Leisure travel holds an important share of the overall amount of travel. However, efforts in transport planning to model and explain leisure travel have been rather limited for a long time. Only recently, a subcommunity of researchers began to use the methods of social network analysis. Existing research in this area, however, has focused on social interaction behaviour of individuals given their social networks. The selection of friends underlying the generation of social networks has received less attention. To fill this gap, our aims in this study are a descriptive analysis of leisure network data, and specification and estimation of a utility-based friendship-decision model. Data on connected personal leisure networks are obtained by using the personal network approach in an extended survey framework. Results offer insights into the decision of who is in contact with whom and which combinations of attributes have either an increasing or decreasing effect on the utility of a leisure relationship. The model can be used to simulate social network generation in an agent-based travel-demand simulation and with that enable the consideration of relevant behavioural patterns in the simulation of leisure trips.
ArentzeT Avan den BergPTimmermansH J P (2012) “Modeling social networks in geographic space: approach and empirical application”. Environment and Planning A44: 1101–1120
2.
ArentzeT AKowaldMAxhausenK W (2013) “An agent-based random-utility-maximization model to generate social networks with transitivity in geographic space”. Social Networks35: 451–459
3.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
4.
BFS, ARE (2007) “Mobilität in der Schweiz, Ergebnissse des Mikrozensus 2005 zum Verkehrsverhalten”. Federal Office for Spatial Development and Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Bernfile:///C:/Users/Family/Downloads/Schlussbericht.pdf
5.
Carrasco J A, 2006 Social Activity-travel Behaviour: A Personal Network Approach PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
6.
ChristakisN AFowlerJ H (2009) Connected. The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, Boston, MA: Little, Brown
7.
DaraganovaGPattisonPKoskinenJMitchellBBillAWattsMBaumS (2012) “Networks and geography: modelling community network structures as the outcome of both spatial and network processes”. Social Networks34: 6–17
FarberSPàezAMorencyC (2012) “Activity spaces and the measurement of clustering and exposure: a case study of linguistic groups in Montreal”. Environment and Planning A44: 315–332
11.
Frei A, 2012 Networks, Geographies and Travel: Travel Between Infrastructure and Social Structure PhD thesis, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-007614104
Kowald M, Axhausen K W, 2011, “Strong and weak relationships: tie strengths in egocentric leisure networks”, paper presented at the 106th American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, August, http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-006313150
16.
KowaldMAxhausenK W (2012) “Focussing on connected personal networks: selected results from a snowball sample”. Environment and Planning A44: 1085–1100
17.
LarsenJUrryJAxhausenK W (2006) Mobilities, Networks, Geographies, Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate
18.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJ M (2001) “Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks”. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–444
19.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLBrashearsM E (2006) “Social isolation in America: changes in core discussion networks over two decades”. American Sociological Review71: 353–375
20.
MarsdenP V (1987) “Core discussion networks of Americans”. American Sociological Review52: 122–131
21.
MarsdenP V (2005) “Recent development in network measurement”. In: CarringtonP JScottJWassermanS (eds) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–30
22.
MokDWellmanBBasuR (2007) “Did distance matter before the internet? Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s”. Social networks29: 430–461
PáezAScottD M (2007) “Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute”. Environment and Planning A39: 647–665
25.
PáezAScottD MVolzE (2008) “A discrete-choice approach to modelling social influence on individual decision making”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35: 1055–1069
26.
ScottJ (2007) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Silvis J, Niemeier D, D’Souza R, 2006, “Social networks and travel behaviour: report from an integrated travel diary”, paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, August, Kyoto, http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/dsouza/Pubs/IATBR_Silis.pdf
29.
SteglichCSnijdersT A B (2010) “Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence”. Social Methodology40: 329–393
30.
TrainK E (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Van den Berg P, Arentze T A, Timmermans H J P, 2009, “Size and composition of ego-centered social networks and their effect on geographical distance and contact frequency”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January, Washington, DC, http://trb.metapress.com/content/758271947816j474/
33.
WiltonR DPáezAScottD M (2011) “Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative investigation of social influence and telecommuting”. Transportation Research Part A45: 269–282
34.
WolfM (2004) “Egozentrierte Netzwerke: Erhebungsverfahren und Datenqualität”. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie Sonderheft44: 244–273
