Table 1.
Inconsistent theoretical orientations of categories in an existing lexicon.
Five examples are drawn from the International Classification of Activities for Time Use Statistics (ICATUS). For each, we indicate the implied theoretical orientation(s).
Table 2.
MOOGAL categories.
Fig 1.
Eight categories of activities are shown schematically in relation to the human-Earth system state variables suggested by [40]. Regions with solid outlines indicate the six state variable classes of the soma (orange), neural structure (dark blue), neural activation (light blue), things (brown), time allocation (grey circle) and remainder of Earth System (green). Dashed outlines indicate relationships of MOOGAL activity categories to state variables. MOOGAL categories can each be associated with one state variable class except maintenance of the inhabited environment, which spans both human-created and natural spaces, and organization, which spans both time allocation and neural structures (via laws and other cultural norms). Note that organization also includes changing the locations of humans, food, materials and artifacts.
Fig 2.
Prioritization of simultaneous outcomes.
Schematic illustration of how simultaneous outcomes can occur, in relation to the prioritization scheme. Simultaneous outcomes are those which co-occur horizontally. For example, many organization outcomes (thin grey bars) could co-occur with deliberate modification activities throughout the day, but are not identified as the motivating outcomes because they are lower priority. Similarly, somatic and neural outcomes are always occurring, but somatic outcomes are only identified when they are the primary deliberate outcome, and neural outcomes are only identified when not co-occurring with one of the tier I or II outcomes. Context, social motivation and wellbeing (left-hand side) are not captured by the MOOGAL, but are examples of dimensions of time use that could be addressed with additional parallel lexicons.
Fig 3.
Sum of time fractions by category.
Each bar shows the sum of all time fractions associated with each category, for each of the three illustrative lexicons. The sum reflects how frequently activities were associated with each MOOGAL category.
Fig 4.
Average time fraction by MOOGAL category.
Each bar shows the average of all time fractions associated with each category, for each of the three illustrative lexicons. Where the average time fraction is 1, only unambiguous, direct associations occurred within the category. Where the value is <1, the association required some subdivision of activities amongst multiple categories. For example, food processing was only unambiguously associated with activities in all three lexicons, whereas infrastructure creation and maintenance was estimated as a subcomponent of at least one activity in both ICATUS and ISIC (and is entirely absent from hunter gatherers, who did not create infrastructure).
Fig 5.
Time use in Canada using the MOOGAL.
Combination of time use and economic activity data. Shaded bars show the total time allocated to each MOOGAL category, while hatched portions indicate the time allocated through the formal economy (work for pay or profit) Thin black lines indicate the 95% confidence range for the total time use in each MOOGAL category.
Fig 6.
Time use in India using the MOOGAL.
As in Fig 5.