IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt7rb3x52m.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts

Author

Listed:
  • ORY, DAVID TERRANCE

Abstract

The “derived demand” perspective on daily travel, which has become axiomatic in the transportation field, holds that travel is derived from the demand to participate in spatially separated activities. The act of traveling itself is not considered to offer any positive utility, and minimizing travel time is a primary goal of all travelers in all situations. This dissertation continues a recent effort to challenge this paradigm by directly modeling the interrelationships among travel amounts, perceptions, affections (or liking), and desires, and, in doing so, asking: why do some individuals want to travel more, and others less? By modeling quantities such as travel affection and desire, I am, importantly, first acknowledging the existence of these measures and, second, formally quantifying their relative impact on daily travel amounts and each other. Five short-distance (one-way trips less than 100 miles) and five long-distance categories of travel are examined, specifically: short-distance overall, commute, work/school-related, entertainment/ social/recreation, and personal vehicle; long-distance overall, work/school-related, entertainment/social/recreation, personal vehicle, and airplane. The models are estimated using data collected in 1998 from more than 1,300 commuting workers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Cross-model analysis reveals three robust relationships, namely: (1) myriad measures of actual travel amounts work together to affect qualitative perceptions of those amounts (e.g. “a little” or “a lot”); (2) those perceptions are consistently important in shaping desires to reduce or increase one’s travel; and (3) affections for travel have a positive influence on those desires. The second finding suggests that two individuals who travel the same objective amount may not have the same desire to reduce their travel: how much each individual perceives his or her travel to be is important. The third point argues that the degree to which travel is enjoyed is a key determinant in shaping desires to reduce travel: the more travel is enjoyed, the less the desire to reduce it. Each of the ten models is estimated with the following four estimation techniques: maximum likelihood, asymptotic distribution free, bootstrapping, and the Mplus approach. A cross-model econometric comparison by estimation technique and sample size is included. The implications of the work are largely theoretical, but the ideas presented can lead to very practical suggestions. For instance, those promoting travel demand management strategies, such as telecommuting, should pay attention to the travel perceptions of their target audience. Even though someone may be objectively traveling a lot, if the individual does not perceive those amounts to be high, he may not embrace a policy aimed at reducing his travel. And the same can be said for those who enjoy travel: those who see value in travel, perhaps because it provides a buffer between the work and home realms of daily life, will logically be less motivated to reduce their travel amounts. The survey respondents exhibit a considerable degree of liking for travel of all kinds studied, and this work unequivocally demonstrates the importance of travel liking to travel behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Ory, David Terrance, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7rb3x52m, University of California Transportation Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt7rb3x52m
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7rb3x52m.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David T. Ory & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Lothlorien S. Redmond & Ilan Salomon & Gustavo O. Collantes & Sangho Choo, 2004. "When is Commuting Desirable to the Individual?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 334-359, September.
    2. Golob, Thomas F., 2003. "Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 695-719, September.
    4. Collantes, Gustavo O. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2002. "Determinants of Subjective Assessments of Personal Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt07t1q8cm, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    5. Salomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x75525j, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Sangho Choo & Gustavo Collantes & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2005. "Wanting to travel, more or less: Exploring the determinants of the deficit and surfeit of personal travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 135-164, March.
    7. Collantes, Gustavo O. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2007. "Subjective assessments of personal mobility: What makes the difference between a little and a lot?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 181-192, May.
    8. Tor Andreassen & Bengt Lorentzen & Ulf Olsson, 2006. "The Impact of Non-Normality and Estimation Methods in SEM on Satisfaction Research in Marketing," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 39-58, February.
    9. Leslie Hayduk, 2006. "Blocked-Error-R 2 : A Conceptually Improved Definition of the Proportion of Explained Variance in Models Containing Loops or Correlated Residuals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 629-649, August.
    10. Redmond, Lothlorien S. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2001. "Modeling Objective Mobility: The Impact of Travel-Related Attitudes, Personality and Lifestyle on Distance Traveled," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt05d352fr, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    11. Golob, Thomas F., 2001. "Joint models of attitudes and behavior in evaluation of the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 495-514, July.
    12. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 97-123.
    13. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    14. Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2004. "What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 201-222, March.
    15. Curry, Richard W., 2000. "Attitudes Toward Travel: The Relationships Among Perceived Mobility, Travel Liking, and Relative Desired Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2879h292, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    16. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan & S, Lothlorien, 2001. "Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived'," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5bh2d8mh, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. Anable, Jillian & Gatersleben, Birgitta, 2005. "All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 163-181.
    18. Masanori Ichikawa & Sadanori Konishi, 1995. "Application of the bootstrap methods in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 77-93, March.
    19. Kenneth A. Bollen & J. Scott Long, 1992. "Tests for Structural Equation Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(2), pages 123-131, November.
    20. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    21. Tim Schwanen & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2007. "Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco bay area," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 171-207, January.
    22. Larson, Douglas M. & Lew, Daniel K., 2005. "Measuring the utility of ancillary travel: revealed preferences in recreation site demand and trips taken," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 237-255.
    23. Redmond, Lothlorien, 2000. "Identifying and Analyzing Travel-Related Attitudinal, Personality, and Lifestyle Clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0317h7v4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    24. Steg, Linda, 2005. "Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 147-162.
    25. Kenneth A. Bollen & Robert A. Stine, 1992. "Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(2), pages 205-229, November.
    26. Myoung-Jae Lee & Ayal Kimhi, 2005. "Simultaneous equations in ordered discrete responses with regressor-dependent thresholds," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 8(2), pages 176-196, July.
    27. Jeffrey J. Hoogland & Anne Boomsma, 1998. "Robustness Studies in Covariance Structure Modeling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 329-367, February.
    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. Xing, Yan, 2012. "Contributions Of Individual, Physical, And Social Environmental Factors To Bicycling: A Structural Equations Modeling Study Of Six Small U.S. Cities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4ch0j9sp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Tae-Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2016. "Testing the Reciprocal Relationship between Attitudes and Land Use in Relation to Trip Frequencies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 39(2), pages 203-227, April.

    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. Ory, David T, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mj659fp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 97-123.
    3. Collantes, Gustavo O. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2007. "Subjective assessments of personal mobility: What makes the difference between a little and a lot?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 181-192, May.
    4. Páez, Antonio & Whalen, Kate, 2010. "Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 537-549, August.
    5. Diana, Marco, 2008. "Making the "primary utility of travel" concept operational: A measurement model for the assessment of the intrinsic utility of reported trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 455-474, March.
    6. Patrick A. Singleton & Kelly J. Clifton, 2021. "Towards measures of affective and eudaimonic subjective well-being in the travel domain," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 303-336, February.
    7. Diana, Marco & Mokhtarian, Patricia L, 2008. "Travelers’ segmentation based on multimodality behaviors and attitudes," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2cb1z6v7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    8. Marco Diana & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2009. "Grouping travelers on the basis of their different car and transit levels of use," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 455-467, July.
    9. Pronello, Cristina & Camusso, Cristian, 2011. "Travellers’ profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1294-1308.
    10. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Ory, David T, 2005. "Don't Work, Work at Home, or Commute? Discrete Choice Models of the Decision for San Francisco Bay Area Residents," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5cs0q85s, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    11. Cao, Xinyu, 2006. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt07q5p340, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. Ory, David T & Mokhtarian, Patricia L, 2007. "Exploring the Cognitive and Affective Mechanisms Behind Subjective Assessments of Travel Amounts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6314g8dp, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. Whalen, Kate E. & Páez, Antonio & Carrasco, Juan A., 2013. "Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 132-142.
    14. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan & S, Lothlorien, 2001. "Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived'," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5bh2d8mh, University of California Transportation Center.
    15. Marco Diana & Tingting Song & Knut Wittkowski, 2009. "Studying travel-related individual assessments and desires by combining hierarchically structured ordinal variables," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 187-206, March.
    16. Cao, XinYu, 2007. "The Causal Relationship between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1n90z8h8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    17. Jindo Jeong & Jiwon Lee & Tae‐Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2022. "Travel mode choice as a representation of travel utility: A multilevel approach reflecting the hierarchical structure of trip, individual, and neighborhood characteristics," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(3), pages 745-765, June.
    18. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "Modeling the Joint Labor-Commute Engagement Decisions of San Francisco Bay Area Residents," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7600m6qv, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Jakub Kronenberg & Jeffrey Englin, 2019. "The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 961-984, November.
    20. Carreira, Rui & Patrício, Lia & Natal Jorge, Renato & Magee, Chris & Van Eikema Hommes, Qi, 2013. "Towards a holistic approach to the travel experience: A qualitative study of bus transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 233-243.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences;

    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:cdl:uctcwp:qt7rb3x52m. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.