IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-04-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Have We Learned from a Recent Survey of Teleworkers? Evaluating the 2002 SCAG Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Walls, Margaret

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Safirova, Elena

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the 2002 Telework Survey conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Being a relatively recent and large dataset, the survey captures the current state of telecommuting, covering the entire region with a population of 17 million residents, and is not biased by telecommuting policies of particular employees. The survey also distinguishes telecommuters from home-based business owners and therefore provides a more accurate account of the number of telecommuters. Our analysis focuses on the role of demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, ethnicity, household income, presence of children in the household and household size affect the workers’ propensity to telecommute. We also look into the distribution of telecommuters across industries, occupations, and firms of various sizes and observe how professional experience and job tenure impact telecommuting probability. Finally, we analyze telecommuting frequency and how it effects the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and gather perceptions of employees who currently don’t work at home. In general, the survey confirms the major factors contributing to telecommuting, such as higher educational level and more professional experience, as well as a longer tenure with the company and one’s supervisor. At the same time, the analysis shows that telecommuters are more likely to be male and have smaller households than nontelecommuters. This is surprising given the findings from previous studies. The survey also shows that as many as one-third of telecommuters are working on-site and telecommuting on the same day and therefore eroding VMT reduction from telecommuting. Finally, the data on workers who currently don’t telecommute reveal a disconnect between workers desire and ability to telecommute, since less-educated workers are more enthusiastic about working at home than more educated ones while the latter are more likely to be able to elecommute. This discussion paper is one in a series of four RFF papers on telecommuting published in December 2004. In discussion paper 04-42, Walls and Nelson analyze data from five pilot cities enrolled in the “ecommute” program. In 04-44, Walls and Safirova review the empirical literature on telecommuting with a focus on trip reduction impacts. Finally, in 04-45, Nelson presents an assessment of institutional and regulatory barriers to using telecommuting in a mobile source emissions trading program. The studies by RFF are part of a larger report on the ecommute program completed by the Global Environment and Technology Foundation (GETF) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Suggested Citation

  • Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2004. "What Have We Learned from a Recent Survey of Teleworkers? Evaluating the 2002 SCAG Survey," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-43, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-04-43.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henderson, Dennis K. & Koenig, Brett E. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 1996. "Using Travel Diary Data to Estimate the Emissions Impacts of Transportation Strategies: The Puget Sound Telecommuting Demonstration Project," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0g01v83p, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Palvinder Singh & Rajesh Paleti & Syndney Jenkins & Chandra Bhat, 2013. "On modeling telecommuting behavior: option, choice, and frequency," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 373-396, February.
    2. Croucher, Richard & Rizov, Marian, 2015. "MNEs and flexible working practices in Mauritius," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(21), pages 2701-2717.
    3. Miruna Sarbu, 2015. "Determinants of Work-at-Home Arrangements for German Employees," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(4), pages 444-469, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balepur, Prashant Narayan, 1998. "Impacts of Computer-Mediated Communication on Travel and Communication Patterns: The Davis Community Network Study," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6cb1f85c, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Shafizadeh, K. & Niemeier, D. & Mokhtarian, P. & Salomon, I., 1998. "The Costs And Benefits Of Telecommuting: An Evaluation Of Macro-scale Literature," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt1f01c191, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    3. Essbaumer, Elisabeth, 2022. "Home Office is here to stay? Access to Home Office and Remote Work Potentials across Swiss Industries," Economics Working Paper Series 2213, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    4. Mokhtarian, Patricia & Varma, Krishna, 1998. "The Trade-Off Between Trips and Distance Traveled in Analyzing the Emissions Impacts of Center-Based Telecommuting," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt43b756qg, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    5. Choo, Sangho, 2003. "Aggregate Relationships between Telecommunications and Travel: Structural Equation Modeling of Time Series Data," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4p78h623, University of California Transportation Center.
    6. Patrícia C. Melo, 2022. "Will COVID‐19 hinder or aid the transition to sustainable urban mobility? Spotlight on Portugal's largest urban agglomeration," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S1), pages 80-106, November.
    7. Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2004. "A Review of the Literature on Telecommuting and Its Implications for Vehicle Travel and Emissions," Discussion Papers 10492, Resources for the Future.
    8. Margaret Walls & Peter Nelson & Elena Safirova, 2005. "Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program," ERSA conference papers ersa05p801, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Sangho Choo & Patricia Mokhtarian & Ilan Salomon, 2005. "Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 37-64, January.
    10. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sivakumar, Aruna & Axhausen, Kay W., 2003. "An analysis of the impact of information and communication technologies on non-maintenance shopping activities," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 857-881, December.
    11. Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2002. "Impacts of Home-Based Telecommuting on Vehicle-Miles Traveled: A Nationwide Time Series Analysis," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2gj976x6, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    12. Brown, Austin L. & Sperling, Daniel & Austin, Bernadette & DeShazo, JR & Fulton, Lew & Lipman, Timothy & Murphy, Colin W & Saphores, Jean Daniel & Tal, Gil & Abrams, Carolyn & Chakraborty, Debapriya &, 2021. "Driving California’s Transportation Emissions to Zero," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3np3p2t0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 1998. "A Synthetic Approach to Estimating the Impacts of Telecommuting on Travel," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 215-241, February.
    14. João de Abreu e Silva, 2022. "Residential preferences, telework perceptions, and the intention to telework: insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S1), pages 142-161, November.
    15. Andrew Hook & Victor Court & Benjamin K Sovacool & Steven Sorrell, 2020. "A Systematic Review of the Energy and Climate Impacts of Teleworking," Working Papers hal-03192905, HAL.
    16. Erling Holden & Kristin Linnerud, 2011. "Troublesome Leisure Travel," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(14), pages 3087-3106, November.
    17. Henderson, Dennis & Mohktarian, Patricia, 1996. "Impacts of Center-Based Telecommuting on Travel and Emissions: Analysis of the Puget Sound Demonstration Project," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3tt6d46w, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    18. Melo, Patrícia C. & de Abreu e Silva, João, 2017. "Home telework and household commuting patterns in Great Britain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-24.
    19. Graham-Rowe, Ella & Skippon, Stephen & Gardner, Benjamin & Abraham, Charles, 2011. "Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 401-418, June.
    20. Golob, Thomas F., 2002. "travelbehavior.com - Activity Approaches to Modeling the Effects of Information Technology on Personal Travel Behavior," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9t40s1mc, University of California Transportation Center.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    telecommuting; SCAG survey;

    JEL classification:

    • R4 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.