Research in developed countries has demonstrated a significant relationship between activity participation and travel behavior. Less work has been done in China, a typical developing country. Data from an activity–travel survey of 1,205 households in Shangyu, China, were used for a simultaneous structural equation model analysis of sociodemographics, activity participation, and trip chaining between household heads. Model estimation results show that activity participation is strongly correlated to trip chaining characteristics. Additionally, interactions exist between male and female household heads. It was found that the sociodemographics of male and female heads not only directly affected trip chaining but also indirectly influenced trip chaining behavior through activity participation. The findings of the study provide useful insight into the within-personal and cross-personal interactions of activity–travel behaviors between male and female heads in China.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JuanZ. C., ZongF., and FuX. Y.Literature Review on TDM Strategies Implementation and Evaluation. Journal of Chinese Soft Science, Vol. 1, 2007, pp. 156–160.
2.
SundoM. B., and FujiiS.The Effects of a Compressed Working Week on Commuters’ Daily Activity Patterns. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, No. 10, 2005, pp. 835–848.
3.
BowmanJ. L., and Ben-AkivaM.Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Model System with Activity Schedules. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1–28.
4.
BhatC. R.Modeling Commute Activity-Travel Pattern of Workers: Formulation and Empirical Analysis. Presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999.
5.
YangM., WangW., ChenX., WanT., and WuR.Empirical Analysis of Commute Trip Chaining: Case Study of Shangyu, China. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2038, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 139–147.
6.
PendyalaR. M., and GouliasK. G.Time Use and Activity Perspectives in Travel Behavior Research. Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1–4.
7.
TimmermansH., ArentzeT., and JohC. H.Analysing Space-Time Behavior: New Approaches to Old Problems. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2002, pp. 175–190.
8.
LuX. D., and PasE. I.Sociodemographics, Activity Participation and Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1999, pp. 1–18.
9.
ChungJ. H., and AhnY. S.Structural Equation Models of Day-To-Day Activity Participation and Travel Behavior in a Developing Country. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1807, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 109–118.
10.
WallaceB., BarnesJ., and RutherfordG. S.Evaluating the Effects of Traveler and Trip Characteristics on Trip Chaining, with Implications for Transportation Demand Management Strategies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 97–106.
11.
McGuckinN., ZmudJ. P., and NakamotoY.Trip Chaining Trends in the United States: Understanding Travel Behavior for Policy Making. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1917, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 199–204.
12.
KuppamA. R., and PendyalaR. M.A Structural Equations Analysis of Commuters’ Activity and Travel Patterns. Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2001, pp. 33–54.
13.
BhatC. R., and PendyalaR. M.Modeling Intra-household Interactions and Group Decision-making. Transportation, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2005, pp. 443–448.
14.
YangM., WangW., and ChenX. W.Activity Pattern Choice of Work Commuting Trip by Workers. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2009, pp. 274–279.
15.
GolobT. F., and McNallyM. G.A Model of Activity Participation and Travel Interactions Between Household Heads. Transportation Research B, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1997, pp. 177–194.
16.
GolobT. F.A Simultaneous Model of Household Activity Participation and Trip Chain Generation. Transportation Research B, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2000, pp. 355–376.
17.
CaoX. Y., and ChaiY. W.Gender Role-Based Differences in Time Allocation: Case Study of Shenzhen, China. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2014, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 58–66.
18.
ZhangW. J., and ChaiY. W.Theories and Confirmed Model of Urban Resident's Travel Demand: Considering Intrahousehold Interaction. Acta Geographica Sinica, Vol. 63, No. 12, 2008, pp. 1246–1256.
19.
LeeY., HickmanM., and WashingtonS.Household Type and Structure, Time-use Pattern, and Trip chaining Behavior. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 10, 2007, pp. 1004–1020.
20.
FoxJ.Effect Analysis in Structural-Equation Models II: Calculation of Specific Indirect Effects. Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1985, pp. 81–95.
21.
McDonaldR. P., and HoM. R.Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses. Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2002, pp. 64–82.
22.
TomarkenA. J., and WallerN. G.Structural Equation Modeling: Strengths, Limitations, and Misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005, pp. 31–65.
