Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 146
C O M PA N I O N S H I P F O R L E I S U R E A C T I V I T I E S 135
TABLE 7 Model for Companion-Type Choice for Active Leisure Activities
Household Nonhousehold Nonhousehold Nonhousehold Mixed
Members Family Friends Other Composition
Beta t-stat Beta t-stat Beta t-stat Beta t-stat Beta t-stat
Constant 0.524 2.617 1.962 5.686 0.351 1.666 0.982 5.894 0.075 0.330
Activity episode duration 0.006 9.291 0.010 12.009 0.011 18.172 0.010 14.958 0.010 15.154
Weekday 0.998 12.074 0.870 5.587 0.246 2.995 1.048 10.061
Age 0.010 2.823 0.015 3.511 0.030 9.584 0.016 4.814 0.046 11.199
Male 0.538 6.669 0.589 3.872 0.534 5.421
White 0.298 2.230 0.510 1.990 0.259 2.174 0.532 3.171
Employed 0.396 4.414 0.550 3.508 0.353 3.923 0.293 2.702
Student 0.454 3.672 0.451 3.423
Married 1.388 11.003 0.426 4.492 0.363 3.574 0.848 7.050
No children in household 0.731 7.662 0.226 2.215 0.511 4.543
Log likelihood (convergence) 7,613.41
Log likelihood (constants only) 8,561.43
Weekday episodes are most likely to be undertaken solo Aggregate analysis indicates that a significant fraction
or with nonhousehold other members (co-workers). We of the daily activitytravel patterns of individuals is pur-
also observe that friends are more likely to be compan- sued with other persons. Out-of-home and travel episodes
ions than household members or family members for are more likely to be undertaken with other persons than
weekday active leisure activities. in-home episodes. Further, solo activities and travel are
Younger individuals are more likely to undertake found to be less likely on weekend days compared with
active leisure jointly. As in the case of passive leisure, weekdays. On further examining the companion types
men are also found to undertake active leisure activities for joint activity episodes, household members are the
independently or with nonhousehold, nonfamily mem- most dominant companions for in-home activities and
bers as companions. Caucasians are less likely to under- travel whereas nonhousehold persons are preferred com-
take active leisure solo and with colleagues compared panions for out-of-home episodes. Finally, the authors
with individuals of other ethnicities. also observe that joint weekend out-of-home episodes are
Employed persons have a higher propensity to choose more likely to include household members as compan-
either independent active leisure or joint leisure with non- ions whereas joint weekday episodes are more likely to be
household other members as companions. Students are undertaken with nonhousehold members.
more likely to pursue leisure with friends and colleagues. MNL models were also developed to determine the
Married individuals are found not to prefer pursuing impacts of demographic characteristics, episode dura-
joint leisure with only friends or nonhousehold family tions, and day of the week on the choice of companion
members. Solo episodes are favored over joint episodes types for leisure activities. Nonhousehold companions
with nonhousehold, nonfamily companions. However, were further classified into family, friends, and others for
joint episodes including household members as compan- this analysis. Overall, the empirical results indicate simi-
ions are preferred to solo episodes. Finally, the absence larities in the companion type choices for the three types
of children in the household favors pursuit of passive of leisure activities (and in particular between active and
leisure with only nonhousehold friends and family. passive leisure). Specifically, men prefer nonhousehold
When children are present in the household, household nonfamily members as companions. Employed persons
members are the most favored companions for leisure. and students are more likely to pursue social activities
with nonhousehold other members (often co-workers)
and friends, respectively. This indicates that increased
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS opportunities to interact with nonhousehold members
favor joint pursuit of social activities with nonfamily mem-
Development of behaviorally oriented traveldemand bers as companions. Single individuals are more likely to
models requires an understanding of the joint time spend leisure time with friends and other nonhousehold
investment decisions of individuals with household and nonfamily members. In contrast, married individuals are
nonhousehold members. This is increasingly recognized found to have a higher propensity to pursue leisure jointly
as one of the most critical and understudied issues in the with their spouses and possibly children. Weekdays favor
activity-based traveldemand modeling field. This study solo leisure episodes or joint episodes with nonhousehold
contributes toward this goal by presenting an empirical members. Weekend episodes, on the other hand, are more
analysis of companion types for different kinds of activ- likely to be undertaken with household members. Finally,
ity and travel episode types. Data from the 2003 and the authors find the duration of the activity episode is
2004 ATUS were used in this analysis. related to the choice of companion type.
