A new method of sequence analysis to measure fragmentation in activity participation is presented in this paper. We applied this method to a sample of residents in the Central Coast of California that participated in the California Household Travel Survey in 2012–2013. This method explores sequences of daily activity and travel employing techniques from the sequencing of events in the life course of individuals. Studying sequences of daily episodes (each activity and each trip) is preferable to other techniques of studying activity-travel behavior because sequences include the entire trajectory of a person’s activity during a day while at the same time considering the number of activities, order of activities in a day, and their durations jointly. We found substantial fragmentation in activity participation among persons with children and in specific age groups (25–65) amplified by the presence of children in the household. We also found poverty plays an important inhibiting role. Examinations of the days of the week showed significant and substantial differences among the days with both Sundays and Saturdays being distinct, but also substantial differences among the weekdays. The paper provides details about this new technique and the statistical analysis of fragmentation. It also provides a discussion about future steps.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CouclelisH.From Sustainable Transportation to Sustainable Accessibility: Can We Avoid a New Tragedy of the Commons? In Information, Place, and Cyberspace, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 341–356.
2.
CouclelisH.Pizza over the Internet: E-Commerce, the Fragmentation of Activity and the Tyranny of the Region. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2004, pp. 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000205027.
3.
LenzB.NobisC.The Changing Allocation of Activities in Space and Time by the Use of ICT-”Fragmentation” as a New Concept and Empirical Results. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.03.004.
4.
Ben-EliaE.AlexanderB.HubersC.EttemaD.Activity Fragmentation, ICT and Travel: An Exploratory Path Analysis of Spatiotemporal Interrelationships. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 68, 2014, pp. 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.016.
5.
AguiléraA.GuillotC.RalletA.Mobile ICTs and Physical Mobility: Review and Research Agenda. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2012, pp. 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.01.005.
6.
ClewlowR. R.MishraG. S.Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. 2017. University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis, CA, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07.
7.
KwanM. P.Gender and Individual Access to Urban Opportunities: A Study Using Space–Time Measures. Professional Geographer, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1999, pp. 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00158.
YoonS.GouliasK.Impact of Time-Space Prism Accessibility on Time Use Behavior and Its Propagation through Intra-Household Interaction. Transportation Letters, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2010, pp. 245–260. https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2010.02.04.245-260.
GieleJ. Z.GlennN.Methods of Life Course Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Contemporary Sociology. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998.
12.
NotredameC.Recent Progress in Multiple Sequence Alignment: A Survey. Pharmacogenomics, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002, pp. 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1517/14622416.3.1.131.
13.
WilsonW. C.Activity Pattern Analysis by Means of Sequence-Alignment Methods. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1998, pp. 1017–1038. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301017.
14.
WilsonC.Analysis of Travel Behavior Using Sequence Alignment Methods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1998. 1645: 52–59. https://doi.org/10.3141/1645-07.
15.
JohC. H.ArentzeT. A.TimmermansH. J. P.Multidimensional Sequence Alignment Methods for Activity-Travel Pattern Analysis: A Comparison of Dynamic Programming and Genetic Algorithms. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, pp. 247–270.
16.
GouliasK. G.Longitudinal Analysis of Activity and Travel Pattern Dynamics Using Generalized Mixed Markov Latent Class Models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 33. No. 8, 1999, pp. 535–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(99)00005-3.
17.
McBrideE.LeeJ. H.LundbergA. M.DavisA. W.GouliasK. G.Behavioural Micro-Dynamics of Car Ownership and Travel in the Seattle Metropolitan Region from 1989 to 2002. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016.
18.
BhatC. R.PinjariA. R.Duration Modeling. In Handbook of Transport Modelling, pp. 91–111. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2007.
19.
Popkowski LeszczycP. T.TimmermansH.Unconditional and Conditional Competing Risk Models of Activity Duration and Activity Sequencing Decisions: An Empirical Comparison. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2002, pp. 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101090200083.
20.
AuldJ.RashidiT.JavanmardiM.MohammadianA.Dynamic Activity Generation Model Using Competing Hazard Formulation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2254: 28–35.
21.
BhatC. R.GouliasK. G.PendyalaR. M.PaletiR.SidharthanR.SchmittL.HuH. H.A Household-Level Activity Pattern Generation Model with an Application for Southern California. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1063–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9452-y.
22.
2012 California Household Travel Survey Final Report. NUSTATS, Austin, TX, 2013.
23.
McBrideE. C.DavisA. W.LeeJ. H.GouliasK. G.Incorporating Land Use in Synthetic Population Generation Methods and Transfer of Behavioral Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2668: 11–20.
24.
National Establishment Time - Series ( NETS ) Database: 2012 Database Description. Walls & Associates, Denver, Colo., 2012.
25.
GabadinhoA.RitschardG.StuderM.MullerN. S.Mining Sequence Data in R with the TraMineR Package: A User’s Guide. Department of Econometrics and Laboratory of Demography, University of Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
26.
ElzingaC. H.LiefbroerA. C.De-Standardization of Family-Life Trajectories of Young Adults: A Cross-National Comparison Using Sequence Analysis. European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie, Vol. 23, No. 3–4, 2007, pp. 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-007-9133-7.
27.
ReesH.MaddalaG. S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. The Economic Journal, Vol. 95, No. 378, 1985, p. 493. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233228.
28.
RasouliS.TimmermansH.Activity-Based Models of Travel Demand: Promises, Progress and Prospects. International Journal of Urban Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2014, pp. 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.835118.
29.
PaletiR.VovshaP.VyasG.AndersonR.GiaimoG.Activity Sequencing, Location, and Formation of Individual Non-Mandatory Tours: Application to the Activity-Based Models for Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, OH. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2017, pp. 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9671-5.
30.
GreeneW. H.Econometric Analysis. Pearson Education India, 2003.
31.
SrinivasanS.BhatC. R.A Multiple Discrete-Continuous Model for Independent- and Joint-Discretionary-Activity Participation Decisions. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2006, pp. 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-8078-8.
BishawA.Poverty: 2000 to 2012, American Community Survey Briefs. American Community Survey Briefs, 2013. The United States Census Bureau, September.
34.
PaletiR.CoppermanR. B.BhatC. R.An Empirical Analysis of Children’s after School out-of-Home Activity-Location Engagement Patterns and Time Allocation. Transportation, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2011, pp. 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9300-2.
35.
KamargianniM.PolydoropoulouA.GouliasK. G.Teenager’s Travel Patterns for School and After-School Activities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 48, 2012, pp. 3635–3650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1326.
36.
VovshaP.PetersenE.Escorting Children to School - Statistical Analysis and Applied Modeling Approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005. 1921: 131–140.
37.
ChenY.RavulaparthyS.DeutschK.DalalP.YoonS.LeiT.GouliasK.PendyalaR.BhatC.HuH. H.Development of Indicators of Opportunity-Based Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2255: 58–68.
38.
GuptaS.VovshaP.LivshitsV.ManevaP.JeonK.Incorporation of Escorting Children to School in Modeling Individual Daily Activity Patterns of the Household Members. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2429: 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3141/2429-03.
39.
SchwanenT.The Determinants of Shopping Duration on Workdays in The Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004, pp. 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(03)00023-1.
BayarmaA.KitamuraR.SusiloY.Recurrence of Daily Travel Patterns: Stochastic Process Approach to Multiday Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2021: 55–63.
42.
SusiloY. O.DijstM.Behavioural Decisions of Travel-Time Ratios for Work, Maintenance and Leisure Activities in the Netherlands. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2010, pp. 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060903429280.
43.
McBrideE. C.DavisA. W.LeeJ. H.GouliasK. G.Incorporating Land Use into Methods of Synthetic Population Generation and of Transfer of Behavioral Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2668: 11–20.
44.
LeeJ. H.GouliasK. G.Companionship and Time Investment in Social Fields at Different Life Cycle Stages: Implications for Activity and Travel Modeling and Simulation. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 68, 2017, pp. 18–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.01.003.
45.
FloresO.RayleL.How Cities Use Regulation for Innovation: The Case of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in San Francisco. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 25, 2017, pp. 3756–3768.
