Abstract
This paper measures and identifies the effects of urban form on travel behavior in Korea. The characteristics of urban form include urban size, density, distribution and clustering. Using cluster analysis, urban form in Korea is categorized into two groups: group 1 (i.e., large-sized, high-density, equally distributed and highly clustered areas) and group 2 (i.e., small-sized, low-density, unequally distributed and highly dispersed areas). The results showed that the large-sized, high-density, unequally distributed and dispersed pattern is a relevant strategy for both groups to minimize vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) per capita. For group 1, increasing the average travel distance may be an efficient strategy to reduce the number of automobile trips. For group 2, however, decreasing the average travel distance may be a more efficient strategy. Previous recommendations for a so-called compact urban form require more validation before adoption in Korea. Different strategies are required for areas that show different characteristics in order to reduce VKT. It is important that planners and policy decision makers understand the relevant implications of urban form on travel behavior and energy use in order to implement spatial urban developments aimed at sustainability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson WP, Kanagoglou PS, Miller EJ (1996) Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban Stud 33(1): 7–35
Bohnstedt GW, Knoke D (1994) Statistics of social data analysis. Peacock Publishers
Bollen KA, Stine R (1992) Bootstrapping goodness of fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 21: 205–229
Breheny M (1992) Sustainable development and urban form. Pion, London
Brueckner JK (2000) Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. Int Reg Sci Rev 23(2): 160–171
Burchell RW, Shad NA, Listokin D, Phillips H, Downs A, Seskin S, Davis J, Moore T, Helton D, Gall M (1998) The costs of sprawl-revisited. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Report 39. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, Chaps. 6–8, pp 83–125
Dunphy RT, Fisher KM (1994) Transportation, congestion, and density: new insights. Paper presented at the 73rd annual Meetting. Transportation Research Board, Wasshington, DC
Ewing R (1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?. J Am Plan Assoc 63(1): 107–126
Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact, vol 1 (Technical Report). Smart Growth America, Washington DC
Frenkel A, Ashkenazi M (2008) The integrated sprawl index: measuring the urban landscape in Israel. Ann Reg Sci 42: 99–121
Frank LD, Pivo G (1994) Relationships between land use and travel behavior in the puget sound region. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, pp pp 14–34
Fulton W (1996) The new urbanism. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge
Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe MR, Wolman H, Coleman S, Freihage J (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 681–717
Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?. J Am Plan Assoc 63(1): 95–106
Holtzclaw J (1991) Explaining urban density and transit impacts on auto use. Sierra Club, San Francisco
Jenks M, Burton E, Williams K (1996) The compact city: a sustainable urban form? E&FN Spon London
Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plan A 33: 717–735
Malpezzi S, Wen-Kai G (1999) Measuring “Sprawl”: alternatives measures of urban form in US metropolitan areas. Center for Urban Land Economics Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Massenger T, Ewing R (1996) Transit-oriented development in the sun-belt. J Transport Res Board 1552(1): 145–153
Massey DS, Denton NA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67(2): 281–315
Neuman M (2005) The compact city fallacy. J Plan Educ Res 5: 11–26
Newman P, Kenworthy J (1989) Cities and automobile dependence. An International Sourcebook Gower, England
Stead DJ, Williams J, Titheridge H (2000) Land use, transport and people: identifying the connections. Achieving sustainable urban form, pp 174–186
Torrens PM, Alberti M (2000) Measuring sprawl. Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London
Tsai Y (2005) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ‘sprawl’. Urban Stud 42(1): 141–161
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nam, K., Lim, U. & Kim, B.H.S. ‘Compact’ or ‘Sprawl’ for sustainable urban form? Measuring the effect on travel behavior in Korea. Ann Reg Sci 49, 157–173 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-011-0443-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-011-0443-7