Results of a study on the planning of social activities are reported. Data collected in the Netherlands from social interaction diaries were used to estimate a multinomial logistic regression model to analyze whether a social activity is prearranged, routine, or spontaneous as a function of personal and household characteristics, social activity characteristics, and characteristics of the contacted person. The results show that the planning of social activities is significantly influenced by gender, presence of children, education level, income, and time spent on work and school. Social activity characteristics were also found to have a significant effect. Social activities scheduled later in the day are less likely to be routine. In contrast, social activities of longer duration and taking place on the weekend are more likely to be routine or planned. The location, the main purpose of the social interaction, and detailed characteristics of with whom the social interaction took place were also found to affect the scheduling process significantly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DohertyS., and MillerE.A Computerized Household Activity Scheduling Survey. Transportation, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2000, pp. 75–97.
2.
DohertyS., MillerE., AxhausenK., and GärlingT.A Conceptual Model of the Weekly Household Activity-Travel Scheduling Process. In Travel Behaviour, Spatial Patterns, Congestion, and Modelling (SternE., SalomonI., and BovyP., eds.), Edwards Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2002, pp. 233–264.
3.
LeeM., and McNallyM.On the Structure of Weekly Activity/Travel Patterns. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2003, pp. 823–839.
4.
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.
5.
LeeM., and McNallyM.An Empirical Investigation on the Dynamic Processes of Activity Scheduling and Trip Chaining. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, pp. 553–565.
6.
RuizT., and RoordaM. J.Analysis of Planning Decisions During the Activity-Scheduling Process. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2054, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 46–55.
7.
van BladelK., BellemansT., JanssensD., and WetsG.Activity Travel Planning and Rescheduling Behavior: Empirical Analysis of Influencing Factors. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2134, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 135–142.
8.
KangH., ScottD. M., and DohertyS. T.Investigation of Planning Priority of Joint Activities in Household Activity-Scheduling Process. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2134, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 82–88.
9.
GärlingT., KalénT., and RomanusJ.Computer Simulation of Household Activity Scheduling. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1998, pp. 665–679.
10.
ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.Albatross: A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System.European Institute of Retailing and Services Studies, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2000.
11.
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.
12.
JohC.-H., ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.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.
13.
KempermanA., ArentzeT., and TimmermansH. J. P.Social Commitments and Activity-Travel Scheduling Decisions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transporation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 242–249.
14.
AxhausenK.Social Networks and Travel: Some Hypotheses. In Social Aspects of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspective (DonaghyK., ed.), Ashgate, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 2002, pp. 98–110.
15.
DugundjiE., and WalkerJ.Discrete Choice with Social and Spatial Network Interdependencies: An Empirical Example Using Mixed Generalized Extreme Value Models with Field and Panel Effects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1921, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 70–78.
16.
PáezA., and ScottD.Social Influence on Travel Behavior: A Simulation Example of the Decision to Telecommute. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2007, pp. 647–665.
17.
CarrascoJ., and MillerE.The Social Dimension in Action. A Multilevel, Personal Networks Model of Social Activity Frequency Between Individuals. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 43, No. 9, 2009, pp. 90–104.
18.
CarrascoJ., and MillerE.Exploring the Propensity to Perform Social Activities: A Social Networks Approach. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2006, pp. 463–480.
19.
CarrascoJ. A., MillerE. J., and WellmanB.How Far and with Whom Do People Socialize? Empirical Evidence About the Distance Between Social Network Members. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2076, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 114–122.
20.
ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.Social Networks, Social Interactions, and Activity-Travel Behavior: A Framework for Microsimulation. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1012–1027.
21.
GouliasK. G., and KimT.-G.Analysis of Activity Type Classification and Issues Related to With-Whom and For-Whom Questions of an Activity Diary. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
22.
SrinivasanS., and BhatC.Companionship for Leisure Activities: An Empirical Analysis Using the American Time Use Survey. Proc., Innovations in Travel Demand Modeling Conference, Austin, Tex., 2006. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP42v2.pdf.
23.
KapurA., and BhatC. R.Modeling Adults’ Weekend Day-Time Use by Activity Purpose and Accompaniment Arrangement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2021, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 18–27.
24.
HabibK., CarrascoJ. M. N., and MillerE. A. J.Social Context of Activity-Scheduling: Discrete–Continuous Model of Relationship Between “with Whom” and Episode Start Time and Duration. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2076, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 81–87.
25.
GärlingT., GillholmR., and GärlingA.Reintroducing Attitude Theory in Travel Behavior Research: the Validity of an Interactive Interview Procedure to Predict Car Use. Transportation, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1998, pp. 129–146.
26.
JakobssonC.Accuracy of Household Planning of Car Use: Comparing Prospective to Actual Car Logs. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 31–42.
27.
Lee-GosselinM., and Miranda-MorenoL.What Is Different About Urban Activities of Those with Access to ICTs? Some Early Evidence from Québec, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2009, pp. 104–114.
28.
Van den BergP., ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.Social Networks, ICT Use and Activity-Travel Patterns. Data Collection and First Analyses. Presented at 9th International Conference on Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, Netherlands, 2008.
