Repetition and Variability in Urban Travel

Most travel models and theories assume the existence of habitual behavior, yet few empirical studies have examined the question of how much repetition or variability characterizes daily travel. We first review the arguments for expecting both repetition and variability in urban travel-activity patterns and then conduct an empirical analysis of repetition and variability in travel over a five-week period. The results show that, whereas many behaviors that make up the daily pattern are highly repetitious (they occur with high frequency over the 35 days), the similarity between daily travel patterns on different days in an individual's longitudinal record is quite low. Even the day that is the most typical of the individual's travel is a poor indicator of that person's overall travel pattern. Moreover, we found that each person generates several archetypical daily patterns over 35 days, and this finding has important implications for data collection and modeling in studies of urban travel.     

HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP IN STATE LEGISLATURES

The distribution of higher education leadership in state legislatures is examined. It is based on questionnaire and interview information from 285 legislators who exercise influence on education policy in the fifty states, and one-third of whom give special attention to issues of higher education. These higher education leaders differ from education leaders generally in terms of their experience, their location within the legislature, and their effort and relationships. What explains higher education leadership as much as anything else, however, is the nature of the environment in which legislators find themselves. In focusing on eleven states, where higher education is of considerable salience, it is possible to discern how environment combines with other factors to produce such leadership.     

'Something Happened': The Relevance of the Risk Society for Describing the Siting Process for a Municipal Landfill

This paper investigates reactions to a proposed municipal solid waste facility in Southern Ontario supposed to be a low-level, low probability risk using the risk society framework, developed independently by Beck (1992a, 1992b) and Giddens (1990, 1991). Residents often view risk from environmental hazards as high despite expert assurances that risks are low. The appeal of risk society as a general framework is that it connects quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and the social construction of risk (SCR) to show how individuals and social structures reflexively alter and are altered by conflicts over (actual/potential) technological hazards. The analysis involves 30 in-depth face-to-face interviews with residents in Caledon, Ontario, contextualized by interviews with proponent experts (n=4) from the government organization responsible for conducting the siting process. The risk society framework, although developed primarily to describe the effects of high-consequence global hazards, seems well suited to describing local level, low-consequence hazards. The siting process involved a series of fateful moments which upset people's security in particular ways of life. The proposed landfill and the process itself threatened the very nature of what people valued and expected from their community. However, this study raises a concern that the risk society played out at the local/regional level may exacerbate inequalities in the distribution of risks relative to benefits from technological environmental hazards. This stands in contrast with Beck's (1992a) notion that the risks from hazards are equitably distributed within the risk society.     

Towards a nuanced understanding of health‐supportive place using composite research methods

Chronic non‐communicable diseases comprise a major challenge for health in contemporary Australia and across the globe and, while various factors are at play, personal choices in behaviour and lifestyle are significant. The physical make‐up and ongoing management of the places where we live positively and negatively influences these lifestyle choices and subsequent health outcomes. However, responses—in research, policy, built environment design, construction, and management—frequently fail to recognise the intricacies of this people‐place‐behaviour nexus largely because those responses are highly focused and empirical. Rather, the health‐supportive environments needed to address the current chronic disease epidemic also require additional—networked, nuanced, and intuitive—understandings. Responding to that need, the study described in this paper took a comprehensive view of what constitutes a health‐supportive built environment. We detail the composite methods employed—built environment audits, interviews, and focus groups—all of which are available for use by others in similar situations. Then, using two case study examples, we reflect upon how our methodology revealed otherwise hidden aspects of the extent to which the study sites supported or hindered health‐supportive behaviours and responses. These results suggest intervention actions for policy makers and practitioners that will help them respond to the complex needs of communities in creating a health‐supportive environment.