Environment and Planning A, 1983, volume 15, pages 623-638

The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models

I Salomon
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
M Ben-Akiva
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Received 28 September 1981; in revised form 11 May 1982

Abstract. The concept of life-style is becoming a major differentiating trait between population
groups substituting for economic and social classes.
This paper describes the utilization of the concept of life-style in the context of travel demand
models. life-style is defined as a pattern of behavior under constrained resources which conforms
to the orientations an individual has toward three major 'life decisions' he or she must make:
(a) formation of a household (of any type), (b) participation in the labor force, and (c) orientation
toward leisure.
A population is classified into life-style groups based on similarity in a multivariate space.
Socioeconomic and demographic variables define that space, and emphasis is put on variables which
are indicative of emerging new life-styles (for example, the relative contribution of the female
spouse to the household income). Cluster analysis is employed to identify the life-style groups.
Models for the combinations of choice of mode and destination for shopping trips are estimated
for the pooled sample and the life-style segments. Comparisons of these models with the
performance of other market segmentation schemes and with the pooled model demonstrate that
the life-style groups account for taste variations better than the other schemes.
1 Introduction
In the analysis of the travel behavior of human beings it is necessary to account for
cross-sectional taste variations. However, only a limited effort has been directed to
date at the problem of representing the human being in a travel demand model.
Some pragmatic solutions to account for these variations were developed, but little
attention has been given to a treatment of the issue at the theoretical level.
This paper presents the results of one effort directed at this issue. A theoretical
development of a concept of life-style and its use in travel behavior models is
presented. The concept is based on the hierarchical structure of decisions made by
individuals in which higher levels relate to longer-term decisions. The longest-term
decision is the choice of a life-style and the short-term decisions are the daily travel
choices. The latter are made by the individual who is trying to satisfy his or her
life-style decisions. That is, the daily as well as the intermediate-level decisions are
short-term manifestations of the life-style which the individual aspires to fulfill.
This theoretical structure implies that understanding or identifying an individual's
life-style is instrumental in explaining an individual's behavior, and travel behavior
as part of it. Furthermore, if life-style is, in fact, an explanatory factor in travel
behavior, then for practical purposes segmentation on the basis of life-style should
be more effective than other segmentation schemes.
The empirical study of these two issues, the importance of life-style as an
explanatory factor and its use as a basis for market segmentation, has supported
these hypotheses. The study consisted of two phases. First, life-style groups based
upon the theoretical concept were obtained empirically. Second, discrete choice
models predicting the choice of destination and mode for shopping trips were
estimated for different life-style groups.
624 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

2 The life-style concept: theory and application

2.1 An integrated descriptor
Despite its frequent colloquial use, the concept of life-style has not received much
scientific attention since its conception during the first quarter of this century. It
was developed independently by a psychologist (Adler, 1933) and a sociologist
(Weber, as reported by Gerth and Mills, 1958) to describe some characteristic of
human beings which was not well-described by the existing terminology of social
science. Shared by both, as well as by their followers, was the quest for a concept
which captures the wholeness of the individual and his or her behavior (see, for
example, Reed, 1976).
The explanation of human behavior is often done by the use of low-level'
descriptors, such as income, expenditures, personality traits, attitudes toward specific
issues, age, and family structure etc. Only rarely is there an attempt to describe the
individual in a comprehensive context. Unfortunately, even when such attempts are
made, by the use of multivariate methods, most often the temporal dimension is
overlooked. The cross-sectional nature of many of the 'low-level' social descriptors
has failed to account for consistency of behavior in the longer term.
2.2 Life-style in the framework of a choice hierarchy
Life-style is defined as the pattern of behavior which conforms to the individual's
orientation toward the three major roles of: a household member, a worker, and a
consumer of leisure, and which conforms to the constrained resources available. A
detailed discussion of the nature of these life decisions and the definitions of life-
style is given in Salomon (1980).
Thus, life-style can be defined as an extension of the hierarchical choice structure
of mobility and travel suggested by Ben-Akiva (1973). The mobility block (figure 1)

r 1
I . , I
I /. Life-style choice I
1 J Family formation I
I I ' Participation in labor force I
I I Orientation toward leisure I

II Mobility choices
I Employment location
| Residential location
•W Housing type
Automobile ownership
Mode to work

III Activity and travel choices (nonworkj

Activity type
Activity duration
Destination
Route
Mode

I
Figure 1. Extended choice hierarchy. (The dotted box corresponds to the social, cultural, and
political environment.)
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 625

includes such long-term decisions as the choice of residential location, employment

location, automobile ownership, and mode of travel to work. The block for travel
decision includes the short-term nonwork travel decisions or activity patterns. It is
assumed that within each block the decisions are made jointly, but decisions in the
lower block are made conditional on those in the upper block.
An additional block, that of the life-style choice is added at the top of the
hierarchy. It constitutes the longer-term decision on the type or patterns of activities
one aspires to engage in. These were labelled by Shapcott and Steadman (1978) as
'Life Decisions'. It is the outcome of this joint choice which is the motivation for
mobility and travel.
It is not proposed to model the choice of life-style; rather, it is assumed that
there exists a way in which a population can be segmented into groups with similar
life-styles. Thus, if the hierarchical structure shown in figure 1 is valid, then choices
of mobility and travel for any given life-style group should arise from similar
aspirations. Therefore, it is sufficient at this stage to identify life-style groups and
to test the hypothesis that different life-style groups behave differently or have
different preferences.
Testing this hypothesis requires two major steps. First, it is necessary to identify
the life-style groups. Second, it involves estimation of travel demand models for
each of these groups and a comparison of the performance of this set of models with
a pooled model which does not distinguish between the life-style groups. Further, it
is necessary to test whether the estimated parameters of each of these models are
significantly different across groups. Last, it is also necessary to compare the
performance of the life-style segmentation to alternative schemes which use low-
level socioeconomic or life-cycle based segmentation.
2.3 Identifying life-style groups
Given the above definition, life-style groups could presumably be identified by
clustering individuals or households which have similar patterns of life-style choices.
However, in most available data sets the orientation toward leisure is not measured.
Therefore it becomes necessary to identify life-style groups by the use of 'proxy'
variables from which inferences on the choice of life-style can be made. In the
context of market research life-styles are often identified for purposes of market
segmentation by use of attitudinal data, which are usually not available in transportation
data sets (for example, Kelly, 1980; Wind and Green, 1974). This attitudinal
approach was deemed inappropriate for explaining travel behavior because it is
usually a short-term product-specific definition of life-style which cannot be used for
long-term forecasts of travel demand.
Thus, it is assumed that membership of life-style groups can be estimated from an
array of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of a household. The choices
noted in the definition of life-style are identified by surrogate variables which, as
closely as possible, imply or indicate the individual's patterns of life-style aspirations.
The socioeconomic and demographic variables that were used to define life-style
groups include the following:
(a) Household structure
AG E is the age of the head of household in years,
CHLDPR indicates the presence of children under 6 years old; CHLDPR = 1, if
they are present, 0 otherwise,
JCHLD indicates the presence of children who are between 6 and 18 years old;
JCHLD = 1, if they are present, 0 otherwise,
HHSIZE is the household size, that is, the number of persons,
ADULTS is the number of adults in the household;
626 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

(b) Labor force participation

PRNC1 indicates the proportion of household income earned by the male head
of household, it takes values of: 1, if p > 0.85; 2, if 0.85 > p > 0.7;
3, if 0.7 > p > 0.6; and 4, if p < 0.6,
PRNC2 is the proportion of household income earned by the female head of
household, it takes values of: 1, if p > 0.35; 2, if 0.35 > p > 0.2;
3, if 0.2 >p > 0.1; and 4, if p < 0.1,
INCOME is the household annual income in dollars,
EMP1 is the employment status of the male head of household, EMP1 = 1, if
he is in full employment, 0 otherwise,
FEMP2 is the employment status of the female head of household, FEMP2 = 1,
if she is in full employment, 0 otherwise,
PRTEMP2 is the employment status of the female head of household,
PRTEMP2 = 1, if she is in part-time employment, 0 otherwise;
(c) Orientation toward leisure
EDUCATION is the highest level of education in the household, it takes values of:
1 for elementary; 2 for high school; 3 for college; and 4 for
graduate-level education,
WCOL1 is the proportion of white-collar male employees.
Note that the empirical analysis in this study was limited to the traditional family-
type households. In other cases additional variables describing the household type
are also required.
Some of these variables depart from the traditional definitions because, as defined
here, they are more indicative of different life-styles. For example, the use of the
highest education level instead of that of the head of household represents the
assumption that the presence of a person with higher education affects the decision-
making of the household. Another example, the distinction between fully employed,
part-time employed, and unemployed female heads of household is important in
identifying the woman's role in the household. The relative contribution of each
head of the household to the total income is another variable which indicates the
role of the woman in the household with regard to the life decisions, and hence the
life-style of the household.
A basic premise of this research was that it should remain, in terms of data
requirements, within the framework of data available to transportation planners.
Yet, there may be a need to alter some of the details collected by such instruments
as home interview surveys, if the benefit gained by their inclusion in the analysis is
greater than the cost of their collection.
These variables, serving as indicators of life-styles, were used to identify groups of
households which share similar life-styles. The statistical method employed is cluster
analysis (X-means method). Cluster analysis is an exploratory tool. It allows the
analyst to search for different structures which may exist in the data. There is no
need to have an a priori knowledge of the groups that constitute the data set, but
there is an assumption that the data is heterogeneous so that some groups do exist.
Despite numerous problems involved in the use of cluster analysis (see, for example,
Anderberg, 1973), its use can provide valuable insights into a population structure by
varying the specification and the relative weight assigned to each variable. Being a
suggestive rather than a testing procedure, the use of cluster analysis requires the
exercise of judgement by the user with regard to the quality of the grouping
obtained. That is, for any output, provided that some basic statistical evaluation
measures are met, the analyst must judge whether or not the grouping is intuitively
reasonable and relevant to the research objectives. More details on the utilization of
cluster analysis in this research are given in Salomon (1980; 1983).
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 627

Table 1 summarizes the results of a clustering procedure for a data set from a 1977
Federal Highway Administration survey of travel demand in Baltimore, which covered
521 families. It seems to represent a set of five life-style groups. For this exploratory
study only households headed by married couples were included. The following
brief description of the five clusters illustrates the nature of the multivariate
discrimination of the life-style groups obtained through this methodology.
Clusters 1 and 2 constitute the upper socioeconomic classes as judged by their
income and educational levels. They are dissimilar in their demographic characteristics
and employment status. Cluster 1 consists of middle-aged households (35-64 years
old), and very large households. By contrast, cluster 2 consists of much smaller
households and one quarter of its members are young (under 34 years old). The
difference in employment and occupation status is also noticeable. Cluster 1 male
members are primarily occupied in white-collar jobs and a very small number of the
female heads of households in that cluster participate in the full-time labor force.
This life-style group may be characterized as the family oriented economically active
group in which, by virtue of its being family oriented, only the male head of
household works outside the house while the female head is not committed to
economic activity outside the home. This can be viewed as the traditional form of
life-style for the family oriented households that contrasts with some new forms of
life-styles which are emerging. Family orientation combined with dual participation
in the labor force which traditionally was observed only in the working class is today
more prevalent in households which are doing well economically. In cluster 2, 95%
of the female heads of households work full-time.
Considering the difference between clusters 1 and 2, it is plausible that these are,
in fact, two distinct life-styles, but it is assumed that cluster 2 is more heterogeneous
than cluster 1. It probably captured both white-collar and blue-collar workers who
have high incomes and whose female spouses work full-time. Hence, it could
probably be broken down into at least two distinct groups based on occupation and
level of education. The first group is probably the modern version of families headed
by two career oriented or other white-collar employees, many of whom do not have
children. The second group are probably the households of the upper working class
where both heads work and hence they have a relatively high income.
Cluster 3 is the younger group, mostly with young children and with very low
participation of women in the labor force. It is thus assumed to include a younger
version of cluster 1 members for which the attainment of income and educational
levels are a matter of time. Also, it includes a high proportion of blue-collar workers
who will eventually belong to clusters 2 or 4. It is obvious that in this case life
cycle is the dominant discriminatory dimension and this group, regardless of economic
status, can be defined as the young family oriented childbearing households.
Cluster 4 is similar in its demographic characteristics to cluster 1, but they differ
in the socioeconomic attributes, where cluster 4 members constitute a class with a
lower income and a lower educational level. Female participation in the labor force
in cluster 4 is higher in the full employment category and lower in the part-time
category which indicates that there are more working-class households, earning less
for their work and working despite the presence of young children. This group, in
reference to the life-style choice, includes those households who have chosen to
establish a family with children and who have chosen, in most cases by default, to
participate in lower paying jobs in the labor market. Since the jobs are lower paid,
more than one family member will participate in the labor force.
Cluster 5 includes most of the elderly households of the sample but almost half
are middle-aged households. This cluster is distinct from the others by its low
income and education levels, small household size (and almost no households with
Table 1. Mean values of variables by cluster.
Variable Cluster number Total P-value

1 2 3 4 5

Number of households 120 86 108 108 99 521

Percentage of total sample 23 17 21 21 19 100
Mean household size 4.73 2.49 3.95 4.75 2.15 3.71 0.999
Mean number of adults in household 2.97 2.28 2.03 2.75 2.09 2.45 0.999
Age distribution of head of household (%]18-34 0 24 100 0 2 25 0.999
35-64 98 70 0 99 45 63 0.999
65+ 2 6 0 1 53 12
CHLDPR3 79 17 94 91 4 60 0.999
JCHLDa 69 12 52 81 2 46 0.999
Mean value of PRNC1 2.33 3.52 1.93 2.25 2.01 2.36 0.999
Mean value of PRNC2 3.38 1.76 3.15 3.09 3.01 2.93 0.999
Education level distribution (%) 1 0 20 9 23 37 17 0.999
2 0 34 41 69 35 35 0.999
3 81 27 42 0 23 36 0.999
4 19 19 8 8 5 12
Mean income in dollars 29749 24465 16810 18097 11823 20373 0.999
EMP1a 45 69 81 40 27 52 0.999
WC0L1a 68 44 48 31 30 45 0.999
FEMP2a 11 95 15 23 0 26 0.999
PRTEMP23 27 0 13 12 8 13 0.999

Percentage of households where the variables take a value of 1, as defined in the text.
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 629

children), and very low levels of participation in the labor force. This cluster, it is
assumed, captured both the retired elderly with low incomes and the poor middle-
aged households. Thus, it is a cluster based on both socioeconomic and demographic
attributes. A refinement of this cluster would probably reveal the retired people as
one life-style group and the others as a group who have made a decision not to
participate regularly in the labor force and not to have children. The life-style of the
latter can be characterized as that of living through life rather inactively. However,
time limitation prevented us from this refinement at the present stage.
In summary, this scheme is discriminatory in a mixture of dimensions: purely
socioeconomic, employment status, and age. It is thus probably closer to a life-style
discrimination, than to a socioeconomically based discrimination. Yet, it is obvious
that some groups are still quite heterogeneous and the differentiation among them
can only be obtained by increasing the number of clusters, which will result in
identification of smaller but more distinct life-style groups.

3 Life-style and travel choices

The major objective of this study, as noted earlier, was to test the usefulness of the
concept of life-style as an instrument for accounting for variations among decision-
makers in travel demand models. Specifically, the hypothesis suggested that, if life-
style is an improved descriptor of individual households, then segmentation of the
market on the basis of life-style should provide improved forecasts compared with
some other segmentation schemes.
Two related approaches have been applied in the past to account for taste variations.
(The nature of the taste variation problem in models of discrete choice is discussed by
Manski, 1973.) In the first, variables (termed socioeconomic characteristics) which
describe the decisionmaker are included in the model specification so that the effects of
cross-sectional variations can be estimated. The second, a more restrictive form of the
first, is the use of market segmentation. This approach assumes that variations
among individuals are not limited to those captured by some socioeconomic variables
or interactions of those with some attributes of the alternatives included in the
model. By contrast, market segmentation assumes that decisionmakers belonging to
different segments have a completely different set of preferences, that is, all
parameters in the estimated model may assume different values. In general, the same
functional form and basic specification is assumed across market segments.
Market segmentation, in a variety of forms has often been applied in travel demand
models (see, for example, Dobson, 1979). In all, the underlying assumption is that
people with some similarity in observed characteristics are likely to behave or react
similarly to choice. One convenient way of classifying market segmentation schemes
is by the type of variables used. As a segmentation basis it is possible to use
observed socioeconomic or demographic characteristics like age, income, occupation,
etc (Nicolaidis et al, 1977; Lovelock, 1975; Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1976) or
variables which describe the constraints on the choice set (Nicolaidis et al, 1977;
Golob and Burns, 1978). The segmentation can be applied along a single variable or
along a combination of such variables. The use of psychological attributes as a basis
for segmentation has also been suggested (Dobson and Tischer, 1978).
In this study we want to test the relevance and usefulness of the five market segments
that were developed on the basis of the theoretical concept of life-style. To do this it
is necessary to compare the performance of this life-style segmentation with alternative
segmentation schemes. These include a simple univariate segmentation, on the basis of
income and a more elaborate segmentation based on life-cycle and occupation, developed
by Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1976). The latter distinguished between young and old
households, the presence of children, and blue-collar versus white-collar occupations.
630 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

3.1 The travel demand model

From among the variety of travel choices made by a household we have selected the
choices of mode and destination for shopping trips, to test the life-style segmentation.
Travel decisions for more discretionary purposes like social or recreational activities
may be more sensitive to life-style segmentation, but, data limitations as well as a
desire to deal with a choice situation which is better known lead us to this model.
The model used is of a logit form as described by Ben-Akiva (1973), Adler and Ben-
Akiva (1976), and others.
The alternative modes initially included in this analysis were auto, walk, and transit.
Other modes (for example, shared ride, bicycling) constituted a negligible proportion
of trips. Transit trips constituted only 2-4% of the reported 353 shopping trips and
were therefore excluded from the final model, although a model of three mode
choices was developed and is described elsewhere (Salomon, 1980).
Far more complex than the definition of alternative modes is the issue of
alternative destinations. Two problems require attention here. First, it is necessary
to define what constitutes an alternative: is it an individual shop or a shopping
center? Second, it is a choice with a very large number of alternatives.
To solve the first problem we used destinations which are geographically defined
by traffic zones and compatible with the available trip data. This follows Lerman
(1975) and McFadden (1978) who considered the use of grouped alternatives and
found that by adding to the utility function a term which represents the group size,
consistent coefficients can be estimated.
Second, to reduce computational costs, the following strategy of sampling
alternatives was taken. Each individual's choice set includes the central business
district (CBD) and the zone in which the trip originates, which is the residential zone
for home-based trips. This intrazonal destination was included only if shopping
facilities exist within that zone. Also in the choice set is the zone actually chosen by
the individual, which could coincide with one of the former. In addition to these
two or three zones, four more were randomly selected from the total of 498 zones
in the Baltimore area. Such a random sampling has been shown to produce consistent
estimates (McFadden, 1978).
Up to a total of seven alternative destinations for each traveller were assumed to
be accessible by auto and by transit (where available) and up to six additional
alternatives for walking trips. This adds up to a maximum of twenty alternatives
which is the limit on the number of alternatives on the logit estimation package used
in TROLL. The walk trips were constrained to less than five miles in length. The
auto alternatives were eliminated if an automobile was not available.
3.2 Model estimation results
Two model structures were estimated. One is a three-mode model in which the
hypothesis that certain attributes of the utility function are affected by the member-
ship in a particular life-style group, was tested. The second structure, reported in
detail here, included only the auto and walk modes. For this model the life-style
segmentation was compared with a pooled sample and with other market segmentation
schemes.
The variables used in the various models are defined in table 2 and most of them
are self-explanatory. Walk time was defined only for interzonal trips because in the
intrazonal trips we concluded that assigning a constant trip length involves a large
error and would result in inconsistent coefficients. Thus, intrazonal walk time is
given by a constant term (INZWDM). The estimated model coefficients and some
statistical properties of the models are presented in table 3. The pooled model
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 631

included the total sample (344 trips) while models 1-5 correspond to each of the
life-style groups presented in table 1.
This set of models performs better than the pooled model when performance is
evaluated by the value of the log-likelihood function: -342.8 for the segmented
models as compared with —400.5 for the pooled model. The segmented models are
performing better than the pooled model at a significance level of 0.001 (chi-squared
value of 115.3 with 54 degrees of freedom).
The life-style segmentation scheme was compared to two other segmentation
schemes. The two were chosen from the variety of available schemes on the basis
of the type of data they employ, that is, available socioeconomic data, so as to be
comparable to the life-style segmentation.
The first scheme is based solely on income. Five income groups were defined
(for incomes of: <10000; 10000-14999; 15000-20999; 21000-24999;
> 2 5 000 dollars) and models were separately estimated for each. The estimated
coefficients are shown in appendix A. For the set of five income models the total
value of the log-likelihood function is -373.9 as compared with -342.8 for the life-
style segmentation. Note that a slight variation is caused by the difference of one in
the sample size (345 versus 344 cases).
The second segmentation scheme, a more elaborate one, is based on life cycle and
occupation. This scheme was previously employed in a model of auto ownership
and mode of travel to work by Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1976). The five segments
are defined in appendix B with the list of estimated coefficients. This set of models
resulted in a total log-likelihood value of—365.8 as compared with —342.8 for the
life-style segmentation. Thus, the life-style segmentation performs significantly
better than the income and life-cycle/occupation segmentations. A summary of the
statistics is presented in table 4.
Table 2. List of variable names and definitions.

Name Definition3

IVTTA In-vehicle travel time for auto

IVTTTR In-vehicle travel time for transit
OVTTA Out-of-vehicle travel time for auto
OVTTTR Out-of-vehicle travel time for transit
ACSTI Out-of-pocket travel cost for auto
COST IN Out-of-pocket travel cost, all modes
WLKTT Walk trip time for interzonal trips ( zero for intrazonal trips)
LN R ET Natural logarithm of retail employment in destination zone
RTDNS Retail employment divided by total employment at destination zone
ATCN Constant; 1 for auto alternative
WLKCON Constant; 1 for walk alternative
CBDDUM Constant; 1 for CBD destination
INZDUM Constant; 1 if trip destination equal to origin zone
INZWDM Dummy for intrazonal walk trip; 1 for intrazonal walk trip
AAVAPR Automobile availability for auto alternatives
AAVWPR Automobile availability for walk alternatives
ORESW Dummy for residential zone origin for walk alternatives; 1 for origin in zone of
residence
SUBWLK Dummy for walk alternatives in suburbs; 1 for origin in suburb
EM PA Dummy for employment status for auto alternatives; 1 for fully employed
a
Travel times are given in minutes for a one-way trip; travel costs are given in dollars divided by
annual income for a one-way trip; automobile availability is number of autos divided by number of
adults in the household; all constants and dummy variables are zero when they do not fulfill the
conditions in the table.
632 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

Assessing the individual life-style based models one notices that they vary in their
explanatory power as evaluated by the p 2 -statistic. The range is from p 2 = 0.62 for
segment 1 to p 2 = 0.40 for segment 2. Recall that segment 2 is that of a relatively
high socioeconomic class which is distinguished from segment 1 mainly by the high
rate of full employment of females and small household size. It was speculated
above that segment 2 includes at least two distinct groups which vary in life-style
and in tastes. Consequently, constraining the model coefficients to be identical for
these two (or more) groups results in a relatively low explanatory power.
Most coefficients have the expected sign and those which do not have very low
^-statistics. Overall, the problem of sample size becomes obvious here, as each
segment is based on less than one hundred observations and fourteen coefficients are

Table 3. Estimated coefficients for pooled sample and life-style segments (numbered 1 -5).

Variable Pooled 1 2 3 4 5

IVTTA -0.172 -0.247 -0.056 -0.152 -0.266 -0.149

(-8.13) (-4.32) (-1.28) (-3.43) (-5.42) (-2.12)
OVTTA -0.493 -0.832 -0.110 -1.655 -1.631 -1.891
(-3.90) (-2.02) (-0.57) (-1.96) (-2.31) (-1.72)
SUBWLK -1.043 -3.303 2.268 -2.546 1.25 -0.320
(-2.40) (-1.92) (1.33) (-2.03) (0.72) (-0.33)
INZWDM 0.708 -2.415 -7.798 0.689 4.636 -0.462
(1.29) (-0.67) (-1.47) (0.44) (2.99) (-0.36)
INZDUM -3.161 -4.484 -1.995 -2.901 -3.742 -3.943
(-12.34) (-6.69) (-3.57) (-5.54) (-6.34) (-4.53)
AAVAPR 0.135 -4.152 2.582 0.140 3.718 0.449
(0.21) (-2.19) (0.89) (0.01) (1.52) (0.37)
ATCN 1.619 2.566 -6.534 2.571 6.682 1.009
(2.23) (0.58) (-1.10) (1.25) (3.09) (0.60)
ACSTI -6668.26 1183 -49043 -6966 9852 -16633
(-1.00) (0.07) (-2.07) (-0.51) (0.99) (-0.84)
LNRET 0.403 0.401 0.231 0.637 0.114 0.761
(5.47) (2.84) (1.25) (3.82) (0.68) (3.18)
RTDNS 0.889 1.023 0.836 1.323 1.89 -0.044
(2.28) (1.10) (0.80) (1.45) (2.2) (-0.04)
WLKTT -0.065 -0.402 -0.555 -0.109 0.013 -0.128
(-4.58) (-1.47) (-1.23) (-2.19) (0.86) (-3.04)
ORESW 2.328 5.451 3.243 3.187 3.024 1.97
(4.31) (2.33) (1.65) (2.47) (2.13) (1.63)
EM PA 0.599 0.973 2.000 -0.398 0.498 -1.107
(1.42) (0.73) (1.30) (-0.38) (0.43) (-1.15)
CBDDUM -1.476 -0.203 -1.158 a a -3.726
(-2.63) (-0.09) (-0.85) a a (-2.54)
Number of observations 344 50 83 82 77 52
L'(G) 751.580 182.291 111.793 179.252 170.52 107.874
L*m 400.462 70.102 66.667 84.418 72.361 49.345
2 0.467 0.62 0.40 0.53 0.58 0.54
P
a
Variable excluded.

Table 4. Summary of statistics for alternative market segmentation schemes.

Scheme P2 Log-likelihood difference

(versus]pooled)

Pooled 0.47 _
Income segmentation 0.50 54.8
Life-cycle segmentation 0.51 71.0
life-style isegmentation 0.54 115.3
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 633

estimated, the standard errors for most being relatively large. The coefficients for
in-vehicle travel time (IVTT) have the expected signs and all but one have values
greater than 2 for the ^-statistic. The highest negative values are for segment 4 which
is the 'working-class' large family group and segment 1 which is the 'upper-class'
large family group. In both, most shopping trips (over 60%) were made by women
and in both there is a low rate of participation by women in the labor force.
Consequently, one could expect that nonworking women would have a low value of
time, which is not supported by these coefficients. What may be the effect here is
that the coefficient is strongly affected by the working males who account for more
than 30% of the shopping trips, and/or that the effect of household income on the
value of time for nonworking women is also strong.
Noteworthy in this set of models is the ratio between IVTT and out-of-vehicle
travel time (OVTT). On the basis of experience elsewhere one expects a ratio in the
range of 1 : 2 to 1 : 3, as is the case in the pooled model and in models 1 and 2. Yet,
in the models for clusters 3, 4, and 5 the ratio ranges between 1 : 6 and 1:12. All
three of these groups constitute the lower income group in this sample, the members
of which are often assumed to have lower value of time. (Values of time could not be
calculated for this scheme because of the large standard error in the cost coefficients.)
Therefore, it could be expected that these three groups would be less sensitive to
OVTT. The high negative value of OVTT in segment 5 could be attributed to the large
number of the elderly in this segment but this argument does not apply to the other
two groups. Thus, to the extent that the OVTT coefficients are statistically
significant, their magnitude and their ratio to IVTT are not intuitively clear.
The walk-time coefficients vary (among the statistically significant values) from a
low of -0.065 in the pooled model to a high of -0.128 for segment 5. The latter is
probably influenced by the age composition. The values of the coefficients from
segments 1 and 2 indicate (though with a large standard error) much higher negative
values associated with walk time. These may be consistent with higher values of
time expected for the higher income groups.
Although other coefficients seem to be noticeably different in magnitude, the
relatively large standard errors associated with them do not allow the drawing of
more specific conclusions about the differences between the market segments.
For a practical evaluation of the differences between the life-style groups it is
interesting to compare the elasticities of choice of these groups with respect to some
policy changes. By increasing the IVTT for auto by 10% a new set of choice
probabilities was calculated which enabled the evaluation of the arc elasticity of each
group with respect to this level of service variable. These are presented in table 5.
The highest negative elasticity is observed in cluster 5 which is that of the older
low-income people with the lowest probability of choosing auto. It is reasonable to
assume that they would choose auto only if it offers time savings which offset the
other deterrents they have toward that mode.
It was expected that cluster 1 would be most inelastic, since it is the highest
income group with large families, and consequently most reliant on the automobile.
Somewhat surprisingly, the elasticity of the probability of choosing auto with respect
to travel time for this segment is —0.12 which is lower than that for cluster 5 and
similar to the remaining groups.
Table 5. Elasticities of choice probabilities of auto mode with respect to in-vehicle-travel-time.
Life-style group 1 2 3 4 5
Elasticity -0.12 -0.04 -0.11 -0.15 -0.29
634 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

Cluster 2, that of the younger households with higher income demonstrates the
lowest elasticity of —0.04. As all four groups (excluding cluster 5) are highly reliant
on the automobile and this mode offers a significantly better level of service when
compared to the walk alternative, it becomes clear that the elasticities are very low.
To devise transportation policies we are interested specifically, though not
exclusively, in the variables which account for the level of service. Three such
variables used in the models presented here are the IVTT, the OVTT, and the out-
of-pocket travel cost. The relevance of life-style segmentation for planning purposes
lies to some extent in its ability to distinguish the values associated with these
Table 6. Estimated coefficients for a constrained model (f-statistics are given in brackets).

Variable Segment Coefficient Variable Segment Coefficient

IVTT -0.172 LNRET 1 0.672
(-7.76) (4.12)
OVTT -0.677 2 0.236
(-4.44) (1.70)
ACSTI -5288.00 3 0.288
(-0.75) (1.72)
SUBWLK 1 -2.752 4 0.375
(-2.16) (2.48)
2 0.586 RTDNS 1 1.483
(0.43) (1.73)
3 -2.653 2 1.031
(-1.86) (1.49)
4 -1.00 3 0.428
(-1.10) (0.37)
INZWDM 1 1.361 4 0.562
(0.81) (0.68)
2 4.651 WLKTT 1 -0.118
(2.47) (-1.91)
3 -1.919 2 0.012
(-1.10) (0.80)
4 -0.730 3 -0.112
(-0.50) (-2.25)
INZDUM 1 -3.261 4 -0.156
(-7.41) (-2.19)
2 -3.401 ORESW 1 3.12
(-7.73) (2.53)
3 -3.423 2 2.809
(-6.08) (1.61)
4 -2.842 4 1.924
(-6.38) (1.98)
AAVAPR 1 0.291 CBDDUM 2 0.198
(0.17) (0.15)
2 -1.511 3 -0.917
(-0.90) (-0.73)
3 3.189 4 -2.106
(1.64) (-1.51)
4 0.219 EM PA 1 -0.052
(0.18) (-0.05)
ATCN 1 1.955 2 0.295
(1.00) (0.26)
2 8.908 3 2.618
(3.56) (1.90)
3 -4.373 4 -0.061
(-1.71) (-0.07)
4 0.131
(0.08)
L*(0) 662.772
Lm(P) 331.125
P2 0.50
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 635

variables by different segments. In other words, rejection of the hypothesis that

different life-style groups have equal values for all the coefficients still does not mean
that the life-style concept is relevant for planning purposes. This led us to specifically
test the hypothesis that the level of service coefficients are equal across the life-style
segments, although other coefficients may differ.
The hypothesis was tested by estimating a model with a sample pooled over four
segments (one cluster was excluded because of software constraints which limited the
estimation to fifty parameters) and constraining the level of service variables to be
identical. This model is thus specified by forty-four variables which are segment-
specific (denoted as 1, 2, 3, or 4, respectively, in table 6) and three additional
variables which are the constrained level of service variables. The log-likelihood value
of the estimated model can be compared with that of the four separately estimated
segments models. If the latter is not significantly greater than the former (evaluated
by the chi-squared statistic) then the hypothesis that the level of service variables are
identical across segments cannot be rejected.
Table 6 presents the estimated coefficients for the model with constrained level of
service coefficients. A chi-squared value for the difference between this model and
an unconstrained model is 15.23 with 9 degrees of freedom, which is significant at
0.09 level. Consequently, the null hypothesis (that all level of service variables are
identical across segments) can be rejected. A test against the pooled model presented
in table 3 would have supported more strongly the conclusion that the level of
service coefficients vary across life-style groups.

4 Conclusions
Current trends in North American society have caused a renewed interest in the
utilization of the life-style concept. Theoretically, it offers a refined classification of
consumer segments which, if properly identified, can go beyond that offered by
commonly used socioeconomic variables. Furthermore, it suggests a theoretical
structure which relates an individual's short-term and long-term decisions.
The empirical identification of life-style groups employed in this research, is a
substantial simplification of the theoretical definition of life-style. Yet, as a step
towards the integration of the life-style concept in travel demand models this study
has indicated that life-style groups are relevant behavioral groups which share
relatively similar tastes in the choice of mode and destination for shopping trips.
The segmentation scheme used to define the life-style groups results in models with
demonstrated advantages over the benchmark segmentation schemes of income or
life cycle and occupation.
In view of these results, it is recommended to pursue further research in this
direction to achieve the following objectives:
(a) To validate the relevance of the life-style concept by applying it to other mobility
and travel choice situations such as travel for social and recreational activities,
residential location, time allocation patterns, and expenditure patterns.
(b) To improve the operationalization of the life-style concept by testing the
contribution of other variables with other data sets, and evaluating the 'cost-
effectiveness' of such additional variables.
Acknowledgements. The paper is based on research done at MIT. The research was partially
supported by a grant to MIT from EPA. The paper was completed while Ilan Salomon was at
Cambridge Systematics Inc., Cambridge, MA. The authors are grateful to Marvin Manheim and
Steve Lerman of MIT and to David Segal of Harvard University for their invaluable suggestions and
comments.
636 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

References
Adler A, 1933 Der Sinn des Lebens (Leiptzig Passer, Vienna)
Adler T, Ben-Akiva M, 1976, "Joint choice model for frequency destination and mode for shopping
trips" Transportation Research Record 569 136-150
Anderberg M R, 1973 Ouster Analysis for Applications (Academic Press, New York)
Ben-Akiva M, 1973 Structure of Passenger Travel Demand Models PhD dissertation, Department of
Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S, 1976 A Behavioral Analysis of Automobile Ownership and Modes of
Travel report number DOT-OS-3005603, prepared for US Department of Transportation by
Cambridge Systematics Inc., Cambridge, MA
Dobson R, 1979, "Market segmentation: a tool for transport decision making" in Behavioral
Travel Modelling Eds D Hensher, P Stopher (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent) pp 219-251
Dobson R, Tischer M L, 1978, "Perceptual market segmentation technique for transportation
analysis" Transportation Research Record 673 145-152
Gerth H, Mills C (Eds), 1958 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Oxford University Press,
London)
Golob T, Burns L, 1978, "Effects of transportation service on automobile ownership in an urban
area" Transportation Research Record 673 137-145
Kelly R, 1980, "Urban life style/psychographics research: overview and implications for
transportation planning" presented at 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, available from author, Department of Marketing, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Lerman S, 1975 A Disaggregate Behavioral Model of Urban Mobility Decisions PhD dissertation,
CTS report 75-5, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lovelock C, 1975, "A market segmentation approach to transit planning, modelling and
management" Proceedings, Transportation Research Forum 16 247-259
Manski C, 1973 The Stochastic Utility Model of Choice PhD dissertation, Department of
Economics, MIT, Cambridge, MA
McFadden D, 1978 "Modelling the choice of residential location" in Spatial Interaction Theory
and Planning Models Ed. A Karlquist (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 75-96
Nicolaidis G, Wachs M, Golob T, 1977, "Evaluation of alternative market segmentations for
transportation planning" Transportation Research Record 649 23-31
Reed P, 1976 Life Styles as an Element of Social Logic: Patterns of Activity, Social Characteristics
and Residential Choice PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
Salomon I, 1980 Life Styles as a Factor in Explaining Travel Behavior PhD dissertation,
CTS RAMP 80-4, Center for Transportation Studies, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Salomon I, 1983, "Life style—a broader perspective on travel behavior" in Recent Advances in
Travel Demand Analysis Eds S Carpenter, P Jones (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) pp 290-310
Transport Studies Unit, Oxford University, Oxford (proceedings in press)
Shapcott M, Steadman P, 1978, "Rhythms in urban activity" in Human Geography and Time
Geography Eds T Carlstein, D Parkes, N Thrift (John Wiley, New York) pp 49-74
Wind Y, Green P, 1974, "Some conceptual, measurement and analytical problems in life style
research" in Life Style and Psychographics Ed. W Wells (American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL)pp 97-126
The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models 637

Appendix A. Estimated coefficients based on the pooled model and on segregation

of income. The income segments are: 1, < 1 0 0 0 0 ; 2 , 1 0 0 0 0 - 1 4 9 9 9 ; 3 , 1 5 0 0 0 -
20999; 4 , 2 1 0 0 0 - 2 4 9 9 9 ; 5, > 2 5 0 0 0 dollars.
Variable Pooled 1 2 3 4 5

IVTTA -0.173 -0.389 -0.122 -0.168 -0.130 -0.194

(-8.17) (-1.74) (-2.39) (-4.29) (-1.93) (-4.54)
OVTTA -0.496 -1.365 -0.354 a -1.016 -0.315
(-3.91) (-1.55) (-1.37) a (-2.04) (-1.14)
SUBWLK -1.052 a 0.499 -1.499 -0.897 a
(-2.42) a (0.41) (-1.97) (-0.71) a
INZWDM 0.691 0.033 -2.522 3.694 -4.379 3.465
(1.26) (0.02) (-0.96) (3.31) (-1.76) (1.07)
INZDUM -3.147 -4.182 -2.717 -3.460 -2.394 -3.970
(-12.33) (-3.25) (-4.82) (-6.86) (-4.35) (-6.73)
AAVAPR 0.126 0.561 6.631 -0.646 -2.155 -3.760
(0.20) (0.31) (2.47) (-0.58) (-1.55) (-1.37)
ATCN 1.629 1.166 -3.822 3.891 0.241 9.620
(2.24) (0.63) (-1.37) (2.84) (0.10) (2.07)
ACSTI 6449 -48398 -20961 -10989 -27802 -6140
(-0.97) (-0.67) (-1.29) (-0.95) (-0.87) (-0.40)
LNRET 0.407 0.769 0.529 0.236 0.303 0.268
(5.53) (1.54) (2.76) (2.05) (1.87) (1.95)
RTDNS 0.893 1.361 1.769 2.684 0.427 0.578
(2.29) (0.77) (1.83) (3.93) (0.55) (0.63)
WLKTT -0.065 -0.131 -0.195 -0.001 -0.332 -0.021
(-4.59) (-3.03) (-1.89) (-0.08) (-1.86) (-0.37)
ORESW 2.333 a 3.758 1.577 a 5.821
(4.31) a (2.69) (1.70) a (2.83)
EM PA 0.609 0.612 -2.958 0.799 a 1.248
(1.44) (0.54) (-2.29) (1.03) a (0.74)
CBDDUM -1.482 -3.883 -1.417 a -1.257 -0.862
(-0.22) (-2.24) (-0.87) a (-0.64) (-0.46)
Number of observations 345 38 68 102 58 79
L'(0) 753.785 74.2404 150.219 223.517 130.679 175.13
L*(0) 401.312 25.427 71.982 123.095 67.569 85.865
p2 0.468 0.658 0.521 0.449 0.483 0.510
a
Variable excluded.
638 I Salomon, M Ben-Akiva

Appendix B. Estimated coefficients for the pooled model and for segmentation
according to life cycle and occupation. (The segments are 1, young white-collar
workers with and without children; 2, young blue-collar workers with children;
3, old white-collar workers without children; 4, old blue-collar workers without
children; 5, old blue-collar and old white-collar workers with children.)

Variable Pooled 1 2 3 4 5

IVTTA -0.173 -0.142 -0.240 -0.225 -0.057 -0.261

(-8.17) (-4.14) (-4.08) (-3.24) (-1.04) (-4.63)
OVTTA -0.496 -1.356 -0.315 -0.153 -0.660 -2.00
(-3.91) (-2.56) (-1.10) (-0.88) (-2.02) (-1.80)
SUBWLK -1.052 -0.768 -0.937 -0.949 -0.465 -2.54
(-2.42) (0.88) (-0.77) (-0.78) (0.37) (-1.95)
INZWDM 0.691 1.169 3.950 -2.33 -5.222 0.242
(1.26) (0.76) (3..29) (-1.28) (-2.11) (0.14)
INZDUM -3.147 -3.660 -3.442 -3.08 -2.169 -4.039
(-12.33) (-7.45) (-5.72) (-4.75) (-3.39) (-5.30)
AAVAPR 0.126 -0.614 -1.223 -0.742 3.968 2.712
(0.20) (-0.50) (-0.73) (-0.42) (1.42) (1.33)
ATCN 1.629 3.164 7.586 0.910 -5.388 -0.230
(2.24) (1.70) (3.45) (0.42) (-1.86) (-0.09)
ACSTI -6449 -12493 -398 -2545 -31563 10120
(-0.97) (-1.05) (-0.02) (-0.11) (-1.59) (0.96)
LNRET 0.407 0.487 0.431 0.426 0.569 0.295
(5.53) (3.89) (2.08) (2.09) (2.61) (1.70)
RTDNS 0.893 1.403 1.007 1.219 0.294 0.215
(2.29) (2.11) (1.03) (1.05) (0.29) (0.18)
WLKTT -0.065 -0.100 0.009 -0.114 -0.409 -0.083
(-4.59) (-1.90) (0.71) (-2.49) (-2.64) (-2.00)
ORESW 2.333 3.144 1.627 4.442 2.530 -0.412
(4.31) (2.52) (1.10) (2.35) (1.96) (-0.222)
EM PA 0.609 1.683 -1.42 -0.030 -1.307 1.843
(1.44) (1.48) (-1.11) (-0.03) (-1.04) (1.40)
CBDDUM -1.482 a -2.41 -1.892 a -0.742
(-0.22) a (-1.59) (-1.77) a (-0.51)
Number of observations 345 113 68 57 51 56
L*(0) 753.777 251.066 146.088 124.488 108.624 123.515
L*{6) 401.312 116.551 70.924 66.729 54.371 57.244
p2 0.468 0.536 0.515 0.464 0.499 0.537
Variable excluded.

P © 1983 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain