Skip to main content

The Influence of Activities and Socio-Economic/Demographic Factors on the Acceptable Distance in an Indian Scenario

Abstract

Type of activity is an important aspect that influences the travel behavior of the trip makers. The present study uses the concept of an acceptable trip distance to compare the walking characteristics across subgroups of various socio-demographic factors and the type of activity. It further formulates a multiple linear regression model to investigate the relative influence of various socio-demographic factors and the type of activity on the walking distance; and develops a standalone formula, which reduces the effort of acceptable distance determination, for helping decision-makers to determine the acceptable distance easily. The regression model in the study found that the type of activity had a statistically significant effect on the walking distance. The acceptable distance for the work trips was found to be 996 m and for the ‘personal/household business’ trips was found to be 263 m. The results of this study were used to devise various policy guidelines including a zonal priority criterion for the development of pedestrian infrastructures and a stratified urban space where individuals would have an option of walking. Further, in the study, the standalone formula for calculating the acceptable distance was determined by equating the third derivative of the theoretical distribution (log-normal) to zero.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Agrawal AW, Schimek P (2007) Extent and correlates of walking in the USA. Transp Res Part D 12:547–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arasan VT, Rengaraju VR, Rao KVK (1994) Characteristics of trips by foot and bicycle modes in Indian City. J Transp Eng 120:283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rahul TM, Verma A (2013) Economic impact of non-motorized transportation in Indian cities. Res Transp Econ 38:22–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee IM, Buchner DM (2008) The importance of walking to public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40:S512–S518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rahul TM, Verma A (2014) A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore. J Transp Geogr 38:106–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tiwari G (1999) Towards a sustainable urban transport system: planning for non-motorized vehicles in cities. Trans Commun Bullet Asia Pacific 68:49–66

  7. Banister D (2011) The trilogy of distance, speed and time. J Transp Geogr 19:950–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanssen JU (1995) Transportation impacts of office relocation—a case study from Oslo. J Transp Geogr 3:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Atash F (1994) Redesigning Suburbia for walking and transit: emerging concepts. J Urban Plan Dev 120:48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Azzawi M, Raeside R (2007) Modeling pedestrian walking speeds on sidewalks. J Urban Plan Dev 133:211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rastogi R (2010) Willingness to shift to walking or bicycling to access suburban rail: case study of Mumbai, India. J Urban Plan Dev 136:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Said M, Abou-Zeid M, Kaysi I (2017) Modeling satisfaction with the walking environment: the case of an urban university neighborhood in a developing country. J Urban Plan Dev 143(1):05016009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000347

  13. Boarnet M, Crane R (2001) The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp Res Part A 35:823–845

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cervero R (2002) Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp Res Part D 7:265–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part D 2:199–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cao X, Handy SL, Mokhtarian PL (2006) The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behaviour: evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation 33:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sadhu SLNS, Tiwari G (2016) An activity pattern—destination land use choice model of low income households of informal settlements—case study of Delhi. Transp Res Part A 85:265–275

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ghasrodashti RE, Ardeshiri M (2016) The impacts of built environment on home-based work and non-work trips: an empirical study from Iran. Transp Res Part A 85:196–207

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cao X, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL (2009) The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: a case study of Northern California. Transp Res Part A 43:548–559

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tanaboriboon Y, Hwa SS, Chor CH (1986) Pedestrian characteristics study in Singapore. J Transp Eng 112:229–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koushki PA (1988) Walking characteristics in central Riydah, Saudi Arabia. J Transp Eng 114:735–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Seneviratne PN (1985) Acceptable walking distances in central areas. J Transp Eng 111:365–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jinyong J, Meiping Y, Xiaoguan Y (2009) Statistical analysis on non-motorized transportation mode choice considering trip distance and car availability. In: Proceedings of the international conference on new trends in information and service science, pp 181–186

  24. Jiang Y, Zegras PC, Mehndiratta S (2012) Walk the line: station context, corridor type and bus rapid transit walk access in Jinan, China. J Transp Geogr 20:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marquet O, Guasch CM (2014) Walking short distances. The socioeconomic drivers for the use of proximity in everyday mobility in Barcelona. Transp Res Part A 70:210–222

    Google Scholar 

  26. Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM (2013) Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transp Res Part A 50:198–208

    Google Scholar 

  27. Larsen J, El-Geneidy A, Yasmin F (2010) Beyond the quarter mile: examining travel distances by walking and cycling, Montréal, Canada. Can J Urban Res Can Plan Policy 19:70–88

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hess DB (2011) Walking to the bus: perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults. Transportation 39:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang Y, Diez-Roux AV (2012) Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups. Am J Prev Med 43:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Arasan VT, Rengaraju VR, Rao KVK (1996) Trip characteristics of travelers without vehicles. J Transp Eng 122:76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rastogi R, Rao KVK (2003) Travel characteristics of commuters accessing transit: case study. J Transp Eng 129:684–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pojani D, Stead D (2015) Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: beyond megacities. Sustainability 7:7784–7805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haugen K, Vilhelmson B (2013) The divergent role of spatial access: the changing supply and location of service amenities and service travel distance in Sweden. Transp Res Part A 49:10–20

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manoj M, Verma A (2015) Activity–travel behaviour of non-workers from Bangalore City in India. Transp Res Part A 78:400–424

    Google Scholar 

  35. Census of India (2011a) Primary census abstract, data highlights. https://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/PCA/PCA_Highlights/pca_highlights_india.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2016

  36. Azari KA, Arintono S, Hamid H, Davoodi SR (2013) Evaluation of demand for different trip purposes under various congestion pricing scenarios. J Transp Geogr 29:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shiftan Y, Golani A (2005) Effect of auto restraint on travel behavior. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1932:156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shiftan Y (1999) Responses to parking restrictions: lessons from a stated preference survey in Haifa and their policy implications. World Transp Policy Pract 5:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wilbur Smith Associates (2008) Study on Traffic and Transportation policies and strategies in urban areas in India. Ministry of Urban development, Government of India.

  40. NIMHANS BISP fact sheet (2008) Data collected as a part of Bengaluru Road safety and Injury Prevention Programme. https://www.nimhans.kar.nic.in/epidemiology/bisp/fs6.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2016

  41. Rites Limited (2007) Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plan for Bengaluru. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation. http://www.urbantrans port.kar.gov.in/

  42. Manoj M, Verma A (2015) Design and administration of activity-travel diaries: a case study from Bangalore City in India. Curr Sci 109:1264–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Census of India (2011b) https://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/B-series/B_28.html. Accessed 26 July 2018

  44. Ministry of Housing and Urban poverty Alleviation, India (2012) Revision of income ceilings for Economically Weak Section and Low Income Group

  45. People Research on India’s Consumer Economy (2016) The Household Survey on India’s Citizen Environment and Consumer Economy (ICE 360° survey). https://www.ice360.in/events/india-s-richest-20-account-for-45-of-income. Accessed 7 Oct 2017

  46. Zhao K, Musolesi M, Hui P, Rao W, Tarkoma S (2015) Explaining the power-law distribution of human mobility through transportation modality decomposition. Sci Rep 5(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09136

  47. Zegras P, Srinivasan S (2007) Household income, travel behavior, location, and accessibility: sketches from two different developing contexts. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2038:128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Planning P, Guide D (2009) NZ transport agency. Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  49. Council ADUP (2011) Abu Dhabi Public Realm Design Manual. Abu Dhabi-UAE: Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2014/05/AfE_2011_-Abu_Dhabi_Public.pdf

  50. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Netr J, Li W (2005) Applied linear statistical models. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, New York, p 10020

    Google Scholar 

  51. Barton H, Horswell M, Millar P (2012) Neighbourhood accessibility and active travel. Plan Pract Res 27:177–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Barton H, Grant M, Guise R (2010) Shaping neighbourhoods—for local health and global sustainability. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  53. Tilahun NY, Levinson DM, Krizek KJ (2007) Trails, lanes, or traffic: Valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Trans Res Part A: Policy Pract 41(4):287–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Xing Y, Handy SL, Mokhtarian PL (2010) Factors associated with proportions and miles of bicycling for transportation and recreation in six small US cities. Trans Res Part D: Trans Environ 15(2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.09.004

  55. Zhang Y, Li Y, Liu Q, Li C (2014) The built environment and walking activity of the elderly: an empirical analysis in the Zhongshan metropolitan area, China. Sustainability 6(2):1076–1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6021076

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashish Verma.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahul, T.M., Manoj, M., Tahlyan, D. et al. The Influence of Activities and Socio-Economic/Demographic Factors on the Acceptable Distance in an Indian Scenario. Transp. in Dev. Econ. 7, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-020-00110-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-020-00110-3

Keywords

  • Acceptable walking distance
  • Workers and non-workers
  • Indian city
  • Regression
  • Urban space stratification