A methodology to estimate the location and size of space-time prisms that govern individuals’ activity and travel is presented. Because the vertices of a prism are unobservable, stochastic frontier models are formulated to locate prism vertices along the time axis using observable trip starting or ending times as the dependent variable and commute characteristics, personal and household attributes, and area characteristics as explanatory variables. Models are estimated successfully with coherent behavioral indications. A mean difference of 1.46 h is found between the observed trip ending time and the expected location of the terminal vertex for workers’ evening prisms. The estimation results aid in enhancing the understanding of prism constraints by identifying the determinants of prism vertex locations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PasE. I.Recent Advances in Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling. In Activity-Based Travel Forecasting Conference, Summary, Recommendations, and Compendium of Papers, Travel Model Improvement Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997, pp. 79–102.
2.
DammD.Theory and Empirical Results: A Comparison of Recent Activity-Based Research. In Recent Advances in Travel Demand (CarpenterS. and JonesP. M., eds.), Gower Publishing, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1983, pp. 3–33.
3.
JonesP. M., DixM. C., ClarkeM. I., and HeggieI. G.. Understanding Travel Behaviour. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1983.
4.
KitamuraR.An Evaluation of Activity-Based Travel Analysis. Transportation, Vol. 15, 1988, pp. 9–34.
5.
JonesP., KoppelmanF., and OrfueilJ. P.. Activity Analysis: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions. In Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis (JonesP., ed.), Gower Publishing, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1990.
6.
AxhausenK. W., and GärlingT.. Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis: Conceptual Frameworks, Models, and Research Problems. Transport Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1992, pp. 323–341.
7.
GärlingT., KwanM.-P., and GolledgeR. G.. Computational-Process Modelling of Household Activity Scheduling. Transportation Research B, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1994, pp. 355–364.
KuraniK. S., and KitamuraR.. Recent Developments and the Prospects for Modeling Household Activity Schedules. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1996.
10.
BhatC. R., and KoppelmanF. S.. A Retrospective and Prospective Survey of Time-Use Research. Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1999, pp. 119–139.
11.
HägerstrandT.What About People in Regional Science?Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 24, 1970, pp. 7–21.
12.
LenthorpB.Paths in Space-Time Environments. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, No. 44, CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1976.
13.
KitamuraR., KostyniukL. P., and UyenoM. J.. Basic Properties of Urban Time-Space Paths: Empirical Tests. In Transportation Research Record 794, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 8–19.
14.
DammD.Interdependencies in Activity Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 750, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 33–40.
15.
DammD.Parameters of Activity Behavior for Use in Travel Analysis. Transportation Research A, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1982, pp. 135–148.
16.
KondoK., and KitamuraR.. Time-Space Constraints and the Formation of Trip Chains. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 17, 1987, pp. 49–65.
17.
NishiiK., and KondoK.. Trip Linkages of Urban Railway Commuters Under Time-Space Constraints: Some Empirical Observations. Transportation Research B, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1992, pp. 33–44.
18.
FujiiS., OtsukaY., KitamuraR., and MonmaT.. A Micro-Simulation Model System of Individuals’ Daily Activity Behavior That Incorporates Spatial, Temporal and Coupling Constraints (in Japanese). Infrastructure Planning Review, Vol. 14, 1997, pp. 643–652.
19.
KitamuraR., and FujiiS.. Two Computational Process Models of Activity-Travel Behavior. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modelling (GärlingT., LaitilaT., and WestinK., eds.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998, pp. 251–279.
20.
KraanM.Time Allocation in Transportation Modelling with Respect to Limited Time and Money Budgets: A New Modelling Technique. Presented at 22nd PTRC European Transport Forum, Sept.1994.
21.
KitamuraR., YamamotoT., FujiiS., and SampathS.. A Discrete-Continuous Analysis of Time Allocation to Two Types of Discretionary Activities Which Accounts for Unobserved Heterogeneity. In Transportation and Traffic Theory (LesortJ.-B., ed.), Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1996, pp. 431–453.
22.
KitamuraR., FujiiS., and PasE. I.. Time-Use Data, Analysis and Modeling: Toward the Next Generation of Transportation Planning Methodologies. Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1997, pp. 225–235.
23.
GolobT. F.A Model of Household Choice of Activity Participation and Mobility. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling (GärlingT., LaitilaT., and WestinK., eds.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998, pp. 365–398.
24.
BhatC. R., and MisraR.. Discretionary Activity Time Allocation of Individuals Between In-Home and Out-of-Home and Between Weekdays and Weekends. Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1999, pp. 193–209.
25.
YamamotoT., and KitamuraR.. An Analysis of Time Allocation to In-Home and Out-of-Home Discretionary Activities Across Working Days and Non-Working Days. Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1999, pp. 211–230.
26.
AignerD., LovellC. A. K., and SchmidtP.. Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 6, 1977, pp. 21–37.
27.
WaldmanD. M.A Stationary Point for the Stochastic Frontier Likelihood. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 18, 1982, pp. 275–279.
