An Analysis of the Intraurban Trip Distance Using the Time Geography Framework; Influenced by Individual Constraints or Spatial Opportunities

Document Type : Research Article


1 Faculty of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran

2 School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran

3 Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan, Iran

4 Professor, Head of department of transport, health and safety, IFSTTAR, Lyon, France

5 Associate professor, Faculty of architecture and urban planning, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan, Iran


Problem statement: Trip distance, as a key variable of travel behavior, represents the level of sustainable transportation, quality of life, individuals’ accessibility to spatial opportunities, and spatial balance among urban areas.
Research objectives: Despite numerous research relating to travel behavior, few scant studies have investigated the role of different factors in explaining trip distance for non-work purposes. So, the main purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of both individual and physical-spatial factors (at trip origin and destination) on trip distance using the theoretical framework of time geography.
Research method: The research method is descriptive-analytic based on logical reasoning and empirical observations. In this study, based on the g time geography framework, 9 factors at the individual level and 9 factors at the scale of the neighborhood are categorized into three sets of constraints including capacity constraints, coupling constraints, and authority constraints. In order to test the theoretical framework, 30 study districts in the metropolitan of Isfahan, Iran are selected and required data were collected using 1312 questionnaires. For analysis of the abovementioned factors, the potential impacts of the factors have been firstly explained and then, using the collected data and the linear regression technique, the expected relationships have been experimentally tested.
Conclusion: The results and the findings of the research show that the variables related to all three types of constraints affect trip distance; and the role of physical-spatial characteristics in explaining trip distance is stronger than individual factors. Distance from the city center is the most important factor affecting trip distance. Also, although it was theoretically expected that some factors such as gender, household size, commercial density, and land use diversity affect travel length, they did not significantly appear in the empirical analysis model.


• Boarnet, M. G. & Crane, R. (2001). The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research: part A Policy and Practice, 35(9), 823-84.
• Boarnet, M. G. & Sarmiento, S. (1998). Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies, 35(7), 1155-1169.
• Bocker, L., Amen, V. P. & Helbich, M. (2017). Elderly travel frequencies and transport mode choices in Greater Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Transportation, 44(4), 831-852.
• Cao, X. (2010). Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environment and Planning: Part A: Economy and Space, 42 (2), 487-504.
• Cao, X. & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). How do individuals adapt their personal travel? A conceptual exploration of the consideration of travel-related strategies. Transport Policy, (12), 199-206.
• Cervero, R. & Kockelman, K. (1996). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research: part D Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219.
• Crane, R. (1996). On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic, or increase it?. Planning Education and Research, 15(2), 117-126.
• Dargay, J. M. & Hanly, M. (2003). The impact of land use patterns on travel behaviour. Paper presented at the European Transport Conference, France: Strasbourg.
• Ding, C., Wang, D., Liu, C., Zhang, Y. & Yang, J. (2017). Exploring the influence of the environment and the environment. Transportation Research: part A Policy and Practice, (100), 65-80.
• Ellder, E. (2014). Residential location and daily travel distances: The influence of trip purpose. Transport Geography, (34), 121-130.
• Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R. & Ardeshiri, M. (2015). Modeling travel behavior by the structural relationships between lifestyle, built environment and non-working trips. Transportation Research: part A Policy and Practice, (78), 506-518.
• Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record, (1780), 87–114.
• Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 76 (3), 265-294.
• Fan, Y. (2007). The built environment, activity space, and time allocation: An activity-based framework for modeling the land use and travel connection (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
• Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J. & Lawton, T. K. (2007). Urban form, travel time and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation, 35(1), 37-54.
• Hagerstrand, T. (1970), What about people in regional science?. Papers of the Regional Science, 24(1), 6-21.
• Helminen, V. & Ristimaki, M. (2007). Relationship between commuting distance, frequency and telework in Finland. Transport Geography, 15 (5), 331-342.
• Khattak, A. J. & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research: part A Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481-500.
• 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: Memari-va-Shahrsazi, 20(3), 59-70.
• Kitamura, R., Yoshii, T. & Yamamoto, T. (Eds.) (2009). The Expanding Sphere of Travel Behaviour Research. Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
• Kwan, M. P. (1999). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space–time measures. The Professional Geographer, 51(2), 210-227.
• Kwan, M. P. (2000). Gender differences in space time constraints. Area, 32(2), 145-156.
• Lenntorp, B. (1976). Paths in Space–Time Environments: A Time-Geographic Study of Movement Possibilities of Individuals. LUND STUDIES IN GEOGRAPHY SERIES: SERY B, HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, Lund: Royal Lund University, Gleerup.
• Manoj, M. & Verma, A. (2016). Analysis and modelling of activity-travel behaviour of non-workers from a city of developing country, India. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (104), 621-629.
• Mercado, R. & Páez, A. (2009). Determinants of distance traveled with a focus on the elderly: A multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Transport Geography, 17(1), 65-76.
• Mirzaei, E., Kheyroddin, R., Behzadfar, M. & Mignot, D. (2018). Utilitarian and hedonic walking: Examining the impact of the built environment on walking behavior. European Transport Research Review, 10(2), 20.
• Mo’avenat-e Terafic va Haml-o-Naghl-e Shahrdari-e Esfahan (2012). Motale’at-e Tarh-e Jame’e Esfahan, Amagiri-e Mabda-maghsad baraye Arzyabi va Eslah-e Model-ha-ye Taghaza-ye Safar-e Esfahan [Comprehensive Transportation Plan of Isfahan, Origin-Destination Sampling to Assess and Modify Isfahan’s Travel Demand Models].
• Munshi, T. (2016). Built environment and mode choice relationship for commute travel in the city of Rajkot, India. Transportation Research: part D Transport and Environment, (44), 239-253.
• Schmocker, J. D., Quddus, M., Noland, R. & Bell, M. (2005). Estimating trip generation of elderly and disabled people: analysis of London data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1924(1), 9-18.
• Schwanen, T. & Lucas, K. (2011). Understanding auto-motives. In Auto-Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours (PP. 3-38). Bingely: Emerald Group Publishing.
• Schwanen, T., Kwan, M. P. & Ren, F. (2008). How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space–time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum, 39(6), 2109-2121.
• Scott, D. M., Kanaroglou, P. S. & Anderson, W. P. (1997). Impacts of commuting efficiency on congestion and emissions: case of the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Transportation Research: part D: Transport and Environment, 2(4), 245-257.
• Stradling, S. G., Carreno, M., Ferguson, N., Rye, T., Halden, D., Davidson, P., Anable, J., Hope, S., Alder, B., Ryley, T. & Wigan, M. (2005). Scottish Household Survey Analytical Topic Report: Accessibility and Transport. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
• Sun, B., Ermagun, A. & Dan, B. (2016). Built environmental impacts on commuting mode choice and distance: Evidence from Shanghai. Transportation Research: part D Transport and Environment, (52), 441-453.
• Vance, C. & Iovanna, R. (2007). Gender and the automobile: Analysis of nonwork service trips. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013(1), 54-61.
• Zhang, M. (2004). The role of land use in travel mode choice: Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (3), 344-360.