Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Residential relocation and travel satisfaction change: An empirical

T
study in Beijing, China
Fenglong Wang (PhD) (Dr) (David)a, Zidan Mao (PhD) (Dr)b, , Donggen Wang (PhD)
⁎

(Prof)c
a
School of Geography, South China Normal University, PR China
b
School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-Sen University, PR China
c
Department of Geography, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Despite increasing interests in travel-related subjective well-being in transport research, few
Residential relocation studies have explored the effects of residential environment on travel satisfaction, especially how
Travel satisfaction change travel satisfaction may change after residential relocation. This study investigates whether and
Built environment how residential relocation leads to changes in travel satisfaction. Using a two-wave questionnaire
Longitudinal study
survey conducted from 2011 to 2013 in Beijing, we compare home movers’ travel satisfaction
Travel behavior
before and after residential relocation, and further examine how changes in the built environ-
ment and that in travel behavior lead to changes in travel satisfaction, taking into consideration
the travel-related motivation for home relocation. We find that almost 70% movers reported
improvement in travel satisfaction after relocation, suggesting that residential relocation may
serve as an opportunity to enhance travel satisfaction; improved neighborhood environments
explain increases in travel satisfaction: higher accessibility to facilities, better physical design,
enhanced safety and more interactions between neighbors contribute to improved travel sa-
tisfaction. On the other hand, increased travel time by transit reduces travel satisfaction. We also
find out that relocation motivated by travel-related reasons did not lead to a significant im-
provement in travel satisfaction. This study contributes to the literature by appreciating the role
of neighborhood environment in improving travel experiences.

1. Introduction

According to the ‘mobility biographies approach’, individuals’ daily travel can be routinized, but a long-term mobility decision
such as residential relocation can break this continuity (Clark et al., 2016; Lanzendorf, 2002; Scheiner and Holz-Rau, 2013). For this
reason, residential relocation is often considered as a “window of opportunities” to encourage travel behavior changes (Bamberg,
2006; Verplanken et al., 2008). Travel behavior change could be an adaption to constraints or a response to opportunities in new
residential location (Ewing and Cervero, 2010; Klinger, 2017) in terms of realization of movers’ residential or travel preferences
before moving (Cao et al., 2007; Krizek, 2003; Scheiner and Holz-Rau, 2013). While a number of empirical studies have examined
travel behavior change induced by home relocation in different contexts including North America (Cao et al., 2007; Fatmi and Habib,
2017; Handy et al., 2005), Europe (Aditjandra et al., 2016; Klinger, 2017; Verplanken et al., 2008), and also China (Wang and Lin,

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-Sen University, 329 Building, 135 West Xingang Road, Haizhu District,
Guangzhou 510275, PR China.
E-mail addresses: wfldragon@163.com (F. Wang), mao.zidan28@gmail.com (Z. Mao), dgwang@hkbu.edu.hk (D. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.016
Received 5 July 2018; Received in revised form 11 March 2020; Accepted 11 March 2020
Available online 01 April 2020
0965-8564/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

2017, 2014; Yang et al., 2017), it is unclear whether residential relocation improves residents’ experience with their travel, or travel
satisfaction.
Travel satisfaction, as a domain-specific well-being, has attracted significant research attention in recent years. Previous studies
have examined the determinants of travel satisfaction and the contribution of travel satisfaction to life satisfaction (Ettema et al.,
2011; Friman et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2017a; De Vos et al., 2013). It is found that travel attributes (e.g., travel mode, travel duration,
and car ownership) have significant effects on travel-related wellbeing (Ettema et al., 2011; Mao et al., 2016; Morris and Guerra,
2015; Olsson et al., 2013; De Vos and Witlox, 2017). Personal characteristics (e.g., age, health condition) and travel-related attitudes
are also found to be significant predictors of how people evaluate their travel (Gao et al., 2017b; St-Louis et al., 2014; Ye and
Titheridge, 2017). Comparatively, there are only limited investigations into the effect of the built environment on travel satisfaction.
Recent studies (Cao and Ettema, 2014; Ye and Titheridge, 2017) have hypothesized that residential environment may influence travel
satisfaction indirectly through its impacts on travel attributes (e.g., mode choice). However, to what extent and in which way
residential environment contributes to travel satisfaction remains unclear and requires further exploration (De Vos and Witlox,
2017).
Meanwhile, previous studies have found that the well-being of different life domains correlate unevenly with life course events
such as residential relocation (Lundholm and Malmberg, 2006). For example, Nowok et al. (2018) found that residential relocation
increases housing satisfaction considerably, but changes in satisfaction with other life domains (i.e., job, household income, spouse/
partner and health) are much less pronounced and not lasting. However, travel satisfaction is rarely included in these studies.
Residential relocation often results in changes in the built environment and travel behavior, which has been shown to be influential
factors of travel satisfaction. Thus, it is plausible to expect that residential relocation may lead to changes in travel satisfaction.
Although movers with other motivations (e.g., more pleasant living environments or better housing) may sacrifice to endure longer
commute (Gerber et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017) and consequently lower travel satisfaction after relocation, a travel-related reason
may encourage movers to choose residential environments for preferred travel patterns and lead to improvements in travel sa-
tisfaction.
Therefore, this paper investigates whether and how residential relocation changes travel satisfaction, with a focus on the effect of
changes in residential built environment on changes in travel satisfaction. Using a longitudinal data collected in Beijing, we compare
the change of travel satisfaction before and after residential relocation, and further estimate how changes in built environment and
travel behavior explain travel satisfaction changes. In addition, we also examine whether a travel-motivated relocation results in
more satisfying daily travel.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the relevant literature. The third section develops a
conceptual model concerning the dynamics of travel satisfaction associated with residential relocation and introduces the data and
analytical methods used for the study. This is followed by the analytical results in the fourth section. The final section concludes and
discusses the policy implications and possible avenues for future research.

2. Literature review

This section reviews the relevant literature concerning travel satisfaction, especially the studies on the determinants of travel
satisfaction and that on the link between residential relocation and travel behavior changes. We contend that findings of these studies
justify the current study to establish links between the built environment and travel satisfaction.

2.1. Determinants of travel satisfaction

Travel satisfaction refers to how satisfied people are with their daily travel in general (De Vos and Witlox, 2017). Various
measurements have been developed to evaluate travel satisfaction. For example, Satisfaction with Travel Scale (STS) measures both
the experienced emotions and the cognitive evaluation concerning travel experience (Ettema et al., 2011; Friman et al., 2013; De Vos
et al., 2015). It can be applied to assess the experience of both specific trip episode and travel in general. Based on the Satisfaction
with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985; Pavot and Diener, 1993), Bergstad et al. (2011a) developed the Satisfaction with Daily
Travel Scale (SDTS) to measure travel satisfaction, with a focus on the cognitive components. A growing number of studies have been
devoted to exploring factors explaining variations in travel satisfaction and identified four groups of variables: travel attributes (e.g.,
transport mode, trip duration, travel time, etc.), travel attitudes, personal and household socioeconomics, and the built environment.
Among travel attributes, the importance of transport mode for travel satisfaction has been frequently acknowledged. Although
contexts vary, empirical studies indicated that active mode users tended to have the highest level of travel satisfaction (e.g., Mao
et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2013; Páez and Whalen, 2010; St-Louis et al., 2014). Since traveling by car seemed to derive much comfort,
driving pleasure, sense of speed and feeling of self-control (Bergstad et al., 2011b), car users were usually more satisfied with travel
than those travel by public means (e.g., Eriksson et al., 2013; Ory et al., 2004; Ye and Titheridge, 2017). The instrumental elements of
trips, such as travel time and fares, were found to have significant effects on travel satisfaction. For instance, it was shown that
commuting time was negatively associated with commute satisfaction (e.g., Ettema et al., 2012; Olsson et al., 2013; St-Louis et al.,
2014). Non-instrumental elements, such as treatment by service attendants, reliability of service, clarity of information, as well as the
cleanliness, maintenance and crowdedness within the vehicle, were also found to be important for travel satisfaction (e.g., Carreira
et al., 2014; Eriksson et al., 2013; Ettema et al., 2012; Stradling et al., 2007).
Personal and household socioeconomics are found less predictive of travel satisfaction. For example, Olsson et al. (2013) sug-
gested that many socioeconomic variables (e.g., age, gender, marriage, etc.) did not have significant effects on commute satisfaction;

342
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

similarly, Bergstad et al. (2011a) revealed that socioeconomics only accounted for about 2% of the total variance in travel sa-
tisfaction. Nevertheless, factors related to individuals’ capabilities and time constraints (e.g., health, employment status, mobility
level) showed effects on travel satisfaction in many other studies (e.g., Cao and Ettema, 2014; Kim et al., 2014; St-Louis et al., 2014;
Ye and Titheridge, 2017). Especially, the health condition and the possession of a driver’s license were found to be influential to the
travel satisfaction of the elderly (Nordbakke and Schwanen, 2014).
The role of travel attitudes or preferences in travel satisfaction has also drawn research attention in recent years. It was found that
travel attitudes helped explain variations in travel satisfaction. For instance, Ye and Titheridge (2017) found commuters’ positive
attitudes towards travel in general had a strong and positive effect on commute satisfaction. Attitudes towards transport modes were
also shown to influence travelers’ evaluation of travel experience. Cao and Ettema (2014) reported that people who preferred transit
were more likely to enhance travel satisfaction through the improvement of transit infrastructure; St-Louis et al. (2014) also indicated
that some transit users were dissatisfied not because of the service but that they preferred driving. Generally, people were more
pleasant or satisfied with the trip made by the modes they prefer (Manaugh and El-Geneidy, 2013; Mokhtarian et al., 2015).
Compared with the factors discussed above, the built environment attributes have attracted relatively less research attention. As
the space where travel occurs, the built environment, especially the residential built environment, is assumed to indirectly influence
travel experience via its impacts on travel choices concerning for example transport modes, whilst its direct influence may be realized
through imposing constraints (e.g., congestion, safety) on or offering opportunities (e.g., amenities, sceneries) for trip makings (Cao
and Ettema, 2014; De Vos and Witlox, 2017; Ye and Titheridge, 2017). For example, Ye and Titheridge (2017) found that residential
built environment had indirect effects on satisfaction with commuting trips through influencing the way that commuting trips were
made. However, their study only focused on commute trips, which were less likely to be conducted around the residence. Existing
studies have also explored the direct link between residential built environment and travel satisfaction and found accessibility and
walkability (or bikeability) were the two most influential built environment factors on travel satisfaction. For examples, people were
found less satisfied with their travel if access to bus stops was low (Ettema et al., 2011; Taniguchi et al., 2014); the availability of
transit options and the opportunities for physical activities were positively associated with travel satisfaction (Cao and Ettema, 2014);
and the presence of pedestrian crossing and sidewalk width were found to have significant effects on satisfaction with walking (Kim
et al., 2014). Manaugh and El-Geneidy (2013) argued that the amenities and landscape along the travel route might have direct
impacts on one’s mood and feelings, which in turn influenced the subjective evaluation of the trip. For cyclists, the physical en-
vironment, such as the width of path and the presence of slope and surrounding land use, significantly influenced their satisfaction
with cycling trips (Li et al., 2012; Willis et al., 2013).
Though the existing studies have explored the influence of residential location on travel satisfaction, they are limited to certain
travel purposes (e.g., commute and leisure) and transport modes (e.g., walking and cycling). How the built environment impacts the
satisfaction with travel in general is less understood. To provide a fuller picture about travel-related wellbeing, studies need to
examine individuals’ satisfaction with daily travel in general, which covers different trip purposes and multiple transport modes
(Buehler and Hamre, 2015). Further, existing studies are mainly based on cross-sectional data, which may show associations, but not
be able to establish causality for it lacks time precedence (direction of influence) (Singleton and Straits, 2005) or strict control of
unmeasured time-invariant confounding factors (Gunasekara et al., 2013). For example, it is hard to tell whether the choice of the
built environment precedes travel satisfaction or travel satisfaction precedes the choice of the built environment (De Vos and Witlox,
2017). Examining the determinants of travel satisfaction with longitudinal data can overcome these drawbacks of existing studies and
shed some light on possible causalities of the built environment on travel satisfaction.

2.2. Residential relocation and travel behavioral changes

The relationship between residential relocations and travel behavioral changes has been established in the literature. On the one
hand, relocation often implies significant changes in the built environment, which either offer new opportunities for or impose new
constraints on trip making concerning, for example, the use of specific transport modes (Aditjandra et al., 2016; Næss, 2005). This has
been supported by many empirical studies. For example, Krizek (2003) found that households reduced car use (with regard to vehicle
miles traveled) when moving to a neighborhood with higher accessibility; Cao et al. (2007) provided evidence that relocating to
neighborhoods closer to destinations or with alternative transport options could lead to less driving and more walking; Scheiner and
Holz-Rau (2013) also indicated that residential relocation induced significant changes in car ownership and the use of travel modes
for daily travel. Yang et al. (2017) investigated the switch from private car to public transport for commuting when people relocated
home and found that the purpose of home relocation, changes in commute distance, and access to subway/bus were important
determinants.
On the other hand, travel-related attitudes or preferences may motivate residential relocation and thus determine the built
environment of the new residence (Chatman, 2009; Mokhtarian and Cao, 2008; van Wee, 2009). In this case, the change in travel
behavior is more likely to be a realization of travel preferences rather than adaptions to the new built environment. This hypothesis
has been tested in many residential self-selection studies. However, some of them showed that travel attitudes only had limited
impacts on change in travel behaviors after moving home (Cao et al., 2007; Giles-Corti et al., 2013; Wang and Lin, 2017). One
possible reason could be that residential location choice is determined by not only travel preference, but also many other con-
siderations (e.g., life events, dwelling characteristics, housing price) (e.g., Cao and Chatman, 2016; Clark and Huang, 2003; van Ham
and Clark, 2009). For example, if someone prefers cycling for daily travel, ideally s/he would live not too far away from her/his
workplace so that commute by bicycle is possible. However, the high housing price nearby one's workplace may be beyond her/his
affordability. For this reason, s/he may have to move to a place where the housing price is affordable, but is rather far away from her/

343
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

his workplace, making commuting by bicycle not feasible. In this case, the relocation is more motivated by a housing-related than
travel-related reason (Ettema and Nieuwenhuis, 2017). Therefore, a few studies have specifically investigated the effect of moti-
vations or reasons for residential relocation on travel behavior and drawn positive relationships between them. For examples, Frank
et al. (2007) found that if walkability was a reason for location choice, the number of walking trips would be higher in both low and
high walkable areas; Kamruzzaman et al. (2015) reported that if the accessibility of place was a more important reason for location
choice, people would be more likely to use public transport for daily travel; Ettema and Nieuwenhuis (2017) took both travel
attitudes and motivations for relocation into consideration and found that travel-related reasons for relocation showed “an additional
and independent effect up and above the effects of location and attitude”.
Compared to the much research attention on travel behavior change resulted from residential relocation as discussed above,
hardly any research has reported travel satisfaction change resulted from residential relocation. Although studies have explored
satisfaction changes in various life domains (e.g., residential and social relationships) after home relocation (Diaz-Serrano and
Stoyanova, 2010; Lundholm and Malmberg, 2006; Nowok et al., 2018; Wang and Wang, 2020), satisfaction changes in travel domain
remain unexplored. One exception is the work by Gerber et al. (2017), who asked movers about their perceived changes in travel
experiences and found that the movers generally thought that commuting trips became worse after residential move, whilst non-work
trips did not change much. However, their study did not further explore how changes in travel satisfaction were related to changes in
residential built environment.
In summary, though travel satisfaction has drawn considerable research attention in recent studies and multiple dimensions of its
contributing factors have been explored, it is still not clear how the built environment of residential neighborhood impacts travel
satisfaction. While previous studies mainly focused on travel satisfaction concerning specific trip purposes or travel modes, an
investigation into the satisfaction with daily travel in general will offer a fuller picture of travel-related wellbeing and its relationship
with the residential environment. Further, discussing this linkage in the context of residential relocation, will not only contribute to
relocation studies by considering the subjective outcome regarding travel experience, but also help establish the possible causality
between built environment and travel satisfaction.

3. Research design

3.1. Conceptual model

Based on the literature reviewed above, we construct a conceptual model to explain possible changes in travel satisfaction
triggered by residential relocation (Fig. 1). Derived from the research findings concerning travel behavior change induced by re-
sidential relocation and that on determinants of travel satisfaction, we assume that residential relocation will lead to changes in

Change in neighborhood attributes

Change in car ownership
Objective:
Accessibility, walkability

Subjective: Change in travel attributes

Accessibility & facilities, physical
design & maintenance, safety & Daily travel time by different
absence of nuisance, social transport modes
interaction & composition

Motivation to move
Travel-related reason

Household characteristics
Income, presence of child
Change in travel
satisfaction
Personal characteristics
Gender, age, marriage, education,
employment

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

344
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

neighborhood built environment, travel behavior, and consequently in travel satisfaction. Motivations for home relocation and
personal and household attributes are factors that may modify such changes and thus should be controlled.
Firstly, changes in residential built environmental may directly lead to changes in travel satisfaction. For example, improved
accessibility to transport stations and activity destinations will not only enable people to participate in more activities, but also
reduce their travel cost in terms of both time and money. Also, a better neighborhood walking environment, such as friendliness (e.g.,
providing chairs for rest), aesthetic qualities and safety, is expected to increase travel satisfaction. In line with previous studies (e.g.,
Leslie et al., 2005) suggesting that the perceived built environments are determined by the objective ones, we assume that the
objective neighborhood environment variables (e.g., accessibility) will determine the subjective ones (e.g., perceived accessibility)
and as such indirectly impact travel satisfaction. Secondly, residential built environment changes may also influence travel sa-
tisfaction through impacts on home movers’ mobility and activity patterns (De Vos et al., 2013). For example, car ownership as an
important indicator of mobility (e.g., Farber and Páez, 2011; Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011), may change with residential relocation
(Bhat and Guo, 2007; Prillwitz et al., 2006), which may lead to changes in travel behavior and travel satisfaction. Furthermore,
changes in travel attributes such as travel times by different transport modes can be triggered by changes in the built environment
(e.g., Aditjandra et al., 2016; Cao et al., 2007; Næss, 2005; Scheiner and Holz-Rau, 2013) and play a mediating role between
residential built environment and travel satisfaction. Accordingly, we assume that changes in residential built environment influence
travel satisfaction indirectly through changing mobility and travel behavior. Thirdly, motivations for residential relocation may play
a role in travel satisfaction change and will be controlled in the analysis. Previous studies indicate that the influence of residential
built environment on travel behavior can be more accurately assessed by distinguishing people who make residential choices based
on travel-related reasons from those based on other reasons (Manaugh and El-Geneidy, 2013; Ettema and Nieuwenhuis, 2017). Since
residential relocation motivated by travel-related reasons may facilitate home movers’ use of preferred transport modes (e.g., Frank
et al., 2007; Kamruzzaman et al., 2015; Ettema and Nieuwenhuis, 2017) or better fulfillment of travel demand, we may assume that
home movers motivated by travel-related reasons are likely to change travel behavior and achieve a higher level of satisfaction after
home relocation. Finally, personal and household socioeconomics are assumed to be associated with the appreciation of relocation
outcomes and thus may also influence travel satisfaction change. For example, female home movers are more likely to be tied or
trailing spouses (Bonney and Love, 1991; Shihadeh, 1991) and thus may benefit less from residential relocation than male movers.

3.2. Data

The data is drawn from a two-wave household questionnaire survey conducted in Beijing, China. The first wave of the survey
targeted those who were planning to move to a new house within Beijing in the following 6 months. A multi-stage stratified sampling
method was adopted. The first wave of the survey was initiated in November 2011 and finished in July 2012. A total of 1243
members from 467 households successfully participated in the survey through face-to-face interviews. The households who parti-
cipated in the first wave of the survey were all invited to attend the follow-up survey one year later (since April 2013). We choose this
interval of two waves of the survey because it usually takes 6–18 months for the movers to adjust to the new dwellings (Carlisle-
Frank, 1992) and form stable judgments of their travel conditions. The second wave of the survey was finished in August 2013.
Because some households could not be contacted or refused to participate, only 537 residents from 229 households participated in

Table 1
Sample profile.
Variable Classification Cases %/Mean

Personal characteristics N = 537

Gender Male 252 46.93%
Female 285 53.07%
Age < 19 8 1.49%
19–39 240 44.69%
40–59 217 40.41%
> 59 72 13.41%
Education Junior Secondary or lower 75 13.97%
High School 276 51.40%
University or above 186 34.64%
Marital status Married 458 85.29%
Others 79 14.71%
Employment status Full-time worker 348 64.80%
Others 189 35.20%
Hukou status Beijing native 467 86.96%
Migrant 70 13.04%

Household characteristics N = 229

Household size No. of persons 229 2.78
Monthly household income (¥) ≤5999 35 15.28%
6000–9999 77 33.62%
10,000–19,999 87 37.99%
≥20,000 30 13.10%

345
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

both waves of this survey. Table 1 lists the sample profile. It is shown that most of the participants in this research are well educated,
married, employed and local residents from middle-income households.

3.3. Measurements

Travel satisfaction is assessed using the 5-item measurement scale developed by Bergstad et al. (2011a). This scale contains 5
statements of people’s perceptions about their daily travel, which are listed in Table 3. Respondents rated on seven-point Likert scales
according to their degree of agreement with the statements (from 1 “totally disagree” to 7 “totally agree”). The Cronbach’s alpha
(0.91 in the 1st wave and 0.84 in the 2nd wave of the survey) is higher than 0.7, which is the cut-off value (Nunnally, 1978),
suggesting that this scale of travel satisfaction has good internal consistency and is applicable in the Chinese context. Change in travel
satisfaction is measured by score differences in travel satisfaction between the two waves. The Cronbach’s alpha of the differences in
travel satisfaction is 0.88 and indicates that score differences are also consistent.
Two objective indicators are used to measure residential built environment: the first one is concerned about the separation
between sidewalks and traffic lanes around the residential neighborhood. It is argued that one would feel safer and be less interrupted
by traffic to walk in the neighborhood if sidewalks are separated from traffic lanes. We use a dummy variable, which is coded ‘1’ if the
sidewalks and traffic lanes were not separated before home move but separated after move, and ‘0’ otherwise. The other one is the
change of a composite index of accessibility measured by the number of facilities (including bus stop, metro station, parking lot,
kindergarten, primary school, food market, supermarket, groceries, bank/ATM, clinic and park) that are within the 15-minute
walking distance from respondents’ homes. The score difference in this composite index is adopted to measure the change in ac-
cessibility to neighborhood facilities. Since people may perceive the same neighborhood differently, we also include 14 items that
have been widely used in transport studies to measure subjective neighborhood environment (e.g. Cao et al., 2007). The score
difference of each item is used as the measure of changes in subjective neighborhood environment before and after home move. An
explorative factor analysis (EFA) is conducted on the score differences of the 14 items. Four factors, which have eigenvalues larger
than 1.00, are extracted. These four factors together account for 61.91% of the total variance in the 14 variables. Table 2 shows the
loadings of each item on the factors after varimax rotation. According to these factor loadings, we can find that the first factor clearly
gauges the change in neighborhood accessibility & facilities, the second factor in physical design & maintenance, the third in safety &
absence of nuisance, and the fourth in social interaction & composition. The factor scores are calculated and used in the following
models.
Travel behavior is measured by travel patterns derived from a one-day activity diary, which recorded all activities and associated
travel on the day prior to the date when the questionnaire survey was conducted. We differentiate travel durations by transport
modes and focus on changes in travel time by different transport modes before and after home relocation. Specifically, the variables
used to capture changes in travel behavior include: changes in time of daily travel by active modes including walking and cycling; by
transit including bus and subway; and by private transport mode including private car and taxi. Change in household car ownership is
also considered in this study because it is an important predictor of individuals’ travel patterns. Relocation motivation is also included
in the model to differentiate those moving for travel-related reasons (e.g., improvement of travel conditions) from those moving for
other reasons.

3.4. Modelling approach

The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is employed to examine the determinants of travel satisfaction change. SEM is capable
of modeling the paths of effects (including direct and indirect effects) between latent constructs that cannot be directly measured

Table 2
The loadings of factors underlying the changes in subjective neighborhood environment attributes.
Items measuring subjective neighborhood Accessibility & facilities Physical design & Safety & absence of Social interaction &
environment maintenance nuisance composition

Access to city center or shopping malls 0.752

Access to facilities 0.663
Access to transit 0.775
Greenery/open spaces 0.642
Street lights 0.718
Attractiveness of appearance 0.804
Level of upkeep 0.686 0.409
Level of car traffic 0.665
Quietness 0.672
Safety to walk 0.809
Safety for kids to play out 0.688
Neighbors having similar economic status 0.673
Neighbors having similar social status 0.799
Active interactions 0.733

1
The factor analysis is based on household heads’ ratings on the 14 items measuring subjective neighborhood environment; only loadings above 0.40
are displayed.

346
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

Table 3
Changes in daily travel satisfaction.
Items Wave 1 Wave 2 Difference % Of no change % Of better-off

I am completely satisfied with my daily travel 4.84 5.65 0.81 22.35 54.19
My travel facilitates my daily life 4.96 5.67 0.71 23.84 51.58
When I think of my daily travel the positive aspects outweigh the negative 4.78 5.85 1.07 21.42 61.27
I do not want to change anything regarding my daily travel 4.14 5.38 1.24 16.39 64.62
My daily travel makes me feel good 4.67 5.66 0.99 19.55 59.78
Average 4.68 5.64 0.96 5.96 69.09

(Bollen, 1989) and has been widely used in transportation research. As mentioned earlier, in this study, travel satisfaction is mea-
sured by 5 items and a latent construct underlying these 5 items can be developed. This latent construct on travel satisfaction is
supposed to be influenced directly by the built environment and indirectly via travel behavior. To handle these complexities and
capture both the direct and indirect effects, SEM is probably the most suitable modeling tool for this study. The fact that the sample of
this study involves 537 individuals from 229 households suggests that individuals may come from the same household, which may
violate the independence and normality assumptions. To overcome this problem, we apply the multi-level SEM modeling approach,
which is capable of handling clustered or nested samples and has been used to model household survey data (e.g., Rice et al., 1998).
Specifically, a multi-level SEM with random intercepts (Snijders et al., 2005) is developed. The model is estimated with Mplus 7.0.
The maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors (MLR) is used.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive analyses

Descriptive analyses on the change in travel satisfaction are conducted to provide a general picture of the outcomes of residential
relocation. As shown in Table 3 travel satisfaction has generally improved after residential relocation. The average level of travel
satisfaction increased from 4.68 to 5.64 and nearly 70% of the home movers in our sample reported improvement in travel sa-
tisfaction. The t-test reveals that this degree of change is statistically significant at 1% significance level. This result suggests that most
residents take relocation as a chance to improve travel conditions. However, it is still noteworthy that there are many (around 30%)
participants who rated their daily travel worse than before, suggesting that the improvement in travel satisfaction can differ among
movers.
Table 4 lists the statistics of motivations for home relocation, changes in travel behavior, and that in car ownership. The table
shows that respondents in our sample generally spent more time on daily travel especially by transit after home relocation. On the
other hand, 23.14% of the households in the sample reported increases in car ownership. One of the reasons was that relatively more
residents moved to the suburb or the neighborhoods of commodity housing where car ownership tends to be higher than that in other
regions or other types of neighborhoods (Wang et al., 2011). As for motivations for home relocation, Table 4 shows that about
15.28% of households reported travel as at least one of the reasons for home relocation.
The descriptive analyses seem to generate some contradictory findings: Table 3 shows that home relocation has led to significant
improvement in travel satisfaction, whereas Table 4 suggests that people spend more time on travel by public transport after home
relocation (both travel time and travel by public transport have been found to negatively contribute to travel satisfaction in previous
studies such as Olsson et al., 2013; Ettema et al., 2012). The association between changes in travel time and travel satisfaction could
be different after controlling for the effects of other factors such as the built environment variables, which will be further examined in
the multi-level SEM model.

4.2. Model results

Table 5 lists the model performance together with the cut-off values of the most commonly used indicators of model fit. It shows
that the model performs better than the cut-off value by all indicators, suggesting that the model fits the data well. The intraclass
correlation coefficients (ICC) on the five items of changes in travel satisfaction vary from 0.453 to 0.509, indicating that changes in

Table 4
Motivations for home relocation and changes in travel behavior and car ownership.
Variables Measurements No. of cases Mean/% St.dev.

Changes in travel time by active transport modes minutes 537 5.82 49.56
Changes in travel time by transit minutes 537 12.41 76.66
Changes in travel time by car minutes 537 6.14 49.14
Changes in household car ownership increase in car ownership = 1; others = 0 229 23.14% –
Motivation for home relocation travel-related reason = 1; others = 0 229 15.28% –

347
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

Table 5
Indicators of model fit.
Model fit indicators Recommended cut-off value Model performance

RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) ≤0.08 0.022

CFI (Comparative fit index) ≥0.90 0.970
TLI/NFI (Nonnormal fit index) ≥0.90 0.955
SRMR (level 1, individual) ≤0.08 0.038
SRMR (level 2, household) ≤0.08 0.046
χ2/df (Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom) ≤3 188.546/150 ≈ 1.26

travel satisfaction for individuals from the same households are highly correlated and it is appropriate to adopt the multi-level
method in this study.
Table 6 presents the detailed modeling results concerning the direct and indirect effects between endogenous variables. The
effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables are presented in Table 7.

(1) Effects of changes in neighborhood environment on travel satisfaction changes

Concerning the direct effects of the changes in neighborhood built environment on travel satisfaction changes, no significant
impact is found for the two objective neighborhood environment indicators, but changes in all dimensions of the subjective
neighborhood environment have very significant direct effects (Tables 6 and 7). This finding is consistent with that of previous
studies which have shown that subjective wellbeing is more likely associated with the subjective assessment of the built environment
because it is often biased towards one’s preferences (Ettema and Schekkerman, 2016). However, our findings probably provide more
supportive evidence because we use longitudinal data and focus on the differences in subjective assessment before/after home
relocation, which is able to remove the influence of personality and preferences on subjective assessment (e.g., happy people are
more likely to rate travel satisfaction high) on the premise that they are relatively stable psychological portraits and are unlikely to
change before/after home relocation. Specifically, improved subjective accessibility has significantly positive effects on change in
travel satisfaction. This is probably because accessibility not only reduces the time pressure to catch a bus or the pains of long travel
to reach important facilities, but also provides diverse choices for residents to optimize their daily trips. Better design of neigh-
borhood physical spaces also contributes to the improvement in travel satisfaction. This is reasonable because the physical neigh-
borhood environment is quite important for the quality of daily travel (e.g., Kim et al., 2014). Reduced noise and improved safety in
the new neighborhood lead to a higher level of travel satisfaction. This is probably due to better experiences during walking trips
around the neighborhood since safety and few interruptions (e.g., cautions for traffics) are one of the major concerns of slow-mode
travel. More homogeneous composition of and more social interactions within the neighborhood tend to increase travel satisfaction.
This is consistent with previous findings that social cohesion encourages walking behaviors in the neighborhood (e.g., Mendes de
Leon et al., 2009) and increases opportunities for traveling with friends, which is usually more pleasing than traveling alone
(Schwanen and Wang, 2014).
On the other hand, the indirect effects of changes in the subjective neighborhood environment on travel satisfaction are insig-
nificant (Table 7). One major reason is that neighborhood environment changes play insignificant roles in changing mobility and
travel behavior. Only the variable of improved subjective “accessibility & facilities” is found to have a negative impact on travel

Table 6
Direct and indirect effects between endogenous variables.
Endogenous variables Subjective Change in car Change in travel Change in travel Change in travel Change in travel
accessibility & ownership time by active time by transit time by private satisfaction
facilities modes car

Subjective accessibility & Direct – −0.037 −5.638** −2.132 0.433 0.319*

facilities Indirect – – 0.082 1.074 −1.022 0.002

Change in car ownership Direct – – −2.198 −28.785*** 27.401*** −0.110

Indirect – – – – – 0.016

Change in travel time by Direct – – – – – 0.001

active modes Indirect – – – – – –

Change in travel time by Direct – – – – −0.002**

transit Indirect – – – – –

Change in travel time by Direct – – – – – −0.001

private car Indirect – – – – – –

Note:
* p < 0.1.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.

348
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

Table 7
Direct and indirect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.
Subjective Change in car Change in travel Change in Change in Change in travel
accessibility & ownership time by active travel time by travel time by satisfaction
facilities modes transit private car

Change in neighborhood environment

The composite index of Direct 0.066** −0.010 −1.307 −1.831 −1.584 0.023
accessibility to various Indirect – −0.002 −0.345 0.220 −0.315 0.021*
facilities

Separation between sidewalk Direct – 0.022 4.428 −17.658 10.544 0.417

and traffic lane Indirect – – 0.049 −0.646 0.615 0.023

Physical design & maintenance Direct – 0.017 0.282 2.669 4.252 0.179**
Indirect – – −0.036 −0.478 0.455 0.015

Safety & absence of nuisance Direct – −0.023 0.968 −4.418 −1.960 0.170***
Indirect – – 0.052 0.676 −0.643 −0.013

Social interaction & Direct – −0.012 −1.701 −0.482 −2.130 0.235***

composition Indirect – – 0.027 0.347 −0.330 0.004

Relocation motivation
Moving for travel- related Direct – 0.033 5.933 −12.497 −1.259 0.005
reasons (ref.: others) Indirect – – −0.071 −0.936 0.891 0.030

Personal and household socioeconomics

Household income 6000–9999 Direct – – – – – 0.034
(ref: ≤5999) Indirect – – – – – –

Household income Direct – – – – – −0.115

10,000–19,999 Indirect – – – – – –

Household income ≥20,000 Direct – – – – – −0.470

Indirect – – – – – –

Presence of a child Direct – – – – – 0.019

Indirect – – – – – –

Female (ref. = male) Direct – – – – – −0.109

Indirect – – – – – –

Age 40–59 (ref: ≤39) Direct – – – – – 0.017

Indirect – – – – – –

Age ≥ 60 Direct – – – – – −0.163

Indirect – – – – – –

Married (ref. = others) Direct – – – – – −0.212

Indirect – – – – – –

Education -High School (ref: Direct – – – – – 0.214

junior Secondary or lower) Indirect – – – – – –

Education -University or above Direct – – – – – 0.128

Indirect – – – – – –

Full-time worker (ref. = others) Direct – – – – – −0.113

Indirect – – – – – –

Note:
* p < 0.1.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.

duration by active transport modes yet insignificant impact on the travel duration by transit or car (Table 6). It is probable that higher
accessibility to facilities in the neighborhood help reduce the active travel time to these destinations, but long-distance travel (e.g.,
commute) by motorized modes are less likely to be affected. However, the indirect effect of the subjective accessibility on travel
satisfaction via changes in travel attributes is found to be insignificant. This finding rejects our earlier hypothesis regarding the
mediation effects of travel behavioral changes. One possible explanation of this result is that the time in the new residential en-
vironment was relatively short and the respondents had not yet adjusted their travel behavior to the new residential environment, but
more likely to continue their earlier travel patterns (Wang and Lin, 2017). Similarly, the objective environmental attribute changes
have no significant direct impacts on changes in travel attributes (Table 7). However, our hypothesis concerning the indirect effect of
objective neighborhood environment on travel satisfaction through its influence on subjective neighborhood environment is sup-
ported by the modeling results: objective accessibility has a significantly positive indirect effect on travel satisfaction via its positive
impact on the perceived accessibility of the neighborhood. As shown in Table 6, that improvement in objective accessibility has a
positive association with the enhancement in subjective accessibility to facilities in the neighborhood.

349
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

(2) Effects of changes in car ownership, travel attributes on travel satisfaction changes

Table 6 shows that in general increases in travel time reduce travel satisfaction. Compared with the previous findings of the
negative effects of travel time on travel satisfaction (e.g. Olsson et al., 2013; Ettema et al., 2012), our results further show that the
effects of increased travel time vary among different transport modes. Specifically, an increase in travel time by transit significantly
reduces travel satisfaction. This may be related to the long commute time and poor public transport travel conditions especially
during the peak hours in Beijing. By contrast, though not significant, increase in travel time by active transport modes has positive
effects on travel satisfaction, which is consistent with the findings reported in the literature (e.g., Mao et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2013;
Páez and Whalen, 2010; St-Louis et al., 2014).
As for the change in car ownership, Table 6 shows that neither its direct nor indirect impact is significant for travel satisfaction
changes. However, change in car ownership is associated with a decrease in travel time by transit and also an increase in travel time
by car (Table 7), which suggests that travel needs fulfilled by transit can be replaced by car when people become car owners. While
longer travel time by transit is associated with lower travel satisfaction (Table 6), the total mediation effect of travel time in the
relation between change in car ownership and that in travel satisfaction is insignificant. It is likely because that the indirect positive
impact via reduced travel time by transit is partly offset by the negative impacts via increased travel time by car. Furthermore,
Table 7 shows that there is no significant effect of exogenous variables (e.g., changes in residential environment, motivation to move)
on car ownership changes. The hypothesis regarding the mediation effects of car ownership change can be rejected.

(3) Effects of residential relocation motivation, personal and household attributes on travel satisfaction change

Regarding the effects of motivation for residential relocation and personal as well as household characteristics, Table 6 shows that
they are all insignificant, suggesting that they do not have much power in explaining changes in travel satisfaction. Although a
bivariate analysis (not presented in this paper) shows a positive correlation between travel-related motivations and travel satisfac-
tion, the direct effect is not significant when other variables are controlled in the model. The results in Table 7 also suggest that
relocation motivation has no significant impacts on car ownership or travel attributes changes, which can explain its insignificant
indirect impacts on travel satisfaction changes. This is probably because the effects are offset by that of the other variables, such as
the built environment variables. In addition, we define travel-related motivation as for the improvement of travel conditions, which
does not differentiate transport modes. This may also explain the insignificant correlation between motivation and car ownership and
between motivation and travel behavior changes.
The impacts of personal and household attributes on travel satisfaction are controlled in our model. Although bivariate analyses
show that female, elderly, married, richer and lower-educated home movers report less improvement in travel satisfaction after
moving home than their counterparts do; on the other hand, households with a child under 12 years old experience more increase in
travel satisfaction than those without. However, all these variables do not show significant influence in the model, which is in line
with previous studies suggesting that socio-economic attributes are less predictive of travel satisfaction (Bergstad et al., 2011a; Olsson
et al., 2013).

5. Conclusion and discussion

There have been many studies exploring the association between residential relocation and travel behavioral change and recent
transportation studies have also paid attention to how individuals perceive their daily travel in terms of travel satisfaction. However,
to the best of our knowledge, there is no investigation into the dynamics of travel satisfaction based on longitudinal analysis and the
effect of the built environment on travel satisfaction remains unclear. This study develops a conceptual framework and provides some
empirical evidence for how and why travel satisfaction changes with a residential relocation. The main findings of this study are that
most home movers have experienced significant improvement in travel satisfaction and such improvement can be explained by
changes in the neighborhood environment and in travel behavior. Specifically, moving to neighborhoods with better accessibilities to
facilities, better physical design, enhanced safety and more interactions between neighbors lead to increased travel satisfaction.
Nevertheless, the so-called top-down approach in subjective wellbeing, which suggests that life satisfaction influences satisfaction
with specific life domains such as housing, travel and social life (Nakazato et al., 2011), reminds us that there is a possibility that
home relocation may lead to a general increase in life satisfaction as well as in travel satisfaction and hence the improvement in travel
satisfaction may not be totally explained by the improved neighborhood environment.
We assume that new neighborhood built environment may indirectly change travel satisfaction through changing travel behavior.
However, this hypothesis is not supported by the modeling results. While increase in travel time by transit is found to be associated
with decreased travel satisfaction, the total indirect effects of change in neighborhood environment on change in travel satisfaction
via change in travel time by different transport modes are insignificant. Furthermore, relocations motivated by travel-related reasons
do not show significant influence in improving travel satisfaction. Not surprisingly, socio-economic attributes are insignificant in
predicting travel satisfaction changes.
This study contributes to the existing literature in the following three ways. First, this study highlights the role of residential
location on satisfaction with daily travel in general. While a few studies have explored the influence of residential location on travel
satisfaction, they are limited to certain travel purposes (e.g., commute, leisure) or transport modes (e.g., walking, cycling). Compared
to these studies, our study at the level of daily travel provides a fuller picture of travel wellbeing, which covers diverse purposes and
multiple transport modes (Buehler and Hamre, 2015). In addition, compared with the trip/episode level wellbeing that previous

350
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

studies were mostly concerned about, the daily level travel satisfaction that this study focused on is better linked to middle/long-term
life events (e.g., residential relocation) (De Vos and Witlox, 2017).
Second, most existing studies on travel satisfaction have focused on the contribution of travel attributes and travelers’ socio-
economics to travel satisfaction, the present study complements this literature with findings on the role of the built environment of
residential neighborhood in travel satisfaction, enriched by possible moderation effects of the travel-related motivations for re-
sidential relocation. Specifically, this study reveals that the built environment of home neighborhood plays an important role in
satisfaction with daily travel. This is understandable because the majority of our daily trips such as commuting and trips for grocery
shopping and for socializing mostly begin and/or end at home. The built environment of home neighborhood determines the
availability of and accessibility to transport modes, which are important explanatory variables of travel satisfaction. However, our
analysis shows that compared with residential built environment, relocation motivation does not offer much explanation in travel
satisfaction changes. Those who move for travel-related reasons do not achieve a higher level of travel satisfaction as we expected.
Third, existing studies have rarely explored the linkage between residential relocation and travel satisfaction changes and studies
on travel satisfaction are largely based on cross-sectional data, which provide evidence of association rather than causal relations.
The use of longitudinal data of this study offers opportunities to probe into the causalities. Although some psychological studies
contend that people can adapt to new environment quite rapidly, suggesting that no policy can improve people’s subjective wellbeing
in the long run (e.g., Sheldon and Lyubomirsky, 2006), this study shows that at least temporally people may improve travel sa-
tisfaction through relocating home to places with better built environment.
The findings in this paper also have some policy implications. First, accessibility enhancement should be a key goal in transport
policies and urban planning. It will be important to provide enough neighborhood facilities and convenient public transport services
to improve residents’ travel satisfaction. Second, since neighborhood environment plays an important role in fostering travel sa-
tisfaction and the improvement of micro-scale environment is easy and feasible to realize (Kim et al., 2014), it would be an effective
way to increase travel satisfaction by designing a better neighborhood environment with more well-maintained amenities, safer street
and more opportunities for social interaction. Third, the negative effect of travel time by transit on travel satisfaction suggests that it
is important for planners to enhance the efficiency of the public transport system.
This research may be extended in several different ways in the future. First, confined by the one-day travel diary, we investigated
the effects of only some dimensions of travel behavior (travel time and travel modes) on travel satisfaction. Future extensions should
include other dimensions of travel behavior such as trip purposes and travel companions. Second, the longitudinal data used in the
current study has a time interval of less than one year, which were good capturing travel satisfaction changes in a short period. To
identify long-lasting travel satisfaction changes, future studies should make use of longitudinal data of multiple waves with varying
intervals to generate more robust evidence to validate the change in travel behavior and travel satisfaction associated with residential
relocation. Such investigations will help probe into the roles of the built environment and personal traits (e.g., attitudes towards
travel and travel modes, preferences, personalities, lifestyles, etc.) in defining travel behavior and travel satisfaction. Third, the
present study can be extended by including travel preferences as a mediation variable. More specific measures of travel attitudes are
desirable to better examine the role of travel preference and mobility need in explaining the change in travel satisfaction. Finally, this
study mainly focuses on residential environment, which plays an important role for people with low mobility (e.g., the elderly), but
the travel of others (e.g., long-distance commuters) are mostly conducted outside the neighborhood. Therefore, the impacts of
neighborhood on the travel satisfaction of these people could be limited. Future studies should investigate the differences between
population groups (e.g., commuters versus non-commuters) and the effects of changes in for example the built environment of the
workplace on travel satisfaction.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Fenglong Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Zidan Mao: Data curation, Writing - original draft.
Donggen Wang: Writing - review & editing, Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by two General Research Fund (GRF) grants from the Hong Kong Research Grant Council (HKBU
12656716 and HKBU 12606215); and two grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41971210 and No.
41601144). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

351
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

References

Aditjandra, P.T., Cao, X., Mulley, C., 2016. Exploring changes in public transport use and walking following residential relocation: a British case study. J. Transp. Land
Use 9, 77–95.
Bamberg, S., 2006. Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior?: Results from a theory-driven intervention study. Environ. Behav.
38, 820–840.
Bergstad, C.J., Gamble, A., Gärling, T., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E., 2011a. Subjective well-being related to satisfaction with daily
travel. Transportation 38, 1–15.
Bergstad, C.J., Gamble, A., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., 2011b. Affective-symbolic and instrumental-independence psychological motives mediating
effects of socio-demographic variables on daily car use. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 33–38.
Bhat, C.R., Guo, J.Y., 2007. A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp. Res. Part
B Methodol. 41, 506–526.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equation Models. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
Buehler, R., Hamre, A., 2015. The multimodal majority? Driving, walking, cycling, and public transportation use among American adults. Transportation 42 (6),
1081–1101.
Bonney, N., Love, J., 1991. Gender and migration: geographical mobility and the wife’s sacrifice. Sociol. Rev. 39, 335–348.
Cao, X., Chatman, D., 2016. How will smart growth land-use policies affect travel? A theoretical discussion on the importance of residential sorting. Environ. Plan. B
Plan. Des. 43, 58–73.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L., 2007. Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling
approach. Transportation 535–556.
Cao, X.J., Ettema, D.F., 2014. Satisfaction with travel and residential self-selection: How do preferences moderate the impact of the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit line? J.
Transp. Land Use 7, 93–108.
Carlisle-Frank, P.L., 1992. The relocation experience: analysis of factors thought to influence adjustment to transition. Psychol. Rep. 70, 835–838.
Carreira, R., Patrício, L., Natal Jorge, R., Magee, C., 2014. Understanding the travel experience and its impact on attitudes, emotions and loyalty towards the
transportation provider–a quantitative study with mid-distance bus trips. Transp. Policy 31, 35–46.
Chatman, D.G., 2009. Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence using new data and methods. Environ. Plan. A 41, 1072–1089.
Clark, B., Chatterjee, K., Melia, S., 2016. Changes to commute mode: The role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude. Transp. Res. Part A Policy
Pract. 89, 89–105.
Clark, W.A.V., Huang, Y., 2003. The life course and residential mobility in british housing markets. Environ. Plan. A 35, 323–339.
De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2015. How satisfying is the scale for travel satisfaction? Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 29, 121–130.
De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2013. Travel and subjective well-being: a focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transp. Rev. 33,
421–442.
De Vos, J., Witlox, F., 2017. Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process. Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 106, 364–373.
Diaz-Serrano, L., Stoyanova, A.P., 2010. Mobility and housing satisfaction: an empirical analysis for 12 EU countries. J. Econ. Geogr. 10, 661–683.
Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S., 1985. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 71–75.
Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., 2013. Perceived attributes of bus and car mediating satisfaction with the work commute. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 47,
87–96.
Ettema, D., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Fujii, S., 2012. How in-vehicle activities affect work commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. J. Transp. Geogr.
24, 215–222.
Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E., Fujii, S., 2011. Satisfaction with travel and subjective well-being: Development and test of a measurement
tool. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 14, 167–175.
Ettema, D., Nieuwenhuis, R., 2017. Residential self-selection and travel behaviour: What are the effects of attitudes, reasons for location choice and the built
environment? J. Transp. Geogr. 59, 146–155.
Ettema, D., Schekkerman, M., 2016. How do spatial characteristics influence well-being and mental health? Comparing the effect of objective and subjective char-
acteristics at different spatial scales. Travel Behav. Soc. 5, 56–67.
Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76, 265–294.
Farber, S., Páez, A., 2011. Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of automobile oriented land-use and travel. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 782–793.
Fatmi, M.R., Habib, M.A., 2017. Modelling mode switch associated with the change of residential location. Travel Behav. Soc. 9, 21–28.
Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Powell, K.E., Chapman, J.E., 2007. Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain
physical activity, driving, and obesity? Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 1898–1914.
Friman, M., Fujii, S., Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., 2013. Psychometric analysis of the satisfaction with travel scale. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 48,
132–145.
Friman, M., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Olsson, L.E., 2017. How does travel affect emotional well-being and life satisfaction? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 106,
170–180.
Gao, Y., Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H., Wang, Y., 2017a. Understanding the relationship between travel satisfaction and subjective well-being considering the role of
personality traits: A structural equation model. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 49, 110–123.
Gao, Y., Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H., Wang, Y., 2017b. Effects of traveller’s mood and personality on ratings of satisfaction with daily trip stages. Travel Behav. Soc. 7,
1–11.
Gerber, P., Ma, T.-Y., Klein, O., Schiebel, J., Carpentier-Postel, S., 2017. Cross-border residential mobility, quality of life and modal shift: A Luxembourg case study.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 104, 238–254.
Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Knuiman, M., McCormack, G., Van Niel, K., Timperio, A., Christian, H., Foster, S., Divitini, M., Middleton, N., Boruff, B., 2013. The influence of
urban design on neighbourhood walking following residential relocation: Longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Soc. Sci. Med. 77, 20–30.
Gunasekara, F.I., Richardson, K., Carter, K., Blakely, T., 2013. Fixed effects analysis of repeated measures data. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 264–269.
Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., 2005. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 10 (6), 427–444.
Kamruzzaman, M., Shatu, F.M., Hine, J., Turrell, G., 2015. Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive
neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection. Transp. Policy 42, 187–196.
Kim, S., Park, S., Lee, J.S., 2014. Meso- or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 30, 10–20.
Klinger, T., 2017. Moving from monomodality to multimodality? Changes in mode choice of new residents. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 104, 221–237.
Krizek, K.J., 2003. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 265–281.
Lanzendorf, M., 2002. Mobility styles and travel behavior: Application of a lifestyle approach to leisure travel. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1807, 163–173.
Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., Hugo, G., 2005. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neigh-
bourhoods: a pilot study. Health Place 11 (3), 227–236.
Li, Z., Wang, W., Liu, P., Ragland, D.R., 2012. Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and on-street bicycle facilities. Transp.
Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 17, 256–261.
Lundholm, E., Malmberg, G., 2006. Gains and losses, outcomes of interregional migration in the five nordic countries. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 88, 35–48.
Manaugh, K., El-Geneidy, A.M., 2013. Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transp.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 50, 198–208.

352
F. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part A 135 (2020) 341–353

Mao, Z., Ettema, D., Dijst, M., 2016. Commuting trip satisfaction in Beijing: Exploring the influence of multimodal behavior and modal flexibility. Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 94, 592–603.
Mendes de Leon, Carlos F., Cagney, Kathleen A., Bienias, Julia L., Barnes, Lisa L., Skarupski, Kimberly A., Scherr, Paul A., Evans, Danis A., 2009. Neighborhood social
cohesion and disorder in relation to walking in community-dwelling older adults: a multi-level analysis. J. Aging Health 21 (1), 155–171.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X., 2008. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 42,
204–228.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Papon, F., Goulard, M., Diana, M., 2015. What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey.
Transportation 42, 1103–1128.
Morris, E.A., Guerra, E., 2015. Mood and mode: does how we travel affect how we feel? Transportation 42, 25–43.
Næss, P., 2005. Residential location affects travel behavior—but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Prog. Plann. 63, 167–257.
Nakazato, N., Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., 2011. Effect of changes in living conditions on well-being: a prospective top-down bottom-up model. Soc. Indic. Res. 100 (1),
115–135.
Nordbakke, S., Schwanen, T., 2014. Well-being and mobility: A theoretical framework and literature review focusing on older people. Mobilities 9, 104–129.
Nowok, B., Findlay, A., McCollum, D., 2018. Linking residential relocation desires and behaviour with life domain satisfaction. Urban Stud. 55 (4), 870–890.
Nunnally, Jum C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Olsson, L.E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Fujii, S., 2013. Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Soc. Indic. Res. 111, 255–263.
Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L., Redmond, L.S., Salomon, I., Collantes, G.O., Choo, S., 2004. When is commuting desirable to the individual? Growth Change 35, 334–359.
Páez, A., Whalen, K., 2010. Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 44, 537–549.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., 1993. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol. Assess. 5, 164–172.
Prillwitz, Jan, Harms, Sylvia, Lanzendorf, M., 2006. Impacts of life-course events on car ownership. Transp. Res. Rec. 1985, 71–77.
Rice, N., Carr-Hill, R., Dixon, P., Sutton, M., 1998. The influence of households on drinking behaviour: a multilevel analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 46, 971–979.
Scheiner, J., Holz-Rau, C., 2013. Changes in travel mode use after residential relocation: A contribution to mobility biographies. Transportation (Amst) 40, 431–458.
Schwanen, Tim, Wang, Donggen, 2014. Well-being, context, and everyday activities in space and time. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geograph. 104 (4), 833–851.
Sheldon, K.M., Lyubomirsky, S., 2006. Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: change your actions, not your circumstances*. J. Happiness Stud. 7, 55–86.
Shihadeh, E.S., 1991. The prevalence of husband-centered migration: employment consequences for married mothers. J. Marriage Fam. 53, 432–444.
Singleton Jr., R.A., Straits, B.C., 2005. Approaches to Social Research, fourth ed. Oxford University Press, NewYork.
Snijders, T.A.B., 2005. Power and sample size in multilevel linear models, in: Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
St-Louis, E., Manaugh, K., van Lierop, D., El-Geneidy, A., 2014. The happy commuter: a comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 26, 160–170.
Stradling, S.G., Anable, J., Carreno, M., 2007. Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 41, 98–106.
Taniguchi, A., Grääs, C., Friman, M., 2014. Satisfaction with travel, goal achievement, and voluntary behavioral change. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 26,
10–17.
van Ham, M., Clark, W.A.V., 2009. Neighbourhood mobility in context: household moves and changing neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. Environ. Plan. A 41,
1442–1459.
van Wee, B., 2009. Self-selection: a key to a better understanding of location choices, travel behaviour and transport externalities? Transp. Rev. 29, 279–292.
Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., Jurasek, M., 2008. Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J.
Environ. Psychol. 28, 121–127.
Wang, D., Chai, Y., Li, F., 2011. Built environment diversities and activity–travel behaviour variations in Beijing. China. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 1173–1186.
Wang, D., Lin, T., 2017. Built environment, travel behavior, and residential self-selection: a study based on panel data from Beijing, China. Transportation (Amst).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9783-1.
Wang, D., Lin, T., 2014. Residential self-selection, built environment, and travel behavior in the Chinese context. J. Transp. Land Use 7 (3), 5–14.
Wang, F., Wang, D., 2020. Changes in residential satisfaction after home relocation: a longitudinal study in Beijing, China. Urban Stud. 57 (3), 583–601.
Willis, D.P., Manaugh, K., El-Geneidy, A., 2013. Uniquely satisfied: Exploring cyclist satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 18, 136–147.
Yang, M., Wu, J., Rasouli, S., Cirillo, C., Li, D., 2017. Exploring the impact of residential relocation on modal shift in commute trips: Evidence from a quasi-longitudinal
analysis. Transp. Policy 59, 142–152.
Ye, R., Titheridge, H., 2017. Satisfaction with the commute: The role of travel mode choice, built environment and attitudes. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 52,
535–547.
Ziegler, F., Schwanen, T., 2011. ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’: an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing Soc. 31,
758–781.

353