Telecommuting and other trips: an English case study
Introduction
Accessibility is a key concept within transport planning that is applied to quantify the level of time, cost, or distance penalties that permit or limit interactions between people, goods, activities, and opportunities dependent upon the transport systems and networks available (Reggiani et al., 2011). It is also dependent upon the spatial and temporal constraints or flexibilities attached to both individuals and opportunities (Miller, 2005; van Wee et al., 2013). Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) likewise provide access to activities, permit social interactions, and enable the purchase of goods, resulting in choices between travel and online access becoming ever more flexible, and even interchangeable (Lyons, 2015). The increasing access to work and work tasks at home on a regular or occasional basis via telecommuting is a primary example of this flexibility. Work is still an ‘anchor point’ for those in employment, a constraint requiring ‘non-discretionary’ commute trips within a concentrated timescale around which other daily travel is organised (Le Vine et al., 2017; Miller, 2005). Yet when people choose to telecommute regularly despite the presence of an external workplace or places, they are reducing, if not eliminating, the number of such journeys they need to make. This in turn affects the number, distance, and environmental impact of both the remaining commuting journeys and the total trips taken by the individual, household, or local population (Choo et al., 2005; Gubins et al., 2017; Zhu, 2013), and therefore the impact of telecommuting on sustainable mobility (Budnitz, 2018).
The concept of space-time geography helps to explain this phenomena, as telecommuting reduces the spatial and temporal constraints on an individual's availability to undertake activities at different locations within a given timeframe (Hägerstrand, 1970; Miller, 2005; Wang et al., 2018). Telecommuters have more control over where and when they perform work tasks, and, at the very least, the travel time they save on days when they telecommute can be spent working or performing other activities, making them more available to be in various locations during the working day. Indeed, research in China and the United States has concluded that telecommuters tend to make more trips for other purposes and that the demand for non-work activities may influence their choice to telecommute in the first place (Asgari and Jin, 2017; Loo and Wang, 2018; van Wee et al., 2013).
This paper builds on such literature by exploring the behavioural variation in out-of-home activity participation, in this case in England, by measuring and modelling the frequency of trips for different purposes by those who self-identify as regular telecommuters. It also considers the relative importance to travel behaviour patterns of the space-time flexibility enabled by telecommuting compared to other types of work flexibility and socio-demographic characteristics. The empirical analysis uses the National Travel Survey (NTS), which includes both a week's travel diary with records of all trips taken for different purposes during that week, plus an interview component for the same participants that includes a question on how frequently individuals work from home. Previous activity-based studies such as that using household survey data in New York by Asgari and Jin (2017) tend to measure only one or two journey purposes or categorise out-of-home and online activities into ‘mandatory’, ‘maintenance’, and ‘discretionary’. This methodology may enable an understanding of behavioural patterns, but offers little insight into the level of travel demand for different purposes, and thus the implications for accessibility and sustainability, so this study reviews 11 separate journey purposes.
Purpose is considered independently of distance or mode to better understand first whether individuals appear to have trip budgets as well as ‘travel time budgets’ (Mokhtarian and Chen, 2004), and secondly the implications of changing working patterns and distributions of non-work journeys for the provision of sustainable access from residential areas to the various land uses relevant to the 11 journey purposes. This reflection on land use and local amenities is topical in the English context, as recent policy has emphasised housing numbers over other planning matters including accessibility, which has in turn raised concerns about the sustainability of new development and long-term land use patterns (Averley et al., 2016; Transport for New Homes, 2018). Thus, our study aims to contribute to the debate by approaching the growing trend of telecommuting as an opportunity to investigate the relative frequency and importance of non-work journey purposes. This in turn might better inform policies on the integration of land use, transport and online accessibility, which are key determinants of the distance and impact of travel on sustainability.
Section snippets
Telecommuting in context
Telecommuting can be categorised in different ways according to the type of employment: employees, self-employed, full-time, part-time; the definition of where it occurs: home or ‘nearer home’ than the usual workplace; the frequency; and the intensity: full-days, part-days, or overtime (Allen et al., 2015; Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Haddad et al., 2009; Felstead, 2012). However, in transport research, the definition refers to the direct replacement of commute journeys with remote participation,
Materials and methods
The main data source used in this paper is the National Travel Survey: 2002–2016 (NTS), administered annually to approximately 16,000 individuals in 7000 households selected through random sampling of households within postcode sectors that are stratified to acquire a regionally representative sample according to 30 NUTS2 areas and census-based urban/rural classifications (Department for Transport, 2017, National Travel Survey 2016 Technical report). Although the survey has a history which
Results: The odds of other travel
The eight-year dataset analysed here includes a total of 958,167 trips made by 54,048 working individuals from 32,940 households once those who were not relevant to the analysis were excluded due to not being of working age, being unemployed, or identifying ‘home’ as their usual workplace location. Telecommuters who say they work from home once a week or more often make up 8% of the total. Table 1 shows the percentage of telecommuters characterised by the other socio-economic and demographic
Conclusion
Telecommuting in and of itself may not reduce car travel or increase sustainable travel. Although regular telecommuting reduces the number of commuting trips that workers make, the willingness of frequent telecommuters to live further from their place of work and to make more journeys for non-work purposes has led researchers from the USA to the Netherlands to question whether telecommuting practices result in fewer trips or mileage, or more than a marginal reduction in car travel at the
Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant number NE/M009009/1), and the Economic and Social Research Council, as part of the centre for doctoral training on Data, Risk, and Environmental Analytical Methods.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
References (49)
- et al.
Understanding neighbourhood design impact on travel behaviour: an application of structural equations model to a British metropolitan data
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
(2012) The sustainable mobility paradigm
Transp. Policy
(2008)- et al.
Changes to commute mode: The role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude
Transp. Res. Part A
(2016) Rapid change or slow evolution? Changing places of work and their consequences in the UK
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2012)- et al.
An examination of determinants influencing the desire for and frequency of part-day and whole-day homeworking
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2009) - et al.
The interaction between ICT and human activity-travel behavior
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
(2007) - et al.
Using virtual accessibility and physical accessibility as joint predictors of activity-travel behavior
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
(2018) - et al.
Insights on disruptions as opportunities for transport policy change
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.
(2013) - et al.
Is the urbanisation of young adults reducing their driving?
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
(2018) - et al.
TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.
(2004)
Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and practices in telecommuting adoption
Inform. Manage.
Modelling the impact of weather conditions on active transportation travel behavior
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
Measuring temporal variation of location-based accessibility using space-time utility perspective
J. Transp. Geogr.
Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings
Psychol. Sci. Public Interest
Review: state of teleactivities
Transp. Res. Part C
Impacts of telecommuting on nonmandatory activity participation: role of Endogeneity
Transp. Res. Rec.
The Location of Development: Mapping planning permissions for housing in twelve English city-regions
A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work
J. Organ. Behav.
Sustainable mobility
Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel
Using trip chaining and joint travel as mediating variables to explore the relationships among travel behavior, socio-demographics, and urban form
J. Transp. Land Use
Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the US
Transportation
Does home-based telework reduce household total travel? A path analysis using single and two worker British households
J. Transp. Geogr.
Cited by (38)
The travel-related impacts of telecommuting: An active learning-based systematic review
2024, Travel Behaviour and SocietyDoes telecommuting reduce trip-making? Evidence from a U.S. panel during the COVID-19 pandemic
2024, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and PracticeExamining the long-term reduction in commuting emissions from working from home
2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentTelework, travel times, and peak hour avoidance in England: An overview using travel times across five weekdays
2024, Travel Behaviour and SocietyTOD in regional urban growth boundaries (UGBs): A case of transit adjacent development or a strategic housing solution?
2023, Journal of Transport Geography