Over the past decade an increasing interest in the development and application of activity scheduling models could be witnessed in the area of travel behaviour research (1). These models are applied to forecast travel demand and to predict the impact of transport demand management measures on traffic flows, based on the assumption that travel is derived from the dispersal of activities across different locations. It is generally accepted in activity-based research that executed activity-travel patterns are the result of complex decision processes, in which activities are inserted, deleted and modified. Scheduling models aim at reproducing these decision processes as realistically as possible. However, the planning time horizon of activities is often neglected in these models or simplified by entering activities in the scheduling process in a fixed order, usually defined by activity type (2, 3). Recent studies have argued that the behavioural realism – and hence the travel demand forecasts – of scheduling models would benefit if the time horizon of activity planning would be taken into account (4, 5, 6, 7). These studies present different empirical analyses and statistical models that examine activity insertion, adjustments and trip-planning time horizons. The effect of various explanatory variables on the planning time horizon and on the time elapsed between planning and execution of pre-planned activities is also analyzed. The findings of these studies confirm that activity scheduling is a complex decision process in which a variety of influencing factors interact and that activity type alone may not suffice to explain the planning time horizon of activities. This paper aims at contributing to this line of research by examining the activity scheduling process and in particular the planning time horizon of activities in detail. The time elapsed between the planning and execution of an activity is examined as well as the sequence of the scheduling decisions made between initial planning and actual execution or deletion of the activity. The effect of various activity, schedule, individual and household characteristics on the activity planning time horizon is estimated and discussed. Similar analyses are presented for the planning time horizon of trips. Furthermore, the planning process of individual activity and trip attributes such as start time, duration and location or transport mode, is also studied to assess which attributes are routinely planned and which are consciously decided on. Analyses about planning and scheduling of activities require specific scheduling process information that is not available from traditional tripand activity-based surveys. Therefore, some specific computer-
[1]
Harry Timmermans,et al.
ALBATROSS: Multiagent, Rule-Based Model of Activity Pattern Decisions
,
2000
.
[2]
Matthew J. Roorda,et al.
Analysis of Planning Decisions during the Activity-Scheduling Process
,
2008
.
[3]
Sean T. Doherty,et al.
How Far in Advance Are Activities Planned?
,
2005
.
[4]
Abolfazl Mohammadian,et al.
Modeling activity scheduling time horizon: Duration of time between planning and execution of pre-planned activities
,
2006
.
[5]
Guido Rindsfüser,et al.
Tracing the planning and execution of activities and their attributes - Design and application of a hand-held scheduling process survey
,
2003
.
[6]
Davy Janssens,et al.
Field Evaluation of Personal Digital Assistant Enabled by Global Positioning System
,
2008
.
[7]
E. Miller,et al.
A computerized household activity scheduling survey
,
2000
.
[8]
Matthew J. Roorda,et al.
Prototype Model of Household Activity-Travel Scheduling
,
2003
.
[9]
Sean T. Doherty,et al.
Mixed Logit Model of Activity-Scheduling Time Horizon Incorporating Spatial–Temporal Flexibility Variables
,
2005
.
[10]
Davy Janssens,et al.
In the field evaluation of the impact of a GPS-enabled personal digital assistant on activity-travel diary data quality
,
2008
.