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.

56 This chapter explores the characteristics of market sectors that are more likely to be favorable to an urban residential environment, particularly an environment characterized as a CN. The results of a market segmentation process based on attitude and belief, rather than age and e-panel, are presented. An earlier study (TCRP Report 36: A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership) suggested the method for creating market segments used in this research (49). That report includes a valuable review of alter- native approaches to market segmentation: predetermined (a priori) segmentation and market-defined (post hoc) segmentation. In most cases, pre-determined (a priori) segmentation in- volves selecting certain groups from a population based on known characteristics and declaring them “segments.” (p. 12). Market-defined (post hoc) segmentation attempts to iden- tify segments based on actual market investigations, notably analysis of answers to survey questions intending to predict marketplace responses. . . . Moreover, a variety of multivari- ate techniques (e.g., cluster analysis, automatic interaction detection, correspondence analysis, conjoint analysis-based clustering) may be used to identify the market segments (pp. 19–20). The report suggests incorporating attitudes and beliefs into the market research process using market-defined segmentation. The analysis presented in this chapter carries out key aspects of market-defined segmentation. Specifically, the seg- ments created allow the analyst to observe the extent to which groups believe a given outcome—”With a move to a CN, I would get more exercise”—and the extent to which they value this outcome—”For me getting more exercise would be DESIRABLE. . . .” In the language of the TPB, what is be- lieved is the behavioral belief, and its relevance is the outcome expectation. Overview of the Market Segments This chapter presents the findings derived from a market segmentation that utilized a clustering process based on scores for 39 variables from the Phase 1 Internet survey. Since there was interest in respondents’ intentions toward moving to a CN, variables throughout the survey were reviewed for the extent of their correlation with the direct measure of “in- tent to move to a CN.” “Intent to move” is measured as the average of scores on the following three statements: • I plan to move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 extremely un- likely . . . 7 extremely likely) • I will make an effort to move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 I definitely will not . . . 7 I definitely will) • I intend to move to a CN in the next 2 years: (1 strongly disagree . . . 7 strongly agree) The Cronbach’s alpha for the three statements of intent was 0.97. Of the candidate variables that were tested, 39 were found with correlations of 0.1 or higher, all of which were significant at the 5% level. The 39 variables are listed in Table 7-1, ordered on the basis on the strength of their correlation with the intent to move. A clustering process on the 39 variables resulted in the creation of five market segments. Definition of the Five Market Segments for Moving Of the 822 survey participants exposed to the questions about moving to a CN, five segments clearly emerged. They are defined here, with complete descriptions provided later in the text. They are “ranked” from the highest intent to move to the lowest. Note that those persons who had recently moved to a CN were not asked the set of questions about their C H A P T E R 7 Market Segments for Moving to a Compact Neighborhood

57 Rating Statements from Phase 1 Survey Questionnaire [1 to 7] Corr. It would be easier for me to move to a compact neighborhood if I could find an affordable home there. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.435 For me, to live within walking distance to stores, restaurants, a public library and a school would be [extremely undesirable/extremely desirable] 0.367 How likely is it that you could get by with fewer household cars in the coming year? [very unlikely/very likely] 0.352 I need to drive my car to get where I need to go. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.307 If I moved to a compact neighborhood I would take public transportation to work or for other trips. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.298 For my household to need to own fewer cars would be...[extremely undesirable/extremely desirable] 0.294 For me, to be able to take public transportation to work or for other trips would be... [extremely undesirable/extremely desirable] 0.278 For me, to live in a neighborhood with more noise on the streets would be... [extremely undesirable/extremely desirable] 0.270 How likely is it that you could get by with less living space in the coming year? [very unlikely/very likely] 0.265 For me, to live in less living space (in my home and lot) would be... [extremely undesirable/extremely desirable] 0.265 If I moved to compact neighborhood, I would have less living space in my home and lot. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.264 If I moved to a compact neighborhood it would be easy for me to get to stores, restaurants, a library and other activities. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.262 If I moved to compact neighborhood, my household could own fewer cars. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.254 I’d be willing to drive less to reduce my use of foreign oil. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.251 I love the freedom and independence that owning several cars provides for my household. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.248 If I moved to compact neighborhood, the streets would be noisier than where I live now. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.246 If I moved to a compact neighborhood I would make friends with more of my neighbors. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.228 If I moved to a compact neighborhood I would exercise by walking or bicycling. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.218 Protecting the environment should be given top priority, even if it means an increase in taxes. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.209 My family: They’d be willing to drive less to reduce their use of foreign oil. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.205 My family: They think that protecting the environment should be given top priority, even if it means an increase in taxes. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.200 Neighborhood bus goes where I need to go. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.196 Neighborhood bus goes where I need to go. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.196 Neighborhood bus goes where I need to go. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.196 Table 7-1. Thirty-nine variables correlating with intent to move. (continued on next page)

58 How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood? [very unlikely/very likely] 0.195 Neighborhood has adequate parking. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.194 How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood? [very unlikely/very likely] 0.195 Neighborhood has adequate parking. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.194 How likely is it that you could find an affordable home in a compact neighborhood? [very unlikely/very likely] 0.195 Neighborhood has adequate parking. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.194 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. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.185 My family: They are concerned about global warming and/or climate change. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.168 My family: They need to drive their cars to get where they need to go. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.165 My family: They love the freedom and independence that owning several cars provides for their household. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.160 I am concerned about global warming and/or climate change. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.159 It would be hard for me to reduce my auto mileage and use of gasoline. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.152 My family: They think they should be more active in doing their part to protect the environment. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.150 Staying active and getting regular exercise is a top priority for me. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.150 Overall, how satisfied are you with your current home location? [completely dissatisfied/completely satisfied] -0.144 I think I should be more active in doing my part to protect the environment. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.139 Other people like my neighborhood. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.137 It would be easier for me to move to a Compact Neighborhood if I required less living space. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.123 Neighborhood has lots of trees. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.118 I really enjoy driving. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.114 Other people think my home and neighborhood are very nice. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] 0.112 My family: It is important to them to have control over the things that they do. [strongly disagree/strongly agree] -0.103 Table 7-1. (Continued).

intention to move to a CN; thus the sample size is reduced to 822. The Transit Movers Group. This group is categorized by its extensive experience with transit and walking. It is driven not by environmental concerns, but rather by an under- standing of what services and conditions are necessary to live in a transit-oriented neighborhood. This group has the high- est intent to move to CN. The Environmental Movers Group. The second group, in terms of their intent, is markedly different from the first: their use of transit to work, for example, is the lowest of the five market segments reported here. Rather, this group is categorized by the extent of belief in environmental causes, and the belief that they could make a positive contribution by moving to a more transit-oriented location. The Conflicted/Contented Group. This group, whose level of intent ranks in the middle, is the most complex of the five segments. They rank their concern with environmental issues (e.g., global warming/climate change) among the high- est of any group, while, at the same time, reporting a level of auto dependence among the highest of any group. While they express their commitment to environmental change, altering their neighborhood to attain that change is not a desired option for this group. The Low Expectations Group. Of the two groups with the lowest rating for intent, this group shows its displeasure with just those attributes of a CN that are desired by those who value the urban attributes. In general, this group ex- presses less hostility to environmental issues than does the Anti-Environmental group, but does not place a positive value on the things that might be expected to occur in a CN, such as getting more exercise or even making more new friends. The Anti-Environmental Group. The group with the lowest rating of intent expresses its displeasure most specifi- cally to the concept of environmental causes, thinking those causes are “overblown” and unnecessarily costing them money. They report the highest propensity to love the free- dom and independence of owning several cars, and the high- est propensity to need a car to get where they need to go. An introduction to the five segments is presented in Table 7-2. For each of the five market segments, two cells are high- lighted with an asterisk, indicating data that will help the reader to understand the salient characteristics of each segment. Of the sample exposed to the questions on moving (n = 822), 30% of respondents were assigned by the clustering process to the two groups that rated intent most highly. If the respondents who recently moved to a CN (who were asked different TPB questions) were added, this raises the “positive” segment of the 865 sample to about 35%. Note with caution, however, that the two “mover” groups together have a combined level of “intent to move” of about 4 out of a scale from 1 to 7. It can be argued that, on a scale that allows for a “neutral” response, the rating of 4 is not a strong indication of intent to move. The two pos- itive groups, however, can be seen as a logical “market” for fur- ther exploration of the concept of moving to a neighborhood more supportive of walking and transit. Demographics: Who Are They? The demographics can provide an early clue to the mem- bership of each of the five segments. Most obviously, the Transit Movers are geographically distinct from the other four groups: only 18% of them live in single-family homes, compared with 63% of the Environmental Movers. Ninety percent of the Transit Movers live in a neighborhood with a mix of single- and multiple-unit housing, while only 47% of the Environmental Movers group lives in a neighborhood that offers a mix of housing types. At present, 55% of the Transit Movers live in a CN, compared with only 15% of the Environmental Movers. In terms of marital status, 38% of the Transit Movers group is married, compared with 64% of the Anti-Environmental group. Age of the Five Segments Those under 30 years of age are overrepresented in both the Transit Movers group (young people who value the pro- transit attributes) and the Low Expectations group (young people who do not.) Those over 55 years of age appear disproportionately in the Environmental Movers group. Table 7-3 shows the age categories of the market segments and indicates which age-groups are overrepresented. E-Panel for the Five Segments Table 7-4 shows the percentage of each segment that came from the Survey Cafe e-panel and the percentage from the NJ Transit e-panel. As can be seen, the Conflicted/Contented group had the highest proportion coming from the NJ Tran- sit e-panel, whereas the Environmental Movers had the lowest proportion. This means that the inclusion of the NJ Transit e-panel is not overly influencing the two most posi- tive groups for moving to a CN. Residential Preferences There is consistency between the ranking of the market segments by their average score on intent to move and resi- 59

dential preferences, as shown by other variables. For exam- ple, in the choice between an urban townhouse with transit and a suburban house that requires driving, 80% of the Transit Movers chose the townhouse, compared with 24.5% of the Anti-Environmental group. Likewise, 42.5% of the Transit Movers would prefer to live in a big city, versus 11.2% of the Anti-Environmental group. Finally, 55% of the Transit Movers currently live in a CN, compared with 10.6% of the Anti-Environmental group. The Environ- mental Movers are the second most favorable group toward 60 Age Category Segment 21-30 (%) 31-44 (%) 45-54 (%) 55+ (%) Total (%) Transit Movers 44.2* 29.2 17.5 9.2 100.0 Environmental Movers 38.4 23.2 21.4* 17.0* 100.0 Conflicted/Contented 36.4 34.1* 19.4 10.1 100.0 Low Expectations 45.4* 28.6 15.1 10.8 100.0 Anti-Environmental 39.0 34.2* 18.2 8.6 100.0 Total 40.4 30.7 18.1 10.7 100.0 * Category in which a given segment is overrepresented. Table 7-3. Age categories for the five market segments. Average Rating, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Market Segment Intent to Move (average rating) Monthly Utilitarian Walk Trips (No.) Transit Share of Work Trips† (%) I am concerned about global warming/ climate change. I need to drive my car to get where I need to go. If I moved to a compact neighborhood I would exercise by walking or bicycling. If I moved to a compact neighborhood I would make friends with more of my neighbors. Transit Movers (n = 107) 4.1 29.2* 61%* 5.2 2.4 5.9 5.1 Environmental Movers (n = 98) 3.9 13.1 20%* 6.1* 5.4 6.2 5.9 Conflicted / Contented (n = 188) 2.8 10.2 39% 5.9* 5.9* 5.7 5.1 Low Expectations (n = 162) 2.5 8.7 27% 4.6 5.1 4.1* 3.8* Anti- Environmental (n = 158) 1.9 5.4 25% 3.2* 6.3* 4.5 4.4 Total (n = 822) 2.9 11.9 34% 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.8 * Data that help the reader understand salient characteristics of each segment. † Work trip mode share in this table is computed only for workers. This differs from Chapter 6, where mode share is computed for all respondents. Table 7-2. Average ratings for the five market segments.

choosing an urban townhouse or living in a big city. How- ever, only 15% currently live in a CN. Table 7-5 shows these results. Income Levels of the Five Segments. Table 7-6 shows the income levels for the five market segments. The variations in median household income level are not dramatic, but do reveal the difference between the Transit Movers ($60,000) and the Environmental Movers ($75,000). Variations in the mean values are somewhat more dramatic, but can be influenced by the relatively small number of participants at the higher income levels. The per- person income of the Transit Movers is somewhat under- stated in this table, as the size of their households is smaller than for the other groups. Childhood Memories Table 7-7 shows some of the market sector ratings from childhood. The asterisks indicate the market segments with the high and low scores for each rating statement. Concerning the role of environmentalism in youth, the Environmental Movers stand out as the most likely to have dealt with these issues both as a family and as an individual. Note that this group rated environmental memories much more positively than the age/e-panel groups shown in Ta- ble 6-7. The Environmental Movers were the most likely to have been able to walk or bike to a commercial district. However, they were also the most likely of the market sec- tors to have had friends who thought it was “uncool” to take public transportation. Understanding the Travel Patterns of the Five Market Segments Table 7-8 shows characteristics of the transportation pat- terns of the five market segments. The first column shows a 61 E-Panel Source Segment NJ Transit (%) Survey Cafe (%) Total (%) Transit Movers 27.5 72.5 100.0 Environmental Movers 18.8 81.2 100.0 Conflicted / Contented 32.3 67.7 100.0 Low Expectations 23.2 76.8 100.0 Anti-Environmental 22.9 77.1 100.0 Total Sample 25.5 74.5 100.0 Table 7-4. Source of e-panel members for the five segments for moving. Segment Choose Urban Townhouse (%) Prefer to Live in a Big City (%) Currently Live in a Compact Neighborhood (%) Transit Movers 80.0 42.5 55.0 Environmental Movers 59.8 33.9 15.2 Conflicted / Contented 35.9 17.5 20.7 Low Expectations 35.1 18.4 16.8 Anti- Environmental 24.5 11.2 10.6 Total Sample (n = 822) 42.8 22.1 21.8 Table 7-5. Living preferences and current choice of neighborhood for the five segments. Household Income ($) Market Segment Mean Median Transit Movers 67,973 60,000 Environmental Movers 81,432 75,000 Conflicted / Contented 81,831 70,000 Low Expectations 77,232 60,000 Anti-Environmental 79,841 70,000 Total Sample 78,304 65,000 Table 7-6. Household income, by market segment.

surrogate for the combined number of walk trips for utilitar- ian purposes (i.e., walk trips to a destination). The second column shows walk mode share for all trips. As can be seen, the Transit Movers are very different from the other segments in terms of the amount of walking they do and the high per- centage of trips that they make by walking. The transit share for all trips is shown in the third column of Table 7-8. As with work trips, the Transit Mover segment chooses transit at a rate that is twice as high as the other market segments. Looking at all modes other than a private vehicle, the Transit Movers market segment takes modes such as transit, walking, bicycling, and taxi more than half of the time. 62 Average Ratings, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Market Sector As a child I thought it important to do what I could to save the environment. My family discussed environmental issues. Average of 2 environmental ratings There was a commercial district I could walk or bike to. Friends considered it uncool to take public transit. Transit Movers 4.0 3.3 3.7 5.0 2.5* Environmental Movers 5.0 4.4 4.7* 5.3* 3.6* Conflicted / Contented 4.4 3.6 4.0 4.8 3.1 Low Expectations 3.6 3.0 3.3 4.1* 2.9 Anti-Environmental 2.9 2.5 2.7* 4.5 2.8 Total Sample 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.7 2.9 * Market segments with the high and low scores for each rating statement. Table 7-7. Childhood memories of neighborhood/environmental issues. Segment Monthly Utilitarian Walk Trips (No.) Walk Share for All Trips (%) Transit Share for All Trip Purposes (%) Total Transit and Walk for all Trip Purposes (%) All Alternatives to Private Vehicles (including bike and taxi) Transit Movers 29.2 26.7 21.7 48.5 51.5 Environmental Movers 13.1 12.0 7.2 19.2 21.1 Conflicted / Contented 10.2 9.4 9.2 18.6 19.1 Low Expectations 8.7 8.0 7.2 15.1 16.6 Anti- Environmental 5.4 5.0 4.5 9.5 9.9 Sample Average 11.9 10.9 9.2 20.2 21.4 Table 7-8. Travel behavior by market segment.

Understanding the Two Market Segments with the Highest Intent to Move The five segments are discussed in this section, ranked from highest to lowest intent to move to a CN, in particular, their propensity to take transit and to move. Transit Movers Group The Transit Movers currently experience a wide variety of green-mode travel behavioral patterns. As shown in Table 7-8, they walk more and take transit much more than all the other market segments. The group makes about 29 walking trips per month, which is about five times the rate experi- enced by the Anti-Environmental group. Logically enough, the Transit Movers report the lowest need for a car to get where they need to go, with a rating of 2.4 on the seven-point scale; they do not think they are wasting too much time driv- ing in congestion. They enjoy driving less than any other group. The transit group is the youngest in our sample, a trait quite similar to that of the Low Expectations group, as shown in Table 7-3. Consistent with this, they have lived in their present home for less time than any other group, and they have the lowest contemplation of moving in the next 2 years. As urbanites, they have the highest reported access to fre- quent transit and the best access to reliable taxis. More than any other group, they have a commercial district within walk- ing distance. Their houses do not have significant amounts of parking or a large lot. Emotional commitment from these young people to their neighborhood is somewhat low, with the lowest propensity to believe that others think their home and neighborhood is nice. They share with the Low Expecta- tions group a lack of overall satisfaction with their current home location. In general, their expectations for the positive outcomes of a move are less optimistic than that of the Environmental Movers. While they have high ratings for issues (discussed below for the Environmental Movers) such as getting more exercise and making friends, these ratings are uniformly lower than those for the Environmental Movers. They are more likely to think they could live with fewer cars than any other group. While their environmental concerns are less intense than the Environmental Movers group, they are more likely to believe that cars do contribute significantly to degradation of the environment, and they are less likely to find it hard to re- duce auto mileage. Environmental Movers Group In terms of the present modal behavior, the Environ- mental Movers would seem to have a long way to go before making a residential move and following that up with a transit-oriented travel pattern: this group has less propen- sity to take transit to work than any other group. More pre- dictably, the group has the second highest propensity to make utilitarian walk trips, although with a walking rate far behind that of the Transit Movers. Its propensity to take green-mode trips is about the same as that for the Conflicted/ Contented group, discussed below. Its trip lengths are the longest of any group. Consistent with their name, this group wants to save the world. They have the highest propensity of any group to be concerned about global warming/climate change, to protect the environment with more taxes, and to be more active doing their part. They are most likely to disagree that envi- ronmental concerns are overblown. They remembered their environmental leanings from childhood. The group is suburban and quite satisfied with that. More of this group lives in single-family homes than any other group. Their homes have the largest lots, the most parking, and most amounts of trees and bushes. They are more satis- fied with the size of their lots than any other group. They have the highest propensity to be satisfied with their location and to believe that other people think their home and neighbor- hood are nice. They are happiest with their access to work/school and with the quality of biking. The group tends to show the highest ratings for the attributes associated with urban life: the group has the highest propensity to believe they should be spending more time walking, just to be health- ier, making exercise a top priority. In spite of the level of contentment experienced, the Envi- ronmental Movers seem open-minded about a change of lifestyle. The group is the oldest, and they have been living in their present homes longer than any other group. They, more than any other group, think that they are wasting too much time driving in congestion. The group tends to have a posi- tive expectation of the results of a move; more than any other group, they think they would exercise more, make more friends, and find it easy to get to local destinations. With such a move, they could own fewer cars and get by with less living space. In short, they are optimistic that they could make the changes associated with life in a neighborhood supportive of transit and walking. The level of affection for their present lifestyle, however, sug- gests that a change in travel patterns as the result of the hypothesized move might be somewhat incongruous with their present conditions. At once they value the concept of moving, and at the same time report little change in their desire for a large lot and for parking for two or more cars (see Table 7-9). 63

Understanding the Three Groups with Lowest Intent to Move to a Compact Neighborhood Conflicted/Contented Group The Conflicted/Contended group (characterized by a low intent to move) has a significantly higher propensity to use transit (particularly for work) than the higher ranked Envi- ronmental Movers group, discussed above. But at the same time, the group has the second highest level of auto depend- ency, after the Anti-Environmental group. In addition to a desire to do right by the environment, the group has ex- pressed the second highest level of feelings of freedom and independence from owning several cars. As shown in the two cells highlighted in Table 7-2, this group would also like to save the world, but does not intend to change neighborhoods in order to do so. Compared with the Transit Movers, the Conflicted/Contended group is more concerned with global warming, being active in protecting the environment (with more taxes), and believing they are wasting too much time in congestion. But compared with the Transit Movers group, the Conflicted/Contended group is also less willing to reduce driving and more likely to say it would be hard to reduce auto mileage. In short, in this group there is a perceptible difference between the holding of environmental values and the trans- lation of those values into a propensity to alter present levels of auto use. They report a low intent to move to a CN. Low Expectations Group This group does not value those attributes associated with the move to a neighborhood more supportive of walking and transit. As shown in Table 7-2, the group has the lowest level of belief that they would exercise more in a CN and that they would make more friends; and they do not believe it would be easy to get to stores and restaurants. They have the lowest propensity to believe they could get by with less space or that they could even find an affordable house in a CN. And they have the lowest propensity to say that a move would be easier if they could find an affordable house—in short, they just do not seem to want to move to a CN. This group has a lower propensity to use either transit or walking in their present behavior than the average for the total sample. Its neighborhood tends to look like the average condition for the sample. Their need for a car to get where they need to go is somewhat less than for the sample as whole. On many issues, the group does not have an optimistic outlook on life. They have the lowest levels of satisfaction with their present location, coupled with the lowest belief that others like it, the lowest belief that their location is conven- ient, and the lowest satisfaction with biking conditions. They have the lowest propensity to believe that staying active is a top priority. They have the lowest need to minimize travel time, as well as the lowest need to have control over the things that they do. This group has significantly lower levels of formal education than the other groups, and it has the highest participation of 64 Average Ratings, from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important) Segment Having frequent bus or other transit (train or trolley) services Having transit services serve areas in which I frequently needed to travel Having adequate room for parking two or more cars Having a large lot Transit Movers 6.1* 6.0* 2.8 2.8 Environmental Movers 4.7 4.7 5.5* 4.7* Conflicted/Contented 4.4 4.3 5.2 4.5 Low Expectations 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.2 Anti-Environmental 3.2 3.1 5.7 4.6 Full Sample (n = 865) 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.2 * Indicate the differences between the two groups with the highest intent to move. Table 7-9. Selected ratings of the market segments.

minorities. Its median household income level is lower than that of the sample as a whole and similar to the Transit Movers, with whom it has much in common demographically. Anti-Environmental Group This group has the lowest overall use of green modes, as well as the lowest walking and transit use, when examined separately. They have the longest one-way commute, and the highest rates of auto availability. The group does not have an overall set of values that would encourage the move to a neighborhood supportive of less auto dependency; thus they need not be seen as at all “con- flicted.” More than any other group, they really enjoy driving, love the freedom and independence that owning several cars brings, and need their car to get to where they need to go. More than any other group, they think that environmental concerns are overblown, and they are less willing to reduce driving to reduce dependence on foreign oil, less concerned about global warming, and less willing to take action to pro- tect the environment. Of all groups, it would be hardest for them to reduce their auto mileage. More than any other group, it is important for them to have control over things that they do. Interpretation, Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior The market segmentation analysis based on attitudes and beliefs suggests that there are two different groups currently giving consideration to moving to neighborhoods more sup- portive of walking and transit. This section briefly reviews the patterns of the five segments as measured by their ATT, SN, SCF, and intent to move. Table 7-10 shows the average values for these variables. Attitude Toward the Behavior The five segments rank as expected in terms of their atti- tude. The members of the Anti-Environmental group have a low ATT, but they have a slightly higher propensity than the Low Expectations group to say they could undertake the move (self-confidence) if they wanted to. The Environmental Movers represent something of a chal- lenge to the policymaker, particularly when examined in terms of their underlying attitudes. They value the concept of walking more and of having less dependence on the automo- bile. However, when priorities are set, having more trees and bushes and having adequate parking seem to trump the need for buses that go where they need to go. In short, they do not seem to approach the CN with a strategy for lowered auto ori- entation. The Environmental Movers have a clear-cut idea about the benefits of the new neighborhood, but perhaps less knowledge of what it takes to bring it about. They believe they would walk more, make more friends, and easily get to local destinations. But they have less belief than the Transit Movers that they could get by with fewer cars, even though they start with many more. Subjective Norm More than any other group, the Environmental Movers tend to believe that the members of their personal social net- work would approve of the move (SN); this level of implied approval is slightly higher than for the Transit Movers. The members of the Anti-Environmental group seem to be equally sure that those they value the most would disapprove of such a move, which is consonant with their lack of intent to do so. Self-Confidence Intuitively, the Transit Movers already seem to under- stand the rules of the game. They know how to use bus and taxis as part of the strategy. They have a higher appreciation that the new neighborhood should not only have frequent buses, but have frequent buses that are going where they need to go. Using the terms of the TPB, they have the high- est level of SCF over their feeling that they could make this 65 Segment (n = 865) Attitude Subjective Norm Self- Confidence Intent Transit Movers 5.1 4.1 5.2 4.1 Environmental Movers 4.9 4.2 4.9 3.9 Conflicted/Contented 3.8 3.3 4.4 2.8 Low Expectations 3.1 2.9 4.1 2.5 Anti-Environmental 2.8 2.4 4.3 1.9 Total 3.8 3.2 4.5 2.9 Table 7-10. TPB measures for the market segments.

residential move; they have high confidence about making it work. Summary of Findings for Five Market Segments for Moving The approach of defining market sectors by clustering on the 39 variables that correlate with the intent to move to a CN provides a set of distinct market segments. The differences in attitudes are more pronounced for the market segments than for the different age-groups shown in Chapter 6, as might be expected given that the attitudes help to define the segments. However, in addition to the attitude differences, there are also large differences in mode choice and trip making by green modes. The Transit Movers market segment is a younger, transit- oriented segment, which is likely to deal well with a more urban residential environment. The Environmental Movers market segment is somewhat favorable to moving to a CN, and they see such a move as compatible with their environ- mental leanings. However, this older and wealthier market segment is also used to larger homes and yards and plenty of parking for cars. The three negative market segments (Conflicted/Contented, Low Expectations, Anti-Environmental) have little or no in- terest in moving to a CN. They either are quite happy driving their cars or place little value on what are seen as the advan- tages of a CN. In looking for the most likely market for a CN, the Transit Movers and the Environmental Movers are key segments. The Transit Movers are likely to be at home with a lifestyle that requires or allows more walking and transit, whereas the Environmental Movers will be challenged to do without their cars. The relationship between different value sets and neigh- borhood types will be examined further in the following chapter. 66