Rescheduling of daily activities and associated travel in response to unforeseen events such as travel delays is receiving increased attention in the context of traffic management. In this paper we describe the results of a stated adaptation experiment held among a large sample of individuals through a web-based questionnaire, to estimate parameters of such dynamic behaviour. In the experiment subjects indicated their response to a reduction in available time for a planned activity in a number of hypothetical situations. A mixed logit model was used to estimate subjective preferences for adapting in certain ways conditional upon activity attributes and socioeconomic variables. The results indicate that location and transport-mode adaptations are rare compared with duration adjustment or postponing (or cancelling) the activity dependent on the relative size of reduced time. Socioeconomic variables and activity attributes also play a significant role.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerTRimmerLCarpenterD, 2002, “Use of Internet-based household travel diary survey instrument”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1804, 134–143
2.
ArentzeT ATimmermansH J P, 2009, “A need-based model of multi-day, multi-person activity generation”Transportation Research B43251–265
3.
ArentzeT APelizaroCTimmermansH J P, 2005, “Implementation of a model of dynamic activity–travel rescheduling decisions: An agent-based micro-simulation framework”, in Proceedings of the Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management ConferenceLondon, http://128.40.111.250/cupum/searchpapers/papers/paper48.pdf
4.
ArentzeT ABorgersA W JPonjeMTimmermansH J P, 2006, “From activity-based modelling to social event-based modelling: Conceptual framework and empirical results”, in Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Travel Behaviour ResearchKyoto, Japan, 16–20 August, CD-Rom; copy available from the authors
5.
AxhausenK, 1998, “Can we ever obtain the data we would like to have?”, in Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modelling Eds GårlingTLaitilaTWestinK (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 305–324
6.
BrickaSZmudJ, 2003, “Impact of Internet retrieval for reducing nonresponse in a household travel survey”, in Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research BoardTransportation Research Board, Washington, DC, http://www.ltRC.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-001749.pdf
7.
ChenCKitamuraR, 2000, “On what people schedule and what they actually do”, in Proceedings of the 9th International Association for Travel Behaviour Research ConferenceGold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 2–7 July, CD-Rom; copy available from the authors
8.
ClarkA FDohertyS T, 2008, “Examining the nature and extent of the activity–travel preplanning decision process”Transportation Research Recordnumber 2054, 83–92
9.
DohertyS TAxhausenK W, 1998, “The development of a unified modelling framework for the household activity– travel scheduling process”, in Verkehr und Mobilität, Stadt, Region, Land 66 Ed. BeckmannK J (ISB, Aachen) pp 45–59
10.
GärlingTKalénTRomanusJSelartMVilhelmsonB, 1998, “Computer simulation of household activity scheduling”Environment and Planning A30665–679
11.
GärlingTGillholmRMontgomeryW, 1999, “The role of anticipated time pressure in activity scheduling”Transportation26173–191
12.
GreeneW H, 2003LIMDEP—Nlogit Version 3.0 Reference GuideEconometric Software, Inc, Plainview, New York, NY 11803
13.
JohC-HArentzeT ATimmermansH J P, 2003, “Estimating non-linear utility functions of continuous time in the context of an activity schedule adaptation model”, in Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Travel Behaviour ResearchLucerne, Switzerland, 10–14 August, CD-Rom; copy available from the authors
14.
JohC-HArentzeT ATimmermansH J P, 2004, “Activity–travel rescheduling decisions: Empirical estimation of the Aurora model”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1898, 10–18
15.
JohC-HArentzeT ATimmermansH J P, 2005, “A utility-based analysis of activity time allocation decisions underlying segmented daily activity–travel patterns”Environment and Planning A37105–125
16.
LeeM SMcNallyM G, 2003, “On the structure of weekly activity/travel patterns”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice37823–839
17.
LoukopoulosPGärlingTJakobssonCMelandSFujiiS, 2005, “Choices of activity- and travel-change options for reduced car use”, in Progress in Activity-based Analysis Ed. TimmermansH (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 489–501
18.
MillerE, 2005, “An integrated framework for modelling short- and long-run household decision-making”, in Progress in Activity-based Analysis Ed. TimmermansH (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 175–201
19.
MoonsE A L M GWetsG P MAertsMArentzeT ATimmermansH J P, 2005, “The impact of simplification in a sequential rule-based model of activity-scheduling behavior”Environment and Planning A37551–568
20.
NijlandE W LArentzeT ABorgersA W JTimmermansH J P, 2006, “Modelling complex activity–travel scheduling decisions: Procedure for the simultaneous estimation of activity generation and duration functions”, in Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Travel Behaviour ResearchKyoto, Japan, 16–20 August, http://alexandria.tue.nl/openaccess/Metis218628.pdf
21.
OlaruDSmithB, 2005, “Modelling behavioural rules for daily activity scheduling using fuzzy logic”Transportation32423–441
22.
RuizTRoordaM, 2008, “Analysis of planning decisions during the activity-scheduling process”Transportation Research Recordnumber 2054, 46–55
23.
SchwanenTEttemaDTimmermansH, 2007, “If you pick up the children, I'll do the groceries: Spatial differences in between-partner interactions in out-of-home household activities”, Environment and Planning A392754–2773
24.
TimmermansH J PArentzeT AJohC H, 2002, “Analysing space–time behaviour: New approaches to old problems”, Progress in Human Geography26175–190
