Little is known about the travel-related implications of a mismatch between the preferred type of residential neighbourhood and residents' actual neighbourhood. Using data from 1,358 commuting workers living in the urban neighbourhood of North San Francisco or the suburban communities of Concord or Pleasant Hill, this study assessed how the travel behaviour of mismatched residents in urban or suburban neighbourhoods differs from that of (1) well-matched residents in the same type of neighbourhood, and (2) well-matched residents of the desired type of neighbourhood. Five measures of residential mismatch have been defined. These indicators all contrast people's (dis)favour ('affect') for high-density living, as reflected by their response to statements like "I like living in a neighbourhood where there is a lot going on" and "I like to have a large yard at my home", with their actual type of neighbourhood. The mismatch indicators differ in terms of whether they are discrete or continuous, and whether they account for attachment to their current residential neighborhood. Two dimensions of travel behaviour were investigated - trip frequencies and distances travelled - disaggregated by trip purpose (commuting, work-related/school, grocery shopping, eat a meal, entertainment, and serving passengers other purposes), as well as by transportation mode (private car, bus, train/BART/light rail, walking/jogging bicycling, and other modes). In addition to descriptive analysis for both dimensions of travel behaviour, a series of models is presented that determines the influence of residential dissonance on travel patterns, while accounting for the influence of (1) sociodemographic factors and mobility constraints including the length of stay in the neighbourhood of residence; (2) personality and lifestyle factors; (3) travel-related attitudinal factors. For the covering abstract see ITRD E126595.
Abstract