Fundamental Linkages Between Activity Time Use and Subjective Well-Being for the Elderly Population: Joint Exploratory Analysis Framework for In-Home and Out-of-Home Activities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016
Fundamental Linkages Between Activity Time Use and Subjective Well-Being for the Elderly Population: Joint Exploratory Analysis Framework for In-Home and Out-of-Home Activities
For elderly people (those 65 years of age or older), transportation mobility is critical to meeting activity engagement needs and maintaining life satisfaction and well-being. This paper explores the underlying correlation structure between activity time-use patterns and the degree of episode well-being (or happiness) of the elderly population. The research presented here was based on data from the 2009 Disability and Use of Time survey, which included senior couples with an average age of 68 years. The survey also recorded reported levels of episode well-being indicators related to calmness, happiness, frustration, worrying, tiredness, sadness, pleasantness, and pain. The latent class cluster analysis framework was used with the scores on these indicators to construct a composite degree of activity satisfaction experienced by an individual. These well-being measures estimated a set of regression models that jointly analyzed episode duration and satisfaction separately for in-home and out-of-home activities with a broad array of covariates of sociodemographics, activity and travel characteristics, and global well-being indicators. Model estimation results revealed a strong negative correlation between episode duration and well-being, with a pronounced impact on in-home activities. The results indicated the presence of satiation effects related to the activity time use and episode well-being of the elderly. The results also suggested that companionship and altruism have a strong and positive effect on episode well-being and time-use patterns. The model findings show that elderly individuals who are happy with their life tend to engage in happy activities for longer periods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlsnihR., and HensherD. A.. The Mobility and Accessibility Expectations of Seniors in an Aging Population. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2003, pp. 903–916.
2.
ChenJ., and MillarW. J.. Are Recent Cohorts Healthier Than Their Predecessors?Health Reports, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2000, pp. 9–24.
3.
ZhouM., and LylesR. W.. Mobility Patterns of Next Generation of Older Persons. In Transportation Research Record 1573, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 99–104.
4.
EttemaD., GarlingT., OlssonL. E., and FrimanM.. Out of Home Activities, Daily Travel and Subjective Well-Being. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 44, 2010, pp. 723–732.
5.
EttemaD., GarlingT., ErikssonL., FrimanM., OlssonL.E., and FujiS.. Satisfaction with Travel and Subjective Well-Being: Development and Test of a Measurement Tool. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2011, pp. 167–175.
6.
DienerE.Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2000, pp. 34–43.
7.
KahnemanD., and KruegerA. B.. Development in Measurement of Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2006, pp. 3–24.
8.
KahnemanD., KruegerA., SchkadeD., SchwartzN., and StoneA.. A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experiences: The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM). Science, Vol. 306, 2004, pp. 1776–1780.
9.
FreyB. S., and StutzerA.. Testing Theories of Happiness. In Economics and Happiness: Framing the Analysis (BruniL. and PortaP. L., eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2005.
10.
EnamA., KonduriK. C., EluruN., and RavulaparthyS.. Relationship Between Well-Being and Daily Time Use of Elderly: Evidence from Disabilities and Use of Time Survey. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
11.
Abou-ZeidM., and Ben-AkivaM.. Well-Being and Activity-Based Models. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1189–1207.
12.
PolydoropoulouA., LimaoS., TsirimpaA., GarciaC., and LitinasN.. Modeling Travel Well-Being and Mode Choice Behavior. Presented at 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon, Portugal, July11–15, 2010.
13.
DeutschK., RavulaparthyS. K., and GouliasK. G.. Place Happiness: Its Constituents and Influence of Emotions and Subjective Importance on Activity Type and Destination Choice. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1323–1340.
14.
ArcherM., PaletiR., KonduriK. C., PendyalaR. M., and BhatC. R.. Modeling the Connection Between Activity-Travel Patterns and Subjective Well-Being. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2382, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 102–111.
15.
RavulaparthyS., YoonS. Y., and GouliasK. G.. Linking Elderly Transport Mobility and Subjective Well-Being: A Multivariate Latent Modeling Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2382, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 28–36.
16.
GouliasK. G., RavulaparthyS., PolydoropoulouA., and YoonS. Y.. An Exploratory Analysis on Time-of-Day Dynamics of Episodic Hedonic Value of Activities and Travel. Presented at 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013.
17.
SpinneyJ. E. L., ScottD. M., and NewboldK. B.. Transport Mobility Benefits and Quality of Life: A Time-Use Perspective Study of Elderly Canadians. Transport Policy, Vol. 16, 2009, pp. 1–11.
18.
BanisterD., and BowlingA.. Quality of Life for The Elderly: The Transport Dimension. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2004, pp. 105–115.
19.
HilderbrandE. D.Dimensions of Elderly Travel Behavior: A Simplified Activity-Based Model Using Lifestyle Clusters. Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2003, pp. 285–306.
20.
NordbakkeS., and SchwanenT.. Well-Being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People. Mobilities, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014, pp. 104–129.
21.
FreedmanV. A., and CornmanJ. C.. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Supplement on Disability and Use of Time (DUST). User Guide. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2012.
22.
VermuntJ. K., and MagindsonJ.. Technical Guide For Latent Gold 4.0: Basic and Advanced. Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont, Mass., 2005.
23.
SchwartzG.Estimating Dimension of a Model. Annals of Statistics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1978, pp. 461–464.
24.
De VosJ., SchwanenT., Van AckerV., and WitloxF.. Travel and Subjective Well-Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs. Transport Reviews, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2013, pp. 421–442.
25.
RasciuteS., and DownwardP.. Health or Happiness? What Is the Impact of Physical Activity on the Individual?Kyklos, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2010, pp. 256–270.
26.
KendingH., and BrowningC. J.. Impacts of Illness and Disability on Well-Being of the Older People. Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2000, pp. 15–22.
27.
YoonS. Y., RavulaparthyS. K., and GouliasK. G.. Dynamic Diurnal Social Taxonomy of Urban Environments Using Data from a Geocoded Time-Use Activity-Travel Diary and Point-Based Business Establishment Inventory. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 68, 2014, pp. 3–17.
28.
ZiemsS. E., KonduriK. C., SanaB., and PendyalaR. M.. Exploration of Time-Use Utility Derived by Older Individuals from Daily Activity–Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2156, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 111–119.
29.
KitamuraR., Van de HoornT., and Van WijkF.. A Comparative Analysis of Daily Time Use and the Development of an Activity-Based Traveller Benefit Measure. In Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis (EttemaD. F. and TimmermansH. J. P., eds.), Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1997, pp. 171–187.
30.
OishiS., DienerE. F., LucasR. E., and SuhE. M.. Cross-Cultural Variations in Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Perspectives from Needs to Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, 1999, pp. 980–990.
31.
PychylT. A., and LittleB. R.. Dimensional Specificity in the Prediction of Subjective Well-Being: Personal Projects in Pursuit of the Ph.D. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 45, 1998, pp. 423–473.
32.
ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.. Social Networks, Social Interactions, and Activity-Travel Behavior: A Framework for Microsimulation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1012–1027.
33.
DeutschK., and GouliasK. G.. Decision Makers and Socializers, Social Networks and the Role of Individuals as Participants. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2013, pp. 755–771.
34.
ChavezO., CarrascoJ.-A., and TudelaA.. Social Activity-Travel Dynamics with Core Contacts: Evidence from Two-Wave Data Collection Effort. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
35.
GouliasK. G., and KimT.-G.. An Analysis of Activity Type Classification and Issues Related to the With Whom and For Whom Question of an Activity Diary. In Progress in Activity-Based Analysis (TimmermansH. J. P., ed.), Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2005, pp. 309–344.
36.
GouliasK. G., and HensonK.. On Altruists and Egoists in Activity Participation and Travel: Who Are They and Do They Live Together?Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2006, pp. 447–462.
