The difference in the individuals’ preference of activity destination choice is a new explanation for the activity-space segregation. This study investigates individuals’ preference in the destination choice for their daily activities. It uses revealed preference survey for the choice of the activity destination, and mobile phone dataset for the ambient population at the activity destination in Guangzhou, China. It has found that (1) the activity-space segregation is strongly influenced by the residential segregation, but disadvantaged populations are more spatially constrained by the distance decay effect; (2) all individuals prefer a destination with high diversity of built environment; and (3) migrant people tend to be self-segregated at the activity space, but people with higher education status prefer to take activities at an integrated place.
BayerPMcMillanRRuebenK (2004) The causes and consequences of residential segregation: an equilibrium analysis of neighborhood sorting. In: Working Paper (June). New Haven: Yale University.
2.
BayerPMcMillanRRuebenK (2005) Residential Segregation in General Equilibrium. Cambridge: NBER Working Paper.
3.
Ben-AkivaMELermanSR (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge: MIT press.
4.
BrowningCRCalderCAKrivoLJ, et al. (2017) Socioeconomic segregation of activity spaces in urban neighborhoods: does shared residence mean shared routines?The Russell Sage Foundation journal of the social sciences: RSF3(2): 210–231. DOI: 10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.09.
5.
CarrascoJAMillerEJ (2006) Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social network approach. Transportation33(5): 463–480. DOI: 10.1007/s11116-006-8074-z.
6.
CerveroRKockelmanK (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment2(3): 199–219. DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
7.
CrooksAT (2010) Constructing and implementing an agent-based model of residential segregation through vector GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science24(5): 661–675. DOI: 10.1080/13658810903569572.
8.
EllisMWrightRParksV (2004) Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, no.94: 620-637.
9.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board76(3): 265–293. DOI: 10.3141/1780-10.
10.
HägerstraandT (1970) What about people in regional science? Papers in regional science. Papers in Regional Science24(1): 7–24.
HuangALevinsonD (2012) Accessibility, network structure, and consumers’ destination choice: a GIS analysis of GPS travel data//Proceedings of the 91st. Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board1–17.
13.
JärvOMüüriseppKAhasRDerudderBWitloxF (2015) Ethnic differences in activity spaces as a characteristic of segregation: A study based on mobile phone usage in Tallinn, Estonia. Urban Studies52(14): 2680–2698. DOI: 10.1177/0042098014550459.
14.
KempermanABorgersATimmermansH (2002) Incorporating Variety Seeking and Seasonality in Stated Preference Modeling of Leisure Trip Destination Choice: Test of External Validity. Washington: Transportation Research Record (1807): 67–76. DOI: 10.3141/1807-09.
15.
KimHKwanM (2003) Space-time accessibility measures : a geocomputational algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration. Journal of Geographical Systems5, 71–91.
16.
KwanMP (2009) From place-based to people-based exposure measures. Social Science and Medicine69(9), 1311–1313, Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.013.
17.
KwanMP (2013) Beyond space (as we knew it): toward temporally integrated geographies of segregation, health, and accessibility: space-time integration in geography and GIScience. Annals of the Association of American Geographers103(5): 1078–1086. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2013.792177.
18.
KwanMP (2018) The neighborhood effect averaging problem (NEAP): an elusive confounder of the neighborhood effect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(9): 1841. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15091841.
19.
Le RouxGValléeJCommengesH (2017) Social segregation around the clock in the Paris region (France). Journal of Transport Geography59: 134–145, Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.003.
20.
LiZWuF (2010) Post-reform Residential Segregation in Three Chinese Cities: Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou BT - Marginalization in Urban China: Comparative Perspectives. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 226–250.
21.
ParkREBurgessEW (1925) The City. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
22.
ParkYMKwanMP (2018) Beyond residential segregation: a spatiotemporal approach to examining multi-contextual segregation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems71: 98–108, Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.05.001.
23.
PozsgayMABhatCR (2001) Destination choice modeling for home-based recreational trips: analysis and implications for land use, transportation, and air quality planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1777: 47–54. DOI: 10.3141/1777-05.
24.
ReckerWWKostyniukLP (1978) Factors influencing destination choice for the urban grocery shopping trip. Transportation7: 19–33.
25.
SchellingTC (1971) Dynamics Model of Segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology1: 143–186.
26.
SchnellIDiabAABBenensonI (2015) A global index for measuring socio-spatial segregation versus integration. Applied Geography58: 179–188. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.01.008.
27.
SchnellIYoavB (2001) The Sociospatial Isolation of Agents in Everyday Life Spaces as an Aspect of Segregation. In Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers91(4).
28.
SilmSAhasR (2014a) Ethnic differences in activity spaces: a study of out-of-home nonemployment activities with mobile phone data. Annals of the Association of American Geographers104(3): 542–559. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2014.892362.
29.
SilmSAhasR (2014b) The temporal variation of ethnic segregation in a city: evidence from a mobile phone use dataset. Social Science Research47: 30–43, Elsevier Inc. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.03.011.
30.
SilmSAhasRMoosesV (2018) Are younger age groups less segregated? Measuring ethnic segregation in activity spaces using mobile phone data. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies44(11): 1797–1817. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1400425.
31.
SimmaASchlichRAxhausenKW (2001) Destination choice modelling for different leisure activities. BRISK Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints99: 150–158. DOI: 10.3929/ethz-a-010782581.
32.
TammaruTStrömgrenMvan HamMDanzerAM (2016) Relations between residential and workplace segregation among newly arrived immigrant men and women. Cities59: 131–138. The Authors. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.02.004.
33.
Van den BergPTimmermansH (2015) A multilevel path analysis of social networks and social interaction in the neighbourhood. The Region2(1): 55–66. DOI: 10.18335/region.v2i1.32.
34.
van den BergPKempermanATimmermansH (2014) Social interaction location choice: a latent class modeling approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers104(5): 959–972. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2014.924726.
35.
WangDLiF (2016) Daily activity space and exposure: A comparative study of Hong Kong’s public and private housing residents’ segregation in daily life. Cities59: 148–155, Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.09.010.
36.
WangDLiFChaiY (2012) Activity spaces and sociospatial segregation in Beijing. Urban Geography33(2): 256–277. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.33.2.256.
37.
XiaoLRuiterSLiuL, et al. (2021) Burglars blocked by barriers? The impact of physical and social barriers on residential burglars’ target location choices in China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems86: 101582, Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101582.
38.
ZhangJ (2011) Tipping and residential segregation: a unified schelling model. Journal of Regional Science51(1): 167–193. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00671.x.
39.
ZhangBDruijvenPStrijkerD (2017) Does ethnic identity influence migrants’ settlement intentions? Evidence from three cities in Gansu Province, Northwest China. Habitat International69: 94–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.09.003.
40.
ZhangXWangJKwanMP, et al. (2019) Reside nearby, behave apart? Activity-space-based segregation among residents of various types of housing in Beijing, China. Cities88: 166–180, Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.10.009.
41.
ZhangYCaiLSongG, et al. (2022) From residential neighborhood to activity space: the effects of educational segregation on crime and their moderation by social context. In: Annals of the American Association of Geographers 0. Milton Park: Routledge, 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2022.2060793.
42.
ZhengZZhouSDengX (2021) Exploring both home-based and work-based jobs-housing balance by distance decay effect. Journal of Transport Geography93: 103043, Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103043.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
