IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Development and Application of an Activity Based Space-Time Accessibility Measure for Individual Activity Schedules

Author

Listed:
  • Olu Ashiru
  • John Polak
  • Robert B. Noland

Abstract

Accessibility is an important aspect of human existence impacting on our notion of society equity and justice. It plays an important role in a number of existing theories of spatial and travel behaviour in addition to affecting the rate and the pattern of land-use development. However despite the importance of the notion of accessibility, the accessibility measures, which have traditionally been used to quantify accessibility, have tended to be relatively poorly defined, excluding a wide range of observed forms of travel behaviour. This has ramifications for the implicit assumption underpinning the use of accessibility measures, namely that of a direct correlation between the measure of accessibility and individual travel behaviour. In this paper a hitherto unknown family of space-time route benefit measures are developed and utilised to derive an associated family of disaggregate activity based space-time utility accessibility measures. Applicable to individual activity schedules, these space-time activity accessibility measures implicitly acknowledge that travel is a derived demand. The paper commences with an outline of the limitations and primary assumptions present within traditional accessibility measures. The paper proceeds to provide a brief review of space-time user benefit measures highlighting their principle assumptions. Existing space-time locational benefit measures are subsequently extended to incorporate more realistic temporal constraints on activity participation and the perceived user benefit. The improved locational benefit measures incorporate a variety of factors including the utility an individual derives from activity participation, individual income, space-time constraints. In addition travel time, route delay and schedule disutility components such as the facility and activity wait times associated with early arrival are incorporated, in addition to late start time penalties associated with late commencement of an activity. The improved space-time locational benefit measure is subsequently applied to activity schedules incorporating a series of multiple linked activities. The paper subsequently demonstrates how the resulting user benefit measure can be shown to be part of a broader family of space-time route benefit measures, which despite their theoretical attractiveness have hitherto not been utilised by researchers. An associated family of space-time utility accessibility measures are subsequently developed and the paper proceeds to highlight how stochastic frontier models utilised in conjunction with existing travel/activity diary datasets can be utilised to operationalise the proposed measure of accessibility. The proposed family of accessibility measures are implemented within a point based spatial framework encompassing detailed spatially referenced land-use transportation network encompassing public transport, cycle, walk and car transport modes. Several practical examples are presented of the proposed family of accessibility measures in use and in particular demonstrate the strength and potential of the methodology in developing a wide range of transport-land-use policies. Examples are presented of the use of the methodology in developing new/improved transport links and services, the provision of additional land-use facilities/opportunities, extended opening of facilities/opportunities, the identification of transport related social exclusion, the development of equitable land-use transport schemes and policies as well as the development of flexible working policies. The paper concludes with a summary highlighting the principle benefits and properties of the proposed family of accessibility measures in addition to highlighting potential areas of future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Olu Ashiru & John Polak & Robert B. Noland, 2003. "Development and Application of an Activity Based Space-Time Accessibility Measure for Individual Activity Schedules," ERSA conference papers ersa03p137, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/137.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Odoki, Jennaro B. & Kerali, Henry R. & Santorini, Fabio, 2001. "An integrated model for quantifying accessibility-benefits in developing countries," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 601-623, August.
    2. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dong, Xiaojing & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. & Bowman, John L. & Walker, Joan L., 2006. "Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 163-180, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    3. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    4. Péter Czine & Péter Balogh & Zsanett Blága & Zoltán Szabó & Réka Szekeres & Stephane Hess & Béla Juhász, 2024. "Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    6. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    7. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    9. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    10. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    11. Redding, Stephen J. & Weinstein, David E., 2016. "A unified approach to estimating demand and welfare," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67681, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    13. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    14. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    15. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    16. Nathan H. Miller, 2008. "Competition When Consumers Value Firm Scope," EAG Discussions Papers 200807, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    17. Bonnet, Céline & Requillart, Vincent, 2010. "Is The Eu Sugar Policy Reform Likely To Increase Obesity?," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116414, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    20. Carlos Pestana Barros & Zhongfei Chen & Peter Wanke, 2016. "Efficiency in Chinese seaports: 2002–2012," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 18(3), pages 295-316, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.