Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central puget sound: methodological framework and findings

Frank, Lawrence D.; Stone, Brian; Bachman, William

doi:10.1016/s1361-9209(99)00032-2

Cited by 166 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is generally assumed that the relationship between land use and vehicle travel holds implications for tailpipe emissions and air quality, only a handful of studies has sought to statistically link urban form to vehicle emissions directly (Stone 2008). Frank et al (2000) found statistically significant relationships between household density, employment density, street connectivity, and tailpipe emissions. A recent study concluded that metropolitan areas exhibiting higher levels of urban sprawl, generally exhibited higher concentrations and emissions of air pollution and CO 2 when controlling for population, land area, and climate (Bereitschaft and Debbage 2013).…”

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Sprawlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the USA, transportation is responsible for about 30 % of the total carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), which is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect (EPA 2006). In addition to climate change, the impacts of transportation on urban air quality and pollution are also widely recognized (Frank et al 2000(Frank et al , 2006Grazi et al 2008;Tuzkaya 2009). With rapid urbanization throughout the world, these concerns resonate in the planning processes of a growing number of cities that are developing strategies for sustainable urban development (Runhaar et al 2009;Yigitcanlar and Teriman 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the dynamic impacts of urban form on transportation and environmental outcomes in US cities

Kashem

Irawan

Wilson

2014

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous urban sprawl studies have typically taken a cross-sectional approach without examining how sprawling urban areas are performing over time. Longitudinal studies of individual or household travel behavior and built-environment preference have made some progress in this direction, but very few studies have explored the longitudinal interaction of urban form with transportation and environmental outcomes. This study begins to fill this gap by evaluating the transportation and environmental impact dynamics of several key dimensions of urban sprawl: density, land use mix, centrality, and street connectivity. The central hypothesis is that while the built environment is durable and development patterns change slowly, the impacts of urban sprawl are dynamic rather than static and are accelerated in more sprawling cities relative to less sprawling cities. To test this hypothesis, a panel dataset of 7 years (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) was developed for 60 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the US and a hybrid modeling framework that incorporates fixed and random effects is applied to evaluate different transportation and environmental outcomes over time. We found that the influence of urban centrality or the strength of urban subcenters on the travel pattern of commuters and transit users is dynamic. This suggests that people living in cities with stronger centers drive less and use public transportation more over time. For environmental outcomes, we found that cities with higher density have experienced a significant decrease in ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations after controlling city-specific variables.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Sprawlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the dynamic impacts of urban form on transportation and environmental outcomes in US cities

Kashem

Irawan

Wilson

2014

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have addressed the impact of a walkable environment on a variety of transportation-related environmental and social benefits. The potential environmental benefits of a more walkable environment include improved air quality (Frank, Stone, and Bachman 2000), and reduced traffic congestion (Ewing and Cervero 2001) and gasoline consumption (Ewing and Rong 2008). Possible social benefits include promoting active travel (Rodríguez et al 2009) and increasing social capital and quality of life with greater community cohesion, trust, reciprocity, and diversified social activities among citizens (Leyden 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of walkable environment on single-family residential property values

Guo

Peeta

Somenahalli

2015

JTLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Due to the impact of urban sprawl, the need for responsible property investing, and the emerging evidence supporting the linkage between walkable environment (in terms of built environment and walk accessibility) and residential property value, there is a critical need to develop systematic methodologies to quantify the impact of walkable environment on residential property value. This study provides a new generalized dissimilarity index for quantifying landuse mix, a key component of built environment, and a new method for measuring a property's walk accessibility and then links them to residential property values. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models are used to validate these methods by examining the empirical property data in Eastern Adelaide, Australia. The results of the OLS models show that the proposed dissimilarity index and property walkaccessibility method outperform other commonly used land-use mix quantification and walk-accessibility methods in estimating singlefamily residential property values in terms of the goodness-of-fit and explanatory power. This study provides insights for investors to understand the impact of walkable environment on single-family residential property values to enable them to make more informed decisions on property investment, and for planners to design neighborhoods featuring better walkable environments.

show abstract

“…The shorter distance between destinations resulting from the land use mix of walkable neighborhoods is associated with a decrease in vehicle miles traveled [55][56][57]. The fewer vehicle miles traveled in turn helps improve environmental health by reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) [58]. Several cross-sectional studies also showed the significant relationships between the vehicle emissions and the features of walkable neighborhoods (greater street connectivity, residential density, and mixed land use) [58][59][60].…”

Section: Walkable Neighborhood Amenitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fewer vehicle miles traveled in turn helps improve environmental health by reducing emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) [58]. Several cross-sectional studies also showed the significant relationships between the vehicle emissions and the features of walkable neighborhoods (greater street connectivity, residential density, and mixed land use) [58][59][60]. A U.S. study utilizing a walkability index generated by a composite measure of residential density, intersection density, land use mix, and retail floor area for each census block group found that 5% increase in neighborhood walkability led to 5.6% fewer grams of NOx emitted and 5.5% fewer grams of VOC emitted [45].…”

Section: Walkable Neighborhood Amenitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households

Kim

Woo

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neighborhood walkability can influence individual health, social interactions, and environmental quality, but the relationships between subsidized households and their walkable environment have not been sufficiently examined in previous empirical studies. Focusing on two types of subsidized housing developments (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Public Housing (PH)) in Austin, Texas, this study evaluates the neighborhood walkability of place-based subsidized households, utilizing objectively measured Walk Score and walking-related built environment data. We also used U.S. Census block group data to account for the socio-demographic covariates. Based on various data, we employed bivariate and multivariate analyses to specify the relationships between subsidized households and their neighborhood walkable environment. The results of our bivariate analyses show that LIHTC households tend to be located in car-dependent neighborhoods and have more undesirable walking-related built environment conditions compared with non-LIHTC neighborhoods. Our regression results also represent that LIHTC households are more likely to be exposed to neighborhoods with low Walk Score, less sidewalk coverage, and more highways and major roads, while there are no significant associations for PH households. These findings imply that more attention and effort toward reducing the inequitable distributions of walkable neighborhood features supporting rather than hindering healthy lifestyles must be provided to subsidized households.

show abstract

Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central puget sound: methodological framework and findings

Cited by 166 publications

References 7 publications

Evaluating the dynamic impacts of urban form on transportation and environmental outcomes in US cities

Evaluating the dynamic impacts of urban form on transportation and environmental outcomes in US cities

The impact of walkable environment on single-family residential property values

What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About