A probit-based discrete–continuous model of activity type and duration choices addresses three aspects of discretionary and maintenance activities. First, both in-home and out-of-home activity episodes in models of activity engagement are considered to ensure coverage of the entire range of activity episodes in activity-based model systems. Second, history dependency and scheduling of activities in explaining activity participation are accounted for to understand activity generation processes over the course of a day. Finally, the simultaneity and the potential presence of common unobserved factors that may exist across activity type choice and duration dimensions are taken into account. A contribution is made along these three lines of inquiry by presenting a joint model of activity type choice and activity duration with data from the 2008 American Time Use Survey data set. Results suggest that statistically significant endogeneity exists between activity type choice and activity duration calls for the simultaneous modeling of these two choice dimensions in model systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArentzeT., HofmanF., van MourikH., and TimmermansH.Albatross: Multiagent, Rule-Based Model of Activity Pattern Decisions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1706, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 136–144.
2.
MillerE. J., and SalviniP. A.The Integrated Land Use, Transportation Environment (ILUTE) Microsimulation Modeling System: Description and Current Status. In Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge (HensherD., ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2001, pp. 711–724.
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.
PinjariA. R., EluruN., SrinivasanS., GuoJ. Y., CoppermanR. B., SenerI. N., and BhatC. R.CEMDAP: Modeling and Microsimulation Frameworks, Software Development, and Verification.Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
5.
TimmermansH. J. P., and ArentzeT.Coevolutionary Dynamics in Social Networks and Activity-Travel Repertoires: Framework for Microsimulation.Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
6.
LaresenJ., AxhausenK. W., and UrryJ.Geographies of Social Networks: Meetings, Travel and Communications. Mobilities, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2006, pp. 261–283.
7.
AxhausenK. W.Activity Spaces, Biographies, Social Networks, and Their Welfare Gains and Externalities: Some Hypotheses and Empirical Results. Mobilities, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2007, pp. 15–36.
8.
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, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1996, pp. 431–453.
9.
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.
10.
PendyalaR. M., and BhatC. R.An Exploration of the Relationship Between Timing and Duration of Maintenance Activities. Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2004, pp. 429–456.
11.
ChenC., and MokhtarianP. L.Tradeoffs Between Time Allocations to Maintenance Activities/Travel and Discretionary Activities/Travel. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2006, pp. 223–240.
12.
PendyalaR. M., KitamuraR., ChenC., and PasE. I.An Activity-Based Microsimulation Analysis of Transportation Control Measures. Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1997, pp. 183–192.
13.
Toole-HoltL., PolzinS. E., and PendyalaR. M.Two Minutes per Person per Day Each Year: Exploration of Growth in Travel Time Expenditures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1917, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 45–53.
14.
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.
15.
CliftonK. J., AkarG., and DohertyS. T.Influence of Personal and Activity Attributes on Discretionary Activity Location Choice: In Home or Out of Home? Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
16.
KitamuraR., and KermenshahM.Identifying Time and History Dependencies of Activity Choice. In Transportation Research Record 944, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 22–30.
17.
KitamuraR., ChenC., and PendyalaR. M.Generation of Synthetic Daily Activity-Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 154–162.
18.
KasturiranganK., PendyalaR. M., and KoppelmanF. S.History Dependency of Daily Activity Participation and Time Allocation for Commuters. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1807, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 129–136.
19.
EttemaD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.Competing Risk Hazard Model of Activity Choice, Timing, Sequencing, and Duration. In Transportation Research Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 101–109.
20.
HamedM., and ManneringF. L.Modeling Travelers’ Postwork Activity Involvement: Toward a New Methodology. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1993, pp. 381–394.
21.
BhatC. R.A Model of Post Home-Arrival Activity Participation Behavior. Transportation Research, Vol. 32B, No. 6, 1998, pp. 387–400.
22.
MisraR.Time-Quantum Hurdle Model for Activity Type and Duration of Nonworkers. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 103–108.
23.
EttemaD., BastinF., PolakJ., and AshiruO.Modeling the Joint Choice of Activity Timing and Duration. Transportation Research, Vol. 41A, No. 9, 2007, pp. 827–841.
24.
AnggrainiR., ArentzeA. T., and TimmermansH. J. P.Continuous Choice Model of Timing and Duration of Joint Activities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2135, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 17–24.
25.
YeX., and PendyalaR. M.Probit-Based Joint Discrete-Continuous Model System: Analyzing Relationship Between Timing and Duration of Maintenance Activities.Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
26.
BhatC. R.Quasi-random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model. Transportation Research, Vol. 35B, No. 7, 2001, pp. 677–693.
27.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003.
28.
WalkerJ.Mixed Logit (or Logit Kernel) Model: Dispelling Misconceptions of Identification. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 86–98.
29.
ATUS website. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/tus/.
