Introduction: Most previous studies have mainly focused on utilitarian or recreational walking and discussed their relationship with the built environment. The point is that most of these studies have not been sensitive to the motivation of trips while travel is a complicated behavior and individuals may have different degrees of motivation and utility for a given trip purpose. Accordingly, because of different utilities of travel, it is more likely that the built environment differently affects walking behavior. Purpose: This paper aims to clearly distinguish between utilitarian and hedonic walking and then explores how the built environment influences walking behavior. Method: Using data collected from 863 respondents in six diverse neighborhoods in Isfahan, Iran, we developed negative binomial models for two types of walking; namely, utilitarian and hedonic walking. Results: The results reveal some interesting insights: first, both models of walking confirm that neighborhood preferences do not play any important role in explaining walking behavior in our context, inconsistent with previous studies. Second, the objective and perceived built environment factors differently contribute to explaining both types of walking. In this regard, utilitarian walking is affected by mixed land use, residential density, facility accessibility, attractiveness, and walking infrastructure; and hedonic walking is influenced by mixed land use, attractiveness and safety. Third, attitudinal factors and socio-demographic variables also differently appear in the models of walking. Conclusion: The results confirm that it is essential to be more sensitive to the motivation of trips, and suggest a clear policy implication: the individuals' reactions toward policies intended to increase walking frequency depend partly on the utility for walking.

International audienceMetropolization, namely the concentration of households and activity in the more developped cities, leads to greater spatial differentiation and specialization in the urban area, generating new flows and new urban dysfunctions. Although distance to the centre is still relevant to understand the location of economic activities, a spatial analysis of the location of the establishments in the urban area of Lyon highlights the emergence of peripheral employment poles, the most attractive and diversified of which suggest that a shift towards a multi-functional polycentric urban organization is taking place.La métropolisation, concentration des populations et des activités dans les plus grandes villes, conduit à une différenciation spatiale et une spécialisation croissante des agglomérations urbaines, qui génèrent de nouveaux flux et de nouveaux dysfonctionnements. Bien que la distance au centre structure encore largement les localisations, une analyse spatiale de la répartition des établissements dans la métropole lyonnaise met en évidence l’émergence de pôles d’emploi périphériques, dont les plus attractifs et diversifiés suggèrent l’apparition d’une organisation urbaine polycentrique multi fonctionnelle

International audienceLes évolutions rapides de la mobilité urbaine des personnes et surtout la croissance du trafic automobile posent des problèmes aigus, qui rendent stratégique la connaissance des déterminants des pratiques de mobilité. A côté des paramètres socio-démographiques et économiques relativement bien connus que sont le sexe, l'âge ou encore le revenu, les caractéristiques des déplacements dépendent aussi de l'organisation des localisations intra-urbaines des résidences et des activités économiques. L'allongement des distances et la place croissante de la voiture s'explique en grande partie, semble-t-il, par l'émergence de nouvelles configurations spatiales plus étalées, voire multipolaires. Un des moyens d'aborder la question du lien entre les formes urbaines et la mobilité est de comparer des agglomérations très différentes en termes de répartition des localisations et de déterminer dans quelle mesure ces différences influent sur les déplacements. Les résultats que les auteurs présentent sont issus d'un travail de recherche en cours impliquant principalement le Laboratoire d'économie des transports et l'INRETS, qui vise à comparer les aires urbaines de Marseilles-Aix-en-Provence, Lyon, Bordeaux, Grenoble, Dijon et Saint-Etienne. Seuls les déplacements domicile-travail ont été pris en compte. Les premiers résultats suggèrent qu'il existe des écarts significatifs entre les aires urbaines encore fortement centrées et les autres plus intensément soumises à l'étalement urbain. Les différences que les auteurs ont pu mettre en évidence dans le cadre des trajets domicile-travail concernent la géographie des flux, l'utilisation des différents mode de transport et surtout la dissociation entre les lieux d'habitat et les lieux d'emploi, laquelle est moins prononcée dans les aires urbaines où le centre a conservé un rôle majeur

A sizeable body of literature reveals a strong relationship between mode choice and health status. Therefore, society would benefit from travel if transportation and urban planners motivated more individuals to satisfy their desire for travel by active transportation rather than motorized transportation. Despite rich existing literature about the relations between the built environment and travel, we still need to address some research gaps in explaining travel mode choice. As a shortcoming, identifying and measuring the primary motivations for trips, and then incorporating such motivations into travel mode choice modelling, has received less attention in previous research. In this regard the current paper follows two main goals. It aims to differentiate between trips by determining the main utility of travelers and then analyzes the impact of the built environment measurements and subjective attributes on mode choice decision. Using data from a survey of 515 participants who reside in Isfahan, Iran, we conducted a series of binary logistic models to explore how the built environment influences mode choice decisions for different trips, controlling for socio-economics and subjective attributes. The results show that the number of hedonic trips were sizably more than utilitarian trips. It was found that travel mode choice for utilitarian and hedonic trips is influenced by travel habits and subjective attitudes, but the built environment also matters. Specifically, two built environment characteristics, including density and diversity, can substitute walking/cycling for driving for utilitarian trips. In addition, car use for hedonic trips is not influenced by built environment measurements. It seems that the utility and desire of hedonic driving depends on mode of travel. It is concluded that driving and walking/biking for hedonic and utilitarian trips are not single behaviors and differentiating between trips according to their main utility and considering both objective and subjective attributes helps urban and transportation planners prescribe appropriate spatial and nonspatial strategies to encourage walking/biking.

International audienceFor a number of years, French local authorities have been pursuing special pricing policies designed to help the most disadvantaged social groups. Schemes vary in different cities, as do the criteria for determining the beneficiaries. This paper shows, however, that notwithstanding the scale of the agreed efforts, the policies' effectiveness has, on the whole, been limited. In addition to the transit system failing to cater to the needs of some segments of the population, low-income workers and the non-registered unemployed remain excluded from the subsidized pricing schemes