Telecommuting choices of workers in multiworker households are likely to be interdependent. These telecommuting choices may also affect the activity–time use choices of all people in the household. From the standpoint of travel behavior and travel demand forecasting, it is important to test these hypotheses and quantify the relationship between telecommuting choices and activity–time use patterns. To do this, the present study developed a generalized extreme value–based joint count model for analyzing the monthly frequency of choosing to telecommute of workers in dual-earner households. A panel multiple discrete continuous extreme value model was also developed to study activity–time use decisions while accounting for household-level interaction effects. The study findings confirm the presence of strong intrahousehold interaction effects in both the telecommuting and activity–time use choices of workers. Telecommuting choices were found to have a significant influence on daily activity–time use decisions for both mandatory and nonmandatory activities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernardoC., PaletiR., HoklasM., and BhatC.. An Empirical Investigation into the Time Use and Activity Patterns of Dual-Earner Couples With and Without Young Children. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 76, 2015, pp. 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.006.
2.
Flexible Work Arrangements: A Definition and Examples. Workplace Flexibility 2010. Memos and Fact Sheets, 10.Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., 2006. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/legal/10.
3.
MokhtarianP.L.A Synthetic Approach to Estimating the Impacts of Telecommuting on Travel. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1998, pp. 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984952.
4.
ChooS., MokhtarianP., 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-004-3046-7.
5.
OryD. T., and MokhtarianP. L.. Which Came First, the Telecommuting or the Residential Relocation? An Empirical Analysis of Causality. Urban Geography, Vol. 27, No. 7, 2006, pp. 590–609. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.27.7.590.
6.
KimS.-N.Two Traditional Questions on the Relationships Between Telecommuting, Job and Residential Location, and Household Travel: Revisited Using a Path Analysis. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2016, pp. 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-016-0755-8.
7.
HjortholR., and NossumÅ.. Teleworking: A Reduction in Travel or Just Increased Flexibility?Journal of eWorking, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008, pp. 81–94.
8.
KimS.-N., ChooS., and MokhtarianP. L.. Home-Based Telecommuting and Intra-Household Interactions in Work and Non-Work Travel: A Seemingly Unrelated Censored Regression Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 80, 2015, pp. 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.07.018.
9.
BeutellN.J.Work Schedule, Work Schedule Control and Satisfaction in Relation to Work–Family Conflict, Work–Family Synergy, and Domain Satisfaction. Career Development International, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2010, pp. 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011075358.
10.
WangP., LawlerJ. J., and ShiK.. Implementing Family-Friendly Employment Practices in Banking Industry: Evidences from Some African and Asian Countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 3, 2011, pp. 493–517. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X525363.
11.
MokhtarianP. L., and SalomonI.. Modeling the Desire to Telecommute: The Importance of Attitudinal Factors in Behavioral Models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997, pp. 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(96)00010-9.
12.
SenerI. N., and BhatC. R.. A Copula-Based Sample Selection Model of Telecommuting Choice and Frequency. Environment & Planning A, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 126–145. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43133.
13.
TangW. L., MokhtarianP. L., and HandyS. L.. The Impact of the Residential Built Environment on Work at Home Adoption Frequency: An Example from Northern California. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2011, pp. 3–22.
14.
SinghP., PaletiR., JenkinsS., and BhatC. R.. On Modeling Telecommuting Behavior: Option, Choice, and Frequency. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2013, pp. 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9429-2.
15.
AsgariH., and JinX.. Toward a Comprehensive Telecommuting Analysis Framework: Setting the Conceptual Outline. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2496, 2015, pp. 1–9. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2496-01.
16.
PaletiR.Generalized Extreme Value Models for Count Data: Application to Worker Telecommuting Frequency Choices. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 83, 2016, pp. 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2015.11.008.
17.
BhatC.R.The Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model: Role of Utility Function Parameters, Identification Considerations, and Model Extensions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 274–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.06.002.
18.
SpissuE., PinjariA. R., BhatC. R., PendyalaR. M., and AxhausenK. W.. An Analysis of Weekly Out-Of-Home Discretionary Activity Participation and Time Use Behavior. Transportation, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2009, pp. 483–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9200-5.
19.
BhatC. R., GouliasK. G., PendyalaR. M., PaletiR., SidharthanR., SchmittL., and HuH.-H.. A Household-Level Activity Pattern Generation Model with an Application for Southern California. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1063–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9452-y.
20.
BhatC.R.Simulation Estimation of Mixed Discrete Choice Models Using Randomized and Scrambled Halton Sequences. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 37, No. 9, 2003, pp. 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00090-5.
21.
CherchiE., PolakJ., and HymanG.. The Impact of Income, Tastes and Substitution Effects on the Assessment of User Benefits Using Discrete Choice Models. Presented at European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France, 2004.
22.
AugustinB., PinjariA. R., EluruN., and PendyalaR. M.. Estimation of Annual Mileage Budgets for a Multiple Discrete-Continuous Choice Model of Household Vehicle Ownership and Utilization. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2493, 2015, pp. 126–135. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2493-14.
23.
PinjariA. R., AugustinB., SivaramanV., Faghih ImaniA., EluruN., and PendyalaR. M.. Stochastic Frontier Estimation of Budgets for Kuhn–Tucker Demand Systems: Application to Activity Time Use Analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 88, 2016, pp. 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.013.
24.
CastroM., BhatC. R., PendyalaR. M., and Jara-DíazS. R.. Accommodating Multiple Constraints in the Multiple Discrete–Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Choice Model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2012, pp. 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2012.02.005.
