Travel involves various onboard activities. The emergence of information and communication technologies (ICT) has added new dimensions to the activities. This study analyzed the effects of various onboard activities, including the use of ICT devices, on trip makers' feelings during trips. This study employed the daily reconstruction method to examine whether the feelings that trip makers had were positive or negative. In addition, the seemingly unrelated probit regression and univariate probit models were used to analyze the association between onboard feelings and types of onboard activities by travel mode. This study found that onboard activities using ICT devices were valued by trip makers and tended to have positive effects on their feelings during trips. However, it was also found that the effects were not homogenous. Emerging ICT-related onboard activities can be instrumental in improving people's travel experience and in encouraging automobile users to become transit riders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
2011 Survey on the Internet Usage Executive Summary.Korea Internet and Security Agency, Seoul, South Korea, 2012.
2.
PendyalaR. M., GouliasK. G., and KitamuraR.Impact of Telecommuting on Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Household Travel. Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1991, pp. 383–409.
3.
SaxenaS., and MokhtarianP. L.The Impact of Telecommuting on the Activity Spaces of Participants. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1997, pp. 124–144.
4.
AblerR. F.Effects of Space-Adjusting Technologies on the Human Geography of the Future. In Human Geography in a Shrinking World (AblerR., JanelleD., PhilbrickA., and SommerJ., eds.), Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 1975, pp. 35–56.
5.
MokhtarianP. L., and MeenakshisundaramR.Beyond Tele-Substitution: Disaggregate Longitudinal Structural Equations Modeling of Communication Impacts. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1999, pp. 33–52.
6.
MokhtarianP. L., SalomonI., and RedmondL. S.Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely “Derived.”Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001, pp. 355–380.
7.
MokhtarianP. L.Telecommunications and Travel: The Case for Complementarity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2002, pp. 43–57.
8.
SenbilM., and KitamuraR.Simultaneous Relationships Between Telecommunications and Activities. Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
9.
ViswanathanK., and GouliasK. G.Travel Behavior Implications of Information and Communications Technology in Puget Sound Region. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 157–165.
10.
MokhtarianP. L., and SalomonI.Emerging Travel Patterns: Do Telecommunications Make a Difference? In In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behavior Research Opportunities and Application Challenges (MahmassaniH. S., ed.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 2002, pp. 143–182.
11.
KimT.-G., and GouliasK. G.Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Relationships Among Information and Telecommunication Technologies, Daily Time Allocation to Activity and Travel, and Modal Split Using Structural Equation Modeling. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
12.
DijstM.ICT and Accessibility: An Action Space Perspective on the Impact of New Information and Communication Technologies. In Transport Developments and Innovation in an Evolving World (BeutheM., HimanenV., ReggianiA., and ZampariniL., eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 27–46.
13.
SasakiK., and NishiiK.Measurement of Intention to Travel: Considering the Effect of Telecommunications on Trips. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2010, pp. 36–44.
14.
OryD. T., and MokhtarianP. L.When Is Getting There Half the Fun? Modeling the Liking for Travel. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 2005, pp. 97–123.
15.
YuanY., RaubalM., and LiuY.Correlating Mobile Phone Usage and Travel Behavior—A Case Study of Harbin, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2012, pp. 118–130.
16.
YoungW., and MorrisJ. M.Evaluation by Individuals of Their Travel Time to Work. In Transportation Research Record 794, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 51–59.
17.
LyonsG., and UrryJ.Travel Time Use in the Information Age. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 2005, pp. 257–276.
18.
RedmondL. S., and MokhtarianP. L.The Positive Utility of the Commute: Modeling Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute Amount. Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2010, pp. 179–205.
19.
OhmoroiN., and HarataN.How Different Are Activities While Commuting by Train? A Case in Tokyo. Journal of Economic and Social Geography, Vol. 99, No. 5, 2008, pp. 547–561.
20.
EttemaD., and VerschurenL.Multitasking and Value of Travel Time Savings. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2010, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 19–25.
21.
JainJ., and LyonsG.The Gift of Travel Time. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2008, pp. 81–89.
22.
MokhtarianP. L., and ChenC.TTB or Not TTB, That Is the Question: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature on Travel Time (and Money) Budgets. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 38, No. 9-10, 2004, pp. 643–675.
23.
RichardsonA. J.Some Evidence of Travelers with Zero Value of Time. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1854, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 107–113.
24.
LenzB., and NobisC.The Changing Allocation of Activities in Space and Time by Use of ICT—Fragmentation as a New Concept and Empirical Results. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 190–204.
25.
RenF., and KwanM.-P.The Impact of the Internet on Human Activity—Travel Patterns: Analysis of Gender Differences Using Multi-Group Structural Equation Models. Journal of Transportation Geography, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2009, pp. 440–450.
26.
KenyonS.The Impacts of Internet Use upon Activity Participation and Travel: Results from a Longitudinal Diary-Based Panel Study. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2010, pp. 21–35.
27.
LyonsG., JainJ., and HolleyD.The Use of Travel Time by Rail Passengers in Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2007, pp. 107–120.
28.
HarveyA. S.Time–Space Diaries: Merging Traditions. In Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 2003, pp. 151–180.
29.
ZhangM., MarchauV., van WeeB., and van der HoornT.Wireless Internet on Trains: Impacts on Performance of Business Travelers. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 277–285.
30.
ZhangJ., FujiwaraA., and UnoM.Is Trip-Making Utility Positive or Negative? A Preliminary Examination Based on Day Reconstruction Method.Proc., 12th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Indian, 2009, pp. 13–18.
31.
DianaM.Making the “Primary Utility of Travel” Concept Operational: A Measurement Model for the Assessment of the Intrinsic Utility of Reported Trips. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 455–474.
32.
KahnemanD., KruegerA. B., SchkadeD. A., SchwarzN., and StoneA. A.A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method. Science, Vol. 306, No. 5702, 2004, pp. 1776–1780.
33.
DiStafenoC., ZhuM., and MindrilaD.Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations for the Applied Researcher. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 14, No. 20, 2009, pp. 1–11.
34.
AbeM. A., and SinhaK. C.Pricing in Mass Transportation. Journal of Transportation Engineering Division, Vol. 99, No. 1, 1973, pp. 83–91.
35.
SohnK., and YunJ.Separation of Car-Dependent Commuters from Normal-Choice Riders in Mode-Choice Analysis. Transportation, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2009, pp. 423–436.
PoirierD. J.Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1980, pp. 209–217.
38.
HeckmanJ. J.Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1979, pp. 153–161.
39.
Van de VenW. P. M. M., and Van PraagB. M. S.The Demand for Deductibles in Private Health Insurance: A Probit Model with Sample Selection. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1981, pp. 229–252.
40.
STATA Technical Bulletin: A Publication to Promote Communication Among STATA Users. STB-33. StataCorp, College Station, Tex., 1996, pp. 15–20.
41.
HerrmannR. O., RaunitarG. P., HansonG. D., and WangG.Identifying Frequent Seafood Purchasers in the Northeastern U.S. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 23, 1994, pp. 226–235.
BeimbornE. A., GreenwaldM. J., and JinX.Accessibility, Connectivity, and Captivity: Impacts on Transit Choice. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1835, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 1–9.
