In the relatively new field of social-activity travel behavior research, it has often been stated that social relationships have become increasingly physically dispersed in various contemporary societies. If so, this dynamic has enormous consequences on both travel behavior and social support. More explicitly, people have to travel some distance in order to meet, they need to plan their social activities further ahead of time, and, sociologically speaking, they are at risk of weakening their relationships to friends, immediate family, relatives, etc due to spatial distance. In this paper a binominal logit model was used to examine the characteristics of Swiss citizens who had named nonlocal strong-tie relationships in a nationwide representative survey. The empirical findings show various characteristics that increase the likelihood of having strong-tie relationships outside one's community, such as one-person households, higher education, younger cohorts, long-distance commuting, and, interestingly, people who want to spend more time with friends. I elaborate a discussion of these findings as they concern recent debates in the field of social-activity travel behavior.
References
1.
ARE and Bf S, 2001, “Mobilität in der Schweiz, Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2000 zum Verkehrsverhalten”, technical report, Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development and Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Bern.
AxhausenK W, 2006, “Social factors in future travel: A qualitative assessment”IEE Proceedings Intelligent Transport Systems153156–166.
4.
AxhausenK W, 2007, “Activity space, biographies, social networks and their welfare gains and externalities: Some hypotheses and empirical results”Mobilities215–36.
5.
AxhausenK W, 2008, “Social networks, mobility biographies, and travel: Survey challenges”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35981–996.
6.
AxhausenK WFreiAOhnmachtT, 2006, “Networks, biographies and travel: First empirical and methodological results”, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research Kyoto, August 2006, http://term.kuciv.kyoto-u.ac.jp/iatbr06/.
7.
BanerjeeAYeXPendyalaR M, 2007, “Understanding travel time expenditures around the world: Exploring the notion of a travel time frontier”Transportation3451–65.
8.
BeckU, 1992Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London).
9.
BeckUGiddensALashS, 1994Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Polity Press, Cambridge).
10.
BergmanM M, 1998, “A theoretical note on the differences between attitudes, opinions, and values”Swiss Political Science Review281–93.
11.
BergmanM M, 2009Mixed Methods Research (Sage, London).
BlossfeldH PBuchholzSHofäckerD, 2009, “Life course inequalities in the globalization process”, in Mobilities and Inequality Eds OhnmachtTMaksimHBergmanM M (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 51–75.
16.
BurtR S, 1984, “Network items should be included in the General Social Survey”Social Networks4293–339.
17.
CarrascoJ AMillerE J, 2006, “Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: A social network approach”Transportation33463–480.
18.
CarrascoJ AHoganBWellmanBMillerE J, 2009, “Collecting social network data to study social activity-travel behaviour: An egocentric approach”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35961–980.
19.
CassNShoveEUrryJ, 2005, “Social exclusion, mobility and access”Sociological Review53539–556.
20.
CastellsM, 2002, “The space of flows”, in The Castells Reader on Cities and Social Theory Ed. SusserI (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 314–366.
21.
CollantesG OMokhtarianP L, 2007, “Subjective assessment of personal mobility: What makes the differences between a little and a lot”Transportation Policy14181–192.
22.
CurrieGStanleyJ, 2008, “Investigating links between social capital and public transport”Transport Reviews28529–547.
23.
DugundjiE RWalkerJ L, 2005, “Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies: An empirical example using mixed generalized extreme value models with field and panel effects”Transportation Research Record number 1921, 70–78.
24.
DugundjiEPáezAArentzeT, 2008, “Social networks, choices, mobility, and travel”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35956–960.
25.
FarberSPáezA, 2009, “My car, my friends, and me: A preliminary analysis of automobility and social activities”Journal of Transport Geography doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.07.008.
26.
GranovetterM S, 1973, “The strength of weak ties”The American Journal of Sociology781360–1380.
27.
GrinFSfreddoC, 1998, “Language-based earnings differentials on the Swiss labour market: Is Italian a liability?”International Journal of Manpower19520–532.
28.
GunnH F, 2001, “Spatial and temporal transferability of relationships between travel demand, trip cost and travel time”Transportation Research, Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review32163–189.
29.
HägerstrandT, 1970, “What about people in regional science?”Papers in Regional Science247–21.
30.
HamptonKWellmanB, 2001, “Long distance community in the network society: Contact and support beyond netville”American Behavioural Scientists45476–495.
31.
HandyS LNiemeierD A, 1997, “Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives”Environment and Planning A291175–1194.
32.
HarveyP, 1989The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Blackwell, Oxford).
33.
HineJ PGriecoM, 2003, “Scatters and clusters in time and space: Implications for delivering integrated and inclusive transport”Transport Policy10299–306.
34.
JoyeDSchulerMNefRBassandM, 1988, “Typologie der Gemeinden der Schweiz: Ein systematischer Ansatz nach dem Zentren-Peripherien-Modell”, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Bern.
KaufmannVBergmanM MJoyeD, 2004, “Motility: Mobility as capital”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28745–765.
37.
KitamuraR, 1988, “Life-style and travel demand”, in A Look Ahead—Year 2020: Proceedings of the Conference on Long-Range Trends and Requirements for the Nation's Highway and Public Transit Systems Ed. Transportation Research Board (National Research Council, Washington, DC) pp 149–189.
38.
KostyniukL PKitamuraR, 1984, “Temporal stability of urban travel patterns”Transport Policy and Decision Making2481–500.
39.
LanzendorfM, 2002, “Mobility styles and travel behaviour: Application of a lifestyle approach to leisure travel”Transportation Research Record number 1807, 163–173.
LarsenJUrryJAxhausenK W, 2007, “Coordinating face-to-face meetings in mobile network societies”Information, Communication and Society11640–658.
42.
LataneBLiuJ HNowakABoneventoMZhengL, 1995, “Distance matters: Physical space and social impact”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21795–804.
43.
LatourB, 1996Aramis or the Love of Technology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
44.
LefebvreH, 1991 [1974] The Production of Space (Blackwell, Oxford).
45.
LongJ SFreeseJ, 2006Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata (Stata Press, College Station, TX).
46.
LöwM, 2001Raumsoziologie (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).
47.
McCallisterLFischerC S, 1978, “A procedure for surveying personal networks”Sociological Methods and Research7131–148.
48.
ManderscheidKBergmanM M, 2008, “Spatial patterns and social inequality in Switzerland: Modern or postmodern?”, in The Social Fabric of the Networked City Eds PfliegerGPattaroniLJemelinCKaufmannV (EPFL Press, London) pp 41–65.
49.
MillerE JRoordaM, 2003, “Prototype model of household activity-travel scheduling”Transportation Research Record number 1831, 114–121.
50.
OhnmachtT, 2009, “Key characteristics of Swiss citizens in relation to social activity-travel behavior”, in Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Washington, DC, January.
51.
OhnmachtTFreiAAxhausenK W, 2008, “Mobilitätsbiografie und Netzwerkgeografie: Wessen soziales Netzwerk ist räumlich dispers?”Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie31131–164.
52.
OhnmachtTGötzKSchadH, 2009a, “Leisure mobility styles in Swiss conurbations: Construction and empirical analysis”Transportation36243–265.
53.
OhnmachtTMaksimHBergmanM M (Eds), 2009bMobilities and Inequality (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
54.
PasE I, 1984, “The effect of selected sociodemographic characteristics on daily travel-activity behavior”Environment and Planning A16571–581.
55.
PreisendörferPRinnM, 2003Haushalte ohne Auto: Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Sozialprofil, zur Lebenslage und zur Mobilität autofreier Haushalte (Leske und Budrich, Opladen).
56.
PutnamR D, 2000Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, New York).
57.
SalomonI, 1983, “Life styles—a broader perspective on travel behaviour”, in Recent Advances in Travel Demand Analysis Eds CarpenterS MJonesP M (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) pp 290–310.
58.
SchadHOhnmachtTSondereggerRSauterDStettlerJ, 2008, “Gebaute Umwelt und körperliche Aktivität. Analysen und Empfehlungen für die Schweiz”, research report, Swiss research concept ‘Sports and physical activity’ (2004–2007), University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne.
59.
SchubertS, 1994, “Zur Bedeutung von räumlichen Entfernungen und sozialen Beziehungen für Hilfe im Alter”Geographische Zeitschrift82226–238.
60.
SchwanenTEttemaD FTimmermansHJP, 2008, “Exploring the juggling of responsibilities with accessibility analysis”Urban Geography29556–580.
61.
ScottD MKanaroglouP S, 2002, “An activity-episode generation model that captures interactions between household heads: Development and empirical analysis”Transportation Research B: Methodological36875–896.
62.
ShellerMUrryJ, 2006, “The new mobilities paradigm”Environment and Planning A38207–226.
63.
ShieldsR, 1991Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity (Routledge, London).
TardiffT J, 1975, “Comparison of effectiveness of various measures of socioeconomic status in models of transportation behavior”Transportation Research Record number 534, 1–9.
