Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A statistical framework for measuring the temporal stability of human mobility patterns

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that GPS monitoring must last at least 15 weeks—roughly seven times the current 14-day recommendation—to capture temporally stable human mobility patterns, with average stabilization times of 30 weeks for velocity and 37…

desk verdict New stability measures for GPS mobility are worth knowing, but the 'at least 15 weeks' headline is not backed by the paper's own tables and the LCT approach needs a stability check before its durations are used. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09830 v1 pith:5TJIIJYN submitted 2019-08-24 stat.OT physics.soc-phstat.APstat.ME

Zhihang Dong , Yen-Chi Chen , Adrian Dobra This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.OTphysics.soc-phstat.APstat.ME
keywords densityestimationglobalpositioningsystems(GPS)humanmobilityspatiotemporaltrajectoriestemporaldynamicslastcrossingtimeactivitydistributionGPSmonitoringduration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how long a GPS-based study must run before the mobility pattern it records stops changing in any systematic way. The authors build a statistical framework around last crossing times: the last moment at which an estimate made from the first part of a person's record still differs from the estimate made from the entire record by more than a tolerance. Applied to 18 months of phone GPS data from 185 people in Switzerland, the framework says monitoring should last at least 15 weeks, roughly seven times the widely cited 14-day minimum, with average stabilization times of 30 weeks for average velocity, 37 weeks for weekly activity distributions, and 18 weeks for the set of places where a person spends most time. The paper also argues that the required duration differs by demographic group, with younger participants needing longer observation than older ones.

What carries the argument

The engine is the last crossing time (LCT) process. For a process $Z(\tau)$ summarizing the trajectory up to time $\tau$—average velocity or the estimated weekly activity distribution—the LCT is the largest $\tau$ at which the absolute percentage error $\varphi(Z;\tau) = |Z(\tau) - Z(T)|/Z(T)$ still exceeds a threshold $\gamma$; it says how long one must observe before the prefix estimate stops disagreeing with the full-record estimate. The supporting machinery includes two estimators of the distribution of time spent in spatial grid cells, the ordinary and conservative proportional time estimators, which the paper proves are asymptotically equivalent and consistent, and a ranking-based $\alpha$-level set that focuses the stability check on the grid cells where a person actually spends most of their time.

What would settle it

Recompute the three last-crossing-time measures on a GPS panel that runs three years or more; if median LCT-velocity rises above 30 weeks or a large share of participants still have last crossing times at the end of the observation window, the paper's stabilization times are censored by the 18-month horizon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that human mobility patterns, as recorded by GPS, take far longer to become temporally stable than previous empirical work suggested. Using the last crossing time of the absolute percentage error with threshold $\gamma = 0.2$, the authors find mean stabilization times of 30.04 weeks for average velocity, 37.18 weeks for the weekly activity distribution, and 17.69 weeks for the 0.2-level set of important places, and conclude that GPS monitoring needs to last at least 15 weeks—about seven times the 14 days recommended by the earlier study. A second claim is that stability is demographic: older adults' mobility stabilizes sooner (about 10 weeks for the level-set measure), middle-aged adults need about 15 weeks, and younger adults about 20 weeks, so study designs should set durations by demographic group rather than a single universal window.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the estimate computed from the entire 18-month window equals each person's stable long-run mobility pattern; if the window is too short, every reported minimum duration is a lower bound rather than a true stabilization time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Seven- to fourteen-day GPS studies, common in health and social research, are likely to record mobility patterns that are still changing; conclusions drawn from them may not reflect stable long-run behavior.
  • A minimum monitoring length of about 15 weeks is needed for stable estimates; studies targeting full weekly activity distributions should plan for roughly 37 weeks, while studies that only need the main places of activity can use about 18 weeks.
  • Differential study durations by demographic group are warranted: older adults stabilize faster, so shorter monitoring may suffice, while younger adults need longer windows.
  • The ordinary and conservative proportional time estimators give consistent recovery of activity distributions even when GPS sampling is irregular, so researchers can use them to correct for non-uniform observation times.
  • The level-set measure provides a way to separate stability of core places from stability of rarely visited places, so researchers can tailor the observation window to the spatial resolution their research question needs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because every LCT is measured against the estimate from the entire 18-month window, the quoted stabilization times are best read as lower bounds tied to that window; a longer observation study could push them upward if truly stable patterns emerge only after more than 18 months.
  • The same last-crossing-time template could be applied to other longitudinal behavioral records (e.g., daily retail visits, app usage, or mobility from call detail records) by replacing the velocity or activity distribution process with the relevant summary statistic.
  • The demographic pattern suggests an adaptive design in which monitoring continues until a participant-specific LCT drops below a threshold, which could reduce participant burden while preserving stability guarantees.
  • Because the consistency theorems assume increasingly dense sampling, a testable implication is that much denser GPS recording could shorten the required calendar duration to reach the same stability level.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a statistical framework for determining the minimum required length of GPS monitoring for human mobility studies. It defines last-crossing-time (LCT) measures based on the average velocity process and on activity distributions over a spatial grid, introduces ordinary and conservative proportional time estimators for activity distributions, and proves their asymptotic equivalence and consistency under assumptions (S1)-(S3). The method is applied to the Nokia Mobile Data Challenge, with GPS data from 185 individuals over about 18 months. The empirical results give mean LCT values of roughly 30 weeks for velocity, 37 weeks for the full activity distribution, and 18 weeks for the 0.2-level set of important places. The authors conclude that GPS monitoring should last at least 15 weeks, about seven times longer than the 14-day recommendation of Zenk et al., and that study duration should depend on demographic group.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the paper would provide a valuable theoretical basis for a design question that has so far been addressed mainly empirically: how long GPS monitoring must last. The theoretical results are a genuine contribution: the consistency and asymptotic equivalence proofs for the proportional time estimators are clean under assumptions (S1)-(S3), and the LCT formalism gives a concrete, interpretable target for stabilization. The paper also makes constructive use of a publicly available longitudinal GPS dataset and makes falsifiable quantitative predictions (e.g., 30, 37, and 18 weeks in Table 1). However, the central empirical conclusion depends on an assumption about the endpoint of the observation window that is not tested, and the headline 'at least 15 weeks' is not directly supported by the table of aggregate results. The framework is promising, but the central design recommendation needs substantially more validation before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.1 and 2.3, Eqs. (6), (14), and (17)] All three LCT measures are defined relative to the final value of the process over the entire observed window: Eq. (6) uses Z(tmax-tmin), Eq. (14) uses \hat{\bar{\pi}}(Dmax), and Eq. (17) uses Lα(Dmax). These are retrospective summaries of the particular 18-month MDC window, not estimates of a stable long-run mobility pattern. The paper's design recommendation assumes that the final estimate is close to each individual's stable mobility pattern, but it provides no check of this assumption: there is no split-half validation, no holdout-period comparison, no assessment of drift or nonstationarity over the study period, and no report of how many participants' LCTs are censored at the horizon. Without such checks, a short LCT can occur simply because the endpoint itself has moved, and a long LCT for a genuinely unstable individual may be truncated at Dmax. The 'minimum required length' conclusion is therefore contaminated by the arbitrary length of the observation window unless endpoint stability is established.
  2. [Section 3, Table 1, and Section 4, Discussion] The aggregate results in Table 1 report mean LCTs of 30.04 weeks (velocity), 37.18 weeks (distribution), and 17.69 weeks (0.2-level set), yet the Discussion concludes that GPS monitoring needs to be done for 'at least 15 weeks.' This number does not follow from Table 1: it is closer to the subgroup-specific value for middle-age participants shown in Figure 4 for the level-set measure, and it is far below the mean for the other two measures. A minimum study duration should be derived from an explicit design criterion, typically an upper quantile of the distribution across participants, not from subgroup means. The paper should reconcile Table 1 with the Discussion, report the quantiles of the LCT distributions, and state how much censoring occurs at Dmax.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 4] The claim that study duration should differ by demographic group is based on visual comparison of mean LCT curves with 90% confidence intervals. No formal test, effect size, or adjustment for repeated measures or multiple comparisons is provided, and the confidence intervals are not defined (standard error? bootstrap? adjusted for within-person correlation?). Since demographic differentiation is presented as a second substantive contribution, it needs supporting inference rather than descriptive curves alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph of Application] The text says the window is partitioned into '40002 square grid cells' while later text uses N = 4000^2; 4000^2 is 16,000,000, not 4,000. Please clarify the grid resolution and the total number of cells.
  2. [Section 2.3, text before Eq. (13)] The sentence 'We denote by π(d) the activity distribution from Eq. (12) associated with time period D' conflates the true activity distribution from Eq. (9) with the estimator from Eq. (12). Please separate the estimand from the estimator.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (17)] The denominator ||Lα(Dmax)|| can be zero for some participants or some values of α; please state a convention (e.g., define the LCT as 0 in that case) so that the ratio is well defined.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (5)] The estimator \hat V_k(τ) sums distances between consecutive observation times with t_{k,i+1} ≤ τ, which omits the partial segment between the last recorded time before τ and τ itself; please state this explicitly or use interpolation.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] There is a typo: 'histrogram' should be 'histogram'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LCT measures are well-defined statistics, and the endpoint dependence is a validity limitation rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The last-crossing-time measures in Eqs. (6), (14), and (17) are explicitly defined statistics of the observed trajectory, and the empirical values in Table 1 and Figure 4 are computed from the MDC data rather than fitted to reproduce a target conclusion. Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 are proved directly in Appendix A under the stated sampling assumptions (S1)-(S3), so the consistency results do not rely on self-citation or on the empirical claim. The only structural concern is that LCT is defined relative to the final value over the observation window, e.g., Z(tmax-tmin) in Eq. (6) and \hat{\bar{\pi}}(Dmax) in Eq. (14), so the reported stabilization times are contingent on the 18-month horizon; if the endpoint is not the individual's stable long-run pattern, the recommended 'at least 15 weeks' is a lower bound. That is a substantive validity/identifiability limitation, not a circular reduction: no equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the central claim is not forced by a self-citation chain. The citation to the authors' prior work [7] for the ranking distribution in Eq. (15) is definitional and not load-bearing. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical conclusions depend on user-chosen parameters gamma=0.2 and alpha=0.2, the grid resolution, and the spatial window. The theoretical framework relies on smoothness, uniform time sampling in the target quantity, and the asymptotic assumptions (S1)-(S3). No new physical entities are introduced; the last crossing time and activity distribution measures are mathematical constructs, not entities with independent falsifiable handles.

free parameters (4)
  • stability threshold gamma = 0.2
    Chosen for all three LCT measures in the application (Section 3). Directly determines the reported minimum observation lengths; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • level set parameter alpha = 0.2
    Used in Table 1 and Figure 4 for the level-set LCT. Affects which grid cells count as important; the paper notes LCT decreases with alpha but does not vary alpha for the main claims.
  • grid cell side length = 28 meters
    Defines the spatial resolution of activity distributions (Section 3). The number of cells is given inconsistently (4000^2 vs 400^2); results likely depend on this choice.
  • spatial observation window = rectangular area excluding longer trips
    Locations outside the window are dropped, which removes longer trips away from residence; this biases activity distributions and may affect LCT estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spatiotemporal trajectory is smooth, with continuous derivatives for x1 and x2 (Eq. 1).
    Used to define the length of the curve and average velocity; real GPS trajectories are piecewise and noisy, so this is an idealization.
  • domain assumption T follows a uniform distribution on [tmin, tmax] in the definition of the activity distribution (Eq. 9).
    The true activity distribution is defined with respect to uniform sampling time; if sampling is non-uniform, the estimators are weighted to compensate, but the target quantity assumes uniform time.
  • domain assumption Assumptions (S1)-(S3): dense observation times, boundary coverage, and finite grid transitions.
    Used in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2; plausible for high-frequency GPS but not verified on the MDC data.
  • domain assumption Study participants traveled in a straight line between consecutive observed GPS locations.
    Acknowledged in Section 2.1; underestimates actual distances and average velocities.
  • domain assumption The grid-cell mapping and proportional-time estimators recover time spent in cells, with transition intervals handled by the ordinary or conservative estimators.
    The estimators are derived under this assumption; in practice GPS gaps and non-uniform sampling can violate it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A statistical framework for measuring the temporal stability of human mobility patterns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TJIIJYN

@misc{pith2026190809830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A statistical framework for measuring the temporal stability of human mobility patterns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TJIIJYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09830}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the growing popularity of human mobility studies that collect GPS location data, the problem of determining the minimum required length of GPS monitoring has not been addressed in the current statistical literature. In this paper we tackle this problem by laying out a theoretical framework for assessing the temporal stability of human mobility based on GPS location data. We define several measures of the temporal dynamics of human spatiotemporal trajectories based on the average velocity process, and on activity distributions in a spatial observation window. We demonstrate the use of our methods with data that comprise the GPS locations of 185 individuals over the course of 18 months. Our empirical results suggest that GPS monitoring should be performed over periods of time that are significantly longer than what has been previously suggested. Furthermore, we argue that GPS study designs should take into account demographic groups. KEYWORDS: Density estimation; global positioning systems (GPS); human mobility; spatiotemporal trajectories; temporal dynamics

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimate of the average velocity (gray curve) of an individual in the MDC data over tmax = 21 weeks. The dashed line indicates the value of Vb(tmax), and the two dotted lines represent the lower bound (1 − γ)Vb(tmax) and the upper bound (1 + γ)Vb(tmax) for γ = 0.1. These bounds correspond with times τ for which the APE φ(V ; τ ) ≤ γ. The crosses denote the times τ for which φ(V ; τ ) = γ. The last crossing time for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary information of the GPS location data. Left panel: histogram of the total length of observation for each study participant expressed in weeks. Right panel: histrogram of the average number of GPS locations per week for each study participant. For each study participant, we calculated three measures of temporal stability of their mobility patterns: the last crossing time of the average velocity (LCT-velocity) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For smaller values of α, Lα contains grid cells in which the study participant spend the largest proportion of time. When α ∈ {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4}, Ggrid(Lα) has one connected component which implies that the grid cells that belong to Lα are spatially adjacent, and define a single area in which the study participant spends larger amounts of time. The corresponding values of LCT dlevel,α(γ) are less than 20 weeks whi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Values of the LCT-level sets LCT dlevel,α(0.2) for α ∈ {0.1, 0.2, . . . , 1} for an MDC study participant. The unit of time is weeks. The number of connected components of Ggrid(Lα) defined by the α-level sets Lα are shown above the curve. times are larger and become v…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean values and 90% confidence intervals of the LCT-level sets LCT dlevel,α(0.2) for α ∈ {0.1, 0.2, . . . , 1} calculated for five demograhic groups: sex (male, female), and age (young, middle, old). duration about 7 times longer than the 14 days minimum duration recom…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Basta, T.S

    L.A. Basta, T.S. Richmond, and D.J. Wiebe, Neighborhoods, daily activities, and measuring health risks experienced in urban environments , Social Science & Medicine 71 (2010), pp. 1943–1950

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Beekhuizen, H

    J. Beekhuizen, H. Kromhout, A. Huss, and R. Vermeulen, Performance of GPS-devices for envi- ronmental exposure assessment, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 23 (2013), pp. 498–505

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Berrigan, J.A

    D. Berrigan, J.A. Hipp, P.M. Hurvitz, P. James, M.M. Jankowska, J. Kerr, F. Laden, T. Leonard, R.A. McKinnon, T.M. Powell-Wiley, E. Tarlov, S.N. Zenk, and The TREC Spatial and Contextual, Measures and Modeling Work Group, Geospatial and contextual approaches to energy balance and health, Annals of GIS 21 (2015), pp. 157–168. 18 ZHIHANG DONG *,†, YEN-CHI C...

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Bivand, E

    R.S. Bivand, E. Pebesma, and V. G´ omez-Rubio, Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R , Springer, New York, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Browning, C.A

    C.R. Browning, C.A. Calder, B. Soller, A.L. Jackson, and J. Dirlam, Ecological networks and neigh- borhood social organization, American Journal of Sociology 122 (2017), pp. 1939–1988

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Byrnes, B.A

    H. Byrnes, B.A. Miller, C.N. Morrison, D.J. Wiebe, M. Woychik, and S.E. Wiehe, Association of environmental indicators with teen alcohol use and problem behavior: Teens’ observations vs. objectively-measured indicators, Health & Place 43 (2017), pp. 151–157

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Chen, Generalized cluster trees and singular measures , Annals of Statistics 47 (2019), pp

    Y.C. Chen, Generalized cluster trees and singular measures , Annals of Statistics 47 (2019), pp. 2174–2203

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Christian, Using geospatial technologies to explore activity-based retail food environments, Spa- tial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology 3 (2012), pp

    W.J. Christian, Using geospatial technologies to explore activity-based retail food environments, Spa- tial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology 3 (2012), pp. 287–295

    work page 2012

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Courant and F

    R. Courant and F. John, Introduction to Calculus and Analysis , Vol. I, Springer, New York, 1991

    1991

  2. [10]

    Dobra and N.E

    A. Dobra and N.E. Williams, Spatiotemporal detection of unusual human population behavior using mobile phone data , PLoS ONE 10 (2015), p. e0120449

    2015

  3. [11]

    Duncan, D.A

    D.T. Duncan, D.A. Hickson, W.C. Goedel, D. Callander, B. Brooks, Y.T. Chen, H. Hanson, R. Eavou, A.S. Khanna, B. Chaix, S. Regan, D.P. Wheeler, K.H. Mayer, S.A. Safren, M.S. Carr, C. Draper, V. Magee-Jackson, R. Brewer, and J.A. Schneider, International Journal of Environmenta...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Duncan, F

    D.T. Duncan, F. Kapadia, S.D. Regan, W.C. Goedel, M.D. Levy, S.C. Barton, S.R. Friedman, and P.N. Halkitis, Feasibility and acceptability of Global Positioning System (GPS) methods to study the spatial contexts of substance use and sexual risk behaviors among young men who hav...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Elgethun, M.G

    K. Elgethun, M.G. Yost, C.T. Fitzpatrick, T.L. Nyerges, and R.A. Fenske, Comparison of Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking and parent-report diaries to characterize children’s time-location patterns, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 17 (2007), pp...

    2007

  6. [14]

    Entwisle, Putting people into place , Demography 44 (2007), pp

    B. Entwisle, Putting people into place , Demography 44 (2007), pp. 687–703

    2007

  7. [15]

    Graif, A.S

    C. Graif, A.S. Gladfelter, and S.A. Matthews, Urban poverty and neighborhood effects on crime: Incorporating spatial and network perspectives, Sociology Compass 8 (2014), pp. 1140–1155

    2014

  8. [16]

    Harding, Z

    C. Harding, Z. Patterson, L. Miranda-Moreno, and S. Zahabi, Modeling the effect of land use on activity spaces, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2323 (2012), pp. 67–74

    2012

  9. [17]

    Kestens, A

    Y. Kestens, A. Lebel, M. Daniel, M. Th´ eriault, and R. Pampalon,Using experienced activity spaces to measure foodscape exposure, Health & Place 16 (2010), pp. 1094–1103

    2010

  10. [18]

    Kiukkonen, J

    N. Kiukkonen, J. Blom, O. Dousse, D. Gatica-Perez, and J. Laurila, Towards Rich Mobile Phone Datasets: Lausanne Data Collection Campaign , in Proc. ACM Int. Conf. on Pervasive Services (ICPS), Berlin, July. 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Kopec, Concepts of disability: The activity space model , Social Science & Medicine 40 (1996), pp

    J.A. Kopec, Concepts of disability: The activity space model , Social Science & Medicine 40 (1996), pp. 649–656

    1996

  12. [20]

    Krivo, H.M

    L.J. Krivo, H.M. Washington, R.D. Peterson, C.R. Browning, C.A. Calder, and M.P. Kwan, Social isolation of disadvantage and advantage: The reproduction of inequality in urban space, Social Forces 92 (2013), pp. 141–164

    2013

  13. [21]

    Kwan, The uncertain geographic context problem , Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2012), pp

    M.P. Kwan, The uncertain geographic context problem , Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2012), pp. 958–968

    2012

  14. [22]

    M.P. Kwan, Beyond space (as we knew it): Toward temporally integrated geographies of segregation, health, and accessibility, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (2013), pp. 1078– 1086

    2013

  15. [23]

    Laurila, D

    J.K. Laurila, D. Gatica-Perez, I. Aad, J. Blom, O. Bornet, T. Do, O. Dousse, J. Eberle, and M. Miettinen, The Mobile Data Challenge: Big Data for Mobile Computing Research , in Proc. Mobile Data Challenge Workshop (MDC) in conjunction with Int. Conf. on Pervasive Computing, Ne...

    2012

  16. [24]

    Laurila, D

    J.K. Laurila, D. Gatica-Perez, I. Aad, J. Blom, O. Bornet, T.M.T. Do, O. Dousse, J. Eberle, and M. Miettinen, From big smartphone data to worldwide research: The Mobile Data Challenge , Pervasive and Mobile Computing 9 (2013), pp. 752–771. MEASURING THE TEMPORAL STABILITY OF H...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Lee, A.W

    J.H. Lee, A.W. Davis, S.Y. Yoon, and K.G. Goulias, Activity space estimation with longitudinal observations of social media data , Transportation 43 (2016), pp. 955–977

    2016

  18. [26]

    Matthews and T.C

    S.A. Matthews and T.C. Yang, Spatial polygamy and contextual exposures (SPACEs): Promoting activity space approaches in research on place and health. , The American Behavioral Scientist 57 (2013), pp. 1057–1081

    2013

  19. [27]

    Mazimpaka and S

    J.D. Mazimpaka and S. Timpf, Trajectory data mining: A review of methods and applications , Journal of Spatial Information Science 13 (2016), pp. 61–99

    2016

  20. [28]

    Miller, Place-based versus people-based Geographic Information Science , Geography Compass 1 (2007), pp

    H. Miller, Place-based versus people-based Geographic Information Science , Geography Compass 1 (2007), pp. 503–535

    2007

  21. [29]

    Morrison, H.F

    C.N. Morrison, H.F. Byrnes, B.A. Miller, E. Kaner, S.E. Wiehe, W.R. Ponicki, and D. Wiebe, Assessing individuals’ exposure to environmental conditions using residence-based measures, activity location-based measures, and activity path-based measures, Epidemiology 30 (2019), pp...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Newsome, W.A

    T.H. Newsome, W.A. Walcott, and P.D. Smith, Urban activity spaces: Illustrations and application of a conceptual model for integrating the time and space dimensions , Transportation 25 (1998), pp. 357–377

    1998

  23. [31]

    Noah, Putting families into place: Using neighborhood-effects research and activity spaces to understand families, Journal of Family Theory & Review 7 (2015), pp

    A.J. Noah, Putting families into place: Using neighborhood-effects research and activity spaces to understand families, Journal of Family Theory & Review 7 (2015), pp. 452–467

    2015

  24. [32]

    Paul, Female activity space in rural Bangladesh , Geographical Review 82 (1992), pp

    B.K. Paul, Female activity space in rural Bangladesh , Geographical Review 82 (1992), pp. 1–12

    1992

  25. [33]

    Perchoux, B

    C. Perchoux, B. Chaix, S. Cummins, and Y. Kestens, Conceptualization and measurement of envi- ronmental exposure in epidemiology: Accounting for activity space related to daily mobility , Health & Place 21 (2013), pp. 86–93

    2013

  26. [34]

    Richardson, N.D

    D.B. Richardson, N.D. Volkow, M.P. Kwan, R.M. Kaplan, M.F. Goodchild, and R.T. Croyle,Spatial turn in health research, Science 339 (2013), pp. 1390–1392

    2013

  27. [35]

    Schonfelder and K.W

    S. Schonfelder and K.W. Axhausen, Activity spaces: Measures of social exclusion?, Transport Policy 10 (2003), pp. 273–286

    2003

  28. [36]

    Sherman, J

    J.E. Sherman, J. Spencer, J.S. Preisser, W.M. Gesler, and T.A. Arcury, A suite of methods for repre- senting activity space in a healthcare accessibility study, International Journal of Health Geographics 4 (2015), p. 24

    2015

  29. [37]

    VanWey, R.R

    L.K. VanWey, R.R. Rindfuss, M.P. Gutmann, B. Entwisle, and D.L. Balk, Confidentiality and spatially explicit data: Concerns and challenges , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (2005), pp. 15337–15342

    2005

  30. [38]

    Vazquez-Prokopec, D

    G.M. Vazquez-Prokopec, D. Bisanzio, S.T. Stoddard, V. Paz-Soldan, A.C. Morrison, J.P. Elder, J. Ramirez-Paredes, E.S. Halsey, T.J. Kochel, and T.W. Scott, Using GPS technology to quan- tify human mobility, dynamic contacts and infectious disease dynamics in a resource-poor urb...

    2013

  31. [39]

    Waller and C.A

    L.A. Waller and C.A. Gotway, Applied Spatial Statistics for Public Health Data , John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Wasserman, All of Nonparametric Statistics , Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York, 2007

    L. Wasserman, All of Nonparametric Statistics , Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Wiehe, M.P

    S.E. Wiehe, M.P. Kwan, J. Wilson, and J.D. Fortenberry, Adolescent health-risk behavior and com- munity disorder, PloS One 8 (2013), p. e77667

    2013

  34. [42]

    Wiehe, A.E

    S.E. Wiehe, A.E. Carroll, G.C. Liu, K.L. Haberkorn, S.C. Hoch, J.S. Wilson, and J.D. Fortenberry, Using gps-enabled cell phones to track the travel patterns of adolescents , International Journal of Health Geographics 7 (2008), pp. 22–22

    2008

  35. [43]

    Zenk, S.A

    S.N. Zenk, S.A. Matthews, A.N. Kraft, and K.K. Jones, How many days of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring do you need to measure activity space environments in health research? , Health & Place 51 (2018), pp. 52–60

    2018

  36. [44]

    Zenk, A.J

    S.N. Zenk, A.J. Schulz, S.A. Matthews, A. Odoms-Young, J. Wilbur, L. Wegrzyn, K. Gibbs, C. Braunschweig, and C. Stokes,Activity space environment and dietary and physical activity behaviors: a pilot study , Health & Place 17 (2011), pp. 1150–1161. * Department of Statistics, U...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.