Assessing the consistency of methods to measure travel behavior related to exposure to air pollution
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2018.06.009
- VernacularTitle: 空气污染物暴露相关出行行为调查方法一致性研究
- Author:
Na LI
1
;
Zhe LIU
;
Yunpu LI
;
Ning LI
;
Qin WANG
;
Yaxi WU
;
Yibing YANG
;
Chunyu XU
;
Dongqun XU
Author Information
1. National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Environmental exposure;
Air pollution;
Time-activity pattern;
Global positioning systems
- From:
Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine
2018;52(6):608-614
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare diary-reported trips and Global Positioning System (GPS) recording trips and identify the reasons for the discrepancies between two methods.
Methods:The survey was conducted in Jiangning district in Nanjing city during July to September and November to December, 2015. Both the diary records and GPS method were used to investigate the travel behavior of 33 retired adults for 5 consecutive days. The GPS traces were display in Google Earth and then split into trips to compare with the diary records according to time and location. χ2 test was used to analyze the influence of trip characteristics on misreporting rates of each method.
Results:A total of 1 087 trips in the survey can be compared between the diary (n=909) and the GPS method (n=912). 7.3% (79/1 087) of the trips were only recorded by GPS method, and 11.8% (128/1 087) were only reported in the diary. Of the remaining 880 trips recorded by the both methods, 86.7% (763/880) matched each other, while 13.3% (117/880) did not. For the matched trips, the difference between the trip durations recorded by diary and GPS method was 2.0 (quartile was 6.0) minutes and the diary method overestimated about 25.0% trip durations when compared with the GPS method. The accuracy rates were 84.8%(903/1 065) and 86.9%(925/1 065) for diary and GPS method, respectively. Both methods were more likely to misreport the trip under 5 minutes. The misreporting rates of diary method for trips under 5 minutes were 6.8 times higher than trips over 30 minutes (21.7% vs 3.2%). The reporting accuracy was also significantly different among trips by different travel mode (P<0.05) for both methods, diary method had the lowest accuracy in reporting vehicles recorders (69.3%, 133/192), while GPS method was more accuracy in both biking (91.9%, 136/148) and vehicles recorders(89.6%, 172/192). The main reasons for misreporting by diary method were forgetting or unwilling to record and failing to record trips according to travel mode, while forgetting to carry GPS device, bad GPS signal and failing to locate the position were the main reasons for misreporting by GPS method.
Conclusion:The majority of the trips reported in diary and GPS method are well consistent with each other. Both of the methods should be used simultaneously in the survey of time-activity pattern to improve the data quality.
