Advertisement

Understanding Activity Scheduling and Rescheduling Behaviour: Theory and Numerical Illustration

  • Chang-Hyeon Joh
  • Theo A. Arentze
  • Harry J. P. Timmermans
Chapter
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 70)

Abstract

Inspired by Hagerstrand’s time geography, the activity-based modelling approach has become an active area of research since the mid 90s in transportation research (Ettema and Timmermans, 1997). As a consequence, it has regained interest in geography as well. The central concept underlying the activity-based approach is that travel is derived from the participation in activities instead of being pursued for its own sake, and therefore, the understanding, analysis and forecasting of travel behaviour should be based on the understanding of activities (Burnett and Hanson, 1982). Individuals try to meet their personal and family needs by participating in activities in everyday life, subject to a set of constraints. In the process of organising activities in time and space, travel is derived as a by-product to overcome the distance between activity locations. Any direct causation of socio-demographic characteristics and the physical environment to travel behaviour without explicitly considering the choice of activity participation may, therefore, be incorrect or at least theoretically inappropriate.

Keywords

Utility Function Marginal Utility Transportation Research Activity Duration Activity Schedule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arentze, T.A., F. Hofman, H. Van Mourik and H.J.P. Timmermans (2000), `Albatross: A multi-agent rule-based model of activity pattern decisions.’ Transportation Research Record, 1706, 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arentze, T., M. Dijst, E. Dugundji, C.H. Joh, L. Kapoen, S. Krijgsman, K. Maat, H Timmermans and J. Veldhuisen, J. (2001), The Amadeus Program: Scope and Conceptual Development. Paper presented at the 9th World Conference on Transportation Research, Seoul, July.Google Scholar
  3. Bhat, C.R. and F.S. Koppelman (1993), `A conceptual framework of individual activity program generation.’ Transportation Research A, 27, 433–446.Google Scholar
  4. Bhat, C.R. and Koppelman, F.S. (2000), Activity-Based Travel Demand Analysis: History, Results and Future Directions. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, January.Google Scholar
  5. Bowman, J.L. and M.E. Ben-Akiva (2000), `Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model system with activity schedules.’ Transportation Research A, 35, 1–28.Google Scholar
  6. Burnett, P. and S. Hanson (1982), `The analysis of travel as an example of complex human behaviour in spatially-constrained situations: Definition and measurement issues.’ Transportation Research A, 16, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damm D. and S.R. Lerman (1981), `A theory of activity scheduling behaviour.’ Environment and Planning A, 13, 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doherty, S.T. and E.J. Miller (2000), `A computerised household activity scheduling behaviour.’ Transportation, 27, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ettema, D., A. Borgers and H Timmermans (1993), `A simulation model of activity scheduling behaviour.’ Transportation Research Record, 1413, 1–11. and H.J.P. Timmermans (eds.), Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
  10. Fujii, S., R. Kitamura and T. Monma (1998), A Utility-Based Micro-Simulation Model System of Individuals’ Activity-Travel Patterns. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January.Google Scholar
  11. Gärling, T., Kwan, M.P. and Golledge, R.G. (1994), `Computational-process modelling of household activity scheduling.’ Transportation Research B, 28, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gärling, T., T. Kalen, T. Romanus and M. Selart (1998), `Computer simulation of household activity scheduling.’ Environment and Planning A, 30, 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gärling, T., R. Gillholm and W. Montgomery (1999), `The role of anticipated time pressure in activity scheduling.’ Transportation, 26, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joh, C.H., T.A. Arentze and H.J.P. Timmermans (2001), Towards a Theory and Simulation Model of Activity-Travel Rescheduling Behavior. Paper presented at the 9th World Conference on Transportation Research, Seoul, July.Google Scholar
  15. Joh, C.H., T.A. Arentze and H.J.P. Timmermans (2002), Modelling Individuals’ Activity-Travel Rescheduling Heuristics: Theory and Numerical Experiments. Paper accepted for presentation at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, January.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, P., M. Dix, M. Clarke and I. Heggie (1983), Understanding Travel Behaviour. Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  17. Kitamura, R., T. Yamamoto and S. Fujii (1996), `A discrete-continuous analysis of time allocation to two types of discretionary activities which accounts for unobserved heterogeneity.’ In J.B. Lesort (ed.), Transportation and Traffic Theory. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 431–453.Google Scholar
  18. McNally, M.G. (1997), `An activity-based micro-simulation model for travel demand forecasting.’ In D. Ettema and H.J.P. Timmermans (eds.), Activity-based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  19. Pred, A. (1981), `Of paths and projects: Individual behavior and its societal context.’ In K.R. Cox and R.G. Golledge (eds.), Behavioural Problems in Geography Revisited. Methuen, London, pp. 231–256.Google Scholar
  20. Recker, W.W., M.G. McNally and G.S. Root (1985), `Travel/activity analysis: Pattern recognition, classification and interpretation.’ Transportation Research A, 19, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Recker, W.W. (1995), `The household activity pattern problem: General formulation and solution.’ Transportation Research B, 29, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Supernak, J. (1988), `A dynamic interplay of activities and travel: Analysis of time of day utility profiles.’ In P. Jones (ed.), Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Avebury, Aldershot, 99–122.Google Scholar
  23. Thrift, N.J. (1983), `On the determination of social action in space and time.’ Environment and Planning D, 1, 23–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Timmermans, H.J.P., T.A. Arentze and C.H. Joh (2001), `Modelling the effects of anticipated time pressure on the execution of activity programs.’ To appear in Transportation Research Record.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chang-Hyeon Joh
    • 1
  • Theo A. Arentze
    • 1
  • Harry J. P. Timmermans
    • 1
  1. 1.Urban Planning GroupEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations