Greenhouse gas impacts of different modality style classes using latent class travel behavior model

This study analyzed the interconnections between urban structure and socioeconomic, demographic and lifestyle variables and direct ground transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Helsinki metropolitan region in Finland by using a latent class choice model (LCCM). The aim of the study was to identify and improve our understanding of the latent modality styles which guide people's everyday travel choices, and the resulting GHG implications. The GHG implications for different modality style groups are particularly interesting, since such analysis has not been included in previous studies. This study used the transport survey of the Helsinki Region Transport (HSL) from 2012, including over 17,000 trips, and consisted of two parts: first, the population was divided into classes based on latent class analysis, and secondly, the mode choices and GHG emissions were modelled for each class. Seven modality style groups were defined with strongly varying GHG impacts and travel profiles. According to the class specific choice modelling the probabilities of selecting different modes also varied significantly. The study offers new information for designing effective mitigation policies for different types of modality style groups. For example, car-oriented groups would benefit from more fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles with alternative power sources, whereas the multimodal traveler could be more receptive to policies promoting cycling and public transport. Overall, the study depicts the potential of the latent class method to study the emissions caused by heterogeneous populations and to search for efficient GHG mitigation possibilities.

[1]  Lee Chapman,et al.  Transport and climate change: a review , 2007 .

[2]  Charles Abraham,et al.  Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence , 2011 .

[3]  A. Horvath,et al.  Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains , 2009 .

[4]  Xinyu Cao,et al.  Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies , 2008 .

[5]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from flying can offset the gain from reduced driving in dense urban areas , 2014 .

[6]  Petter Næss,et al.  Urban form and travel behavior: experience from a Nordic context , 2012 .

[7]  Juudit Ottelin,et al.  Rebound effects projected onto carbon footprints - Implications for climate change mitigation in the built environment , 2016 .

[8]  Mikhail Chester,et al.  Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles , 2014 .

[9]  J. Preston,et al.  ‘60-20 emission’—The unequal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions from personal, non-business travel in the UK , 2010 .

[10]  Petter Næss Urban Structures and Travel Behaviour: Experiences from Empirical Research in Norway and Denmark , 2000 .

[11]  Xinyu Cao,et al.  Examining the Impacts of Residential Self‐Selection on Travel Behaviour: A Focus on Empirical Findings , 2009 .

[12]  David A. Hensher,et al.  A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit , 2003 .

[13]  C. Michael Hall,et al.  Impact of the residential environment on second home use in Finland – Testing the compensation hypothesis , 2015 .

[14]  Stephanie T. Lanza,et al.  Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences , 2009 .

[15]  Anna Broberg,et al.  They’ll never walk alone? The multiple settings of children’s active transportation and independent mobility , 2015 .

[16]  Timo Ohnmacht,et al.  Leisure mobility styles in Swiss conurbations: construction and empirical analysis , 2009 .

[17]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods? , 2005 .

[18]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Preference endogeneity in discrete choice models , 2014 .

[19]  F. Witlox,et al.  When Transport Geography Meets Social Psychology: Toward a Conceptual Model of Travel Behaviour , 2010 .

[20]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey , 1989 .

[21]  M. Bierlaire,et al.  Attitudes towards mode choice in Switzerland , 2013 .

[22]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  Situated lifestyles: I. How lifestyles change along with the level of urbanization and what the greenhouse gas implications are—a study of Finland , 2013 .

[23]  A. Raveh,et al.  URBAN DENSITY AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION: A NEW LOOK AT OLD STATISTICS , 2004 .

[24]  John Holmberg,et al.  Quantifying the rebound effects of energy efficiency improvements and energy conserving behaviour in Sweden , 2009 .

[25]  Joan L. Walker Opening up the black box: Enriching behavioral models of spatial and travel choices , 2006 .

[26]  Jukka Heinonen,et al.  The Impacts of Urban Structure and the Related Consumption Patterns on the Carbon Emissions of an Average Consumer , 2012 .

[27]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California , 2005 .

[28]  John B. Heywood,et al.  The effect of uncertainty on US transport-related GHG emissions and fuel consumption out to 2050 , 2012 .

[29]  Tim Jackson,et al.  Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households , 2010, Energy Policy.

[30]  Junyi Shen Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data , 2009 .

[31]  J. Scheiner Social inequalities in travel behaviour: trip distances in the context of residential self-selection and lifestyles , 2010 .

[32]  Petter Næss Residential location affects travel behavior: but how and why? the case of Copenhagen metropolitan area , 2005 .

[33]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

[34]  Akshay Vij,et al.  Incorporating the influence of latent modal preferences on travel mode choice behavior , 2013 .

[35]  G. Yohe,et al.  Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon , 2009 .

[36]  Daniel A. Badoe,et al.  Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling , 2000 .

[37]  Gary J. Russell,et al.  A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure , 1989 .

[38]  C. Kennedy,et al.  Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2006 .

[39]  R. Kitamura,et al.  A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[40]  D. Brownstone,et al.  The Impact of Residential Density on Vehicle Usage and Energy Consumption , 2005 .