sustainability
Article
The Breath of the Metropolis: Smart Working and New
Urban Geographies
Fulvio Adobati 1, *
and Andrea Debernardi 2
1
2
*
Centre of Territorial Studies, Department of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Bergamo,
I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
META srl, I-20900 Monza, Italy; andrea.debernardi@metaplanning.it
Correspondence: fulvio.adobati@unibg.it
Abstract: The paper explores the potentialities of telework, a topic with rich literature published
since the 1970s, which has become topical again with its forced application related to the COVID19 pandemic emergency. The paper carries out an analysis of the potential territorial impact—
transport networks and geographies of living—of telework in the Italian national context. The
analysis highlights the potential relevance of the application of telework in certain metropolitan
areas that present urban poles where economic sectors with a high propensity for telework are
centralised. This survey relates the large stock of tourist housing in the vicinity of large metropolitan
areas to a potential demand arising from the change in housing preferences towards more pleasant
contexts made possible by the application of telework. In conclusion, this work aims to contribute
to the construction of a platform for the Italian context—lagging behind but with recent legislative
measures on smart working—aimed at favouring the definition of research lines able to enhance the
potential offered by the application of telework for environmental, social, and territorial sustainability
objectives, and it also aims to outline possible territorial scenarios for the main metropolitan areas
Citation: Adobati, F.; Debernardi, A.
Keywords: smart working; transport system; mobility demand; housing stock; urban geographies;
working from home (WFH)
The Breath of the Metropolis: Smart
Working and New Urban
Geographies. Sustainability 2022, 14,
1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14021028
Academic Editors: Patrizia Tassinari
and Daniele Torreggiani
Received: 28 October 2021
Accepted: 13 January 2022
Published: 17 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
One of the most important effects of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has been a deep
change in travel behaviour. The need for strict interpersonal spacing and the fear of
infection have led to unprecedented levels of adoption of remote online activities, including
smart working [1–8].
Facing this unexpected situation, several authors have argued for a strong change in
social attitudes towards remote jobs, or e-work, in the next years. For instance, Tremblay [9]
notes that periods of crisis often generate radical transformations, suggesting that they
could modify the whole organisation of work at the metropolitan and regional level.
Following this point of view, the forced reaction to pandemic constraints shows that
remote working can be, in many cases, a good organisational solution, generating personal,
economic, and environmental benefits without any loss of job productivity. Such evidence
contributes to weakening a number of traditional resistances, acting in favour of a high
level of remote working even in the post-pandemic condition.
Actually, the theme of smart working is not completely new for planning researchers:
it indeed plunges its roots into the wide interest that arose in telework and telecommuting
in the 1970s and has grown up during the Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) revolution up to the first decades of the twenty-first century. Fifty years of scientific
literature highlight a number of aspects of remote activities, impacting directly or indirectly
on job organisation, human attitudes, mobility demand, and even settling structures. Taken
as a whole, these impacts can generate very complex and tendentially ubiquitous but often
highly selective processes.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14021028
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
2 of 34
This contribution aims to explore the dense network of possible spatial effects produced by the potential consolidation of smart working in Italy, with particular reference to
the main metropolitan areas. In fact, in the main metropolitan regions, due to the number
of activities suitable for telework and the presence of a substantial under-utilised building stock (semi-abandoned villages combined with significant stocks of tourist housing),
located in surrounding areas characterised by high levels of marginality.
The paper opens with a review of the literature devoted to telework (par. 2) and its
potential socio-economic, geographical, and lifestyle implications, with reference to the
experiments and experiences that have been conducted. This is followed by a section
devoted to the methodological approach adopted, aimed at outlining the direct impacts
of the application of telework and the correlative rebound effect (par. 3), and building a
hypothesis for the empirical analysis carried out in the Italian context (par. 4), where, with
the approval of new guidelines by the national government on contractual labour relations
in both the public and private sectors, a consolidation of smart working is underway.
The approach adopted first examines the direct impact on the demand for mobility with
the potential effects on the transport networks, followed by an evaluation of the possible
rebound effects exerted by the opportunities offered by the loosening of the constraints on
residence offered by the adoption of telework, correlating to a dynamic of modification of
settlement preferences with the stock of second homes located in areas peripheral to the
metropolitan polarities.
2. Telework, a Quite Long History (and a Boundless Bibliography)
The term “telecommuting” was coined quite accidentally by Nilles during the energy
crisis of 1973 [10], and in a few years, a focus was opened on the possible trade-off between
telework and commuting [11]. During the 1970s, very optimistic forecasts were made about
the possible diffusion of telework: for example, AT&T predicted that in 1990 all the US
workforce would be working from home [12], and even a decade later, it still predicted that
the share of telecommuters would reach half of the total [13]. Quite similarly, in the early
1980s, the Institute for Future Studies foresaw that 40% of the US employment would be
telecommuting by 2000.
From the very beginning, the concept of telework was strictly connected to the development of ICTs, considered as fundamental tools allowing employees to work remotely from
their office, regardless of whether the remote workplace was home-based or not. Therefore,
already in the 1980s, increasing attention was devoted to the impact of ICTs on travel time
and commuting. Salomon [14–17] explored the relationships between telecommunications
and transport, showing that information exchanges can substitute for physical travels but
also generate the need for new journeys with complementarity effects, the final outcome
being uncertain.
In the two last decades of the twentieth century, the pervasive character of work issues
attracted the attention of many disciplines, such as business economics, work sociology,
town planning, and transport engineering, leading to a wide set of studies about telecommuters and their features [18–22]. This rapidly led to a quite boundless research field, split
into many segments, each corresponding to a single viewpoint on the theme.
A first large-scale pilot project was developed by the State of California, with the PATH
program, which was specifically addressed to public sector employees [23–28]. This project
turned out to be useful for deepening the knowledge of driving processes leading people to
telecommute, but it did not result in clear outcomes about its potential for reducing mobility.
Further studies were carried out during the 1990s from several points of view [29–35], and
in pandemic times it can be interesting to remember a specific deepening concerning the
sudden growth of telework in the day immediately after the earthquake of San Francisco in
1991, and its structural effects on commuters’ behaviour [36].
Nevertheless, none of these researches found any particular evidence of a boom of
remote working. At the turn of the new century, it became clear that the optimistic predictions of the 1970s and 1980s had not come to pass, with empirical evidence indicating the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
3 of 34
existence of strong barriers to telework among both companies and employees. Actually,
companies perceive high costs of implementing remote working programs in terms of organisational change, technological investments, reduced control, and possible productivity
losses, while employees do not necessarily feel that telecommuting is a way to improve
their work–family life balance [37], sometimes fearing a reduction of social interaction. At
the same time, relationships between telework and physical commuting prove to be more
complex than they seem.
As a consequence of this relative disappointment, in more recent years, a paradoxical
situation has come to be, with a stagnant growth rate in remote working experiences and a
general loss of interest in telecommuting as a specific feature appearing just simultaneously
to the fastest development of the ICTs economy, which in turn tends to support a wide
diversification of teleworking tools and practices.
One of the principal effects has been a tendency to widen the study field of remote
working, including new approaches and practices [37]. If, during the last decades of the
twentieth century, the focus was mainly on work performed by employees during paid
hours in a fixed place (home or satellite office) different from the normal worksite and
formally approved by the employer, with minor attention for self-employment, in more
recent years studies encompass other categories, such as overtime teleworkers (homebased work performed outside working hours [38,39]) and mobile (or nomadic) workers,
operating while they are travelling or in other places, using mobile ICT such as portable
computers and mobile phones [34,40–45].
At the same time, the theme became more popular in other countries, with new
studies based on different viewpoints and sensibilities, such as in Australia [13,46–64],
Canada [39,43,65–79], and the UK [80–91].
European researchers approached the theme of what was called eWork mainly on the
basis of a focus on ICT potentials [92–95], with less emphasis on the commuting impacts.
This point of view became quite popular in Nordic countries and Baltic states [34,96–108].
The attention for the potential effects of remote working was even more timely in the
Netherlands [109–125]; it was quite quickly followed by Belgian researchers [126–133].
An original viewpoint, often rooted in social theories, was proposed in France at the
very first time of the debate [37,134–144] and in Switzerland [145,146].
The Spanish and Portuguese experience is more recent, mainly because it mirrors
public efforts to enhance remote working by telecentres [147–152]. On the other hand,
in the last fifteen years, remote working attracted great interest as a way to sustain the
development of small Mediterranean islands, especially in Greece [153–162].
Finally, in the Italian case, researchers have devoted comparatively little attention to
the theme of teleworking, with only a few studies, mainly funded by telecommunications
firms or international entities [44,163–167]. However, these contributions have tended to
highlight juridical or social aspects (e.g., in public employment), with only some focused
on spatial effects of smart work centres and other solutions.
In short, on the eve of the pandemic crisis, teleworking could be regarded as a worldwide research theme in the field of ICTs, repeatedly invoked as a panacea for a wide range
of societal problems, ranging from eternal economic growth to bridging social and cultural
gaps via the internet [118]. According to this approach, many scholars and policymakers
continued regarding it as a viable instrument to solve congestion problems and reduce
the environmental impact of road traffic [102,113,168,169]; to increase workers’ well-being
by reducing travel-related stress, providing a better work environment and improving
work–family life balance [69,170–172]; or to allow companies to save money through lower
real estate costs and productivity gains [173]. On these bases, remote working schemes were
continuously included in periodic promotional campaigns promising its imminent “take
off”, which were in turn reinforced by advances in remote communications technology and
increasing environmental constraints [37].
Nevertheless, while nomadic work and overtime home-based telework were increasing [174], concrete remote working experiences in the original meaning remained relatively
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
4 of 34
limited. Telework seemed to be structurally caught in a low-equilibrium trap [37], and its
diffusion had become something like a never-ending promise, its future always just around
the next corner [175].
In this context, the arguments repeatedly used to glorify the improbable future of
telecommuting seemed no longer convincing [37], unless to hypothesise an external shock,
such as, indeed, a major epidemic [86].
At the same time, it is surprising that half a century of research has led to quite small
results, with few advancements from a theoretical point of view, with the consequence
that the boom of remote working induced by the COVID-19 crisis paradoxically catches
scholars and policymakers in a condition of only partial readiness in understanding and
managing a suggestive phenomenon, which is much more complex than it seems [6].
3. Teleworking Potential and Its Effects: Towards a Study Hypothesis for Italy
Despite of their long-term history, telework and telecommuting seem not to have a
common definition [37,120,174] yet. Initially (from the 1970s to the 1990s), telework was
fundamentally intended as home-based work, performed by workers during paid hours,
without any reference to ICTs: from this perspective, it was considered a synonym of
telecommuting. Later, the concept was extended to include any work performed outside
the official workplace, be it a place different from home or even a means of transport
(mobile or “nomadic” work), and the linkage with ICT was increasingly underlined.
Some of the most popular definitions of teleworking or telecommuting are reported
below:
using telecommunications technology to work from home, or at a location close to
home, during regular work hours, instead of commuting to a conventional workplace
at a conventional time [176];
work carried out using ICT at a place other than that where the results of the work
are needed (European Commission);
work conducted from a location other than the conventional worksite whilst connected
to the firm’s computer systems by means of information and telecommunications
technology (ICT) [37].
These definitions cover a wide set of different situations, in terms of location, intensity
in time, contractual arrangement, used technology, and so on [120,177–180].
They include, for instance, home-based and telecentres-based remote workers, as well
as mobile teleworkers, without any reference to the duration and frequency of working
out of the office: therefore, working at home a day per week, in the evening, or during the
weekends is now commonly considered teleworking.
Regarding workplaces, in 2003, the Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society (SIBIS), established by the European Commission, defined four different types
of telework: telework from home, mobile telework, freelance telework in SOHOs (small
office/home office), and telework done in shared facilities outside of organisations and
home [1]. However, many definitions of remote working do not include self-employed
work at home (artists, writers), but only workers who occasionally work at home, whether
that is on a regular or formal basis or not.
Mokhtarian [176] suggested a clear distinction between home-based and non-homebased telework; where the first category included already several cases:
X
X
X
X
running a home-based business as one’s only job;
running a secondary home-based business, in addition to holding another job;
bringing overtime work home after a full day at the office;
working at home rather than in the office.
On the other hand, non-home-based remote work was related to even more numerous
situations:
X
X
working from a satellite centre closer to home than the primary office;
managing a branch office;
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
5 of 34
X
X
performing some field activities outside the office;
working while travelling.
Moreover, she pointed out a further form of remote work: long-distance commuting,
which can be either home-based or non-home-based.
Frequency of teleworking is another key issue for its definition and typology. Actually,
already Nilles [10] noted that “ . . . most home-based telecommuting is (and is likely
to be) part-time . . . ”; and a continuous gradient can be established from few workers
acting entirely from home to a wider set of people occasionally working outside their
workplace [181]. A clear boundary between these categories is generally difficult to draw,
because teleworking is often directly connected to flexibility in working time [145,182], and
it is frequently developed on an informal basis [127,183], making measurement difficult
even within organisations in which it is practised [181].
The International Labour Organization (ILO) suggest a classification based on three
main types of telework, highly related to the use of ICT (see Table 1).
Table 1. Types of telework.
Modality
Use of Technology
Location
Always or almost all the time
From home at least several
times a month and in other
locations less often than
several times a month
High mobile telework
Always or almost all the time
At least several times a week
in at least two locations other
than the employer’s premises
or working daily in at least
one other location
Occasional telework
Always or almost all the time
Less frequently and/or fewer
locations than high T/ICTM
Regular home-based telework
Source: Eurofound-ILO [184].
This typology tends to assume a correlation between workplace and frequency of
teleworking, which seems not to be confirmed in real experiences. A different solution,
proposed by Ravalet et al. [146], can be developed simply by crossing the location (homebased, other fixed (satellite centres, telecottages, etc.), mobile) and the frequency (regular,
occasional, overtime, etc.), in order to obtain six main categories (see Table 2).
Table 2. Types of telework.
Frequency
Location
Total
Partial
Home-based telework (HBT)
Satellite centre telework (SCT)
Nomadic/mobile telework (NMT)
H
S
N
H’
S’
N’
Source: Ravalet et al. [146].
These definitions can be used to develop some more specific study hypotheses about
the future prospects of telework in the Italian case, and their effects on the urban and natural
environment. From a theoretical viewpoint, it is possible to identify three different steps:
(A) assessing the teleworking potential, i.e., the possible number of workers which could
adopt remote working in a “normal” (not pandemic) situation;
(B) estimating the direct effect of telecommuting increase, in terms of reduced car mileages
and air pollution;
(C) identifying possible indirect effects, linked to possible rebound situations on the
location of work/residential activities.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
6 of 34
Each of these levels has been widely discussed by the scientific literature at an international level, driving to some general results that can be assumed as study hypothesis on
the less-known Italian case.
3.1. Teleworking Potential
Regardless of these classifications, the diffusion of remote working is highly dependent
on its acceptability in terms of economic, organisational, and individual impacts.
Mokhtarian and Salomon [185] propose a framework of constraint and incentives
for the adoption of telework from the worker’s perspective. Constraints and disincentives include awareness about the possibility of telework and organisational rigidity, such
as work monitoring or job characteristics. Personal disincentives include doubt about
discipline in working productively at home, the perception of some utility in commuting [186,187], the willingness to interact with other workers and to be physically noticed,
the desire to avoid risks for their career opportunities, and the lack of additional space at
home. On the other hand, incentives include higher productivity with less disturbance
from colleagues, time flexibility, the possibility of better combination between work and
family/personal activities, reduction of commuting costs, and finally, ideological reasons
supporting environmental sustainability (see Table 3).
Table 3. Factors influencing the decision to telework.
Employers
X
X
X
Incentives
X
X
X
X
X
Disincentives
X
X
X
Higher productivity during
hours worked
Reduced absenteeism
Possibility of more hours
worked per day where travel
time is replaced by work time
Improving of quality of work
(reduced stress)
Reduced number of
workspaces (“hot desking”)
with savings in office rentals
and running costs
Widening of recruiting area
for staff
Weakening of control over
quality of work and reduced
chance to control employees
Need for organisational
changes, especially for the
management of the
psycho-social distance from
the work environment
Loss of benefits of interactions
between workers
Risks for data security
Teleworking can be seen as
“counter-cultural” to the ethos
of organisation, as a result of
reducing face-to-face contact
and accessibility of staff to
management
Workers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Work-related (no
disturbances)
Family-related (more flexible,
more time with family)
Better work–life balance
(particularly for women)
Leisure-related (more time for
self)
Travel-related (no commuting
costs)
Ideological (saving energy,
sustainability)
Lack of discipline
Utility from commuting
Psychosocial factors (sense of
isolation)
Risk that work ends up
invading family life
Risk constraints
Cost constraints
Additional costs in lighting
and heating of the home and
provision of work space.
Sources: [9,32,37,67–69,72,73,76,99,118,170,171,181,185,188–206].
The adoption of teleworking can be analysed on the basis of the theoretical framework
proposed by Baruch and Nicholson [190], which is based on a semi-structured survey of
62 subjects in five UK organisations, both public and private. Following this framework,
the adoption of smart working is influenced by four principal factors (see Figure 1), related
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
7 of 34
to the job nature, to the organisational constraints, to the family/home situation, and
to individual attitudes. Telework becomes feasible and effective only if all factors are
fulfilled [1].
INDIVIDUAL:
personality;
situation
JOB:
nature;
technology
ORGANIZATION:
strategy;
culture
HOME &
FAMILY
Figure 1. Main factors for telework adoption. Source: Baruch and Nicholson [190].
The internet-based survey developed by White et al. [86] on the staff of the UK
Department for Transport found that barriers to the adoption of teleworking were linked
mainly to the need of contact with colleagues, the inadequacy of IT facilities, and the lack
of encouragement by the management. On the contrary, the strongest motivations for
teleworking were the increase in productivity and/or quality of work, greater flexibility,
more free time, reduced congestion, and transport costs. Aguilera et al. [37] argue that the
biggest barriers to smart working are social, including a change in management practices
and the need to review work organisation, as well as the expectation of productivity losses
(which are often overestimated). Hynes and Rau [207] underline that remote working is
often marginalised by businesses, especially when appropriate regulation and guidelines
are lacking.
In their study about the Swiss situation, Ravalet et al. [146] highlight that the propensity to telework is higher for workers in small firms with high levels of responsibility
and/or time flexibility in their job. They explain these results with the importance of
personal trust and responsibility in remote working. This result is confirmed by many
other studies [37,95,120,174,208] Consequently, smart working is often a matter of informal
and highly individualised agreements, and its adoption rate is strongly variable between
economic sectors and activities.
Social factors affecting telework choice in the ESA are specifically analysed by Walls
et al. [209] and Sener and Bhat [210], who highlight significant correlations with individual
and family indicators, such as age, gender, education, and the presence of children in the
household. Some other studies find that women especially are inclined to telework [211].
At the same time, the importance of cultural factors should be not neglected. Comparing two locations of the same ICT multinational company in France and the Netherlands,
Peters et al. [212,213] and Peters and Batenburg [214] shows how telework adoption among
line managers can be affected by cultural factors: in the Dutch context, remote working
was seen as a fully acceptable practice, whereas in France the assessment of power distance
and uncertainty avoidance contributed to weakening it.
Nevertheless, the technological dimension also plays a role, for example, in terms of
the availability of proper internet connections. For example, Halford [215] find that 80% of
teleworkers use computers and telephones in their work.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
8 of 34
Last but not least, the likelihood of adopting teleworking highly depends on the
nature of jobs and their economic sector: in particular, a number of different jobs, needing
face-to-face interaction (for example, medical treatment, hotels, catering, teaching), are
clearly excluded from the possibility of remote working [86,181].
Following these elements, teleworking is the result of a very selective process, and
the “Archetypical Teleworker” [118] typically belongs to very specific job categories, with
a high level of flexibility and responsibility and good computer access. Fu et al. [216]
point out that teleworkers are more likely to be higher professional workers, and many
other scholars show that telecommuters are older, wealthier, and better educated than
non-telecommuters [90,217,218].
Studies on the French and German situation [219] are even more sceptical, pointing
out that remote working tends to represent a limited practice, essentially adopted by a few
intellectual professions characterised by a considerable amount of job autonomy.
Analysing a sample of the 6th European Working Conditions Survey (more than
20.000 workers), López-Igual and Rodríguez-Modroño [220] confirm that remote workers
are mainly high-skilled men living in urban areas. Nevertheless, their study underlines
a growing heterogeneity, with a relevant percentage of technicians and clerical support
workers, as well as of women (especially on home-based telework); following this evidence,
remote working seems recently to spread into more precarious, temporary, and lower-paid
jobs, even in outer areas.
Both Vilhelmson and Thulin [34] and De Graaff and Rietveld [119] show that individual propensity to telework is strongly correlated to income and computer access, while
other factors seem to play a less important role. The importance of income can be explained
by two concurring elements:
•
•
teleworking is more likely to occur in those jobs that require high schooling levels,
which typically coincide with higher wage rates;
high-wage earners are more likely to substitute commuting with leisure time.
The selective nature of these factors explains why remote workers are usually found
in high-paid high-tech jobs, more frequent in thick labour markets [37,118,190,221], such as
cities or metropolitan areas, while they are less common in rural areas, as it was hypothesised in the first period of development of this concept [222].
A further factor influencing the propensity to telework is commuting distance.
Peters et al. [113] show that Dutch teleworkers have longer commutes on average, while Lister and Harnish [223] highlight that in the USA, telework is more extended in the cities with
the worst congestion or longest commuter distances. Many other studies [28,102,113,224]
find a relation between the home–work distance/travel time and telework practices, which
seems to become stronger after a threshold of around 30 minutes [113]. Moreover, hometo-work distance seems to influence not only the likelihood to telecommute but also the
telecommuting frequency [225–230].
On these bases, it is possible to argue that remote working has a high level of professional and spatial selectivity: it is more frequent in larger companies, where it is often
limited to specific professional categories [28,37,49,102,113,190], and in the case of longer
home-to-work travel, which occurs mainly in major cities.
The correlation between the propensity to telework and the dimensions of the metropolitan area is confirmed by several studies. Already, White et al. [181] show that in 2002-04, the
proportions of teleworkers for Greater London and the South East were slightly higher than
in the other parts of the UK. On the other hand, referring to the French situation, Aguilera
et al. [37] find that Parisians are significantly over-represented within the population of
French teleworkers: in the very municipality of Paris, their proportion reaches 18%, which
is more than double the national average. This result mirrors the concentration of highly
skilled professionals combined with bad mobility conditions in the Ile-de-France region
(where the share of inhabitants spending over 2 hours travelling per day reaches 22%,
against 12% elsewhere in France).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
9 of 34
The variety of situations covered by different definitions of telework, as well as the
poor measurement of remote working practices, explains the gap between the figures
reported by various surveys focused on its diffusion [37,231,232]. However, before the
pandemic, these surveys generally returned a low incidence of (full-time) teleworkers,
which only rarely exceeded 2 or 3% [119,233].
Empirical evidence of the level of adoption of telework in several European countries
has been found by Brewster et al. [234] using the 1995 Cranet-E survey, which was directed
to the most senior human resource managers of organisations with more than 200 employees. The largest proportion of teleworkers was reached in Sweden, where nearly half of the
employees experienced teleworking, although only 5% for more than 10% of work time.
High levels of adoption were also found in other Nordic countries such as the Netherlands
and Switzerland (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Estimated teleworking in and of total labour force. Source: JRC [235].
Another survey, conducted a few years later directly by the European Commission [236], confirmed that telework is more adopted in the Scandinavian countries, the
Netherlands, and Switzerland. The United Kingdom and Germany were still above the
European average, while France, Spain, and Italy had the lowest proportion. According
to this survey, around 4% of the European labour force are regular teleworkers, while 2%
occasionally work at home [118]. These differences could probably be explained by both the
internal and the external constraints, such as psychosocial factors limiting the propensity
to telecommute and the differences in organisational culture among European countries,
respectively.
Further surveys and analyses found slightly greater figures; they highlighted that
when also considering partial teleworkers (<30% of working time), the incidence in the
total workforce tends at least to double (see Table 4).
Nevertheless, considering the few cases in which a comparison of different years
is possible, a slight increasing trend appears, especially among regular teleworkers. It
can therefore be argued that, before the pandemic crisis, considerable scope existed for
further extension of remote working [181], which was nevertheless counterbalanced by
several constraints.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
10 of 34
Table 4. Incidence of regular and total teleworkers in the total workforce in various countries and
pre-COVID years.
Incidence of Telework
Country
Year
USA
Regular
Total
Source
2002
2005
2010?
5%
17%
24%
Todd [237]
Todd [237]
Noonan and Glass [174]
Canada
2019
15%
Tremblay [9]
Australia
2006
6%
Shieh and Searle [180]
Sweden
1999
4.8%
UK
2002
2008–09
3.1%
5%
Eire (Rep. of
Ireland)
2019
Netherlands
1995
2000
2002
2005
France
2008
Switzerland
2000
2010
2015
Spain
Italy
Vilhelmson and Thulin [34]
7.5%
11%
White et al. [86], Aguilera et al. [37]
White et al. [86]
14%
Redmond and McGuinness [238],
Crowley et al. [3]
2.3%
6%
9%
21%
Willigenburg and Van Osch [239]
Willigenburg and Van Osch [239]
Todd [237]
Todd [237]
6.8%
Aguilera et al. [37]
4.5%
4.3%
8.8%
10%
16.6%
19.3%
ECaTT [236]
Ravalet et al. [146]
Ravalet et al. [146]
2018
4%
7.4%
Belzunegui-Eraso and Erro-Garcés
[1]
2020
3%
7.4%
De Masi [240]
The pandemic crisis completely changed these trends, with a sudden increase in the
incidence of teleworkers to around 40% in Canada [9] and to similar figures in Italy, where
the number of remote workers passed from 570,000 to 8 million [240].
3.2. Direct Effects of Telecommuting
One of the most frequently invoked benefits of remote working is the reduction of
road traffic and its correlated environmental impacts. The idea that working from home
can be a way to cope with road congestion and/or energy consumption, greenhouse gas
emissions, and air pollution generated by physical commuting has been debated since
the 1990s [77,241–243]. It is well-represented in many urban transport plans or air quality
programs throughout the world.
This viewpoint finds many empirical confirmations. A number of different researches
have focused on the potential of telecommuting to reduce vehicle kilometres and their
impacts in order to reduce energy consumption and air pollution [27,78,81,109,181,243–256],
as well as travel time, which is a social benefit in itself. US studies state car mileage
decreases between 48% and 77% on teleworking days, with a weekly decrease between
9% and 11% when traditional working days are included [27,244,245]. The SUSTEL study
found an average reduction in commuting distance of 98 km/week for telecommuters.
In Switzerland, Ravalet et al. [146] find that travelled distances in telecommuting days
(54 km) are shorter than in normal working days (66 km); this also implies a reduction
in travel times (from 119 to 98 minutes). Lachapelle et al. [77] found that, in Canada,
working only from home for one day/week does reduce overall travel by 13 minutes. A
recent study on remote working in Sweden finds that telecommuting trips are fewer and
shorter, and that teleworkers use active transport modes (biking or walking) more often
than non-telecommuters with lower car dependence [257].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
11 of 34
The total amount of mileage reduction due to telecommuting also depends on the
average travelled distance, which tends to be greater for teleworkers than non-teleworkers.
Ravalet et al. [146] show that in Switzerland, the house–workplace distance is 32.3 km for
teleworkers and 25.4 km for non-teleworkers. Another study of the same authors, developed
on the basis of the Swiss Mobility and Transport Microcensus, finds that telecommuting
involves longer commute lengths than normal jobs and also that this difference is increasing
over time [258]. Quite similarly, Van Ham et al. [259] highlight that Dutch teleworkers
increase their commute length by 12 percent on average. All conditions being equal, the difference in travelled distance means that the mileage reduction generated by telecommuting
is more than proportional to the variation in the number of home–work travels.
Moreover, scholars have often underlined that telecommuting tends to act mainly
on rush hour, with amplified benefits: fewer peak hour commute trips generally result
in a reduction in congestion, smoother flows, and fewer emissions for a travelled kilometre [81,181]. Hamer et al. [109] highlight that telecommuters reduce the number of daily
trips by 17% and the distance travelled by 16% as an average, and also that in peak hours,
these variations are greater (19% and 26% respectively), with a maximum of −34% for car
users. Studies in the US show that full-day remote workers travel less on telecommuting days, while part-day remote workers only decrease the number of trips during rush
hours [260].
Nevertheless, it is clear that the potential energy and emissions savings through
telecommuting greatly depends on the commute modal split [219]. White et al. [181] point
out that in the case of public transport, resource savings are only made when a change to
the pattern of timetabled service occurs, at least in terms of reduction of peak capacity (such
as train length). In this case, telecommuting can result in more of a change of the public
transport market than in environmental benefits. Nevertheless, indirect social benefits
can appear, such as reduced crowding on existing services and/or the possibility to meet
currently frustrated demand.
The impact paths of telecommuting are even more complex in the case of telecentres.
Already, Mokhtarian [176] shows that working from a local or a neighbourhood work
centre can reduce physical commuting while avoiding the faults of home working (e.g.,
isolation, lack of focus). Anyway, the estimate of the potential for reducing kilometres
became more complex, partly because of possible changes in mode choice [31,244,261,262].
Studying the case of Stockholm, Bieser et al. [263] highlight that average travel time is
significantly shorter on days when commuter worked from a telecentre instead of the main
office, but they find no evidence that working from the telecentre induces a major shift to
more energy-intensive transport modes.
3.3. Rebound Effects
The analysis of the rebound effect attributable to the spread and consolidation of telework quotas is obviously connected to the dynamics and elements of evaluation outlined
above, which consider the changes induced on the behaviour and habits of mobility and
their consequences in terms of energy consumption and environmental externalities. The
considerations developed here draw on the studies and analyses carried out in the various
international contexts of experimentation concerning telework and direct the considerations about the territorial effects determined by the structural introduction of telework to
the Italian national context. It should be noted that the characterisation of the settlement
structure is very regionalised, with metropolitan areas intermingled with internal areas.
A second type of rebound effect relates to the loosening that telework determines of
the constraint of residency. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis has imprinted a modification
of the system of preferences, both in terms of the configuration of the spaces of one’s
own home (seeking adequate spaces for work and breathing space, such as gardens and
balconies) and in terms of a tendency to reconsider housing options that are less close to
urban/metropolitan centres but with a better offer of landscape—environmental potential
effects. It should be considered that a typical repositioning of one’s own home draws
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
12 of 34
wider functional geographies and tends to be more articulated: from the metropolitan area,
one turns to more pleasant contexts, with a greater presence of greenery and parks, and
therefore tends to be in low-density areas, a condition of urban diffusion that determines
wider travel radii for access to the system of services.
3.3.1. Rebound Effect: Behavioural Changes and Effects on Mobility Demand
The first important rebound effect to highlight is the change in behaviours of teleworkers: teleworking reduces spatial and temporal constraints on individuals’ willingness to
engage in activities in different locations within a given time frame.
Although increased teleworking can generate direct and immediate environmental
benefits, as evidenced by the COVID-19 crisis [264] (74–77), in the long run, the “rebound
effects” associated with increased non-work-related travel, farther residential relocation,
car dependence, and different consumption patterns for teleworkers can reverse all benefits [221,265–267].
Many researchers have found that reducing the frequency of commuting movements
does not necessarily imply a reduction in miles travelled [217,224,267,268]. At the same
time, several studies document mobility behaviour based on more or less constant temporal
availability [269,270]: individuals thus appear to be oriented toward establishing a “travel
time budget” [271].
Another potential rebound effect of telecommuting is that it may stimulate more nonwork trips. In this case, the reduced demand for mobility due to reduced daily commuting
is partially or fully offset by additional travel for other purposes. This is sometimes referred
to as a “complementary” effect of telework [272,273]. More recently, Silva and Melo [90]
show that UK teleworkers reduce the number of commuting trips but not the overall
weekly travelled distances, and that they tend to increase miles travelled by car. This result
seems to be confirmed by Ravalet and Rérat [258], whose study highlights that, in the
Swiss case, non-work travels on telecommuting days partially compensate for the absence
of commute movements, resulting in distances travelled per week longer than those of
non-telecommuters.
The adoption of telecommuting correlates with less proximity between workplaces
and residence, which risks generating spatial dispersion with more car trips for other
reasons, creating increased car dependence. A fairly clear link has been established between
increased online access to work and reduced proximity between places of residence and
work; teleworkers increase their search space for a residence and move farther away,
causing greater commuting distance on non-telework days [111,118,274], and increased
distance may at least partially offset the reduction in the number of commuting trips.
However, it seems clear that in some cases, the increased adoption of part-time teleworking could increase weekly, monthly, or annual commuting travel. More generally,
the environmental benefits of telecommuting will depend not only on the frequency of
telecommuting, but also on the distance travelled by telecommuters from home to their
place of work [77].
Moreover, evidence from both the United States and Europe highlights that teleworking can induce long-term changes in residential location, and that this effect can offset some
of the environmental benefits [225–227,267,275]. The size of this rebound effect may change
depending on local factors, such as the r differential between urban and peri-urban regions
in real estate prices and the generalized cost of commuting. Nevertheless, Collantes and
Mokhtarian [228] underline that the possibility to telecommute contributes to the decision
to relocate only for a small share of teleworkers, but also that those workers relocated
significantly farther away from their workplace. Muhammad et al. [123] show that, in
the Netherlands, telecommuting has enabled people to commute longer distances, and
Hergheth [230] found that in the German case, telecommuting after a move or a job change
highly increases travel distance and time.
Greater spatial dispersion of workers, when traced to housing preferences for larger
dwellings in greener settings, results in a spread to more suburban areas that are likely to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
13 of 34
be more car-dependent [90,218,276], short of areas located along regional transportation
power lines (particularly rail lines).
According to Tremblay [9], the coming years will certainly see an increase in telecommuting, which could lead to a relocation to the suburbs and small towns of the regions.
We will then have to consider the trade-off between the positive effects of devolution
(reduced pollution from cars and reduced need for infrastructures such as roads and public
transport) and the negative effects (increased need for digital infrastructure and increased
greenhouse gas emissions associated with so-called “digital pollution”). Spatial reorganisation related to the increase in teleworkers could then be structured around telework
centres [9]. Once the measures related to the COVID-19 epidemic have been overcome, it
is indeed conceivable that people who choose to move to areas more distant from their
employer’s offices will tend to prefer a “neighborhood” coworking space in order to avoid
working in isolation at home and to take advantage of the professional networks, computer
facilities, meeting rooms, or other facilities that coworking spaces can offer.
A perspective on possible scenarios generated by the COVID-19 emergency is suggested by Spadaro and Pirlone [277]. These authors outline four possible scenarios: (i)
Return of the urban mobility system to the pre-coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID) situation;
(ii) Prevalence of demand for private mobility (use of the car); (iii) Reduction in the demand
for mobility; (iv) Achievement of integrated multimodal mobility. The four scenarios consider the different options between return to pre-pandemic conditions, increase or decrease
in demand for mobility, and possible modal split of transport (related to fragility and fears
matured for collective transport).
3.3.2. Rebound Effect: The Transformation of Inhabitants’ Settlement Preferences and
Spatial Effects
Cities are facing major structural challenges, as many are wondering if they will still
be as attractive as before, with telework being more widely used and rural areas proving
more resilient in cases of similar crises. The redesigning of public spaces, the “15-minutes
city” concept, and better-coordinated governance seem to be necessary responses in order
to maintain cities’ competitiveness and attractiveness [278] (p. 36).
The COVID-19 pandemic crisis and the resulting socio-spatial practices trigger forced
rethinking of spatial planning approaches. The serious risk of the coronavirus, no doubt,
challenges at least some existing conventions and ignites the rethinking of future urban
forms [279]. This process presents an opportunity for planners and urbanists to question some of their fundamental social and spatial assumptions, thus participating in the
development of a new socio-spatial order.
Certainly, the debate around the changes triggered by the pandemic crisis brings to
mind the search for historical balances and reference models, such as the Garden City
proposed by Ebenezer Howard, aimed at achieving “a healthy, natural, and economical
combination of city and country life”. Sturzaker [280] reminds us that in the British
case, there is very little “country life” in the converted office blocks and newly built
apartments that are being constructed in British cities. On the other hand, it is worth
remembering, again with reference to the fragility of territorial organisation, how research
has documented how contagion has been more relevant precisely in low-density peri-urban
realities [281,282].
Confidence in the possibility of rethinking the form and organisation of cities finds
conflicting opinions; some argue that there has never been an effect of a pandemic that
caused rethinking the forms of the city in history nor now a macro-change in metropolitan
geographies, limiting the estimate of the effects of the pandemic crisis to a simple, albeit
important, acceleration. Within the same reflection, however, Florida recognises remote
work as the main “pull force” in the transformation of cities in the coming years, both
in settlement geographies, with the possibility of choosing to move away from urban
centres for a portion of the population, and in the potential trade-off between the demand
for housing more suitable to host work activities and the reduced need for office space
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
14 of 34
for companies; however, on the other hand, it sustains the presence of “push factors”, in
particular those linked to the preferences of the young population for urban realities full of
life, relationships, and opportunities.
4. Teleworking Potential and Its Effects in Italy: A First-Level Assessment
Scientific literature provides a wide set of elements related to the propensity for
teleworking and its potential in terms or reduced mileages and air pollution impacts, as
well as the possible rebound effects reducing this potential in the medium or long term.
This study aims to develop a first-level assessment of these main results in the case
of Italy, which has been probably not so interested in telecommuting in the past, with
quite poor interest for the theme and therefore a lack of reliable results about its diffusion
and potential.
The rationale of the assessment is based on the three logical levels presented above,
namely (A) the telework potential in different parts of the country, (B) its effect in terms of
mileage and pollution, and (C) the possible indirect effects leading to structural change in
the urban settlements.
More specifically, this first-level assessment of possible effects of teleworking in Italy
aims to verify three basic hypothesis:
(A) telework potential tends to be higher in metropolitan areas, where white-collar employment is more oriented to new technologies;
(B) therefore, direct effects on commuter mobility are mainly located in catchment areas
of bigger cities;
(C) on the other hand, rebound effects are linked also to the distribution of holiday
homes, which is highly selective throughout the country; this condition alternatively
strengthens or weakens secondary effects at regional level around main cities. The
methodology and the results of the study are explained below.
4.1. Teleworking Potential
The first goal of this study is to begin the development of a statistically reliable framework of teleworking (TW) propensity in the whole of Italy. This can be done by assigning a
specific level of TW propensity to each economic sector (following ATECO/NACE classification): “very high” for technical, ICT, and publishing activities, “high” for other technical
services, “medium” for industrial activities, and “low” for other services not involving
individual/personal care or direct interactions, such as education, health, or tourism (see
Table 5).
This classification allows for a first estimate of employments belonging to activities
with different levels of TW propensity, on the basis of the last census (2011) and its update
by ASIA archives (see Table 6):
•
•
•
•
very high propensity is limited to nearly 3% of the total private workforce (half a
million people), with an increasing trend from 2011 to 2017;
high propensity involves 14% of the total private workforce (nearly 2,5 million people)
in a context of stability;
medium propensity incidence is reducing from 25% to 23% (around 4 million people),
mainly because of industrial crisis and restructuring, which is lowering employments
in many parts of the country;
low propensity appears to be a little bit more marginal (12% of total workforce, more
or less 2 million people) and stable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
15 of 34
Table 5. Telework propensity by economic activity.
Class
TW Propensity
Economic Activities (NACE rev.2)
Very high
58 Publishing activities; 62 Computer programming,
consultancy, and related activities; 63 Information
service activities; 73.2 Market research and public
opinion polling; 74.3 Translation and interpretation
activities; 82.2 Activities of call centres
3
High
41.1 Development of building projects;
46.1 Wholesale on a fee or contract basis; 59.1
Motion picture, video, and television programme
activities; 59.2 Sound recording and music
publishing activities; 60 Programming and
broadcasting activities; 61 Telecommunications;
64 Financial service activities, except insurance and
pension funding; 65 Insurance, reinsurance, and
pension funding; 66 Activities auxiliary to financial
services and insurance activities; 69 Legal and
accounting services; 70 Activities of head offices,
management consultancy activities;
71.1 Architectural and engineering activities and
related technical consultancy; 73.1 Advertising;
74.1 Specialized design activities; 74.2 Photographic
activities; 74.9 Other professional, scientific, and
technical activities n.e.c.; 82.1 Office administrative
and support activities; 82.3 Organisation of
conventions and trade shows; 82.9 Business support
service activities n.e.c.; 84 Public administration and
defence, compulsory social security;
85.5 Other education
2
Medium
All manufacturing activities (from 05 to 39)
Low
01.6 Support activities to agriculture; 02.4 Support
services to forestry; 45.1 Sale of motor vehicles;
45.3 Sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories;
45.4 Sale, maintenance, and repair of motorcycles
and related parts and accessories; 46.2 Wholesale of
agricultural raw materials and live animals;
46.3 Wholesale of food, beverages, and tobacco;
46.4 Wholesale of household goods; 46.5 Wholesale
of information and communication equipment;
46.6 Wholesale of other machinery, equipment, and
supplies; 46.7 Other specialised wholesale;
46.9 Non-specialised wholesale trade; 47.4 Retail sale
of information and communication equipment in
specialised stores; 47.6 Retail sale of cultural and
recreation goods in specialised stores; 68 Real estate
activities; 71.2 Technical testing and analysis;
72 Scientific research and development; 77 Rental
and leasing activities; 78 Employment activities;
79 Travel agency, tour operator, and other
reservation service and related activities;
80.2 Security systems service activities;
80.3 Investigation activities; 81.1 Combined facilities
support activities; 85.4 Higher education;
90.0 Creative, arts, and entertainment activities;
92.0 Gambling and betting activities;
93.2 Amusement and recreation activities
4
1
Elaboration on ISTAT data.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
16 of 34
Table 6. Employments by telework propensity—Whole of Italy (private sector).
TW Propensity
2011
Employments
%
2017
Employments
%
Variation 2011–17
Employments
%
very high
high
medium
low
456,234
2,371,428
4,171,903
1,986,209
2.8%
14.4%
25.4%
12.1%
512,166
2,451,490
3,981,929
2,170,010
3.0%
14.4%
23.3%
12.7%
+55,932
+80,062
-189,974
+183,801
+0.2%
−0.1%
−2.1%
+0.6%
Total
8,985,774
54.7%
9,115,595
53.4%
+129,821
−1.3%
no propensity
7,435,766
45.3%
7,943,819
46.6%
+508,053
+1.3%
Total workforce
16,421,540
100.0%
17,059,414
100.0%
+637,874
+0.0%
Elaboration on ISTAT data.
However, it is worthwhile to point out that economic sectors with no propensity to
telework employ a growing workforce, mainly as a result of the increase in personal care
jobs. The consequence is that no particular “drag effect” seems to appear in the Italian job
market fostering telecommuting.
A first-approximation assessment of TW potential can subsequently be obtained comparing TW propensity with origin–destination (OD) matrix of Home-to-Work movements
between all Italian municipalities.
A basic hypothesis is that TW propensity is a factor influencing the frequency of
remote working (from an average 1 day/week for low propensity to 4 day/week for very
high propensity), and that the choice to actually telecommute is linked to travel time, too.
Therefore, it is possible to make a comparison between telecommuting base frequency
and travel times classes used in the Census OD matrix (0–15 min, 15–30 min, 30–60 min,
and more than 60 min, referring only to outbound movements), in order to estimate time
savings generated by telecommuting.
Taking 4 h/week of time-saving as a functional threshold, it is possible to argue
that people working in sectors with very high TW propensity could decide to telework
with high frequency (4 day/week) with relatively low travel times (15–30 min), whereas
people working in sectors with medium TW propensity tend to telecommute less frequently
(2 day/week), only in the presence of long travel times (>60 min). These quite conservative
parameters return a TW potential of nearly 1.16 million outbound movements for each
working day throughout Italy.
Figure 3 illustrates this potential by destination (i.e., the municipality of the workplace
before telecommuting): this result tends to confirm the tendency to concentrate TW potential on major cities (such as Milan, Rome, and Turin), which has already been highlighted
in other studies for the UK [181] and France [37].
Nevertheless, some TW potential seems to also exist in several rural areas of some
regions (Emilia-Romagna, Toscana, Puglia).
Anyway, it is worthwhile to underline that this preliminary result has only indicative
value, since it does not take into account other socio-economical indicators (age, gender,
type of employment), which can obviously play an important role in the decision to
telecommute or not.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
17 of 34
Figure 3. Regular and supplementary teleworkers in % of total labour force. Source: ECaTT [236].
4.2. Direct Impact of Telecommuting on Mobility Demand
In the Italian case, the first approximation estimate of the likelihood to telecommute
enables mapping the distribution of teleworkers’ places of residence (Figure 4). These places
tend to aggregate mainly in outer parts of metropolitan areas, i.e., in the municipalities that
are simultaneously:
-
close enough to the main aggregations of workplaces with high teleworking potential;
far enough from these workplaces to encourage telecommuting.
At the same time, highly rural areas tend to be negatively affected by the distance
from high potential workplaces, which reduce the likelihood of normal commuting on
these desired lines.
This result is consistent with some other researches, which underlines the likelihood
of telecommuting reaching its maximum for people living in metropolitan or regiopolitan
areas [230].
One important consequence is that travel reduction tends to especially affect car or
public transport journeys between outer metropolitan areas and city cores. This can result
in emphasising the impact of teleworking on road congestion and/or public transport
crowding (see Figure 5).
4.3. Rebound Effect on Settlement Patterns: A Territorial Scenario for the Italian Context
Declining the general considerations developed above, open to contributions from
very different contexts, the reflections on the rebound effect dropped into the context of
the Italian territory cannot but assume some specificities that also represent important
opportunities.
The Italian reality records some distinctive elements of interest: (i) a complex settlement structure of the metropolitan systems, with an articulation of the “internal areas” that
makes them accessible in reasonably considerable times in the geographies of telework
that see as magnets the main urban contexts; (ii) a substantial building heritage consisting
of disused or obsolete buildings, but also of many tourist homes or ”second homes” in
coastal, mountain, or lake contexts, which could partly change status; (iii) a specific policy
(National Strategy for Inland Areas) aimed at the development of inland areas, which have
long presented problems of economic weakening and depopulation, which could take
advantage of current trends to support a strengthening of infrastructure and services that
represent the prerequisite for a demographic and economic recovery.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
18 of 34
Figure 4. Teleworking potential by workplace. Elaboration on ISTAT data.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
19 of 34
Figure 5. Teleworking potential by place of residence. Elaboration on ISTAT data.
Figure 5. Teleworking potential by place of residence. Elaboration on ISTAT data.
From this viewpoint, it is possible to hypothesise that telecommuting will foster a
gradual relocation of residences from outer metropolitan areas further away. In the Italian
case, this could mean a residential move towards the closer part of internal areas, such
as the lower alpine valleys, which often lie between 50 and 100 km from major cities of
Northern regions, such as Milan, Turin, Bergamo, Brescia, and Verona.
During recent decades, at the time of industrial growth after the Second World War,
these areas often suffered a depopulation process, leaving an important housing stock,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
20 of 34
gradually transformed into holiday dwellings, generally owned by families that lived in
the metropolitan areas (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Second homes. Elaboration on ISTAT data.
A possible research program deals with the complex functional linkages between hightelecommuting-potential workplaces, current residence places in the outer metropolitan
areas, and holiday house stocks in the lower alpine valleys (or other internal areas in
central/southern Italy). A careful comparison of the distances, costs, and conditions of
(tele)commuting from metropolitan or mountain residences can highlight the likelihood
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
21 of 34
of a possible strengthening of current marginal areas, assessing at the same time new
commuting practices and configuration in non-teleworking days.
A detailed comparison among high-TW-potential workplaces and places of residences
in metropolitan areas, as well as second houses in surrounding regions, can be the basis for
increased possible relocations of people and changes in (tele)commuting structures.
In the case of Milano (see Figure 7), clear evidence arises of a great density of highTW-potential workplaces in the very city centre and a few peripherical poles, faced by a
wide number of metropolitan municipalities with medium TW potential for their residents.
On the other hand, many local districts in the lower Alps and around Como Lake have a
wide range of second houses, which could quite easily be chosen as alternative places of
residence by teleworkers.
Figure 7. High-telecommuting-potential workplaces, places of residence, and second houses: Milano.
Elaboration on ISTAT data.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
22 of 34
A quite similar situation arises in the case of Torino (see Figure 8), with a good
concentration of high-TW-potential employments in the city, a metropolitan belt marked
by high-TW-potential places of residence, and a great amount of second house throughout
the Alps to the French border.
Figure 8. High-telecommuting-potential workplaces, places of residence, and second houses: Torino.
Elaboration on ISTAT data.
Another interesting case is Brescia (see Figure 9), whose smaller, but not negligeable,
amount of high-TW-potential employment is met with a great amount of second houses
around the Garda and Iseo lakes.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
23 of 34
Figure 9. High-telecommuting-potential workplaces, places of residence, and second houses: Brescia.
Elaboration on ISTAT data.
In all these cases, the relocation of telecommuters towards remote places could have the
effect of increasing the commuting length in non-telecommuting days. The final outcome
will probably be a new type of commuting, less frequent but more oriented to medium or
even long range, which would require some important changes in public transport supply
(number of stops, commercial speeds, fare structure, etc.).
5. Conclusions
Telework and the evolution of the living model: will the health emergency and a forced
application of telework through legal provisions be enough to put the issue in structural
terms? After decades of rather limited adoption (with a few exceptions), will a scenario of
significant application of telework open up?
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
24 of 34
The option of structural application of telework, to be modulated according to the
different specificities and organisational realities of companies (and the preferences of the
employees), has among its possible benefits: (i) a reduction of the direct environmental
impact related to the transport of people; (ii) an effect on the economic system pushing
to evolution of business organisation protocols (from teleworking to smart working); (iii)
an effect on the well-being of people, with better ease in combining work time and family
life commitments; (iv) a reduction of the spatial constraints related to the workplace and a
consequent greater freedom of choice of localisation of one’s main home. However, it is
unlikely that all these benefits will appear together, because they tend to partially offset
each other.
The objective of this work is twofold: on the one hand, to constitute a platform for the
extensive literature on the subject, representing both theoretical reflections and evidence of
experiences and experiments conducted in different countries; on the other hand, to outline
a path of empirical analysis in the Italian national context, aimed at bringing out possible
trajectories of evolution of settlement systems—to connect the dense metropolitan regions
with the inland areas of reference—in relation to the mobility networks that constitute their
connecting framework.
In addition to the theoretical framing of teleworking, this work tried to verify some
basic hypotheses about its potential at the national level in Italy through first-approximation
statistical data analysis. Thus, it highlights that high-teleworking-potential employments
in Italy (1,16 million people) tend to concentrate in biggest cities, without a clear growing
trend at a structural level, due to the increasing incidence of personal care jobs. This result
is strictly linked to the distribution of direct effects, which seems to be more a matter
of metropolitan context than rural area, in accordance with the outcomes of researches
developed in other countries. In this situation, rural area have the chance to be affected by
secondary or rebound effects only under some conditions, specifically such as the existence
of holiday houses stock and a medium level of accessibility at the regional scale.
Considered as a whole, this chain of possible effects underlines the selectivity of
smart working as a tool to revitalize rural areas, which can hope to take advantage of
telecommuting only under certain, well-defined conditions.
Within this reflection opens the opportunity to propose scenarios for the evolution of
settlement geographies based on a lower component of forced mobility and greater freedom
in the choice of place of residence. In this sense, it seems interesting to relate the potential
demand, generated by the development of telework, with the possibility of settling in
contexts of landscape and environmental value, thus investing in areas marginalised by
metropolitan development, which often have abandoned or underutilised residential stock
(semi-abandoned villages, tourist homes).
The paper makes an analysis of the potential impact of the affirmation of telework
in the Italian national context, trying to territorialise the demand for telework and the
dislocation of the workforce; this analysis has focused on metropolitan areas that have economic sectors more suited to telework and a commuting area expanded to the metropolitan
scale. From the cartographic elaborations, a picture emerges of the significant potential
application of telework that concerns the main metropolitan polarities, where functions
and services are centralised and present significant quotas of working time that can be
operated remotely. Such a situation therefore may increase residence—in a differentiated
way—in moderately mountainous or lake areas that possess a building stock of little-used
or abandoned tourist residences.
This evolution of the settlement geographies, however, refers to possible further
reflections aimed at considering the overall modification of metropolitan systems and
the effects produced both on the central areas of business districts (conceived for a high
intensity of use) and on some monofunctional residential contexts or poorly qualified
suburbs exposed to the competition of more attractive areas in terms of landscape. Still, a
dilution of the settlement geographies poses the opportunity to endow the minor urban
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
25 of 34
contexts with services to persons and, for work, with telework centres at the service of
weakly infrastructured places.
Furthermore, the scenario under investigation implies a reorganisation of transport
networks and of public transport in particular, which could be called upon to support a
lesser share of the daily demand for short-range transport and instead record a less frequent
demand with medium-range movements.
In conclusion, this research outlines working trajectories that need empirical analysis
in different contexts in order to recognise ongoing trends and to design policies to guide
settlement trends that pose, in terms of sustainability and environmental quality, some
critical concerns but at the same time contain significant opportunities.
Author Contributions: Supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, F.A.; software,
investigation, data curation, visualization, A.D.; Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal
analysis, resources, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, F.A. and A.D.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Belzunegui-Eraso, A.; Erro-Garcés, A. Teleworking in the context of the covid-19 crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3662. [CrossRef]
Brynjolfsson, E.; Horton, J.; Ozimek, A.; Rock, D.; Sharma, G.; TuYe, H.Y. COVID-19 and remote work: An early look at US data.
National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; p. 25. [CrossRef]
Crowley, F.; Daly, H.; Doran, J.; Ryan, G. COVID-19, Social Distancing, Remote Work and Transport Choice, SRERC Working Paper No.
2020-4; Spatial and Regional Economic Research Centre, University of Cork: Cork, Ireland, 2020.
Gallacher, G.; Hossain, I. Remote work and employment dynamics under covid-19: Evidence from Canada. Can. Public Policy
2020, 46, S44–S54. [CrossRef]
Martin, M. Les Enjeux de la Mise en Place du Télétravail Suite à la Crise du COVID-19 pour les Entreprises du Secteur Secondaire Situées
en Milieu Rural; Louvain School of Management, Université Catholique de Louvain: Louvain, Belgium, 2020.
Hensher, D.A.; Beck, M.J.; Wei, E. Working from home and its implications for strategic transport modelling based on the early
days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2021, 148, 64–78. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, M.H. Factors influencing home-based telework in Hanoi (Vietnam) during and after the COVID-19 era. Transportation
2021, 48, 3207–3238. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, M.H.; Armoogum, J. Perception and preference for home-based telework in the covid-19 era: A gender-based analysis
in Hanoi, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3179. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, D.-G. Le Télétravail et le Cotravail (Coworking): Enjeux Socioterritoriaux dans la Foulée de la Pandémie de COVID-19; Note de
Recherche n.2, ARUC-GATS; Université Teluq: Québec, QC, Canada, 2020.
Nilles, J.M. Traffic reduction by telecommuting: A status review and selected bibliography. Transp. Res. A Gen. 1988, 22, 301–317.
[CrossRef]
Nilles, J.M.; Carlson, F.R., Jr.; Gray, P.; Hanneman, G.J. The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff: Options for Tomorrow; John
Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
Huws, U. The New Homeworkers: New Technology and the Changing Location of White-Collar Work; Low Paid Unit: London, UK, 1984.
Moriarty, P.; Kennedy, D. Will Teleworking Reduce Travel? Monash University: Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
Salomon, I. Telecommunications and travel: Substitution or modified mobiity? J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1985, 19, 219–235.
Salomon, I. Telecommunications and travel relationships: A review. Transp. Res. A Gen. 1986, 20, 223–238. [CrossRef]
Salomon, I. Transporting information and transporting people. Transp. Res. A Gen. 1988, 22, 237. [CrossRef]
Salomon, I. Transportation-telecommunication relationships and regional development. In Informatics and Regional Development;
Gioutzi, M., Nijkamp, P., Eds.; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1988; pp. 90–102.
DeSanctis, G. A telecommuting primer. Datamation 1983, 29, 214–220.
DeSanctis, G. Attitudes toward telecommuting: Implications for work-at-home programs. Inf. Manag. 1984, 7, 133–139. [CrossRef]
Olson, M.H. Remote office work: Changing work patterns in space and time. Commun. ACM 1983, 26, 182–187. [CrossRef]
Olson, M.H.; Primps, S.B. Working at home with computers: Work and nonwork issues. J. Soc. Issues 1984, 40, 97–112. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
26 of 34
Mokhtarian, P.L. An empirical evaluation of the travel impacts of teleconferencing. Transp. Res. A Gen. 1988, 22, 283–289.
[CrossRef]
Mokhtarian, P.L. The Role of Telecommunications in Business Decentralization: Transportation and Land Use Impacts; Report No.
FHWA/CA/TP-88/01; Southern California Association of Governments: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1988.
Goulias, K.; Pendyala, R.; Zhao, H.; Kitamura, R. Telecommuting and Travel Demand: An Activity-Based Impact Assessment; Interim
Report 1, Baseline Travel Characteristics; Research Report UCD-TRG-RR-89-2; Transportation Research Group, University of
California at Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 1989.
Kitamura, R.; Nilles, J.M.; Conroy, P.; Fleming, D.M. Telecommuting as a transportation planning measure: Initial results of state
of California pilot project. Transp. Res. Rec. 1990, 1285, 98–104.
Kitamura, R.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Pendyala, R.M. An Evaluation of Telecommuting as a Trip Reduction Measure; Working Paper No. 5;
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 1991.
Koenig, B.E.; Henderson, D.K.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The travel and emissions impacts of telecommuting for the state of California
telecommuting pilot project. Transp. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 1996, 4, 13–32. [CrossRef]
Mokhtarian, P.L.; Collantes, G.O.; Gertz, C. Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: Evidence from
state of California employees. Environ. Plan. A: Econ. Space 2004, 36, 1877–1897. [CrossRef]
Yap, C.S.; Tng, H. Factors associated with attitudes towards telecommuting. Inf. Manag. 1990, 19, 227–235. [CrossRef]
Mokhtarian, P.L. A typology of relationships between telecommunications and transportation. Transp. Res. A Gen. 1990, 24,
231–242. [CrossRef]
Mokhtarian, P.L.; Varma, K.V. The trade-off between trips and distance traveled in analyzing the emissions impacts of center-based
telecommuting. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 1998, 3, 419–428. [CrossRef]
Bélanger, F. Workers’ propensity to telecommute: An empirical study. Inf. Manag. 1999, 35, 139–153. [CrossRef]
Casimir, G.J. The Impact of Telecommuting on the Division of Labour in the Domestic Setting. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2001.
Vilhelmson, B.; Thulin, E. Is regular work at fixed places fading away? The development of ICT-based and travel-based modes of
work in Sweden. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2001, 33, 1015–1029. [CrossRef]
Illegems, V.; Verbeke, A. Moving Towards the Virtual Workspace: Managerial and Societal Perspectives on Telework; Edward Elgar:
Cheltenham, UK, 2003.
Pratt, J.H. The travel behavior impact of telecommuting following the San Francisco Earthquake: A case study. Transp. Res. Rec.
1991, 1305, 282–290.
Aguilera, A.; Lethiais, V.; Rallet, A.; Proulhac, L. Home-based telework in France: Characteristics, barriers and perspectives.
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2016, 92, 1–11. [CrossRef]
Qvortrup, L. From teleworking to networking. Definitions and trends. In Teleworking: International Perspectives and Trends; Jackson,
P.L., Van der Wielen, J.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 21–39.
Schweitzer, L.; Duxbury, L. Benchmarking the use of telework arrangements in Canada. Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Adm.
2006, 23, 105–117. [CrossRef]
Gareis, K. Home-based vs. Mobile telework: The interrelationship between different types of telework. In Organisation and Work
Beyond 2000; Rapp, B., Jackson, P., Eds.; Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 171–185.
Lyons, G.; Urry, J. Travel time use in the information age. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 257–276. [CrossRef]
Hislop, D.; Axtell, C. The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary studies of work: The case of telework. New Technol. Work
Employ. 2007, 22, 34–51. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, D.G.; Thomsin, L. Telework and mobile working: Analysis of its benefits and drawbacks. Int. J. Work Innov. 2012, 1,
100–113. [CrossRef]
Neirotti, P.; Paolucci, E.; Raguseo, E. Telework configurations and labour productivity: Some stylized facts. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag.
2012, 4, 1–10. [CrossRef]
Delaplace, M.; Pagliara, F.; Aguiléra, A. High-speed rail station, service innovations and temporary office space for mobile
workers: A comparison France/Italy. In Proceedings of the Transport Research Arena (TRA) 5th Conference: Transport Solutions
from Research to Deployment, Paris, France, 14–17 April 2014; hal-01098709.
Lamond, D.; Standen, P.; Daniels, K. Defining Telework: What is it Exactly? Mimeo: Memphis, TN, USA, 1997.
Lamond, D.; Daniels, K.; Standen, P. Virtual working or working virtually? An overview of contextual and behavioural issues in
teleworking. In Proceedings of the 4th International Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, Sydney, Australia, 20–23 July 1997.
Daniels, K.; Lamond, D.; Standen, P. Telework: Issues and Prospects; Mimeo: Memphis, TN, USA, 1997.
Daniels, K.; Lamond, D.; Standen, P. Teleworking: Frameworks for organizational research. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 1151–1185.
[CrossRef]
Roberts, B.; Manicaros, M. Telecommuting: Its impacts on work, travel and planning the urban environment. In Proceedings of
the Planning for the Information Age—Challenges and Changes Facing the Future, RAPI Seminar, Queensland Department of
Communications and Information, Local Government and Planning, Brisbane, Australia, 8 December 1998.
Simpson, L.; Daws, L.; Pini, B.; Wood, L. Rural telework: Case studies from the Australian outback. New Technol. Work Employ.
2003, 18, 115–126. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
27 of 34
Gilmour, T. Creating a Central Coast Wired Community; Planning Research Centre, The University of Sydney: Sidney, Australia,
2005.
Golden, T.D.; Veiga, J.F. The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings. J. Manag.
2005, 31, 301–318. [CrossRef]
Vu, S.T.; Vandebona, U. A Model for Analysis of Impacts of Telecommuting on Network Travel Time. In Proceedings of the 30th
Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 25–27 September 2007.
Alizadeh, T. From Knowledge-Based Neighbourhods to Knowledge-Based Regional Development; University of Sidney: Sidney, Australia,
2008.
Alizadeh, T. Towards efficient regulatory environment for telework in the digital age. In Proceedings of the 4th Australasian
Housing Researchers Conference, Sydney, Australia, 5–7 August 2009.
Alizadeh, T. Urban design in the digital age: A literature review of telework and wired communities. J. Urban. 2009, 2, 195–213.
[CrossRef]
Alizadeh, T. Urban Implications of Telework: Policy Gap in Sydney Metropolitan Planning? School of Environmental Planning
Discipline, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia, 2011.
Alizadeh, T. Desired configuration of live/work communities for information workers: A new perspective on an old debate
between mixed-use small towns vs. mono-functional suburbia. Int. J. Knowl. Based Dev. 2012, 3, 264–282. [CrossRef]
Alizadeh, T. Teleworkers’ characteristics in live/work communities: Lessons from the United States and Australia. J. Urban
Technol. 2012, 19, 63–84. [CrossRef]
Alizadeh, T. Planning implications of telework: A policy analysis of the Sydney metropolitan strategy. Aust. Plan. 2013, 50,
304–315. [CrossRef]
Alizadeh, T.; Sipe, N. Impediments to teleworking in live/work communities: Local planning regulations and tax policies. Urban
Policy Res. 2013, 31, 208–224. [CrossRef]
Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Investigating the interplay between transport, land use and the environment: A review of the
literature. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 11, 2121–2132. [CrossRef]
Hu, R. Spatial disruption and planning implication of the sharing economy: A study of smart work in Canberra, Australia. Int. J.
Knowl. Based Dev. 2019, 10, 315–334. [CrossRef]
Bussière, Y.; Lewis, P. Impact of telework and flexitime on reducing future urban travel demand: The case of Montreal and
Quebec (Canada), 1996–2016. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2002, 60, 279–288.
Thériault, M.; Villeneuve, P.; Vandersmissen, M.H.; Des Rosiers, F. Home-working, telecommuting and journey to workplaces:
Are differences among genders and professions varying in space? In Proceedings of the 45th Congress of the European Regional
Science Association, European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23–27 August 2005.
Tremblay, D.G. Télétravail: Articuler qualité de Vie et Performance, Rapport de Recherche; CEFRIO: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2001.
Tremblay, D.G. Le télétravail: Définitions et enjeux. In Télétravail: Concilier Performance et Qualité de Vie; CEFRIO, Ed.; IQ éditeur:
Montréal, QC, Canada, 2001; pp. 23–32.
Tremblay, D.G. Balancing work and family with telework? Organizational issues and challenges for women and managers.
Women Manag. Rev. 2002, 17, 157–170. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, D.G. Telework: A new mode of gendered segmentation? Results from a Study in Canada. Can. J. Commun. 2003, 28,
461–478. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, D.G. Le Télétravail: Son Impact sur L’organisation du Travail des Femmes et L’articulation Emploi-Famille; Note de recherche
n.2003-10; Chaire du Canada sur les enjeux socio-organisationnels de l’économie du savoir; Téluq: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2003.
Tremblay, D.G. Le télétravail. In Encyclopédie de L’informatique et des Systèmes D’information; Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Eds.;
Vuibert: Paris, France, 2006.
Tremblay, D.G. Telework. In Sociology of Work: An Encyclopedia; Smith, V., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
2013; pp. 871–872.
Tremblay, D.G. Conciliation Emploi-Famille et Temps Sociaux; Presses de l’Université du Québec: Quebéc, QC, Canada, 2019.
Tremblay, D.G.; Paquet, R.; Najem, E. Telework: A way to balance work and family or an increase in work-family conflict? Can. J.
Commun. 2006, 31, 715–731. [CrossRef]
Tremblay, D.G.; Chevrier, C.; Di Loreto, M. Le télétravail à domicile: Meilleure conciliation emploi-famille ou source
d’envahissement de la vie privée? Rev. Interv. Écon. 2006, 34, 1–25. [CrossRef]
Lachapelle, U.; Tanguay, G.A.; Neumark-Gaudet, L. Telecommuting and sustainable travel: Reduction of overall travel time,
increases in non-motorised travel and congestion relief? Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 2226–2244. [CrossRef]
Tanguay, G.A.; Lachapelle, U. Potential Impacts of Telecommuting on Transportation Behaviours, Health and Hours Worked in Québec;
Rapport de Project n.7; CIRANO: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019.
Krauss, G.; Tremblay, D.G. Tiers-Lieux—Travailler et Entreprendre sur les Territoires: Espaces de Coworking, Fablabs, Hacklabs; Presses
Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, France; Presses Universitaires du Québec: Québec, QC, Canada , 2019.
Lyons, G.D.; Hickford, A.J.; Smith, J.C. The potential impacts of teleworking on travel: Results from a longitudinal UK case study.
In Proceedings of the 8th IATBR Conference, Telecommunications-Travel Interactions, Austin, TX, USA, 21–25 September 1997.
Cairns, S.; Sloman, L.; Newson, C.; Anable, J.; Kirkbride, A.; Goodwin, P. Smarter Choices—Changing the Way We Travel London;
Department for Transport: London, UK, 2004.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
28 of 34
Wilks, L. The Contribution of the Teleworker to the Generation of Social Capital in a Rural Community; The Open University Business
School: Milton Keynes, UK, 2005.
Larsen, J.; Urry, J.; Axhausen, K.W. Social Networks and Future Mobilities; Report to the UK Department of Transport; Lancaster
University-IVT-ETH: Zürich, Switzerland, 2006.
Banister, D.; Newson, C.; Ledbury, M. The Costs of Transport on the Environment—The Role of Teleworking in Reducing Carbon
Emissions; Working Paper No 1024; Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2007.
White, P.; Christodoulou, G.; Mackett, R.; Titheridge, H.; Thoreau, R.; Polak, J. The impacts of teleworking on sustainability
and travel. In Social Sustainability in Urban Areas; Manzi, T., Lucas, K., Jones, T.L., Allen, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010;
pp. 141–159.
White, P.; Titheridge, H.; Moffat, D. Potential impacts of teleworking on transport systems. Logist. Transp. Focus 2011, 13, 26–29.
Aditjandra, P.T.; Cao, X.; Mulley, C. Understanding neighbourhood design impact on travel behaviour: An application of
structural equations model to a British metropolitan data. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 22–32. [CrossRef]
Hampton, S. An ethnography of energy demand and working from home: Exploring the affective dimensions of social practice in
the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 28, 1–10. [CrossRef]
De Abreu e Silva, J.; Melo, P.C. The effects of home-based telework on household total travel: A path analysis approach of British
households. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 27, 832–840. [CrossRef]
De Abreu e Silva, J.; Melo, P.C. Home telework, travel behavior, and land-use patterns: A path analysis of British single-worker
households. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 419–441. [CrossRef]
Hincks, S.; Kingston, R.; Webb, B.; Wong, C. A new geodemographic classification of commuting flows for England and Wales.
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 32, 663–684. [CrossRef]
Jackson, P.J.; van der Wielen, J. Teleworking: International Perspectives; Routledge: London, UK, 1998.
Haddon, L.; de Gournay, C.; Lohan, M.; Östlund, B.; Palombini, I.; Sapio, B.; Kilegran, M. From Mobile to Mobility: The Consumption
of ICTs and Mobility in Everyday Life; COST269 Mobility Workgroup; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2002.
Gareis, K.; Hüsing, T.; Mentrup, A. What drives eWork? An exploration into determinants of eWork uptake in Europe. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Telework Workshop, Heraklion, Greece, 6–9 September 2004; pp. 6–9.
Welz, C.; Wolf, F. Telework in the European Union; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions:
Dublin, Ireland, 2010.
Kauppi, H. Finland launches flexiwork program. Telecommut. Rev. 1991, 8, 2–4.
Heinonen, S. Analysis of the Finnish telework potential. Futura 1997, 16, 6–12.
Pyöriä, P. Knowledge work in distributed environments: Issues and illusions. New Technol. Work Employ. 2003, 18, 166–180.
[CrossRef]
Pyöriä, P. Managing telework: Risks, fears and rules. Manag. Res. Rev. 2011, 34, 386–399. [CrossRef]
Pyöriä, P.; Melin, H.; Blom, R. Knowledge Workers in the Information Society: Evidence from Finland; Tampere University Press:
Tampere, Finland, 2005.
Helminen, V.; Ristimäki, M.; Oinonen, K. Telework and Commuting in Finland; The Finnish Environment Publication Series Number
611; Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki, Finland, 2003.
Helminen, V.; Ristimäki, M. Relationships between commuting distance, frequency and telework in Finland. J. Transp. Geogr.
2007, 15, 331–342. [CrossRef]
Hjorthol, R.J. Teleworking in some Norwegian urban areas—Motives and transport effects. Urban Geogr. 2006, 27, 610–627.
[CrossRef]
Hjorthol, R.; Nossum, A. Teleworking: A reduction in travel time or just increased flexibility? In Proceedings of the European
Transport Conference, Leiden, The Netherlands, 17–19 October 2007.
Lehmann, M.; Hietanen, O. Environmental work profiles—A visionary life cycle analysis of a week at the office. Futures 2009, 41,
468–481. [CrossRef]
Nätti, J.; Tammelin, M.; Anttila, T.; Ojala, S. Work at home and time use in Finland. New Technol. Work Employ. 2011, 26, 68–77.
[CrossRef]
Thulin, E.; Vilhelmson, B.; Johansson, M. New telework, time pressure, and time use control in everyday life. Sustainability 2019,
11, 3067. [CrossRef]
Paavola, M. Transport and Mobility in an Urban Circular Economy. Master’s Thesis, School of Energy Systems, LappeenrantaLahti University of Technology, Lappeenranta-Lahti, Finland, 2020.
Hamer, R.; Kroes, E.; Van Ooststroom, H. Teleworking in the Netherlands: An evaluation of changes in travel behaviour.
Transportation 1991, 18, 365–382. [CrossRef]
Hamer, R.; Kroes, E.; Van Ooststroom, H.; Kockelkoren, M. Teleworking in the Netherlands: Evaluation of changes in travel
behavior – further results. Transp. Res. Record 1992, 1357, 82–89.
Minder Woonwerkverkeer Door Telewerken: Rapportage van de Nederlandse Telewerk Experimenten; HGC; Ministerie van Verkeer en
Waterstaat: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1992.
Peters, P.; Tijdens, K.G.; Wetzels, C. Factors in Empolyees’ Telecommuting Opportunities, Preferences and Practices; Research Paper N. 8;
Department of Sociology, Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2001.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
29 of 34
113. Peters, P.; Tijdens, K.G.; Wetzels, C. Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and practices in telecommuting adoption. Inf. Manag.
2004, 41, 469–482. [CrossRef]
114. Boumans, A.; van Twuijver, M. Telewerken: De Stand Van Zaken: Moving the Work to Instead of Moving the Workers to Work;
Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer (AVV): Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2003.
115. Lim, H.N.; van der Hoorn, A.I.J.M.; Marchau, V.A.W.J. The eEffects of telework on organisation and business travel. In Proceedings
of the 4th Interbalkan Forum International IT conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, 6–7 October 2003.
116. Van Oort, F.; Weterings, A.; Verlinde, H. Residential amenities of knowledge workers and the location of ICT-FIrms in the
Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 2003, 94, 516–523. [CrossRef]
117. Visser, E.J.; Lanzendorf, M. Mobility and accessibility effects of b2c e-commerce: A literature review. Tijdschrift Voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 2003, 95, 189–205. [CrossRef]
118. De Graaff, T. On the Substitution and Complementarity between Telework and Travel: A Review and Application, Serie Research
Memoranda, 0016; University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2004.
119. De Graaff, T.; Rietveld, P. ICT and substitution between out-of-home and at-home work: The importance of timing. Environ. Plan.
A Econ. Space 2004, 36, 879–896. [CrossRef]
120. De Graaff, T.; Rietveld, P. Substitution between working at home and out-of-home: The role of ICT and commuting costs. Transp.
Res. A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 142–160. [CrossRef]
121. Black, W.R.; van Geenhuizen, M. ICT innovation and sustainability of the transport sector. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2006, 6,
39–60.
122. Schwanen, T.; Dijst, M.; Kwan, M.P. Introduction—The internet, changing mobilities, and urban dynamics. Urban Geogr. 2006, 27,
585–589. [CrossRef]
123. Muhammad, S.; Ottens, H.F.L.; Ettema, D.; de Jong, T. Telecommuting and residential locational preferences: A case study of the
Netherlands. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2007, 22, 339–358. [CrossRef]
124. Peters, P.; Wetzels, C.; Tijdens, K. Telework: Timesaving or time-consuming? An investigation into actual working hours.
J. Interdiscip. Econ. 2008, 19, 421–442. [CrossRef]
125. Rietveld, P. Telework and the transition to lower energy use in transport: On the relevance of rebound effects. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 2011, 1, 146–151. [CrossRef]
126. Illegems, V.; Verbeke, A.; S’Jegers, R. The organizational context of teleworking implementation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2001, 68, 275–291. [CrossRef]
127. Taskin, L.; Vendramin, P. Le Télétravail, une Vague Silencieuse: Enjeux Socio-Économiques d’une Nouvelle Flexibilité; Presses Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 2004.
128. Witlox, F.; Jourquin, B.; Thomas, I.; Verhetsel, A.; Van Malderen, L.; Vanoutrive, T. Assessing and Develo-Ping Initiatives of Companies
to Control and Reduce Commuter Traffic ADICCT; Final Report; Belgian Science Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
129. Marique, A.F.; Dujardin, S.; Teller, J.; Reiter, S. Urban sprawl, commuting and travel energy consumption. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Energy 2011, 166, 29–41. [CrossRef]
130. Pirdavani, A.; Bellermans, T.; Brijs, T.; Kochan, B.; Wets, G. Assessing the Road Safety Impacts of a Teleworking Policy by means
of Geographically Weighted Regression Methods. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39, 96–110. [CrossRef]
131. Van Lier, T.; De Witte, A.; Macharis, C. How worthwhile is teleworking from a sustainable mobility perspective? The case of
Brussels capital region. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2014, 14, 244–267. [CrossRef]
132. Wauty, D. Etude de Faisabilité et de Coûts Relative à la Mise en Place du Télétravail à la Ville et au CPAS de La Louvière. Master’s
Thesis, Louvain School of Management, Université Catholique de Louvain, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2017.
133. Hallin, C. L’informatisation des Communications Dans le Monde du Travail: Le Télétravail; Faculté des Sciences Économiques, Sociales,
Université Catholique de Louvain: Louvain, Belgium, 2019.
134. Brabet, J.; Brabet, B.; Gassot, Y. Quest-ce que le télétravail? Métropolis 1982, VII, 54–58.
135. Boquet, Y. Le développement du télétravail aux Etats-Unis (Telework development in the U.S.). Bull. Assoc. Géogr. Fr. 1998, 75,
249–256. [CrossRef]
136. Haicault, M. Travail à Distance et/ou Travail à Domicile: Le Télétravail; Laboratoire D’économie et de Sociologie du Travail; AixMarseille Université: Aix-en-Provence, France, 1998.
137. Rallet, A.; Burmeister, A. Recherche sur la Complémentarité des Télécommunications et des Transports et ses Effets sur la Localisation des
Activités et la Mobilité des Personnes; Ministére de L’équipement, des Transports et du Logement: Paris, France, 2002.
138. Aguilera, A. Growth in commuting distances in french polycentric metropolitan areas: Paris, Lyon and Marseille. Urban Stud.
2005, 42, 1537–1547. [CrossRef]
139. Ortar, N. Entre choix de vie et gestion des contraintes: Télétravailler à la campagne. Métropolis 2009, 78, 49–57. [CrossRef]
140. Ortar, N. Télétravailleuse à la Campagne, un Pis-Aller Nécessaire? Métropolitiques: Paris, France, 2011.
141. Lartail, M.; Siben, C.; Bettinelli, B. Perspectives de Développement du Télétravail dans la Fonction Publique; Ministère de L’économie,
de L’industrie et de L’emploi: Paris, France, 2011.
142. Lethiais, V.; Huiban, E.; Souquet, A. Télétravail: Du Discours à la Réalité. Le cas de Travailleurs Bretons; Marsouin: Brest, France, 2012;
hal-01063093.
143. Aguilera, A.; Lethiais, V.; Rallet, A. Le Télétravail: Sortir de L’impasse; Métropolitiques: Paris, France, 2014.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
30 of 34
144. Aguilera, A.; Lethiais, V.; Rallet, A.; Proulhac, L. Le télétravail, un objet sans désir? Rev. Écon. Rég. Urbaine 2015, 1, 245–266.
[CrossRef]
145. Ernst, M. La Flexibilité du Temps de Travail: Entre Autonomie et Contraintes. Une Étude de Cas en Suisse. Ph.D. Thesis,
Université de Marne-La-Vallée, Champs-sur-Marne, France, 2007.
146. Ravalet, E.; Rérat, P.; Kaufmann, V. Immobilités et Mobilités Liées au Télétravail: La Situation en Suisse en 2015; Labratoire de Sociologie
Urbaine, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2017.
147. Del Águila Obra, A.R.; Cámara, S.B.; Meléndez, A.P. An analysis of teleworking centres in Spain. Facilities 2002, 20, 394–399.
[CrossRef]
148. Belzunegui-Eraso, A. El control del tiempo de trabajo en el teletrabajo itinerante. Sociol. Trab. 2002, 45, 69–96.
149. Nunes, F. Most relevant enablers and constraints influencing the spread of telework in Portugal. New Technol. Work Employ. 2005,
20, 133–149. [CrossRef]
150. Martínez-Sánchez, A.; Pérez-Pérez, M.; de-Luis-Carnicer, P.; Vela-Jiménez, M.J. Telework, human resource flexibility and firm
performance. New Technol. Work Employ. 2007, 22, 208–223. [CrossRef]
151. Belzunegui-Eraso, A.; Erro-Garcés, A.; Pastor-Gosálbez, I. Telework as a driver of the third sector and its networks. In Social
E-Enterprise: Value Creation through ICT.; Torres-Coronas, T., Vidal-Blasco, M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 83–95.
152. Babù, D.A. The Overall Potential of Telecommuting. Master’s Thesis, IUL School of Social Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal, 2017.
153. Polydoropoulou, A.; Baker, M.; Ben-Akiva, M.; Kitrinou, E.; Mindali, O. Factors affecting the impact of E-economy on transport.
J. Aegean Work. Pap. AWP 2004, 1, 69–110.
154. Avellino, M. An Enabling Framework for Telework; The Employment and Training Corporation: Hal Far, Malta, 2005.
155. Kitrinou, E.; Polydoropoulou, A.; Nikitakos, N.; Litinas, N. A Forecasting Analysis for Teleworking Decision in Island Areas;
Department of Shipping, Trade, and Transport, University of the Aegean: Chios, Greece, 2007.
156. Kitrinou, E.; Polydoropoulou, A. Competitiveness of travel modes in Island areas due to relocation and teleworking. In
Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific Conference on the Copetitiveness and Complementarity of Transport Modes,
Perspectives for the Development of Intermodal Transport, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece, 10–12 May 2007.
157. Kitrinou, E.; Polydoropoulou, A. Modeling the impact of ICT- use and teleworking on residential relocation decision in island
areas. Stat. Rev. J. Greek Stat. Assoc. 2009, 5, 61–85. [CrossRef]
158. Kitrinou, E.; Polydoropoulou, A.; Bolduc, D. Development of integrated choice and latent variable (ICLV) models for the
residential relocation decision in Island areas. In Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and The State-of-Practice; Hess, S., Daly, A.,
Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; pp. 593–618.
159. Kanellopoulos, D.N. How can teleworking be pro-poor? J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2010, 24, 8–29. [CrossRef]
160. Kamargianni, M.; Polydoropoulou, A. Does social networking substitute for or stimulate teenagers’ travel? Findings from a latent
class model. In Proceedings of the International Choice Modelling Conference, Sydney, Australia, 3–5 July 2013.
161. Kitrinou, E. Developement of a behavioural framework for analyzing employment mobility decisions in island areas: The case of
Aegean Islands, Greece. Isl. Stud. J. 2014, 9, 307–326.
162. Botzoris, G.N.; Profillidis, V.A.; Galanis, A.T. Teleworking and sustainable transportation in the era of economic crisis. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Virtual Conference on Information and Telecomminication Technologies (ICTIC), Žilina,
Slovakia, 21–25 March 2016.
163. Vari, M. Telework: At the Crossroads of Social Demand and Technology Offer; Università di Roma Tor Vergata: Rome, Italy, 2011.
164. Beblavy, M.; Maselli, I.; Martellucci, E. Workplace Innovation and Technological Change; Special Report No. 65; Centre for European
Policy Studies: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
165. Adamsone, L.; Baltina, I.; Judrupa, I.; Senfelde, M.; Vitola, A. Overview on the Smart Work Centres in Europe; Institute of National
and Regional Economy, Riga Technical University: Riga, Latvia, 2013.
166. Erricchiello, E.; Pianese, T. Ripensare il remote working: Le opportunità degli Smart Work Center. Econ. Serv. 2014, 9, 221–244.
167. Bou Shakra, D. Smart Working: In the Context of Mobility Management. Master’s Thesis, Facoltà di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale,
Università di Roma La Sapienza, Rome, Italy, 2019.
168. Schwanen, T.; Dijst, M. Travel-time ratios for visits to the workplace: The relationship between commuting time and work
duration. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2002, 36, 573–592. [CrossRef]
169. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I.; Choo, S. Data and Measurement Issues in Transportation, with Telecommuting as a Case Study, Report
UCD-ITS-RR-04-29; University of California at Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 2004.
170. Di Martino, V.; Wirth, L. Telework: A new way of working and living. Int. Labour Rev. 1990, 129, 529–554.
171. Baines, S.; Gelder, U. What is family friendly about the workplace in the home? The case of self-employed parents and their
children. New Technol. Work Employ. 2003, 18, 223–234. [CrossRef]
172. Wheatley, D. Good to be home? Time-use and satisfaction levels among home-based teleworkers. New Technol. Work Employ.
2012, 27, 224–241. [CrossRef]
173. Matthews, H.S.; Williams, E. Telework adoption and energy use in building and transport sectors in the United States and Japan.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2005, 11, 21–30. [CrossRef]
174. Noonan, M.C.; Glass, J.L. The hard truth about telecommuting. Mon. Labor Rev. 2012, 1, 38–45.
175. Pliskin, N. The telecommuting paradox. Inf. Technol. People 1997, 10, 164–172. [CrossRef]
176. Mokhtarian, P.L. Defining Telecommuting. Transp. Res. Rec. 1991, 1305, 273–281.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
31 of 34
177. Feldman, D.C.; Gainey, T.W. Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing the research agenda. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 1997, 7, 369–388. [CrossRef]
178. Allen, D.G.; Renn, R.W.; Griffeth, R.W. The impact of telecommuting design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries.
Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 22, 125–163. [CrossRef]
179. Haddon, L.; Brynin, M. The character of telework and the characteristics of teleworkers. New Technol. Work Employ. 2005, 20,
34–46. [CrossRef]
180. Shieh, A.; Searle, G. Telework and spatial trends in Australian cities: A critical review. In Proceedings of the SOAC 2013: 6th State
of Australian Cities Conference; State of Australian Cities Research Network, Sydney, Australia, 26–29 November 2013; pp. 1–8.
181. White, P.; Christodolou, G.; Mackett, R.; Titheridge, H.; Thoreau, R.; Polak, J. The role of teleworking in Britain: Its implications for
the transport system and economic evaluation. In Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Leiden, The Netherlands,
17–19 October 2007.
182. Taskin, L.; Schots, M. Flexibilité du temps de travail et relation d’emploi. In Economies et Sociétés, Série Socio-Economie du Travail;
No. 26; Presses de l’ISMEA: Paris, France, 2005; pp. 1471–1501.
183. Song, Y. Unpaid work at home. Ind. Relat. J. Econ. Soc. 2009, 48, 578–588. [CrossRef]
184. Eurofound and the International Labour Office. Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work; Publications Office of
the European Union: Luxembourg; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
185. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I. Modeling the choice of telecommuting: Setting the context. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 1994, 26,
749–766. [CrossRef]
186. Redmond, L.S.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute
amount. Transportation 2001, 28, 179–205. [CrossRef]
187. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transp.
Res. A Policy Pract. 2001, 35, 695–719. [CrossRef]
188. Apgar, M.I. The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 121–136.
189. Bailey, D.E.; Kurland, N.B. A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work.
J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 383–400. [CrossRef]
190. Baruch, Y.; Nicholson, N. Home, sweet work: Requirements for effective home working. J. Gen. Manag. 1997, 23, 15–30. [CrossRef]
191. Button, K.; Stough, R.; Bragg, M.; Taylor, S. Telecommunications, Transportation and Location; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006.
192. Fagnani, J.; Giovannini, D.; Højgaard, L.; Clarke, H. Fathers and Mothers: Dilemmas of the Work-Life Balance: A Comparative Study in
Four European Countries; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004.
193. Felstead, A.; Jewson, N.; Walters, S. Managerial control of employees working at home. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2003, 41, 241–264.
[CrossRef]
194. Guillaume, C.; Pochic, S. What would you sacrifice? Access to top management and the work-life balance. Gend. Work Organ.
2009, 16, 14–36. [CrossRef]
195. Harris, L. Home-based teleworking and the employment relationship: Managerial challenges and dilemmas. Pers. Rev. 2003, 32,
422–437. [CrossRef]
196. Illegems, V.; Verbeke, A. Telework: What does it mean for management? Long Range Plan. 2004, 37, 319–334. [CrossRef]
197. Kitou, E.; Horvath, A. Transportation choices and air pollution effects of telework. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12, 121–134. [CrossRef]
198. Kitou, E.; Horvath, A. External air pollution costs of telework. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 155–165. [CrossRef]
199. MacInnes, J. Work-life balance and the demand for reduction in working hours: Evidence from the British social attitudes survey
2002. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2005, 43, 273–295. [CrossRef]
200. Maruyama, T.; Hopkinson, P.G.; James, P.W. A multivariate analysis of work-life balance outcomes from a large-scale telework
programme. New Technol. Work Employ. 2009, 24, 76–88. [CrossRef]
201. Sandow, E. On the Road. Social Aspects of Commuting Long Distances to Work. Ph.D. Thesis, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden,
2011.
202. Sewell, G. Employees, organizations and surveillance. In The Handbook of Surveillance Studies; Ball, K., Haggerty, D., Lyon, D., Eds.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 303–312.
203. Taskin, L.; Devos, V. Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource management: The case of telework. J. Bus. Ethics
2005, 62, 13–24. [CrossRef]
204. Thomsin, L.; Tremblay, D.G. Exploring the diversity of mobile working: A detailed examination on the sequences of workplaces
and job satisfaction. J. E Work. 2008, 2, 47–66.
205. Wilton, R.D.; Páez, A.; Scott, D.M. Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative investigation of social influence and
telecommuting. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 269–282. [CrossRef]
206. Wolfe, P. Télétravail: 62% des employeurs canadiens permettent cette pratique. Infopresse 2019, 18–19. [CrossRef]
207. Hynes, M.; Rau, H. Environmental Gains and Social Losses? Critical Reflections on the Sustainability Potential of Telework; XVIII ISA
World Congress of Sociology: Yokohama, Japan, 2014.
208. Taskin, L.; Edwards, P. The possibilities and limits of telework in a bureaucratic environment: Lessons from the public sector.
New Technol. Work Employ. 2007, 22, 195–207. [CrossRef]
209. Walls, M.; Safirova, E.; Jiang, Y. What drives telecommuting? Relative impact of worker demographics, employer characteristics,
and job types. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2010, 111–120. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
32 of 34
210. Sener, I.N.; Bhat, C.R. A Copula-Based Sample Selection Model of Telecommuting Choice and Frequency. Environ. Plan. A 2011,
43, 126–145. [CrossRef]
211. Plaut, P.O. Non-commuters: The people who walk to work or work at home. Transportation 2004, 31, 229–255. [CrossRef]
212. Peters, P.; Bleijenbergh, I.; Oldenkamp, E. Cultural sources of variance in telework adoption in two subsidiaries of an ICTmultinational. Int. J. Employ. Stud. 2009, 17, 66–101.
213. Peters, P.; Bleijenberg, I.; Oldenkamp, E. The telework adoption process in a Dutch and French subsidiary of the same ICTmultinational: How national culture and management principles affect the success of telework programs. J. E-Work. 2009, 3,
1–16.
214. Peters, P.; Batenburg, R. Telework adoption and formalisation in organisations from a knowlegde transfer perspective. Int. J. Work
Innov. 2015, 1, 251–270. [CrossRef]
215. Halford, S. Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technol. Work Employ. 2005, 20,
19–33. [CrossRef]
216. Fu, M.; Andrew Kelly, J.; Peter Clinch, J.; King, F. Environmental policy implications of working from home: Modelling the
impacts of land-use, infrastructure and socio-demographics. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 416–423. [CrossRef]
217. Singh, P.; Paleti, R.; Jenkins, S.; Bhat, C.R. On modeling telecommuting behavior: Option, choice, and frequency. Transportation
2013, 40, 373–396. [CrossRef]
218. Gubins, S.; de Graaff, T.; van Ommeren, J. Does new information technology change commuting behavior? Ann. Reg. Sci. 2019,
62, 187–210. [CrossRef]
219. Sarbu, M. Determinants of work-at-home arrangements for German employees. Labour 2015, 29, 444–469. [CrossRef]
220. López-Igual, P.; Rodríguez-Modroño, P. Who is teleworking and where from? Exploring the main determinants of telework in
Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8797. [CrossRef]
221. Pérez, M.P.; Sánchez, A.M.; de Luis Carnicer, M.P.; Jiménez, M.J.V. The environmental impacts of teleworking. Manag. Environ.
Qual. Int. J. 2004, 15, 656–671. [CrossRef]
222. Clark, D.; Unwin, K.I. Telecommunications and travel: Potential impact in rural areas. Reg. Stud. 1981, 15, 47–56. [CrossRef]
223. Lister, K.; Harnish, T. The State of Telework in the US. How Individuals, Business, and Government Benefit; Telework Research Network:
San Diego, CA, USA, 2011.
224. Zhu, P. Telecommuting, household commute and location choice. Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 2441–2459. [CrossRef]
225. Mannering, J.S.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Modeling the choice of telecommuting frequency in California: An exploratory analysis. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1995, 49, 49–73. [CrossRef]
226. Drucker, J.; Khattak, A.J. Propensity to work from home: Modeling results from the 1995 nationwide personal transportation
survey. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1706, 108–117. [CrossRef]
227. Pouri, Y.D.; Bhat, C.R. On modeling choice and frequency of home-based telecommuting. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 1858, 55–60.
[CrossRef]
228. Collantes, G.O.; Mokhtarian, P. Telecommuting and Residential Location: Relationships with Commute Distance Traveled for State of
California Workers; Working Paper UCD-ITS-RR-03-16; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California: Davis, CA,
USA, 2004.
229. Walls, M.; Safirova, E. A Review of the Literature on Telecommuting and Its Implications for Vehicle Travel and Emissions; Discussion
Paper 04; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
230. Hergeth, L.A.K. The Impact of Telecommuting on Mobility Behaviour and Kilometres Travelled. Master’s Thesis, Technical
University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2020.
231. Kraut, R.E. Telecommuting: The trade-offs of home work. J. Commun. 1989, 39, 19–47. [CrossRef]
232. Felstead, A.; Jewson, N. Work, at Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking; Routledge: London, UK, 2000.
233. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I. Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models.
Transp. Res. A 1997, 31, 35–50. [CrossRef]
234. Brester, C.; Tregaskis, O.; Hegewisch, A.; Mayne, L. Comparative research in human resource management: A review and an
example. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1996, 7, 585–604. [CrossRef]
235. Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: Where We Were, Where We Head to, Science for Policy Briefs; Joint Research Centre;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
236. Benchmarking Progress on New Ways of Working and New Forms of Business Across Europe; ECaTT; Final Report; IST Program,
European Commission: Bonn, Germany, 2000.
237. Todd, P.P. Telework Forum, the Netherlands. Available online: www.telewerkforum.nl/english.html (accessed on 14 July 2021).
238. Redmond, P.; McGuinness, S. Who Can Work from Home in Ireland? Survey and Statistical Report Series Number 87; The Economic
and Social Research Institute: Dublin, Ireland, 2020. [CrossRef]
239. Willigenburg, M.M.; Van Osch, F.R.A. Conditions for the Development of New Ways of Working and Electronic Commerce in the
Netherlands; Overmars Organitie Adviseurs: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2000.
240. De Masi, D. Smart Working: La Rivoluzione del Lavoro Intelligente; Marsilio: Venezia, Italy, 2020.
241. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Handy, S.L.; Salomon, I. Methodological issues in the estimation of the travel, energy, and air quality impacts of
telecommuting. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 1995, 29, 283–302. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
33 of 34
242. Höjer, M. A hundred nodes in the stockholm region: A simple calculation of the effects on commuting. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.
2002, 29, 197–217. [CrossRef]
243. O’Keefe, P.; Caulfield, B.; Brazil, W.; White, P. The impacts of telecommuting in Dublin. Res. Transp. Econ. 2016, 57, 13–20.
[CrossRef]
244. Balepur, P.N.; Varma, K.V.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The transportation impacts of centre-based telecommuting: Interim findings from the
neighbourhood telecenters project. Transportation 1998, 25, 287–306. [CrossRef]
245. Jensen, L.M.; Jensen-Butler, C.; Madsen, B.; Millard, J.; Schmidt, L. A web-based study of the propensity to telework based on
socio-economic, work organisation and spatial factors. In Proceedings of the TRIP Research Conference, Hillerød, Denmark, 2–3
February 2003.
246. Choo, S.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I. Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for
the U.S. Transportation 2005, 32, 37–64. [CrossRef]
247. Glogger, A.F.; Zängler, T.W.; Karg, G. The impact of telecommuting on households’ travel behaviour, expenditures and emissions.
In Road Pricing, the Economy and the Environment; Jensen-Butler, C., Sloth, B., Larsen, M.M., Madsen, B., Nielsen, O.A., Eds.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 411–425.
248. Roth, K.W.; Rhodes, T.; Ponoum, R. The energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of telecommuting in the U.S. In Proceedings
of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–21 May 2008; pp. 1–6.
249. Kim, S.N.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Ahn, K.H. The Seoul of Alonso: New perspectives on telecommuting and residential location from
South Korea. Urban Geogr. 2012, 33, 1163–1191. [CrossRef]
250. Hu, L.; He, S.Y. Association between telecommuting and household travel in the Chicago metropolitan area. J. Urban Plan. Dev.
2016, 142, 04016005. [CrossRef]
251. Kim, S.N. Is telecommuting sustainable? An alternative approach to estimating the impact of home-based telecommuting on
household travel. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 72–85. [CrossRef]
252. Chakrabarti, S. Does telecommuting promote sustainable travel and physical activity? J. Transp. Health 2018, 9, 19–33. [CrossRef]
253. Jaff, M.M.; Hamsa, A.A.K. Estimating commute-travel implications of telecommuting by female employees in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2018, 5, 148–155. [CrossRef]
254. Shabanpour, R.; Golshani, N.; Tayarani, M.; Auld, J.; Mohammadian, A. Analysis of telecommuting behavior and impacts on
travel demand and the environment. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 563–576. [CrossRef]
255. Zhu, P.; Wang, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, J. Metropolitan size and the impacts of telecommuting on personal travel. Transportation 2018,
45, 385–414. [CrossRef]
256. Ma, G.; Hen, K.W.; Chooi, T.F. Telecommuting adaptation in Malaysia: Demographics, beliefs and practices. Asian Soc. Sci.
Humanit. Res. J. 2019, 1, 11–18. [CrossRef]
257. Elldér, E. Telework and daily travel: New evidence from Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 86, 102777. [CrossRef]
258. Ravalet, E.; Rérat, P. Les technologies de l’information et de la communication peuvent-elles réduire nos déplacements? In La
Mobilité en Questions; Bierlaire, M., Kaufmann, V., Rérat, P., Eds.; Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes: Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2017; pp. 107–121.
259. Van Ham, M.; de Vos, D.; Meijers, E.J. Working from Home and Commuting: Heterogeneity Over Time, Space, and Occupations; IZA DP
No.12578, Initiated by Deutsche Post Foundation; IZA—Institute of Labor Economics: Bonn, Germany, 2019.
260. Asgari, H.; Jin, X. An evaluation of part-day telecommute impacts on work trip departure times. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 12, 84–92.
[CrossRef]
261. Henderson, D.K.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Impacts of center-based telecommuting on travel and emissions: Analysis of the Puget sound
demonstration project. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 1996, 1, 29–45. [CrossRef]
262. Ge, J.; Polhill, J.G.; Craig, T.P. Too much of a good thing? Using a spatial agent-based model to evaluate “unconventional”
workplace sharing programmes. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 83–97. [CrossRef]
263. Bieser, J.C.T.; Vaddadi, B.; Kramers, A.; Höjer, M.; Hilty, L.M. Impacts of telecommuting on time use and travel: A case study of a
neighborhood telecommuting center in Stockholm. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 23, 157–165. [CrossRef]
264. European Environment Agency. The European environment-state and outlook 2020: Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe;
Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [CrossRef]
265. Cerqueira, E.D.V.; Motte-Baumvol, B.; Chevallier, L.B.; Bonin, O. Does working from home reduce CO2 emissions? An analysis of
travel patterns as dictated by workplaces. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 83, 102338. [CrossRef]
266. He, S.Y.; Hu, L. Telecommuting, income, and out-of-home activities. Travel Behav. Soc. 2015, 2, 131–147. [CrossRef]
267. Ory, D.T.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Which came first, the telecommuting or the residential relocation? An empirical analysis of causality.
Urban Geogr. 2006, 27, 590–609. [CrossRef]
268. De Vos, D.; Meijers, E.; van Ham, M. Working from home and the willingness to accept a longer commute. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2018, 61,
375–398. [CrossRef]
269. Zahavi, Y. The Umot-Project; Report DOT-RSPA-DPB-2-79-3; US Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
270. Schafer, A.; Victor, D. The past and future of global mobility. Sci. Am. 1997, 277, 58–61. [CrossRef]
271. Mokhtarian, P.L.; Chen, C. 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, 38, 643–675. [CrossRef]
272. Mokhtarian, P.L. Telecommunications and travel. The case for complementarity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2002, 6, 43–57. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1028
34 of 34
273. Mokhtarian, P.L. If telecommunications is such a good substitute for travel, why does congestion continue to get worse? Transp.
Lett. 2009, 1, 1–17. [CrossRef]
274. Lund, J.R.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Telecommuting and residential location: Theory and implications for commute travel in the
monocentric metropolis. Transp. Res. Rec. 1994, 1463, 10–14.
275. Nilles, J.M. Telecommuting and urban sprawl: Mitigator or inciter? Transportation 1991, 18, 411–432. [CrossRef]
276. Wang, D.; Law, F.Y.T. Impacts of information and communication technologies (ICT) on time use and travel behavior: A structural
equations analysis. Transportation 2007, 34, 513–527. [CrossRef]
277. Spadaro, I.; Pirlone, F. Sustainable urban mobility plan and health security. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4403. [CrossRef]
278. Bandarin, F.; Ciciotti, E.; Cremaschi, M.; Madera, G.; Perulli, P.; Shendrikova, D. Which Future for Cities, after COVID-19. An
International Survey; FEEM-Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei: Milano, Italy, 2020. [CrossRef]
279. Jabareen, Y.; Eizenberg, E. The failure of urban forms under the COVID-19 epidemic: Towards a more just urbanism. Town Plan.
Rev. 2020, 92, 57–63. [CrossRef]
280. Sturzaker, J. The people: Where will they go? Town Plan. Rev. 2021, 92, 11–17. [CrossRef]
281. Connolly, C.; Keil, R.; Ali, S.H. Extended urbanisation and the spatialities of infectious disease: Demographic change, infrastructure and governance. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 245–263. [CrossRef]
282. Casti, E.; Adobati, F.; Negri, I. Mapping the Epidemic. A Systemic Geography of COVID-19 in Italy; Modern Cartography Series 9;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021.