This paper presents a comprehensive, multidimensional, multivariate binary probit model that can simultaneously represent multiple aspects of individuals’ work arrangement decisions while accounting for interactions between household members in individual employment-related choices. The model is estimated on the basis of a survey sample drawn from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, from which a rich set of accessibility measures is available to account for built environment influences on work-related decisions. Model results show that a host of demographic, socioeconomic, built environment, and attitudinal variables influence individual choices regarding work arrangements; more importantly, the model shows that there is much employment-related interaction among household members. The model can be used to predict the employment choices of individuals within larger microsimulation models of activity-travel demand.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PendyalaR.M., YamamotoT., and KitamuraR.On the Formulation of Time–Space Prisms to Model Constraints on Personal Activity-Travel Engagement. Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002, pp. 73–94.
2.
VovshaP., and BradleyM.Advanced Activity-Based Models in Context of Planning Decisions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1981, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 34–41.
3.
BowmanJ.L., and Ben-AkivaM.E. Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Model System with Activity Schedules. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1–28.
4.
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.
5.
BhatC.R., GuoJ. Y., SrinivasanS., and SivakumarA.Comprehensive Econometric Microsimulator for Daily Activity-Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 57–66.
6.
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.
7.
RoordaM.J., MillerE. J., and HabibK. M. N.. Validation of TASHA: A 24-Hr Activity Scheduling Microsimulation Model. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2008, pp. 360–375.
8.
GouliasK.G., BhatC. R., PendyalaR.M., ChenY., PaletiR., KonduriK.C., LeiT., TangD., YounS.Y., HuangG., and HuH.H.Simulator of Activities, Greenhouse Emissions, Networks, and Travel (Sim AGENT) in Southern California. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
9.
FloroM.S., and KomatsuH.Gender and Work in South Africa: What Can Time Use Data Reveal?Feminist Economics, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2011, pp. 33–66.
10.
YeraguntlaA., and BhatC.R.Classification Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Work Arrangements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 233–241.
11.
KasirN., and YashivE.Modernity vs. Tradition in the Determination of Female Labor Supply. Discussion Paper 8. Pinhas Sapir Center for Development, Tel Aviv University, Israel, 2010.
12.
JacquemetN., and YannelisC. Indiscriminate Discrimination: A Correspondence Test for Ethnic Homophily in the Chicago Labor Market, 2011. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1799474.
13.
Fuchs-SchündelnN.On Preferences for Being Self-Employed. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2009, pp. 162–171.
14.
LeoniT., and FalkM.Gender and Field of Study as Determinants of Self-Employment. Small Business Economics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2010, pp. 167–185.
15.
MisraJ., BudigM., and BoeckmannI.Work–Family Policies and the Effects of Children on Women's Employment Hours and Wages. Community, Work and Family, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2011, pp. 139–157.
16.
HippleS. F.Multiple Jobholding During the 2000s. Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, pp. 21–32.
17.
ChooS., MokhtarianP. L., and SalomonI.Does Telecommuting Reduce Vehicle-Miles Traveled? An Aggregate Time Series Analysis for the U.S. Transportation, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2005, pp. 37–64.
18.
NättiJ., TammelinM., AnttilaT., and OjalaS.. Work at Home and Time Use in Finland. New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011, pp. 68–77.
19.
MoosM., and SkaburskisA.The Characteristics and Location of Home Workers in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Urban Studies, Vol. 44, No. 9, 2007, pp. 1781–1808.
20.
BhatC. R.The Maximum Approximate Composite Marginal Likelihood (MACML) Estimation of Multinomial Probit-Based Unordered Response Choice Models. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45, No. 7, 2011, pp. 923–939.
21.
BhatC.R., and GuoJ.Y.A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007, pp. 506–526.
22.
PercheskiC.Opting Out? Cohort Differences in Professional Women's Employment Rates from 1960 to 2000. American Sociological Review, Vol. 73, No. 3, 2008, pp. 497–517.
23.
ErtunaZ.I., and GurelE.The Moderating Role of Higher Education on Entrepreneurship. Education & Training, Vol. 53, No. 5, 2011, pp. 387–402.
24.
BudigM. J.Intersections on the Road to Self-Employment: Gender, Family, and Occupational Class. Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2006, pp. 2223–2239.
25.
HippleS. F.Self-Employment in the United States. Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, pp. 17–32.
26.
WangQ.Immigration and Ethnic Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Study in the United States. Growth and Change, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2010, pp. 430–458.
27.
BlockJ.H., and KoellingerP.I Can't Get No Satisfaction: Necessity Entrepreneurship and Procedural Utility. Kyklos, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2009, pp. 191–209.
28.
HenzU.Informal Caregiving at Working Age: Effects of Job Characteristics and Family Configuration. London School of Economics, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2006, pp. 411–429.
29.
ÅslundO., ÖsthJ., and ZenouY.. How Important Is Access to Jobs? Old Question–Improved Answer. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2010, pp. 389–422.
30.
EluruN., PinjariA. R., GuoJ.Y., SenerI.N., SrinivasanS., CoppermanR. B., and BhatC. R.Population Updating System Structures and Models Embedded in the Comprehensive Econometric Microsimulator for Urban Systems. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2076, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 171–182.
