地理背景的不确定性对时空行为模式分析的影响——基于西宁市的实证研究

doi:10.11821/dlxb201704008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

伴随着城市研究新数据源与方法论的兴起,从时空间整合的角度反思和修正传统的概念与方法,成为时空行为研究重要发展趋势。地理背景作为城市研究的核心变量,其界定方式不确定性如何影响对个体行为作用效应的分析结果,已成为地理学的新方法论问题。在已有文献的基础上,本文基于西宁市的实证研究,尝试验证地理背景不确定性对行为模式分析的影响,并进一步探讨多个行为变量与其相互关系以及时间维度差异。通过比较两类地理背景范围（仅考虑居住地建成环境的地理背景范围、综合考虑居住地与家外活动地建成环境的地理背景范围）,分析对个体行为作用效应结果的差异性。研究发现：如果仅以居住地作为地理背景范围,关注其中建成环境对行为影响时,可能会夸大“家”的作用,而综合考虑居住地与活动地的地理背景范围时,更为接近于“真实”的地理背景,建成环境对家外活动时长、出行时长和活动空间有一定的解释力,且能够捕捉到一些重要的影响因素并修正有悖于常识的结论。同时地理背景不确定性对个体行为作用效应的分析结果影响还表现出较明显的工作日/休息日差异,表明地理背景存在时间维度的不确定性。研究结论在一定程度上揭示了时空行为研究在重新审视传统城市地理学概念、探索日常生活视角的度量方法与研究范式方面的有效性。

关键词: 不确定地理背景问题, 时空行为, 活动空间, 结构方程模型, 西宁市

Abstract:

The emerging technologies for collection and analysis of massive spatiotemporal databases have largely benefitted the innovation of urban studies, and enabled us to revisit the traditional constructs in terms of space-time behavior. On specific case is the uncertain geographic context problem (UGCoP) was proposed by Kwan (2012), which refers to the spatial uncertainty in the actual areas that exert contextual influences on the individuals being studied.
This research makes an attempt to address the multivariable analysis as well as the temporal variations in the research of UGCoP. Two inter-related questions are explored in this research: First, how the contextual effects on different aspects of individual behaviors (and their inter-relationships) may be affected by the delineation of geographic context. Second, how the uncertainty of geographic context is evident in terms of the day-to-day variations.
This exploration is based on an empirical study of activity-travel behavior in Xining, China. An activity-diary dataset collected in 2013 and including 1098 valid samples is applied. The research first delineates the contextual unit of the built environment variables in two different ways: one is merely based on the residential neighborhoods, and the other considers both residential neighborhoods and activity spaces. Then, the research testifies the hypothesis about the potential impact of uncertain geographic context on the space-time behavior analysis. Also, the results on the weekday and weekend are compared in order to testify the day-to-day variation. Based on ANOVA test, geo-visualization, and the structural equation modelling, the study yields several findings. First of all, the geographic context based on residential neighborhood may lead to misunderstanding results, such as overestimating the contextual effects of neighborhood areas, and underestimating those of other activity places. Secondly, the effects of geographic context on individual behaviors show significant differences between the weekday and weekend.
These results imply that expanding our analytical focus to human mobility will considerably enrich our understanding on geographic context. The findings reveal trends similar to those observed in Western cities. Overall, addressing themes like these calls for further application of the space-time behavior perspective in revisiting and re-conceptualizing the traditional constructs.

Key words: uncertain geographic context problem, space-time behavior, activity space, structural equation modelling, Xining

谭一洺, 柴彦威, 关美宝. 地理背景的不确定性对时空行为模式分析的影响——基于西宁市的实证研究[J]. 地理学报, 2017, 72(4): 657-670.

Yiming TAN, Yanwei CHAI, Mei-Po KWAN. The impact of the uncertain geographic context on the space-time behavior analysis: A case study of Xining, China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(4): 657-670.

图/表 10

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

表3

图4

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 53

[1]	Aitken S C.Person-environment theories in contemporary perceptual and behavioural geography I: Personality, attitudinal and spatial choice theories. Progress in Human Geography, 1991, 15(2): 179-193.
[2]	Shen Yue, Chai Yanwei, Wang Donggen.Reviews on impacts of information and communication technologies on human spatial-temporal behavior. Progress in Geography, 2011, 30(6): 643-651. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2011.06.001
	[申悦, 柴彦威, 王冬根. ICT对居民时空行为影响研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2011, 30(6): 643-651.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2011.06.001
[3]	Qin Xiao, Zhen Feng, Xiong Lifang, et al.Methods in urban temporal and spatial behavior research in the Big Data Era. Progress in Geography, 2013, 32(9): 1352-1361. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.09.005
	[秦萧, 甄峰, 熊丽芳, 等. 大数据时代城市时空间行为研究方法. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(9): 1352-1361.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.09.005
[4]	Long Ying, Mao Mingrui, Mao Qizhi, et al.Fine-scale urban modeling and its opportunities in the "big data" era: methods, data and empirical studies. Human Geography, 2014, 29(3): 7-13.
	[龙瀛, 茅明睿, 毛其智, 等. 大数据时代的精细化城市模拟: 方法、数据和案例. 人文地理, 2014, 29(3): 7-13.]
[5]	Chai Yanwei, Shen Yue, Xiao Zuopeng, et al.Review for space-time behavior research: Theory frontiers and application in the future. Progress in Geography, 2012, 31(6): 667-675. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.06.001
	[柴彦威, 申悦, 肖作鹏, 等. 时空间行为研究动态及其实践应用前景. 地理科学进展, 2012, 31(6): 667-675.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.06.001
[6]	Fotheringham A S, Wong D W S. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 1991, 23(7): 1025-1044.
[7]	Fisher P F.Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in viewshed analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 1993, 7(4): 331-347. doi: 10.1080/02693799308901965
[8]	Holt D, Steel D G, Tranmer M, et al.Aggregation and ecological effects in geographically based data. Geographical Analysis, 1996, 28: 244-261. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00933.x
[9]	Kwan M P.The uncertain geographic context problem.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2012, 102(5): 958-968. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2012.687349
[10]	Basta L A, Richmond T S, Wiebe D J.Neighborhoods, daily activities, and measuring health risks experienced in urban environments. Social Science & Medicine, 2010, 71(11): 1943-1950. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.008 pmid: 20980088
[11]	Wiehe S E, Hoch S C, Liu G C, et al.Adolescent travel patterns: pilot data indicating distance from home varies by time of day and day of week. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2008, 42(4): 418-420. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.018 pmid: 18346668
[12]	Kwan M P, Hawthorne T, Calder C, et al.Activity-space measures for studying spatial crime and social isolation//Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
[13]	Kwan, M P.From place-based to people-based exposure measures. Social Science & Medicine, 2009, 69(9): 1311-1313. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.013 pmid: 19665828
[14]	Troped P J, Wilson J S, Matthews C E, et al.The built environment and location based physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010, 38(4): 429-438. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.12.032 pmid: 3568665
[15]	Zhou Xingang, Yue Yang, Yeh Anthony Gar On, et al. Uncertainty in spatial analysis of dynamic data: Identifying city center. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 2014, 32(6): 701-705. doi: 10.13203/j.whugis20140074
	[周新刚, 乐阳, 叶嘉安, 等. 动态数据空间分析的不确定性问题: 以城市中心识别为例. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版), 2014, 32(6): 701-705.] doi: 10.13203/j.whugis20140074
[16]	Tana, Chai Yanwei, Kwan Mei-Po. The relationship between the built environment and car travel distance on weekdays in Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(10): 1675-1685. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201510011
	[塔娜, 柴彦威, 关美宝. 建成环境对北京市郊区居民工作日汽车出行的影响. 地理学报, 2015, 70(10): 1675-1685.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201510011
[17]	Handy S, Boarnet M G, Ewing R, et al.How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2002, 23(2): 64-73. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0 pmid: 12133739
[18]	Handy S, Cao X, Mokhtarian P.Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport andEnvironment, 2005, 10(6): 427-444. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002
[19]	Merlin L A.Can the built environment influence nonwork activity participation? An analysis with national data. Transportation, 2015, 42(2): 369-387. doi: 10.1007/s11116-014-9554-1
[20]	Hanson S, Hanson P.The travel-activity patterns of urban residents: dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics. Economic Geography, 1981, 57: 332-347. doi: 10.2307/144213
[21]	Burnett P, Hanson S.The analysis of travel as an example of complex human behavior in spatially-constrained situations: definition and measurement issues. Transportation Research A, 1982, 16(2): 87-102. doi: 10.1016/0191-2607(82)90001-2
[22]	Kwan M P.Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer, 1999, 51(2): 210-227. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00158
[23]	Kwan M P.Interactive geovisualization of activity-travel patterns using three-dimensional geographical information systems: A methodological exploration with a large data set. Transportation Research C, 2000, 8: 185-203. doi: 10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00017-6
[24]	Chen X, Kwan M P.Contextual uncertainties, human mobility, and perceived food environment: The uncertain geographic context problem in food access research. American journal of public health, 2015, 105(9): 1734-1737. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302792 pmid: 26180982
[25]	Bhat C R, Misra R.Discretionary activity time allocation of individuals between in-home and out-of-home and between weekdays and weekends. Transportation, 1999, 26(2): 193-229. doi: 10.1023/A:1005192230485
[26]	Susilo Y, Kitamura R.Analysis of day-to-day variability in an individual's action space: Exploration of 6-week Mobidrive travel diary data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005, (1902): 124-133. doi: 10.3141/1902-15
[27]	Novák J, Sýkora L.A city in motion: Time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of the patterns of the Prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 2007, 89(2): 147-168. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00245.x
[28]	Shen Yue, Chai Yanwei.Daily activity space of suburban mega-community residents in Beijing based on GPS data. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013, 68(4): 506-516. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0375-5444.2013.04.006
[29]	Kwan M P.How GIS can help address the uncertain geographic context problem in social science research. Annals of GIS, 2012, 18(4): 245-255. doi: 10.1080/19475683.2012.727867
[30]	Kwan M P.Algorithmic geographies: Big data, algorithmic uncertainty, and the production of geographic knowledge. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2016, 106(2): 274-282. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2015.1117937
[31]	Hägerstraand T.What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 1970, 24(1): 7-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1970.tb01464.x
[32]	Reichman S.Travel adjustments and life styles: A behavioral approach//Stopher P R, Meyburg A H. Behavioral Travel Demand Models. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1976: 143-152.
[33]	Chapin F S.Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things People Do in Time and in Space. New York: Wiley, 1974. doi: 10.2307/1530466
[34]	Bhat C R, Koppelman F S.A conceptual framework of individual activity program generation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 1993, 27(6): 433-446. doi: 10.1016/0965-8564(93)90050-U
[35]	Gliebe J P, Koppelman F S.A model of joint activity participation between household members. Transportation, 2002, 29(1): 49-72. doi: 10.1023/A:1012995509777
[36]	Andreev P, Salomon I, Pliskin N.Review: State of teleactivities. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2010, 18(1): 3-20. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2009.04.017
[37]	Ettema D, Timmermans H.Theories and models of activity patterns//Ettema D, Timmermans H. Activity-based Approaches to Travel Analysis. Oxford: Pergamon, 1997: 1-36.
[38]	Ma T Y, Gerber P, Carpentier S, et al.Geographic, social-cultural and modal usage determinants of activity space: A case study of EU Institutions in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Transportation Research Procedia, 2014, 3: 109-118. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.096
[39]	McEntee J, Agyeman J. Towards the development of a GIS method for identifying rural food deserts: Geographic access in Vermont, USA. Applied Geography, 2010, 30(1): 165-176. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.05.004
[40]	Cervero R, Sarmiento O L, Jacoby E, et al.Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2009, 3(4): 203-226. doi: 10.1080/15568310802178314
[41]	Fan Yingling, Khattak A.Urban form, individual spatial footprints, and travel examination of space-use behavior.Transportation Research Record, 2008, 2082: 98-106. doi: 10.3141/2082-12
[42]	Dijst M.Two-earner families and their action spaces: A case study of two Dutch communities. GeoJournal, 1999, 48(3): 195-206. doi: 10.1023/A:1007031809319
[43]	Golob T F, McNally M G. A model of activity participation and travel interactions between household heads. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 1997, 31(3): 177-194. doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(96)00027-6
[44]	Cao X, Chai Y.Gender role-based differences in time allocation: Case study of Shenzhen, China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2008: 58-66. doi: 10.3141/2014-08
[45]	Ettema D, Timmermans H.Modeling departure time choice in the context of activity scheduling behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2003, 1831(1): 39-46. doi: 10.3141/1831-05
[46]	Golob T F.Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2003, 37(1): 1-25. doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(01)00046-7
[47]	Kuppam A R, Pendyala R M.A structural equations analysis of commuters' activity and travel patterns. Transportation, 2001, 28(1): 33-54. doi: 10.1023/A:1005253813277
[48]	Fan Y.The built environment, activity space, and time allocation. An activity-based framework for modeling the land use and travel connection [D]. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2007.
[49]	Golob T F.Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research.Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2003, 37(1): 1-25. doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(01)00046-7
[50]	Oliver L N, Schuurman N, Hall A W.Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands. International journal of health geographics, 2007, 6(1): 1. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-6-41 pmid: 17883870
[51]	Zhao Ying, Chai Yanwei.Residents' activity-travel behavior variation by communities in Beijing, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 2013, 23(4): 492-505. doi: 10.1007/s11769-013-0616-7
[52]	Dijst M, Vidakovic V.Travel time ratio: The key factor of spatial reach. Transportation, 2000, 27(2): 179-199. doi: 10.1023/A:1005293330869
[53]	Wiehe S E, Kwan M P, Wilson J, et al.Adolescent health-risk behavior and community disorder. PloS One, 2013, 8(11): e77667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077667 pmid: 24278107

变量		样本数(个)	百分比(%)
性别	男	578	52.6
性别	女	520	47.4
年龄(岁)	<30	102	9.3
	30~50	670	61.0
	>50	326	29.7
收入(元)	<2000	395	36.0
	2000~5000	601	54.7
	>5000	102	9.3
教育程度	初中及以下	395	36.0
	高中或大专	427	38.9
	本科及以上	276	25.1
户籍	西宁户籍	928	84.5
户籍	非西宁户籍	170	15.5
驾照	有	405	36.9
驾照	无	693	63.1
汽车所有权	有小汽车	345	31.5
汽车所有权	无小汽车	753	68.5

		工作日			休息日		F值
		平均值(min)		标准差		平均值(min)	标准差
强制性活动	家内	13.61	69.100		10.77	59.727	5.767^***
强制性活动	家外	293.30	259.980		156.55	249.284	3.258^***
维护性活动	家内	763.25	183.876		798.23	184.300	2.663^***
维护性活动	家外	71.60	117.623		103.68		144.324	4.523^***
可支配活动	家内	179.76	158.602		201.70	161.339	5.327^***
可支配活动	家外	76.61	142.051	126.10		170.492	6.472^***
出行		41.87	38.472	42.98	40.593	7.953^***

		平均值	标准差	差异显著性
零售商业	居住地设施密度	89.67	96.64	-
	工作日活动地设施密度	82.00	88.02	0.00
	休息日活动地设施密度	96.17	92.78	0.00
餐饮娱乐	居住地设施密度	68.67	72.20	-
	工作日活动地设施密度	65.16	66.08	0.00
	休息日活动地设施密度	75.57	68.02	0.00
公交站	居住地设施密度	5.82	2.72	-
	工作日活动地设施密度	4.43	3.04	0.00
	休息日活动地设施密度	4.75	2.86	0.00

	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	CFI
模型1	2.17	0.033	1.000
模型2	2.33	0.035	0.999
模型3	2.93	0.042	0.999
模型4	3.09	0.044	0.998
参考范围	2.00~5.00	<0.100	>0.900

	家外强制性活动时长		家外维护性活动时长		家外可支配活动时长		出行频次		出行时长		活动空间
	居住地	居住地+活动地	居住地	居住地+活动地	居住地	居住地+活动地	居住地	居住地+活动地	居住地	居住地+活动地	居住地	居住地+活动地
年龄	-0.33^***	-0.34^***	-0.11^***	-0.12^***	0.14^***	0.13^***					-0.05^*
性别					-0.08^**	-0.08^**	-0.05^*	-0.05^*	-0.07^**	-0.07^**
收入	0.29^***	0.30^***	0.06^*	0.07^**			0.13^***	0.14^***
驾照			-0.06^*
市中心距离					-0.08^**			0.06^*			0.11^**	0.06^*
居住地餐饮娱乐设施密度	0.31^***	0.28^**			0.26^**		-0.20^**	-0.23^**	-0.16^*		-0.21^**
居住地商业零售设施密度	-0.21^**	-0.17^*			-0.38^***	-0.25^**	0.17^*	0.16^*			0.23^**
居住地公交车站设施密度					0.06^*						-0.08^**
活动地餐饮娱乐设施密度				-0.26^**						-0.17^*
活动地商业零售设施密度				0.32^**		-0.18^*				0.29^**
活动地公交车站设施密度		0.09^**				0.13^***						-0.27^***
家外强制性活动时长			-0.34^***	-0.35^***	-0.43^***	-0.44^***	0.25^***	0.23^***			0.17^***	0.20^***
家外维护性活动时长					-0.15^***	-0.15^***	0.29^***	0.28^***			0.08^**	0.10^***
家外可支配活动时长							0.38^***	0.37^***				0.11^***
出行频次									0.39^***	0.38^***		0.06^*
出行时长											0.31^***	0.32^***