سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,240
تعداد مقالات67,867
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,408,543
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله90,177,649
باقرنژاد, الناز. (1402). توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف و عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر در سه محله کلان‌شهر تهران. , 11(2), 29-60. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.352004.1765
الناز باقرنژاد. "توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف و عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر در سه محله کلان‌شهر تهران". , 11, 2, 1402, 29-60. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.352004.1765
باقرنژاد, الناز. (1402). 'توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف و عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر در سه محله کلان‌شهر تهران', , 11(2), pp. 29-60. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.352004.1765
باقرنژاد, الناز. توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف و عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر در سه محله کلان‌شهر تهران. , 1402; 11(2): 29-60. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.352004.1765

توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف و عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر در سه محله کلان‌شهر تهران

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری
مقاله 3، دوره 11، شماره 2، مرداد 1402، صفحه 29-60    اصل مقاله (1.39 M)
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - کاربردی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.352004.1765
نویسنده
الناز باقرنژاد*
گروه برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
هدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی معیارهایی است که به دلیل تفاوت‌های توسعه‌های مختلف کالبدی بر رفتار سفر تأثیر می‌گذارند. جهت دستیابی به این مهم، ۲۷۱ پرسشنامه از سه محله منیریه، کوی بیمه و کوی گلستان به‌عنوان محدوده‌های موردمطالعه در بافت قدیم، میانی و جدید در شهر تهران جمع‌آوری شد. عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر با استفاده از روش کمی ِتحلیل عاملی اکتشافی استخراج و در تحلیل رگرسیون جهت یافتن عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر به تفکیک مدهای سفر، استفاده شد. از آزمونِ ANOVA یک‌طرفه جهت تحلیل تفاوت معناداریِ میان توسعه‌های کالبدی مختلف ازلحاظ رفتار سفر و عوامل موثر بر آن و آزمونِ Dunnett’s T3 برای مشخص کردن اینکه کدام محدوده متفاوت از دیگر محدوده‌های مطالعاتی است، استفاده شد. درنهایت با مقایسه نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون و آزمون ANOVA، پنج عامل وابستگی و دوستدار اتومبیل شخصی، تنوع و تراکم خرده‌فروشی‌ها، تراکم و دسترسی به واحدهای آموزشی و پارک، دسترسی به مراکز درمانی و خدماتی، مالکیت خودرو به‌عنوان عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر که به دلیل تفاوت در توسعه‌های کالبدی بر رفتار سفر تأثیر می‌گذارند و عوامل نزدیکی به ایستگاه حمل‌ونقل عمومی، ترجیحات قابلیت دسترسی در انتخاب محل سکونت، دوستدار مدهای غیر اتومبیل شخصی، دارای گواهینامه، تعداد فرزندان زیر 5 سال و سن به‌عنوان معیارهایی که فارغ از نوع توسعه کالبدی با رفتار سفر ارتباط دارند در سه محله با توسعه‌های کالبدی متفاوت مشخص شد. تمایز میان این دو دسته در برنامه‌ریزی و طراحی توسعه‌های کالبدی (محلات) برای کاهش مد سفر با اتومبیل شخصی و افزایش دیگر مدهای سفر نقش بسزایی دارد
کلیدواژه‌ها
عوامل موثر بر رفتار سفر؛ توسعه‌های کالبدی متفاوت؛ آزمون ANOVA؛ تحلیل رگرسیون
عنوان مقاله [English]
Different Physical Patterns and Travel Behavior Factors in Three Neighborhoods in the Tehran Metropolis
نویسندگان [English]
Elnaz Baghernejhad
Department of School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
ABSTRACT
Despite a wide range of components and criteria affecting travel behavior presented through empirical research, the results of these studies are inconclusive, which could be due to the difference between these components and criteria in the study areas. Therefore, this research presented a method to determine which factors in different physical developments affect travel behavior due to the differences in various physical developments. The required information was collected through 271 questionnaires at the level of three neighborhoods of Monirieh, Koye Bimeh, and Koye Golestan in Tehran, Iran, as the old, conventional, and new neighborhoods, respectively. ANOVA test was exerted to analyze the significant difference between different development patterns in three neighborhoods. Dunnett's T3 was applied to determine which neighborhood caused the difference between groups. Also, the factors affecting travel behavior were obtained based on exploratory factor analysis indicators. Finally, by comparing the results of the ANOVA test and regression analysis, it was discovered that factors such as car ownership, dependence and pro-liking for private cars, density and access to educational centers and parks, access to medical and service centers, and variety and density of retail stores had been introduced as the factors affecting travel behavior due to the differences in development patterns. However, proximity to the public transportation station, accessibility preferences in choosing a residence, dependence, and pro-liking for other than a private car, having a license, number of children under five years old, and age have influenced travel behavior regardless of the variation between neighborhoods.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Finding factors affecting travel behavior has been one of the main concerns of transportation planners. However, in the last two decades, the importance of the influence of the features of the built environment, including land use, along with demographic-economic characteristics, travel behavior, and attitudes of people, has been raised by urban planners. Studies seek to find factors affecting travel behavior, especially land use characteristics. Despite presenting a wide range of components and criteria affecting travel behavior, the results of the studies are inconclusive, which could be due to the difference between these components and criteria in the study areas. Therefore, this research presented a method to determine which factors in different physical developments affect travel behavior due to the differences in various physical developments. In order to do this, it must first be determined whether the study areas/different development patterns have a significant difference in terms of travel behavior or not. In case of a positive answer to the previous question, the following question is which study areas caused this difference. The next question arises:
-Which physical and non-physical characteristics affect travel behavior due to distinctions between different development patterns?
 
Methodology
The present research method is analytical and experimental based on quantitative methods. This research chose the frequency of travel by private car, public transportation, and walking as the travel behavior. According to the research's purpose, indicators and criteria affecting travel behavior were extracted after reviewing the theoretical and experimental literature. Then, the required information was collected through 271 questionnaires at the level of three neighborhoods of Monirieh, Koye Bimeh, and Koye Golestan as the old, conventional, and new neighborhoods, respectively. The questionnaire was compiled as a Likert scale in five parts of travel information, demographic-economic characteristics, perceptual characteristics of land use, travel habits, and access preferences of people in choosing their residence. ANOVA test was used to analyze the significant difference between different groups of a characteristic (here, different development patterns or the three case studies). Dunnett T3 was exerted to determine which neighborhood caused the difference between groups. Also, the factors affecting travel behavior were obtained based on exploratory factor analysis indicators. Finally, by comparing the results of the ANOVA test and regression analysis, it was discovered which factors affecting travel behavior were due to the differences in study areas and which factors affect travel behavior regardless of development patterns.
 
Results and discussion
This research aims to identify the factors affecting travel behavior due to the differences in development patterns. In this regard, the findings in line with the first research question show that the frequency of three modes of travel, by private car, transportation, and pedestrian, differ significantly in the three neighborhoods. Furthermore, ANOVA test results depict that there is a significant difference between these three neighborhoods in terms of factors affecting travel behavior, such as perceptually environmental characteristics of the neighborhood, dependence and pro-liking for personal cars, variety and density of retail stores, density and access to educational units and parks, access to medical and service centers, and car ownership. Finally, by comparing the results of the ANOVA test with the regression analysis assessing the relationship between physical and non-physical factors (the same indicators in the same study areas) with travel behavior, the factors affecting travel behavior owing to different development patterns were identified. Factors such as car ownership, dependence and pro-liking for private cars, density and access to educational units and parks, access to medical and service centers, and variety and density of retail stores have been introduced as the factors affecting travel behavior due to the differences in development patterns. However, proximity to the public transportation station, accessibility preferences in choosing a place of residence, dependence, and pro-liking for other than a private car, having a certificate, number of children under five years old, and age have influenced on travel behavior regardless of the variation between neighborhoods (different physical development patterns).
 
Conclusion
In In order to discover the factors affecting travel behavior due to the differences in patterns of physical development, this research has provided a more detailed analysis of the factors affecting travel behavior. It has achieved more accurate components than previous studies in this regard. Detailed analysis of studies related to travel behavior and finding the main components affecting it, considering the extent of variables and data, can pave the way for professionals in transportation planning and urban planning, in addition to providing detailed methods and criteria in the related literature.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Travel behaviour factors, Different patterns of development, ANOVA test, Regression analysis
مراجع
  1. باقرنژاد، الناز و زبردست، اسفندیار. (۱۳۹۷). تحلیل رابطه کاربری زمین و رفتار سفر در سطح محلات شهر تهران؛ نمونه موردمطالعه محله منیریه، کوی بیمه و کوی گلستان. نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، ۲۳ (4)، ۹۵-۱۰۶. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFAUP.2019.72190
  2. حسینی، سید علی؛ بهرامی، یوسف و قادری مطلق، ایرج. (1393). تحلیل تأثیر عملکردهای محله‌ای بر رفتار سفر شهروندان (موردمطالعه: شهر رشت). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 46 (3)، ۶۷۶-۶۵۷. https://doi.org/ 10.22059/JHGR.2014.51269
  3. خیرالدین، رضا و میرزایی، عنایت اله. (1394). تحلیل تأثیر ویژگی‌های محیطی گسترش‌های جدید شهری بر رفتار سفرهای با مقصد مشخص و بدون مقصد مشخص (مطالعه موردی: 5 محله در شمال شهر اصفهان). نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 20 (3)، ۷۰-۵۹.  https://doi.org/10.22059/JFAUP.2015.56878
  4. زبردست، اسفندیار و باقرنژاد، الناز. (1399). بررسی رابطه علی محیط ساخته‌شده و رفتار سفر در الگوهای توسعه‌ای مختلف تهران (مطالعه موردی: محله منیریه، کوی بیمه و گلستان). مطالعات شهری، 9 (35)، ۱۴۶-۱۳۳. https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.940
  5. عباسی، حیدر و حاجی پور، خلیل. (1393). تحلیل تجربی تأثیر فرم شهر بر رفتار سفر خانوارها در محلات مختلف شهری شیراز. باغ نظر، (۲۹)، ۳۲-۲۳.
  6. محمدی، محمود؛ قلعه نوئی، محمود و میرزایی،، عنایت اله. (1393). فرا تحلیلی بر حساسیت رفتار سفر (وسیله سفر) نسبت به شکل شهر. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان‌شهر، (13)، ۴۰۸-۳۸۳.
  7. Bagley, M.N., & Mokhtarian, P.L. )2002(. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science 36, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680200083
  8. Bhat, C., & Gossen, R. )2004(. A mixed multinomial logit model analysis of weekend recreational episode type choice. Transp. Res. B Methodol, 38 (9), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2003.10.003
  9. Boakye, K., Bovbjerg, M., Schuna Jr, J., Branscum, A., Mat-Nasir, N., Bahonar, A., & Hystad, P. (2023). Perceived built environment characteristics associated with walking and cycling across 355 communities in 21 countries. Cities, 132, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104102
  10. Boarnet, M.G., & Crane, R. )2001(. The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research A 35 (9), 823– 845. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(00)00019-7
  11. Cheng, L., De Vos, J., Shi, K., Yang, M., Chen, X., & Witlox, F. (2019). Do residential location effects on travel behavior differ between the elderly and younger adults?. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 73, 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.07.015
  12. Cao, X., Handy, S.L., & Mokhtarian, P.L. )2006(. The influences of the built environment and residential selfselection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-005-7027-2
  13. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Handy, S.L. )2007a(. Cross-sectional and quasi-panel explorations of the connection between the built environment and auto ownership. Environ. Plan. A. 39, 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37437
  14. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Handy, S.L. )2007b(. Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation, 34, 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9132-x
  15. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Handy, S.L. (2009a). Examining the Impacts of Residential Self-Selection on Travel Behaviour: A Focus on Empirical Findings. Transport Reviews, 29 (3), 359–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640802539195
  16. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Handy, S.L. (2009b). The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California. Transportation Research Part A, 43, 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.02.001
  17. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Handy, S.L. (2010). Neighborhood Design and the Accessibility of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis in Northern California. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4, 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310903145212
  18. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research D, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
  19. Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D, 7, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4
  20. Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Land use, attitudes, and travel behavior relationships: A cross-sectional structural equations model for Northern California. Paper presented at Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting 2008, Jan 13-17; (No. 08-0706).
  21. Crane, R. )2000(. The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretative review. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854120022092890
  22. Dieleman, F., Dijst, M., & Burghouwt, G. )2002(. Urban form and travel behaviour: microlevel household attributes and residential context. Urban Stud. 39 (3), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220112801
  23. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. )2010(. Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
  24. Frank, L, Bradley, M, Kavage, S, Chapman, J, & Lawton, T.k, (2008). Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation, 35, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9136-6
  25. Greenwald, M. J. (2006). The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: Evidence and implications. Transportation Research Part D, 11, 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.09.003
  26. Guan, X., Wang, D., & Jason Cao, X. (2020). The role of residential self-selection in land use-travel research: a review of recent findings. Transport reviews, 40(3), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1692965
  27. Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. (2005). Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transport. Res. D. 10(6), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002
  28. Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. (2006). Self-Selection in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Walking. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976724
  29. Karmeniemi, M., Lankila, T., Ikaheimo, 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, 239-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax043
  30. Khattak, A.J, & Rodriguez, R. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A, 39, 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009
  31. Krause, C. M., & Zhang, L. (2019). Short-term travel behavior prediction with GPS, land use, and point of interest data. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 123, 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.06.012
  32. Lin, T., Wang, D., & Guanz, X. (2016). 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
  33. Loh V.H., Veitch J., Salmon J., Cerin E., Thornton L., Mavoa S., Villanueva K., & Timperio A. (2019). Built environment and physical activity among adolescents: the moderating effects of neighborhood safety and social support. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 16, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041309 
  34. Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 73(3), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976757
  35. Meurs, H., & Haaijer, R. (2001). Spatial structure and mobility. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 6, 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00007-4
  36. Mouratidis, K., Ettema, D., & Næss, P. (2019). Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 129, 306-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.002
  37. Naess, P. (2006). Accessibility, Activity Participation and Location of Activities: Exploring the Links between Residential Location and Travel Behaviour. Urban Studies, 43(3), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500534677
  38. Rajamani, J., Bhat, C., Handy, S., Knaap, G., & Song, Y. (2003). Assessing impact of urban form measures on nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transp. Res. Rec. 1831, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.3141/1831-18
  39. Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P.L. (2007). Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: evidence from the San Francisco bay area. Hous. Pol. Debate 18 (1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2007.9521598
  40. Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., & Dieleman, F. (2002). A microlevel analysis of residential context and travel time. Environ. Plan. A 34, 1487–1507. https://doi.org/10.1068/a34159
  41. Watts P, Phillips G, Petticrew M, Hayes R, Bottomley C, Yu G, Schmidt E, Tobi P, Moore D, Frostick C, Lock K, & Renton A. (2013). Physical activity in deprived communities in London: examining individual and neighbourhood-level factors. PLoS One, 26;8(7):e69472, 1-8. https://doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069472.
  42. Yang, S., Fan, Y., Deng, W., & Cheng, L. (2019). Do built environment effects on travel behavior differ between household members? A case study of Nanjing, China. Transport policy, 81, 360-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.12.006
  43. Wolday, F., Næss, P., & Cao, X. J. (2019). Travel-based residential self-selection: A qualitatively improved understanding from Norway. Cities, 87, 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.029
  44. Zhang, Ming. (2004). The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice, Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 344-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976383
  45. Zhang, L., Hong, J., Nasri, A., & Shen, Q. (2012). How built environment affects travel behavior: a comparative analysis of the connections between land use and vehicle miles traveled in US cities. J. Transp. Land Use 5 (3), 40–52.
  46. Zhang, Y., Zhao, P., & Lin, J. J. (2021). Exploring shopping travel behavior of millennials in Beijing: Impacts of built environment, life stages, and subjective preferences. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 147, 49-60 10. https://1016/j.tra.2021.03.012.
  47. Abbasi, H., & Hajipour, K. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of the Influence of Urban Form on Travel Behavior in Different Urban Neighborhoods of Shiraz. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 11(29), 23-32. [In Persian].
  48. Baghernezhad, E., & Zebardast, E. (2019). Analyzing the relationship between land use and travel behavior in Bime, Moniriye and Golestan districts. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 23(4), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFAUP.2019.72190 [In Persian].
  49. Hosseini, S. A., Bahrami, Y., & Ghaderi Motlagh, I. (2014). An Analysis about the Influence of Neighborhood Functions on Travel Behavior of Citizens (Case Study: Rasht City). Human Geography Research, 46(3), 657-676. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhgr.2014.51269 [In Persian].
  50. Kheyroddin, R., & Mirzaei, E. (2015). Analysis of the Influence of Environmental Characteristics of New Urban Developments on Directed and Undirected Travel (Case study: Five New Neighborhoods in the North of Isfahan). Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 20(3), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2015.56878. [In Persian].
  51. Mohammadi, M., Ghalenoee, M., & Mirzaei, E. (2015). Meta-Analysis of Elasticity of Travel Behavior (Mode Choice)Regarding to the Urban Form. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 7(13), 383-408. [In Persian]
  52. Zebardast, E., & baghernejhad, E. (2020). Analyzing the casual relationship between built environment and travel behavior in different neighborhood development’s patterns of Tehran (Bime, Moniriye and Golestan districts). Motaleate Shahri, 9(35), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.940. [In Persian]
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 146
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 207


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب