Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analysis of weekly out-of-home discretionary activity participation and time-use behavior

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Activity-travel behavior research has hitherto focused on the modeling and understanding of daily time use and activity patterns and resulting travel demand. In this particular paper, an analysis and modeling of weekly activity-travel behavior is presented using a unique multi-week activity-travel behavior data set collected in and around Zurich, Switzerland. The paper focuses on six categories of discretionary activity participation to understand the determinants of, and the inter-personal and intra-personal variability in, weekly activity engagement at a detailed level. A panel version of the Mixed Multiple Discrete Continuous Extreme Value model (MMDCEV) that explicitly accounts for the panel (or repeated-observations) nature of the multi-week activity-travel behavior data set is developed and estimated on the data set. The model also controls for individual-level unobserved factors that lead to correlations in activity engagement preferences across different activity types. To our knowledge, this is the first formulation and application of a panel MMDCEV structure in the econometric literature. The analysis suggests the high prevalence of intra-personal variability in discretionary activity engagement over a multi-week period along with inter-personal variability that is typically considered in activity-travel modeling. In addition, the panel MMDCEV model helped identify the observed socio-economic factors and unobserved individual specific factors that contribute to variability in multi-week discretionary activity participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Doherty et al.’s study suggests that activity-travel behavior may be guided by an underlying activity scheduling process that is associated with multiple time horizons that range from a week (or, perhaps, more than that) to within a day.

  2. Bhat et al. (2004, 2005) base their conclusion of weekly rhythms on a visual inspection of the hazard profile and confine attention to the participation decision without attention to time allocation, while Habib et al. (2008) base their conclusion of weekly rhythms in participation/time-use on the stability of model parameters estimated separately on each of six weeks of data. In both these studies, while there may be some suggestion of weekly periodicity of activity participation in relatively coarsely defined discretionary activities, there is no quantification whatsoever of the within-individual week-to-week variability and between-individual variability.

  3. The use of this classification system is motivated by the differences in the activity-travel dimensions (participation rates, durations, time-of-day of participations, accompaniment arrangement, etc.) associated with episodes of each type. For instance, earlier time-use studies have provided evidence that participation rates in social and leisure (window shopping, making/listening music, etc.) activities tend to be higher than in other discretionary activities. Also, when participated in, episodes of these activities are participated for long durations. However, social activity episodes are mostly pursued with friends and family, while leisure activities are mostly pursued alone (see, for example, Kapur and Bhat 2007). The basis for the other activity types is provided in the next section.

  4. The inclusion of the ‘other’ activity in the analysis enables the analyst to endogenously estimate the total time-investment in the first six types of OH discretionary activity purposes. In the presentation of the model structure later in this section, we will label this “other” activity purpose as the first alternative for presentation convenience.

  5. All individuals in the sample participate for some non-zero amount of time in ‘other’ activities, and hence this alternative (which we will consider as the first alternative) constitutes the “outside alternative” that is always consumed (see Bhat 2008 for details). The term “outside alternative” refers to an alternative that is “outside” the purview of the choice of whether to be consumed or not. The rest of the (K-1) “inside” alternatives that are “inside” the purview of whether to be consumed or not correspond to the OH discretionary activities. Thus the first element of x qt should always be positive, while the second through Kth elements of x qt can either be zero or some positive value. Whether or not a specific x qtk value (k = 2, 3,…, K) is zero constitutes the discrete choice component, while the magnitude of each non-zero x qtk value constitutes the continuous choice component. In this paper, the terms “time investments” and “time use” are used interchangeably to refer to these discrete-continuous x qtk values.

  6. Some other utility function forms were also considered, but the one specified here provided the best data fit while allowing for estimation of all the parameters without any identification problems. For conciseness, these alternative forms are not discussed. The reader is referred to Bhat (2008) for a detailed discussion of alternative utility forms. The reader will also note the implicit assumption in the formulation that there is utility gained from investing time in OH discretionary activities. This is a reasonable assumption since individuals have the choice not to participate in such activities. Also the reader will note that the inclusion of the IH and OH maintenance and IH discretionary activities as the “outside good” (the first alternative) allows the analyst to endogenously estimate the total amount of time invested in OH discretionary pursuits.

  7. The constraints that γ k  > 0 (k = 2, 3,…, K) are maintained through appropriate parameterizations (see Bhat 2008). Also, the γ parameters are subscripted only by activity purpose k (unlike the ψ parameters that are subscripted by q, t, and k) because specification tests in our empirical analysis did not show statistically significant variation in these parameters based on individual specific or time-specific observed/unobserved characteristics.

  8. Multiple discrete-continuous extreme value models (whether MDCEV or MMDCEV) require identification restrictions analogous to single discrete choice (i.e., multinomial logit, whether mixed or not) models, because the probability expression for the observed optimal time investments is completely characterized by the (K-1) utility differences (Bhat, 2008). Thus, the MMDCEV model requires the usual location normalization of one of the alternative-specific constants/variables to zero (this is the reason for the absence of a θ 1 term and a β′z 1 term in Eq. 1). Further, as with the current context, when there is no price variation across alternatives, the scale of the utility is normalized by standardizing the type I extreme-value distributed error terms ε qtk . While one can, subject to some identification considerations, allow the choice-occasion specific error terms ε qtk to have different variances across alternatives, and allow choice-specific covariances across alternatives, we assume that these error terms are identically and independently distributed. Also, appropriate identification restrictions need to be imposed on the third and fourth components of the utility components in the main text above. These two components generate the individual-level variance-covariance matrix of the overall individual-level error terms affecting the logarithm of the alternative-specific baseline preferences. The identification conditions can be derived in a straightforward manner by examining the variance-covariance matrix of the implied error term differences in a manner similar to that for a cross-sectional model (see Bhat 2008). In our empirical specification, we apply restrictions on the individual-level variance-covariance matrix that are more than sufficient for identification. We should also note here that we considered individual-level unobserved heterogeneity for the outside alternative (i.e., the first alternative), which can indeed be estimated in a panel setting subject to appropriate identification restrictions on the covariance terms. However, this term did not turn out to be statistically significantly different from zero, and so we did not introduce unobserved inter-individual heterogeneity terms in Eq. 2 for the outside alternative.

References

  • Bhat, C.R.: An analysis of evening commute stop-making behavior using repeated choice observations from a multiday survey. Transp. Res. B 33(7), 495–510 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R.: Incorporating observed and unobserved heterogeneity in urban work travel mode choice modeling. Transp. Sci. 34(2), 228–238 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R.: Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp. Res. B 37(9), 837–855 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R.: A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transp. Res. B 39(8), 679–707 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R.: The Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) model: role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions. Transp. Res. B 42(3), 274–303 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R., Lockwood, A.: On distinguishing between physically active and physically passive episodes and between travel and activity episodes: an analysis of weekend recreational participation in the San Francisco bay area. Transp. Res. A 38(8), 573–592 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R., Misra, R.: Discretionary activity time allocation of individuals between in-home and out-of-home and between weekdays and weekends. Transportation 26(2), 193–209 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R., Frusti, T., Zhao, H., Schönfelder, S., Axhausen, K.W.: Intershopping duration: an analysis using multiweek data. Transp. Res. B 38(1), 39–60 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C.R., Srinivasan, S., Axhausen, K.W.: An analysis of multiple inter-episode durations using a unifying multivariate hazard model. Transp. Res. B 39(9), 797–823 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.G., Rhodes, R.E.: Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in western Canadian adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 30(2), 131–136 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diggle, P.J., Liang, K.-Y., Zeger, S.L.: Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, S.T., Miller, E.J., Axhausen, K.W., Gärling, T.: A conceptual model of the weekly household activity-travel scheduling process. In: Stern, E., Salomon, I., Bovy, P. (eds.) Travel Behaviour: Spatial Patterns, Congestion and Modelling, pp. 233–264. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, P.B.: The usefulness of travel budgets. Transp. Res. A 15, 97–106 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habib, K.M., Miller, E.J., Axhausen, K.W.: Weekly rhythm in joint time expenditure for all at-home and out-of-home activities: application of Kuhn-Tucker demand system model using multiweek travel diary data. Transp. Res. Rec. 2054, 64–73 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S., Hanson, P.: Gender and urban activity patterns in Uppsala. Geogr. Rev. 70(3), 291–299 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S., Huff, J.O.: Classification issues in the analysis of complex travel behavior. Transportation 13, 271–293 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S., Huff, J.O.: Repetition and day-to-day variability in individual travel patterns: implications for classification. In: Golledge, R., Timmermans, H. (eds.) Behavioral Modelling in Geography and Planning. Croom Helm, New York (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, M., Prashker, J.N., Ben-Akiva, M.: Dynamic model of weekly activity pattern. Transp. Sci. 20(1), 24–36 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J.O., Hanson, S.: Repetition and variability in urban travel. Geogr. Anal. 18(2), 97–113 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J.O., Hanson, S.: Measurement of habitual behavior: examining systematic variability in repetitive travel. In: Jones, P. (ed.) Developments in Dynamic and Activity-based Approaches to Travel Analysis, pp. 229–249. Gower Publishing Co., Aldershot, England (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P., Clarke, M.: The significance and measurement of variability in travel behaviour. Transportation 15, 65–87 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Juster, F.T., Ono, H., Stafford, F.P.: Changing Times of American Youth: 1981–2003. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (2004)

  • Kapur, A., Bhat, C.R.: On modeling adults’ daily time use by activity purpose and accompaniment arrangement. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021, 18–27 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, R.: A model of daily time allocation to discretionary out-of-home activities and trips. Transp. Res. B 18(3), 255–266 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, R.: An analysis of weekly activity patterns and travel expenditure. In: Golledge, R., Timmermanns, H. (eds.) Behavioural Modelling in Geography and Planning, pp. 399–423. Croom Helm, London (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppelman, F.S., Pas, E.I.: Estimation of disaggregate regression models of person trip generation with multiday data. In: Volmuller J., Hamerslag R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, pp. 513–529. VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands (1984)

  • Kraan, M.: Time to travel? A model for the allocation of time and money. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Twente, The Netherlands (1994)

  • Kunert, U.: Weekly mobility of life cycle groups. Transportation 21(3), 271–288 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meloni, I., Spissu, E., Bez, M.: A model of the dynamic process of time allocation to discretionary activities. Transp. Sci. 41(1), 15–28 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadian, A., Doherty, S.: Mixed logit model of activity-scheduling time horizon incorporating spatial-temporal flexibility variables. Transp. Res. Rec. 1926, 33–40 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadian, A., Doherty, S.: Modeling activity scheduling time horizon: duration of time between planning and execution of pre-planned activities. Transp. Res. A 40, 475–490 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthyalagari, G.R., Parashar, A., Pendyala, R.M.: Measuring day-to-day variability in travel characteristics using gps data. In: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (2001)

  • Newman, C.: Gender, time use, and change: impacts of agricultural export employment in Ecuador. World Bank Econ. Rev. 16(3), 375–396 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pas, E.I.: A flexible and integrated methodology for analytical classification of daily travel-activity behavior. Transp. Sci. 17, 405–429 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pas, E.I.: Intrapersonal variability and model goodness-of-fit. Transp. Res. A 21(6), 431–438 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pas, E.I.: Weekly travel-activity patterns. Transportation 15, 89–109 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pas, E.I., Sundar, S.: Intrapersonal variability in daily urban travel behavior: some additional evidence. Transportation 22, 135–150 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendyala, R.M., Pas, E.I.: Summary of workshop two: models of activity engagement and travel behavior. In: Texas Transportation Institute (ed.) Activity-Based Travel Forecasting Conference, June 2–5, 1996: Summary, Recommendations, and Compendium of Papers, Report DOT-T-97-17, Travel Model Improvement ProgramHousehold and residential location characteristics, pp 183–192. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (1997)

  • Pendyala, R.M., Kitamura, R., Kikuchi, A., Yamamoto, T., Fujii, S.: Florida activity mobility simulator. Transp. Res. Rec. 1921, 123–130 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinjari, A.R., Bhat, C.R., Hensher, D.A.: Residential self-selection effects in an activity time-use behavior model. Technical paper, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin (2008)

  • Schlich, R.: 12 weeks of leisure travel survey. Travel survey meta data series, ETH (2004)

  • Stauffacher, M., Schlich, R., Axhausen, K.W., Scholz, R.: The diversity of travel behaviour: motives and social interactions in leisure time activities. Working papers, Transportation and Spatial Planning, IVT, ETH Zürich, Zürich (2005)

  • Stopher, P.R.: Collecting and processing data from mobile technologies. Resource paper for Workshop B4: The Collection and Processing of Survey Data using Mobile Technologies, 8th International Conference on Survey Methods in Transport, Annecy, France (2008)

  • Stopher, P.R., FitzGerald, C., Zhang, J.: Search for a global positioning system device to measure person travel. Transp. Res. C 16(3), 350–369 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J., Bonsall, P., Oliveira, M., Leary, L., Lee, M.: Review of relevant technologies. Report on Work Package 1 of Research Project UG599 (Review of the Potential Role of ‘New Technologies’ in the National Travel Survey), Department for Transport, London (2006). http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/methodology/ntsreports/ntsreviewtechnologies.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of four anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of the paper. The authors are also grateful to Lisa Macias for her help in typesetting and formatting this document.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, C1761, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Erika Spissu & Chandra R. Bhat

  2. CRiMM – Dipartimento di Ingegneria del Territorio, University of Cagliari, Via San Giorgio 12, Cagliari, 09124, Italy

    Erika Spissu

  3. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENC 2503, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    Abdul Rawoof Pinjari

  4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Room ECG252, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5306, USA

    Ram M. Pendyala

  5. IVT ETH - Honggerberg, HIL F 32.3, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang Pauli Strasse 15, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland

    Kay W. Axhausen

Authors
  1. Erika Spissu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Rawoof Pinjari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chandra R. Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ram M. Pendyala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kay W. Axhausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra R. Bhat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spissu, E., Pinjari, A.R., Bhat, C.R. et al. An analysis of weekly out-of-home discretionary activity participation and time-use behavior. Transportation 36, 483–510 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9200-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9200-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation