, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 117–138 | Cite as

Women’s complex daily lives: a gendered look at trip chaining and activity pattern entropy in Germany

  • Joachim ScheinerEmail author
  • Christian Holz-Rau


It has long been argued in feminist studies that women’s daily lives are more complex than men’s. This is largely due to the gendered division of work, according to which women juggle more varied obligations, including employment, household work and caregiving. Complex activity patterns in turn encourage women to organise their trips in a more efficient manner in trip chains. This paper studies the complexity of activity patterns (measured by Shannon entropy) and trip chaining patterns from a gender specific perspective. The data used is the German Mobility Panel 1994–2012 which records respondents’ trips over the period of a week. The outcome variables are regressed on sociodemographics, residential and workplace spatial context attributes, cohort and period effects. Gender differences in the effects of variables are tested using interaction terms. The results suggest that women’s patterns are more complex than men’s. Some effects differed distinctly between men and women, suggesting that men and women are differently affected by circumstances impacting the complexity of their lives, most notably by having children and by having a partner.


Activity pattern Gender Trip chain Tour complexity Travel behaviour Entropy 



This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the project ‘Alltag im Wandel des Geschlechterverhältnisses: Aktivitäten, Wege, Verkehrsmittel und Zeitverwendung’ (Everyday life in the context of changing gender relations: activities, trips, travel modes and time use, 2009–2015).


  1. Alexander, B., Hubers, C., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., Ettema, D.: Anything, anywhere, anytime? Developing measurement instruments to assess the spatial and temporal fragmentation of activities. Environ. Plan. B 38(4), 678–705 (2011). doi: 10.1068/b35132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anxo D., Flood L., Mencarini L., Pailhé A., Solaz A., Tanturri M.L.: Time allocation between work and family over the life-cycle: a comparative gender analysis of Italy, France, Sweden and the United States. IZA Discussion Paper 3193. IZA, Bonn (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., Robinson, J.P.: Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Soc. Forces 79(1), 191–228 (2000). doi: 10.1093/sf/79.1.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J.P., Milkie, M.A.: Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  5. Bittman, M., Wajcman, J.: The rush hour: the character of leisure time and gender equity. Soc. Forces 79(1), 165–189 (2000). doi: 10.1093/sf/79.1.165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S.: Differentiating the influence of accessibility, attitudes, and demographics on stop participation and frequency during the evening commute. Environ. Plan. B 35(3), 431–442 (2008). doi: 10.1068/b32056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen C.: An activity-based approach to accessibility. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Cooke, L.P.: Policy, preferences, and patriarchy: the division of domestic labor in East Germany, West Germany, and the United States. Soc. Polit. 13(1), 117–143 (2006). doi: 10.1093/sp/jxj005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coulter, P.B.: Measuring Inequality. A Methodological Handbook. Westview Press, Boulder (1989)Google Scholar
  10. Crane, R.: Is there a quiet revolution in women’s travel? Revisiting the gender gap in commuting. J Am. Plan. Assoc. 73(3), 298–316 (2007). doi: 10.1080/01944360708977979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cullen I., Godson V.: Urban Networks: The Structure of Activity Patterns. Prog Plann 4(1), 1–96. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1975). doi:  10.1016/0305-9006(75)90006-9
  12. Currie, G., Delbosc, A.: Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne. Transp. Policy 18(1), 204–210 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellison R.B., Greaves S.: Travel time competitiveness of cycling in Sydney. Proceedings of the 33rd Australasian Transp Res Forum, Canberra, 29 Sept-1 Oct 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, K., Egerton, M., Gershuny, J.I., Robinson, J.P.: Gender convergence in the American Heritage Time use Study (AHTUS). Soc. Indic. Res. 82(1), 1–33 (2007). doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-9017-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin, N.M.: Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 21(3), 416–438 (2005). doi: 10.1093/oxrep/gri024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., Lawton, T.K.: Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation 35(1), 37–54 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s11116-007-9136-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garson GD (2010) Generalized linear models and generalized estimating equations. Accessed 15 Mar 2011
  18. Geisler E., Kreyenfeld M.: How policy matters: Germany’s parental leave benefit reform and fathers’ behavior, 1999–2009. MPIDR Working paper WP 2012–2021. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock (2012)Google Scholar
  19. Gershuny, J., Kan, M.Y.: Half-way to gender equality in work? Evidence from the multinational time use study. In: Scott, J., Dex, S., Plagnol, A. (eds.) Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction, pp. 74–94. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2012)Google Scholar
  20. Gille, M., Marbach, J.: Arbeitsteilung von Paaren und ihre Belastung mit Zeitstress. In: Bundesamt, Statistisches (ed.) Alltag in Deutschland, pp. 86–113. Analysen zur Zeitverwendung, Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden (2004)Google Scholar
  21. Grunow, D., Schulz, F., Blossfeld, H.P.: What determines change in the division of housework over the course of marriage? Int. Sociol. 27(3), 289–307 (2012). doi: 10.1177/0268580911423056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R.D., Flay, B.R.: Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 62(4), 757–765 (1994). doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hensher, D., Reyes, A.: Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport. Transportation 27(4), 341–361 (2000). doi: 10.1023/A:1005246916731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hilbrecht M.J.: Parents, employment, gender and well-being: a time use study. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  25. Hjorthol, R., Vagane, L.: Allocation of tasks, arrangement of working hours and commuting in different Norwegian households. J. Transp. Geogr. 35, 75–83 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Juster, F.T., Ono, H., Stafford, F.P.: An assessment of alternative measures of time use. Sociol. Methodol. 33(1), 19–54 (2003). doi: 10.1111/j.0081-1750.2003.t01-1-00126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kan, M.Y., Sullivan, O., Gershuny, J.: Gender convergence in domestic work: discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology 45(2), 234–251 (2011). doi: 10.1177/0038038510394014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kanji, S., Schober, P.: Are couples with young children more likely to split up when the mother is the main or an equal earner? Sociology 48(1), 38–58 (2014). doi: 10.1177/0038038512467710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kézdi, G.: Robust standard error estimation in fixed-effects panel models. Hung. Stat. Rev. Spec. 9, 96–116 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. KIT (Institut für Verkehrswesen, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie): Das Deutsche Mobilitätspanel (MOP). Informationen zur Datennutzung (Panelhandbuch). Stand 2012. KIT, Karlsruhe (2012)Google Scholar
  31. Kroesen, M.: Modeling the behavioral determinants of travel behavior: an application of latent transition analysis. Transp. Res. A 65, 56–67 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. Krygsman, S., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Capturing tour mode and activity choice interdependencies: a co-evolutionary logit modelling approach. Transp. Res. A 41(10), 913–933 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.03.006 Google Scholar
  33. Kuhnimhof, T., Armoogum, J., Buehler, R., Dargay, J., Denstadli, J.M., Yamamoto, T.: Men shape a downward trend in car use among young adults—evidence from six industrialized countries. Transp. Rev. 32(6), 761–779 (2012). doi: 10.1080/01441647.2012.736426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kwan, M.-P.: Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of non-employment activities. Econ. Geogr. 75(4), 370–394 (1999). doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.1999.tb00126.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwan, M.-P.: Gender differences in space-time constraints. Area 32(2), 145–156 (2000). doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00125.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kwan, M.-P., Schwanen, T., Ren, F.: Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints and human activity patterns: an activity-based approach. In: Wang, D., Li, S.-M. (eds.) Transportation and Geography, pp. 951–959. Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies, Hong Kong (2009)Google Scholar
  37. Lee, M., McNally, M.G.: An empirical investigation on the dynamic processes of activity scheduling and trip chaining. Transportation 33(6), 553–565 (2006). doi: 10.1007/s11116-006-7728-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacDonald, H.I.: Women’s employment and commuting: explaining the links. J Plan. Lit. 13(3), 267–283 (1999). doi: 10.1177/08854129922092397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGinnity F., Russell H. Gender Inequalities in Time Use. The Distribution of Caring, Housework and Employment Among Women and Men in Ireland. The Equality Authority, Dublin (2008)Google Scholar
  40. McGuckin, N., Murakami, E.: Examining trip-chaining behavior: a comparison of travel by men and women. Transp. Res. Rec. 1693, 79–85 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGuckin N., Nakamoto Y. Differences in trip chaining by men and women. In: Transportation Research Board (ed) Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation Vol. 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 35. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 49–55 (2005)Google Scholar
  42. McQuaid, R.W., Chen, T.: Commuting times—the role of gender, children and part-time work. Res. Transp. Econ. 34(1), 66–73 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2011.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mencarini, L., Sironi, M.: Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 28(2), 203–219 (2012). doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Næss, P.: Gender differences in the influences of urban structure on daily travel. In: Priya Uteng, T., Cresswell, T. (eds.) Gendered Mobilities, pp. 173–192. Ashgate, Aldershot (2008)Google Scholar
  45. Nichols A., Schaffer M.: Clustered Errors in Stata (2007). Accessed 18 Jan 2011
  46. Offer, S., Schneider, B.: Revisiting the gender gap in time-use patterns. Multitasking and well-being among mothers and fathers in dual-earner families. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76(6), 809–833 (2011). doi: 10.1177/0003122411425170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paleti R., Pendyala R. M., Bhat C. R., Konduri K. C.: A joint tour-based model of tour complexity, passenger accompaniment, vehicle type choice, and tour length. Technical paper, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (2011)Google Scholar
  48. Sandow, E.: Commuting behaviour in sparsely populated areas: evidence from northern Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 16(1), 14–27 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sayer, L.C.: Trends in housework. In: Treas, J., Drobnic, S. (eds.) Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women & Household Work in Cross-National Perspective, pp. 19–38. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheiner, J.: Social inequalities in travel behaviour: trip distances in the context of residential self-selection and lifestyles. J. Transp. Geogr. 18(6), 679–690 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scheiner, J.: Gender roles between traditionalism and change: Time use for out-of-home activities and trips in Germany, 1994–2008. In: Gerike, R., Hülsmann, F., Roller, K. (eds.) Strategies for Sustainable Mobilities: Opportunities and Challenges, pp. 79–102. Ashgate, Farnham (2013)Google Scholar
  52. Scheiner, J.: The gendered complexity of daily life: effects of life-course events on changes in activity entropy and tour complexity over time. Travel Behav. Soc. 1(3), 91–105 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2014.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scheiner J., Bauer U., Wohltmann H., Rittmeier B., Schlump C.: Mobilität, Erreichbarkeit und soziale Exklusion. Fähigkeiten und Ressourcen einer ländlichen Bevölkerung für eine angemessene Versorgung und Teilhabe am öffentlichen Leben. BBSR-Online-Publikation 27/2012. BBSR, Bonn (2012)Google Scholar
  54. Scheiner, J., Holz-Rau, C.: Gendered travel mode choice: a focus on car deficient households. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 250–261 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schendera, C.: Regressionsanalyse mit SPSS. Oldenbourg, München (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmöcker, J.-D., Su, F., Noland, R.B.: An analysis of trip chaining among older London residents. Transportation 37(1), 105–123 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s11116-009-9222-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwanen, T.: Car use and gender: the case of dual-earner families in Utrecht, The Netherlands. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E., Weinberger, R. (eds.) Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours, pp. 151–171. Bingley, Emerald (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwanen, T., Kwan, M.-P., Ren, F.: How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39(6), 2109–2121 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sicks K., Scheiner J., Holz-Rau C.: Born to shop? Gender-specific activity travel in Germany. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Paris, April 2014Google Scholar
  60. Statistisches Bundesamt: Auf dem Weg zur Gleichstellung. Wirtschaft und Statistik, August 2014, pp. 465–477 (2014)Google Scholar
  61. Strathman, J.G., Dueker, K.J.: Understanding trip chaining. In: US Department of Transportation (ed) Special Reports on Trip and Vehicle Attributes. US DoT/FHWA, Washington, DC, pp. 1–1 to 1–27 (1995)Google Scholar
  62. Taylor, B.D., Mauch, M.: Gender, race, and travel behavior: an analysis of household-serving travel in the San Francisco Bay area. In: US Department of Transportation (ed) Women’s Travel Issues. Proceedings from the Second National Conference. Baltimore, October 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, pp. 371–405 (1997) Google Scholar
  63. Thill, J.-C., Thomas, I.: Toward conceptualizing trip-chaining behavior: a review. Geogr. Anal. 19(1), 1–17 (1987). doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1987.tb00110.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Timmermans, H., van der Waerden, P., Alves, M., Polak, J., Ellis, S., Harvey, A.S., Kurose, S., Zandee, R.: Spatial context and the complexity of daily travel patterns: an international comparison. J. Transp. Geogr. 11(1), 37–46 (2003). doi: 10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00050-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Treas, J., Drobnic, S.: Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women & Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van der Lippe, T.: Women’s employment and housework. In: Treas, J., Drobnic, S. (eds.) Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women & Household Work in Cross-National Perspective, pp. 41–58. University Press, Stanford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van der Lippe, T., de Ruijter, J., de Ruijter, E., Raub, W.: Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: a detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies and culture. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 27(2), 164–179 (2011). doi: 10.1093/esr/jcp066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Wee, B., Bohte, W., Molin, E., Arentze, T., Liao, F.: Policies for synchronization in the transport–land-use system. Transp. Policy 31, 1–9 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vande Walle, S., Steenberghen, T.: Space and time related determinants of public transport use in trip chains. Transp. Res. A 40(2), 151–162 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2005.05.001 Google Scholar
  70. Wagner, M., Franzmann, G.: Die Pluralisierung der Lebensformen. Z Bevölkerungswissenschaft 25(1), 151–173 (2000)Google Scholar
  71. Wooldridge, J.M.: Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93(2), 133–138 (2003). doi: 10.1257/000282803321946930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transport Planning, Faculty of Spatial PlanningTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations