This paper describes an analysis undertaken to characterize how individuals resolve conflicts in activity scheduling. The focus is on the case in which a single new activity episode is inserted between two existing consecutively planned activities. The data used in the analysis were collected from students and staff members at a university, with the use of a web-based survey instrument. A range of characteristics, including demographic and socioeconomic variables of the individual, attributes of the observed activity-travel schedule, and attributes of the implied activities can be linked with resolution of the conflict. The results suggest that people tend to resolve schedule conflicts by simultaneously changing the starting time and the duration of the posterior planned activity. Several endogenous relationships have been found among the amount of modifications of these variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PasE. I.Analytically Derived Classifications of Daily Travel-Activity Behavior: Description, Evaluation, and Interpretation. In Transportation Research Record 879, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 9–15.
2.
JonesP. M., DixM. C., ClarkM. I., and HeggieI. G.. Understanding Travel Behaviour.Gower,Aldershot, United Kingdom,1983.
3.
ReckerW. W., and KitamuraR.. Activity-Based Travel Analysis: Pattern Recognition, Classification and Interpretation.Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 20, 1985, pp. 319–330.
4.
EttemaD., BorgersA. W. J., and TimmermansH. J. P.. A Simulation Model of Activity Scheduling Heuristics: An Empirical Test.Geographical and Environmental Modelling, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 175–187.
5.
PolakJ., and HazeltonM.. The Influence of Alternative Traveler Learning Mechanisms on the Dynamics of Transport Systems.Transportation Planning Methods, Vol. 1, 1998, pp. 83–95.
6.
GärlingT., GillholmR., and MontgomeryW.. The Role of Anticipated Time Pressure in Activity Scheduling.Transportation, Vol. 26, 1999, pp. 173–192.
7.
ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Albatross: A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System.European Institute of Retailing and Services Studies, Eindhoven, Netherlands,2000.
8.
DohertyS. T., MillerE. J., AxhausenK. W., and GärlingT. A.A Conceptual Model of the Weekly Household Activity-Travel Scheduling Process. In Travel Behaviour: Patterns, Implications and Modelling (SternE., SalomonI., and BovyP., eds.), Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2001, pp. 148–165.
9.
JohC. H., ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.. A Theory and Simulation Model of Activity-Travel Rescheduling Behavior.Selected Proc., 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, South Korea, 2003.
10.
MillerE. J., and RoordaM. J.. Prototype Model of Household Activity/Travel Scheduling. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 114–121.
11.
MillerE. J.An Integrated Framework for Modelling Short- and Long-Run Household Decision-Making. Presented at EIRASS Conference on Progress in Activity-Based Analysis, Maastricht, Netherlands, May 28–31, 2004.
12.
EttemaD. F., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Modelling Departure Time Choice in the Context of Activity Scheduling Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 39–46.
13.
EttemaD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Using Interactive Computer Experiments for Identifying Activity Scheduling Heuristics. Presented at 7th International Conference on Travel Behaviour, Santiago, Chile, June 13–16, 1994.
14.
DohertyS. T., and MillerE. J.. A Computerized Household Activity Scheduling Survey.Transportation, Vol. 27, 2000, pp. 5–23.
15.
ChenC., and KitamuraR.. On What People Schedule and What They Actually Do. Presented at 9th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Gold Cost, Australia, 2000.
16.
RoordaM. J., and MillerE. J.. Strategies for Resolving Activity Scheduling Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis. Presented at EIRASS Conference on Progress in Activity-Based Analysis, Maastricht, Netherlands, May 28–31, 2004.
17.
RuizT.Design of a Four-Week Activity Scheduling Survey Using the Internet. Presented at EIRASS Conference on Progress in Activity-Based Analysis, Maastricht, Netherlands, May 28–31, 2004.
18.
GreeneW. H.Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall International,Upper Saddle River, N.J.,2003.
19.
DohertyS.Should We Abandon Activity Type Analysis? Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
