., & Shelton, N. J. (2016). Development of a novel walkability index for London, United Kingdom: Cross-sectional application to the Whitehall II Study. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 416. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3012-2

Tanishita, M., & van Wee, B. (2017). Impact of regional population density on walking behavior. Transportation Planning and Technology, 40(6), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2017.1325137

Wen, C.-H., Wang, W.-C., & Fu, C. (2012). Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(2), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.09.002