Understanding How Individuals Make Travel and Location Decisions: Implications for Public Transportation (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Removing the least correlated statement (“Whether or not I move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years is completely up to me”) did not change the regression results reported later in this chapter, and so all three measures of SCF were retained. 82 The prior chapters examined market sectors based on the Phase 1 Internet panel responses broken down by age-group and e-panel; by cluster analysis of attitudes and values; and by urban/environmental values, neighborhood, and auto avail- ability. In this chapter, the objective is to explore in more detail the model of the TPB and to determine if the model adds to our understanding of how individuals make residen- tial decisions. As specified in the analysis plan, the following two tasks are to be accomplished in this chapter: • Test whether the ATT, SN, and perceived behavioral con- trol or SCF could be predictors of intent • Test whether the measured beliefs are relevant to the indi- vidual’s ATT, SN, and SCF. Figure 9-1 shows all of the TPB components that were measured in the Phase 1 survey. Because the Internet panel survey was a cross-sectional survey, cause and effect cannot be distinguished. It can, however, be determine whether the associations between variables in the model are compatible with the TPB. The following sections describe the analyses done to satisfy the research objectives related to the TPB. Relationship Between ATT, SN, SCF, and Intent According to the TPB, the predictors of intent are ATT, SN, and SCF. With the Phase 1 Internet panel survey, direct measures of these constructs as related to moving to a CN in the next 2 years were taken.2 Table 9-1 shows the average results for the 822 respon- dents who were asked to give their opinions about moving to a CN. Table 9-1 shows the direct measures of intent, ATT, SN, and SCF. On average, the intent to move to a CN in the next 2 years was ranked on the lower side of the one-to-seven scale. The respondents rated their confidence in being able to move highest (4.5), followed by their ATT (3.8) and their SN (3.2). Their intent to move was lower still, at 2.9. Table 9-1 also shows Cronbach’s alpha, which is an indi- cator of the internal reliability for each composite measure. As can be seen, all of the measures are acceptable (above 0.7), except that for SCF.3 Regression was used to examine the relationship between in- tent and ATT, SN, and SCF. The result is shown in Table 9-2 As can be seen, the R2 for the regression was 0.73, significantly larger than the R2 of 0.41 found in the various studies reported by Godin and Kok (36). ATT, SN, and SCF are all highly significant. The coefficients of ATT and SN are of similar mag- nitude, with the coefficient of SCF being less than 30% of the magnitude of SN. Although many studies, as reported by Godin and Kok (36), do not find SN to be as important as ATT and SCF, SN appears to be important in the choice of a CN. One other question in the survey also corroborates the importance of others’ opinions. Respondents were asked to state their agreement with several statements describing their current home location, and they were asked to rate their satisfaction with their current home location. The statement “other peo- ple think my home and neighborhood are very nice” corre- lated with current satisfaction more highly than all the other descriptors (correlation coefficient of 0.52). C H A P T E R 9 Exploring the Choice of a Compact Neighborhood Using the Theory of Planned Behavior 2 Those respondents who had recently moved to a compact neighbor- hood were asked a different series of questions. Thus there is a smaller data set of 822 respondents for the TPB analysis presented in this chapter.

Relationship Between Behavioral Beliefs, Outcome Evaluations, and Attitude A more interesting use of the TPB is to examine the fac- tors that affect ATT, SN, and SCF, as these are the more likely components that a policymaker can affect. As described in Chapter 4, the formal TPB suggests that ATT is influenced by behavioral beliefs weighted by outcome evaluations. The mathematical formulation calls for summing the products of each behavioral belief multiplied by its outcome evaluation. Figure 9-1 shows the behavioral beliefs and outcome evalu- ations that the research team hypothesized would influence the ATT. The mean and standard deviation for each belief and outcome evaluation is shown in Table 9-3 ordered by the mean ranking of the outcome evaluations. As seen in Table 9-3, the respondents on the whole be- lieved that it was more likely than not that most of the hy- pothesized behaviors would occur in a CN (scores are a neutral 4 or above on a scale ranging from 1 to 7). The most likely belief was that it would be easy to get to stores, restau- rants, and other destinations. The second most likely belief was that “I would exercise by walking or bicycling.” The least likely belief was that “my household could own fewer cars.” Table 9-3 also shows that respondents rated the four most desirable outcomes (independent of neighborhood) as being (a) to exercise by walking or bicycling, (b) to make friends with neighbors, (c) to live within walking distance of restau- rants, and (d) to be able to take public transportation to work and for other trips. Living in a neighborhood with less living space and with more noise on the street was rated least desirable. 83 BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS If I moved to a CN/In a neighborhood like mine… - I would exercise by walking or bicycling. - I would make friends with more of my neighbors. - it would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities - I would take public transportation to work or for other trips. - my household could own fewer cars - the streets would be noisier than where I live now. - I would have less living space in my home and lot. OUTCOME EVALUATIONS For me,…would be...[undesirable/desirable] - living in a neighborhood where I could exercise by walking or bicycling - having neighbors close by and making friends with neighbors - to live w/in walking distance to stores, restaurants,public library and a school - to be able to take public transport. to work or for other trips - For my household to need fewer cars - to live in a neighborhood w/ more street noise - to live in less living space (in my home/lot) NORMATIVE BELIEFS [unlikely/likely] - My family thinks that I should move to/remain in a CN - Other people who are important to me think that I should move to/remain in a CN MOTIVATION TO COMPLY [not at all/very much] - Generally speaking, how much do you care what your family thinks you should do? - Generally speaking, how much do you care what other people who are important to you think you should do? CONTROL BELIEFS How likely is it...[unlikely/likely] - you could get by with less living space in the coming year? (7a)/you will need more living space in the coming year? (7b) - you could get by with fewer household cars in the coming year? (7a)/you will need more household cars in the coming year? (7b) - you could find an affordable home in a CN? (7a)/you can afford to remain in a CN for the next 2 yrs? (7b) - you would lose touch with current friends if you moved to/from a CN? POWER OF CONTROL [disagree/agree] - It would be easier for me to move to a CN if I required less living space (7a)/If I require more living space in the coming year, it would make it harder for me to remain in a CN (7b) - It would be easier for me to move to a CN if I didn't need so many household cars (7a)/If I need more household cars, it would make it harder for me to remain in a CN (7b) - It would be easier for me to move to a CN if I could find an affordable home there (7a)/If my income increases, it will make it easier for me to remain in a CN (7b) - It would be easier for me to move to a CN if I was sure I would not lose touch with my current friends (7a &7b) ATTITUDES - For me to move to/remain in a CN would be...[undesirable/desirable] - For me to move to/remain in a CN would be...[unpleasant/pleasant] - For me to move to/remain in a CN would be...[boring/interesting] SUBJECTIVE NORM -Most of the people who are important to me live, or would like to live, in a CN [false/true] - Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my moving to/living in a CN in the next 2 yrs [false/true] - It is expected of me that I move to/live in a CN in the next 2 yrs [disagree/agree] PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL - Whether or not I move to/stay in a CN in the next 2 yrs is completely up to me [disagree/agree] - I am confident that if I wanted to I could move to/stay in a CN in the next 2 yrs [false/true] - For me to move to/stay in a CN in the next 2 yrs would be...[impossible/possible] INTENTION - I plan to move to/live in a CN in the next 2 yrs [unlikely/likely] - I will make an effort to move to/live in a CN in the next 2 yrs [will not/will] - I intend to move to/live in a CN in the next 2 yrs [disagree/agree] X X X Direct MeasuresIndirect Measures Figure 9-1. The variables of the theory of planned behavior, Phase I application.

Regression was used to determine the degree of association between the behavioral beliefs and respondents’ attitude toward moving to a CN. The results are shown in Table 9-4. As can be seen, all of the behavioral beliefs had significant co- efficients in the regression, indicating that all of these could influence the respondents’ attitudes toward moving. The re- gression coefficients are a statistical measure of the relative importance of each belief, whereas the outcome evaluations are a direct measure. The beliefs that there would be more noise on the street and less space in a CN had negative co- efficients, which is logical and in line with the outcome eval- uations shown in Table 9-3. 84 Measure Source, with Responses on a 1 to 7 Scale Mean (SD) I plan to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (extremely unlikely/extremely likely) 2.9 (1.9) I will make an effort to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (I definitely will not/I definitely will) 2.9 (1.9) I intend to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (strongly disagree/strongly agree) 2.8 (1.9) Intent Average for intent (alpha = 0.96) 2.9 (1.8) For me to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years would be (extremely undesirable / extremely desirable) 3.6 (1.9) For me to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years would be (extremely unpleasant/extremely pleasant) 3.6 (1.9) For me to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years would be (boring/interesting) 4.1 (1.9) ATT Average for ATT (alpha = 0.91) 3.8 (1.8) Most of the people who are important to me live, or would like to live, in a compact neighborhood (definitely false/definitely true) 3.2 (1.8) Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my moving to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (definitely false/definitely true) 4.0 (1.9) It is expected of me that I move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (strongly disagree/strongly agree) 2.5 (1.8) SN Average for SN (alpha = 0.76) 3.2 (1.5) Whether or not I move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years is completely up to me (strongly disagree/strongly agree) 4.9 (2.0) I am confident that if I wanted to I could move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years (definitely false/definitely true) 4.6 (2.1) For me to move to a compact neighborhood in the next 2 years would be (impossible/possible) 4.1 (2.0) SCF Average for SCF (alpha = 0.63) 4.5 (1.5) Dependent Variable: Intent Independent Variable Coefficient t-statistic Probability Constant -1.02* -9.35 .0001 Attitude 0.50* 16.60 .0001 Subjective Norm 0.47* 12.90 .0001 Self-Confidence 0.12* 4.96 .0001 *significant at the probability indicated above n = 822, R2 = 0.73 Table 9-1. Mean ratings for the Phase 1 TPB direct measures. Table 9-2. Regression for intent to move.

The magnitude of the regression coefficient indicates that the belief that it would be easy to get to stores and other des- tinations had the greatest association with a positive attitude toward moving to a CN. This finding is compatible with find- ings by Waddell and Nourzad that there is a preference for residential areas with walkable access to retail (27), with find- ings by Srour et al. that access to retail affects residential choice and price (26), and with the Vermonters’ attitudes on sprawl survey, which found that 48% of households preferred communities within walking distance of retail (21). Most of the other behavioral beliefs with positive associa- tion with ATT had coefficients of less than half of the magni- tude of “it would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities.” Nevertheless, being able to take public transportation, make friends with neighbors, exercise by walking and biking, and living with fewer cars were posi- tively associated with ATT. On the other hand, exercising by walking or bicycling had one of the smallest coefficients. This is surprising since Table 9-3 showed that respondents thought they would exercise by walking or bicycling in a CN and that respon- dents rated living in a neighborhood where they could exercise by walking or bicycling as desirable. This contra- diction may indicate that respondents were rating the out- come evaluation of exercising based on SN—i.e., some- thing they should do, rather than something that would be desirable, pleasant, or interesting to do. Relationship Between Normative Beliefs, Motivation to Comply, and Subjective Norm The TPB suggests that SN is influenced by normative beliefs weighted by the motivation to comply. The mathematical for- mulation calls for summing the products of each normative belief multiplied by its motivation to comply. The mean and standard deviation for each normative belief and motivation to comply is shown in Table 9-5. As can be seen in the table, the normative beliefs are that family and friends are more un- likely than likely to support a move to a CN. The respondents ratings showed that they cared significantly more what their family thought than what other people thought. Regression was used to determine how well the normative beliefs accounted for variation in respondents’ SN towards 85 Behavioral Beliefs (If I moved to a compact neighborhood) (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) Mean (SD) Outcome Evaluations (1 = extremely undesirable to 7 = extremely desirable) Mean (SD) I would exercise by walking or bicycling. 5.2 (1.8) Living in a neighborhood where I could exercise by walking or bicycling 6.0 (1.2) I would make friends with more of my neighbors. 4.8 (1.6) Having neighbors close by and making friends with neighbors 5.5 (1.5) It would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities. 5.6 (1.4) To live within walking distance to stores, restaurants, a public library and a school 5.4 (1.6) I would take public transportation to work or for other trips. 4.8 (2.0) To be able to take public transportation to work or for other trips 5.1 (1.9) My household could own fewer cars. 4.0 (2.1) For my household to need to own fewer cars 4.3 (2.0) The streets would be noisier than where I live now. 4.6 (2.0) To live in a neighborhood with more noise on the street 2.1 (1.6) I would have less living space in my home and lot. 4.8 (1.9) To live in less living space (in my home and lot) 2.3 (1.7) n = 822 Table 9-3. Mean and standard deviation for behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluations.

moving to a compact neighborhood. That regression is shown in Table 9-6. The two normative beliefs tested were both highly significant. As can be seen, the order of the regression coefficients indicates that “other people important to me” have more importance in determining SN toward moving to a CN, contrary to the order in Table 9-5. Relationship Between Control Beliefs, Power of Control, and Self-Confidence The TPB suggests that SCF is influenced by control beliefs weighted by the power of control. Figure 9-1 shows the control beliefs and power of control that were tested in the Phase 1 re- search. The mean and standard deviation for each control be- lief and power of control is shown in Table 9-7, which is ranked by the power of control statements. As can be seen in this table, the respondents, on average, felt least likely to be able to get by with fewer household cars. They agreed most strongly that it would be easier to move to a CN if they could find an afford- able home. Regression was used to determine how well the control beliefs accounted for variation in respondents’ SCF toward moving to a CN. That regression is shown in Table 9-8. Each of the control beliefs was significant. The more likely respon- dents felt they were capable of living in less space, doing with fewer cars, or finding an affordable home, the more capable they felt about moving to a CN. The more likely they felt they would lose contact with friends, however, the less capable they felt about moving. Finding an affordable home was the con- trol belief with the greatest relationship with SCF, a finding that agrees with the order of the ratings of power of control items in Table 9-7. The overall R2 of 0.14 is the poorest of this series of regressions and may indicate that there are many other factors that affect the respondents’ confidence that they would be able to move to a CN. Structural Equation Model for the Full TPB SEM can be used to test the full TPB model, as shown in Figure 9-1. The components of this model include the following: 86 Dependent Variable: Attitude Toward the Behavior Independent Variables: Behavioral Beliefs (If I moved to a compact neighborhood) Coefficient t-statistic Probability Constant -2.30* -8.63 .0001 I would exercise by walking or bicycling. 0.10* 2.93 .0035 I would make friends with more of my neighbors. 0.10* 2.57 .0103 It would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities. 0.27* 5.76 .0001 I would take public transportation to work or for other trips. 0.13* 4.18 .0001 My household could own fewer cars. 0.10* 3.63 .0009 The streets would be noisier than where I live now. -0.19* -5.73 .0001 I would have less living space in my home and lot. -0.12* -3.45 .0006 *significant at probability level indicated n = 822, R2 = 0.32. Table 9-4. Regression for attitude toward the behavior. Normative Beliefs (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely) Mean (SD) Motivation to Comply (1 = not at all to 7 = very much) Mean (SD) My family thinks that I should move to a compact neighborhood. 2.4 (1.6) Generally speaking, how much do you care what your family thinks you should do? 4.3* (1.8) Other people who are important to me think that I should move to a compact neighborhood. 2.4 (1.6) Generally speaking, how much do you care what other people who are important to you think you should do? 3.9* (1.6) *significantly different at p < .05 n = 822 Table 9-5. Mean and standard deviation for normative beliefs and motivation to comply.

• Seven factors hypothesized to influence attitude towards the behavior that are the products of – behavioral beliefs and – outcome evaluation. • Two factors hypothesized to influence SN that are the products of – normative beliefs and – motivation to comply. • Four factors hypothesized to influence self-confidence that are products of – control beliefs and – power of control. Within each intention and direct measures box shown in Figure 9-1, the ratings on each statement are averaged to cre- ate a single score. With respect to the indirect measures, each element in the “belief” box is multiplied by its corresponding element in the “relevance” box (outcome evaluation, moti- vation to comply, and power of control). The structural equation model attempts to predict intent from the direct measure scores while also attempting to predict each direct measure score from its corresponding set of indi- rect measure products. The key results that are produced are the coefficients (and significance levels) for (a) direct measures predicting intent and (b) indirect measures predicting the cor- responding direct measures (and, consequently, intent). Results In Table 9-9, the columns represent the following (left to right): • Endogenous variables • Direction of association • Exogenous variables 87 Dependent Variable: Subjective Norm Independent Variables: Normative Beliefs Coefficient t-statistic Probability Constant 1.67* 23.8 0.0001 My family thinks that I should move to a compact neighborhood. 0.28* 5.70 0.0001 Other people who are important to me think that I should move to a compact neighborhood. 0.35* 7.01 0.0001 *significant at probability level indicated n = 822, R2 = 0.45. Table 9-6. Regression for subjective norm. Control Beliefs (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely) Mean (SD) Power of Control (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) Mean (SD) How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood? 3.8 (1.9) It would be easier for me to move to a compact neighborhood if I could find an affordable home there. 4.6 (2.0) How likely is it that you could get by with less living space in the coming year? 3.0 (2.1) It would be easier for me to move to a compact neighborhood if I required less living space. 4.1 (2.0) How likely is it that you would lose touch with current friends if you moved to a compact neighborhood? 3.2 (2.0) It would be easier for me to move to a compact neighborhood if I was sure I would not lose touch with my current friends. 3.5 (2.0) How likely is it that you could get by with fewer household cars in the coming year? 2.9 (2.2) It would be easier for me to move to a compact neighborhood if I didn’t need so many household cars. 3.5 (2.1) n = 822 Table 9-7. Mean and standard deviation for control beliefs and power of control.

• Operation between exogenous variables (for indirect measures) • Second exogenous variable (for indirect measures) • Regression weights (estimate) • Standard error (SE) of the estimate • critical ratio (CR), analogous to a t-statistic—higher is better • Probability from significance test (P)—lower is better. This is the chance that the coefficient could have been zero. The values in the estimate and probability columns are the key results to focus on; the bolded text represents relation- ships that test as significant at the 5% level, which means there is a 5% or less chance that the coefficient is zero. Based on this model, ATT and SN are more important than SCF as influences on intent to move to a compact neigh- borhood (although SCF is still a significant factor). Note that the relationship shown between intent and ATT, SN, and SCF is very similar to what was shown in Table 9-2. With regard to the indirect measure of ATT, it was found that several of the features thought to be important were in- deed significant. These included the ability to walk to stores, the ability to take public transportation, and the ability to do with one less car. The ability to make friends with neighbors was also significant. This was a surprise to the researchers, but had come up in the focus groups as a possible advantage of a CN. Surprisingly, the ability to exercise by walking or bicy- cling did not turn out to be significant. Neither did the two negative factors (noise on the street and less living space). Based on the output in Table 9-9, the most important relationships are between • SN and others’ opinions, • ATT and access to commercial districts, • SCF and affordability, and • SN and family’s opinion. Relationships that were not significant are between • ATT and exercise, • ATT and noise, • ATT and living space, and • SCF and requiring less living space. Thus the SEM result shown in Table 9-9 finds many, but not all, of the same factors to be significant as the regression analyses shown in Tables 9-4, 9-6, and 9-8. Overall, the fit of the structural equation model is poor. The Tucker-Lewis index is 0.22, when it should be at least 0.9. The comparative fit index is 0.32, when it should be at least 0.9. The RMSEA is 0.21, when it should be less than 0.06. Thus while many of the hypothesized factors do affect the ATT, SN, and SCF, clearly more research is needed to more fully describe the factors affecting choice of a CN. Chapter Summary This chapter presented analyses of the relationships between the various components of the TPB as measured by regression analysis and SEM. The ATT, SN, and SCF were sig- nificantly associated with intent to move, as the TPB would predict. Regression analyses found that all of the hypothesized behavioral beliefs were significantly associated with ATT. The most important behavioral belief was that “it would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities.” Other positive beliefs were “I would take public transportation to work or for other trips,” “I would exercise by walking or bicycling,” “I would make friends with more of my neighbors,” and “my household could own fewer cars.” Negative beliefs were that “the streets would be nois- ier than where I live now” and “I would have less living space in my home and lot.” SEM also found most, but not all, of the behavioral belief/outcome evaluation pairs to be signifi- cantly associated with ATT. The product pairs not significant 88 Dependent Variable: Self-Confidence Independent Variables: Control Beliefs Coefficient t-statistic Probability Constant 3.73* 25.9 .0001 How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood? 0.20* 7.47 .0001 How likely is it that you could get by with fewer household cars in the coming year? 0.10* 4.12 .0001 How likely is it that you could get by with less living space in the coming year? 0.07* 2.50 .0127 How likely is it that you would lose touch with current friends if you moved to a compact neighborhood? -0.14* -5.80 .0001 *significant at probability level indicated n = 822, R2 = 0.14. Table 9-8. Regression for perceived behavioral control.

89 Variable Label Estimate S.E. C.R. P INTENT INTENT INTENT <-- Attitude Toward The Behavior (average of 3 direct measures) 0.516 0.019 26.479 0.000 <-- Subjective Norms (average of 3 direct measures) 0.478 0.023 20.708 0.000 <-- Perceived Behavioral Control (average of 3 direct measures) 0.139 0.021 6.697 0.000 ATTITUDE ATTITUDE ATTITUDE <-- If I moved to a Compact Neighborhood I would exercise by walking or bicycling. x For me, living in a neighborhood where I could exercise by walking or bicycling would be... 0.001 0.004 0.403 0.687 ATTITUDE ATTITUDE ATTITUDE ATTITUDE <-- If I moved to a Compact Neighborhood I would make friends with more of my neighbors. x x For me, having neighbors close by and making friends with neighbors would be... 0.009 0.004 2.409 0.016 <-- If I moved to a Compact Neighborhood it would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities. For me, to live within walking distance to stores, restaurants, a public library and a school would be... 0.048 0.004 12.579 0.000 <-- If I moved to a Compact Neighborhood I would take public transportation to work or for other trips. x x For me, to be able to take public transportation to work or for other trips would be... 0.015 0.003 4.731 0.000 <-- If I moved to Compact Neighborhood, my household could own fewer cars. For my household to need to own fewer cars would be... 0.017 0.003 5.179 0.000 <-- If I moved to Compact Neighborhood, the streets would be noisier than where I live now. For me, to live in a neighborhood with more noise on the streets would be... 0.001 0.005 0.105 0.916 <-- If I moved to Compact Neighborhood, I would have less living space in my home and lot. x x x For me, to live in less living space (in my home and lot) would be... -0.002 0.005 -0.328 0.743 SUBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE <-- My family thinks that I should move to a Compact Neighborhood. x Generally speaking, how much do you care what your family thinks you should do? 0.043 0.004 10.158 0.000 <-- Other people who are important to me think that I should move to a Compact Neighborhood. x x Generally speaking, how much doyou care what other people who are important to you think you should do? 0.057 0.005 12.43 0.000 SELF- CONFIDENCE <-- How likely is it that you could get by with less living space in the coming year? It would be easier for me to move to a Compact Neighborhood if I required less living space. 0.005 0.004 1.173 0.241 SELF- CONFIDENCE SELF- CONFIDENCE SELF- CONFIDENCE <-- How likely is it that you could get by with fewer household cars in the coming year? It would be easier for me to move to a Compact Neighborhood if I didn't need so many household cars. 0.010 0.004 2.183 0.029 <-- How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a Compact Neighborhood? x It would be easier for me to move to a Compact Neighborhood if I could find an affordable home there. 0.047 0.004 12.31 0.000 <-- How likely is it that you would lose touch with current friends if you moved to a Compact Neighborhood? x It would be easier for me to move to a Compact Neighborhood if I was sure I would not lose touch with my current friends. -0.027 0.004 -6.543 0.000 Table 9-9. SEM results for the Phase 1 model. in the SEM concerned “I would exercise by walking and bicycling,” “the streets would be noisier than where I live now,” and “I would have less living space in my home and lot.” Both normative beliefs were significantly associated with SN. These included “my family thinks that I should move to a CN” and “other people who are important to me think that I should move to a CN.” Both regression analysis and SEM indicated the importance of family members and other people. Likewise, regression analyses found that the four hypothe- sized control beliefs were significantly associated with SCF. The most important of these was the belief that one “could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood.” Also

significant and positively associated with SCF were the beliefs that one could get by with “fewer household cars in the com- ing year” and “less living space in the coming year.” A nega- tively associated belief was that one “would lose touch with current friends.” SEM found all of these factors significant, except for the one relating to “less living space.” While all of the hypothesized relationships were significant in regression models, there was much variance unexplained in ATT, SN, and SCF. More research will be needed to un- cover other contributors to these three constructs. In partic- ular, self-confidence needs much more exploration to under- stand which characteristics would allow more individuals to feel that they could move to a CN. Also, the fit of the struc- tural equation model of the complete TPB was not satisfac- tory, as judged by fit statistics. This research left out many is- sues of importance in neighborhood choice, such as concern about crime and safety and quality of schools. However, the findings in this chapter and others indicate that the TPB ap- pears promising enough to merit further research in the area of residential choice. 90