, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 101–122 | Cite as

Discretionary activity location choice: in-home or out-of-home?

  • Gulsah Akar
  • Kelly J. Clifton
  • Sean T. Doherty


This paper examines the location choice associated with discretionary activities (in-home vs. out-of-home). These substitution patterns are important in terms of travel demand as in-home activities do not necessitate travel while out-of-home activities incur travel. Mixed logit models are estimated using an activity dataset (2003 CHASE data) to analyze the factors associated with this choice at the individual activity-level. Results suggest that the attributes of an activity significantly contribute to understanding the likelihood of engaging in out-of-home activities. Activity type interaction terms reveal the varying influence that socio-demographics, activity attributes and travel have over four different activity types modeled. The results reveal that the location choice (in-home vs. out-of-home) is sensitive to travel characteristics. As the travel time and cost increases, an individual is less likely to engage in an activity out-of-home. Compared to passive and social activities, the location of active activities is more sensitive to changes in travel attributes.


Activity location choice In-home activities Out-of-home activities Mixed logit Activity attributes 



We greatly appreciate the funding support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the collection of data used in this study.


  1. Akar, G., Clifton, J.K., Doherty, S.T.: Discretionary Activity Location Choice: An Examination of Temporal Dimensions and Activity Attributes of In-Home or Out-of-Home Location Choice. World Conference on Transportation Research (WCTR), UC-Berkeley (2007)Google Scholar
  2. Bastin, F., Cirillo, C., Toint, P.L.: Application of an adaptive Monte Carlo algorithm to mixed logit estimation. Transp. Res. Part B 40(7), 577–593 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhat, C., Lockwood, A.: On distinguishing between physically active and physically passive episodes and between travel and activity episodes: an analysis of weekend recreational participation in the San Francisco Bay area. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 38(8), 573 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Bhat, C.R., Gossen, R.: A mixed multinomial logit model analysis of weekend recreational episode type choice. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 38(9), 767 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. Bhat, C.R., Koppelman, F.S.: A retrospective and prospective survey of time-use research. Transportation 26, 119–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhat, C.R., Misra, R.: Discretionary activity time allocation of individuals between in-home and out-of-home and between weekdays and weekends. Transportation 26, 193–209 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat, C.R., Srinivasan, S., Sen, S.: A joint model for the perfect and imperfect substitute goods case: application to activity time-use decisions. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 40(10), 827–850 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman, J.L., Ben-Akiva, M.E.: Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model system with activity schedules. Transp. Res. Part A. Policy Pract. 35(1), 1–28 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cirillo, C., Axhausen, K.W.: Evidence on the distribution of values of travel time savings from a six-week diary. Transp. Res. Part A 40, 444–457 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Cirillo, C., Axhausen, K.: Dynamic model of activity-type choice and scheduling. Transportation. doi:  10.1007/s11116-009-9218-8, available at (2009)
  11. Cirillo, C., Toint, P.L.: One Activity-Based Framework for Europe. ETC. European Transport Conference, Cambridge, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Doherty, S.T.: Should we abandon activity type analysis? Redefining activities by their salient attributes. Transportation 33(6), 517–536 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty, S.T., Miller, E.J., Axhausen, K.W., Gärling, T.: A conceptual model of the weekly household activity-travel scheduling process. In: Stern, E., Salomon, I., Bovy, P. (eds.) Travel Behaviour: Patterns, Implications and Modelling (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Doherty, S.T., Nemeth, E., Roorda, M., Miller, E.J.: Design and assessment of the Toronto area computerized household activity scheduling survey. J. Transp. Res. Board 1894, 140–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ettema, D., Timmermans, H.J.P.: Theories and models of activity patterns. In: Dick, E., Timmermans, H.J.P. (eds.) Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–36 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Golob, T.F., McNally, M.G.: A model of activity participation and travel interactions between household heads. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 31(3), 177–194 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, W.H.: Econometric analysis. Pearson Education Inc., India (2003)Google Scholar
  18. Handy, S., Yantis, T.: The impacts of telecommunications technologies on nonwork travel behavior. SWUTC/97/721927–1F, Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin (1997)Google Scholar
  19. Kemperman, A., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Social commitments and activity-travel scheduling decisions. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977(2006), 242–249 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitamura, R.: An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis. Transportation 15(1/2), 9–34 (1988)Google Scholar
  21. Lu, X., Pas, E.I.: Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A (Policy and Practice) 33A(1), 1–18 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFadden, D., Train, K.: Mixed multinomial logit models of discrete response. J. Appl. Econom. 15, 447–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNally, M.G.: The activity-based Approach. Paper UCI-ITS-AS-WP-00-4, Institute of Transportation Studies Center for Activity Systems Analysis, University of California, Irvine (2000)Google Scholar
  24. Miller, E.J., Roorda, M.J.: A prototype model of 24-hour household activity scheduling for the Toronto area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1831, 114–121 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I.: How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transp. Res. A 35(8), 695–719 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I.: Emerging travel patterns: do telecommunications make a difference?. In: Mahmassani, H.S. (ed.) In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behaviour Research Opportunities and Application Challenges. Pergamon Press/Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 143–182 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., Handy, S.L.: The impacts of ICT on leisure activities and travel: a conceptual exploration. Transportation 33, 263–289 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pas, E.I.: Recent advances in activity-based travel demand modeling. In: Activity-Based Travel Forecasting Conference, June 2–5, 1996: Summary, Recommendations and Compendium of Papers. New Orleans, LA, pp.79–102 (1997)Google Scholar
  29. Pas, E.I., Harvey, A.S.: Time use research and travel demand analysis and modeling. In: Stopher, P., Gosselin, M.L. (eds.) Understanding Travel Behavior in an Era of Change. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  30. Passmore, A., French, D.: Development and administration of a measure to assess adolescents’ participation in leisure activities. Adolescence 36(141), 67–75 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. Redmond, L.S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount. Transportation 28(2), 179–205 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reichman, S.: Travel adjustments and life styles: a behavioral approach. In: Stopher, P., Meyburg, A. (eds.) Behavioral Travel Models. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts (1976)Google Scholar
  33. Roorda, M.J., Miller, E.J., Habib, K.: Validation of TASHA: a 24-hour activity scheduling microsimulation model. 86th Annual Meeting of the TRB (Transportation Research Board), Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  34. Train, K.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  35. Yamamoto, T., Kitamura, R.: An analysis of time allocation to in-home and out-of-home discretionary activities across working days and non-working days. 26, 211–230 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gulsah Akar
    • 1
  • Kelly J. Clifton
    • 2
  • Sean T. Doherty
    • 3
  1. 1.City and Regional Planning, Knowlton School of ArchitectureThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental EngineeringPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geography and Environmental StudiesWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations