To Improve Energy Efficiency via Car Driving Deduction by Land Use Planning

doi:10.4236/ojee.2013.23017

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, 2013, 2, 133-138

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojee.2013.23017 Published Online September 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojee)

To Improve Energy Efficiency via Car Driving

Deduction by Land Use Planning

Mohammad Malekizadeh1, M. F. M. Zain1, Amiruddin Ismail2, Ahmad Hami3

1Department of Architecture, Universiti of Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia

2Sustainable Urban Transport Research Centre (SUTRA), Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia

3Department of Landscape Architecture, Universiti of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Email: [email protected]

Received December 31, 2012; revised May 31, 2013; accepted July 4, 2013

License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Urban area consumes about main percentage of used energy. Cities need basic review in land management, structure

and form to minimize the use of energy which creating environmental pollution. Urban planners and designers are look-

ing for a solution and essential agreement in urban planning and designing principles that can decrease the pollution

from rapid urbanization. Travelling is essential for daily needs of most people in urban area. Issues arise when one con-

siders the amount of necessary fossil fuels used in the majority of daily commuting for accessibility to services. It is

necessary to design a city to minimize the use of energy which creating environmental pollution. Research conducted in

Subang Jaya in Malaysia in 2012 finds a variable which influences on use of car, propose of use of car and commuting

distance by car. However it tried to find effect of train station and density on use of car for accessibility to this services

and facilities. Findings illustrate neighbourhood distance from train station influences distance to facilities and services

in neighbourhoods. However it illustrates derived distance by car was affected by residential lots distance from restau-

rant, work place, school, park, house area per person, and car ownership.

Keywords: Town & City Planning; Railway Systems; Urban Design; Transport Planning; Pollution; Energy Efficiency

1. Introduction

New form of urbanism took place on the demand for

building. Consequently planning project started to

accommodate the workers and their family near indus-

trial plants after the industrial revolution. Low-income

class community increases and upper-class commu-

nity moved to suburbs, resulting in an urban sprawl

of horizontal magnitude to about every community

throughout the word [1]. In developing country this

process was different; the developing countries mostly

have high economic growths which increases growth

of employment centres. Population move from other

area for working to these centres. Capital of country

and a few cities attracted these employment centres

and population. The cities in developing countries

have been facing with rapid urbanization and land

fragmentation which are always faster than urban

planning and designing. In this manner residential area

takes place without considering facilities in accessible

distance.

1.1. Back Ground Literature

Khattak and Rodriguez 2005 found that auto trip, travel

distance, travel time, regional trip, external trip distance

and trip duration of trip in neo-traditional neighbourhood

residence is less than the conventional neighbourhood

significantly [2]. Inner city zone that has integrated

streets, parks and green spaces structure has more acces-

sibility to facilities and services [3]. Amount of trip of

inner city’s resident is higher with shorter duration, and

residents of this area spend least time in travel; in this

area people walk and bike more and use less car travel.

Residents of inter commuter belt spend the most time in

travel with longest travel time [4]. Key elements of

neighbourhood walkability are proxy and connectivity.

First one come from mixed-land uses and the second one

is related to street pattern. Handy and Cao et al. 2005 in

their study indicated putting resident’s proximity to des-

tinations with alternatives ways to auto usage results to

less driving; this means decrease in driving can be reach

by increase in accessibility. Increasing in accessibility in

M. MALEKIZADEH ET AL.

134

existing areas can be possible by policies that include

revitalization traditional neighbourhood design by main

street program design, and filling undeveloped and rede-

veloped shopping centre [5]. Maleki, Zain, & Ismail,

2012 illustrated Street density, house density, house di-

versity, and non-residentia land use, positively and sig-

nificantly influence accessibility to facilities and services.

Distance to shops, distance to high school, distance to

health centre, distance to train station, land diversity,

block length and average lot size negatively and signifi-

cantly influence accessibility to facilities and services [6].

Iacono and Krizek et al. 2009 say money, and other cost

play as impedance role in travel, this impedance in recent

none motorize travel study is distance. He used of dis-

tance and time both for calculating accessibility to rec-

reation, restaurant, shopping, and work by walking and

cycling [7].

1.2. Back Ground of Case Study

Malaysia has experienced continuous economic growth

since 1985; this trend resulted in rapid urbanization es-

pecially in Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley [8]. This

rapid urbanization increases the need for more housing

and urban development in a larger area. However, it in-

creased economic growth as well as a desire for greater

accessibility and mobility for all. Increases in travel

needs that are not managed efficiently and effectively

result in excess congestion in private motorize travelling

mode. Haphazard growths make residential area develop

without proper planning for acceptable distance to em-

ployment centres and facilities. In poor accessibility con-

dition, residents have to commute long distances to get

their daily needs to their workplace. Whenever facilities

are located further than the walkable distance, residents

use necessarily motorized travel. They prefer to use cars

if public transport is not available. The public transporta-

tion master plan of Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley is illus-

trated as such: The net result of increased car usage has

been a rise in congestion across the region. However

door to door travel times for private vehicles remain

competitive against the use of public transport. Travel

times are typically much higher by public transport re-

sulting in poorer accessibility to jobs and facilities [9].

Malaysia as a developing country in sensitive natural

environment needs to conduct rapid urbanisation growth

in the way that minimise impact of urban development

on local environmental resources. Kuala Lumpur, the

capital of the country and its township like Subang Jaya

are the centres of this growth and thus more attention

needs to be given for environmental protection. The gov-

ernment desires to improve the urban environment and

quality of life, and to ease the pressure on the infrastruc-

ture in general by balancing the development in Kuala

Lumpur and the Klang Valley [10].

1.3. New Approaches in Land Use Management

Sustainability has multidimensional affects on the envi-

ronment and many aspects of human life. An integrated

systematic view of events can leads us to a better under-

standing interaction between urban land use and envi-

ronmental pollution. Most cities grow faster than land

use planning and land use managing. Rational use of

recourses is to consider fairness between current genera-

tion and future generation for use of these recourses [11].

“Efficiency” versus “solidarity” is considered as key un-

certainties in the Sustainability outlook. Efficiency is

doing more with use of fewer materials and recourses. In

land use management for population reduction this

means residents participation in activities with use of less

fossil foul and pollution reduction. The trend towards

more “efficiency” means that decision making is increas-

ingly based on economic rationality and market forces.

This strategy mainly directed to facilitate market proc-

esses with the limited government intervention. The trend

towards more “solidarity” involves decision making

which is determined by values on social equity and soli-

darity, cultural identity and sustainability. Government

coordination is important in solidarity and not restrained.

Supplying services by private investor sector in local

centre shows they made it well, because capital tends to

increase in the best manner. At the same time they in-

crease welfare and level of accessibility of surrounding

residents. They don’t have claim on land value rising

resulting from greater accessibility but they share the

benefit that give rise to capitalization [12].

The compact city model is supported for a number of

reasons which relate to sustainable urban development

and include: conservation of the countryside, less need to

travel by car, thus reduced fuel emissions supports for

public transport and walking and cycling, more efficient

utility and infrastructure provision Burton 2003 and re-

vitalisation and regeneration of inner urban areas [13].

“New urbanism” is a broadly defined movement that

seeks to end the cancerous sprawl and replace this type

of expansion of growth with redesigned cultural residents

that encourage genuine commitment to civic life. It tends

to create new ways of guaranteeing the design of pedes-

trian, public and semi-private spaces, as well as vehicular

movement. The importance of humanly scaled design in

the metropolitan landscape and the city are the stirring

call for New Urbanism. The New Urbanism pays atten-

tion to local condition and adjusted concepts principles,

which will transcend local differences into a unique ur-

ban pattern. In the view of this trend, the physical envi-

ronment is an integrated product of culture, religion, cli-

M. MALEKIZADEH ET AL. 135

mate, socio-economic values and technology. These

concepts had incorporated the following objectives since

1992:

 To minimize energy consumption through proper

orientation and arrangement of the plan layout and

building block forms.

 To optimize layout condition with respect to security,

safety and comfort of the walker rather than the mo-

torized travel. Both must find appropriate definitions

in the layout of the scheme.

 To articulate physical solutions for religious, social

and recreational necessities and unite them within an

integrated neighbourhood concept.

 To decrease the initial and running cost of infrastruc-

ture by minimizing the roads and service lines of wa-

ter, sewage, electricity and telephone [14].

2. Material and Method

2.1. Theoretical Frame Work

The key consideration in cost and energy efficiency is

location and intensity of land usage areas [15]. Urban

forms provide possibility for energy consumption in

transport sector. One of the best ways to reduce vehicle

travel is to build places where people can do more with

less driving. Today’s trend is looking for residential site

which has pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, high-density

communities, with short and fast accessibility to public

transportation instead of driving. Customer is looking

for smaller housing units and mixed-land used communi-

ties projected in compact living residential sites.

Use of public transportation is the solution for energy

consumption and pollution emission in urban areas.

Compact dense green neighbourhood with energy effi-

ciency and environmental friendly material completes

this process. It is recommended that urbanism and policy

makers should start to make land use which has accepta-

bly lower impact on environment. They must focus on

human scale in urban land use development. This can

support the promoting of transportation that uses energy

resources other than fossil fuel. Integration of connec-

tivity between land use and transportation is necessary to

improve non-motorized mode of transportation as an

important factor in flexibility and adaptability of urban

forms.

Households have wide range of income and dimen-

sions. Sustainable community is the community answer

to this multiplication by providing mixed housing types

for a wide range of incomes and household structures in

greater density with more opportunity for human contact.

The mentioned characteristics with solution for human

reinforcement on controlling use of automobile shaped

about main part of new urbanism and neo traditional

residential design [16].

2.2. Method

This research was conducted on 30 neighbourhoods in

Subang Jaya, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Neighbour-

hoods were selected random from the neighbourhoods

which are near train station and other are far from train

station. Method of this research is survey via questioner

to residents of restrict. A sample of population was 750

persons return rate was 60%. Survey was conducted

since May until July 2011. Researchers meet residents

and asked them to answer to the questions. After data

was prepared, first, Authors explain statistical descriptive

on distance and travel mode; and in the next stage data

was analysed to find relation between variable and in-

fluence of independent variable on commuted distance

by car as indicator of fossil foul consumptions.

3. Results and Discussion

Sustainable accessibility in urban built environment is

the interaction between land use and transportation

modes in such a way that a person or group can partici-

pate in activities within a minimal distance and time

while consuming less non renewable energy and prefer

using renewable energy [17].

3.1. Travelling by Mode of Public Sustainable

Transport

Travel by train is 34% of total travelling in area. The

proposes for travelling by train are work 16%, school 4%,

college/university 12%, city centre 34%, shopping 18%,

entertainment 8%, visit family and friend 4%, and others

4% Figure 1.

3.2. Travelling by Modes and Purposes

Residents were asked to determined which mode they

use for their purposes. Modes of travelling are car, walk-

ing, motorcycle, train, bus, and bicycle. Purposes catego-

rized into 10 category including: post, bank, restaurant,

health, mosque, park, high school, industry, primary

school, shopping, work, and train station. Results illus-

trated that people who are going to train station use car

33%, walking 14%, bus 11% and motorcycle 4% as

Figure 1. Proposes of trave l ling by tr ain in Subang Jay a.

M. MALEKIZADEH ET AL.

136

mode of travelling. They use of car 42%, walking 9%,

train 7%, bus 5%, motorcycle 5%, and bicycle 2% for

travelling to work place. This percents for travelling to

shops are car 38%, walking 16%, bus 5% motorcycle 5%

train 3% and bicycle 2%. Residents mostly walk for ac-

cess to park and green space 34% travelling by car with

18% is second travelling mode for access to park, mo-

torcycle 7%, bus 5% and bicycle 2%. Figure 2 shows

percents of trip by mode of travelling for each purpose.

3.3. Purposes of Travelling by Car and Car

Ownership

Residents were asked to answer how many car they have,

based on their answer, result of this survey shows 69.7%

of residents have at least one car; 58.4% of people have 1

car, 37.7% of people have 2 cars, and 3.7% of people

have 3 cars. Travel to work and shopping are main pro-

pose of use of cars in area. Figure 3 illustrates proposes

of travelling by car for each purpose in Subang Jaya.

Population size and car ownership support railway sig-

nificantly. Railway station which has neighbourhood

with higher average car ownership household has higher

positive patronage level compare with those neighbour-

hoods with lower average car ownership. Car ownership

Figure 2. Travel mode for access to local facilities.

Figure 3. Traveling by care for accessibility to facilities.

associates with park and ride and pick-ups and drop-off

to transit station for longer trip by transit system [18].

3.4. Impact of Train Station on Distance to

Facilities

Travelling by train as sustainable public transportation

influences fossil foul consumption. Accessibility to train

station makes people use more this travel mode directly,

but decrease distances to facilities near station decrease

use of motorized travel indirectly [19]. Researchers

looked to find interaction between nearness to train sta-

tion and variables of distances to facilities and employ-

ment. Correlation coefficient was used in this analysis to

interpret whether a relationship existed between distance

to train station and distance to facilities and employment.

Correlation was also used to test whether the relationship

between distance to train station and distance to facilities

are positive or negative.

The Pearson correlation coefficient, commonly abbre-

viated as “r” measures the degree to which a linear rela-

tionship exists between two variables. A perfect, positive

linear relationship between two variables has a value of

1.00, while a perfect, negative linear relationship has a

value of −1.00. If there is no relationship at all it is re-

corded as 0.00. Correlation coefficients test illustrated

distance to train station and distance to facilities and em-

ployments have correlation significantly Table 1.

3.5. Multiple Regressions

Residents of communities with high-density, mixed-use,

pedestrian-friendly, ideally with ready access to public

transportation, drive a third fewer miles than those who

are living in convection outskirts of a city [20]. Generally

residents select the closest facility to their location. This

selection may come from the fact that most services like

post office, bank and so on are equal or based on hierar-

chy service provider which covers special area. But peo-

ple may travel for other facilities which have differences

in quality or are symbolic like cinemas, special shops and

recreational facilities from their place to other places

[21].

In the final analysis researchers used linear regressions

model to test the contribution of independent variables

that explain the variation in a dependent phenomenon,

explain the nature (positive or negative) and slope of the

relationship, and provide a means to control for inter-

vening factors. In the last stage result of the previous

stage will be used to develop a model of efficient resi-

dential site and neighbourhood via measuring influence

of distance to restaurant, distance to school, distance to

park, house area per person, cars ownership, and pedes-

trian quality as independent variable on derived distance

by car ownership weekly Table 2.

M. MALEKIZADEH ET AL.

137

Table 1. Correlation between distance from residents to train station and distance to facilities.

Work Shop Primary school IndustryHigh schoolPark Mosque Health Restaurant Bank Post

Distance to

train station 0.608** 0.766** 0.554** 0.761** 0.404* 0.110 −0.032 0.660** 0.388** 0.757** 0.742**

** Significant in level P value 0.01 *significant in level P value 0.05.

Table 2. The result of linear regression of distance to facilities on driving by car.

Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized

Coefficients Collinearity Statistics

Model

B Std. Error Beta

t Sig.

Tolerance VIF

−120.472 62.369 −1.932 0.066

0.065 0.015 0.542 4.346 0.000 0.708 1.412

−0.002 0.001 −0.350 −2.776 0.011 0.694 1.440

0.003 0.001 0.338 2.723 0.012 0.712 1.404

2.673 0.804 0.376 3.323 0.003 0.859 1.164

−0.007 0.003 −0.294 −2.467 0.022 0.773 1.294

104.659 16.418 0.701 6.375 0.000 0.910 1.099

(Constant)

Distance restaurant

Distance work Distance school

House area/person Distance park

Cars ownership Pedestrian quality

−2.594 11.832 −0.026 −0.219 0.829 0.813 1.231

a. Dependent Variable: Derived by cars by km.

4. Conclusions

There is a general agreement that the local shops are im-

portant to the neighbourhood and its stability. The walk-

able nature of the neighbourhood also helps the commer-

cial trip to increase as most residents enjoy walking up to

facilities and daily necessary services of neighbourhood

[22].

Findings of this research illustrate that neighbourhood

distance from train station influences distance to facilities

and services including shops, primary school, high

school, health centre, restaurant, bank, post office, indus-

try and work. These findings show if distance to train

station decrease distance to these facilities and services

decrease and vice versa. However, weekly derived dis-

tance by car was affected by distance to restaurant, work

place, school, park, house area/person, and car owner-

ship.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Kirby, “Current Research on Cities and its contribu-

tion to Urban Studies,” Cities, Vol. 29, Suppl. 1, 2012, pp.

S3-S8.

[2] A. J. Khattak and D. Rodriguez, “Travel Behavior in Neo-

Traditional Neighborhood Developments: A Case Study

in USA,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and

Practice, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2005, pp. 481-500.

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009

[3] A. M. L. Stahle and A. Karlström, “Place Syntax Geo-

graphic Accessibility with Axial Lines in GIS,” 5th Space

Syntax Symposium Proceedings, Delft, 1 June 2005, pp.

131-144.

[4] H. Millward and J. Spinney, “Time Use, Travel Behavior,

and the Rural-Urban Continuum: Results from the Hali-

fax STAR Project,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.

19, No. 1, 2011, pp. 51-58.

doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.12.005

[5] S. Handy, X. Cao and P. Mokhtarian, “Correlation or

Causality between the Built Environment and Travel Be-

havior? Evidence from Northern California,” Transporta-

tion Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol.

10, No. 6, 2005, pp. 427-444.

doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002

[6] M. Z. Maleki, M. F. M. Zain and A. Ismail, “Variables

Communalities and Dependence to Factors of Street Sys-

tem, Density, and Mixed Land Use in Sustainable Site

Design,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 3, 2012, pp.

46-53. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.01.005

[7] M. Iacono, K. J. Krizek and A. El-Geneidy, “Measuring

Non-Motorized Accessibility: Issues, Alternatives, and

Execution,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18,

No. 1, 2010, pp. 133-140.

doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.002

[8] G. Knaap and E. Talen, “New Urbanism and Smart

Growth: A Few Words from the Academy,” International

Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 107-

118. doi:10.1177/0160017604273621

[9] Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat, “Greater Kuala

Lumpur/Klang Valley Public Transport Master Plan,”

2011. http://spad.gov.my/images/stories/esgklkvlptmp.pdf

M. MALEKIZADEH ET AL.

138

[10] I. J. D. Jebasingam, “Creating the Essence of Cities: The

Planning & Development of Malaysia’s New Federal

Administrative Capital, Putrajaya,” 2006.

[11] M. Neuman, “Notes on the Uses and Scope of City Plan-

ning Theory,” Planning Theory, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, pp.

123-145. doi:10.1177/1473095205054601

[12] C. Webster, “The Donald Robertson Memorial Prizewin-

ner 2003 the Nature of the Neighbourhood,” Urban Studies,

Vol. 40, No. 13, 2003, pp. 2591-2612.

[13] P. Howley, M. Scott and D. Redmond, “An Examination

of Residential Preferences for Less Sustainable Housing

Exploring Future Mobility among Dublin Central City

Residents,” 2009. www.elsevier.com/locate/cities,

[14] M. A. E. Saleh, 2”Learning from Tradition: The Planning

of Residential Neighborhoods in a Changing World,”

Habitat International, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2004, pp. 625-639.

doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00031-6

[15] F. S. Chapin and E. J. Kaiser, “Urban Land Use Plan-

ning,” University of Illinois, St. Champaign, 1979.

[16] Y. R. Jabareen, “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typolo-

gies, Models, and Concepts,” Journal of Planning Educa-

tion and Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp. 38-52.

doi:10.1177/0739456X05285119

[17] C. Curtis and J. Scheurer, “Planning for Sustainable Ac-

cessibility: Developing Tools to Aid Discussion and De-

cision-Making,” Progress in Planning, Vol. 74, No. 2,

2010, pp. 53-106.

[18] B. P. Y. Loo, C. Chen and E. T. H. Chan, “Rail-baSed

Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons from New York

City and Hong Kong,” Landscape and Urban Planning,

Vol. 97, No. 3, 2010, pp. 202-212.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.002

[19] M. Z. Maleki and M. F. M. Zain, “To Promote Future

Sustainability with Integrated Design of Urban and Trans-

portation System,” 6th Malaysian Universities Transport

Research Forum Conference, School of Housing, Build-

ing & Planning University Sains, Pulau Pinang, 2011.

[20] R. Binsacca, “Builder,” 2008.

http://www.ecohomemagazine.com/news/compact-cure.a

spx?printerfriendly=true 1-3.

[21] P. Naess, “Accessibility, Activity Participation and Loca-

tion of Activities: Exploring the Links between Residen-

tial Location and Travel Behaviour,” Urban Studies, Vol.

43, No. 3, 2006, pp. 627-652.

doi:10.1080/00420980500534677

[22] J. Distasio, “Reacting to Actions: Exploring How Resi-

dents Evaluate Their Neighbourhoods,” University of Mani-

toba (Canada), Winnipeg, 2005.