This paper addresses interagent interactions, an issue that has received limited attention in travel behavior research. Drawing upon the theory of externalities and the sociological notion of social networks, we develop a discrete choice model that incorporates elements of social influence in addition to more conventional factors such as the attributes of alternatives and the characteristics of decisionmakers. Using simulation, we apply the model to the case of telecommuting—that is, the decision to telecommute or not—over two waves. The experiment suggests that some marginal adopters of telecommuting are influenced heavily in the second wave by the decisions of others in the first wave. Furthermore, the example illustrates the importance of social influence on new adopters of telecommuting in the second wave.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkerlofG A, 1997, “Social distance and social decisions”Econometrica651005–1027.
2.
AxhausenK, 2005, “Social networks and travel: Some hypotheses”, in Social Aspects of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives Eds DonaghyKPoppelreuterSRudingerG (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 90–108.
3.
BarabasiA LAlbertR, 1999, “Emergence of scaling in random networks”Science286 (5439) 509–512.
4.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS R, 1985Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
5.
BhatC RGuoJ, 2004, “A mixed spatially correlated logit model: Formulation and application to residential choice modeling”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological38(2) 147–168.
6.
CharlotSDurantonG, 2004, “Communication externalities in cities”Journal of Urban Economics56581–613.
7.
CornesRSandlerT, 1996The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
8.
DegenneAForséM, 1999Introducing Social Networks (Sage, London).
9.
De PalmaAPicardN, 2005, “Route choice decision under travel time uncertainty”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice39295–324.
10.
DoiK, 2004, “Evaluation of transport infrastructure policies and planning by measuring the impact on quality of life”, paper presented at the 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–8 July; copy available from the author, Department of Safety Systems and Construction University, Kagawa University, Takamatsu.
11.
DoumaFWellsKHoranT AKrizekK J, 2004, “ICT and travel in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area”, in Compendium of Papers of the 83rd Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
12.
DubinR, 1995, “Estimating logit models with spatial dependence”, in New Directions in Spatial Econometrics Eds AnselinL, RJGM Florax (Springer, Berlin) pp 229–242.
13.
DugundjiEGulyasL, 2003, “Empirical estimation and multi-agent simulation of a discrete choice model with network interaction effects: An exploration of the role of global versus local and social versus spatial networks in transport mode choice behavior in the Netherlands”, in Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Sendai, Japan, 27–29 May; CD-ROM.
EllenI GHempsteadK, 2002, “Telecommuting and the demand for urban living: A preliminary look at white-collar workers”Urban Studies39749–766.
16.
GirvanMNewmanMEJ, 2002, “Community structure in social and biological networks”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America997821–7826.
17.
GliebeJ PKoppelmanF S, 2002, “A model of joint activity participation between household members”Transportation29(1) 49–72.
18.
GolobT FMcNallyM G, 1997, “A model of activity participation and travel interactions between household heads”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological31(3) 177–194.
19.
GordonPKumarARichardsonH W, 1989, “Gender differences in metropolitan travel behavior”Regional Studies23499–510.
20.
HägerstrandT, 1970, “What about people in regional science?”Papers of the Regional Science Association247–21.
21.
HansonSHansonP, 1981a, “The impact of married women's employment on household travel patterns—a Swedish example”Transportation10(2) 165–183.
22.
HansonSHansonP, 1981b, “The travel-activity patterns of urban residents—dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics”Economic Geography57332–347.
23.
HansonSPrattG, 1995Gender, Work and Space (Routledge, London).
24.
HarveyA STaylorM E, 2000, “Activity settings and travel behavior: A social contact perspective”Transportation27(1) 53–73.
25.
HellingAMokhtarianP L, 2001, “Worker telecommunication and mobility in transition: Consequences for planning”Journal of Planning Literature15511–525.
26.
JanelleD GGoodchildM FKlinkenbergB, 1988, “Space–time diaries and travel characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation”Environment and Planning A20891–906.
27.
KanaroglouP SScottD M, 2003, “Integrated urban transportation and land-use models”, in Governing Cities on the Move: Functional and Management Perspectives on Transformations of European Urban Infrastructures Eds DijstMSchenkelWThomasI (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 42–72.
28.
KoppelmanF SWenC H, 2000, “The paired combinatorial logit model: Properties, estimation and application”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological34(2) 75–89.
29.
LeendersRTAJ, 2002, “Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight matrix”Social Networks24(1) 21–47.
30.
LenntorpB, 1976Paths in Space–Time Environments: A Time Geographic Study of Movement Possibilities of Individuals (Department of Geography, University of Lund, Lund).
31.
LuX DPasE I, 1999, “Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice33(1) 1–18.
32.
McFaddenD, 1978, “Modelling the choice of residential location”, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models Eds KarlqvistALundqvistLSnickarsFWeibullJ W (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 75–96.
33.
McNallyM, 2000, “The activity-based approach”, in Handbook of Transport Modelling Eds HensherD AButtonK J (Pergamon, Oxford) pp 53–68.
34.
MarsdenP VFriedkinN E, 1994, “Network studies of social influence”, in Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Eds WassermanSGalaskiewiczJ (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 3–25.
35.
MartinezFAguilaF, 2004, “An optimal urban planning tool: Subsidies and regulations”, paper presented at the 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–8 July; copy available from Dr. Martínez, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Chile, Santiago.
36.
MeadeJ E, 1973The Theory of Economic Externalities: The Control of Environmental Pollution and Similar Social Costs (Sijthoff-Leiden, Geneva).
37.
MehlmannM, 1988, “Social aspects of telework: Facts, hopes, fears, ideas”, in Telework; Present Situation and Future Developments of a New Form of Work Organization Eds KorteW BRobinsonSSteinleW J (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 101–110.
38.
MillerH J, 2005, “Necessary space–time conditions for human interaction”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32381–401.
39.
MiyamotoKVichiensanVShimomuraNPáezA, 2004, “Discrete choice model with structuralized spatial effects for location analysis”Transportation Research Record number 1898, 183–190.
40.
MohammadianAKanaroglouP S, 2003, “Applications of spatial multinomial logit model to transportation planning”, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Switzerland, 14–20 August, http://www.ivt.baug.ethz.ch/allgemein/pdf/mohammadian.pdf.
41.
MokhtarianP L, 1998, “A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travel”Urban Studies35215–241.
42.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 1994, “Modeling the choice of telecommuting: Setting the context”Environment and Planning A26749–766.
43.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 1996, “Modeling the choice of telecommuting: 2. A case of the preferred impossible alternative”Environment and Planning A281859–1876.
44.
MoscoviciS, 1985, “Social influence and conformity”, in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 22nd edition, Eds LindzeyGAronsonE (Random House, New York) pp 347–412.
45.
PasE I, 1984, “The effect of selected sociodemographic characteristics on daily travel-activity behavior”Environment and Planning A16571–581.
46.
PredA, 1981, “Of paths and projects: Individual behavior and its societal context”, in Behavioral Problems in Geography Revisited Eds CoxK RGolledgeR G (Methuen, New York) pp 131–235.
47.
RizziL IOrtúzarJ D, 2003, “Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety”Accident Analysis and Prevention35(1) 9–22.
48.
SalomonI, 1985, “Telecommunications and travel—substitution or modified mobility”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy19219–235.
49.
ScottD MKanaroglouP S, 2002, “An activity-episode generation model that captures interactions between household heads: Development and empirical analysis”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological36(10) 875–896.
50.
ShenQ, 1999, “Transportation, telecommunications and the changing geography of opportunity”Urban Geography20334–355.
51.
ShenQ, 2000a, “An approach to representing the spatial structure of the information society”Urban Geography21543–560.
52.
ShenQ, 2000b, “New telecommunications and residential location flexibility”Environment and Planning A321445–1463.
53.
TrainK, 2003Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
54.
VarianH R, 2003Intermediate Microeconomics6th edition (W W Norton, New York).
55.
WalkerM EWassermanSWellmanB, 1993, “Statistical models for social support networks”Sociological Methods and Research22(1) 71–98.
56.
WassermanSFaustKIacobucciD, 1994Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
57.
WellmanB, 2001a, “Computer networks as social networks”Science293(5537) 2031–2034.
58.
WellmanB, 2001b, “Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25227–252.
59.
WellmanBBerkowitzS D, 1988Social Structures: A Network Approach (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
