Toward a spatial-temporal measure of land-use mix


  • Steven R. Gehrke Dept of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University
  • Kelly J. Clifton Dept of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University



Urban planning and public-health research has long been interested in the connection between land-use mix and travel. Interest from urban planners stems from the potential of transportation efficiency gains achieved by an increased land-use mix and subsequent shortening of trip lengths; whereas, public-health research advocates an increased land-use mix as an effective policy for facilitating greater physical activity. Yet, despite the transportation, land-use, and health benefits related to improving land-use mix and the extent of topical attention given by researchers, no consensus has been reached regarding the magnitude of its effect on travel. This absence of agreement may largely be attributed to the theoretical and methodological failings persistent in present attempts to accurately reflect land-use interaction and operationalize its quantification within a defined spatial extent. To better evaluate the impact of land-use mix on travel behavior and assess more temporal policies, a robust mix measure accounting for these two elements of land-use interaction and geographic scale as well as a temporal element of land-use mixing—missing from present specifications—must be introduced. This paper establishes the research agenda for a spatial-temporal land-use mix measure by (1) identifying the conceptual and methodological faults inherent to current land-use interaction and geographic-scale representations and (2) describing strategies and practical benefits of representing the temporal availability of land-use mixing in guiding innovative transportation/land-use policies.


Argawal, A., M. Schlossberg, and K. Irvin. 2008. How far, by which route, and why? A spatial analysis of pedestrian preference. Journal of Urban Design 13(1): 81-98. doi: 10.1080/13574800701804074.

Badoe, D. and E. Miller. 2000. Transportation-land use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transportation Research Part D 5(4): 235-263. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X.

Bhat, C. and R. Gossen. 2004. A mixed multinomial logit model analysis of weekend recreational episode type choice. Transportation Research Part B 38: 767-787. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2003.10.003.

Brownson, R., C. Hoehner, K. Day, A. Forsyth, and J. Sallis. 2009. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36(4): S99-S123.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.005.

Boarnet, M. 2011. A broader context for land use and travel behavior, and a research agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association 77(3): 197-213. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2011.593483.

Cervero, R. 1996. Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A 30(5): 361-377. doi: 10.1016/0965-8564(95)00033-X.

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

Cervero, R., T. Rood, and B. Appleyard. 1999. Tracking accessibility: Employment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco bay area. Environment and Planning A 31: 1259-1278.

Chen, Y., S. Ravulaparthy, K. Deutsch, P. Dalal, S. Y. Yoon, T. Lei, K. Goulias, R. Pendyala, C. Bhat, and H. Hu. 2011. Development of indicators of opportunity-based accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2255: 58-68. doi: 10.3141/2255-07.

Chiu, Y., J. Bottom, M. Mahut, A. Paz, R. Balakrishna, T. Waller, and J. Hicks. 2011. Dynamic traffic assignment: A primer. Transportation Research Circular E-C153, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Christian, H. E., F. C. Bull, N. J. Middleton, M. W. Knuiman, M. L. Divitni, P. Hooper, A. Amarasinghe, and B. Giles-Corti. 2011. How important is the land use mix measure in understanding walking behavior? Results from the RESIDE study. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 8: 55-67. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0.

Clark, A. and D. Scott. 2014. Understanding the impact of the modifiable areal unit problem on the relationship between active travel and the built environment. Urban Studies 51(2): 284-299. doi: 10.1177/0042098013489742.

Clifton, K., R. Ewing, G. Knaap and Y. Song. 2008. Quantitative analysis of urban form: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking an Urban Sustainability 1(1): 17-45. doi: 10.1080/17549170801903496.

Downs, A. 2005. Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(4): 367-378. doi: 10.1080/01944360508976707.

Duncan, M., E. Winkler, T. Sugiyama, E. Cerin, L. duToit, E. Leslie, and N. Owen. 2010. Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: Do land uses and geographical scale matter? Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 87(5): 782-795. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9488-7.

Ewing, R. and R. Cervero. 2001. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1780: 87-114. doi: 10.3141/1780-10.

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

Fan, Y. and A. Khattak. 2008. Urban form, individual spatial footprints, and travel: Examination of space-use behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2082: 98-106. doi: 10.3141/2082-12.

Forsyth, A., M. Hearst, J. M. Oakes, and K. H. Schmitz. 2008. Design and destination: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Studies 45(9): 1973-1996. doi: 10.1177/0042098008093386.

Frank, L. 2000. Land use and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and quality of life. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20(6): 6-22. doi: 10.1177/073945600128992564.

Frank, L., M. Bradley, S. Kavage, J. Chapman, and T. K. Lawton. 2008. Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation 35: 37-54. doi: 10.1007/s11116-007-9136-6.

Frank, L. D. and G. Pivo. 1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1466: 44-52.

Gauvin, L., E. Robitaille, M. Rive, L. McLaren, C. Dassa, and L. Potvin. 2007. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Neighbourhoods: The conundrum of identifying territorial units. Canadian Journal of Public Health 98(1): S18-S26.

Geurs, K. T. and van Wee, B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12: 127-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.

Guo, J. and C. Bhat. 2007. Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: Application to residential location choice analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 15: 31-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.11.001.

Hagerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science 24(1): 6-21.

Handy, S. 1992. Regional versus local accessibility: Neo-traditional development and its implication for non-work travel. Built Environment 18(4): 253-267.

Handy, S. 2005. Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review 28(2): 146-167. doi: 10.1177/0160017604273626.

Hansen, W. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73-76.

Hess, P. M., A. V. Moudon, and M. G. Logsdon. 2001. Measuring land use patterns for transportation research. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1780: 17-24. doi: 10.3141/1780-03.

Horton, F. E. and D. R. Reynolds. 1971. Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. Economic Geography 47(1): 36-48.

Kockelman, K. 1997. Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1607: 116-125. doi: 10.3141/1607-16.

Krizek, K. 2003a. Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(3): 270-287. doi: 10.1177/0739456X02250315.

Krizek, K. 2003b. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? Journal of the American Planning Association 69(3): 265-281. doi: 10.1080/01944360308978019.

Kwan, M. P. and J. Weber. 2008. Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography 28: 110-123. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.002.

Lenntorp, B. 1999. Time-geography – at the end of its beginning. GeoJournal 48: 155-158. doi: 10.1023/A:1007067322523.

Manaugh, K. and T. Kreider. 2013. What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix. The Journal of Transport and Land Use 6(1): 63-72. doi:

Metro. May 2011. State of the Centers: Investing in Our Communities. /files /11-01-11_soc-_final_-_web.pdf.

Miller, H. J. 1999. Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: Basic theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis 31(1): 1-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1999.tb00408.x.

Mitra, R. and R. Buliung. 2012. Built environment correlates of active school transportation: Neighborhood and the modifiable areal unit problem. Journal of Transport Geography 20: 51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.009.

Saelens, B., J. Sallis, and L. Frank. 2003. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literature. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25(2): 80-91. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2502_03.

Song, Y. and G. J. Knaap. 2004. Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 210-225. doi: 10.1080/01944360408976371.

Song, Y. and G. J. Knaap. 2007. Quantitative classification of neighbourhoods: The neighbourhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Design 12(1): 1-24. doi: 10.1080/13574800601072640.

Song, Y., L. Merlin, and D. Rodriguez. 2013. Comparing measures of urban land use mix. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 42: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.08.001.

Song, Y. and D. Rodriguez. 2005. The measurement of the level of mixed land uses: A synthetic approach. Carolina Transportation Program White Paper Series, Chapel Hill, NC.

Yoon, S. Y. and K. Goulias. 2010. Impact of time-space prism accessibility on time use behavior and its propagation through intra-household interaction. Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transportation Research 2: 245-260. doi: 10.3328/TL.2010.02.04.245-260.

Zhang, M. and N. Kukadia. 2005. Metrics of urban form and the modifiable areal unit problem. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1902: 71-79. doi: 10.3141/1902-09.




How to Cite

Gehrke, S. R., & Clifton, K. J. (2015). Toward a spatial-temporal measure of land-use mix. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(1).