Impact of urban facilities spatial inequality on sustainable travel mode.

Jorge Urrutia-Mosquera, Luz Flórez-Calderón, Yasna Cortés, Rodrigo Troncoso, Marcelo Lufin
Author Information
  1. Jorge Urrutia-Mosquera: Department of Economics and Institute for Applied Regional Economics (IDEAR), Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile. ORCID
  2. Luz Flórez-Calderón: Industrial Engineering Department, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.
  3. Yasna Cortés: Department of Economics and Institute for Applied Regional Economics (IDEAR), Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.
  4. Rodrigo Troncoso: Faculty of Government, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
  5. Marcelo Lufin: Department of Economics and Institute for Applied Regional Economics (IDEAR), Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.

Abstract

With the implementation of sustainable development objectives in developing countries, urban planning, land use regulation, and urban mobility policies are expected to help reduce inequalities in access to urban facilities. Urban transport policies are also expected to encourage travel by non-motorised modes and public transport. These are considered to be the sustainable modes of urban transport. In this paper, we investigate how inequality of urban facilities impacts trips made by sustainable modes in the city of Santiago de Chile. We use a Poisson regression model and its geographical extension, the geographically weighted Poisson regression model (GWPR). The results suggest that the inequality of urban facilities impacts trips made by sustainable modes. The variables with the highest relevance are the spatial distribution of mixed land use, the spatial distribution of urban services related to transport infrastructure, primary and secondary education, as well as the spatial distribution of demographic variables related to people's life cycle.

References

  1. Appl Geogr. 2020 Apr;117:102188 [PMID: 32287517]
  2. J Urban Health. 2023 Aug;100(4):725-744 [PMID: 37563519]
  3. Health Place. 2023 Nov;84:103130 [PMID: 37801805]
  4. Environ Int. 2016 Sep;94:251-262 [PMID: 27276440]
  5. Am J Public Health. 2003 Sep;93(9):1478-83 [PMID: 12948966]
  6. Heliyon. 2023 May 19;9(6):e16391 [PMID: 37251451]
  7. Environ Res. 2018 Jan;160:412-419 [PMID: 29073571]
  8. Environ Res. 2021 May;196:110988 [PMID: 33689819]
  9. PLoS One. 2021 May 05;16(5):e0250080 [PMID: 33951051]
  10. Heliyon. 2020 Dec 22;6(12):e05348 [PMID: 33385076]
  11. Environ Res. 2020 Aug;187:109622 [PMID: 32416356]
  12. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011 Nov 13;8:125 [PMID: 22077952]
  13. Accid Anal Prev. 2020 Dec;148:105833 [PMID: 33120184]

MeSH Term

Humans
Chile
Travel
Transportation
Socioeconomic Factors
Cities
City Planning
Sustainable Development
Urban Population

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0urbansustainablefacilitiestransportmodesspatialuseinequalitydistributionlandpoliciesexpectedtravelimpactstripsmadePoissonregressionmodelvariablesrelatedimplementationdevelopmentobjectivesdevelopingcountriesplanningregulationmobilityhelpreduceinequalitiesaccessUrbanalsoencouragenon-motorisedpublicconsideredpaperinvestigatecitySantiagodeChilegeographicalextensiongeographicallyweightedGWPRresultssuggesthighestrelevancemixedservicesinfrastructureprimarysecondaryeducationwelldemographicpeople'slifecycleImpactmode

Similar Articles

Cited By