Travel behavior research of the past few years has shown an increasing interest in dynamic activity scheduling. Research was done to analyze factors influencing the actual activity scheduling process by using detailed activity travel data from an extensive data set collected in Flanders (Belgium). A model examines the attributes that influence activity planning; a second model analyzes the factors that affect activity rescheduling. The explanatory variables considered in both models are individual, household, activity, and schedule attributes, and their impact is analyzed by using mixed logit models. Random effects are added to the models to test for within-individual variance. The results reveal that activity and schedule characteristics considerably affect activity planning. The rescheduling model also has several highly significant activity and schedule attributes. Most individual and household attributes considered do not influence activity planning and rescheduling behavior, although strong statistical evidence indicates that individual-specific preferences for planning and rescheduling determine the process of activity scheduling.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GärlingT., KalénT., RomanusJ., SelartM., and VilhelmsonB.. Computer Simulation of Household Activity Scheduling.Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1998, pp. 665–679.
2.
ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Albatross: A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System.EIRASS, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Hague, Netherlands, 2000.
3.
PendyalaR. M., KitamuraR., KikuchiA., YamamotoT., and FujiiS.. Florida Activity Mobility Simulator: Overview and Preliminary Validation Results. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1921, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 123–130.
4.
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.
5.
DohertyS. T.Should We Abandon Activity Type Analysis? Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
6.
RuizT., PolakJ. W., and JohC.-H.. Empirical Analysis of 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.
7.
GärlingT., GillholmT., and MontgomeryW.. The Role of Anticipated Time Pressure in Activity Scheduling.Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1999, pp. 173–191.
8.
TimmermansH., ArentzeT., and JohC.-H.. Modeling Effects of Anticipated Time Pressure on Execution of Activity Programs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 8–15.
9.
JohC.-H., ArentzeT., and TimmermansP.. Activity-Travel Scheduling and Rescheduling Decision Processes: Empirical Estimation of Aurora Model. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1898, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 10–18.
10.
TimmermansH., ArentzeT., and JohC. H.. Modeling Learning and Evolutionary Adaptation Processes in Activity Settings: Theory and Numerical Simulations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 27–33.
11.
DohertyS. T., and MillerE. J.. A Computerized Household Activity Scheduling Survey.Transportation, Vol. 27, 2000, pp. 75–97.
12.
EttemaD., BorgersA. W. J., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Using Interactive Computer Experiments for Identifying Activity Scheduling Heuristics. Presented at 7th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Valle Nevada, Chile, 1994.
13.
LeeM. S., and McNallyM. G.. Experiments with a Computerized Self-Administrative Activity Survey. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 91–99.
14.
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.
15.
MohammadianA., and DohertyS. T.. Modeling Activity Scheduling Time Horizon: Duration of Time Between Planning and Execution of Pre-Planned Activities.Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 40, 2006, pp. 475–490.
16.
RoordaM. J., and MillerE. J.. Strategies for Resolving Activity Scheduling Conflicts: An Empirical Analysis. In Progress in Activity-Based Analysis (TimmermansH. J. P., ed.), Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2005, pp. 203–222.
17.
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.
18.
RuizT., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Changing the Timing of Activities in Resolving Scheduling Conflicts.Transportation, Vol. 33, 2006, pp. 429–445.
19.
RuizT., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Changing the Duration of Activities in Resolving Scheduling Conflicts.Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2008, pp. 347–359.
20.
RoordaM. J., and AndreB. K.. A Stated Adaptation Survey of Activity Rescheduling: Empirical and Preliminary Model Results. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2021, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 45–54.
21.
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.
22.
CoolsM., MoonsE., BellemansT., JanssensD., and WetsG.. Surveying Activity-Travel Behavior in Flanders: Assessing the Impact of the Survey Design.Transportation Research Institute, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium, 2008.
23.
JanssensD., WetsG., TimmermansH. J. P., and ArentzeT. A.. Modelling Short-Term Dynamics in Activity-Travel Patterns: The Feathers Model. Presented at 11th World Conference on Transportation Research, Berkeley, Calif., 2007.
24.
BellemansT., KochanB., JanssensD., WetsG., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Field Evaluation of Personal Digital Assistant Enabled by Global Positioning System: Impact on Quality of Activity and Diary Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2049, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 136–143.
25.
Statistics Belgium. FOD Economie, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Dienst Demografie, 2008. www.statbel.fgov.be. Accessed Nov. 1, 2008.
26.
GlorieuxI., CoppensK., KoeletS., MoensM., and VandeweyerJ.. Vlaanderen in Uren En Minuten. De Tijdsbesteding Van De Vlamingen in 480 Tabellen.VUB Press, Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
27.
LittellR. C., MillikenG. A., StroupW. W., WolfingerR. D., and SchabenbergerO.. SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd ed., SAS Press, Cary, N.C., 2006.
28.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and LermanS. R.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
29.
FishbeinM., TriandisH. C., KanferF. H., BeckerM., MiddlestadtS. E., and EichlerA.. Factors Influencing Behavior and Behavior Change. In Handbook of Health Psychology. (BaumA., RevensonT. A., and SingerJ. E., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahway, N.J., 2001, pp. 3–17.
30.
GillholmR., and GärlingT.. Determinants of Implementation Intentions.Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden, 1997.
