Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 1783–1810 | Cite as

Relationship between well-being and daily time use of elderly: evidence from the disabilities and use of time survey

  • Annesha Enam
  • Karthik C. Konduri
  • Naveen Eluru
  • Srinath Ravulaparthy
Article

Abstract

According to US Census Bureau, the number of individuals in the age group above 65 years is expected to increase by more than 100% from the year 2000 to 2030. It is anticipated that increasing elderly population will put unforeseen demands on the transportation infrastructure due to the atypical mobility and travel needs of the elderly. Consequently, transportation professionals have attempted to understand the travel behavior of the elderly including the trip frequency, trip distance and mode choice decisions. Majority of the research on elderly travel behavior have focused on the mobility outcomes with limited research into understanding the tradeoffs made by this population segment in terms of their in-home and out-of-home activity engagement choices. The goal of the current research is to contribute to this line of inquiry by simultaneously exploring the daily activity engagement choices of the elderly Americans including their in-home and out-of-home activity participation (what activities to pursue) and time alloocation (duration of each activity) decisions while accounting for the temporal constraints. Further, the study attempts to explore the relationship between physical and subjective well-being and daily activity engagement decisions of the elderly; where subjective well-being is derived from reported needs satisfaction with life and different domains of it. To this end, data from the Disabilities and Use of Time survey of Panel Study of Income Dynamics was used to estimate a panel version of MDCEV model. In addition to person- and household-level demographic variables, activity participation and time use choices of elderly were found to vary across different levels of reported physical and subjective well-being measures. The model estimation results were plausible and provide interesting insights into the activity engagement choices of the elderly with implications for transportation policy development. Among other socio-demographic variables, living arrangements (living with family versus in elderly homes) were found to have significant influence on how people participate into different in-home versus out-of-home activities. For example, elderly living in the elderly home were found to participate more into out-of-home activities compared to people living with families. Elderly with disabilities were found to compensate lower participation into out-of-home activities with more participation into in-home activities. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in time engagement behavior of the elderly across reported levels of satisfaction with finance, job and cognitive needs. For example, elderly expressing high satisfaction with job was found to spend less time in in-home social activities. Elderly reporting higher satisfaction with finance were found to spend more time into OH social and shopping activities.

Keywords

Elderly activity engagement Subjective well-being Physical well-being Panel MDCEV 

References

  1. Abou-Zeid, M., Ben-Akiva, M.: Well-being and activity-based models. Transportation 39(6), 1189–1207 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allardt, E.: Having, loving, being: an alternative to the Swedish model of welfare research. Qual. Life 8, 88–95 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsnih, R., Hensher, D.A.: The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in an aging population. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 37(10), 903–916 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Archer, M., Paleti, R., Konduri, K.C., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R.: Modeling the connection between activity-travel patterns and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2382(1), 102–111 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arentze, T.A., Timmermans, H.J.: A need-based model of multi-day, multi-person activity generation. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 43(2), 251–265 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., Jorritsma, P., Kalter, M.J.O., Schoemakers, A.: More gray hair—but for whom? Scenario-based simulations of elderly activity travel patterns in 2020. Transportation 35(5), 613–627 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E.: Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 79(2), 77–95 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banister, D., Bowling, A.: Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transp. Policy 11(2), 105–115 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer, M.J., Rottunda, S., Adler, G.: Older women and driving cessation. Qual. Soc. Work 2(3), 309–325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker, G.S.: A theory of the allocation of time. Econ. J. 75, 493–517 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., Bolduc, D., Börsch-Supan, A., Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S.: Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Mark. Lett. 13(3), 163–175 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhat, C.R.: Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 37(9), 837–855 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhat, C.R.: A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 39(8), 679–707 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhat, C.R.: The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 42(3), 274–303 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Neighborhood design and the accessibility of the elderly: an empirical analysis in Northern California. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 4(6), 347–371 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Copperman, R.B., Bhat, C.R.: An analysis of the determinants of children’s weekend physical activity participation. Transportation 34(1), 67–87 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coughlin, J.: Transportation and older persons: perceptions and preferences. A report on focus groups. AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  18. Davey, J.A.: Older people and transport: coping without a car. Ageing Soc. 27(01), 49–65 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F.: Travel and subjective well-being: a focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transp. Rev. 33(4), 421–442 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dekker, T., Hess, S., Arentze, T., Chorus, C.: Incorporating needs-satisfaction in a discrete choice model of leisure activities. J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 66–74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duarte, A., Garcia, C., Giannarakis, G., Limão, S., Polydoropoulou, A., Litinas, N.: New approaches in transportation planning: happiness and transport economics. Netnomics: Econ. Res. Electron. Netw. 11(1), 5–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Enam, A., Konduri, K.C., Eluru, N., Ravulaparthy, S.: Relationship between well-being and daily time use of elderly: evidence from the disabilities and use of time survey. Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC (2015)Google Scholar
  23. Enam, A., Konduri, K.C., Pinjari, A., Eluru, N.: A hybrid multiple discrete continuous (HMDC) model for examining the role of moods on daily activity engagement choices. Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC (2016)Google Scholar
  24. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M.: Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 44(9), 723–732 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. Evans, A.W.: On the theory of the valuation and allocation of time. Scott. J, Polit. Econ. 19(1), 1–17 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freedman, V.A., Stafford, F., Schwarz, N., Conrad, F., Cornman, J.C.: Disability, participation, and subjective wellbeing among older couples. Soc. Sci. Med. 74(4), 588–596 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goulias, K.G., Blain, L., Kilgren, N., Michalowski, T., Murakami, E.: Catching the next big wave: do observed behavioral dynamics of baby boomers force rethinking of regional travel demand models? Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1, 67–75 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. Hägerstraand, T.: What about people in regional science? Pap. Reg. Sci. 24(1), 7–24 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jara-Díaz, S., Rosales-Salas, J.: Beyond transport time: a review of time use modeling. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 97, 209–230 (2017)Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, M.B.: Travel time and the price of leisure. Econ. Inq. 4(2), 135–145 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N.: Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  32. Kapur, A., Bhat, C.R.: Modeling adults’ weekend day-time use by activity purpose and accompaniment arrangement. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2021(1), 18–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein-Hitpaß, A., Lenz, B.: Mobility of the elderly: facts and projections. Demogr. Infrastruct. 51, 167–188 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, C., Susilo, Y.O., Karlström, A.: Jointly modelling individual’s daily activity-travel time use and mode share by a nested multivariate Tobit model system. Transportmetrica A Transp. Sci. 13(6), 491–518 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miranda-Moreno, L.F., Lee-Gosselin, M.: A week in the life of baby boomers: how do they see the spatial-temporal organization of their activities and travel? Transportation 35(5), 629–653 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohammadian, K., Karimi, B., Pourabdollahi, Z., Frignani, M.: Modeling seniors’ activity-travel data. Illinois Center for Transportation Research report no. FHWA-ICT-13-026, University of Illinois at Chicago (2013)Google Scholar
  38. Mohammadian, K.A., Bekhor, S.: Travel behavior of special population groups. Transportation 35(5), 579–583 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Musselwhite, C., Haddad, H.: Mobility, accessibility and quality of later life. Qual. Ageing Older Adults 11(1), 25–37 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nijland, L., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Eliciting the needs that underlie activity-travel patterns and their covariance structure: results of multimethod analyses. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2157, 54–62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nordbakke, S., Schwanen, T.: Well-being and mobility: a theoretical framework and literature review focusing on older people. Mobilities 9(1), 104–129 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordbakke, S., Schwanen, T.: Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links. Transportation 42(6), 1129–1151 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips, D.: Quality of Life: Concept, Policy and Practice. Routledge, London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinjari, A.R., Bhat, C.R.: A multiple discrete-continuous nested extreme value (MDCNEV) model: formulation and application to non-worker activity time-use and timing behavior on weekdays. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 44(4), 562–583 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. PSID - Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Public Use Dataset: Produced and Distributed by the Survey Research Center. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2014)Google Scholar
  46. Ravulaparthy, S., Yoon, S.Y., Goulias, K.G.: Linking elderly transport mobility and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2382(1), 28–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenbloom, S.: Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: an international assessment. Transportation 28(4), 375–408 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenbloom, S.: The mobility needs of older Americans. In: Katz, B., Puentes, R. (eds.) Taking the High Road: A Transportation Agenda of Strengthening Metropolitan Areas, pp. 227–256. Brooking Press, Washington, DC (2004a)Google Scholar
  49. Rosenbloom, S.: Mobility of the Elderly. In: Transportation in an Aging Society, Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings, vol. 27, pp. 3–21 (2004b)Google Scholar
  50. Rosenbloom, S.: Meeting transportation needs in an aging-friendly community. Generations 33(2), 33–43 (2009)Google Scholar
  51. Schwanen, T., Wang, D.: Well-being, context, and everyday activities in space and time. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 104, 1–19 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sener, I.N., Bhat, C.R.: An analysis of the social context of children’s weekend discretionary activity participation. Transportation 34(6), 697–721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sener, I.N., Copperman, R.B., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R.: An analysis of children’s leisure activity engagement: examining the day of week, location, physical activity level, and fixity dimensions. Transportation 35(5), 673–696 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siren, A., Haustein, S.: Baby boomers’ mobility patterns and preferences: what are the implications for future transport? Transp. Policy 29, 136–144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siren, A., Hakamies-Blomqvist, L.: Mobility and well-being in old age. Top. Geriatric Rehabil. 25(1), 3–11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sobhani, A., Eluru, N., Faghih-Imani, A.: A latent segmentation based multiple discrete continuous extreme value model. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 58, 154–169 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sobhani, A., Eluru, N., Pinjari, A.R.: Evolution of adults’ weekday time use patterns from 1992 to 2010: a Canadian perspective. Presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2014)Google Scholar
  58. Spinney, J.E., Scott, D.M., Newbold, K.B.: Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: a time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transp. Policy 16(1), 1–11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spissu, E., Pinjari, A.R., Bhat, C.R., Pendyala, R.M., Axhausen, K.W.: An analysis of weekly out-of-home discretionary activity participation and time-use behavior. Transportation 36(5), 483–510 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Srinivasan, N., McGuckin, N., Murakami, E.: Working retirement: travel trends of the aging workforce. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1, 61–70 (1985)Google Scholar
  61. Tonn, B.E.: A sociopsychological contribution to the theory of individual time-allocation. Environ. Plan. A 16(2), 201–223 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Train, K.E.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veenhoven, R.: Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 58, 33–46 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ziegler, F., Schwanen, T.: ‘I like to go out to be energized by different people’: an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing Soc. 31(5), 758 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annesha Enam
    • 1
  • Karthik C. Konduri
    • 1
  • Naveen Eluru
    • 2
  • Srinath Ravulaparthy
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction EngineeringUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUC Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations