1. Introduction
Sustainable development is recognized as one of the most pressing global challenges, with public transportation and land use serving as crucial links to achieving sustainability [1,2]. Both exert profound influences on economic growth, ecological sustainability, and social equity. Following World War II, rapid industrialization, urbanization, and the proliferation of automobiles led to widespread urban sprawl, exacerbating car dependency and raising concerns about inefficient land use and fragmented urban spatial structures [3]. As global population growth and rising income levels drive increasing demand for public transportation and land use, their interdependence strengthens [4,5]. Public transportation represents one of the most substantial infrastructure investments globally. The transit-oriented development (TOD) model [6] prioritizes accessibility enhancement, compact and mixed-use development, and multimodal transportation integration. This approach fosters higher land use intensity, improved connectivity, and a pedestrian-friendly urban structure. It reduces travel time for accessing essential services (e.g., work, shopping, entertainment), diversifies transportation options (including walking and cycling), and significantly lowers per capita vehicle ownership and usage [7]. This reduces overall transportation costs, encompassing both internal costs (direct consumer expenditures) and external costs (societal transportation burdens), while mitigating the secondary economic, environmental, and social consequences of urban sprawl. In the United States, TOD, alongside smart growth and new urbanism, is regarded as a crucial strategy by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to its profound influence on environmental sustainability, climate resilience, public health, historic preservation, and urban aesthetics and well-being.
Public transportation and land use are intrinsically linked, continuously interacting and exerting profound influences on social, economic, and environmental dimensions [8,9]. Their intricate relationship plays a pivotal role in shaping contemporary urban structures worldwide. Public transportation infrastructure profoundly shapes land use patterns, spatial structures, and urban layouts [10]. In turn, these elements influence public transportation demand, including its distribution, travel distances, routing, and modal choices [11]. The bidirectional and dynamic interplay between public transportation and land use is inherently complex, as it unfolds across multiple temporal and spatial scales and is often shaped by political, military, and cultural factors. Their interactions manifest in economic, environmental, and social dimensions as follows [12]: Economic: Direct appreciation of nearby land value; increased land use intensity and density, or changes in land functions, leading to higher municipal tax revenues; reduced transportation infrastructure maintenance costs; allocation of public subsidies; enhanced productivity; and decreased transportation expenditures. Environmental: Conservation of green spaces and wildlife habitats; mitigation of water pollution and the urban heat island effect; reduction in energy consumption and pollutant emissions; and enhancement of urban visual aesthetics. Social: Advancement of social equity and expanded economic opportunities for low-income groups; enhanced accessibility and spatial cohesion; mitigation of housing affordability challenges; preservation of cultural heritage; promotion of public health through increased physical activity; and reduction in traffic-related incidents.
However, there are still many challenges in reality. The lack of forward-looking land use strategies and imprecise planning often result in economically inefficient and ecologically unsustainable public transportation routes [4]. Additionally, many projects focus solely on localized land use impacts while neglecting broader regional effects, potentially leading to biodiversity loss and degradation of critical ecosystem services due to transportation-induced pollution and habitat destruction. Consequently, a systematic review of the research progress in this domain holds significant theoretical and practical implications. The review systematically summarizes and categorizes the researchers, research stages, research theories, research models, and research hotspots. The purpose is not to introduce new empirical results, but to organize and systematize existing information, thereby helping researchers who are beginning to engage with or become familiar with this field to quickly access the information they seek.
2. Research Methods
In recent years, the body of literature on public transportation and land use has expanded exponentially, building upon a solid foundation established by previous studies. Given the extensive volume of existing studies, this research utilizes CiteSpace V.5.8.R3 software for literature analysis and synthesis. CiteSpace is an open source software developed by Chaomei Chen. He is a professor (tenured) in the School of Information Science and Technology at Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. This software is widely applied in literature reviews [13,14] and is particularly noted for its capability to identify high-impact clustering nodes and generate visual representations. Keyword searches for “public transportation” and “land use” were conducted across major international databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and PubMed. These databases provide extensive coverage, encompassing nearly all publicly available academic resources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, books, reviews, news, and patents. Through this comprehensive approach, a multi-source literature database spanning 1932 to 2023 was constructed, comprising a total of 10,470 records. Specifically, the dataset includes 3711 articles from Web of Science, 3901 from Scopus, 1858 from Dimensions, and 1000 from PubMed (see Table 1 for details). The clustering analysis in CiteSpace V.5.8.R3 was conducted using the Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR) method, while all other parameters were set to the software’s default settings, including slice length = 1, g-index (K = 25), LRF = 2, L/N = 10, LBY = 8, and e = 2.
3. Cluster Analysis Results
The CiteSpace V.5.8.R3 analysis results are presented in Figure 1 and Table 2 and Table 3. Figure 1 visualizes the most influential research topics within the identified clusters, whereas Table 2 lists the top 10 most co-cited references along with their corresponding journals, as automatically generated by the software. A synthesis of highly co-cited literature suggests a strong correlation, and in some cases, causality, between the built environment and travel behavior. The built environment can actively promote walking and cycling behaviors. Therefore, experts advocate for land use policies that encourage moderate daily physical activity among residents by integrating land use planning, residential density, and urban design intersection density. Such policies facilitate the development of compact, mixed-use urban patterns [15,16], which enhance accessibility, yield public health benefits, and contribute to greenhouse gas emission reductions [17]. Meanwhile, researchers and policymakers are placing greater emphasis on equity and justice, advocating for the protection of individual rights, prioritization of vulnerable transportation groups, mitigation of inequality, and reduction of social exclusion effects.
4. Researcher
The relationship between transportation and land use was first conceptualized by Mitchell and Rapkin (1954) in their seminal study [18]. Subsequently, Hansen (1959) examined Washington, D.C. as a case study and introduced the concept of reciprocal interactions between travel and location [19]. Since then, the interdependence of transportation and land use has garnered widespread academic recognition and sustained research interest. Over the past six decades, numerous interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations have sought to understand, integrate, and forecast the dynamics between transportation and land use. These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Journal of Transport and Land Use, a leading publication dedicated to this field. Scholars from the University of Minnesota’s Transportation Research Center played a key role in co-founding the World Society for Transport and Land Use Research (WSTLUR).
In recent years, leading scholars specializing in public transportation and land use have included Robert Cervero, Reid Ewing, Michael Duncan, and Peter Calthorpe. Table 4 provides a summary of globally recognized experts whose contributions to transportation (including public transportation) and land use research are frequently cited in the literature. These experts come from diverse backgrounds, including urban planning, transportation research, statistics, public health, and governmental transportation agencies. Their contributions have been instrumental in advancing theories, analytical frameworks, evaluation methods, and modeling techniques in this field.
5. Research Stages
An examination of the history of world transportation reveals that research on public transportation and land use has evolved through several distinct stages.
5.1. Pre-1950: The Pre-Research Stage
Before 1950, automobile ownership remained relatively low in most cities and regions worldwide, and travel primarily relied on walking, horse-drawn carriages, bicycles, and railroads. Consequently, academic attention to the interaction between public transportation and land use was minimal. The relatively slow modes of transportation also played a role in constraining disorderly urban expansion. London provides a representative example: in 1801, 87% of its 1.1 million residents lived in the inner city, which comprised only 20% of the total area (1500 square kilometers). Even by 1901, after the introduction of public transportation, 70% of London’s 6.5 million residents still resided in the inner city.
5.2. 1950–1960: The Emergence of Public Transportation Research
Between 1950 and 1960, the first generation of research on public transportation and land use primarily examined changes in housing prices along transportation routes, relying largely on before-and-after comparative analyses. By the 1960s, researchers began incorporating various econometric models into their studies. Swedish scholar Alexander Paulsson analyzed how the expansion of Stockholm’s metro system reshaped both local and regional transportation. He describes the gradual evolution of an integrated and collaborative planning process within Stockholm’s public Metro system, which opened in 1950. His findings highlighted the role of metro expansion, intergovernmental cooperation, and state intervention in shaping the integration of public transportation and land use planning [20].
5.3. Post-1970: The Automobile Boom and the Shift in Urban Development
Following World War II, automobile ownership surged, and by the 1970s, private vehicles had become a dominant force in urbanization. At that time, public transportation was often perceived as a hindrance to economic development, as the convenience of automobiles facilitated mass suburbanization, accelerating urban sprawl. However, the 1980s marked a turning point. Amid rising environmental concerns and slowing economic growth, urban governance strategies shifted from managerialism to entrepreneurialism [21]. During this period, public transportation regained prominence in urban planning. Dejan Petkov analyzed the resurgence of tram systems in Western Europe during the 1980s, highlighting their role in shaping transit-oriented development policies [22].
5.4. 1973–1986: The Energy Crisis and the Rise of Integrated Research
The global oil crises between 1973 and 1986 triggered a surge of interest in the relationship between public transportation and urban form. Scholars such as Cervero, Knight, and Levinson conducted foundational research on household location choices, daily travel behavior, and transportation mode selection. These studies led to the development of predictive models and empirical analyses. A recurring finding was that public transportation played a crucial role in supporting low-income populations, as economically disadvantaged individuals living on urban peripheries were less reliant on private vehicles for daily commutes [20,23,24]. However, due to technological constraints, early research in this period lacked formal spatial data, limiting its analytical precision.
5.5. Post-2000: Advances in Empirical Research and Computational Methods
With the continued development of public transportation systems and the advent of sophisticated computational tools, post-2000 research benefited from the availability of extensive real-world datasets. Concurrently, econometric and spatial analysis methods matured, leading to a proliferation of studies utilizing panel data to examine the impact of public transportation on land development and property values (e.g., Boarnet and Haughwout [25]; Giuliano [26]).
During this stage, hedonic pricing models gained widespread adoption due to their simplicity and robustness in assessing the short- and medium-term effects of public transportation on real estate values (e.g., Debrezion et al. [27]; Mohammad and Graham [28]). Empirical findings reinforced the notion of a strong bidirectional relationship between public transportation and land use, supported by case studies from multiple countries.
Boarnet and Haughwout found that metropolitan highways in the U.S. not only influenced land values but also reshaped population and employment distribution patterns [25]. Similarly, studies on Spain’s high-speed rail system highlighted that accessibility and urban cohesion effects were more pronounced in major cities like Madrid and Seville compared to smaller urban centers. Albrechts et al. further emphasized high-speed rail’s contribution to regional integration within Europe [29]. Notably, since 2008, China’s rapid expansion of high-speed rail has generated a significant body of research on its socioeconomic and spatial impacts. Studies on the Chinese high-speed rail network have examined its role in housing price appreciation, economic growth, and regional connectivity. During this period, urban form variables, along with social and economic benefits, were increasingly incorporated into public transportation analyses.
5.6. Post-2010: The Maturity of Research and Emerging Critical Perspectives
As research continued to evolve, scholars began to identify unintended consequences of public transportation investments. For instance, Cook et al. observed that in some underdeveloped regions, transit development exacerbated environmental isolation, pollution, and noise, sometimes outweighing economic benefits [30]. This was particularly evident in economically disadvantaged areas of the United States and Latin America.
King conducted a landmark study on the causal relationship between transportation and land development, revealing that New York City’s subway system did not necessarily lead to higher building densities in adjacent areas [31]. During this period, large-scale, long-term studies gained prominence, focusing on both the long-term benefits and potential drawbacks of public transportation networks. For example, Kasraian et al. analyzed public transportation projects across 22 U.S. cities, 21 European cities, and six Asian cities, revealing significant variations in outcomes across different urban contexts [32].
Simultaneously, a growing number of studies began shifting from macroeconomic factors to micro-level analyses of community residents’ preferences, often employing surveys and interviews. Qualitative research in this domain flourished, particularly in Nordic countries. Scholars examined public attitudes toward transit-oriented development across cities of varying scales, from large metropolitan areas such as Oslo and Copenhagen to mid-sized cities like Aalborg (Denmark) and Gävle (Sweden), as well as small towns like Frederikshavn (Denmark) [33,34,35].
This period also saw a renewed emphasis on urban design principles, advocating for people-centric cities rather than merely viewing urban areas as economic hubs or transit corridors. Scholars such as McHarg and Deakin emphasized the importance of integrating transportation infrastructure with urban aesthetics to enhance the visual and functional quality of transit spaces [36,37]. The above simple summary is shown in Table 5.
6. Research Theories
The research field of public transportation and land use draws upon theories and concepts from a wide range of disciplines, including economics, psychology, geography, ecology, and engineering. A review of the literature reveals that micro-scale research mainly relies on utility theory (which explores how public transportation and land use affect individual travel choices); meso-scale research primarily draws on urban economic theory (which examines the impact of public transportation on land use, accessibility, and value); and macro-scale research largely employs human–earth system theory (which explores the coordinated development of public transportation and the Earth’s environment).
6.1. Utility Theory
Utility refers to the decision-making process influenced by personal cognition and preferences, as well as social, economic, and environmental factors, wherein individuals assess the potential benefits and costs. In essence, utility reflects decision-makers’ differing attitudes toward risk and reward, with higher risks generally accompanied by higher potential returns. In personal travel activities, decision-makers face uncertainty, such as choosing departure times, activities, destinations, transportation modes, and routes [38].
Utility theory can be applied to travel behavior and the benefits gained from selecting different transportation systems. Traditional utility theory assumes that decision making is based on absolute rationality and perfect information, yet it fails to account for psychological influences on travel decisions [39,40]. To address these limitations, some studies have incorporated theories of decision making under uncertainty, which treat such choices as analogous to a lottery-like process [41]. Under conditions of uncertainty, individual choices are probabilistic [38].
Both traditional utility theory and uncertainty-based decision-making theory focus on micro-level or individual-level analysis, utilizing mathematical models such as logistic regression. Subsequently, three standard decision theories under uncertain conditions were applied to public transportation and land use studies: expected utility theory [42], prospect theory [43], and regret theory [44]. The key principle underlying these theories is that decisions are based on the perceived value of potential gains and losses rather than final outcomes, with heuristic approaches employed to assess these gains and losses.
6.2. Urban Economic Theory
Emerging in the 1960s, urban economic theory occupies a middle ground between microeconomics, which focuses on individuals and markets, and macroeconomics, which examines national economies. It primarily seeks to understand the internal organization, spatial structure, and economic relationships within cities, addressing key urban economic issues such as housing, land use, transportation, and employment. This theory aims to enhance urban economic efficiency through both quantitative and qualitative analyses of overall economic benefits, land use benefits, and economies of scale [45].
Traditional economic theory initially used labor time as the sole measure of value, with the labor theory of value serving as the foundation of classical economics. It argues that economic savings can only be achieved through reductions in labor time. However, as economic development progressed, spatial factors such as location, mobility, and direction were recognized as integral to economic growth. Location theory subsequently became a key component of economic geography, regional science, and spatial economics.
In 1826, Johann Heinrich von Thünen, in his work Der isolierte Staat (The Isolated State) [46], introduced the Thünen model, which demonstrated how market accessibility influences the spatial organization of agricultural land. According to this model, transportation costs determine land rent: when transportation costs are low, location rent is high, and vice versa. This creates a rent gradient, where location rent decreases with distance from the market and eventually reaches zero.
In 1909, German location economist Alfred Weber, in his work Über den Standort der Industrien (On the Location of Industries) [47], developed the theory of industrial location, which he later refined in 1929. Weber’s theory posits that the relative weight of raw materials and finished goods is a critical determinant of transportation costs and production site selection. When the production site is located near the source of raw materials and there is no significant quality loss during the production process, the total transportation cost will be lower when it is near the market.
Expanding on the Thünen model, William Alonso introduced accessibility theory in his 1964 work Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent [48] to explain urban land use dynamics. He applied accessibility principles to different urban land uses (residential, commercial, and industrial). According to his theory, all households seek to maximize land occupancy while maintaining their required level of accessibility. Because land on the urban periphery is more affordable, wealthier households, with lower demand for central accessibility, tend to reside in suburban areas. In contrast, lower-income households require easier access to the city center to enhance their competitiveness in business or industry. While Von Thünen, Weber, and Alonso were not the sole contributors to location theory, they laid the foundation for its further development by geographers, economists, and regional scientists.
6.3. Human–Earth System Theory
Philosopher Immanuel Kant, adopting a dualistic philosophical approach, conceptualized geography as an analysis of human activities in time and space—an idea that later became fundamental to modern geographic thought. All human activities, including public transportation and land use, are shaped by various layers of the Earth’s system, such as the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere.
In turn, human social and economic activities exert direct or indirect influences on the atmosphere (e.g., air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion), lithosphere (e.g., mineral depletion, desertification, soil degradation), and biosphere (e.g., deforestation, biodiversity loss) [49,50]. As an extension of general systems theory [51], human–earth system theory provides a framework for understanding outcomes as complex adaptive systems, characterized by multiple interacting components and a state of perpetual disequilibrium.
7. Research Models
Transportation and land system models have long been central to research, leading to the development of various models over the years. Many of these models are applicable to studies on the relationship between public transportation and land use. Most are grounded in the aforementioned theories and are typically employed to simulate the interaction between transportation systems and land use, aiming to optimize travel efficiency and large-scale spatial development [52,53,54,55,56]. The land use system provides population and employment locations that generate travel demand in public transportation models, while the public transportation system, in turn, defines accessibility and travel times, which influence land use models in determining population and employment distributions.
The first generation of Land Use–Transportation Interaction (LUTI) models emerged in the late 1960s, primarily designed to enhance transportation models and mitigate congestion. Notable early models include Lowry’s Metropolis model (1964), the PLUM model (1972), and the Lowry–Wilson model (1970). During the same period, the gravity/space interaction (SI) method gained popularity. Inspired by Newton’s law of gravitation and empirical analyses of human spatial interactions, Lowry introduced the Metropolitan model for Pittsburgh, further advancing the SI method. Although Lowry’s gravity-based approach was simple and easy to apply, it lacked a solid theoretical foundation [57]. Wilson addressed this limitation by providing a more rigorous theoretical framework for the SI method using entropy maximization [58]. Within this framework, interactions between activity zones could be computed using dual constraint, origin constraint, destination constraint, or unconstrained models. However, these models still exhibited several shortcomings, including mechanistic assumptions, theoretical gaps, high data requirements, and computational complexity [59].
By the mid-1990s, advancements in econometrics and behavioral economics, particularly random utility theory, enabled the prediction of choices among multiple discrete alternatives. This led to the development of the second generation of LUTI models [60,61]. These models emphasized theoretical soundness and methodological robustness, prioritizing flexibility, transparency, usability, reliability, scalability, and explanatory power. Over the past 60 years, interdisciplinary research and professional collaboration have contributed significantly to the evolution of operational LUTI models for assessing land use decisions and large-scale transportation investments. A major challenge in LUTI modeling, however, remains the integration of land use and transportation models [62,63]. Yin et al. [64] pointed out that LUTI models still struggle to fully capture the intricate interdependencies among land use, transportation, economic systems, and environmental factors, limiting their effectiveness in urban development planning and analysis.
In the past decade, fueled by advancements in both transportation and land use research, along with rapid progress in computing technologies, LUTI modeling has entered a new era of broader and more comprehensive applications [65,66,67]. A significant milestone in this evolution is UrbanSim, developed in 2012, which integrates urban simulation, 3D visualization, and open data-sharing functionalities. While UrbanSim extends the micro-simulation tradition of land use/transportation modeling, it also builds upon the work of Wegener, Marsden, and Macett. As an open-source and modular system, UrbanSim leverages highly disaggregated data for dynamic simulations, marking a substantial leap forward from earlier LUTI models.
Beyond technological advancements, scholars have increasingly emphasized the role of governance policies in shaping land use and transportation outcomes [68]. However, most of the existing studies tend to focus on achieving singular policy objectives rather than exploring integrated multi-objective strategies [69]. Miller [70] argued that technological and behavioral paradigms are undergoing radical transformations, necessitating the development of Integrated Urban Models (IUMs) as policy analysis tools. He advocated for a shift beyond conventional LUTI frameworks to address potential disruptive forces, environmental challenges (e.g., climate change, natural disasters), public health crises (e.g., pandemics), and socio-demographic shifts (e.g., migration, aging populations).
Hawkins and Nurul Habib [71] further questioned whether the LUTI framework remains suitable for emerging trends such as peak car usage, shared mobility, and the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on travel behavior. They noted that LUTI models were primarily developed during periods of simplified travel decision making and may struggle to accommodate the complexity of contemporary transportation dynamics. The next generation of LUTI models will need to incorporate factors such as declining population densities, the transformation of retail and service industries, ICT-driven mobility changes, and sustainable transportation policies (e.g., bicycle infrastructure investments). Current LUTI models are not yet fully equipped to analyze these trends comprehensively, nor do they provide sufficient empirical research on their long-term dynamic effects.
Given the diversity of LUTI models—each designed for different research purposes and embedded within distinct theoretical frameworks—their technical complexity and specialized terminology often pose challenges for interdisciplinary understanding [72,73,74]. As Donnelly et al. [75] pointed out, listing all LUTI models comprehensively is impractical. However, based on their underlying theories and scales, these models can be broadly categorized into four types (Table 6).
8. Research Hotspots
By analyzing the 29 research hotspot clusters identified through CiteSpace V.5.8.R3 software, several key themes frequently emerge in the literature: safety and health, equity and value, environment and energy conservation, and transit-oriented development (TOD) and accessibility.
8.1. Safety and Health (#0, #2, #8…)
Land use patterns significantly influence travel frequency, duration, destinations, and modes of transportation, all of which, in turn, impact safety and health [76,77,78]. Aditjandra et al. [79], among others, argue that higher land use intensity increases the likelihood of traffic accidents, as collisions are more frequent in urban areas compared to suburban or rural regions. However, due to lower speed limits and stricter regulations in urban settings, the severity of accidents is generally lower. Despite this, implementing road safety policies in urban development faces numerous challenges, including institutional inconsistencies, limited administrative capacity, weak law enforcement, and a lack of accountability. Consequently, essential pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks and plazas is often either missing or misappropriated as parking spaces, exposing pedestrians to hazardous traffic conditions. Designing pedestrian-friendly urban environments requires interdisciplinary improvements across fields such as urban aesthetics, spatial planning, public health, and psychology.
Ewing et al. [7] highlight that urban sprawl reduces walking and cycling, negatively affecting physical health. Additionally, air pollution and traffic noise further contribute to public health issues. The urban development model adopted by a city can have profound effects—both positive and negative—on public safety and health. This perspective is widely acknowledged in academia, and numerous models have been developed to analyze and predict individual travel behavior. However, some studies suggest that the causal link between land use and travel patterns remains weak (e.g., Cervero and Landis, [1]).
Streets, as one of the most critical forms of public space, not only support transportation but also serve as hubs for social interactions among urban residents. Strengthening road safety and improving accessibility are essential urban planning priorities. Research in this area increasingly focuses on reducing private vehicle dependency and mitigating public health concerns such as rising obesity rates.
8.2. Equity and Value (#2, #3, #5, #6…)
Equity is a complex and multifaceted concept. As Tomaney and Marques [80] point out, it is difficult to determine whether public transportation truly enhances equity within a region. There is no doubt that private transportation has disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged communities and groups. Traditional transport planning has often prioritized improving conditions for private vehicles at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Yet, the majority of people rely on walking, cycling, or public transportation for their daily commutes. More than 2 billion people worldwide use public transport daily, most of whom are low-income workers [81]. Urban transport policies should not sacrifice the interests of the majority for the convenience of a privileged few. The increasing number of private cars not only exacerbates traffic congestion but also reflects a widening social divide. Enhancing the convenience and accessibility of public transport and walkable environments remains one of the most effective strategies for providing economic opportunities to low-income groups at minimal cost [82,83].
Equity is inherently linked to geography, as public transport infrastructure and land use policies influence employment distribution and housing patterns, potentially leading to spatial segregation of wealth [84,85,86]. Investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare often concentrate in high-income areas, creating disparate opportunity costs [87]. To promote equitable urban development, policymakers must work to mitigate these disparities.
Thomopoulos [88] used accessibility indicators to evaluate the effects of social exclusion, revealing that pedestrians and cyclists often derive few benefits from urban expansion while bearing its costs—such as the loss of green spaces, increased pollution, and heightened accident risks. Additionally, low-income communities face numerous disadvantages from urban sprawl, including reduced access to public services, employment centers, and social opportunities. Stevens [89] analyzed socioeconomic patterns in U.S. cities and found that older urban neighborhoods tend to experience higher poverty rates and related social issues, while newer, more spacious developments are generally wealthier, safer, and healthier. The concentration and isolation of vulnerable groups exacerbate social inequalities and limit economic mobility, reinforcing cycles of disadvantage. Government agencies should develop effective policy instruments to address the gap between the rich and the poor, reconcile the conflict between development and conservation, and coordinate resource allocation—ultimately achieving the goal of integrated development across economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
One of the most frequently debated questions in this field is: “Does public transport investment contribute to land value growth?” Henriksson and Summerton [90] reviewed literature on high-speed rail (HSR) and regional economic development, concluding that the impact of HSR remains inconclusive—its benefits depend on specific local contexts and require deliberate land use planning and policy interventions to maximize economic gains. Some studies suggest that public transit can increase surrounding land and real estate values, but the effect is gradual (e.g., Knight and Trygg, [23]; Boarnet and Haughwout, [25]; Giuliano, [26]; Cervero and Duncan, [91]; Deng, [92]). Conversely, in low-density areas, public transport may actually decrease property values due to noise, pollution, or other externalities.
Several studies from China highlight the economic benefits of high-speed rail connectivity. Guan and Peiser [93] applied principal component analysis (PCA) to assess neighborhood characteristics and subway accessibility in Shanghai’s Pudong District, finding a positive correlation between metro infrastructure and property prices. Similarly, Chong et al. [94] used spatial econometrics on panel data from 268 Chinese cities (2008–2015), confirming that improved connectivity from HSR boosts GDP per capita. Pan [95] applied OLS, multilevel regression, and spatial econometric models to evaluate Houston’s Metro Rail system, identifying significant positive effects on residential property values. Such studies frequently employ quantitative analysis, case studies, and regression modeling to examine the relationships between public transportation and economic outcomes [27,28].
8.3. Environment and Energy Saving (#8, #13, #29…)
For decades, integrating land use planning with public transport systems has been regarded as a key strategy for sustainable mobility. Transportation remains one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions and environmental degradation [96,97]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that without strong and sustained mitigation policies, global transportation emissions could surpass all other energy sectors, potentially reaching 12 Gt CO2-equivalent by 2050 [98]. The rapid increase in private vehicles has not only intensified urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions but has also contributed to rising traffic accidents and public health crises.
Private vehicle dominance reduces the external benefits of urban green spaces, such as wetlands, agricultural lands, and forest parks, which improve air and water quality, support biodiversity, and enhance food production [99,100,101]. Additionally, it heightens climate risks, increasing vulnerability to landslides, urban heat islands, water pollution, and flooding [65]. Therefore, countries such as the United States have implemented rigorous environmental policies to regulate the construction and operation of transportation infrastructure, aiming to balance human and ecological interests. Systematic environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are essential for ensuring that transport projects align with sustainable development goals.
The Tyndall Climate Change Research Centre in the UK employs GIS-based integrated land use and transport models to analyze climate risks under different spatial planning scenarios, urging urban planners to adopt balanced, climate-resilient strategies [102]. Ford and Airhihenbuwa [103] projected that future urban policies addressing climate change and rising energy prices—such as carbon taxes, emissions trading, and anti-sprawl regulations—will necessitate a shift in transportation investments toward public transit and non-motorized mobility solutions. Because public transportation remains the most efficient and sustainable mode for moving large numbers of people, it offers significant energy savings compared to private cars and aviation while also reducing congestion, improving urban air quality, and supporting compact city development through agglomeration effects.
In the face of expanding transportation infrastructure and mounting pressure to protect the ecological environment, proactive forecasting, scientific planning, and coordinated regulation may be the most effective means of promoting sustainable development and efficient land use. Such approaches can also help minimize the destruction of natural resources. Future decision making should take into account the high ecological externality costs and long-term maintenance expenses of projects, and should encourage the remediation, consolidation, and withdrawal of unnecessary land use, along with planned demolition and restoration to ecological land.
8.4. TOD and Accessibility (#2, #6, #8…)
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a widely recognized approach in modern urban transportation and land use planning. TOD fosters livable cities and interconnected communities by strategically locating development around transit stations, thereby reducing car dependency. Public transport stations serve as key urban hubs for commercial, retail, social activities, and housing, promoting walkability and minimizing the need for private car ownership. Spaces previously designated for parking are increasingly being converted into green leisure areas. The expansion of public transport infrastructure is accelerating sustainable land use planning and strengthening the integration of transportation and land use policies. According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme report, “A fair and sustainable city exhibits the following spatial characteristics: high-density, low-rise, mixed-use development, public transport-centered mobility, and integrated open space systems that prevent urban sprawl” [104]. TOD embodies these principles. For decades, urban planners and designers have advocated for better integration of transportation and land use to enhance sustainability and urban livability [6].
Peter Calthorpe, a prominent advocate of New Urbanism and TOD, was inspired by early studies on tram-based connections between suburbs and city centers. He argued that to mitigate the environmental impacts of urban expansion and foster a sense of community, cities should adopt an internal structure characterized by “a walkable environment with mixed housing, retail, offices, open spaces, and public facilities, enabling residents and workers to commute conveniently via bus, bicycle, walking, or car” [6]. Ian Canton provides a nuanced distinction between TOD and development-oriented transport (DOT): the former prioritizes urban development around transit hubs, while the latter emphasizes transportation planning as a means of guiding urban and regional expansion [105]. Report by Moore [106] highlight that TOD has gained significant traction in automobile-centric nations such as the United States, Australia, and Canada. Further, TOD extends to broader spatial planning concerns.In countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, where robust transportation agencies coordinate urban development, TOD principles are seamlessly integrated into broader planning frameworks. Sweden’s transport corridor planning and Denmark’s “finger plan” share similarities with TOD, emphasizing high-quality public transit connections to central transport nodes. However, while Swedish corridor planning primarily focuses on public transportation.
As TOD gains prominence, studies assessing its benefits have emerged. Dittmar [107] evaluated TOD projects based on key factors such as planning, zoning, financing, and parking regulations, ultimately defining “high-benefit TOD” as developments characterized by accessibility, flexible residential–commercial land use integration, land value capture, and industrial agglomeration benefits. However, some scholars and practitioners caution that not all developments near transit stations qualify as TOD. Some may be poorly connected to transit networks, while others may inadvertently hinder accessibility—such as car-dependent retail centers, warehouses, and low-density gated communities.
The concept of accessibility lies at the intersection of transportation and land use and can be achieved through improved mobility or proximity. People seek accessibility in various domains, including workplaces, schools, commercial areas, and healthcare services. In practice, accessibility is assessed from multiple perspectives, including locational accessibility [108,109,110], personal accessibility [111,112], and economic accessibility. Regardless of the specific approach, four fundamental components define accessibility: land use, transportation, time, and the individual [113]. Accessibility measurement has been a critical focus in transportation and land use modeling since the 1950s. Scholars such as Levinson [114], Cervero et al. [115], Cervero and Duncan [116], Klonsky and Glenn [117], Melia et al. [118], and Steiner [119] have developed various methodologies to quantify accessibility. Rye and Hrelja [120] further argue that increasing urban density and enhancing public transportation infrastructure are essential strategies for improving accessibility.
9. Conclusions
The importance of public transportation and land use research has been widely recognized. Scholars have explored and practiced this issue from multiple perspectives, including economics, the environment, and society, making significant progress. The previous research has laid a solid foundation for future systematic studies. However, due to the complexity of the subject and current technological limitations, there are several areas that warrant further exploration.
9.1. Continuing to Strengthen the Fundamental Theoretical Research on Public Transportation and Land Use
Currently, much of the research on public transportation and land use focuses on economic aspects, such as regional housing prices, land values, or urban GDP. The interaction between public transportation and land use spans multiple disciplines, and further exploration from various perspectives is necessary. This would significantly enrich and refine the theoretical framework of public transportation and land use, thereby providing a solid theoretical foundation. Furthermore, traditional theoretical feedback on transportation and land use is insufficient to address emerging global challenges such as global warming, climate change, ecological destruction, social conflicts, and technological advancements. The balance between economic development and environmental protection requires responses from public transportation and land use. Future research should integrate insights from fields like public administration, engineering, geography, ecology, biology, psychology, and resource science, offering new perspectives to the field.
9.2. Focusing on Large-Scale Public Transportation and Land Use Research
Public transportation and land use exhibit varying characteristics and conclusions at different temporal and spatial scales. Some studies suggest a positive impact of public transportation, while others report weak or negative effects. These contradictions are often attributed to the political and economic conditions of the regions where case studies are conducted. Due to limitations in technology and data accessibility, most studies focus on medium-scale spatial and shorter temporal dimensions, with relatively simple and isolated cases. However, comprehensive research on large-scale and long-term series remains scarce, making it challenging to grasp the dynamic characteristics and evolution mechanisms of public transportation and land use as a whole. With advancements in high-resolution remote sensing technologies and big data analysis, future studies will benefit from large-area synchronized data, allowing for unified large-scale and long-term research.
9.3. Innovating Public Transportation and Land Use Evaluation Methods and Models
Public transportation and land use involve complex dimensions such as economics, the environment, society, politics, sports, culture, and even military factors, all of which influence one another. However, including too many dimensions can complicate models and make research work more difficult. Therefore, the focus should be on selecting the most representative and important factors to avoid redundancy. Developing mature, controllable, and replicable evaluation methods is crucial. The combination of multi-temporal remote sensing data, experimental analysis, and statistical survey data offers new ideas and pathways for future research. Geographic big data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and 3S technologies provide spatial statistical analysis support, enabling the visualization of feedback loops between public transportation and land use. Therefore, future research should strengthen the integration of mathematical models and spatial technologies, incorporating new technological methods to support the related research between public transportation and land use, providing scientific evidence for decision making and planning.
9.4. Coordinating and Optimizing Public Transportation and Land Use
The development of public transportation has become the most important policy tool driving national economic growth in the post-industrial era. Research generally agrees that investing in transportation trunk lines and network integration can drive land space optimization and rehabilitation, leading to economic growth through labor market expansion. A systematic understanding of the relationship between public transportation and land use, as well as strategies to address future challenges, will provide decision-makers and investors with theoretical foundations for utilizing and protecting resources. For issues related to economic development, environmental protection, and social equity in public transportation and land use, future research must explore how to optimize and adjust existing public transportation routes from economic, environmental, and social perspectives. Especially in the current context of globalization, humanity is facing new transboundary challenges such as food security, ecological degradation, energy scarcity, and land degradation.
10. Discussion and Future Directions
Currently, a substantial body of literature has investigated the causal mechanisms between public transportation and land use. Future research, however, needs to place greater emphasis on the external effects of their interaction, particularly those related to economic benefits, environmental protection, and social equity. In line with the United Nations (IAEG-SDGs) “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” indicator framework, future efforts should aim to coordinate the economic, environmental, and social dimensions to promote integrated development.
10.1. Economic Dimension
The development of public transportation and land use generally exerts a positive economic impact. High passenger and freight throughput and improved accessibility encourage land use to become more intensive and efficient, thereby promoting economic growth. Negative economic impacts are mostly attributable to environmental degradation that results in economic losses. Developing high-quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure is a core task under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9.1 of the 2030 Agenda.
10.2. Environmental Dimension
The environmental dimension primarily concerns the negative impacts of transport and land use interactions. The expansion of transportation infrastructure imposes considerable pressure on ecological conservation, especially in tropical and subtropical regions, which face severe challenges such as ecosystem fragmentation, illegal activities, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, water pollution, and increased carbon emissions. Protecting ecosystems and responding to climate-related disasters are key tasks under SDGs 13 and 15.
10.3. Social Dimension
From a social perspective, the focus lies on equity issues arising from imbalanced regional development. The essence of development should be to improve the quality of life and health standards for all individuals, including addressing the needs of vulnerable groups and promoting shared prosperity, which is a true reflection of equity. Ensuring equitable development is the central task of SDG 11.2.
In summary, studies on transportation and land use should not only focus on direct or localized impacts but must also consider indirect and cumulative effects. A development strategy that blindly seeks to promote economic growth through the expansion of transportation projects may encounter a series of economic, environmental, and social challenges. With the advancement of technology and the enrichment of geospatial big data, decision-making processes should comprehensively account for multidimensional impacts. Proactive strategic planning is necessary to ensure that transportation networks support both passenger and freight mobility, maximize public benefits, promote the efficient and intensive use of every piece of land, and minimize the destruction of natural resources, thereby achieving the goals of sustainable development.
Conceptualization, B.L.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, D.W.; resources, B.L. and D.W.; data curation, Y.H.; writing—original draft, Y.H.; writing—review and editing, C.X.; visualization, Y.H.; supervision, B.L.; funding acquisition, B.L., Y.H. and D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Cluster survey of 10,470 public transport and land use articles.
Search information.
| Database | Website | Number of Articles | Search Method | Initial Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web of science | 3711 | Full text | 1989 | |
| Scopus | 3901 | Title, abstract, keyword | 1937 | |
| Dimensions | 1858 | Title and abstract | 1932 | |
| PubMed | 1000 | Best match | 1972 |
Ten references with the highest co-citation intensity.
| Author (Year) | Publication | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Ewing R. (2010) | J AM PLANN ASSOC | 37.48 |
| Cao X.Y. (2009) | TRANSPORT REV | 9.83 |
| Saelens B.E. (2008) | MED SCI SPORT EXER | 9.13 |
| Woodcock J. (2009) | LANCET | 8.68 |
| Brownson R.C. (2009) | AM J PREV MED | 8.6 |
| Banister D. (2005) | UNSUSTAINABLE TRANSP | 8.59 |
| Pucher J. (2008) | TRANSPORT REV | 8.16 |
| Handy S. (2005) | TRANSPORT RES D-TR E | 8 |
| El-Assi W. (2017) | TRANSPORTATION | 7.96 |
| Frank L.D. (2010) | BRIT J SPORT MED | 7.85 |
Cluster analysis of public transportation and land use.
| Cluster | Theme | Main Content |
|---|---|---|
| #0 physical activity | Active travel; environment feature; travel behavior; residential self-selection; environment characteristics; modal shift | Plan multifunctional land use combinations and design walkable communities and streets to reduce obesity risks (especially in the U.S.). |
| #1 accessibility measure | Public transport; urban area; transit accessibility; transportation sustainability; progressive development | Transportation policies should focus on the development of public transportation to improve accessibility to urban areas. |
| #2 urban form | Travel behavior; CO2 emission; active transport; low-income population; national housing program | Urban development models should shift towards compact, low-carbon types, with a focus on low-income populations. |
| #3: dockless bikeshare | Bike-sharing usage; spatial variation travel mode; public bike sharing system demand | Bike-sharing systems meet spatially differentiated demands. |
| #4 metro bus system | Reliable transit service; transport mode choice; daily walking | Build a fast, reliable, and integrated public transportation system. |
| #5: property value | Town planning challenge; land use change; light rail | Public transportation leads to changes in land use and value. |
| #6 sustainable travel | Residential dissonance; transit use; neighborhood design characteristics structural equations model; transport modality | People’s transportation choices; public transportation can reduce urban sprawl and promote the development of the TOD (transit-oriented development) model. |
| #8: public transit; | Spatial variation; ride-hailing service; smart card data; solving traffic congestion; dense Asian cities; traditional transport mean; complementarity pattern | The TOD development model addresses urban congestion, especially in densely populated Asian cities. |
| #13 traffic-related air pollution | Disease assessment; ambient nitrogen dioxide assessing greenhouse gas emission; health co-benefit; socioeconomic determinant | Evaluate the impact of vehicle emissions on health and society from a socioeconomic perspective. |
| #29 sustainable development pathway | Sustainable development planning; public participation | Advocate for energy conservation and environmental protection. |
Ten experts or scholars with outstanding contributions.
| Name | Position | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| William Alonso | Professor, Harvard University, United States | His book “Location and Land Use” is often considered the foundation of urban transportation economics. |
| Ira S. Lowry | Director, Policy Development and Research Office, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Proposed the Metropolis model, often regarded as the first to truly integrate land use and transportation. |
| Robert Cervero | Chair, Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley | Authority in urban public transportation and land use planning. |
| Reid Ewing | Distinguished Professor, City and Urban Land Research Institute, University of Utah | Advocate for transit-oriented design (TOD), authority in urban land and transportation research. |
| Peter Calthorpe | Architect, Urban Designer, and Urban Planner | Founding member of the Congress for the New Urbanism, and one of the advocates of TOD. |
| Kevin J. Krizek | Visiting Professor, Radboud University, Netherlands | Co-founder of the journal “Transportation and Land Use” and one of the founding members of the World Transportation and Land Use Research Society. |
| Lawrence D. Frank | Professor, University of California, San Diego | One of the first to quantify the links between the built environment, transportation, and health. |
| Robert L. Knight | Professor, Colorado State University | Highly cited scholar in the field of transportation and land use research. |
| Susan Handy | Distinguished Professor, University of California, Davis | Expert in the relationship between public transportation and land use, and strategies to reduce car dependency. |
| Michael Duncan | Professor, University of California | Expert in planning and design of residential, commercial, and public transportation projects. |
Characteristics of each stage of development.
| Time Period | Characteristics | Keywords |
|---|---|---|
| 1950–1986 Early Research Stage | Exploration of research theories, models, and methods | Urban expansion, public transport system, private bus system |
| 1986–2010 Research Development Stage | Development of public transport providing empirical data and natural experimental schemes | Land use, land value, hedonic |
| 2010–PresentResearch Maturity Stage | Focus not only on economics but also on reflecting the human, environmental, and health impacts of transportation development | Efficiency and effectiveness, ecology and environment |
| Future Research | Large-scale, long-time series research gaps need to be filled, with a greater focus on social equity and human issues | Spatialization, equity |
Land use–transportation interaction (LUTI) model.
| Model Category | Characteristics | Representative Models (Developer and Time) | Advantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial Interaction Model | Reflects the interactions between land use, transportation, economy, and environment; comprehensive, holistic, and hierarchical; supports urban development planning and analysis, but may oversimplify problems and fail to capture the essence of spatial interactions. | Lowry Model (Lowry, 1964) | Considered the first computer model to truly integrate land use and transportation. |
| Projective Land Use Model (PLUM) (Goldner, 1972) | Based on the Lowry derivative model’s sequential decision-making process. | ||
| Lowry–Wilson Model (Wilson, 1970) | Extended the Lowry model using entropy maximization principles. | ||
| Leeds Integrated Land Use and Transport (LILT) (Model Macett, 1983) | LILT incorporates Lowry–Wilson framework with travel demand model stages to explain traffic congestion effects. | ||
| Integrated Transportation Land Use Package (ITLUP) (Putman, 1983) | One of the most widely used models. | ||
| UrbanSim Model Paul (Waddell, 2012) | Extends Wegener and Macett models, integrating interactions between land use, transportation, economy, and environment, with 3D visualization for alternative planning. | ||
| IUM Comprehensive Urban Model (Miller, 2018) | Focuses on governance policies for climate change, disasters, public health crises, and demographic changes. | ||
| Random Utility Model | Deals with the relationship between transportation and land use based on decision-makers’ utility maximization; relates individual behavior to utility functions, effectively explaining the link between location features and traveler behavior. | Quigley Model (Quigley, 1976) | Early application of logit models to examine transportation and land use interactions. |
| Lerman Model (Lerman, 1977) | Integrates and nests logit models. | ||
| Anas Model (Anas, 1981) | Applies Random Utility Model to study combined travel modes and location choice. | ||
| Mathematical Programming Model | Aims to optimize urban spatial structure by minimizing costs or maximizing benefits; focuses on forecasting future outcomes rather than merely describing a spatial distribution process. | Technique for the Optimal Placement of Activities in Zones (TOPAZ) (Brotchie, 1969) | Developed as an overall planning tool, the model allocates activities to locations based on maximizing net benefits of spatial interactions and land use. |
| Projective Optimisation Land Use Information System (POLIS) (Prastacos, 1985) | Redefines PLUM model from a mathematical programming perspective. | ||
| Oppenheim Model (Oppenheim, 1993) | The location cost in the Oppenheim model is endogenously determined, directly related to opportunity costs, allowing for endogenous location and transport cost calculations. | ||
| Urban Economics Model | Considers the relationship between transportation and land use at the urban economic meso-scale; data and system parameter requirements are low, but the determination of coefficients can be subjective, influencing evaluation results. | Alonso Model (Alonso, 1965) | Addresses the relationship between location value and land use, offering a modified version of the classical consumer equilibrium theory, consisting of accessibility and location price. |
| Rosen Model (Rosen, 1974) | Integrates hedonic theory, emphasizing the inherent heterogeneity of locations. | ||
| Ellickson Model (Ellickson, 1981) | Direct specification and estimation of hedonic models. | ||
| 5-Stage Land Use Transport Model (5-LUT) (Martínez, 1992) | Links travel with socio-economic variables. |
1. Cervero, R.; Landis, J. Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system: Land use and development impacts. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 1997; 31, pp. 309-333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(96)00027-4]
2. He, Y.; Wu, D.; Li, S.; Zhou, P. Ecological and Environmental Risk Warning Framework of Land Use/Cover Change for the Belt and Road Initiative. Land; 2024; 13, 1281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13081281]
3. Handy, S.; Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2005; 10, pp. 427-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002]
4. Laurance, W.F.; Clements, G.R.; Sloan, S.; O’connell, C.S.; Mueller, N.D.; Goosem, M.; Venter, O.; Edwards, D.P.; Phalan, B.; Balmford, A.
5. He, Y.; Liu, X.; Sun, E.; Wu, D. Balancing economic growth and environmental conservation through the optimization of rail transit routes for sustainable development. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 31926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83462-9]
6. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993.
7. Ewing, R.; Meakins, G.; Hamidi, S.; Nelson, A.C. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity–Update and refinement. Health Place; 2014; 26, pp. 118-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.008]
8. Sun, D.J.; Ding, X. Spatiotemporal evolution of ridesourcing markets under the new restriction policy: A case study in Shanghai. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2019; 130, pp. 227-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.052]
9. Sun, D.J.; Zhang, K.; Shen, S. Analyzing spatiotemporal traffic line source emissions based on massive didi online car-hailing service data. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2018; 62, pp. 699-714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.04.024]
10. Litman, T. Evaluating transportation land use impacts. World Transp. Policy Pract.; 1995; 1, pp. 9-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527619510101981]
11. Litman, T.; Steele, R. Land Use Impacts on Transport; Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017.
12. He, Y.; Wu, D.; Liu, Y. Review on the Impacts of Public Rail Transport on Urban Land Use Change: A Citespace-based Quantitative Analysis. Adv. Earth Sci.; 2018; 33, 1259.
13. Chen, M.C.; Song, M. Visualizing a Field of Research: A Methodology of Systematic Scientometric Reviews. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31671124]
14. Chen, M.C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Data Inf. Sci.; 2017; 2, pp. 1-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006]
15. Saelens, B.E.; Susan, L.; Handy, S. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.; 2008; 40, S550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4]
16. Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2010; 76, pp. 265-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766]
17. Bassolas, A.; Barbosa-Filho, H.; Dickinson, B.; Dotiwalla, X.; Eastham, P.; Gallotti, R.; Ghoshal, G.; Gipson, B.; Hazarie, S.A.; Kautz, H.
18. Mitchell, R.B.; Rapkin, C. Urban Traffic; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1954.
19. Hansen, W.G. How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plan.; 1959; 25, pp. 73-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307]
20. Paulsson, A. The city that the metro system built: Urban transformations and modalities of integrated planning in Stockholm. Urban Studies; 2020; 57, pp. 2936-2955. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098019895231]
21. Harvey, D. Social processes and spatial form: An analysis of the conceptual problems of urban planning. Pap. Reg. Sci. Assoc.; 1970; 25, pp. 46-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01935816]
22. Petkov, D. The uneven development path of Bulgarian trolleybus transport–Leading back to the future?. Case Stud. Transp. Policy; 2020; 8, pp. 1383-1392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.09.009]
23. Knight, R.L.; Trygg, L.L. Evidence of land use impacts of rapid transit systems. Transportation; 1977; 6, pp. 231-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00177453]
24. Cervero, R.; Seskin, S. An Evaluation of the Relationships between Transit and Urban Form; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; 44.
25. Boarnet, M.G.; Haughwout, A.F. Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways’ Influence on Metropolitan Development; Working Papers University of California Transportation Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2000.
26. Giuliano, G. Land use impacts of transportation investments. Geogr. Urban Transp.; 2004; 3, pp. 237-273.
27. Debrezion, G.; Pels, E.; Rietveld, P. The impact of railway stations on residential and commercial property value: A meta-analysis. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ.; 2007; 35, pp. 161-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9032-z]
28. Mohammad, S.I.; Graham, D.J.; Melo, P.C.; Anderson, R.J. A meta-analysis of the impact of rail projects on land and property values. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2013; 50, pp. 158-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.013]
29. Albrechts, L.; Healey, P.; Kunzmann, K.R. Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2003; 69, pp. 113-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976301]
30. Cook, D.A.; Levinson, A.J.; Garside, S.; Dupras, D.M.; Erwin, P.J.; Montori, V.M. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad. Med.; 2010; 85, pp. 909-922. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d6c319]
31. King, D. Developing densely: Estimating the effect of subway growth on New York City land uses. J. Transp. Land Use; 2011; 4, pp. 19-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v4i2.185]
32. Kasraian, D.; Maat, K.; Stead, D.; van Wee, B. Long-term impacts of transport infrastructure networks on land-use change: An international review of empirical studies. Transp. Rev.; 2016; 36, pp. 772-792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1168887]
33. Rye, M.S.; Loiacono, D.M.; Folck, C.D.; Olszewski, B.T.; Heim, T.A.; Madia, B.P. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Curr. Psychol.; 2001; 20, pp. 260-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6]
34. Tillberg, K. Families with Children’s Daily Leisure Trips in the Car Society—A Time Puzzle with Geographical and Gender Variations; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2001.
35. Riggs, W.; Shukla, S. Exploring the benefits of minimobility in the urban context: The case of central Stockholm. J. Transp. Land Use; 2021; 14, pp. 1019-1037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1955]
36. Mcharg, I.L. Design with Nature; American Museum of Natural History: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
37. Deakin, E. Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
38. Rasouli, S.; Timmermans, H. Activity-based models of travel demand: Promises, progress and prospects. Int. J. Urban Sci.; 2014; 18, pp. 31-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.835118]
39. Ettema, D.F. Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996.
40. Pinjari, A.R.; Bhat, C.R. Activity-Based Travel Demand Analysis; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011.
41. Tversky, B. Pictorial encoding of sentences in sentence—Picture comparison. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.; 1975; 27, pp. 405-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640747508400500]
42. Savage, J.K. Economic Nature of the Cooperative Association. J. Farm Econ.; 1954; 36, pp. 529-534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1233023]
43. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. On the interpretation of intuitive probability: A reply to Jonathan Cohen. Cognition; 1979; 7, pp. 409-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90024-6]
44. Bell, D.E. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res.; 1982; 30, pp. 961-981. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.961]
45. de la Barra, T. Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling. Decision Chains and Hierarchies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989.
46. Von Thünen, J.H. Isolated State; Mohr Siebeck: Berlin, Germany, 1826.
47. Weber, A. Regarding the Location of the Industry; Mohr Siebeck: Berlin, Germany, 1909.
48. William, A. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent; Mohr Siebeck: Berlin, Germany, 1964.
49. Boulding, K.E. General systems theory—The skeleton of science. Manag. Sci.; 1956; 2, pp. 197-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197]
50. Forrester, J.W. System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1993.
51. Batty, M. Planning Support Systems: Progress, Predictions, and Speculations on the Shape of Things to Come; Citeseer: London, UK, 2007.
52. Felsenstein, D.; Axhausen, K.; Waddell, P. Land Use-Transportation Modeling with UrbanSim: Experiences and Progress Introduction to the Special Issue. J. Transp. Land Use; 2010; 3, pp. 1-3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v3i2.183]
53. Du, R.F.; Tan, Y. Assessing land-use and transport integration via a spatial composite indexing model. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2015; 12, pp. 803-816.
54. Ahmadzai, F. Analyses and modeling of urban land use and road network interactions using spatial-based disaggregate accessibility to land use. J. Urban Manag.; 2020; 9, pp. 298-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2020.06.003]
55. Waldeck, L.; Holloway, J.; Van Heerden, Q. Integrated land use and transportation modelling and planning. J. Transp. Land Use; 2020; 13, pp. 227-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2020.1635]
56. Stiller, D.; Wurm, M.; Stark, T.; D’Angelo, P.; Stebner, K.; Dech, S.; Taubenböck, H. Spatial parameters for transportation: A multi-modal approach for modelling the urban spatial structure using deep learning and remote sensing. J. Transp. Land Use; 2021; 14, pp. 777-803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1855]
57. Lowry, I.S. A Model of Metropolis; Rand Corp Santa Monica Calif. Rand: Washington, DC, USA, 1964.
58. Wilson, A.G. The use of the concept of entropy in system modelling. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 1970; 21, pp. 247-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.1970.48]
59. Lees, L. The Geography of Gentrification: Thinking Through Comparative Urbanism; SAGE Publications: Washington, CA, USA, 2012.
60. Lerman, S.; Borkman, R.F. A Method for Detecting 8-Methoxypsoralen in the Ocular Lens; Science: Washington, CA, USA, 1977.
61. Anas, A. The estimation of multinomial logit models of joint location and travel mode choice from aggregated data. J. Reg. Sci.; 1981; 21, pp. 223-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1981.tb00696.x]
62. Acheampong, R.A.; Silva, E.A. Land use–transport interaction modeling: A review of the literature and future research directions. J. Transp. Land Use; 2015; 8, pp. 11-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.806]
63. Acheampong, R.A. Understanding the Co-Emergence of Urban Location Choice and Mobility Patterns: Empirical Studies and an Integrated Geospatial and Agent-Based Model; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
64. Yin, D.; Lopes, R.; Shlens, J.; Cubuk, E.D. A fourier perspective on model robustness in computer vision. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.; 2019; 32, pp. 1-11.
65. Wegener, M.; Fürst, F. Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art; SSRN: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
66. Wegener, M. Land-Use Transport Interaction Models; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2021.
67. Marsden, G.; Reardon, L. Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2017; 101, pp. 238-251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.008]
68. Johansson, F.; Tornberg, P.; Fernström, A. A function-oriented approach to transport planning in Sweden: Limits and possibilities from a policy perspective. Transp. Policy; 2018; 63, pp. 30-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.11.006]
69. Howlett, M.; Rio, P. The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy; 2015; 33, pp. 1233-1245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15610059]
70. Miller, J.A.; Lacan, J. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
71. Hawkins, J.; Habib, K. Integrated models of land use and transportation for the autonomous vehicle revolution. Transp. Rev.; 2019; 39, pp. 66-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1449033]
72. Mingardo, G.; Van Wee, B.; Rye, T. Urban parking policy in Europe: A conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2015; 74, pp. 268-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.005]
73. Gerber, P.; Caruso, G.; Cornelis, E.; de Chardon, C.M. A multi-scale fine-grained LUTI model to simulate land-use scenarios in Luxembourg. J. Transp. Land Use; 2018; 11, pp. 255-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1187]
74. Basu, R.; Ferreira, J.; Ponce-Lopez, R. A framework to generate virtual cities as sandboxes for land use-transport interaction models. J. Transp. Land Use; 2021; 14, pp. 303-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1791]
75. Donnelly, R.; Upton, W.J.; Knudson, B. Oregon’s Transportation and Land Use Model Integration Program. J. Transp. Land Use; 2018; 11, pp. 19-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1210]
76. Meurs, H.; Haaijer, R. Spatial structure and mobility. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2001; 6, pp. 429-446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00007-4]
77. Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L. How do individuals adapt their personal travel? Objective and subjective influences on the consideration of travel-related strategies for San Francisco Bay Area commuters. Transp. Policy; 2005; 12, pp. 291-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.03.003]
78. Grunfelder, J.; Nielsen, T.S. Commuting behaviour and urban form: A longitudinal study of a polycentric urban region in Denmark. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Dan. J. Geogr.; 2012; 112, pp. 2-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2012.707806]
79. Aditjandra, P.T.; Mulley, C.; Nelson, J.D. The influence of neighbourhood design on travel behaviour: Empirical evidence from North East England. Transp. Policy; 2013; 26, pp. 54-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.011]
80. Tomaney, J.; Marques, P. Evidence, policy, and the politics of regional development: The case of high-speed rail in the United Kingdom. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy; 2013; 31, pp. 414-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c11249r]
81. ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy). Rapid Transit Database. Available online: www.itdp.org/ (accessed on 7 March 2022).
82. Sanchez, T.W.; Stolz, R.; Ma, J.S. Inequitable effects of transportation policies on minorities. Transp. Res. Rec.; 2004; 1885, pp. 104-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1885-15]
83. Bullard, R.D. Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism & New Routes to Equity; South End Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004.
84. Mollenkopf, J.H. The Contested City; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1983.
85. Logan, J.; Molotch, H. The City as a Growth Machine; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
86. Liebs, C. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1995.
87. Golub, A.; Marcantonio, R.A.; Sanchez, T.W. Race, space, and struggles for mobility: Transportation impacts on African Americans in Oakland and the East Bay. Urban Geogr.; 2013; 34, pp. 699-728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778598]
88. Thomopoulos, N.; Grant-Muller, S.; Tight, M.R. Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology. Eval. Program Plan.; 2009; 32, pp. 351-359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.013]
89. Stevens, B.L.; Lewis, F.L.; Johnson, E.N. Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005.
90. Henriksson, M.A.; Summerton, J.A. High-Speed Trains: Effects on Local and Regional Development and Conditions for Integration with Public Transport. A Literature Review; K2 Working Papers: Lund, Sweden, 2016.
91. Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in Los Angeles County; Report prepared for National Association of Realtors Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
92. Deng, T. The Impact of Bus Rapid Transit on Land Development; University of Aberdeen: Aberdeen, UK, 2010.
93. Guan, C.; Peiser, R. Accessibility, urban form, and property value: A study of Pudong, Shanghai. J. Transp. Land Use; 2018; 11, pp. 1057-1080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1318]
94. Chong, Z.; Qin, C.; Chen, Z. Estimating the economic benefits of high-speed rail in China: A new perspective from the connectivity improvement. J. Transp. Land Use; 2019; 12, pp. 287-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1264]
95. Pan, Q. The impacts of light rail on residential property values in a non-zoning city. J. Transp. Land Use; 2019; 12, pp. 241-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1310]
96. Bradshaw, C.J.; Warkentin, I.G.; Sodhi, N.S. Urgent preservation of boreal carbon stocks and biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol.; 2009; 24, pp. 541-548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.019]
97. Forman, R.T.T.; Sperling, D.; Bissonette, J.A.; Clevenger, A.P.; Cutshall, C.D.; Dale, V.H.; Fahrig, L.; France, R.L.; Goldman, C.R.; Heanue, K. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
98. Brady, S.P.; Richardson, J.L.; Kunz, B.K. Incorporating evolutionary insights to improve ecotoxicology for freshwater species. Evol. Appl.; 2017; 10, pp. 829-838. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12507] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29151874]
99. IEA (International Energy Agency). Mobility Model. Available online: www.iea.org/etp/etpmodel/transport/ (accessed on 7 March 2022).
100. Campbell, W.B.; López Ortíz, S. Integrating Agriculture, Ecotourism, and Conservation: Examples from the Field; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
101. Lala, F.; Chiyo, P.I.; Omondi, P.; Okita-Ouma, B.; Kanga, E.; Koskei, M.; Tiller, L.; Morris, A.W.; Severud, W.J.; Bump, J.K. Influence of infrastructure, ecology, and underpass-dimensions on multi-year use of Standard Gauge Railway underpasses by mammals in Tsavo, Kenya. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 5698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09555-5]
102. Moeckel, R.; Garcia, C.L.; Chou, A.T.M.; Okrah, M.B. Trends in integrated land-use/transport modeling. J. Transp. Land Use; 2018; 11, pp. 463-476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1205]
103. Ford, C.L.; Airhihenbuwa, C.O. The public health critical race methodology: Praxis for antiracism research. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2010; 71, pp. 1390-1398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.030]
104. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Planning Sustainable Cities: Policy Directions, Global Report on Human Settlements; UN-HABITAT: London, UK, 2009; pp. 1-17.
105. Ian, C. Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the TOD Concept; Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 1-30.
106. Moore, T.; Throsnes, P. The Transportation/Land Use Connection, American Planning Association; Report Planning Advisory Service: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999; pp. 448-449.
107. Dittmar, H. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
108. He, Y.; Liu, X.; Wu, D.; Li, S.; Zhou, P. Ecological Risks and Patterns Associated With Land Use/Cover Changes Along the Belt and Road Initiative Routes. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2025; 28, 5483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.5483]
109. Wolf, J.P.; Song, C. Finite-Element Modelling of Unbounded Media; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1996.
110. Geurs, K.T.; Bert, V.W. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr.; 2004; 12, pp. 127-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005]
111. Pirie, G.H. Measuring accessibility: A review and proposal. Environ. Plan. A; 1979; 11, pp. 299-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a110299]
112. Kwan, M.P. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geogr. Anal.; 1998; 30, pp. 191-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x]
113. Farber, S.; Marino, M.G. Transit accessibility, land development and socioeconomic priority: A typology of planned station catchment areas in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. J. Transp. Land Use; 2017; 10, pp. 879-902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2017.980]
114. Levinson, D.M. Accessibility and the journey to work. J. Transp. Geogr.; 1998; 6, pp. 11-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00036-7]
115. Cervero, R.; Rood, T.; Appleyard, B. Tracking accessibility: Employment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environ. Plan. A; 1999; 31, pp. 1259-1278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a311259]
116. Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am. J. Public Health; 2003; 93, pp. 1478-1483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478]
117. Klonsky, E.D.; Glenn, C.R. Assessing the functions of non-suicidal self-injury: Psychometric properties of the Inventory of Statements About Self-injury (ISAS). J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess.; 2009; 31, pp. 215-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9107-z]
118. Melia, S.; Parkhurst, G.; Barton, H. The paradox of intensification. Transp. Policy; 2011; 18, pp. 46-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.05.007]
119. Steiner, F.R. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
120. Rye, T.; Hrelja, R. Policies for reducing car traffic and their problematisation. Lessons from the mobility strategies of British, Dutch, German and Swedish cities. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12198170]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Liu, Biao 1 ; Xu Chengyou 2 ; Wu, Dafang 2
1 Shenzhen Research Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518057, China; [email protected]
2 School of Geography and Remote Sensing, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China; [email protected]