Multilevel Models of Commute Times for Men and Women

  • Edmund J. ZolnikEmail author
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


The commuting time discrepancy between men and women is known as the commuting time gender gap. Empirical evidence for the gender gap seems to be conclusive. However, recent research on commuting times in San Francisco (Gossen and Purvis 2005) and Philadelphia (Weinberger 2007) suggests that the gender gap is less ubiquitous than previously thought. To test whether or not the attenuation of the gender gap is idiosyncratic to single-city analyses of commuting times, national data is used to specify three statistical models of private-vehicle commuting times for men-only, women-only, and pooled men–women subsamples from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The first goal of this chapter is to ascertain what personal characteristics of men and women and what locational characteristics of cities have the greatest affect on private-vehicle commuting times. The second goal of this chapter is to ascertain how much of the variation in commuting times for men and women originates within cities and how much originates between cities.


Multilevel Model Travel Behavior Residential Density Private Vehicle Commute Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bhat C (2000) A multi-level cross-classified model for discrete response variables. Transp Res B 34:567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crane R (2007) Is there a quiet revolution in women’s travel? Revisiting the gender gap in commuting. J Am Plann Assoc 73:298–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doyle D, Taylor B (2000) Variation in metropolitan travel behavior by sex and ethnicity. In: Final report: travel patterns of people of color. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, pp 181–244Google Scholar
  4. England K (1993) Suburban pink collar ghettos: the spatial entrapment of women? Ann Assoc Am Geogr 83:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ericksen J (1977) An analysis of the journey to work for women. Soc Probl 24:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact. Smart Growth America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2003) Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transp Res Rec 1831:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glaeser E, Kahn M, Chu C (2001) Job sprawl: employment location in U.S. metropolitan areas. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein H (1991) Multilevel modeling of survey data. Statistician 40:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon P, Kumar A, Richardson H (1989) Gender differences in metropolitan travel behaviour. Reg Stud 23:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gossen R, Purvis C (2005) Activities, time, and travel: changes in women’s travel time expenditures, 1990–2000. In: Research on women’s issues in transportation. Transportation Review Board, Washington, pp 21–29Google Scholar
  12. Hanson S, Johnston I (1985) Gender differences in work-trip length: explanations and implications. Urban Geogr 6:193–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanson S, Pratt G (1988a) Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography. Econ Geogr 64:299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson S, Pratt G (1988b) Spatial dimensions of the gender division of labor in a local labor market. Urban Geogr 9:180–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson S, Pratt G (1991) Job search and occupational segregation of women. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 81:229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson S, Pratt G (1995) Gender, work, and space. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnston-Anumonwo I (1992) The influence of household type on gender differences in work trip distance. Prof Geogr 44:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lansing J, Hendricks G (1967) Automobile ownership and residential density. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  19. Maas C, Hox J (2004) Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Stat Neerl 58:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Madden J (1981) Why women work close to home. Urban Stud 18:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McLafferty S, Preston V (1991) Gender, race, and commuting among service sector workers. Prof Geogr 43:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pratt E (1911) Industrial causes of congestion and pollution in New York City. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Raudenbush S, Bryk A (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Raudenbush S, Bryk A, Cheong Y, Congdon R, du Toit M (2004) HLM 6: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International, LincolnwoodGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenbloom S (1978) The need for study of women’s travel issues. Transportation 7:347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenbloom S (2006) Understanding women’s and men’s travel patterns: the research challenge. In: Research on women’s issues in transportation. Transportation Review Board, Washington, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  27. Schrank D, Lomax T (2007) The 2007 urban mobility report. Texas Transportation Institute, College StationGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwanen T, Dieleman F, Dijst M (2004) The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: a multilevel approach. Growth Change 35:304–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smit L (1997) Changing commuter distances in the Netherlands: a macro-micro perspective. In: Westert G, Verhoeff R (eds) Places and people: multilevel modelling in geographical research. The Royal Dutch Geographical Society, Utrecht, 86–99Google Scholar
  30. Snellen D, Borgers A, Timmermans H (2002) Urban form, road network type, and mode choice for frequently conducted activities: a multilevel analysis using quasi-experimental design data. Environ Plann A 34:1207–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  32. Texas Transportation Institute (2008) Congestion data for your city, 2008. Accessed 14 July 2008
  33. Turner T, Niemeier D (1997) Travel to work and household responsibility: new evidence. Transportation 24:397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber J, Kwan M (2003) Evaluating the effects of geographic contexts on individual accessibility: a multilevel approach. Urban Geogr 24:647–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinberger R (2007) Men, women, job sprawl, and journey to work in the Philadelphia region. Publ Works Manag Pol 11:177–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. White M (1977) A model of residential location choice and commuting by men and women workers. J Reg Sci 17:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White M (1986) Sex differences in urban commuting patterns. Am Econ Rev 76:368–372Google Scholar
  38. Wyly E (1998) Containment and mismatch: gender differences in commuting in metropolitan labor markets. Urban Geogr 19:395–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Geoinformation ScienceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations