An Assessment of the Action Component Of Action Space

Abstract

Action spaces and the related topics of human spatial behavior patterns have been the subject o f a great many studies. Despite this, theory development in behavioral geography has not proceeded rapidly. The slow progress in the theoretical area o f behavioral geography in general, and action space in particular, may be attributed to the fact that the action-space concept combines the diverse elements of perception, action, preference, and potential activity into one elusive term. Theory development might be facilitated if these elements were separated and an operational definition established. This paper presents an operational definition and description o f the action component o f action spaces and evaluates the application and utility o f the concept in the study of spatial behavior patterns.A variety of conceptual and analytical devices has been employed in recent years to facilitate the understanding of human activity patterns. Action space is one of the more recent concepts employed in this capacity. In studies of this and the closely related topic of human spatial behavior, a great body of literature has been generated. Within the scope of the large body of works and resultant literature, four categories of topics can be distinguished as having received the most attention. They are ( a ) potential regions of activities [16, 491, ( b ) perception [3, 171, ( c ) personality and preference [37, 25, 191, and ( d ) action [43, 9, 151. Despite this volume of work and, in part perhaps, because of the diversified yet closely interrelated nature of these ideas, the theoretical and Gary Hi& is assistant professor of geography at Michigan State University.

Suburban commuting and activity spaces: using smartphone tracking data to understand the spatial extent of travel behaviour

“…Although its terminology is diverse, definitions of activity space all derive from the idea first introduced by Horton and Reynolds, understanding activity space as the space implied by ‘the subset of all urban locations with which the individual has direct contact as the result of day‐to‐day activities’ (1971, 37). Higgs () referred to contact action spaces as the areas that are physically or visually experienced, Zahavi () employed the term travel fields and Dijst () used the term actual action spaces to describe the area within which individuals carry out activities. No matter which term is used, the idea of activity space becomes a useful concept for the study of the spatial extent of the travel behaviour of metropolitan residents, since its structure is formed by the locations where people undertake their daily activities (Ren ).…”

Australians on the move : internal migration in Australia, 1981-1986

“…One common distinction is that between residential mobility within local communities, which is seen to involve little or no dismption to scxjial networks and daily activity pattems, and migration between communities, which typically severs existing ties and relocates the migrant in a totally new 'activity space' Reynolds 1971, Maher 1984). The question of direction has achieved particular prominence in the literature on intra-urban mobility, with attempts to identify directional bias in migration streams (Adams 1969, Brown & Holmes 1971) and relate pattems of movement to individuals' search and awareness spaces (Brown & Mcx)re 1970, Higgs 1975, Mcx)re 1969. At the regional level, by contrast, analysts have been more concemed with the dynamics and causes of migration between administrative units and between particular types of settlement, such as migration from mral to urban areas (Bogue, Shrycxik & Hoermann 1957).…”