Job accessibility and joint household travel: a study of Hong Kong with a particular focus on new town residents

Abstract

This study advances understanding of the role of residential location in joint household travel and activities for non-work purposes in an Asian city context. This has been done by investigating the relationship between job accessibility, and the undertaking and duration of joint travel and activities of multi-person households in Hong Kong. Particular attention was given to the difference between new town and urban-area commuters who experienced marked different levels of job accessibility as a result of their residential locations. Drawing on the 2011 household travel survey, a suite of multivariable analysis was carried out. The findings highlight that: (1) longer working hours were associated with a lower probability of joint household travel and activities for new town and urban-area commuters alike; (2) longer commute and working hours significantly reduced the time window for joint household activities; (3) and job accessibility played a more important role in affecting the opportunities for discretionary joint household activities among new town commuters than urban-area commuters. The implications of these findings can be used to inform policymaking to increase the opportunities and time window for joint household travel and activities among new town commuters. Potential avenues for future research are also identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more detailed explanation of this method, readers are referred to Firth (1993) and Heinze and Puhr (2008).

  2. 2.

    For a detailed description of SEM and the math behind readers are referred to Byrne (2013) and Golob (2003).

  3. 3.

    We have also experimented with zero-inflated Poisson and Negative Binomial SEM, which did not result in good model-fit.

  4. 4.

    We have also summarised working hours and overlap time windows for some public transport commuters who did not make any non-commute trips. Compared to Group 1, this group was also associated with longer working hours and markedly shorter time windows. The results, based on a relatively small sample size (i.e., N = 100), can be obtained from the authors upon request.

References

  1. Abendroth, A.K., Den Dulk, L.: Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction. Work Employ. Soc. 25(2), 234–256 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradley, M., Vovsha, P.: A model for joint choice of daily activity pattern types of household members. Transportation 32(5), 545–571 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boarnet, M., Crane, R.: The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 35(9), 823–845 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge, New York (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Cervero, R.: Planned communities, self-containment and commuting: a cross-national perspective. Urban Stud. 32(7), 1135–1161 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, C., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Tradeoffs between time allocations to maintenance activities/travel and discretionary activities/travel. Transportation 33(3), 223–240 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Civil Engineering and Development Department: New Towns, New Development Areas and Urban Developments (2018)

  8. Cui, B., Boisjoly, G., El-Geneidy, A., Levinson, D.: Accessibility and the journey to work through the lens of equity. J. Transp. Geogr. 74, 269–277 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijst, M., Vidakovic, V.: Travel time ratio: the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation 27(2), 179–199 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan, Y., Allen, R., Sun, T.: Spatial mismatch in Beijing, China: Implications of job accessibility for Chinese low-wage workers. Habitat Int. 44, 202–210 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Firth, D.: Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80(1), 27–38 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fu, X., Lam, W.H.: Modelling joint activity-travel pattern scheduling problem in multi-modal transit networks. Transportation 45(1), 23–49 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujii, S., Kitamura, R., Kishizawa, K.: Analysis of individuals’ joint-activity engagement using a model system of activity-travel behavior and time use. Transp. Res. Rec. 1676(1), 11–19 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gan, Z., Feng, T., Yang, M.: Exploring the effects of car ownership and commuting on subjective well-being: a nationwide questionnaire study. Sustainability 11(1), 84 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Geurs, K.T., Van Wee, B.: Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12(2), 127–140 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gliebe, J.P., Koppelman, F.S.: A model of joint activity participation between household members. Transportation 29(1), 49–72 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gliebe, J.P., Koppelman, F.S.: Modeling household activity–travel interactions as parallel constrained choices. Transportation 32(5), 449–471 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Golob, T.F.: Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 37(1), 1–25 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grant, J.: Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 68(1), 71–84 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenhaus, J.H., Collins, K.M., Shaw, J.D.: The relation between work–family balance and quality of life. J. Vocat. Behav. 63(3), 510–531 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grengs, J.: Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit. J. Transp. Geogr. 18(1), 42–54 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hansen, W.G.: How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 25(2), 73–76 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. He, S.Y.: Will you escort your child to school? The effect of spatial and temporal constraints of parental employment. Appl. Geogr. 42, 116–123 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. He, S.Y., Giuliano, G.: Factors affecting children’s journeys to school: a joint escort-mode choice model. Transportation 44(1), 199–224 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. He, S.Y., Tao, S., Hou, Y., Jiang, W.: Mass Transit Railway, transit-oriented development and spatial justice: the competition for prime residential locations in Hong Kong since the 1980s. Town Plan. Rev. 89(5), 467–493 (2018a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. He, S.Y., Cheung, Y.H., Tao, S.: Travel mobility and social participation among older people in a transit metropolis: a socio-spatial-temporal perspective. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 118, 608–626 (2018b)

    Google Scholar 

  27. He, S.Y., Tao, S., Ng, M.K., Tieben, H.: An assessment of Hong Kong’s spatial planning in new towns from the perspectives of job accessibility, commute and non-commute durations. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. (2020a). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1725602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. He, S.Y., Wu, D., Chen, H., Hou, Y., Ng, M.K.: New towns and the local agglomeration economy. Habitat Int. 98, 102153 (2020b). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Heinze, G., Puhr, R.: Bias-reduced and separation-proof conditional logistic regression with small or sparse data sets. Stat. Med. 29(7–8), 770–777 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ho, C., Mulley, C.: Intra-household interactions in transport research: a review. Transport Reviews 35(1), 33–55 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hu, Y., Downs, J.: Measuring and visualizing place-based space-time job accessibility. J. Transp. Geogr. 74, 278–288 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hu, Y., Wang, F.: Temporal trends of intraurban commuting in Baton Rouge, 1990–2010. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 106(2), 470–479 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kato, H., Matsumoto, M.: Intrahousehold interaction analysis between husband, wife, and child using joint time-allocation model. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021(1), 1–9 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kalliath, T., Brough, P.: Work–life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. J. Manag. Organ. 14(3), 323–327 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kawabata, M., Shen, Q.: Job accessibility as an indicator of auto-oriented urban structure: a comparison of Boston and Los Angeles with Tokyo. Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des. 33(1), 115–130 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Knowles, R.D.: Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the finger plan to Ørestad. J. Transp. Geogr. 22, 251–261 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lau, J.C.Y.: The influence of suburbanization on the access to employment of workers in the new towns: a case study of Tin Shui Wai, Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 34(1), 38–45 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lau, J.C.Y.: Spatial mismatch and the affordability of public transport for the poor in Singapore’s new towns. Cities 28(3), 230–237 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, J., Miller, H.J.: Measuring the impacts of new public transit services on space-time accessibility: An analysis of transit system redesign and new bus rapid transit in Columbus, Ohio, USA. Appl. Geogr. 93, 47–63 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li, S.: HK has longest working week of 71 cities (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.chinadailyasia.com/hknews/2016-05/25/content_15439024.html

  41. Lin, T., Wang, D.: Social networks and joint/solo activity–travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 68, 18–31 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lorenz, O.: Does commuting matter to subjective well-being? J. Transp. Geogr. 66, 180–199 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Manaugh, K., Miranda-Moreno, L.F., El-Geneidy, A.M.: The effect of neighbourhood characteristics, accessibility, home–work location, and demographics on commuting distances. Transportation 37(4), 627–646 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Merlin, L.A., Hu, L.: Does competition matter in measures of job accessibility? Explaining employment in Los Angeles. J. Transp. Geogr. 64, 77–88 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mokhtarian, P.L., Chen, C.: TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 38(9–10), 643–675 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Morris, E.A., Guerra, E.: Mood and mode: does how we travel affect how we feel? Transportation 42(1), 25–43 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., Witlox, F., De Maeyer, P.: Equity of urban service delivery: a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environ. Plan. A 42(7), 1613–1635 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ng, M.K.: Intellectuals and the production of space in the urban renewal process in Hong Kong and Taipei. Plan. Theory Pract. 15(1), 77–92 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ong, P., Blumenberg, E.: Job access, commute and travel burden among welfare recipients. Urban Stud. 35(1), 77–93 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L., Redmond, L.S., Salomon, I., Collantes, G.O., Choo, S.: When is commuting desirable to the individual? Growth Change 35(3), 334–359 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sandow, E.: Til work do us part: the social fallacy of long-distance commuting. Urban Stud. 51(3), 526–543 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schwanen, T., Ettema, D., Timmermans, H.: If you pick up the children, I'll do the groceries: spatial differences in between-partner interactions in out-of-home household activities. Environ. Plan. A 39(11), 2754–2773 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Scott, D.M., Kanaroglou, P.S.: An activity-episode generation model that captures interactions between household heads: development and empirical analysis. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 36(10), 875–896 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shen, Q.: Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environ. Plan. B: Plan Des. 25(3), 345–365 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Solberg, E.J., Wong, D.C.: Family time use: Leisure, home production, market work, and work related travel. J. Hum. Resour. 27(3), 485–510 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Srinivasan, S., Bhat, C.R.: A multiple discrete-continuous model for independent-and joint-discretionary-activity participation decisions. Transportation 33(5), 497–515 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Srinivasan, S., & Bhat, C.R.: An exploratory analysis of joint-activity participation characteristics using the American time use survey. Transportation 35(3), 301–327 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tao, S., He, S.Y., Thøgersen, J.: The role of car ownership in attitudes towards public transport: a comparative study of Guangzhou and Brisbane. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 60, 685–699 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Thøgersen, J.: Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: a panel study approach. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 40(8), 621–638 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Transport Department: Travel Characteristics Survey 2011 Final Report, Hong Kong, Transport Department (2014)

  61. Vovsha, P., Petersen, E., Donnelly, R.: Explicit modeling of joint travel by household members: statistical evidence and applied approach. Transp. Res. Rec. 1831(1), 1–10 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Vovsha, P., Petersen, E., Donnelly, R.: Impact of intrahousehold interactions on individual daily activity-travel patterns. Transp. Res. Rec. 1898(1), 87–97 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wheatley, D.: Good to be home? Time-use and satisfaction levels among home-based teleworkers. New Technol. Work Employ. 27(3), 224–241 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wheatley, D.: Travel-to-work and subjective well-being: a study of UK dual career households. J. Transp. Geogr. 39, 187–196 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Widener, M.J., Farber, S., Neutens, T., Horner, M.: Spatiotemporal accessibility to supermarkets using public transit: an interaction potential approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. J. Transp. Geogr. 42, 72–83 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang, J., Kuwano, M., Lee, B., Fujiwara, A.: Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 43(2), 230–250 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhao, P.: The determinants of the commuting burden of low-income workers: evidence from Beijing. Environ. Plan. A: Econ. Sp. 47(8), 1736–1755 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and advice. This work was supported by the General Research Fund (GRF) of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (Grants Number: CUHK14602017).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Y. He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix I: Job accessibility by private vehicle

figurea

Appendix II: Average joint household travel and activity durations: public transport commuters

Home location N Ave. commute duration (min) Ave. working hours Discretionary Maintenance
Joint travel Joint activity Joint travel Joint activity
Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min)
New Town Tsuen Wan 2823 96.58 9.63 0.81 55.48 0.89 135.80 0.53 40.27 0.32 92.78
Shatin 2750 106.73 9.71 0.76 38.33 0.76 99.05 0.29 20.00 0.25 105.71
Tuen Mun 1212 126.86 9.89 0.83 75.00 0.83 151.50 0.41 33.00 0.25 123.33
Tai Po 795 120.74 9.71 0.75 53.33 0.63 162.00 0.38 70.00 0.38 53.33
Fanling/Sheung Shui 789 128.10 9.70 0.63 56.00 0.76 102.50 0.63 29.00 0.38 111.67
Yuen Long 375 116.04 9.85 0.27 55.00 0.27 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tseung Kwan O 1669 90.36 9.86 0.30 33.00 0.30 154.00 0.18 30.00 0.00 0.00
Tin Shui Wai 589 131.12 9.83 0.34 45.00 0.34 180.00 0.68 55.00 0.51 60.00
Tung Chung 319 106.75 9.93 0.31 60.00 0.31 120.00 0.31 60.00 0.31 60.00
Summary 11,321 107.99 9.75 0.65 51.36 0.67 129.14 0.39 37.59 0.26 92.41
Urban Area HKI 4597 84.91 9.60 0.70 41.41 0.65 130.33 0.52 18.54 0.26 105.42
Kowloon 7171 86.34 9.61 0.45 40.00 0.49 141.80 0.60 28.26 0.30 158.04
Summary 11,768 85.78 9.61 0.54 40.70 0.55 136.51 0.57 24.78 0.31 140.00
Rural 600 103.12 10.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 85.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 23,689 96.84 9.69 0.58 46.42 0.60 132.20 0.47 29.59 0.27 118.44

Appendix III: Average joint household travel and activity durations: private-vehicle commuters

Home location N Ave. commute duration (min) Ave. working hours Discretionary Maintenance
Joint travel Joint activity Joint travel Joint activity
Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min) Proportion (%) Ave. duration (min)
New Town Tsuen Wan 155 64.23 9.36 3.23 42.00 3.23 81.00 6.45 30.00 2.58 108.75
Shatin 214 72.14 9.48 4.21 42.78 4.67 197.00 5.14 24.64 0.93 7.50
Tuen Mun 129 80.28 10.09 3.10 23.75 3.10 120.00 3.88 47.00 2.33 83.33
Tai Po 129 73.98 9.60 4.65 21.67 4.65 107.50 1.55 35.00 0.78 100.00
Fanling/Sheung Shui 65 84.29 9.79 1.54 60.00 1.54 210.00 3.08 30.00 0.00 0.00
Yuen Long 50 62.08 9.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 35.00 0.00 0.00
Tseung Kwan O 90 74.69 9.90 3.33 50.00 3.33 75.00 2.22 35.00 1.11 105.00
Tin Shui Wai 30 74.87 9.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tung Chung 5 68.00 10.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Summary 867 72.88 9.67 3.23 36.79 3.34 0.00 3.81 31.55 1.27 82.27
Urban Area HKI 320 63.74 9.59 3.13 63.50 3.13 134.50 4.06 23.85 0.31 255.00
Kowloon 354 61.46 9.24 2.54 38.89 2.54 112.78 1.13 26.25 0.28 100.00
Summary 674 62.55 9.41 2.82 51.84 2.82 124.21 2.52 24.41 0.30 177.50
Rural 258 77.55 10.04 0.78 32.50 0.78 115.00 3.10 33.13 0.00 0.00
Total 1,799 69.68 9.62 2.72 42.45 2.78 130.50 3.22 29.67 0.72 96.92

Appendix IV: Modelling results of probability of joint household travel and activities: private-vehicle commuters

Variable Coefficient estimates (N = 1799)
Discretionary Maintenance
Model 1: Joint travel Model 2: Joint activity Model 3: Joint travel Model 4: Joint activity
Age − 0.014 − 0.009 0.018 0.022
Female 0.401 0.408 0.250 − 0.101
Married 1.121** 1.057* 1.565* 1.306
Public housing estates 0.253 0.213 − 0.631 − 0.160
Household size 0.131 0.106 0.192 − 0.311
Having dependent children − 0.934** − 0.796* 0.937** 0.941
Having another elderly − 1.222 − 1.216 − 0.240 − 0.321
Having a domestic helper − 0.618* − 0.670* 0.166 − 0.321
Multiple earners 0.003 − 0.065 − 0.482 − 0.732
Population density (natural log transformed) − 0.118 − 0.101 − 0.075 0.006
Job accessibility by private vehicle 2.303* 2.153* − 0.525 − 0.945
Commute duration − 0.002 − 0.001 − 0.005 − 0.003
Working hours − 0.127** − 0.118* − 0.102* − 0.251**
Model summary
Wald χ2 24.48** 22.56*** 31.37*** 12.04
AIC 400.119 408.992 446.826 135.062
BIC 477.049 408.992 523.755 211.992
  1. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1

Appendix V: SEM modelling results for private-vehicle commuters

figureb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tao, S., He, S.Y. Job accessibility and joint household travel: a study of Hong Kong with a particular focus on new town residents. Transportation (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10100-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Joint household travel
  • Commuting
  • Job accessibility
  • New towns