372
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Focus: AAG 2014 Nystrom Competition Papers

The Role of Location and Cost in Individual Choices of Transportation Improvement Projects

&

Literature Cited

  • Aguilera, A., M. H. Massot, and L. Proulhac. 2009. Exploring the relationship between work and travel behavior on weekdays. Transport Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2135:69–77.
  • Aguirre, R., and T. Nyerges. 2011. Geovisual evaluation of public participation in decision making: The grapevine. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 22:305–21.
  • Bailey, K., and T. Grossardt. 2010. Toward structured public involvement: Justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100:57–86.
  • Bhat, C. 2001. Modeling the commute activity-travel pattern of workers: Formulation and empirical analysis. Transportation Science 35:61–79.
  • Blumen, O. 1994. Gender differences in the journey to work. Urban Geography 15:223–45.
  • Bosworth, M., J. Donovan, and P. Couey. 2002. Portland metro’s dream for public involvement. In Community participation and geographic information systems, ed. W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris, and D. Weiner, 125–36. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Burby, R. J. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association 69:33–49.
  • Burningham, K. 2000. Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment 5:55–67.
  • Burton, P. 2009. Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation 15:263–84.
  • Christaller, W. 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Sddeutschland [Central places in southern Germany]. Jena, Germany: Fischer.
  • Clark, W. A. V., and J. E. Burt. 1980. The impact of workplace on residential relocation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70:59–66.
  • Colabianchi, N., M. Dowda, K. Pfeiffer, D. Porter, M. Almeida, and R. Pate. 2007. Towards an understanding of salient neighborhood boundaries: Adolescent reports of an easy walking distance and convenient driving distance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 4: 66.
  • Couclelis, H., R. G. Golledge, N. Gale, and W. Tobler. 1987. Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 7:99–122.
  • Dambrun, M., and M. Ricard. 2011. Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology 15:138–57.
  • Dear, M. 1992. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58:288–300.
  • Devine-Wright, P. 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8:125–39.
  • Fanning Madden, J. 1981. Why women work closer to home. Urban Studies 18:181–94.
  • Gilmartin, P. P., and J. C. Patton. 1984. Comparing the sexes on spatial abilities: Map-use skills. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74:605–19.
  • Gintis, H. 2009a. The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • ———. 2009b. Game theory evolving: A problem-centered introduction to modeling strategic interaction. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Giuliano, G. 1998. Information technology, work patterns and intra-metropolitan location: A case study. Urban Studies 35:1077–95.
  • Golledge, R. G. 2006. Philosophical bases of behavioral research in geography. In: Approaches to human geography, ed. S. C. Aitken and G. Valentine, 75–85. London: Sage.
  • ———. 2008. Behavioral geography and the theoretical/quantitative revolution. Geographical Analysis 40:239–257.
  • Golledge, R. G., N. Gale, J. W. Pellegrino, and S. Doherty. 1992. Spatial knowledge acquisition by children: Route learning and relational distances. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82:223–44.
  • Golledge, R. G., and R. J. Stimson. 1997. Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective. New York: Guilford.
  • Google. 2015a. Google Maps API web services. https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/webservices/ (last accessed 21 June 2015).
  • ———. 2015b. Google Maps JavaScript API v3. https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/reference/ (last accessed 21 June 2015).
  • Hanson, S. 1980. The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel behavior. Transportation 9:229–48.
  • Hanson, S., and I. Johnston. 1985. Gender differences in work-trip length: Explanations and implications. Urban Geography 6:193–219.
  • Hanson, S., and G. Pratt. 1988. Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography. Economic Geography 64:299–321.
  • Heracleous, L. 1994. Rational decision making: Myth or reality? Management Development Review 7:16–23.
  • Hubbard, P. 2005. Accomodating otherness: Anti-asylum centre and the maintenance of white privilege. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30:52–65.
  • Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning, Theory & Practice 5:419–36.
  • ———. 2010. Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Jarvis, H. 1999. The tangled webs we weave: Household strategies to co-ordinate home and work. Work, Employment & Society 13:225–47.
  • Johnston-Anumonwo, I. 1992. The influence of household type on gender differences in work trip distance. The Professional Geographer 44:161–69.
  • Jou, R., and H. Mahmassani. 1997. Comparative analysis of day-to-day trip-chaining behavior of urban commuters in two cities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1607:163–70.
  • Kwan, M. P. 1999a. Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer 51:211–27.
  • ———. 1999b. Gender, the home–work link, and space–time patterns of non-employment activities. Economic Geography 75:370–94.
  • Lake, R. W. 1993. Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association 59:87–93.
  • Levinson, D. M. 1997. Job and housing tenure and the journey to work. The Annals of Regional Science 31:451–471.
  • ———. 1998. Accessibility and the journey to work. Journal of Transport Geography 6:11–21.
  • Levinson, D., and A. El-Geneidy. 2009. The minimum circuity frontier and the journey to work. Regional Science and Urban Economics 39:732–38.
  • Lowry, M. B. 2010. Using optimization to program projects in the era of communicative rationality. Transport Policy 17:94–101.
  • Lowry, M. B., T. L. Nyerges, and G. S. Rutherford. 2008. Internet portal for participation of large groups in transportation programming decisions. Transportation Research Record 2077:156–65.
  • Lösch, A. 1940. Die rumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft. Eine Untersuchung ber Standort, Wirtschaftsgebiete und internationalen Handel [The economics of location]. Jena, Germany: Fischer.
  • Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Mark, D. M., C. Freksa, S. C. Hirtle, R. Lloyd, and B. Tversky. 1999. Cognitive models of geographical space. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13:747–74.
  • Montello, D. R., K. L. Lovelace, R. G. Golledge, and C. M. Self. 1999. Sex-related differences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89:515–34.
  • Moritz, W. E. 1998. Adult bicyclists in the United States: Characteristics and riding experience in 1996. Transportation Research Record 1636:1–7.
  • Nyerges, T. L. 2004. GIS in urban-regional transportation planning. In: The geography of urban transportation, ed. S. Hanson and G. Guiliano, 163–195. New York: Guilford.
  • Nyerges, T., and R. W. Aguirre. 2011. Public participation in analytic-deliberative decision making: Evaluating a large-group online field experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101:561–86.
  • Pol, E., A. Di Masso, A. Castrechini, M. R. Bonet, and T. Vidal. 2006. Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect. European Review of Applied Psychology 56:43–51.
  • Pratt, G., and S. Hanson. 1991. On the links between home and work: Family-household strategies in a buoyant labour market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 15:55–74.
  • Primerano, F., M. Taylor, L. Pitaksringkarn, and P. Tisato. 2008. Defining and understanding trip chaining behaviour. Transportation 35:55–72.
  • Ramsey, K. S. 2011. Urban waterfront transformation as a politics of mobility: Lessons from seattle’s alaskan Way viaduct debate. In Transforming urban waterfronts, ed. G. Desfor, Q. Stevens, and J. L. Schubert, 101–20. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Schively, C. 2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature 21:255–66.
  • Shipley, R., and S. Utz. 2012. Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature 27:22–42.
  • Sieber, R. 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96:491–507.
  • Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99–118.
  • Singell, L. D. and J. H. Lillydahl. 1986. An empirical analysis of the commute to work patterns of males and females in two-earner households. Urban Studies 23:119–29.
  • Thorndyke, P. W. and B. Hayes-Roth. 1982. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology 14:560–89.
  • Thornton, B. and D. Knox. 2002. ”Not in my back yard”: The situational and personality determinants of oppositional behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32:2554–74.
  • Voyer, D., S. Voyer, and M. P. Bryden. 1995. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin 117:250–70.
  • Wachs, M., B. D. Taylor, N. Levine, and P. Ong. 1993. The changing commute: A case-study of the jobs–housing relationship over time. Urban Studies 30:1711–29.
  • Wilson, M. W. and K. S. Ramsey. 2008. Integrating online deliberation into transportation investment decision-making: Preliminary reflections on a field experiment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Online Deliberation; Directions and implications of advanced computing, Berkeley, CA.
  • Wolpert, J. 1964. The decision process in spatial context. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54:537–58.
  • Wolsink, M. 1994. Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting. Urban Studies 31, 851–866.
  • ———. 2006. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31:85–91.
  • Wyly, E. K. 1996. Race, gender, and spatial segmentation in the twin cities. The Professional Geographer 48:431–44.
  • Young, R., T. Zhong, M. Lowry, G. S. Rutherford, and A. T. Nyerges. 2007. An anlytical-deliberative online framework for transportation programming. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society 3:89–98.
  • Zhong, T., R. K. Young, M. Lowry, and G. S. Rutherford. 2008. A model for public involvement in transportation improvement programming using participatory geographic information systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32:123–33.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.