Telecommunications and travel relationships: a review

Towards a microeconomic framework for modelling the joint choice of activity–travel behaviour and ICT use

“…As such, the approach resembles a reversed estimation procedure where the values of specific components would be established given the observed choices made from a set of alternatives characterised by specific qualities (see section 5 for discussion on operationalisation of the framework). By following the thought experiment approach, we demonstrate how it is possible to move from the basic principles of microeconomics and certain real-world conditions to specific patterns of ICT use and travel behaviour, including the possibility of complementarity, substitution, modification, and neutrality relationships (Salomon, 1986;Mokhtarian, 1990).…”

“…substitution effects), trying to avoid the hassle of costly travel. This belief resulted from early studies based on careless generalisations and frequently untested hypotheses as noted by Salomon (1986). However, the reality proved more complex and Mokhtarian (2009) noted twelve possible reasons why simple ICT-travel substitution was not the only observed consequence.…”

“…Not only have they shed light by defining four possible relationships between ICT and travel, i.e. complementarity, substitution, modification, and neutrality (Salomon, 1986;Mokhtarian, 1990), but also subsequently produced a number of studies investigating the issue empirically (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 1996;Mokhtarian and Salomon 1997;Mokhtarian et al, 1998;Mokhtarian and Salomon 2002).…”

“…The picture emerging from the brief account of the existing discourses suggests complex pattern of interactions between the use of ICT and the joint activity-travel choices (for a more extensive review of empirical studies, see Salomon, 1986;Golob and Regan, 2001;Bailey and Kurland, 2002;Andreev et al, 2010). In all cases the evidence points out towards a conclusion that the choice between tele-activity and traditional physical-reality-based is usually not motivated purely by travel conditions, but may also be influenced by the quality of participation in the desired activities as well as possibility of making use of travel time, especially during longer journeys in productivity-enhancing surroundings.…”

“…This novel capability of remote participation which does not require travel relaxes the long-established spatiotemporal constraints formally defined by Hägerstrand in his concept of 'daily space-time prism' (Hägerstrand, 1970). Such activities, referred to as tele-activities, following the term telecommuting coined by John Nilles in 1970s, have received considerable attention from a number of researchers for almost 40 years, especially from the perspective of transport studies (Salomon, 1986;Bailey and Kurland, 2002;Mokhtarian et al, 2004;Andreev et al, 2010). Moreover, due to their spatio-temporal flexibility, tele-activities display also higher potential for being undertaken simultaneously with other activities, thus linking to the concept of multitasking (Lyons and Urry, 2005;Kenyon and Lyons, 2007;Pawlak et al, 2011).…”