Does telework weaken urban structure–travel relationships?

Erik Elldér

doi:10.5198/jtlu.2015.762

PDF

Published

2015-08-20

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

How to Cite

Elldér, E. (2015). Does telework weaken urban structure–travel relationships?. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.762

Does telework weaken urban structure–travel relationships?

Erik Elldér

Human Geography Unit, Department of Economy and Society, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.762

Keywords: Telework, Urban Structure, Daily Travel, ICT

Abstract

This paper investigates whether urban structure influences daily travel behavior differently when people telework in urban contexts. Regression models are applied to address whether and to what extent travel is associated with various measures of urban structure and key destination accessibility relative to the home location in Gothenburg, Sweden. The analysis treats groups of workers defined by teleworking practices. Micro-level data from the Swedish National Travel Survey 2011 capture individual travel behavior, while Swedish register data on the location of all firms and individuals combined with a GIS-based tool that measures travel times by car or public transport capture urban structure. Results indicate that telework weakens the relationship between urban structure and travel. Regression models of travel distance and time as functions of various geographical aspects of residential location display a much better fit for those not teleworking regularly. Telework allows various mobility strategies that together foster more spatially heterogeneous daily travel behavior, more dependent on personal attributes than on the home location relative to the workplace. Planners and policymakers should monitor whether the number of teleworkers continues to increase. If so, traditional distance- and location-based models and policies for predicting and planning transport may prove less accurate and effective than currently assumed.

References

Andreev, P., Salomon, I., and Pliskin, N. 2010. Review: state of teleactivities. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 18(1): 3–20.

Banister, D. 2011. The trilogy of distance, speed and time. Journal of Transport Geography 19(4): 950–959.

Boarnet, M. G. 2011. A broader context for land use and travel behavior, and a research agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association 77(3): 197–213.

Cervero, R. 1989. Jobs–housing balancing and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(2): 136–150.

Cervero, R., and Kockelman, K. 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2(3): 199–219.

Couclelis, H. 2000. From sustainable transportation to sustainable accessibility: can we avoid a new tragedy of the commons? In Information, place and cyberspace, edited by Janelle, D .G., and Hodge, D. C., 341–356. Berlin: Springer.

Elldér, E. 2014a. Commuting choices and residential built environments in Sweden, 1990–2010: a multilevel analysis. Urban Geography 35(5): 715–734.

Elldér, E. 2014b. Residential location and daily travel distances: the influence of trip purpose. Journal of Transport Geography 34: 121–130.

Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. 2001. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transportation Research Record 1780: 87–113.

Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3): 265–294.

Farag, S., and Lyons, G. 2010. Explaining public transport information use when a car is available: attitude theory empirically investigated. Transportation 37(6): 897–913.

Frändberg, L., and Vilhelmson, B. 2014. Spatial, generational and gendered trends and trend-breaks in mobility. In Handbook of Sustainable Travel, edited by Gärling, T., Ettema, D., and Friman, M., 15–32. Dordrecht: Springer.

Haddad, H., Lyons, G., and Chatterjee, K. 2009. An examination of determinants influencing the desire for and frequency of part-day and whole-day homeworking. Journal of Transport Geography 17(2): 124–133.

Helling, A., and Mokhtarian, P. L. 2001. Worker telecommunication and mobility in transition: consequences for planning. Journal of Planning Literature 15(4): 511–525.

Helminen, V., and Ristimäki, M. 2007. Relationships between commuting distance, frequency and telework in Finland. Journal of Transport Geography 15: 331–342.

Hopkinson, P., and James, P. 2003. UK report on national SUSTEL fieldwork. Report no. SUSTEL IST–2001-33228. http://webfarm.userve.net/~flexiworker/pdf/Case%20studies.pdf

Jones, P. M. 1983. Understanding travel behaviour. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Kwan, M.-P. 2002. Time, information technologies, and the geographies of everyday life. Urban Geography 23(5): 471–482.

Kwan, M.-P., Dijst, M., and Schwanen, T. 2007. The interaction between ICT and human activity-travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(2): 121–124.

Kwan, M.-P., and Weber, J. 2003. Individual accessibility revisited: Implications for geographical analysis in the twenty-first century. Geographical Analysis 35(4): 341–353.

Larsson, A., Elldér, E., and Vilhelmson, B. 2014. Accessibility Atlas to analyse regional acessibility to labour in the food sector. In COST Action TU1002 – Assessing Usability of Accessibility Instruments, edited by Brömmelstroet, M., Silva, C., and Bertolini, L., 115–121. Amsterdam: European Cooperation In Science and Technology, COST Office.

Lenz, B., and Nobis, C. 2007. The changing allocation of activities in space and time by the use of ICT—“Fragmentation” as a new concept and empirical results. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(2): 190–204.

Lu, R., Chorus, C. G., and van Wee, B. 2012. The effects of different forms of ICT on accessibility: a behavioural model and numerical examples. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 10(3): 233–254.

Lyons, G. 2009. The reshaping of activities and mobility through new technologies. Journal of Transport Geography 17(2): 81–82.

Miller, H. 2007. Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geography Compass 1(3): 503–535.

Mokhtarian, P. L., and Tal, G. 2013. Impacts of ICT on Travel Behavior: a tapestry of Relationships. In The Sage handbook of transport studies, edited by Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T., and Shaw, J., 241–260. London: SAGE Publications.

Mokhtarian, P. L., Collantes, G. O., and Gertz, C. 2004. Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: evidence from State of California employees. Environment and Planning A 36(10): 1877–1897.

Mokhtarian, P. L., and Varma, K. V. 1998. The trade-off between trips and distance traveled in analyzing the emissions impacts of center-based telecommuting. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 3(6): 419–428.

Næss, P. 2005. Residential location affects travel behavior—but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning 63(2): 167–257.

Næss, P. 2011. New urbanism or metropolitan-level centralization? A comparison of the influences of metropolitan-level and neighborhood-level urban form characteristics on travel behavior. Journal of Transport and Land Use 4(1): 25–44.

Næss, P. 2013. Residential location, transport rationales and daily-life travel behaviour: the case of Hangzhou Metropolitan Area, China. Progress in Planning 79: 1–50.

Pendyala, R., Goulias, K., and Kitamura, R. 1991. Impact of telecommuting on spatial and temporal patterns of household travel. Transportation 18(4): 383–409.

Salomon, I. 1986. Telecommunications and travel relationships: a review. Transportation Research Part A: General 20(3): 223–238.

Saxena, S., and Mokhtarian, P. 1997. The Impact of Telecommuting on the Activity Spaces of Participants. Geographical Analysis 29(2): 124–144.

SCB. 2011. Longitudinell integrationsdatabas för Sjukförsäkrings- och Arbetsmarknadsstudier (LISA) 1990–2009. Stockholm: SCB.

Schwanen, T., Kwan, M. P., and Ren, F. 2008. How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space–time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39(6): 2109–2121.

Stead, D., and Marshall, S. 2001. The relationship between urban form and travel patterns: an international review and evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1(2): 113–141.

Trafikanalys. 2012. Metodrapport RVU Sverige 2011. Report no. PM 2012:8. Stockholm: Trafikanalys.

Van Wee, B., Geurs, K., and Chorus, C. 2013. Information, communication, travel behavior and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use 6(3): 1–16.

Vilhelmson, B., and Thulin, E. 2001. Is regular work at fixed places fading away? The development of ICT-based and travel-based modes of work in Sweden. Environment and planning A 33(6): 1015–1030.

Vilhelmson, B., and Thulin, E. 2008. Virtual mobility, time use, and the place of the home. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 99(5): 602–618.

Vilhelmson, B., and Thulin, E. 2015. Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. Submitted manuscript.

Wener, R., Evans, G., Phillips, D., and Nadler, N. 2003. Running for the 7:45: the effects of public transit improvements on commuter stress. Transportation 30(2): 203–220.