New impetus to theoretical and empirical perspectives on space-time behavior: stochastic representation, dynamic choice sets and activity spaces Since the mid-1990s, activity-based analysis of travel demand has rapidly gained popularity in transportation research and has evolved into the dominant framework of travel behavior analysis in academic research. The approach is based on the contention that travel represents induced demand (travel is a function of people's needs, which in turn require them to become engaged in activities) and cannot be fully understood without understanding how individuals and households organize their daily activities in time and space.The theoretical foundations of this approach go back to the urban planning and timegeography literature in the writings of authors such as Chapin (1968; 1971; Chapin and Hightower, 1965), Hägerstrand (1970), Cullen and Godson (1975), andJones et al (1983). In reaction to the highly abstract and normative location and consumer behavior theories of their era, these authors have in common the focus on more realistic assumptions and formalizations of spatial choice behavior. Chapin (1971) argued that most land uses and transportation routes exist not for their own sake but because they are opportunities to let people get involved in activities. Predicting activity schedules of the population is important in the sense that it gives urbanists a better overview of how to distribute urban facilities to improve accessibility. In contrast, Hägerstand (1970) emphasized the constraints people face in conducting activities, which limit their opportunities. Constraints such as capability, coupling, and authority constraints imply that individuals and households are bounded in time and space when organizing and implementing their daily activities. Cullen and Godson (1975), exploring the middle ground, argued that it indeed is true that people's behaviors are not consistently rational to be captured in a classical economic framework, but they do contain highly organized episodes that might be formulated to some extent in such a framework. They contended that the combination of priority and constraints results in differential flexibility to schedule activities. Activities with least flexibility act as pegs, while other more flexible activities are arranged around these pegs. Jones et al (1983) also attempted to combine theoretical components of Chapin and Hägerstrand, arguing that needs and constraints are fundamental factors affecting individual activity-travel patterns These different theoretical perspectives can still be observed in current activity-based analyses and models. While civil engineers and econometricians have based their models mainly on random utility theory, largely ignoring constraints, geographers have continued their studies on various types of constraints, assumed to affect if not dictate observed activitytravel patterns (Huigen, 1986;Kwan, 1997;Lenntorp, 1976). In some senses, the latter approach has witnessed a revival of conventional time geogr...