以活動觀點研究法探討平日、週末假日活動時間價值之研究_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	以活動觀點研究法探討平日、週末假日活動時間價值之研究
作者：	夏晧清
作者(外文)：	Hao-ChingHsia
校院名稱：	國立成功大學
系所名稱：	都市計劃學系碩博士班
指導教授：	葉光毅
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2013
主題關鍵詞：	活動觀點研究法；活動時間分配模式；活動時間價值；activity-based approach；activity time allocation model；value of activity time
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:10

在計畫的投資效益評估中，時間價值扮演了一個相當重要的角色。既往已有許多研究立足於旅次觀點研究法，透過路線選擇模式、運具選擇模式等交通需求模式來對時間價值進行探討。然而，這些研究推估出的時間價值僅能視為交通時間價值，而非活動時間價值。為了充份地掌握計畫投資對個體所帶來的效益，並從較為本質的觀點來對時間價值進行探討，實有必要跳脫出傳統旅次觀點研究法之框架來進行思考，此時，活動觀點研究法便成為較佳的替代研究方法。
本研究立足於活動觀點研究法，針對個體於平日、週末假日一天內的活動時間分配、個體活動時間價值進行探討。和既往研究最大的不同在於，本研究假設個體對活動的「心理意識評估（在平日為：重要性、優先性；在假日為：重要性、優先性、週末傾向）」，會對個體的活動時間分配造成影響。繼而，透過活動日記調查，來收集：（1）個體於平日之一天內的時間使用資料，以及，（2）個體對各項活動之心理意識評估資料。在活動的分類方面，則是將個體日常的活動分為：（1）生理照護活動。（2）工作活動。（3）家庭照護活動。（4）家務活動。（5）休閒娛樂活動。（6）社會化活動等六項。最後，透過計量經濟模型建構「個體活動時間分配模式」，來估計除了「工作活動」以外，其他五項活動的「平均活動時間價值」。
本研究以台南市東區、中西區、南區、北區、安平區、安南區之工作者為分析對象，利用活動日記收集其平日、週末假日之活動時間分配資料，以及其對各項活動之心理意識評估資料，來做為建構平日、週末假日活動時間分配模式之依據。用以建構平日活動時間分配模式的樣本數為162，而用以建構週末假日時間分配模式的樣本數則為152。研究結果顯示，依據平日裡各項活動的5%截尾平均活動時間價值之大小排列，依序為：「休閒娛樂活動（2.64元/分鐘）」〉「家庭照護活動（0.66元/分鐘）」〉「生理照護活動（0.51元/分鐘）」〉「家務活動（0.04元/分鐘）」〉「社會化活動（0.02元/分鐘）」。在週末假日方面，若依據5%截尾平均數之大小排列，依序為：「休閒娛樂活動（6.11元/分鐘）」〉「家庭照護活動（6.08元/分鐘）」〉「生理照護活動（4.58元/分鐘）」〉「社會化活動（0.77元/分鐘）」〉「家務活動（0.27元/分鐘）」。
不論是在理論上，或是實務的應用上，活動時間價值的估計向來都是一項值得重視的議題。在活動時間價值的推估方面，本研究的具體貢獻如下：（1）推估出不同活動的活動時間價值。（2）推估出以往較少探討的假日活動時間價值。（3）在推估個體之活動時間價值時，也將個體的心理意識評估納入考量。適當地使用本研究推估出之活動時間價值參數，便可具體地評估出計畫投資所可能帶給個體之效益。

以文找文

The value of time is an essential determinant in the benefit assessment of project investment. Several previous studies examined time value based on trip-based approach through the travel demand model, such as route choice model or mode choice model. However, the time value estimated in those studies is only regarded as value of travel time, but not value of activity time. In order to capture the benefit induced by project investment toward individuals sufficiently and examine the essence of time value, it is necessary to rethink this issue out of the traditional trip-based approach frame. In this case, activity-based approach becomes a better alternative.
This study has examined the individual’s activity time allocation behavior on a weekday and a weekend day and the corresponding value of activity time based on activity-based approach. We propose a model in which individual’s time allocation behavior is affected by individual’s psychological evaluation toward an activity. The indicators of psychological evaluation toward an activity on a weekday include importance and priority. On the other hand, the indicators on a weekend day include importance, priority, and weekend preference. The individual’s time use data on a weekday / weekend day and psychological evaluation toward every activity were collected by activity diary survey. Individual’s daily activities have been classified into the following six groups: (1) physical care activity, (2) work activity, (3) family care activity, (4) homemaking activity, (5) leisure activity, and (6) social activity. Finally, the individual’s activity time allocation model has been established by econometric model and then the average value of time of each activity (including 5 items) has been estimated via this model except for work activity.
The sampling workers residing in former Tainan city including the East district, Central-West district, South district, North district, Anping district, and Annan district were analytical subjects. This study employed activity diary to collect the data of individual’s activity time allocation both on a weekday and a weekend day as well as the psychological evaluation toward every activity. The time use data of a weekday / weekend day and individual’s psychological evaluation data are simultaneously employed to establish the activity time allocation model on a weekday / weekend day. The number of sample for the activity time allocation model of a weekday is 162. On the other hand, the number of sample for the activity time allocation model of a weekday is 152.
The results show that the value of weekday activity time can be represented by 5% trimmed mean of activity time value. According to the mean of activity time value, the rank of each activity can be shown as follows: leisure activity (2.64 NT/Min.) 〉 family care activity (0.66 NT/Min.) 〉 physical care activity (0.51 NT/Min.) 〉 homemaking activity (0.04 NT/Min.) 〉 social activity (0.02 NT/Min.). In the case of the weekend activity time value, according to the 5% trimmed mean of activity time value, the rank of each activity can be shown as follows: leisure activity (6.11 NT/Min.) 〉 family care activity (6.08 NT/Min.) 〉 physical care activity (4.58 NT/Min.) 〉 social activity (0.77 NT/Min.) 〉 homemaking activity (0.27 NT/Min.).
It is recognized that the estimation of value of activity time is an important issue theoretically and practically. The specific contributions of this study on the estimation of value of activity time are: (1) the values of activity time of different activities can be estimated in this study. (2) the value of weekend day activity time which was merely estimated in previous studies can be estimated in this study. (3) individual’s psychological evaluations toward different activities are involved in the estimation of individual’s values of activity time. The values of activity time can be implemented properly to assess the benefits which are induced by project investment.

以文找文

中文文獻
1.周榮昌、翁美娟、曾鵬庭，2003，中程旅運者旅行時間價值之研究，中國土木水利工程學刊，第15卷，第1期，頁189-198。
2.葉光毅、黃幹忠、夏晧清，2004，上班者平日之交通╱活動關連分析：以台南都會區為實證，都市與計劃，第31卷，第1期，頁25-45。 new window

3.葉光毅、黃幹忠、戴大雄，2006，台南市居民之假日旅運╱活動行為選擇模式建構，都市與計劃，第32卷，第2期，頁69-91。 new window

4.臺南市政府，2011，中華民國99年臺南市統計要覽，第70期，臺南市政府。
5.劉錦添、江錫九，1997，台灣有偶婦女時間分配型態之實證研究，人文及社會科學集刊，第9卷，第3期，頁1-29。 new window

6.蕭銘雄，1997，考慮活動與旅運的旅運時間價值研究，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所博士論文。 new window

7.賴禎秀、楊培俊、曾俊琳、白俊英，2003，開車通勤者時間價值之模式研究，運輸計劃季刊，第32卷，第3期，頁479-492。 new window

日文文獻
1.大森宣暁, 室町泰徳, 原田昇, 太田勝敏, 1997, 生活活動パターンを考慮した高齢者のアクセシビリティに関する研究～秋田市をケーススタディとして～, 土木計画学研究・講演集 20 (2): 671-678.
2.奧村誠, 塚井誠人, 1999, 平休日の生活時間評価構造に關する研究, 土木計画学研究‧論文集 16: 181-186.
3.福田大輔, 吉野廣鄉, 屋井鐵雄, イルワン　プラセティヨ, 2003, 休日のアクティビティに著目した活動時間価值の推定方法に關する研究, 土木学会論文集 737 (IV-60): 211-221.
4.福田大輔, 渡部数樹, ネパル　カィ　プレサッド, 屋井鉄雄, 2005, 平日の時間利用評価が休日の時間配分及び活動時間価值形成に及ばす影響, 土木計画学研究‧論文集 22 (3): 421-429.
5.藤井聡, 大塚祐一郎, 北村隆一, 門間俊幸, 1997, 時間的空間的制約を考慮した生活行動軌跡を再現するための行動シミュレ─ションの構築, 土木計画学研究‧論文集 14：643-652.

英文文獻
1.Aas, D. 1982. Designs for large scale time use studies of 24 hour day. In: Zahari S. (Eds.) It’s about time: international research group on time budgets and social activities: 17-53. Sofia, Bulgaria: Institute of Sociology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
2.Andorka, R., Harcsa, I., and Niemi, I. 1983. Use of time in Hungary and in Finland: comparison of results of time budget survey by the Central Statistical Offices of Finland and Hungary. Central Statistical Office of Finland, Helsinki, Tutkimuksia Undersokningar Studies.
3.Axhausen, K. 1995. Travel diaries: an annotated catalog (2nd ed.). Innsbruck: Institut für Straßenbau und Verkehrsplanung, Leopold-Franzens-Universität.
4.Axhausen, K., Zimmermanm, A., Schönfelder, S., Rindsfüser, G., and Haupt, T. 2002. Observing the rhythms of daily life: A six-week travel diary. Transportation 29: 95-124.
5.Becker, G. 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal 75 (299): 493-517.
6.Bhat, C. 1996. A hazard-based duration model of shopping activity with nonparametric baseline specification and nonparametric control for unobserved heterogeneity. Transportation Research Part B 30 (1): 189-207.
7.Bhat, C. 1998a. A model of post-home arrival activity participation behavior. Transportation Research Part B 32 (6): 387-400.
8.Bhat, C. 1998b. Analysis of travel mode and departure time choice for urban shopping trips. Transportation Research Part B 32 (6): 361-371.
9.Bhat, C. 2005. A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model : formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transportation Research Part B 39 (8): 679-707.
10.Bhat, C. 2008. The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions. Transportation Research Part B 42 (3): 274-303.
11.Bhat, C. and Koppelman, F. 2003. Activity-based modeling of travel demand. In: Hall R. (Eds.) Handbook of Transportation Science: 39-65. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12.Bhat, C. and Misra, R. 1999. Discretionary activity time allocation of individuals between in-home and out-of-home and between weekdays and weekends. Transportation 26 (2): 193-209.
13.Bhat, C. and Steed, J. 2002. A continuous-time model of departure time choice for urban shopping trips. Transportation Research Part B 36 (3): 207-224.
14.Bhat, C., Srinivasan, S., and Axhausen, K. 2005. An analysis of multiple interepisode durations using a unifying multivariate hazard model. Transportation Research Part B 39 (9): 797-823.
15.Chalasani, V. and Axhausen, K. 2004. Mobidrive: A Six Week Travel Diary. Travel Survey Metadata Series 2. ETH Zürich, Zürich: Institute for Transport Planning and Systems (IVT). （http://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/publications/tsms/tsms2.pdf）
16.Chapin, F. l965. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
17.Chapin, F. 1974. Human Activity Patterns in the City. New York: John Wiley ＆ Sons.
18.Chung, J., Kim, T., Baik, H., and Choi, Y. 2009. A structural equation model of activity participation and travel behavior using longitudinal data. Transportation Planning and Technology 32 (2): 163-185.
19.Clarke, M., Dix, M., and Jones, P. 1981. Error and uncertainty in travel surveys. Transportation 10 (2): 105-126.
20.Cullen, I. and Godson, V. 1975. Urban networks: The structure of activity patterns. Progress in Planning 4: 1-96.
21.Deci, E. and Ryan, R. 2008. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: and introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 1-11.
22.DeSerpa, A. 1971. A theory of the economics of time. The Economic Journal 81 (324): 828-846.
23.Dijst, M. 1999. Two-earner families and their action spaces: a case study of two Dutch communities. GeoJournal 4: 195-206.
24.Doherty, S. and Miller, E. 2000. A computerized household activity scheduling survey. Transportation 27 (1): 75-97.
25.Ettema, D. and Timmermans, H. 1997. Theories and models of activity patterns. In: Ettema, D. and Timmermans, H. (Eds.) Activity-Based Approached to Travel Analysis: 1-36. Oxford: Pergamon.
26.European Commission. 2004. How Europeans Spend Their Time Everyday Life of Women and Men. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
27.Eurostat. 2009. Harmonised European Time Use Surveys 2008 Guidelines. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
28.Evans, A. 1972. On the theory of the valuation and allocation of time. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 19 (1): 1-17.
29.Fleck, S. 2009. International comparisons of hours worked: an assessment of the statistics. Monthly Labor Reviews 132 (5): 3-31.
30.Fried, M., Havens, J., and Thall, M. 1977. Travel Behavior - A Synthesized Theory. Boston: Boston College.
31.Fujii, S. and Kitamura, R. 2000. Evaluation of trip-inducing effects of new freeways using a structural equations model system of commuters’ time use and travel. Transportation Research Part B 34 (5): 339-354.
32.Gagliardi, C., Spazzafumo, L., Marcellini, F., Mollenkopf, H., Ruoppila, I., Tacken, M., and Szemann, Z. 2007. The outdoor mobility and leisure activities of older people in five European countries. Aging and Society 27 (5): 683-701.
33.Gärling, T., Kwan, M., and Golledge, R. 1994. Computational process modeling of household activity scheduling. Transportation Research Part B 28 (5): 355-364.
34.Geerken, M. and Gove, W. 1983. At Home and at Work: the Family’s Allocation of Labor. Beverly Hills: Sage.
35.Gershuny, J. 1992. Are we running out of time? Futures 24 (1): 3-22.
36.Gliebe, J. and Koppelman, F. 2002. A model of joint activity participation. Transportation 29 (1): 49-72.
37.Goldenberg, L., Stecher, C., and Cervenka, K. 1995. Choosing a household-based survey method: Results of the Dallas-Fort worth pretest. paper presented to Fifth National Conference on Transportation Planning Methods Applications. Seattle, Washington. April 17-21 1995.
38.Golob, T. 2003. Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B 37 (1): 1-25.
39.Golob, T. and McNally, M. 1995. A model of household interaction in activity participation and the derived demand for travel. paper presented to the European Institute of Retailing and Service Studies(EIRASS), Conference on Activity-Based Approaches. Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
40.González, R. 1997. The value of time: a theoretical review. Transport Reviews 17 (3): 245-266.
41.Gramm, W. 1975. Household utility maximization and the working wife. American Economic Review 65: 90-100.
42.Hägerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association 24: 7-21.
43.Hamed, M. and Mannering, F. 1993. Modeling travelers’ postwork activity involvement: toward a new methodology. Transportation Science 27 (4): 381-394.
44.Harvey, A. 1993. Guidelines for time use data collection. Social Indicators Research 30 (2-3): 197-228.
45.Harvey, A. 2003. Time-space diaries: merging traditions. In: Stopher, P. and Jones, P. (Eds.) Transport Survey Quality and Innovation: 151-180. Pergamon Press.
46.Harvey, A. and Gromo, S. 1986. Social contact and use of time in Canada and Norway: a comparative analysis of time use patterns. In: Aas, D., Harvey, A., Wunlipinski, E., and Niemi, I., (Eds.) Time Use Studies: Dimensions and Applications. Helsinki: Central Statistical Office of Finland.
47.Heggie, I. 1978. Putting behaviour into behavioural choice models. Journal of the Operational Research Society 29 (6): 541-550.
48.Hensher, D. and Mennering, F. 1994. Hazard-based duration models and their application to transport analysis. Transport Reviews 14: 63-82.
49.Jara-Díaz, S. 2003. On the goods-activities technical relations in the time allocation theory. Transportation 30 (3): 245-260.
50.Jara-Díaz, S. and Guevara, A. 2003. Behind the subjective value of travel time savings: the perception of work, leisure and travel from a joint mode choice activity model. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 37 (1): 29-46.
51.Jara-Díaz, S., Munizaga, M., Greeven, P., Guerra, R., and Axhausen, K. 2008. Estimating the value of leisure from a time allocation model. Transportation Research Part B 42 (10): 946-957.
52.Johnson, M. 1966. Travel time and the price of leisure. Western Economic Journal 4: 135-145.
53.Jones, P. 2009. The role of an evolving paradigm in shaping international transport research and policy agendas over the last 50 years. The keynote speech in IATBR 2009 conference.
54.Kahn, R. and Juster, F. 2002. Well-being: concepts and measures. Journal of Social Issues 58 (4): 627-644.
55.Kato, H. 2007. Valuation of leisure time of non-work days estimated with the discrete-continuous analysis: empirical case study of Tokyo. paper presented to the 12th International Conference of Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies. Hong Kong.
56.Kenyon, S. 2008. Internet use and time use: the importance of multitasking. Time ＆ Society 17 (2/3): 283-318.
57.Kitamura, R. 1984. A model of daily time allocation to discretionary out-of-home activities and trips. Transportation Research Part B 18 (3): 255-266.
58.Kitamura, R., Fujii, S., and Pas, E. 1997. Time-use data, analysis and modeling: toward the next generation of transportation planning methodologies. Transport Policy 4 (4): 225-235.
59.Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Fujii, S., and Sampath, S. 1996. A discrete-continuous analysis of time allocation to two types of discretionary activities which accounts for unobserved heterogeneity. In: Lesort, J. (Eds.) Transportation and Traffic Theory: 431-453. Oxford: Elsevier.
60.Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Kishizawa, K., and Pendyala., R. 2000. Stochastic frontier models of prism vertices. Transportation Research Record 1718: 18-26.
61.Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Susilo, Y., and Axhausen., K. 2006. How routine is a routine? An analysis of the day-to-day variability in prism vertex location. Transportation Research Part A 40 (3): 259-279.
62.Kitterød, R. 2001. Does the recording of parallel activities in time use diaries affect the way people report their main activities? Social Indicators Research 56 (2): 145-178.
63.Kuppam, A. and Pendyala, R. 2001. A structural equations analysis of commuters’ activity and travel patterns. Transportation 28 (1): 33-54.
64.Kurani, K. and Lee-Gosselin, M. 1997. Synthesis of past activity analysis Applications. paper presented to Activity-based travel forecasting conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Report DOT-97-17.
65.Kwan, M. and Weber, J. 2008. Scale and accessibility: implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography 28 (2): 110-123.
66.Lee, Y., Hickman, M., and Washington, S. 2007. Household type and structure, time-use pattern, and trip-chaining behavior. Transportation Research Part A 41 (10): 1004-1020.
67.Lenntorp, B. 1976. Paths in Space-Time Environments: A Time-Geographic Study of the Movement Possibilities of Individuals. Lund: Royal University of Lund, Department of Geography.
68.Lockwood, A., Srinivasan, S., and Bhat, C. 2005. Exploratory analysis of weekend activity patterns in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Transportation Research Record 1926: 70-78.
69.Lyons, G. and Urry, J. 2005. Travel Time Use in the Information Age. Transportation Research Part A 39 (2-3): 257-76.
70.Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper Row Publication.
71.McNally, M. and Recker, W. 1986. On the Formation of Household Travel/Activity Patterns: a simulation approach (USDOT Final Report). CA: University of California, Irvine.
72.Nepal, K., Fukuda, D., and Yai, T. 2005. Incorporating latent determinants in activity time allocation modeling: application to value of activity time estimation. In: Timmermans, H. (Eds.) Progress in activity-based analysis: 285-308. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
73.Nepal, K., Fukuda, D., and Yai, T. 2007. Incorporating differences in marginal utilities of time across activities in an activity time allocation model. Journal of Eastern Society for Transportation Studies 7: 499-514.
74.Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., and Witlox, F. 2011. The prism of everyday life: towards a new research agenda for time geography. Transport Review 31 (1): 25-47.
75.Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R., and Suh, E. 1999. Cross-cultural variations in predictions of life satisfaction: perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 980-990.
76.Oort, O. 1969. The evaluation of travel time. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 3: 279-286.
77.Pas, E. 1990. Is travel demand analysis and modeling in the doldrums? In: Jones, P. (Eds.) Developments in Dynamic and Activity-based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
78.Pendyala, R., Yamamoto, T., and Kitamura, R. 2002. On the formation of time-space prisms to model constraints on personal activity-travel engagement. Transportation 29 (1): 73-94.
79.Prasetyo, I., Fukuda, D., Yoshino, H., and Yai, T. 2003. Analysis of travel time saving benefit by understanding individual needs and value of activity time: case study of Tokyo and Jakarta. Transportation Research Record 1854: 12-21.
80.Purvis, C. 1990. Survey of travel survey II. Transportation Research Record 1271: 23-32.
81.Pychyl, T. and Little, B. 1998. Dimensional specificity in the prediction of subjective well-being: personal project in pursuit of the Ph.D.. Social Indicators Research 45: 423-473.
82.Recker, W. 1995. The household activity pattern program: general formulation and solution. Transportation Research Part B 29 (1): 61-77.
83.Reichmann, S. 1976. Travel adjustment and life styles: a behavioral approach. In: Stopher, P. and Meyburg, A. (Eds.) Behavioral Travel Demand Models. Lexington, Massachusettes : Lexington Books.
84.Rogers, C. 1959. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships. In: Koch, S. (Eds.) Psychology : A study of a science(Vol. 3). New York : McGraw Hill.
85.Scheiner, J. 2006. Does individualization of travel behavior exist? Determinants and determination of travel participation and mode choice in West Germany, 1976-2002. DIE ERDE 137 (4): 355-377.
86.Spinney, J., Scott, D., and Newbold, K. 2009. Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: a time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transport Policy 16 (1): 1-11.
87.Srinivasan, S. and Bhat, C. 2005. Modeling household interaction in daily in-home and out-of-home maintenance activity participation. Transportation 35 (5): 523-544.
88.Stopher, P. 1992. Use of an activity-based diary to collect household travel data. Transportation 19 (2): 159-176.
89.Stopher, P. 2008. The travel survey toolkit: Where to from here? Keynote paper prepared for the 8th International Conference on Travel Survey Methods. Annecy, France. May, 2008.
90.Stopher, P. and Greaves, S. 2007. Household travel surveys: Where are we going? Transportation Research Part A 41 (5): 367-381.
91.Stopher, P. and Wilmot, C. 2001. Development of a prototype time-use diary and application in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Transportation Research Record 1768: 89-98.
92.Train, K. and McFadden, D. 1978. The goods / leisure tradeoff and disaggregate work trip mode choice models. Transportation Research 12 (5): 349-353.
93.Van Acker, V., Van Wee, B., and Witlox, F. 2010. When transport geography meets social psychology: Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews 30 (2): 219-240.
94.Waterman, A., Schwartz, S., and Conti, R. 2008. The implication of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 41-79.
95.Yamamoto, T. and Kitamura, R. 1999. An analysis of time allocation to in-home and out-of-home discretionary activities across working days and non-working days. Transportation 26 (2): 211-230.
96.Yamamoto, T., Kitamura, R., and Pendyala, R. 2004. Comparative analysis of time-space prism vertices for out-of-home activity engagement on working and non-working days. Environment and Planning B 31 (2): 235-250.
97.Zhang, J. and Fujiwara, A. 2006. Representing household time allocation behavior by endogenously incorporating diverse intra-household interactions: A case study in the context of elderly couples. Transportation Research Part B 40 (1): 54-74.
98.Zhang, J., Timmermans, H., and Borgers, A. 2002. A utility-maximizing model of household time use for independent, shared and allocated activities incorporating group decision mechanisms. Transportation Research Record 1807: 1-8.
99.Zhang, J., Timmermans, H., and Borgers, A. 2005. A model of household task allocation and time use. Transportation Research Part B 39 (1): 81-95.
100.Zhang, J., Xu, L., and Fujiwara, A. 2012. Developing an integrated scobit-based activity participation and time allocation model to explore influence of childcare on women’s time use behavior. Transportation 39 (1): 125-149.
101.Ziliaskopoulos, A. and Rao, L. 1999. A simultaneous route and departure time choice equilibrium model on dynamic networks. International Transactions in Operational Research 6 (1): 21-37.
網頁資料
1.http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Pages/HowIsTheTravelSurveyCarriedOut.aspx（讀取日期：2012年07月28日）

2.行政院主計總處網頁，http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas04/bc5/earning/ht4561.asp
（讀取日期：2012年2月13日）
3.中華民國統計資訊網，http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp
（讀取日期：2012年2月13日）

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	平日活動時間分配與個體時間價值之研究
2.	臺南市居民之假日旅運/活動行為選擇模式建構
3.	上班者平日之交通/活動關連分析：以臺南都會區為實證
4.	海運託運人選擇貨運服務方式之行為研究
5.	開車通勤者時間價值之模式研究
6.	臺灣有偶婦女時間分配型態之實證研究

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫