Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Travel Behaviour and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tbs

Time geography of daily activities: A closer look into telecommute impacts T

⁎
Hamidreza Asgari , Xia Jin, Mario B. Rojas IV
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555 W. Flagler Street, EC3725, Miami, FL 33174, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As part of a series of work examining the actual impacts of telecommuting on workers’ mobility and activity
Telecommute scheduling, this paper focuses on how telecommuting might ease the temporal/spatial constraints of work ac-
Time-space prism tivities and affect the time-space distribution of daily activities. In the first step, telecommuting was analyzed
Stochastic frontier models from an opportunity-based perspective built upon stochastic frontier models and time-space prisms. Results
Fixed and non-fixed activities
showed that telecommuters had larger prisms compared to non-telecommuters, indicating higher levels of ac-
cessibility to out-of-home activity opportunities. The effects on regular telecommuters were much more sensible
than non-regular telecommuters, which may indicate that they were able to take advantage of the opportunities
brought by telecommuting, if it is adopted on a regular basis. In the second step, temporal/spatial distribution of
non-mandatory trips/activities were compared among telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Accordingly,
despite the relaxation of work-related constraints, minimal impacts were observed on telecommuters’ time-of-
day and spatial distribution of non-mandatory activities. In terms of temporal distribution, while differences
were observed in timing of certain non-mandatory activities, they were not large enough to exceed time-of-day
boundaries. In view of spatial distribution, people tended to keep non-mandatory activities within certain dis-
tance from home with or without telecommuting, although telecommuting seemed to relax the spatial con-
straints associated with work locations. The data for this research work came from the 2010–2011 Regional
Household Travel Survey conducted in the New York metropolitan area.

1. Introduction participating in certain mandatory (fixed) activities. In this regard, a

The idea of time-space (also known as time-geography) constraints
and their impacts on individuals’ activity-travel behavior was first in-
troduced by Hagerstrand (1970) and later elaborated by Chapin (1974).
Accordingly, an individual’s travel behavior is driven by their needs/
desires on one hand, and governed by a set of temporal/spatial con-
straints that restricts their accessibility and mobility on the other hand.
The concept spread quickly in activity-based research efforts. Early
studies used the time-geography concept only at theoretical level to
enhance activity-travel behavior analyses (Miller, 1991; Kwan, 1998;
Weber and Kwan, 2002; Kim and Kwan, 2003), while later efforts tried
to incorporate practical constraints into activity-based modeling tools
(Kwan and Hong, 1998; Lee et al., 2009; Auld and Mohammadian,
2011; Yoon et al., 2012). Some other researchers applied the concept to
derive meaningful space-time accessibility measures (Burns, 1979;
Kwan, 1999; Kim and Kwan, 2003; Ettema and Timmermans, 2007;
Schwanen and de Jong, 2008; Chen et al., 2011).
The fundamental assumption in the time-geography theory is that
individual’s daily activity plans are constrained by the limited daily
time budget and by the temporal/spatial restrictions imposed through
worker’s work location and schedules become the major anchor points
in the entire daily activity-travel pattern (Mohammadian and Doherty,
2006; Shabanpour et al., 2017a,b). However, alternative work ar-
rangements, such as telecommuting, may change the story, either by
removing the spatial and temporal constraints through full-day tele-
commuting or by imposing temporal displacement through part-day
telecommuting.
Analysis of telecommute impacts is not a new concept in the lit-
erature. Earlier studies mainly focused on commute reduction as a di-
rect outcome of telecommute policies, formulating its impacts on con-
gestion alleviation, delay reduction, environmental benefits, safety
improvements, etc. (Vu and Vandebona, 2007; Vu, 2007; Lari, 2012;
Pirdavani et al., 2013; Caulfield, 2015). The commute reduction theory,
however, has its own critics. In particular, some researchers have
stepped further and argued that in response to commute reduction,
telecommuters are likely to generate more non-mandatory trips and this
might somewhat moderate/cancel out the previously appraised con-
gestion reduction benefits (Kim and Ahn, 2010; Zhu, 2012; Zhu and
Mason, 2014; He and Hu, 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Kim, 2016, 2017;
Asgari et al., 2016; Hu and He, 2016; Paleti and Vukovic, 2017).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hasga001@fiu.edu (H. Asgari), xjin1@fiu.edu (X. Jin), mroja032@fiu.edu (M.B. Rojas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.04.009
Received 14 November 2017; Received in revised form 11 March 2018; Accepted 29 April 2019
Available online 09 May 2019
2214-367X/ © 2019 Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Asgari, et al.
Though there seems to be consensus on an observed increase in non-
mandatory trips (non-mandatory activities from an activity-based per-
spective), the analysis will not be fully accomplished without a deeper
look into time-of-day aspect of activity participation. From a planner’s
point of view, even if it is suspected that telecommuters take part in
extra non-mandatory activities and generate more trips compared to
non-telecommuters, practical policy enhancements could not be
achieved unless information is provided on the time/space scheduling
of those activities/trips.
In order to fulfill this gap, the study herein takes into account a
couple of aspects that seems to be overlooked in the current literature.
Rather than directly investigating telecommuters’ travel behavior, we
first look into the opportunities brought about by telework participa-
tion. By taking home and work (only home in case of full-day tele-
commuters) as the major temporal spatial constraints imposed on their
behavior, time-space prisms are developed. Time-space prisms allow us
to quantify how and to what extent telecommute provides higher op-
portunities to access non-mandatory activities compared to non-tele-
commuters. Once an opportunity-based perspective is established, we
look into how telecommuters will utilize their extended opportunities.
While authors’ previous research efforts showed that telecommuters
generate more non-mandatory trips and spend higher durations in non-
mandatory errands (Asgari et al., 2016; Asgari and Jin, 2017b), and
tend to delay their work trip departure times (Asgari and Jin, 2017a),
this study explicitly targets time/space scheduling of non-mandatory
errands, i.e. when and where telecommuters accomplish such activities
and whether there is a difference among workers with/without dif-
ferent telecommute arrangements. To the authors’ best knowledge, the
impact of telecommute policies on non-mandatory activity start-end
times and their destination choices for such errands, has not been suf-
ficiently considered in the literature, and this creates the main under-
lying motivation for this study.
The next section briefly describes the time-geography theory and its
applications in daily activity-travel pattern analysis, followed by the
data and modeling methodology sections. The analysis of results are
presented next, followed by discussions and the conclusion.
2. Literature review
In a nutshell, the time-geography theory highly relies on two dif-
ferent types of temporal constraints: first, the limited daily time budget,
which is a result of the need to participate in certain subsistence ac-
tivities such as sleeping, eating, etc. Such activities usually take place at
home, making home as the start and end points for the majority of daily
activity plans. The second type of temporal constraints stems from
certain daily commitments with temporal/spatial obligations, often
referred to as “fixed” activities. These activities oblige the individual to
be present in a specific geographic location at a specific time.
Mandatory activities such as work, school or pickup/drop off duties are
examples of fixed activities. By distinguishing these activities and as-
suming a real-life speed limit for the travelers, one can develop a hy-
pothetical (and unobserved) prism that restricts individuals’ mobility
within space and time. Fig. 1 shows a simple two-dimension time-
spacetime-space parallelogram that presents a worker’s morning prism,
with work and home as origin and terminal vertices, respectively.
In terms of spatial constraints, the literature mainly considers two
major fixed locations in individuals’ daily activity framework: home
and work. This is compatible with the basics of activity-based modeling
where home and work locations are usually considered as long-term
choices and that they are not subject to short-term variations.
Upon recognizing fixed activities, it is of the essence to forecast their
temporal locations, i.e. the point of time those activities start/end
within the individual’s time budget. In terms of the analytical techni-
ques, applications of stochastic frontier models have been well docu-
mented in the literature (Aigner et al., 1977; Kitamura et al., 2000;
Pendyala et al., 2002; Rojas, 2016). Several attempts have been
100
Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107
conducted to relate prism vertices with different explanatory variables
including socio-economic, demographic, and job-related attributes
(Kitamura et al. 2000; Pendyala et al. 2002; Rojas, 2016; Yamamoto
et al., 2004; Nehra et al., 2004; Kitamura et al., 2006; Soo 2009).
Kitamura et al. (2000) developed stochastic frontier models to
predict evening terminal vertices (evening home arrival time) in Japan.
Results revealed that people who did not commute on the survey day
were likely to hasten their evening terminal vertices by 96 min.
Pendyala et al. (2002) used sample data from two different surveys
(Miami-Dade county 1998 and San Francisco 1996) to predict morning
and evening vertex prisms in Miami and San Francisco. In particular,
results showed that among different types of workers, full-time workers
were most likely to have earlier departure time in the morning and later
arrival times in the evening. On average, telecommuters’ origin vertex
in the morning was postponed by around 86 min.
In a similar study, Yamamoto et al. (2004) compared the prism
vertices between working and non-working days. Similarly, they in-
ferred that part-time workers and telecommuters are more likely to
depart their morning departure times on working days. Part-time
workers were also more prone towards early evening arrival times.
Interestingly, job-attributes also affected time-space prisms on non-
working days. Researchers showed that part-time workers still had later
departure times on non-working days, while full-time workers had the
latest evening arrival times. As expected, commute time had a negative
impact on morning origin vertex (i.e. early departures) and positive
effect on evening terminal vertex (i.e. late arrivals).
Using sample data from national Household Travel Survey 2001,
Nehra et al. (2004) inferred that full-time workers were likely to have
earlier origin vertices in their morning prisms. Kitamura et al. (2006)
used 42-day diary data from Mobidrive project in Germany to in-
vestigate morning prism origin vertices. One distinctive feature of this
study was to account for unobserved heterogeneity through random
effects in the model structure. It turned out that the first trip purpose
(i.e. whether or not it was a work trip) had the most significant impact
on the model, shifting the morning origin vertex earlier by around
76 min in presence of a work trip.
Along with the improvements in information and communication
technology (ICT), it has been argued by some researchers that ICT usage
would probably relax the space-times fixity of activities (Black, 2001;
Kwan, 2002; Couclelis, 2004; Kwan, 2007; Hubers et al., 2008). In a
discussion paper, Black (2001) argued that full-day telecommuters have
no specific constraints (except for kids’ drop-off/pick up or some
random shopping errands) and that their time-space distribution could
be highly variable from one person to another. Couclelis (2004) dis-
cussed that the freedom to choose between virtual and physical activ-
ities through ICT, such as teleshopping or part-day telecommuting,
would probably have a significant impact on time-space distribution of
daily activities in near future.
For the purpose of this paper, we focus on telecommuting and put
an effort to quantify how and to what extent telecommuting affects the
temporal-spatial distribution of daily activities. The analysis in this
paper is based on the following hypothesis. From the perspective of
time-space fixity, telecommuting is a weakened form of work ar-
rangement. The extent to which time-space constraints are relaxed
depends on the form of telecommuting being adopted. Part-day tele-
commute mainly relaxes the temporal fixity while full-day tele-
commuting removes both temporal/spatial constraints.
With the above in mind, this paper identifies different tele-
commuting patterns and tries to capture how the impacts of tele-
commuting on morning/evening time-space prisms may differ, and how
it may influence their daily activity schedules, including the time and
spatial distributions of non-fixed activities.
3. Data
This study used data from the 2010–2011 Regional Household
H. Asgari, et al.
Fig. 1. An example of morning time-space parallelogram.
Travel Survey (RHTS) conducted in the metropolitan area across New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A subsample of 15,844 workers for
pay was extracted from the survey data, with about 22,000 daily tours
including both mandatory (work, school, etc.) and non-mandatory
(maintenance, discretionary, visit, etc.) purposes.
For the purpose of this study, a worker can be classified in either one
of the four following categories on a single work day. The numbers in
the parenthesis indicate the sample size within each category.
• Full-day telecommuter: if he/she reported telecommuting activities
and no work-related travel (407 individuals with 698 daily tours);
• Regular part-day telecommuter: if he/she reported both tele-
commuting activities and work-related travel, and he/she tele-
commutes on a regular basis (499 observations with 743 tours);
• Non-regular part-day telecommuter: if he/she reported both tele-
commuting activities and work-related travel, but he/she has no
arrangement for telecommuting on a regular basis (486 observations
with 721 daily tours);
• Non-telecommuter: if he/she reported work travel but no tele-
commuting activities (14452 observations with 19,832 daily tours).
It should be noted that this categorization utilizes both daily choices
(whether to telecommute for a specific work day) and long-term (life-
style) choices (whether to adopt telecommuting as an alternative work
arrangement on a regular basis). The consideration to combine both
perspectives was elaborated in the framework developed by the authors
(Asgari, 2015; Asgari and Jin, 2015).
The basic hypothesis for such classification was that workers with
different telecommuting forms will probably manifest distinctive daily
activity/travel behavior patterns. For example, those who telecommute
regularly probably would arrange their daily activities taking full ad-
vantage of the benefits of telecommuting, such as taking more house-
hold related duties (escorting kids), or participating in personal activ-
ities that otherwise would not have been possible with the spatial and
temporal constraints related to work activities. While non-regular tel-
ecommuters by definition only exercise telecommuting on a random or
as-needed basis, who may not have had the chance to rearrange the
101
Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107
daily activities, therefore may exhibit travel activity patterns more si-
milar to non-telecommuters than regular telecommuters (except for the
commute travel).
4. Methodology
Stochastic frontier model was employed to analyze the home/work
temporal attributes, in particular, first departure from home, arrival at
work, departure from work, and final arrival at home. The theoretical
structure is very similar to regression models, except for an additional
error term referred to as the “inefficiency”. Conceptually, the model is
based on the hypothesis that there exists a certain unobserved frontier
(threshold), where the observed values of the dependent variable could
not violate. The concept was first established for business models where
values of cost and production fit within the “inefficiency concept
(Aigner et al., 1977; Waldman, 1982). In this regard, trip departure and
arrival times for fixed activities are similar to the cost and production
theories, respectively. Assuming that departures from certain locations
such as home/work cannot occur earlier than a certain threshold, the
values can be modeled using a stochastic frontier cost model. Similarly,
by accepting an unobservable threshold for home/work arrival times,
beyond which arrivals cannot happen, a stochastic frontier production
model would be suitable.
The stochastic frontier model structure is based on the following
inequalities:
Origin Vertex : τo ≤ to (1)
Terminal Vertex : tt ≤ τt (2)
where,
τo is the unobserved lower threshold,the time point of the origin
vertex
to is the observed departure time
τt is the unobserved upper threshold,the time point of the terminal
vertex
tt is the observed arrival time
Consequently, the inequalities can be transformed into the following
equations:
H. Asgari, et al.
to = τo + u o (3)
tt = τt − ut (4)
where uo and ut are nonnegative random variables.
The general form of the stochastic frontier model for origin vertex
may be written as a cost function (Aigner et al., 1977):
Yi = β 'Xi + εi = β 'Xi + υi + u i (5)
where,
Yi : the observed dependent variable for individual i
β : vector of coefficients
Xi : vector of explanatory variables
υi : the noise term , −∞ < υi < + ∞
ui : the inefficiency term , ui ≥ 0
It is important to note that the noise terms are related to statistical
noise within the data while the inefficiency term relates to an in-
dividual’s ability to meet his/her frontier. Similarly, a model for a
terminal vertex can be formulated as a production function as follows:
Yi = β 'Xi + εi = β 'Xi + υi − u i (6)
In the econometric literature, the noise term υi is typically assumed
to be normally distributed, while a truncated normal, half normal, or
exponential distribution is often used for the inefficiency term ui .
The performance of a stochastic frontier model is assessed through
the portion of variance explained by the inefficiency term, also referred
to as γ :
σu2
γ=
σu2 + σv2 (7)
A γ value close to 1 reflects a significant impact of inefficiency
parameter in the model, i.e. the model is significantly different from a
simple linear regressions structure. On the other hand, a γ value close to
0 shows that inefficiency parameter is irrelevant and that the model
results are not different from a simple linear regression model.
5. Time-space prisms for fixed activities
Four stochastic frontier models were developed, for morning origin,
morning terminal, evening origin and evening terminal, respectively.
For full-day telecommuters, since there was no commute travel, only
one single whole-day time-space prism defined by the morning origin
(first departure from home) and evening terminal (final arrival at
home) vertices would be sufficient. For the other three categories, a
minimum of two prisms (morning and evening prisms) are required to
explain the mobility constraints in time and space.
Table 1 below presents the stochastic frontier model results. Three
major types of variables were employed: socio-economic and demo-
graphic variables (both at individual and household level), job-related
attributes, and telecommuting forms. To provide a full assessment of
telecommuting forms’ impacts on each model, interaction variables
were also constructed and tested in the model. The final specifications
were determined based on the significance of the variables, and the
overall performance of the model based on γ values.
To demonstrate how to interpret the model results and to show the
reasonableness of the estimation, an example was given here for a full-
time government-employed worker (assuming other conditions un-
known). The estimated four vertices were about 5:15 am, 8:53 am,
4:29 pm, and 9:05 pm, respectively. This indicates that the earliest
point of time that such a person may leave home (no matter what the
purpose for this first trip is) would be 5:15 am, and the arrival time at
work would be no later than 8:53 am; the worker would leave the
workplace not earlier than 4:29 pm, and arrive at home no later than
102
Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107
9:05 PM. The model predictions are reasonable and fit well within a
worker’s daily schedule on a regular workday. A negative value in the
table is likely to shift the vertex earlier, while a positive value would
shift the vertex later. The value itself indicates the extent of shift.
The model results indicate significant impacts of both individual
and household attributes, including age, gender, drivers’ license, and
ethnicity. In particular, males were expected to have earlier morning
departures and later evening arrivals than females. Males were also
more likely to spend more time at work compared to females (earlier
arrival at work and later departures).
Licensed drivers were likely to shift the vertices later, probably
because drivers were not affected by external constraints such as public
transit or carpooling schedules. In terms of ethnicity, white individuals
were likely to postpone their morning origin vertex by about 14 min,
while African Americans tended to hasten their morning terminal
vertex by about 6 min. Household structure and number of household
vehicles were two important household-level parameters. Household
structure showed large impacts on evening terminal vertex. In parti-
cular, households with no kids showed the latest evening terminal
vertices, which is reasonable since they were not constrained by kids’
schedules. Number of household vehicles had negative impacts on all
models, indicating that households with more vehicles tended to shift
the vertices earlier.
Employment type, work type, and compressed schedules were the
most significant job attributes. Accordingly, both private and govern-
ment employees were likely to have earlier morning departures, while
government employees also showed earliest arrivals at work and ear-
liest evening departures and arrivals. Full-time workers who hold only
one job showed the earliest morning departure, earliest arrival at work,
and latest departure from work, while full-time workers with multiple
jobs showed the latest evening arrival at home. It is also interesting to
see that part-time workers with one job had the latest morning de-
parture and earliest evening terminal vertices.
Given that the core objective of this study is to investigate the im-
pacts of telecommuting, telecommuting categories were incorporated
into the model as dummy variables, and their interactions with other
attributes were also explored. As noted previously, since full-day tele-
commuters do not have any out-of-home work activity and therefore,
were excluded from the morning terminal and evening origin models.
Results showed that all telecommuting types delayed the morning
origin vertex, with full-day telecommuting showed the highest impact
(by almost 117 min). However, when a full-day telecommuter comes
from private employment, this positive shift was moderated by 27 min.
Part-day telecommuters showed a delay of morning departure around
19–20 min. In particular, males who were involved in regular part-day
telecommuting showed another 25 min delay in their morning origin
vertex.
In terms of evening terminal vertex, interestingly, full-day tele-
commuters were expected to arrive home the earliest, showing a ne-
gative impact of 67 min, while part-day telecommuters tended to arrive
at home later than non-telecommuters, by 42 min and 6 min, respec-
tively. The early home arrival for full-day telecommuters would be
further extended if the worker was male (by 59 min) or worked in the
private industry (by 35 min). For regular part-day telecommuters, a
negative effect of household size is observed (11 min earlier for every
additional member in the household). No significant interaction effect
was identified for non-regular part-day telecommuters.
In view of morning terminal vertex (arrival at work), both part-day
telecommuting groups showed positive effects. Accordingly, a regular
part-day telecommuter might arrive at work 60 min later compared
with non-telecommuters, while the shift for non-regular part-day tele-
commuters would be about 14 min. Considering the evening origin
vertex, negative impacts were observed for both categories, indicating
their tendency to leave work earlier compared to those who do not
telecommute. Again, regular telecommuters have a larger effect
(100 min) in comparison with the non-regular telecommuters (35 min).
H. Asgari, et al. Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107

Table 1
Stochastic frontier model results.
Morning origin vertex Morning terminal vertex Evening origin vertex Evening terminal vertex

Individual attributes Constant 198.44 (19.02) 450.37 (252.37) 752.30 (80.59) 1144.74 (101.42)
AGE −0.32 (−3.09) −0.44 (−8.83) −0.75 (−7.49) −1.80 (−16.68)
Male −33.95 (−13.04) −14.13 (−12.85) 8.84 (3.98) 18.41 (6.86)
Licensed 27.74 (5.26) 2.57 (2.10) 17.21 (3.24)
Ethnicity: WHITE 13.82 (4.34)
Ethnicity: PACIFIC −58.94 (−1.64)
Ethnicity: African American −5.82 (−5.79) 1.19 (0.45)

Household attributes 1 adult, no kids 11.87 (4.95) 53.61 (9.67)

2 + adults, no kids −8.22 (−3.13) 16.22 (6.07) 37.44 (8.21)
1 adult, youngest kids 5–16 years old 21.74 (1.71)
2 + adults, youngest kids 5–16 years old 28.09 (5.57)
2 + adults, youngest kids 0–5 years old 3.34 (3.26) 7.74 (2.13)
Number of household workers 5.87 (3.13) 3.89 (1.80)
Number of HH vehicles −5.22 (−4.02) −8.57 (−15.12) −8.92 (−8.86) −6.94 (−5.21)

Work attributes Employment type: Private −39.41 (−6.60) −43.40 (−44.71) 16.93 (3.95) −12.01 (−2.00)
Employment type: Government −39.30 (−6.26) −66.63 (−59.51) −35.27 (−8.26) −37.72 (−5.96)
Employment type: Non-profit −20.01 (−3.00) −37.46 (−30.27) 9.76 (1.92) −27.77 (−4.11)
One full-time job −24.31 (−5.47) −29.92 (−21.60) 91.71 (30.95) −21.35 (−4.49)
Full-time, more than one job −25.88 (−18.97) 56.24 (15.11)
One part-time job 36.56 (7.27) −48.37 (−9.08)
Compressed schedule: 40 hrs/4 days −11.69 (−1.82) 12.33 (1.87)
Compressed schedule: 80 hrs/9 days 14.28 (13.85)

Telework attributes Full-day telecommuter 116.58 (9.62) −66.86 (−1.90)

Regular part-day telecommuter 20.39 (1.86) 59.43 (59.73) −100.04 (−93.69) 41.99 (2.45)
Non-regular part-day telecommuter 18.75 (2.76) 14.01 (14.00) −35.11 (−30.66) 6.02 (0.81)
Full-day: age 1.15 (1.80)
Full-day: male −59.28 (−3.62)
Full-day: private employment −27.15 (−1.66) −34.57 (−2.05)
Regular part-day: male 25.41 (1.77)
Regular part-day: HH size −5.09 (−4.87) 12.52 (9.11) −11.15 (−1.84)
Non-regular part-day: Government 126.61 (124.19)
employment

Goodness of fit measures Gamma 0.98 0.05 0.03 0.60

Sigma 425.36 74.18 127.33 207.30
Log likelihood −108591.83 −66679.99 −72990.17 −103104.46
Number of observations 15844.00 11679.00 11679.00 15844.00

Interestingly, this negative impact would be cancelled out for non-
regular telecommuters from government organizations. The interaction
effect of regular part-day telecommuting and household size variables
also showed significant impacts on both morning terminal and evening
origin vertices, shifting morning arrival at work by 5 min (earlier) and
the evening departure from work by 13 min (later) for every additional
member in the household.
It is worth mentioning that the vertices associated with home
(morning origin and evening terminal) showed high γ values while
work vertices (morning terminal and evening origin) γ values were
close to 0 (yet significant). One potential explanation for this is that
work schedules are probably subject to higher levels of variation
compared to home vertices, and that finding one unique frontier point
for the work vertices is not the optimized solution due to the presence
of multimodality (Soo, 2009). Although the model is still acceptable
since the values of σu are statistically significant, the model can be
further improved by taking other potential latent sources of multi-
modality including workers heterogeneity, managerial and supervisory
decisions, personal attitudes, etc. into account.
6. Impacts on non-mandatory activities
The stochastic frontier models presented in the previous section
showed significant impacts of telecommuting on workers’ temporal
decisions, and indicated distinctive patterns among full-day tele-
commuters, regular part-day telecommuters, and non-regular tele-
commuters. This section further examines the impacts of tele-
commuting on non-mandatory activities. The hypothesis is that given
the relaxed temporal-spatial constraints of work activities through
telecommuting, telecommuters may show different daily activity pat-
terns for non-mandatory activities due to better mobility and accessi-
bility compared with non-telecommuters.
Five major types of non-mandatory activities were pre-coded in the
RHTS data and used in this study, which include: shopping, main-
tenance, eat out, visit, discretionary. In this section, both temporal and
spatial comparisons were conducted among different telecommuting
categories. Distances from home and work were used as potential
measures for spatial distribution, while density functions and time-of-
day distributions were employed for temporal analysis. Statistically
significant differences are highlighted here.
Table 2 presents the average distance-from-home values for dif-
ferent types of non-mandatory activities and by telecommuting cate-
gory. Some interesting outcomes are observed. First and foremost, the
ANOVA test rejected any statistical difference between the mean values,
indicating that telecommuting does not have a significant impact on the
average distance workers are willing to travers from their homes for a
non-mandatory purpose. Moreover, by looking into the standard de-
viation values, one can see that non-telecommuters had the lowest
person-to-person variations in all cases, probably indicating that non-
telecommuters are more homogenous in making destination choices for
their non-mandatory activities. It is interesting to see that regular part-
day telecommuters showed the highest level of inter-personal variations
in almost all activities (except for visit), as indicated in the grey cells in
Table 2, which indicates higher potential for unobserved heterogeneity
in their travel behavior compared to other workers.
In order to provide a more complete picture of workers’ destination
choice, distance from work location was also examined. The results are
presented in Table 3. This time, significant statistical differences were

103
H. Asgari, et al. Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107

Table 2
Spatial distribution of non-mandatory activities: distance from home.
Distance from Home (in miles) ANOVA

Full-day telecommuter Regular Part-day telecommuter Non-regular part-day telecommuter Non-telecommuter

Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. F value Sig.

Shopping 3.33 0.38 4.12 1.20 2.71 0.52 3.34 0.14 0.46 0.71
Maintenance 5.28 0.78 7.70 3.39 3.74 0.74 5.27 0.30 0.80 0.49
Eating out 3.57 0.66 7.10 2.11 1.92 0.67 5.50 0.51 0.93 0.42
Visit 4.54 0.89 4.88 1.12 4.88 1.55 7.94 0.65 0.93 0.43
Discretionary 4.34 0.83 3.41 0.56 3.39 0.45 4.78 0.25 0.92 0.43

observed for all activities (except for visit), highlighted in grey in
Table 3. Accordingly, full-day telecommuters show the highest values of
average distance-from-work, especially for shopping activities, where
full-day telecommuters were able to shop in a buffer of 13 miles from
their usual work locations.
It may be argued that the longer distances for full-day tele-
commuters might be associated with longer home-to-work distances.
However, pairwise t-test comparisons indicated that the home-to-work
distances for full-day telecommuters were not statistically different
from the other three categories at 95% confidence interval (t = 0.359,
0.545, 1.77 respectively).
In order to explore the temporal distribution of non-mandatory
activities, a non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test was conducted. Results
showed significant differences in shopping (p = 0.033) and eating out
(p = 0.013) activities among different telecommuting categories, while
maintenance activities (p = 0.051) was very close to the rejection
threshold at 95% confidence interval. Fig. 2 presents the temporal
distribution for these non-mandatory activities within a 24 h period,
starting from 3:00 AM to 3:00 AM the next day, by telecommuting type.
It shows that part-day telecommuters were more likely to have “peak”
periods for shopping activities while full-day telecommuters and non-
telecommuters had relatively more even distributions. Full-day and
regular part-day telecommuters were more likely to have eat out ac-
tivities during early times of the day.
There was no significant difference in the temporal distributions of
discretionary and visit activities. This seems reasonable taking into
account the nature of these activities. Discretionary errands are usually
joint activities and may require coordination with other household
members or people outside the households, e.g. friends or social ties.
The same goes for visit activities as the timing also relies on other in-
dividuals involved. Therefore telecommuting may play a minimal role
on the timing of these types of activities.
To further examine the temporal distribution of non-mandatory
activities between different telecommuting categories, pairwise
Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were conducted as shown in Table 4. Full-
day telecommuters showed statistically significant differences with all
other types of workers. The test does not reject the equality of the
temporal distributions between regular and non-regular part-day tele-
commuters. No significant difference was observed between part-day
telecommuters and non-telecommuters, except for maintenance activ-
ities between non-regular part-day telecommuters and non-tele-
commuters.
Looking at the temporal distribution of non-mandatory activities in
discrete time of day intervals (am peak, mid-day, pm peak, and eve-
ning), a proportional comparison z-test with Bonferroni justification
was also conducted. It did not reject the equality of the time-of-day
distribution between different telecommuting forms. This indicates that
although there were statistically significant differences among some of
the telecommuting categories, the differences were not large enough to
extend beyond the boundaries of time-of-day periods.
7. Discussions
To better illustrate the model results and examine the effects of
telecommuting on workers’ daily activity distribution, Fig. 3 presents
an illustration of the time-space prisms for full-time government-em-
ployed workers under different types of telecommute arrangements,
given that all other attributes are the same. A 15 mile commute distance
and average speed of 30 mph is assumed.
Fig. 3 showed that full-day telecommuters had the latest morning
origin vertex (by almost 117 min) and the earliest evening terminal
vertex (by about 67 min). This implies that full-day telecommuters may
be able to avoid morning and evening peak hours for their out-of-home
activities. Looking at the consequent effects on workers’ mobility for
non-mandatory activities, both telecommuters and non-telecommuters
tended to keep their non-fixed activity destinations within 4–5 miles
from their homes, although full-day telecommuters chose locations
further away from their work locations compared to other workers,
especially for shopping activities (13 miles vs. 4–5 miles). This indicates
that although telecommuters did not travel further away for non-
mandatory activities, telecommuting did weaken the spatial constraints
of work locations on the destination choice.
For those who did commute, regular part-day telecommuters were
likely to depart 20 min later than non-telecommuters while they have
around 60 min more time to arrive at work. This would result in a larger
morning prism for regular part-day telecommuters, which means more
freedom to participate in other short-duration non-mandatory activities
in the morning period before arrival at work. For non-regular

Table 3
Spatial distribution of non-mandatory activities: distance from work location.
Distance from work (in miles) ANOVA

Full-day telecommuter Regular Part-day telecommuter Non-regular part-day telecommuter Non-telecommuter

Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. F value Sig.

Shopping 13.01 0.62 5.44 0.42 3.82 0.30 3.87 0.07 4.95 0.00
Maintenance 12.98 1.43 8.81 1.56 10.99 1.33 8.98 0.30 2.65 0.05
Eating out 12.73 1.20 12.63 3.31 9.14 1.36 9.73 0.39 2.83 0.04
Visit 11.90 2.26 7.99 2.49 8.53 2.35 12.10 0.70 0.43 0.73
Discretionary 11.61 1.34 6.42 0.85 6.13 1.06 9.03 0.31 3.88 0.01

104
H. Asgari, et al. Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107

Fig. 2. Temporal distribution of non-mandatory activities.

telecommuters, on the other hand, the morning origin vertex was less accessibility to activity opportunities in the morning.
shifted later by about 20 min while they had only 15 min extra to arrive In view of the evening prisms, both part-day telecommuters have
work. Consequently, they are expected to have smaller morning prisms larger prisms compared to non-telecommuters, however the difference
compared to the other two types of telecommuters, therefore having is much more sensible for regular part-day telecommuters (about

Table 4
Pairwise Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for temporal distribution of non-mandatory activities.
Full-day telecommuter vs. Regular part-day telecommuter vs. Non-regular part-day telecommuter vs.

Regular part-day Non-regular part-day Non-telecommuter Non-regular part-day Non-telecommuter Non-telecommuter

Shopping 0.013 0.01 0.008 0.918 0.33 0.172

Maintenance 0.105 0.013 0.052 0.893 0.131 0.019
Eat out 0.15 0.043 0.036 0.632 0.912 0.235
Visit 0.879 0.055 0.472 0.126 0.583 0.072
Discretionary 0.533 0.508 0.09 0.844 0.294 0.81

*Numbers in the table are P values (significant if P < 0.05).

105
H. Asgari, et al.
Fig. 3. Time-space prisms by telecommuting type.
100 min earlier for the origin vertex and 42 min later for terminal
vertex). This implies higher accessibility to opportunities for regular
part-day telecommuters compared to non-regular telecommuters or
non-telecommuters.
In regard to the effects on non-mandatory activities, part-day tele-
commuters did not show any significant difference with non-tele-
commuters, neither spatially nor temporally. Although full-day tele-
commuters showed significant differences in the temporal distribution
of their shopping activities compared to other workers, the differences
were not large enough to extend beyond time-of-day periods.
It is worth mentioning that, although telecommuters had larger
time-space prisms (i.e. higher activity accessibilities) than non-tele-
commuters, they did not visit further locations for non-mandatory ac-
tivities as discussed earlier. Telecommuters may be likely to extend
their activity durations, as indicated in the authors’ previous work
(Asgari et al., 2016).
8. Policy implications
With recent advances in technology, several enhancements have
been achieved in transportation and traffic engineering. While tech-
nology has already shown promising impacts on different aspects of
traffic operation, the influence on long-term planning and policy
management is more complicated since it involves a deeper analysis of
human behavior and decision making structure under different condi-
tions.
In this study, telecommuting has been specifically focused on as a
manifestation of technology in eliminating the need for physical pre-
sence at workplace. Although much has been said on telecommuting
impacts in terms of congestion relief, the analysis is mainly focused on
peak morning and evening hours due to commute trip reduction or
displacement. In terms of other non-commute trips, the literature
merely remains at trip generation/activity participation level. Not
much empirical analysis exists on the time-of-day or destination choices
of other trip purposes, if any, at least to the authors’ best knowledge.
Results from this paper and similar studies can take policy implications
of telecommuting into a further level. In particular, current activity-
based frameworks highly depend on time-of-day and destination
choices as critical daily decisions in their model structure (Bowman and
Ben-Akiva, 2000; Bowman and Bradley, 2006; Bradley et al., 2009;
Davidson et al., 2010). Therefore, the impacts of telecommuting on
time-of-day trip generations and destination choices could be ag-
gregated and incorporated into current activity based models, or certain
106
Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107
trip distribution structures could be appropriately modified when tel-
ecommuting is present as an alternative work arrangement opportunity.
9. Conclusion
This study explored the impacts of telecommuting on the temporal
and spatial distributions of workers daily activities. Despite the abun-
dant body of literature on telecommuting impacts on non-mandatory
activity generation and time-use, it looks as if the time-of-day and
destination choices of such activities is not sufficiently paid attention to
in the literature. In order to fulfill this gap, stochastic frontier models
were developed to examine how telecommuting in different forms may
influence workers space-time prisms. Further analysis was also con-
ducted to investigate how the relaxed temporal and spatial constraints
through telecommuting may further influence the daily activity travel
patterns of non-mandatory activities.
Results from the stochastic frontier models showed empirical evi-
dence of the effects of telecommuting on the time-space prisms for
workers. In accordance with common sense, telecommuting was able to
relax the temporal constraints for all types of telecommuters, which
reduced peak-hour travel, especially for full-day telecommuters. The
effects on regular telecommuters were much more sensible compared to
non-regular telecommuters, indicating that those who were able to
telecommute on a regular basis did take advantage of the benefits of
telecommuting, shown as larger time-space prisms and therefore higher
accessibility to activity opportunities. Three different measures were
taken into account for time/space analysis, including distance from
home, distance from work, and activity start time. In view of temporal
distributions, minimal impacts were observed for part-day tele-
commuters. The only exception was for maintenance activities in non-
regular part-day group, which showed a peak around 4 PM. Full-day
telecommuters also showed significant differences from other groups in
timing of their shopping activities. Even when statistically significant
differences are observed, further analysis showed that the differences
do not expand beyond time-of-day borders. Therefore, it could be
concluded that telecommuting, regardless of its adoption form, does not
significantly affect time-of-day scheduling of non-mandatory errands.
In terms of spatial analysis, People tended to keep non-mandatory ac-
tivities within certain distance from home regardless of whether tele-
commuting was performed, although telecommuting seemed to relax
the spatial constraints associated with work locations.
This study is subject to a number of limitations. First, due to the
cross sectional nature of the data, it is not feasible to capture the intra-
H. Asgari, et al.
personal variations in non-mandatory trip scheduling. A panel data
with multiple observations for the same person on both telecommuting
and non-telecommuting days will certainly provide more detailed in-
sights on telecommute impacts. Second, the models lack land use/ac-
cessibility measures, since the RHTS data did not provide those in-
formation. Adding those factors to the model can improve model’s
performance. Furthermore, the time-space prisms in this study were
designed in the simplest possible approach (two dimension and with
constant speeds). Considering 3D time-space volumes with time-de-
pendent speed will probably provide more precise results.
The findings provide additional insights on the actual impacts of
telecommuting on worker’s mobility and activity scheduling, beyond
congestion relief and environmental benefits. This may help design
travel demand management strategies that considers the full impacts of
telecommuting. In particular, the results can be used in current activity-
based platforms to capture the impacts of telecommuting (or any other
TDM strategy) not only on trip generation but on time-of-day and
destination choice modules. Future work may extend the analysis to a
multi-dimension framework and estimate the impacts on accessibility
and social welfare.
References
Aigner, D., Lovell, C.A.K., Schmidt, P., 1977. Formulation and estimation of stochastic
frontier production function models. J. Economet. 6, 21–37.
Asgari, H., Jin, X., 2017a. An evaluation of part-day telecommute impacts on work trip
departure times. Travel Behav. Soc (in press).
Asgari, H., Jin, X., 2017b. Impacts of telecommuting on non-mandatory activity partici-
pation: role of endogeneity”. Transportation research record. J. Transport. Res. Board
(in press).
Asgari, H., Jin, X., 2015. Towards a comprehensive telecommuting analysis framework;
setting the conceptual outline. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2496-01. No. 2496.
Asgari, H., Jin, X., Du, Y., 2016. Examination of the impacts of telecommuting on the
time-use of non-mandatory activities. Transport. Res. Rec. (TRR) J. Transport. Res.
Board 83–92 No. 2566.
Asgari, Hamidreza, On the Impacts of Telecommuting over Daily Activity/Travel
Behavior: A Comprehensive Investigation through Different Telecommuting Patterns,
2015. FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2182. http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/
etd/2182.
Auld, J. and A. Mohammadian, 2011. Planning Constrained Destination Choice in the
ADAPTS Activity-Based Model. Paper presented at the 90th annual Transportation
Research Board Meeting, Washington D.C.
Black, W., 2001. An unpopular essay on transportation. J. Transp. Geogr. 9, 1–11.
Bowman, J.L., Bradley, M.A., Gibb, J., 2006. The sacramento activity-based travel de-
mand model: estimation and validation results. Assoc. Eur. Transport Contrib.
Bowman, J.L., Ben-Akiva, M., 2000. Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model
system with activity schedules. Transp. Res. Part A 35, 1–28.
Bradley, M., Bowman, J., Griesenbeck, B., 2009. SACSIM: An applied activity-based
model system with fine level spatial and temporal resolution. Journal of Choice
Modelling 3 (1), 5–31.
Burns, L.D., 1979. Transportation, Temporal and Spatial Components of Accessibility.
Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
Caulfield, B., 2015. Does it pay to work from home? Examining the factors influencing
working from home in the Greater Dublin Area. Case Studies on Transport Policy 3
(2), 206–214.
Chapin, C.F., 1974. Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things People in Time and
Space. John Wiley, New York.
Chen, Y., Ravulaparthy, S., Deutsch, K., Dalal, P., Yoon, S.Y., Lei, T., Goulias, K.G.,
Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R., Hu, H.-H., 2011. Development of Opportunity-based
Accessibility Indicators. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board in press.
Couclelis, H., 2004. Pizza over the Internet: E-commerce, the fragmentation of activity
and the tyranny of the region. Entrepreneurship Regional Dev. 16 (1), 41–54.
Davidson, W., Vovsha, P., Freedman, J., Donnelly, R., 2010. CT-RAMP family of Activity-
Based Models. Australasian Transport Research Forum 2010 Proceedings 29
September – 1 October 2010, Canberra, Australia.
Ettema, D., Timmermans, H., 2007. Space-time accessibility under conditions of uncertain
travel times: Theory and numerical simulations. Geogr. Anal. 39 (2), 217–240.
Hagerstrand, T., 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers Reg. Sci. Assoc. 24,
7–21.
He, S.Y., Hu, L., 2015. Telecommuting, income, and out-of-home activities. Travel Behav.
Soc. 2 (3), 131–147.
Hu, L., He, S.Y., 2016. Association between telecommuting and household travel in the
Chicago metropolitan area. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 04016005.
Hubers, C., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., 2008. ICT and temporal fragmentation of activities:
an analytical framework and initial empirical findings. Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 99 (5), 528–546.
Kim, S.-N., Ahn, K., 2010. Estimating the travel-related impacts of home-based tele-
commuting. J. Korea Plan Assoc. 45, 147–164 (in Korean).
107
Travel Behaviour and Society 16 (2019) 99–107
Kim, S.-N., Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P., 2015. Home-based telecommuting and intra-
household interactions in work and non-work travel: a seemingly unrelated censored
regression approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 80, 197–214.
Kim, H.M., Kwan, M.P., 2003. Space-time accessibility measures: A geocomputational
algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration.
J. Geogr. Syst. 5 (1), 71–91.
Kim, S.-N., 2016. Two traditional questions on the relationships between telecommuting,
job and residential location, and household travel: revisited using a path analysis.
Ann. Reg. Sci. 56 (2), 537–563.
Kim, S.-N., 2017. Is telecommuting sustainable? An alternative approach to estimating
the impact of home-based telecommuting on household travel. Int. J. Sustainable
Transport. 11 (2), 72–85.
Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Kishizawa, K., Pendyala, R., 2000. Stochastic frontier models
of prism vertices. Transp. Res. Rec. 1718, 18–26.
Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Susilo, Y.O., Axhausen, K.W., 2006. How routine is a rou-
tine? An analysis of the day-to-day variability in prism vertex location. Transp. Res.
Part A 40 (3), 259–279.
Kwan, M., Hong, X., 1998. Network-Based constraints-oriented choice set formation using
GIS. Geogr. Syst. 5, 139–162.
Kwan, M.P., 2002. Time, information technologies and the geographies of everyday life.
Urban Geogr. 23 (5), 471–482.
Kwan, M.-P., 1999. Gender and Individual access to urban opportunities: a study using
space-time measures. Profess. Geogr. 51, 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-
0124.00158.
Kwan, M.-P., 2007. Mobile communications, social networks, and urban travel: hypertext
as a new metaphor for conceptualizing spatial interaction. Profess. Geogr. 59 (4),
434–446.
Kwan, M.-P., 1998. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a com-
parative analysis using a point-based framework. Geogr. Anal. 30, 191–217.
Lari, A., 2012. Telework/workforce flexibility to reduce congestion and environmental
degradation? Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 48, 712–721.
Lee, B.H.Y., P. Waddell, L. Wang, R.M. Pendyala (2009). Operationalizing time-space
prism accessibility in a building-level residential choice model: empirical results from
the puget sound region. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Transportation Research
Board Meeting, Washington. D.C.
Miller, H.J., 1991. Modeling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geo-
graphical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Syst. 5, 287–301.
Mohammadian, A., Doherty, S.T., 2006. Modeling activity scheduling time horizon:
duration of time between planning and execution of pre-planned activities.
Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Practice 40, 475–490.
Nehra, R.S., Banerjee, A., Pendyala, R.M., Dhingra, S.L., 2004. Analysis of personal time-
space prism vertex locations: A developing-country context. Transport. Res. Rec. J.
Transport. Res. Board 1898, 19–27.
Paleti, R., Vukovic, I., 2017. Telecommuting and its impact on activity-time use patterns
of dual-earner households. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2658, 17–25.
Pendyala, R., Yamamoto, T., Kitamura, R., 2002. On the formulation of time-space prisms
to model constraints on personal activity-travel engagement. Transportation 29,
73–94.
Pirdavani, A., T. Brijs, T. Bellemans, B. Kochan, and G. Wets. Assessing the Impacts of a
Teleworking Policy on Crash Occurrence: The Case of Flanders, Belgium. Presented at
92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Rojas, Mario Benito IV, The Impacts of Telecommuting on the Time-Space Distribution of
Daily Activities (2016). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2997.
Schwanen, T., de Jong, T., 2008. Exploring the juggling of responsibilities with space-
time accessibility analysis. Urban Geogr. 29, 556–580.
Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Auld, J., Mohammadian, A., 2017a. Dynamics of time-of-
day choice in the ADAPTS activity-based model. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport.
Res. Board 2017. https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-06.
Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Derrible, S., Miralinaghi, M., 2017b. Joint discrete-con-
tinuous model of travel mode and departure time choices. Transport. Res. Rec. J.
Transport. Res. Board. https://doi.org/10.3141/2669-05 (In press).
Soo, J., 2009. Space-time prism vertices: exploring gender differences and multiple-peak
distributions in arrival and departure times. Eur. J. Transport Infrastruct. Res. 9 (4),
380–396.
Vu, S. T. Analysis of Impacts of Telecommuting for Reduction of Environmental Pollution.
In: Presented at 29th Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research,
Adelaide, Australia, 2007.
Vu, S. T., and U. Vandebona. A Model for Analysis of Impacts of Telecommuting on
Network Travel Time. In: 30th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia, 2007.
Waldman, D.M., 1982. A stationary point for the stochastic frontier likelihood. J. Econom.
18, 275–279.
Weber, J., Kwan, M.-P., 2002. Bringing time back in: a study on the influence of travel
time variations and facility opening hours on individual accessibility. Profess. Geogr.
54 (2), 226–240.
Yamamoto, T., Kitamura, R., Pendyala, R.M., 2004. Comparative analysis of time-space
prism vertices for out-of-home activity engagement on working and nonworking
days. Environ. Plann. B 31, 235–250.
Yoon, S.Y., Deutsch, K., Chen, Y., Goulias, K.G., 2012. Feasibility of using time–space
prism to represent available opportunities and choice sets for destination choice
models in the context of dynamic urban environments. Transportation 39, 807–823.
Zhu, P., 2012. Are telecommuting and personal travel complements or substitutes? Ann.
Region Sci. 48, 619–639.
Zhu, P., Mason, S.G., 2014. The impact of telecommuting on personal vehicle usage and
environmental sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (8), 2185–2200.