Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Behavior and Transportation Energy Efficiency in Korea

  • Kichan Nam
  • Brian H. S. KimEmail author
  • Up Lim
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)


This study evaluates transportation energy efficiency with respect to various forms of urban structures. Empirical models are developed by using the population and employment of the cities in Korea. Spatial structure is measured by the degree of concentration and the clustering index and uses relative and weighted indices. A two-stage least squares model is developed because spatial structure primarily affects changes in travel distance, which consequently affect traffic volume and transportation energy consumption. Empirical results vary with city size. Small cities with deconcentrated and clustered areas are transportation energy efficient and effective in promoting clustering within a specific region and enhancing accessibility for employment and service. On the other hand, promoting concentration and declustering patterns are a more effective strategy to decentralize population, mitigate agglomeration diseconomies, and ultimately reduce transportation energy consumption in large cities. Therefore, population and employment level within a spatial distribution should be understood to adopt an optimal spatial strategy for influencing travel behavior and energy consumption.


Spatial structure Transportation energy Two-stage least square model Agglomeration diseconomies 


  1. Anas, A., R. Arnott, and K.A. Small. 1998. Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature 36(3): 1426–1464.Google Scholar
  2. Banister, D. 1992. Energy use and settlement pattern. In Sustainable development and urban form, ed. M. Breheny. London: Pion, Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Baumont, C., C. Ertur, and J. Le Gallo. 2004. Spatial analysis of employment and population density: the case of the agglomeration of Dijon 1999. Geographical Analysis 36: 146–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bento, A.M., M.L. Cropper, A.M. Mobarak, and K. Vinha. 2005. The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics 87: 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breheny, M. 1995. Compact cities and transport energy consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brotchie, J.F. 1984. Technological change and urban form. Environment and Planning A 16: 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueckner, J.K. 2000. Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review 23(2): 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cervero, R. 1989. Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 55: 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutsinger, J.G., H.W. Galster, R. Hanson, and D. Towns. 2005. Verifying the multi-dimensional nature of metropolitan land use: Advancing the understanding and measurement of sprawl. Journal of Urban Affairs 27: 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewing, R. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewing, R., R. Pendall, and D. Chen. 2002. Measuring sprawl and its impact. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing, R., T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenbush. 2008. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity and morbidity. Urban Ecology 18(1): 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frumkin, H. 2002. Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports 117(3): 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galster, G., R. Hanson, M.R. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J. Freihage. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 681–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giuliano, G., and K. Small. 1991. Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Regional Science and Urban Economics 21(2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon, P., and H.W. Richardson. 1989. Gasoline consumption and cities: A reply. Journal of American Planning Association 55: 342–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon, P., and H.W. Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horton, F.E., and D.R. Reynolds. 1971. Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. Economic Geography 47(1): 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korea national oil corporation (KNOC) Opinet ( and Petronet ( database.
  20. Korean statistical information service (KOSIS) database (
  21. Lee B. 2006. Urban spatial structure, commuting, and growth in US metropolitan areas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  22. Muth, R.F. 1969. Cities and housing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Naess, P. 1993. Transportation energy in Swedish towns and regions. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 10(4): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 1989. Gasoline consumption and cities. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(1): 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owens, S.E., 1986. Energy, planning, and urban form. London: Pion Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, H.W. 1995. Economies and diseconomies of agglomeration. In Urban agglomeration and economic growth, ed. H. Giersch. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Royuela, V., R. Moreno, and E. Vayá. 2010. Influence of quality-of-life on urban growth: a case study of Barcelona, Spain. Regional Studies 44(5): 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sturm, R., and D. Cohen. 2004. Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health. Public Health 118(7): 488–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, R.W. 1981. Information statistics in geography. Norwich: Geo Abstracts.Google Scholar
  30. Tsai, Y.H. 2005. Quantifying urban form: Compactness versus sprawl. Urban Studies 42: 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wheaton, W.C. 1998. Land use and density in cities with congestion. Journal of Urban Economics 43: 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, K., E. Burton, and M. Jenks. 2000. Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  33. Yang, S.W. 2011. The compact city and networked city in Korea. International Journal of Urban Science 7: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Research Institute for Human SettlementAnyangKorea
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Interdisciplinary Program in Agricultural and Forest Meteology, and Research Institute for Agriculture and Life SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Urban Planning and EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations