Analysing interpersonal variability for homogeneous groups of travellers

Die Einteilung der Bevolkerung in Gruppen mit ahnlichem Verkehrsverhalten ist in der Verkehrsverhaltensforschung bereits recht lange eine wichtige Frage. Das Ziel einer solchen Klassifizierung ist es, Gruppen zu identifizieren, der Mittglieder innerhalb einer Gruppe zueinander ahnlich sind, sich aber vom Verkehrsverhalten der Personen anderer Gruppen deutlich unterscheiden. Trotz der langen Tradition solche Gruppen zu konstruieren, hat es in den letzten 20 Jahren wenig Fortschritte auf diesem Gebiet gegeben. Einige altere (Kutter, 1972, Pas, 1983; Schmiedel, 1984, Huff and Hanson, 1986, 1988b) stellen immer noch den “state of the art” dar. Dies ist umso erstaunlicher wenn man sich vor Augen fuhrt, dass diese Einteilungen alles andere als zufriedenstellend sind, da innerhalb der Gruppen eine sehr grosse Variabilitat verbleibt. Dies liegt in erster Linie an zwei Hindernissen: Erstens mangelt es an geeigneten Langzeitdaten und zweitens an der Frage, wie man Ahnlichkeiten adaquat messen soll. Beiden Fragen wird in diesem Aufsatz nachgegangen. Der Aufsatz untersucht das Ausmass intrapersoneller Variabilitat mit der Methode der Sequenz analyse, die nicht nur die Art, sondern auch Dauer du Reihenfolge von Aktivitaten berucksichtigt. Die Ergebnisse – basierend auf der Langzeitstudie Mobidrive zeigen, dass das Ausmass intrapersoneller Variabilitat recht hoch ist. Aus diesem Grund wurden pro Person drei verschiedene typische Tage identifiziert und basierend auf diesen Tagen die (ebenfalls mit Sequenzanalyse berechnete) interpersonelle Variabilitat zwischen den Personen als Ausgangspunkt fur eine Clusteranalyse herangezogen wurde. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass bezuglich der taglichen Aktivitatenprogramme sehr homogene Cluster gebildet werden konnen – hinsichtlich der herkommlichen betrachteten Verhaltensindikatoren und sozidemographischen Merkmalen ist sie jedoch gering. The segmentation of the population into groups of people with homogenous travel behaviour has been an important issue to travel behaviour analysis for a long time.. Aim of this classification is to identify groups of people who are very similar to each other concerning their travel behaviour but clearly distinct from the members of other groups. Despite the long tradition to construct behavioural homogenous groups, there has not been much progress in the last 20 years. Some older classifications (Kutter, 1972, Pas, 1983; Schmiedel, 1984, Huff and Hanson, 1986, 1988b) are still the state of the art. This is even more surprising as those classifications are far from satisfactory because they only explain a small amount of variability within the groups. This is mainly due to two different bstacles: The first obstacle is the lack of suitable longitudinal data, the second is the gap how similarity is measured and how the order of activities is considered in the measurement. Both obstacles shall be addressed in this paper. This paper examines the amount of intrapersonal variability with the method of multidimensional sequence alignment which does not only consider the type of the performed activities but also their order and timing. The results based on the longitudinal Mobidrive data show that the intrapersonal variability is quite high. For each person three typical days were calculated and based on theses days the similarity of each person to the others was used as a basis for cluster analyses. The results show that the members of each cluster are very similar in terms of daily activity programms, but not similar in terms of sociodemograhics and traditional behavioural indicators.

[1]  Verhaltenshomogene Gruppen in Längsschnitterhebungen , 2004 .

[2]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Structures of Leisure Travel: Temporal and Spatial Variability , 2004 .

[3]  J. O. Huff,et al.  Classification issues in the analysis of complex travel behavior , 1986 .

[4]  Frank S. Koppelman,et al.  An examination of the determinants of day-to-day variability in individuals' urban travel behavior , 1986 .

[5]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Vacation behavior using a sequence alignment method , 2002 .

[6]  R. Schlich,et al.  Analysing intrapersonal variability of travel behaviour using the sequence alignment method , 2001 .

[7]  A. Abbott,et al.  Sequence Analysis and Optimal Matching Methods in Sociology , 2000 .

[8]  Modellierung der individuellen Verhaltensvariationen bei der Verkehrsentstehung , 2001 .

[9]  Dirk Zumkeller,et al.  Ergebnisse einer Pilostudie : Nutzen und Realisierungsprobleme einer bundesweiten Paneluntersuchung zum Verkehrsverhalten , 1995 .

[10]  Clarke Wilson Analysis of Travel Behavior Using Sequence Alignment Methods , 1998 .

[11]  Henk Meurs,et al.  Biases in response over time in a seven-day travel diary , 1986 .

[12]  Susan Hanson,et al.  ASSESSING DAY-TO-DAY VARIABILITY IN COMPLEX TRAVEL PATTERNS , 1982 .

[13]  T. Hoorn,et al.  Regularity and irreversibility of weekly travel behavior , 1987 .

[14]  Eric I. Pas,et al.  A Flexible and Integrated Methodology for Analytical Classification of Daily Travel-Activity Behavior , 1983 .

[15]  M. A. McClure,et al.  Comparative analysis of multiple protein-sequence alignment methods. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[16]  K. Axhausen,et al.  80 weeks of GPS-traces: approaches to enriching the trip information , 2003 .

[17]  S. Hanson,et al.  Systematic variability in repetitious travel , 1988 .

[18]  Pat Burnett,et al.  THE ANALYSIS OF TRAVEL AS AN EXAMPLE OF COMPLEX HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN SPATIALLY-CONSTRAINED SITUATIONS: DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES , 1982 .

[19]  R. Schlich,et al.  Homogenous groups of travellers , 2003 .

[20]  Eric I. Pas,et al.  INTRAPERSONAL VARIABILITY AND MODEL GOODNESS-OF-FIT , 1987 .

[21]  Uwe Kunert Weekly mobility of life cycle groups , 1994 .

[22]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[23]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Habitual travel behaviour: Evidence from a six-week travel diary , 2003 .

[24]  David Sankoff,et al.  Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison , 1983 .

[25]  M. Clarke,et al.  The significance and measurement of variability in travel behaviour , 1988 .

[26]  W C Wilson,et al.  Activity Pattern Analysis by Means of Sequence-Alignment Methods , 1998 .

[27]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Pattern Recognition in Complex Activity Travel Patterns: Comparison of Euclidean Distance, Signal-Processing Theoretical, and Multidimensional Sequence Alignment Methods , 2001 .

[28]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Observing the rhythms of daily life , 2000 .

[29]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  A Position-Sensitive Sequence-Alignment Method Illustrated for Space–Time Activity-Diary Data , 2001 .

[30]  S. Hanson,et al.  UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: MEASUREMENT ISSUES. IN: NEW HORIZONS IN TRAVEL-BEHAVIOR RESEARCH , 1981 .

[31]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Multidimensional sequence alignment methods for activity-travel pattern analysis : a comparison of dynamic programming and genetic algorithms , 2010 .

[32]  Georg Hertkorn,et al.  Analysis of large scale time use survey with respect to travel demand and regional aspects , 2002 .

[33]  E. I. Pas,et al.  Intrapersonal variability in daily urban travel behavior: Some additional evidence , 1995 .