Analysis of social networks, social interactions, and out-of-home leisure activity generation: Evidence from Japan

  • Giancarlos Troncoso Parady
  • Genki Katayama
  • Hiromu Yamazaki
  • Tatsuki Yamanami
  • Kiyoshi Takami
  • Noboru Harata
Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

This article analyses the connection between social networks, social interactions and out-of-home leisure activity generation in the context of Japanese society. A multilevel structural equation modelling approach is used to account for the hierarchical structure of the data. At the ego-alter (self-other) level, results suggest the existence of a complementary effect between face to face interaction and ICT contact propensity that becomes a substitution effect given increasing distance between egos and alters. Furthermore, a mediating effect by face to face interaction between ICT contact propensity and distance was observed. At the ego (self) level, urbanization level, income, network size and club membership were found to have a direct positive effect on leisure propensity and indirectly on ICT contact propensity, while an extraverted personality was positively associated with higher ICT contact propensity.

Keywords

Social networks Leisure activity generation Social interaction Information and communication technologies Multilevel modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 23246091 and The University of Tokyo’s Excellent Graduate Schools (EGS) Support Fund for Young Researchers Grant No. T10027. All spatial data used for the analysis presented in this article were provided by the Center for Spatial Information Science of The University of Tokyo. CSIS joint research No. 479.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Axhausen, K.W.: Transport planning and social network analysis—an introduction. In: Kowald, M., Axhausen, K.W. (eds.) Social Networks and Travel Behavior, pp. 1–5. Ashgate, Farnham (2015)Google Scholar
  2. Bollen, K.A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 359–395 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrasco, J.A., Cid-Aguayo, B.: Network capital, social networks, and travel: an empirical illustration from Concepción, Chile. Environ. Plan. A 44(5), 1066–1084 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrasco, J.A., Miller, E.J.: Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social network approach. Transportation 33(5), 463–480 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrasco, J.-A., Miller, E.J.: The social dimension in action: a multilevel, personal networks model of social activity frequency between individuals. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 43(1), 90–104 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatman, D.G.: Residential choice, the built environment, and nonwork travel: evidence using new data and methods. Environ. Plan. A 41(5), 1072 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ettema, D., Schwanen, T.: A relational approach to analysing leisure travel. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 173–181 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frei, A., Kowald, M., van den Berg, P., Carrasco, J.A.: Country specific characteristics matter. In: Kowald, M., Axhausen, K.W. (eds.) Social Networks and Travel Behaviour, pp. 153–172. Ashgate, Farnham (2015)Google Scholar
  10. Frei, A., Ohnmacht, T.: Egocentric networks in zurich: quantitative survey development, data collection and analysis. In: Kowald, M., Axhausen, K.W. (eds.) Social Networks and Travel Behaviour, p. 51. Ashgate, Farnham (2015)Google Scholar
  11. Guo, J.Y., Bhat, C.R., Copperman, R.B.: Effect of the built environment on motorized and nonmotorized trip making: substitutive, complementary, or synergistic? Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. Trans Res Board 2010(1), 1–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Harata, N.: How has the youth travel behavior changed? Reductions of trip frequency and car use; actual conditions and background. (In Japanese). City Plan. Rev. 66(3), 50–53 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. Heck, R.H.: Multilevel modeling with SEM. In: Marcoulides, G.A., Randall E.S., (eds.) New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling, pp. 89–127. Psychology Press (2001)Google Scholar
  14. Hu, L., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscipl. J. 6(1), 1–55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., Soto, C.J.: Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handb. Personal Theory Res. 3, 114–158 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. Kowald, M.: Personal networks in population wide network structure. In: Kowald, M., Axhausen, K.W. (eds.) Social Networks and Travel Behaviour, pp. 99–152. Ashgate, Farnham (2015)Google Scholar
  17. Kowald, M., van den Berg, P., Frei, A., Carrasco, J.-A., Arentze, T., Axhausen, K., Mok, D., Timmermans, H., Wellman, B.: Distance patterns of personal networks in four countries: a comparative study. J. Transp. Geogr. 31, 236–248 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsen, J., Axhausen, K.W., Urry, J.: Geographies of social networks: meetings, travel and communications. Mobilities 1(2), 261–283 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCrae, R.R., John, O.P.: An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60(2), 175–215 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mikami, S.: Internet use and sociability in Japan. IT Soc. 1(1), 242–250 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. Mok, D., Wellman, B., Basu, R.: Did distance matter before the Internet?: Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s. Soc. Netw. 29(3), 430–461 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mok, D., Wellman, B., Carrasco, J.: Does distance matter in the age of the internet? Urban Stud. 47(13), 2747–2783 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010377363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., Handy, S.L.: The impacts of ICT on leisure activities and travel: a conceptual exploration. Transportation 33(3), 263–289 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muthén, B.O.: Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociol. Methods Res. 22(3), 376–398 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muthén, B., Muthén, B. O.: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Hoboken, Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  26. Newman, D.B., Tay, L., Diener, E.: Leisure and subjective well-being: a model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. J. Happiness Stud 15(3), 555–578 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ohnmacht, T., Götz, K., Schad, H.: Leisure mobility styles in Swiss conurbations: construction and empirical analysis. Transportation 36(2), 243–265 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Otani, S.: Personal community networks in contemporary Japan. In: Wellman, B. (ed.) Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities. Westview Press, Boulder (1999)Google Scholar
  29. Parady, G.T., Chikaraishi, M., Takami, K., Harata, N.: A panel data approach to understanding the effect of the built environment on travel behavior. Urban Reg. Plan. Rev. 1, 18–38 (2014a)Google Scholar
  30. Parady, G.T., Chikaraishi, M., Takami, K., Ohmori, N., Harata, N.: On the effect of the built environment and preferences on non-work travel: evidence from Japan. EJTIR 15(1), 51–66 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. Parady, G.T., Takami, K., Harata, N.: Built environment and travel behavior: validation and application of a continuous-treatment propensity score stratification method. J. Transp. Land Use 10(1), 763–788 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. Parady, G.T., Takami, K., Harata, N.: Connection between built environment and travel behavior: propensity score approach under a continuous treatment regime. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. Transp. Res. Board Natl. Acad. 2453, 137–144 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlich, R., Schӧnfelder, S., Hanson, S., Axhausen, K.W.: Structures of leisure travel: temporal and spatial variability. Transp. Rev. 24(2), 219–237 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharmeen, F., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Dynamics of face-to-face social interaction frequency: role of accessibility, urbanization, changes in geographical distance and path dependence. J. Transp. Geogr. 34, 211–220 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snijders, T., Bosker, R.: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Sage, Thousand Oak (1999)Google Scholar
  36. Stauffacher, M., Schlich, R., Axhausen, K.W., Scholz, R.W.: The Diversity of Travel Behaviour: Motives and Social Interactions in Leisure Time Activities. ETH, Eidgenӧssische Technische Hochschule Zürich, IVT, Institut für Verkehrsplanung und Transportsysteme, Zürich (2005)Google Scholar
  37. Tarigan, A., Kitamura, R.: Week-to-week leisure trip frequency and its variability. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. Transp. Res. Board Natl. Acad. 2135, 43–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Urry, J.: Mobilities. Polity, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  39. Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: A multilevel path analysis of contact frequency between social network members. J. Geogr. Syst. 14, 125–141 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: A path analysis of social networks, telecommunication and social activity-travel patterns. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol 26, 256–268 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Size and composition of ego-centered social networks and their effect on geographic distance and contact frequency. Transp. Res. Re. J. Transp. Res. Board. Transp. Res. Board Natl. Acad. 2135, 1–9 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wellman, B.: The community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers. Am. J. Sociol. 84(5), 1201 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Socio-Cultural Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier SciencesThe University of TokyoKashiwa-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations