# A Lifestyle-Based Perspective on the Mobility Choices and Preferences of Urban Travelers
## 2 Lifestyle in Travel Behavior Research
Instead, it defined population segments within each factor (i.e., male/female, single parents/single-person households/presence of children in the household, car-owners/non-car owners, etc.). [PERSON] and [PERSON] investigated the relationship between attitudes, knowledge, and pro-environmental behavior in the context of private car driving in urban areas [12]. Attitude scales were used to reveal five attitudinal factors expressing (i) environmental concerns at the societal level, (ii) attitudes toward public transport, (iii) perceived hazard levels of traffic and personal efficacy in mitigating its environmental impact, (iv) personal concern for health and environment and (v) car affection. Strong correlations were found between attitude factors (especially car affection and environmental concerns) and the willingness to accept traffic restrictions, stressing the importance of considering personal attitudes when planning in an urban context. The work of [PERSON] and [PERSON] integrated lifestyle as a subjective characteristic of urban mobility culture, with the built environment and transport supply considered the objective elements of the mobility culture), which was used, along with sociodemographic characteristics, to explain travel behavior changes after residential relocation [13]. They focused on the impacts of the individual attitudes/preferences and collective values/social norms on travel behavior but also on what they called \"soft factors\" [13] (p. 3), such as the social trends of modernization and pluralization. Their findings supported a relationship between changes in mobility cultures and changes in mode use: perceived increase in transit/cycling and walking orientations were associated with reduced car use. On a similar vein, the concept of social dilemma in transportation was explored by [PERSON] et al., as in transport-related problems, the short-term personal benefit (individual well-being) often contradicts the long-term community benefit (collective well-being) [14]. The importance of the social value orientations to the responses of the individuals in such social dilemmas was emphasized in their work: people make their decisions based on either an environmental or accessibility perspective, both of which are affected by one's social value orientation, which is defined as \"the way individual evaluate outcomes for themselves and others\" [14] (p. 261). Within this framework, they identified three distinct orientations: cooperation, individualism and competition. A strong interaction between social value orientations and mode choice (car versus public transport) was found in their work. The social dilemma is also referenced in [PERSON]'s segmentation study as the \"common dilemma\" [15] (p. 66), emphasizing the value of such studies in considering, beyond traditional instrumental factors (i.e., speed, comfort, convenience, cost), situational and psychological ones (i.e., world views, social norms, identity, perceptions). [PERSON] introduced a third strand, market analysis, for identifying groups of travelers with distinct mode choice preferences and discussing the policy-making implications of addressing each group's resistance to change. [PERSON] resulted in 105 attitude statements, 25 statements measuring life values and 9 statements/responses to actual or possible policy options, and she applied factor and cluster analysis to identify six stable groups, each with a unique profile across 19 attitudinal and 17 psychological factors: \"malcontented motorists\", \"complacent car addicts\", \"die hard drivers\", \"aspiring environmentalists\", \"non-car owners--car-less crusaders\", \"non-car owners--reluctant drivers\". [PERSON] concluded that given evident inconsistencies between attitudes and behaviors, if perceived behavioral control aspectsare not integrated, the segmentation based on attitudes provides greater value than the one based on behavior.