, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 37–51 | Cite as

Empirical analysis and comparisons about time-allocation patterns across segments based on mode-specific preferences

  • Xuemei FuEmail author
  • Zhicai Juan


A three-stage approach, i.e., factor-cluster-multi-group Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), is designed to explore the commonalities and diversities with respect to relationships between socio-demographic characteristics and time-use patterns across different segments. Factor-cluster analysis is conducted to extract meaningful factors from attitudinal statements, and then group the sample population into three segments, each with a unique combination of mode preferences for public transit, private car, and motorcycle. By virtue of multi-group SEM, the relationships between socio-demographics and time allocated to activities and travel are found to be significantly different across segments. This study highlights the importance of latent psychological factors in segmentation. For policy implication, specific population with unique psychological features must be targeted in order to efficiently and effectively design and implement transport measures.


Segmentation Cluster analysis Factor analysis Time-allocation behavior 



This research is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51278301) and the Shanghai Foundation of Soft Science for Development of Science and Technology, China (No. 13692107700). The authors would like to express their appreciation to anyone who has provided suggestions and comments on this paper.


  1. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., Cote, N.G.: Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. Attitudes Attitude Chang. 289–311 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. Anable, J.: ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 12(1), 65–78 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anable, J., Gatersleben, B.: All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 39(2), 163–181 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. Bamberg, S., Fujii, S., Friman, M., Gärling, T.: Behaviour theory and soft transport policy measures. Transp. Policy 18(1), 228–235 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bamberg, S., Schmidt, P.: Theory-driven subgroup-specific evaluation of an intervention to reduce private car use1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31(6), 1300–1329 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohte, W., Maat, K., van Wee, B.: Measuring attitudes in research on residential self-selection and travel behaviour: a review of theories and empirical research. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 325–357 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen Kenneth, A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  9. Churchill Gilbert A.: Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 7th edn. The Dryden Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1975)Google Scholar
  11. Fujii, S., Gärling, T.: Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 37(4), 389–402 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Fujii, S., Kitamura, R.: Evaluation of trip-inducing effects of new freeways using a structural equations model system of commuters’ time use and travel. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 34(5), 339–354 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gehlert, T., Dziekan, K., Gärling, T.: Psychology of sustainable travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A 48(Complete), 19–24 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. Golob T.F.: A model of household demand for activity participation and mobility. In: Gärling, T., Laitilla, T., Westin, K. (eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modelling, pp. 365–398. Pergamon, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  15. Golob, T.F.: A simultaneous model of household activity participation and trip chain generation. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 34(5), 355–376 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golob, T.F.: Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 37(1), 1–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Lula, C.: Modeling the effects of commuting time on activity duration and non-work travel. In: 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gorsuch, R.: Factor Analysis. LEA, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  20. Gould, J., Golob, T.F.: Shopping without travel or travel without shopping? An investigation of electronic home shopping. Transp. Rev. 17(4), 355–376 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C.: Multivariate Analysis. Prentice Hall International, Englewood (1998)Google Scholar
  22. Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., Black, W.: Multivariate data analysis, vol. 6. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2006)Google Scholar
  23. Heath, Y., Gifford, R.: Extending the theory of planned behavior: predicting the use of public transportation1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(10), 2154–2189 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Böhler, S., Grischkat, S.: Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environ. Behav. 42(1), 3–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Grischkat, S., Böhler, S.: Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27(4), 277–292 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamakura, W.A., Wedel, M.: Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Kluwer Academic Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  27. Kitamura, R.: An evaluation of activity-based travel analysis. Transportation 15(1–2), 9–34 (1988)Google Scholar
  28. Kitamura, R., Robinson, J., Golob, T.F., Bradley, M., Leonard, J., van der Hoorn, T.: A comparative analysis of time use data in the Netherlands and California, Research Report Number: UCDITS-RR-92–9, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, June (1992)Google Scholar
  29. Kuhnimhof, T., Chlond, B., von der Ruhren, S.: Users of transport modes and multimodal travel behavior steps toward understanding travelers’ options and choices. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1985(1), 40–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuppam, A.R., Pendyala, R.M.: A structural equations analysis of commuters’ activity and travel patterns. Transportation 28(1), 33–54 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lanzendorf, M.: Mobility styles and travel behavior: application of a lifestyle approach to leisure travel. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1807(1), 163–173 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu, X., Pas, E.I.: Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 33(1), 1–18 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma, J., Goulias, K.G.: Application of Poisson regression models to activity frequency analysis and prediction. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1676(1), 86–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohnmacht, T., Götz, K., Schad, H.: Leisure mobility styles in Swiss conurbations: construction and empirical analysis. Transportation 36(2), 243–265 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pendyala, R., Kitamura, R., Prasuna Reddy, D.: Application of an activity-based travel-demand model incorporating a rule-based algorithm. Environ. Plan. B 25, 753–772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pronello, C., Camusso, C.: Travellers’ profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables. J. Transp. Geogr. 19(6), 1294–1308 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartz, S.H.: Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 221–279 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shen, J.: Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Appl. Econ. 41(22), 2915–2924 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spears, S., Houston, D., Boarnet, M.G.: Illuminating the unseen in transit use: a framework for examining the effect of attitudes and perceptions on travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 58, 40–53 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. Sung, H.H.: Classification of adventure travelers: behavior, decision making, and target markets. J. Travel Res. 42(4), 343–356 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vermunt, J.K., Magidson, J.: Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars, J.A, McCutcheon, A.L. (eds.) Advances in Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press (2002)Google Scholar
  42. Vermunt, J.K., Magidson, J.: Latent class models for classification. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 41(3), 531–537 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wedel, M., Kamakura, W.: Market Segmentation. Conceptual and Methodological Foundation. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston–Dordrecht–London (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Antai College of Economics & ManagementShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations