پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری

مدل‌سازی ساختاری مکانیسم بازخورد رضایت-نگرش در رفتار سفر شهری: شواهد تجربی از شهر ارومیه

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی - کاربردی

نویسندگان
1 گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
2 گروه برنامه‌ریزی فضایی و محیط‌زیست، دانشکده علوم فضایی، دانشگاه خرونینخن، خرونینخن، هلند
چکیده
با پیچیده‌تر شدن نظام‌های حمل‌ونقل شهری، اتکای صرف بر شاخص‌های مهندسی برای ترویج سفر فعال ناکافی است و رضایت از سفر به‌عنوان یک عامل روان‌شناختی تعیین‌کننده شناخته می‌شود. درحالی‌که بخش عمده پژوهش‌های ایرانی بر ابعاد عینی محیط ساخته‌شده تمرکز داشته‌اند، این مطالعه با توسعه و آزمون یک مدل مفهومی جامع، نقش هم‌زمان محیط عینی و ادراکی، نگرش‌ها، انتخاب مد و رضایت از سفر را در شهر ارومیه تحلیل می‌کند. نوآوری روش‌شناختی پژوهش در استفاده از رویکرد دومرحله‌ای PLS SEM برای ارزیابی مسیر بازخوردی رضایت بر نگرش‌ها است تا سازوکار علی اثر تجربه بر نگرش در قالب یک چرخه بازخوردی با داده‌های مقطعی قابل آزمون باشد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که محیط ساخته‌شده به‌صورت غیرمستقیم و از مسیر ادراک محیط و نگرش‌ها بر انتخاب مد اثر می‌گذارد. همچنین، اثر مستقیم انتخاب مد بر رضایت، با کنترل وضعیت اجتماعی–اقتصادی، به‌طور چشمگیری کاهش می‌یابد؛ که نشان می‌دهد رضایت گزارش‌شده از برخی مدها بیش از آنکه حاصل ماهیت مد باشد، ریشه در محدودیت‌های ساختاری و فرصت‌های نابرابر سفر دارد. در مقابل، مسیر بازخوردی رضایت - نگرش قدرتمند به دست آمد که نشان می‌دهد تجربه‌های رضایت‌بخش سفر، نگرش‌های مطلوب را تقویت کرده و چرخه‌ای میان تجربه، نگرش و رفتار ایجاد می‌کند. برآیند این یافته‌ها بیانگر آن است که گذار به حمل‌ونقل پایدار در بافت شهری ایران، نیازمند توجه هم‌زمان به کیفیت ادراکی محیط، تجربه واقعی سفر و اصلاح محدودیت‌های ساختاری است؛ مداخلات کالبدی تنها در صورتی اثربخش خواهند بود که با ارتقای تجربه سفر و بهبود ادراک کاربران همراه شوند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

A Structural Modeling of Satisfaction-Attitude Feedback Mechanisms in Urban Travel Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Urmia

نویسندگان English

Amin Khalili 1
Kyomars Habibi 1
Bakhtiar Bahrami 1
ُSamira Ramezani 2
1 Department of Urban Planning & Design, faculty of art and architecture- University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2 Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netharland
چکیده English

ABSTRACT
As urban transportation systems become more complex, relying solely on engineering indicators to promote active travel is insufficient, and travel satisfaction has come to be recognized as a determining psychological factor. While the majority of Iranian research studies have concentrated on the objective dimensions of the built environment, this study, by developing and testing a comprehensive conceptual model, simultaneously analyzes the role of the objective and perceived environment, attitude, mode choice, and travel satisfaction in Urmia City. The methodological innovation of this research lies in the employment of a two-step PLS-SEM approach to evaluate the feedback pathway from satisfaction to attitudes, thereby making it possible to test the causal mechanism of the effect of experience on attitudes within a feedback loop framework using cross-sectional data. The findings indicate that the built environment indirectly influences mode choice through the perception of the environment and attitudes. Furthermore, the direct effect of mode choice on satisfaction is substantially reduced when controlling for socio-economic status, suggesting that the reported satisfaction with certain modes stems less from the nature of the mode itself than from structural constraints and unequal travel opportunities. In contrast, a strong satisfaction–attitude feedback pathway was obtained, indicating that satisfying travel experiences reinforce positive attitudes and create a cycle among experience, attitude, and behavior. The findings indicate that the transition to sustainable transportation in the urban context of Iran requires simultaneous attention to the perceived quality of the environment, the actual travel experience, and the amendment of structural constraints. Physical interventions will be effective only if they are accompanied by enhancements in the travel experience and improvements in users' perceptions.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Rapid urbanization has intensified urban challenges such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and declining physical activity. Consequently, policymakers have increasingly promoted sustainable mobility solutions, among which active travel—walking and cycling—has gained particular attention due to its environmental, health, and social benefits. Concepts such as pedestrian‑oriented cities and the 15‑minute city emphasize modifying the built environment to support active travel.
Existing literature generally falls into three streams: (1) studies examining the direct effects of built environment characteristics—such as density, land‑use diversity, connectivity, and access to public transport—on travel mode choice; (2) studies based on the Theory of Planned Behavior that introduce attitudes as mediators between environment and behavior; and (3) studies focusing on travel satisfaction as a post‑travel experience influencing future attitudes and behaviors.
Despite attempts to integrate these perspectives, many studies rely on linear and cross‑sectional analyses and are largely based on data from developed countries, limiting their applicability to developing contexts. In Iran, although several studies have explored socio‑economic factors, environmental characteristics, and attitudes affecting active travel, the dynamic relationships among attitudes, satisfaction, and both objective and perceived environmental indicators remain underexplored, particularly in medium‑sized cities such as Urmia. Therefore, this study investigates how the built environment affects travel mode choice through travel attitudes and experiences. Its novelty lies in integrating objective and perceptual environmental indicators while conceptualizing travel satisfaction within a feedback framework to better inform urban design and active travel policies.

Methodology
This study examines the relationships among the built environment, travel attitudes, socio‑economic characteristics, and travel satisfaction in Urmia. Research variables were grouped into six categories: objective built environment, perceived built environment, socio‑economic characteristics, travel attitudes, travel characteristics, and travel satisfaction.
Objective environmental indicators were calculated using GIS. The residential location of each respondent was mapped and a 1000‑meter buffer was generated, within which indicators such as population density, land‑use mix, sidewalk density, pavement quality, distance to key land uses, and bus stop density were measured. Perceived environmental indicators and attitudes were collected through a five‑point Likert‑scale questionnaire covering factors such as safety, visual attractiveness, cleanliness, shade, walking comfort, and traffic management. Socio‑economic variables (age, gender, education, income, car ownership, household size) and travel characteristics (mode, duration, purpose, and mode combinations) were also recorded. Travel Satisfaction (STS) was measured using Ettema’s standardized scale, incorporating affective and cognitive dimensions.
Data were collected between April and June 2025 from residents over 18 years old in Urmia. Using Cochran’s formula, a sample size of 400 was estimated. Stratified systematic random sampling produced 430 questionnaires, of which 392 valid responses were analyzed. Data sources included the Urmia Municipality GIS database and in‑person surveys. A pilot test with 30 participants confirmed content validity through expert review and reliability with Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.7.
Data analysis was conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS‑SEM). A two‑stage approach was applied to model the feedback effect: first, latent scores of travel satisfaction were extracted; then these scores were entered as predictors of travel attitudes in the second stage. Descriptive analyses were performed in SPSS, and the structural model was estimated using SmartPLS.


Results and Discussion
The results confirmed the adequacy of the measurement model. All indicator loadings exceeded 0.7, and Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted were within acceptable thresholds, indicating satisfactory reliability and convergent validity. Structural model assessment using bootstrapping (5,000 replications) demonstrated strong predictive capability, explaining 57.4% of the variance in travel satisfaction, 74.6% in travel mode choice, and 75.4% in travel attitudes.
The findings show that travel mode choice is the most influential determinant of travel satisfaction, followed by travel attitudes, which affect satisfaction both directly and indirectly through mode choice. The perceived built environment also significantly influences satisfaction, with a stronger effect than the objective built environment. In contrast, objective environmental indicators contribute the least to explaining satisfaction, suggesting that individuals’ perceptions and travel experiences play a more decisive role than purely physical characteristics.
Further analysis indicates that the perceived built environment has a stronger impact on travel attitudes, travel mode choice, and travel satisfaction than the objective environment. Although the inclusion of socio‑economic status as a control variable reduced the magnitude of these effects, the perceived environment remained the strongest predictor of travel attitudes. This result implies that while perceptions are partly shaped by socio‑economic conditions, the experienced quality of the environment continues to exert a substantial influence on travel behavior.
Regarding attitudes, the initial model showed that travel attitudes significantly influence mode choice and indirectly enhance satisfaction. However, this relationship weakened considerably after controlling for socio‑economic factors, indicating that part of the observed association is attributable to inequalities in access to resources and opportunities. Individuals with higher socio‑economic status tend to hold more positive travel attitudes and have greater ability to select preferred travel options.
Similarly, the initially strong relationship between travel mode choice and satisfaction declined when socio‑economic and travel characteristics were introduced as control variables. This suggests that higher satisfaction with certain modes is largely related to contextual factors such as shorter travel time, greater comfort, and better accessibility rather than the intrinsic nature of the mode itself.
Finally, the study confirmed a reciprocal relationship between travel satisfaction and travel attitudes. In the second stage of the model, travel satisfaction was introduced as an independent variable, and the results showed that it positively reinforces travel attitudes. This finding highlights a feedback mechanism in which positive travel experiences shape future attitudes and behaviors, creating a reinforcing cycle between travel experience, attitudes, and travel choices.

Conclusion
The research findings indicates that travel behavior is a dynamic and feedback-driven process, not merely a linear one. In this model, travel satisfaction is not merely an ultimate outcome; rather, by influencing subsequent attitudes, it can create a cycle that either reinforces or weakens travel behaviors. Positive experiences increase the likelihood of repeating desirable behaviors such as walking, while negative experiences reduce it. Therefore, to achieve lasting changes in travel behavior, urban management must simultaneously concentrate on improving the perceived quality of the environment and reducing structural and social inequalities.
The study, however, faced several limitations: attitudes were surveyed as a global construct, and their cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions were not disaggregated; the data were cross-sectional, thus constraining the ability to conclusively establish causal and feedback relationships; furthermore, reliance on self-reported data may introduce subjective bias. In addition, the results are limited to the urban context of Urmia, and further comparative studies are needed to generalize them to other cities.
Accordingly, it is recommended that in urban policy-making, rather than focusing solely on technical and physical indicators, citizens' perceptions and satisfaction should serve as the basis for prioritizing interventions. Low-cost yet effective improvements should be prioritized such as lighting, spatial ordering, and enhancing the sense of security. Furthermore, urban projects should undergo pre- and post-implementation evaluations based on user satisfaction. Policies should be adapted to local socio-economic conditions, and direct imitation of foreign models is inadvisable.

Funding
There is no funding support.

Authors’ Contribution
This article is derived from the first author’s (Amin Khalili) doctoral dissertation. He carried out all stages of the research, including writing the text, data processing, analyses, and extraction of results. Dr. Kyoumars Habibi (primary supervisor) contributed to developing the conceptual model, refining the problem statement and article texts, as well as the GIS process and map production. Dr. Bakhtiar Bahrami (secondary supervisor) and Dr. Samira Ramezani (advisor) played roles in scientific guidance, overseeing the research process, and the final review of the article

Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Travel Satisfaction
Active Travel
Travel Attitudes
Urmia
Structural Equation Modeling
  1. افندی‌زاده، شهریار؛ تبریزیان، امیر و کلانتری، نوید. (۱۴۰۰). مدل تأثیر پارامترهای رفتاری بر روی انتخاب شیوه سفر. پژوهشنامه حمل‌ونقل، ۱۸ (۴)، ۱۳۱-۱۴۶. doi: 10.22034/tri.2021.255854.2829
  2. باغبانی، آسیه؛ شریعت‌مهیمنی، افشین؛ رحمانی، سعید؛ صیاد، امین و مهدی‌زاده، میلاد. (۱۳۹۸). مدل‌سازی عوامل مؤثر بر مدت‌زمان پیاده‌روی و انتخاب شیوه پیاده‌روی در تمامی سفرها: مدل‌های مدت‌زمان و لوجیت از داده‌های تورم مبنای سفر. فصلنامه مهندسی حمل‌ونقل، ۱۱ (۲)، ۲۸۳-۳۰۰. doi: 10.22119/jte.2019.79658
  3. چوبدار، امین؛ فرج‌اللهی، امین و پورحیدری ممقانی، فرزین. (۱۳۹۹). مدل‌سازی زمان مطلوب پیاده‌روی با توجه به هدف سفر و در نظرگیری متغیرهای فردی و محیطی (مطالعه موردی: شهر گرگان). پژوهشنامه حمل‌ونقل، ۱۷ (۴)، ۲۴۷-۲۵۹. Dor: 20.1001.1.17353459.1399.17.4.17.0
  4. حبیبیان، میقات و کرمانشاه، محمد. (۱۳۹۴). بررسی اثر متغیرهای حمل‌ونقلی بر تغییر استفاده از شیوه سواری شخصی در سفرهای روزانه. فصلنامه مهندسی حمل‌ونقل، ۷ (۱)، ۱۳-۳۰. Dor: 20.1001.1.20086598.1394.7.1.2.4
  5. خلیلی، امین؛ قنبری، ابوالفضل و فیضی زاده، بختیار. (1403). شناسایی الگوهای گسترش شهری در شهرهای میانه اندام (نمونه موردی: شهر ارومیه). جغرافیا و آمایش شهری منطقه‌ای، 14 (52)، 194-151.doi: 10.22111/gaij.2024.48047.3186
  6. زبردست، اسفندیار و باقرنژاد، الناز. (۱۳۹۹). بررسی رابطه علی محیط ساخته‌شده و رفتار سفر در الگوهای توسعه‌ای مختلف تهران: محله منیریه، کوی بیمه و گلستان. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، ۹ (۳۵)، ۱۳۳-۱۴۶. doi: 10.34785/J011.2021.940
  7. طاهرخانی، عصمت؛ دهقان قهفرخی، امین؛ محمدی ترکمانی، احسان و عسکریان، فریبا. (۱۴۰۳). شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر سفر فعال دانش‌آموزان به مدرسه. پژوهش‌های فیزیولوژی و مدیریت در ورزش، ۱۶ (۴)، ۷۷-۹۶. doi: 10.22034/spmi.2024.428158.2550
  8. عباسی، حیدر و حاجی‌پور، خلیل. (۱۳۹۳). تحلیل تجربی تأثیر فرم شهر بر رفتار سفر خانوارها در محلات مختلف شهری شیراز. باغ نظر، ۱۱ (۲۹)، ۲۳-۳۲.
  9. عباسی، محمدحسین؛ فرزین، ایمان و ممدوحی، امیررضا. (۱۴۰۰). عوامل مؤثر بر انتخاب پیاده‌روی در سفرهای اختیاری، مطالعه ناهمگونی مسافت سفر. پژوهشنامه حمل‌ونقل، ۱۸ (۴)، ۷۱-۸۴. doi: 10.22034/tri.2021.253407.2821
  10. غلامی، یونس؛ میرزایی، روح‌الله و رادکیانی، مرضیه. (۱۳۹۹). مدل‌سازی شاخص‌های مؤثر بر پذیرش پیاده‌روی شهروندان (نمونه موردی: شهر کاشان). کاوش‌های جغرافیایی مناطق بیابانی، ۸ (۲)، ۱-۲۰. Dor: 20.1001.1.2345332.1399.8.2.1.8
  11. قدمی، مصطفی؛ بهرامی، یوسف و دیلم‌صالحی، مهسا. (۱۳۹۶). تأثیر فرم کالبدی شهر بر شیوه سفر شهروندان (مورد: شهر ساری). برنامه‌ریزی توسعه کالبدی، ۴ (۲)، ۴۵-۵۶.
  12. محمدپور، صابر و مهرجو، مهرداد. (۱۴۰۲). ارزیابی میزان سهم عوامل فردی و فضایی در شیوه سفر درون‌شهری (مطالعه موردی: شهر رشت). مجله شهر پایدار، ۶ (۲)، ۹۵-۱۰۹. doi: 10.22034/jsc.2023.309752.1554
  13. محمدی، بهنام، فلاح‌زواره، محسن و معصومی، هوشمند. (۱۳۹۸). نقش متغیرهای شکل شهر و ادراک والدین در ترجیح آن‌ها به استفاده کودکان از شیوه‌های حمل‌ونقل فعال به مدرسه. فصلنامه مهندسی حمل‌ونقل، ۱۰ (۳)، ۶۷۷-۷۰۳. Dor: 20.1001.1.20086598.1398.10.3.15.6

 

  1. Abbasi, H., & Hajipour, K. (2014). An empirical analysis of the influence of urban form on travel behavior in different urban neighborhoods of Shiraz. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 11(29), 23–32. [In Persian]
  2. Abbasi, M., Farzin, I., & Mamdoohi, A. R. (2021). Influential factors on walking choice in discretionary trips, case of heterogeneity in travel distance. Journal of Transportation Research, 18(4), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/tri.2021.253407.2821 [In Persian]
  3. Afandizadeh, S., Tabrizian, A., & Kalantari, N. (2021). Modeling the effect of behavioral parameters on mode choice. Journal of Transportation Research, 18(4), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.22034/tri.2021.255854.2829 [In Persian]
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  5. Baghbani, A., Shariat Mohaymany, A., Rahmani, S., Sayad, A., & Mehdizadeh, M. (2019). Predictors of walking duration time and walking mode: Duration and logit models on tour-based data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 11(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.22119/jte.2019.79658 [In Persian]
  6. Bergstad, C. J., Gamble, A., Gärling, T., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Ettema, D., Friman, M., & Olsson, L. E. (2011). Subjective well-being related to satisfaction with daily travel. Transportation, 38(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11116-010-9283-Z
  7. Chan, E. T. H., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2021). The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: Evidence from a rapidly developing city in China. Transportation, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10062-2
  8. Choubdar, A., Farajollahi, A., & Poorheydari Mamaghani, F. (2020). Modelling optimum walking time with respect to travel purpose and considering individual and environmental variables (Case study: Gorgan). Journal of Transportation Research, 17(4), 247–259. https://dor.org/20.1001.1.17353459.1399.17.4.17.0 [In Persian]
  9. Clark, B., Chatterjee, K., & Melia, S. (2016). Changes to commute mode: The role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2016.05.005
  10. De Vos, J. (2018). Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2018.08.034
  11. De Vos, J. (2022). The shifting role of attitudes in travel behaviour research. Transport Reviews, 42(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2078537
  12. De Vos, J., Lättman, K., van der Vlugt, A. L., Welsch, J., & Otsuka, N. (2023). Determinants and effects of perceived walkability: A literature review, conceptual model and research agenda. Transport Reviews, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2101072
  13. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2019). Do satisfying walking and cycling trips result in more future trips with active travel modes? An exploratory study. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(3), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1456580
  14. De Vos, J., Singleton, P. A., & Gärling, T. (2022). From attitude to satisfaction: Introducing the travel mode choice cycle. Transport Reviews, 42(2), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1958952
  15. Dong, W., Wang, N., Dong, Y., & Cao, J. (2025). Examining the nonlinear and interactive effects of built environment characteristics on travel satisfaction. Journal of Transport Geography, 123, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2025.104111
  16. Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., & Ardeshiri, M. (2015). Modeling travel behavior by the structural relationships between lifestyle, built environment and non-working trips. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.016
  17. 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. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2010.11.002
  18. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
  19. Ghadami, M., Bahrami, Y., & Deylam Salehi, M. (2017). The effect of urban physical form on citizen's travel mode (Case study: Sari city). Journal of Physical Development Planning, 2(2), 45–56. [In Persian]
  20. Ghanabri, A., Khalili, A., & Feizizadeh, B. (2026). Examining the impacts of urban expansion on spatial patterns of rurban space: Case study: Urmia city. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.22068/ijaup.837
  21. Gholami, Y., Mirzai, R., & Radkiani, M. (2021). Modeling the factors affecting the citizens' acceptance to walk: A case study of Kashan City. The Journal of Geographical Research on Desert Areas, 8(2), 1–20. https://dor.org/20.1001.1.2345332.1399.8.2.1.8 [In Persian]
  22. Guan, X., Zhou, M., & Wang, D. (2023). Reference points in travel satisfaction: Travel preference, travel experience, or peers' travel?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 124, 103929. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2023.103929
  23. Habibian, M., & Kermanshah, M. (2015). Contribution of travel-related variables to car commuters' mode change. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 7(1), 13–30. https://dor.org/20.1001.1.20086598.1394.7.1.2.4 [In Persian]
  24. Khalili, A., Ghanbari, A., & Feyzizadeh, B. (2024). Identifying the patterns of urban expansion in the middle cities: Case study: Urmia city. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement, 14(52), 151–194. https://doi.org/10.22111/gaij.2024.48047.3186 [In Persian]
  25. Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Sharifi, A., & Sadeghi, A. (2023). The 15-minute city: Urban planning and design efforts toward creating sustainable neighborhoods. Cities, 132, 104101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104101
  26. Liu, D., Kwan, M.-P., & Wang, J. (2024). Developing the 15-Minute City: A comprehensive assessment of the status in Hong Kong. Travel Behaviour and Society, 34, 100666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100666
  27. Ma, L., & Cao, J. (2019). How perceptions mediate the effects of the built environment on travel behavior? Transportation, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9800-4
  28. McCarthy, S., & Habib, M. A. (2018). Investigation of life satisfaction, travel, built environment and attitudes. Journal of Transport & Health, 11, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.09.007
  29. Mohammadi, B., Fallah Zavareh, M., & Masoumi, H. (2019). The role of urban form and parental cognition on their preferences to children's active transportation on school trips. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 10(3), 677–703. https://dor.org/20.1001.1.20086598.1398.10.3.15.6 [In Persian]
  30. Mohammadpour, S., & Mehrjou, M. (2023). Evaluating the contribution of individual and spatial factors in the method of intra-city travel in the case study of Rasht city. Journal of Sustainable City, 6(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2023.309752.1554 [In Persian]
  31. Mouratidis, K., Ettema, D., & Næss, P. (2019). Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 129, 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2019.09.002
  32. O'Hagan, R. (2025). The relationship between perceived and measured walkability, travel satisfaction, and attitudes: An exploratory study in Columbus, Ohio [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/105853
  33. Rahman, M., & Sciara, G.-C. (2022). Travel attitudes, the built environment and travel behavior relationships: Causal insights from social psychology theories. Transport Policy, 123, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.04.012
  34. Taherkhani, E., Dehghan Ghahfarokhi, A., Mohammadi Torkamani, E., & Askarian, F. (2025). Identifying factors affecting the active travel of students to school. Sport Physiology & Management Investigations, 16(4), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.22034/spmi.2024.428158.2550 [In Persian]
  35. van der Vlugt, A. L., Curl, A., & Scheiner, J. (2022). The influence of travel attitudes on perceived walking accessibility and walking behaviour. Travel Behaviour and Society, 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.11.002
  36. Wang, D., & Lin, T. (2013). Built environments, social environments, and activity-travel behavior: A case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.012
  37. Wang, D., & Zhou, M. (2017). The built environment and travel behavior in urban China: A literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.031
  38. World Health Organization. (2022). Walking and cycling: Latest evidence to support policy-making and practice. WHO.
  39. Zebardast, E., & Baghernejhad, E. (2020). Analyzing the causal relationship between built environment and travel behavior in different neighborhood development's patterns of Tehran (Bime, Moniriye and Golestan districts). Motaleate Shahri, 9(35), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.940 [In Persian]