This paper focuses on studying the incidence of different types of activity-scheduling decisions, using data from a computerized activity-scheduling survey (CHASE) conducted in Toronto, Canada. Several decisions are studied: with whom the activity takes place, location of the activity, the time planning horizon, and modification or deletion of activities during the scheduling process. The results from a multivariate probit model show that several characteristics of the planned schedule and planned activities are most important in explaining the decisions made during the scheduling process. Individual and household characteristics also play an important role. Significant correlations among the planning decisions suggest that the process of activity scheduling occurs with a high degree of endogeneity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JonesP. M., DixM. C., ClarkM. I., and HeggieI. G.Understanding Travel Behaviour.Gower Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1983.
2.
ReckerW. W., and KitamuraR.Activity-Based Travel Analysis: Pattern Recognition, Classification, and Interpretation. Transportation Research A, Vol. 20, 1985, pp. 319–330.
3.
EttemaD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.Simulation Model of Activity Scheduling Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 1–11.
4.
GärlingT., KwanM. P., and GolledgeG.Computational-Process Modeling of Household Activity Scheduling. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1994, pp. 355–364.
5.
GärlingT., KalénT., RomanusJ., and SelartM.Computer Simulation of Household Activity Scheduling. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, 1998, pp. 665–679.
6.
ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.Albatross: A Learning-Based Transportation-Oriented Simulation System.European Institute of Retailing and Services Studies, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2000.
7.
JohC.-H., ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.A Theory and Simulation Model of Activity-Travel Rescheduling Behavior. Proc., 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, Korea, 2003.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
DohertyS. T., MillerE. J., AxhausenK. W., and GärlingT.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 Ltd., Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2001, pp. 148–165.
11.
EttemaD., and TimmermansH.Modeling 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.
12.
EttemaD. F., BorgersA. W. J., and TimmermansH. J. P.Using Interactive Computer Experiments for Identifying Activity Scheduling Heuristics. Presented at 7th International Conference on Travel Behavior, Santiago, Chile, 1994.
13.
DohertyS. T., and MillerE. J.A Computerized Household Activity Scheduling Survey. Transportation, Vol. 27, 2000, pp. 75–97.
14.
LeeM. S., DohertyS. T., SabetiashrafR., and McNallyM. G.iCHASE: an Internet Computerized Household Activity Scheduling Elicitor Survey.Presented at 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
15.
LeeM. S., and McNallyM. G.Experiments with Computerized Self-Administrative Activity Survey. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, TRB, National Research Council Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 91–99.
16.
ChenQ.An Exploration of Activity Scheduling and Rescheduling Processes. PhD dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California–Davis, 2001.
17.
RindsfüserG., MühlhansH., DohertyS. T., and BeckmannK. J.Tracing the Planning and Execution of Activities and their Attributes: Design and Application of a Hand-Held Scheduling Process Survey. Proc., 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
18.
RoordaM. J., and MillerE. J.Toronto Activity Panel Survey: Demonstrating the Benefits of a Multiple Instrument Panel Survey. Presented at 7th International Conference on Travel Survey Methods, Playa Herradura, Costa Rica, Aug. 2004.
19.
DohertyS. T., NemethE., RoordaM., and MillerE. J.Computerized Household Activity-Scheduling Survey for Toronto, Canada, Area: Design and Assessment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 140–149.
20.
RoordaM. J., Lee-GosselinM., DohertyS. T., MillerE. J., and RondierP.Travel/Activity Panel Surveys in the Toronto and Quebec City Regions: Comparison of Methods and Preliminary Results. Proc., PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium on the Behavioral Foundations of Integrated Land-Use and Transportation Models: Frameworks, Models, and Applications.Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 2005.
21.
RindsfüserG., MühlhansH., DohertyS. T., and BeckmannK. J.Tracing the Planning and Execution of Activities and Their Attributes: Design and Application of a Hand-Held Scheduling Process Survey. Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
22.
KochanB., BellemansT., JanssensD., and WetsG.Dynamic Activity-Travel Diary Data Collection Using GPS-Enabled Personal Digital Assistant. Presented at Innovations in Travel Modeling Conference, Austin, Tex., May 21–23, 2003.
23.
LeeM. S., and McNallyM. G.On the Structure of Weekly Activity/Travel Patterns. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 37, Issue 10, 2003, pp. 823–839.
24.
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, 2004.
25.
MohammadianA., and DohertyS. T.Mixed Logit Model of Activity-Scheduling Time Horizon Incorporating Spatial–Temporal Flexibility Variables. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 33–40.
26.
RuizT., PolakJ. W., and JohC.-H.An Empirical Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Resolution of Activity Scheduling Conflicts. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 50–60.
27.
JohC.-H., PolakJ. W., and RuizT.Characterizing Global Activity Schedule Adjustment Behavior by Using a Sequence Alignment Method. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 26–32.
28.
RuizT., and TimmermansH. J. P.Changing the Timing of Activities in Resolving Scheduling Conflicts. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2006, pp. 429–445.
29.
JohC.-H., DohertyS. T., and PolakJ. W.Analysis of Factors Affecting the Frequency and Type of Activity Schedule Modification. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 19–25.
30.
RoordaM. J., and RuizT.Interpersonal Commitments and the Travel-Activity Scheduling Process. Presented at 11th World Conference on Transportation Research, San Francisco, Ca., June 24–29, 2007.
31.
DohertyS. T.How Far in Advance are Activities Planned? Measurement Challenges and Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 41–49.
32.
HuL., and BentlerP. M.Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 6, 1999, pp. 1–55.
33.
SchumakerR. E., and LomaxR. G.A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., 1996.
34.
MuthénL. K., and MuthénB.O.Mplus User's Guide, 3rd ed. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, Ca., 2004.
