A microeconomic theory–based multiple discrete–continuous choice model was developed to accommodate (a) both time allocation and goods consumption as decision variables in the utility function, (b) both time and money budget constraints governing the activity participation and goods consumption decisions, (c) a finite probability of zero consumption and zero time allocation (i.e., corner solutions), and (d) technical constraints in the form of minimum consumption levels for any good that would be consumed and minimum time allocation for any activity conducted. The proposed model was applied in the form of a latent class model (to consider heterogeneity) on a Dutch data set to understand the determinants of weekly time use and goods consumption behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerG.A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 299, 1965, pp. 493–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228949.
2.
DeSerpaA. C.A Theory of the Economics of Time. The Economic Journal, Vol. 1, No. 324, 1981, pp. 828–846. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230320.
Jara-DíazS. R., MunizagaM. A., GreevenP., GuerraR., and AxhausenK.. Estimating the Value of Leisure from a Time Allocation Model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, No. 10, 2008, pp. 946–957.
5.
Jara-DíazS. R., and AstrozaS.. Revealed Willingness to Pay for Leisure. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2382, 2013, pp. 75–82. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2382-09.
6.
Jara-DíazS. R., AstrozaS., BhatC. R., and CastroM.. Introducing Relations Between Activities and Goods Consumption in Microeconomic Time Use Models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 93, 2016, pp. 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.07.014.
7.
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.
8.
KonduriK. C., AstrozaS., SanaB., PendyalaR. M., and Jara-DíazS. R.. Joint Analysis of Time Use and Consumer Expenditure Data: Examination of Two Approaches to Deriving Values of Time. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2231, 2011, pp. 53–60. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2231-07.
9.
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.
10.
ParizatS., and ShacharR.. When Pavarotti Meets Harry Potter at the Super Bowl?SSRN 1711183. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, N.Y., 2010. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1711183.
11.
SatomuraS., KimJ., and AllenbyG.. Multiple Constraint Choice Models with Corner and Interior Solutions. Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2011, pp. 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0636.
12.
BhatC. R.An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel. Transportation Science, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997, pp. 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.31.1.34.
13.
Van NostrandC., SivaramanV., and PinjariA. R.. Analysis of Long-Distance Vacation Travel Demand in the United States: A Multiple Discrete-Continuous Choice Framework. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2013, pp. 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9397-6.
14.
Jara-DíazS. R., and GuevaraC. A.. Behind the Subjective Value of Travel Time Savings. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003, pp. 29–46.
15.
CherchyeL., RockB. D., and VermeulenF.. Married with Children: A Collective Labor Supply Model with Detailed Time Use and Intrahousehold Expenditure Information. American Economic Review, Vol. 102, No. 7, 2012, pp. 3377–3405. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3377.
16.
BhatC. R., AstrozaS., BhatA. C., and NagelK.. Incorporating a Multiple Discrete-Continuous Outcome in the Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model: Application to Residential Self-Selection Effects Analysis in an Activity Time-Use Behavior Model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 91, 2016, pp. 52–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.03.007.
17.
BornK., YasminS., YouD., EluruN., BhatC., and PendyalaR.. Joint Model of Weekend Discretionary Activity Participation and Episode Duration. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2413, 2014, pp. 34–44. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2413-04.
18.
Jara-DíazS. R., MunizagaM., and OlguínJ.. The Role of Gender, Age, and Location in the Values of Work Behind Time Use Patterns in Santiago, Chile. Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 92, No. 1, 2013, pp. 87–103.
19.
SayerL. C., BianchiS. M., and RobinsonJ. P.. Are Parents Investing Less in Children? Trends in Mothers’ and Fathers’ Time with Children. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/386270.
20.
HeyesJ., and LewisP.. Employment Protection Under Fire: Labour Market Deregulation and Employment in the European Union. Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2014, pp. 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X13491842.
21.
MatherM., and JohnsonM. K.. Choice-Supportive Source Monitoring: Do Our Decisions Seem Better to Us as We Age?Psychology and Aging, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2000, pp. 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.4.596.
22.
NgT. W., and FeldmanD. C.. The Relationships of Age with Job Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 3, 2010, pp. 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01184.x.
