Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Modeling and Analysis of a Novel Levitation Magnet with Damping Coils for High-Speed Maglev Train
Previous Article in Journal
Utilization of Natural Soils as a Remediation Method for Electric Arc Furnace and Ladle Slags
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16125245
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company

by
Cosme Fernández
1,
Francisco Alonso
2,
Francisco Tortosa
2 and
Mireia Faus
2,*
1
El Corte Inglés, 46002 Valencia, Spain
2
Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety (INTRAS), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5245; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125245
Submission received: 29 March 2024 / Revised: 10 June 2024 / Accepted: 17 June 2024 / Published: 20 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Policies, Strategies, and Interventions to Promote Sustainable Mode Shift for Commuting Trips in the Urban Environment)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Evolution of commuting traffic accidents.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Comparison of the means of transport used and preferred for commuting traveling. Note: the <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis, from left to right, represents the means of transport: pedestrian, public transport, bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, and a combination of two or more means of transport.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Perception of risk in different scenarios and situations according to whether or not they have suffered an accident on the way to work. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Correlations between the study variables. Note: Values marked with an asterisk (*) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.05 level (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) and values marked with two asterisks (**) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Evaluation of preventive measures potentially applicable in the company analyzed. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Commuting road accidents have a direct impact on workers as well as companies. Therefore, analyzing the characteristics of commuting to and from work and workers’ perceptions of their potential risk is necessary. This study analyzes these factors in a sample of employees in a large Spanish company. A questionnaire was distributed to a total of 665 workers, assessing variables such as means of transport used and preferred in this type of commuting, perceived risks, assessment of preventive measures, involvement in a road accident during commuting, and road safety training received by the company, among others. There is a difference between preferred and used modes of transport, with factors limiting the use of soft modes. People who have experienced an accident on the way to work have a higher risk perception of this type of journey. The time and distance of the journey also have a significant influence on the perceived risk. The most highly rated preventive actions are mainly related to the accessibility and comfort of the workers’ daily commute, which helps minimize the time spent on journeys. This analysis provides relevant information on the social acceptability of different measures for the development and implementation of future actions of the prevention services that contribute to reducing this type of accident and designing strategies to promote more sustainable commuting mobility.

1. Introduction

Commuting has a considerable impact on mobility in cities. The majority of workers need to commute daily to their jobs. Therefore, the mode of travel used has repercussions on the degree of pollution and traffic congestion, especially in urban centers. For this reason, not only companies but also responsible authorities should promote and encourage sustainable modes of transport for commuting to work. In addition, these routine trips have an impact on road incidents in cities, as well as on crashes occurring on interurban roads [1].
In this sense, in itinere occupational accidents are related to road accidents that occur on the regular commute between the worker’s home and the workplace or vice versa. These types of accidents represent a significant concern for employers and workers, given the potential social, economic, and employee health repercussions of such accidents [2,3]. These are traffic accidents that are considered occupational accidents by the legislation, because they occur during commutes that workers must make for their professional activity. Thus, these incidents, which represent an important part of the total number of occupational accidents experienced by companies, can result in injuries of varying severity at the physical and psychological level, impacting the victims’ personal and occupational wellbeing [4,5].
Consequently, this type of accident also negatively impacts the company, as injured workers may be absent from work for prolonged periods, leading to decreased efficiency and compliance with established deadlines, thereby impacting the productivity and stability of companies [6,7].
In this sense, it impacts social security systems, generating an additional financial burden that could be avoided or reduced by adopting preventive measures and promoting a culture of commuting safety [8]. In this context, in many countries, these accidents are covered by labor legislation, which implies several responsibilities for employers and employees regarding awareness, prevention, and compensation of damages for the risks associated with commuting incidents [9].

1.1. Background

Commuting journeys by nonprofessional drivers have been relatively underresearched in the scientific literature. Likewise, there is little evidence in the gray literature, including company reports or other documents of this type. Several factors influence this particularity. On the one hand, studies that analyze the prevalence or risks of road accidents cover similar topics, such as the journeys of professional drivers or the factors that influence accidents, but do not tend to focus specifically on the type of journeys that are made by all workers, despite their distinctive characteristics [10,11]. In the same way, research analyzing accidents at work does not usually focus on the type of accidents that employees may suffer. On the other hand, there are terminological differences in the description of this concept that may be contributing to making it difficult to search and synthesize the literature in this field of study. The word “in itinere” is commonly used in Latin countries [12,13,14]. Nonetheless, other expressions are used in English to refer to this concept, as “accident on the way to and from work” or “commuting accidents”, with a similar meaning [15,16].
Nevertheless, evidence has identified some specific characteristics of journeys on the way to and from work that influence the risk of a traffic accident [17]. These are routine journeys, which means that workers make monotonous journeys that potentially increase the risk of distractions and a lack of attention to the road [18]. Moreover, arrival and departure times at the workplace mean that many employees must commute during peak hours when many vehicles circulate simultaneously, leading to adverse traffic conditions, including traffic jams and congestion on urban and interurban roads [19,20].
This situation, along with the potential rush and time pressure faced by many road users to reach work on time, impacts the stress level of workers [21]. In this line, stress is a variable related to the assumption of risky behaviors on the road, like exceeding speed limits or performing reckless maneuvers, which consequently increases the risk of being involved in an accident on the road [22,23,24]. In addition, Burch et al. (2023) [25] indicate that uncivil or unpleasant situations in the workplace are related to aggressive commuting behavior by employees, increasing their reckless behavior. Additionally, this stressful situation is exacerbated by the fatigue and tiredness that workers may be experiencing due to the accumulation of working hours, work and family responsibilities, or other factors [26]. It may, therefore, affect their ability to stay alert and react quickly in traffic situations that require it [27].
Both companies and workers must remain cognizant of the inherent risks associated with commuting to and from work. By maintaining this awareness, they can take appropriate preventive action to mitigate the occurrence of such accidents. In this sense, this study aims to examine the characteristics of commuting journeys of workers in a large Spanish company, as well as to analyze the perceptions and beliefs of employees about this sort of accident. It also intends to identify the factors that influence these perceptions, in order to propose potential measures to be taken by company managers and the workers themselves to reduce the prevalence of commuting accidents.

1.2. Description of the Company Analyzed: Prevalence of Accidents on the Way to and from Work

The business group known as El Corte Inglés S.A. maintains a significant presence in Spain and Portugal, mainly through its department stores. Additionally, it engages in other commercial formats internationally, employing a total workforce exceeding 79,800 employees [28]. This research was carried out in Valencia, Spain, home to four large shopping centers belonging to this business group. These centers are located in different areas of the urban zone of the city.
The data on accidents on the way to and from work that have occurred in recent years are registered as occupational accidents by the company. Specifically, 14.4% of the work-related accidents registered in the company mentioned above are traffic accidents. Thus, it has been determined that approximately 1% of employees in the city of Valencia have fallen victim to this type of accident annually since 2009. Figure 1 presents the figures in their absolute and relative values, identifying the percentage of accidents over the total number of employees at each point in time [29]. As a result, it can be seen that since 2015, there has been a small but steady decrease in the number of occupational traffic accidents, both in absolute and relative values. Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of El Corte Inglés workers who have suffered a commuting accident in the last 10 years, in relation to gender, there were more women involved (58.8%) than men (42.2%); and the mean age of the workers at the time of the accident was M = 40.52 years (SD = 9.50), with the most represented group being between 30 and 39 years of age. Regarding the characteristics of occupational road accidents, most occurred on the way to work (55.8%) or on the way home (43.3%), with only a small number of traffic accidents occurring during the working day (0.8%). Thus, the type of user most involved in these accidents was the car driver (44.2%) and the motorcycle driver (41.9%).

1.3. Study Objectives and Hypotheses

This study aims to identify the employees’ perceptions of the El Corte Inglés Company in the city of Valencia (Spain) about commuting on the way to and from work. The specific objectives are as follows:
  • Specific objective 1: To analyze the potential differences between the means of transport used for this type of commuting and the means of transport preferred by users, identifying the degree of acceptance of sustainable modes of transport.
  • Specific objective 2: To identify the degree of influence of various factors, such as having suffered an accident on the way to and from work and the training received, on employees’ risk perceptions of travel on the way to and from work.
  • Specific objective 3: To evaluate the perceived effectiveness of different preventive measures proposed to employees to improve mobility and road safety on these types of journeys.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

When the survey was administered, the number of employees in the company to whom the questionnaire was sent was 3239 individuals. Hence, it was determined that the minimum number of participants required was n = 344 (which would represent 10.6% of the surveys issued), assuming a confidence level of 95%, a maximum margin of error of 5% (alpha = 0.05), and a beta of 0.20, in order to achieve statistical representativeness. However, the sample size obtained was much higher than the minimum stipulated figure, with a sample of 665 employees responding to the questionnaire (representing 20.5% of the total number of employees in the company). The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Instrument, Design, and Procedure

A questionnaire was designed specifically for dissemination among the company’s employees analyzed. The corporate e-mail address available to all company personnel was used to disseminate the questionnaire, with a link to a web form for registering responses. Employees who wished to participate in the study completed a self-administered survey. This form was designed to be anonymous, ensuring that no personal data capable of identifying the respondent were included.
The mailing date was 22 June 2021, and 665 responses were collected during a four-month reception period until 21 October 2021.
The instrument administered was composed of several variables on the commuting habits of the participants, including the following blocks of questions, which are presented below. In addition, the complete questionnaire can be accessed in Supplementary Materials.
  • Sociodemographic variables: Gender, age, habitat, academic level.
  • Data on road user and road behavior: Possession of a driving license, type of license, age of license, means of transport used and preferred to and from work, distance, and time spent on journeys on the way to and from work.
  • Commuting accidents: Have you ever had a traffic accident while commuting?, route on which the accident occurred, means of transport, type of accident, severity and consequences of the accident, perception of fault.
  • Perceived risk: Perception of risk in everyday transport-related situations, using a 5-point Likert scale.
  • Training in occupational safety: Have you received training or information on road safety from your company, and what is the degree of usefulness of the training received?
  • Measures: Assessment of different measures proposed by the company for the improvement of workers’ mobility through a 5-point Likert scale.

2.3. Data Processing

For this study, descriptive analyses of all the variables were carried out to describe and characterize the commuting accidents produced by the company workers analyzed, as well as their perceptions of the problem. Additionally, robust tests of comparison of quantitative variables (t-test) were used to assess whether there are significant differences between groups of workers, as well as Pearson correlations to identify the existence of possible relationships between variables. A linear regression test was also carried out to identify the degree to which the perceived risk of commuting can be predicted based on the study variables. Once the data were obtained, the relevant statistical analyses were carried out using © IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), version 26.0.

2.4. Ethics

Before conducting the study, the University of Valencia’s Health Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee was consulted, and the research was confirmed to comply with the general ethical standards and certified to conform to the Declaration of Helsinki.
The privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality of the data of the workers taking part in the study were protected. Informed consent was also obtained from the workers and the company (El Corte Inglés) and from all the workplaces involved in the research. All data collected in the study were used only for strictly scientific purposes and not for any other purpose.

3. Results

The most common means of transport used by the company’s employees analyzed to travel to and from work is by car, with public transport being the second most common choice (Figure 2). On the contrary, cycling/electric scooters and walking are the least used modes of transport. However, if we look at the modes of transport that participants would prefer, the latter two increase substantially; therefore, it is clear that a significant part of the sample does not use sustainable and active modes of transport due to the journey’s characteristics. It is also evident that employees have a preference for minimizing the number of different modes of transport used when commuting to work, and yet inter-modality is the third most used form of transport, which may be related to the lack of availability of routes or infrastructure directly connecting their place of residence with their workplace. Thus, commuting journeys have an average distance of M = 9.26 km (SD = 8.66) and an average duration of M = 24.68 min (SD = 15.68).
The results show that 15.8% of the employees (n = 105) had suffered a traffic accident on their way to and/or from work, while 84.2% (n = 560) had never had such an accident. Hence, among those participants who had suffered this type of accident at work, 54.3% needed a period of medical leave (n = 57), and 17.1% (n = 18) had physical sequelae resulting from the accident. In the majority of cases, the perception of fault for the accident identified the other road user involved as being at fault for the road incident (70.2%, n = 73), while 13.5% blamed the poor road conditions (n = 14), and 8.7% attributed the fault to their own behavior (n = 9).
The fact of having suffered an accident at work on the journey to and/or from work influences the perception of risk on this type of journey. Consequently, significant differences are identified for the situations of commuting from home to work (t(663) = 2.909; p = 0.02) and from work to home (t(663) = 2.564; p = 0.05), with those who have had an accident of this type perceiving the greatest risk in both cases (Figure 3). On the other hand, in the rest of the situations considered, no significant differences were identified as a function of this variable.
When explicitly asked about the factors that most influence the likelihood of suffering an accident commuting, 70.1% of the participants (n = 466) pointed to other drivers who do not respect the rules, while 15.9% (n = 106) considered it to be the rush to reach work, and 7.2% (n = 48) believed it to be distractions caused by mobile phones or GPS. On the other hand, 6.8% (n = 45) attributed it primarily to poor road or vehicle conditions.
The majority of employees stated that they had not received any road safety training on commuting to work from the company (84.5%, n = 562), whereas a mere 15.5% (n = 103) confirmed they had undergone such training. However, this variable did not show significant differences in the perceived risk in this type of commuting.
Figure 4 shows the correlations between the study variables. There is a significant and positive relationship between travel time and distance and perceived risk on the journey to and from work. Furthermore, a negative and significant correlation exists between the perceived risk of this type of journey and the incidence of accidents occurring during commutes to and from work. No significant correlations were found between gender and road safety training.
A linear regression was performed to assess the extent to which risk perception of commuting journeys can be predicted as a function of sociodemographic variables (age and gender), variables related to journey characteristics (distance and time spent), and variables related to employee experience (accidents on the way to or from work and road safety training on commuting journeys received by the company). Consequently, a significant regression equation was found, with F(6, 657) = 4.076, p < 0.001, R = 0.251, and adjusted R2 = 0.54.
Predictor variables with p-values less than 0.05 are considered likely to have a significant addition to the model, i.e., it is indicated that these variables explain or predict changes in the response variable. Regression coefficients represent the mean changes in the response variable for one unit change in the predictor variable while holding the other predictors in the model constant, thus indicating the influence of a variable in isolation from the other variables in the model. In this case, the model constant was 2.516 + 0.53 (gender) + 0.008 (gender) + −0.002 (travel time) + 0.20 (travel distance) + −0.190 (accidents on the way to or from work) + 0.002 (road training received). The variables that were significant were “age”, “journey distance”, and “accidents on the way to or from work” (Table 2).
Figure 5 presents the participants’ ratings of the different measures proposed to improve employees’ mobility and road safety during commuting. The measures with the highest scores were the availability of car parking in the company (M = 4.45; SD = 0.787), moving to a workplace with better transport connections (M = 4.15; SD = 0.959), and adapting the timetable for entering and leaving work (M = 3.87; SD = 1.075).

4. Discussion

In this paper, an analysis is conducted to examine the perceptions regarding the risks of commuting to and from work in a selected sample of employees of El Corte Inglés shopping centers located in the city of Valencia (Spain). Social acceptability is essential for mobility and occupational risk prevention plans to be effective in the workplace [30]. Therefore, the results of the present study on workers’ perceptions of commuting journeys should be considered for the development of specific preventive measures.

4.1. Differences in Usage Preference and Choice of Mode of Transport

The most frequently used means of transport for commuting to work is the car, and it is also the most preferred means of transport among users. There are several reasons why this is the case. On the one hand, the car offers convenience and flexibility in commuting, making it possible to reach specific destinations quickly and directly, while other modes of transport potentially require more time or intermodality due to the lack of direct routes or connections between the home and the workplace [31,32]. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic has, conversely, heightened the inclination towards individual modes of transportation, such as automobiles or personal mobility devices, among others, as a means to mitigate interactions with others [33,34,35]. In fact, many employees state that they would avoid public transport if they could, as it is the only (nonintermodal) mode of transport with a lower percentage of preference than use [36]. Hence, it is possible that the results on mode preferences would have been different if the questionnaire had been applied before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is worth comparing the usage data with the commuting accident figures of the company analyzed. The means of transport with which most accidents have occurred are the private car (44.2%) and the private motorbike (41.9%), both in the role of the driver [29]. In this way, the data on motorbike users are particularly relevant because it is a means of transport used by only 12.6% of employees. Therefore, there is an overrepresentation of occupational accidents involving this means of transport [37]. A possible reason for this situation is the greater vulnerability of motorbike users due to poor structural protection and high user exposure, which impact the high accident rates of this road group [38,39].
Also noteworthy are the disparities in active travel modes, such as walking and cycling, which are less used than workers would like. Thus, many workers opt for other modes of transport. In some cases, the distance between home and the workplace is too great for it to be feasible to use active modes of transport, as the average distance of the study participants was 9.26 km, which is a variable that the scientific literature points out as relevant in the choice of transport [40,41]. In addition, other studies point to safety as a concern for those considering walking or cycling to work [42]. In this sense, taking advantage of the predisposition of many workers to use sustainable modes of transport, actions can be taken to encourage their use by the company. In this way, companies can establish measures that contribute to and help achieve some of the global road safety and sustainability goals established in the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations [43]. Therefore, the absence of protected cycle lanes on some parts of the journey to be made and/or the presence of congested streets may deter people from choosing these healthier modes of transport [44,45]. In this sense, apart from safety, factors influencing transport choice include individual characteristics, lifestyle, type of journey, perceived service performance of each mode of transport, and situational variables [46].

4.2. Factors Influencing the Risk Perception of Journeys on the Way

The results indicate a notable correlation between the experience of a commuting-related accident and the perception of risk associated with such journeys. Specifically, individuals who have encountered road accidents tend to rate commuting journeys as significantly more hazardous. Thus, this increase in risk perception can be attributed to the traumatic experience of the accident, which may have had psychological consequences of varying degrees of severity [47,48]. Along these lines, victims of road crashes are more aware of road hazards and are more alert to possible risky situations that may occur during their daily commutes, engaging in less offending behavior on their journeys [49]. Nevertheless, this result contrasts with some research, which indicates that people involved in more road crashes are more aware of the dangers of the road and are more alert to possible risky situations that may occur during their daily commute [50,51,52].
Furthermore, the longer the distance to be traveled and the longer the time required to reach the destination, the more likely the person is to perceive greater risk during the journey [53]. This result is in line with the scientific literature, which indicates that, on long journeys, exposure to potential risk situations related to various factors such as complex traffic situations, adverse weather conditions, or reckless behavior of other road users increases [54,55].
The hypothesis that company-provided road safety training influenced risk perception was not confirmed, as there were no significant differences as a function of this factor. Evidence suggests that road safety education plays a crucial role in imparting knowledge pertaining to traffic regulations and driving proficiency. Moreover, it serves as a potent preventive strategy, particularly when supplemented with additional measures [56,57]. Nevertheless, road safety training alone may not change personal risk perceptions significantly, with other factors, namely, the road user’s experience on the road, being more relevant [58]. In addition, occupational risk prevention training focused on road safety provided by employers may be perceived as unimportant by some employees, especially if they already have driving experience [59,60], or the training tools are not sufficiently effective. In these cases, it is possible that the training does not have the capacity to generate a lasting impact on employees [61].
Finally, it should be noted that concerning the factors that most influence the probability of suffering an accident commuting, 70.1% of the participants point to other drivers who do not respect the rules. Therefore, there is a tendency to underestimate their infringing behaviors and overestimate those of others, a phenomenon that also occurs in other studies [62]. These identified perception biases underline the importance of self-reflection and recognition of individual responsibility for road safety and the need for awareness programs that address these distorted perceptions to promote safer user behaviors.

4.3. Acceptability of Measures for Improving Employees’ Mobility and Road Safety

The most highly rated measures for improving employee mobility and road safety are the availability of sufficient parking spaces, flexibility to have another workstation with better transport connections, and adaptation of work entry and exit times. In all cases, these are actions related to the accessibility and comfort of workers’ daily commuting, which allow for minimizing commuting times [63]. It should be noted that, despite this, teleworking was one of the least valued actions, although this can be explained by the characteristics of the employees who participated in the study, most of them being public service personnel who must be present to perform their work. In the case of people performing tasks that involve remote working, these measures may become one of the most appreciated options, reflecting the results of similar studies that measure the degree of preference for such arrangements [64].
Measures related to road awareness and training have also failed to obtain the highest scores for improving the safety and efficiency of commuting journeys. These measures include implementing specific courses on the prevention of occupational hazards and commuting accidents, specifically designed to improve road users’ knowledge and behaviors [65]. This assessment may be related to the poor quality of training they have previously received or their lack of experience in this type of course. However, previous research points out that providing specific training on road safety and accident prevention commuting allows companies to help improve employee awareness, pointing out factors that affect accidents on the commute to and from work, such as stress or rushing to reach work, and encouraging responsible behaviors on the road [66].
These courses can contribute to creating a road safety culture in the company, where accident prevention is considered a priority for both employees and the organization. In this sense, it is important that company managers listen to the needs of employees and, to the extent of their possibilities, develop and implement specific actions to improve workers’ work–life balance and mobility.

4.4. Evidence-Based Recommendations for Companies

The findings of this empirical study allow the elaboration of specific proposals and recommendations that could potentially be useful and effective for the reduction in traffic accidents in the company analyzed, as well as in other companies with similar characteristics, which is one of the purposes of the research carried out.
It is imperative to comprehensively address the measures for preventing traffic accidents at work, complementing actions related to various fundamental aspects in this context. This challenge involves not only the implementation of appropriate business policies and practices but also the promotion of a culture of road safety in the workplace [67,68]. For this purpose, several strategic recommendations are proposed to mitigate the risks associated with employees commuting to and from the workplace.
On the one hand, flexibility in work schedules and jobs can be promoted, facilitating the adaptability of employees’ entry and exit times [69]. These actions contribute to avoiding traffic congestion and reducing commuting time, as well as promoting the use of alternative means of transport. However, these are actions with a limited scope since the company may require a finished number of employees at specific times, so flexibility may be restricted in this scenario [70].
But, in line with this measure, it is proposed to encourage the use of public transport and soft modes of transport with other strategies [71]. Thus, agreements can be established with local councils to facilitate access to public transport through discounts on the transport pass or even by providing such a pass to employees, with the company itself bearing the economic costs involved. The implementation of preventive measures represents an investment strategy with the potential to yield manifold benefits. It has been shown that the most commonly used means of transport for commuting between home and work are private vehicles, primarily cars, and that these vehicles are also the ones most involved in occupational traffic accidents. In this regard, data from the analyzed company indicate that these employees’ sick leave involves more than EUR 50,000 per year. Hence, promoting travel by modes of transport less involved in road accidents can significantly reduce work-related traffic accidents, improving the wellbeing of employees and, at the same time, reducing the economic costs associated with these accidents [72].
Along with these measures, it is essential to implement awareness campaigns and offer prevention courses that specifically address the risks of commuting accidents [73]. Such initiatives serve to educate employees regarding the attributes and potential risk factors linked to such accidents, offering tangible resources aimed at enhancing driving proficiency and fostering the embrace of secure practices while navigating public thoroughfares. Training courses should be specific and tailored to the particular needs of employees [61]. Consequently, specific training programs can be designed and implemented for employees who have already experienced traffic accidents at work, as well as more general courses aimed at other employees. In addition, these training programs and awareness campaigns can emphasize the importance of the use of collective transport, as well as other soft modes of transport in terms of road safety and environmental sustainability, thus aligning with the SDG objectives set out in companies’ safe and sustainable mobility plans [43].
Finally, the influence of environmental and infrastructure conditions as triggers of a road accident should not be underestimated, being one of the variables pointed out by the employees participating in this study [74,75]. Therefore, to the extent possible for the company, it is essential to promote joint actions with local authorities to improve the conditions of the roads near the work centers. This may include the creation of protected bicycle lanes, the installation of secure bicycle parking facilities, the provision of accessible and obstacle-free sidewalks, and the establishment of public transport stops close to workplace facilities, as well as the implementation of infrastructures that facilitate safe access for workers, such as vehicle parking areas with efficient access systems.

5. Conclusions

This study delves into the employees’ perceptions of the company El Corte Inglés, en la ciudad de Valencia (Spain), on commuting. It proposes implementing safe and sustainable mobility strategies in companies as part of a corporate social responsibility policy that promotes participation, transparency, and sensitivity towards a healthy lifestyle. In this way, the study carried out made it possible to examine those factors that influence workers’ perception of risk, which helps to identify the variables that should be the focus of the campaigns, measures, and actions developed by prevention services to contribute to the reduction in this type of accident.
The study’s most relevant findings involve identifying differences in the preferred modes of transport and those used for work-related traffic trips, which facilitates the acceptability of preventive actions aimed at promoting soft modes of transport. Furthermore, differences in the perception of risk are evidenced depending on whether or not an accident of this type has been experienced, which implies the need to establish training programs aimed at employees who have suffered traffic accidents at work, as well as for the rest of the workers, however, with distinctive attributes tailored to meet the requirements of each respective group. A series of additional recommendations are proposed based on evidence related to company investment in the promotion of public transport, agreements with local authorities for the improvement of facilities and road infrastructures in the vicinity of the company, and flexibility in work positions, to the extent of the capacities and possibilities of the responsible company.
The study’s findings can be complemented with future observational and/or epidemiological research to effectively evaluate the companies’ mobility and occupational risk prevention plans. Moreover, it is necessary to emphasize the variables identified as influencing the mode of transport preferences, favoring sustainable mobility, as well as the perception of risk and the promotion of safe behavior during trips on the way to and from work.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16125245/s1, Root Questionnaire: survey administered to study participants (English version).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F. and F.A.; methodology, C.F. and F.T.; software, M.F.; validation, C.F., F.A. and F.T.; formal analysis, M.F.; investigation, C.F. and M.F.; resources, F.A.; data curation, M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F. and C.F.; writing—review and editing, M.F.; supervision, F.A. and F.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Valencia’s Health Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff of El Corte Ingles, from managers to human resources technicians, for their collaboration in the preparation of the article. The authors wish to thank Arash Javadinejad and Elena Samper Regueiro for the translation and linguistic revision of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

One of the authors of this study (C.F.) is an employee of the company where the research was conducted (El Corte Inglés). However, this company has not provided funding for this study nor has it influenced the results or their interpretation. No other conflicts of interest related to this work are identified.

References

  1. Febres, J.D.; Mohamadi, F.; Mariscal, M.A.; Herrera, S.; García-Herrero, S. The role of journey purpose in road traffic injuries: A Bayesian network approach. J. Adv. Transp. 2019, 2019, 6031482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Van der Staay, L.U.; Koestner, C.; Dietz, P. Differences in work and commuting accidents between employees and students at higher education institutions in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, from December 2014 to December 2019. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ropponen, A.; Gluschkoff, K.; Ervasti, J.; Kivimäki, M.; Koskinen, A.; Krutova, O.; Härmä, M. Working hour patterns and risk of occupational accidents. An optimal matching analysis in a hospital employee cohort. Saf. Sci. 2023, 159, 106004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blandino, A.; Tambuzzi, S.; Cotroneo, R.; Di Candia, D.; Battistini, A.; Giordano, G.; Zoja, R. Work-related and non-work-related fatal road accidents: Assessment of psychoactive substance use in commuting. Med. Sci. Law 2023, 63, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, X.; Wu, L.; Huo, Z.; Chen, Y. The trip from home to work: Exploring how commuting stress impacts on tourism and hospitality employees’ work engagement. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Poland, M.; Sin, I.; Stillman, S. Why are there more accidents on Mondays? economic incentives, ergonomics or externalities. Econ. Incent. Ergon. Externalities 2020, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Selamat, M.N.; Surienty, L. An examination of commuting accident in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 3rd Scientific Conference on Occupational Safety and Health: Sci-Cosh, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 14–17 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tomasina, F. Los problemas en el mundo del trabajo y su impacto en salud. Crisis financiera actual. Rev. Salud Pública 2012, 14, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Borda, M.; Rolón, E.; Díaz-Piraquive, F.; González, J. Ausentismo Laboral: Impacto en la Productividad y Estrategias de Control Desde los Programas de Salud Empresarial. Universidad del Rosario, Colombia. 2017. Available online: http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/13583 (accessed on 28 March 2024).
  10. Llamazares, J.; Useche, S.A.; Montoro, L.; Alonso, F. Commuting accidents of Spanish professional drivers: When occupational risk exceeds the workplace. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 27, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tàpia-Caballero, P.; Serrano-Fernández, M.J.; Boada-Cuerva, M.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Boada-Grau, J. Variables that predict burnout in professional drivers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 1756–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Naranjo, M.D.; Segovia, K.F.E.; Flores, V.G. Análisis descriptivo de los accidentes “in itínere” y “no in itínere” ocurridos en una empresa de servicios de telecomunicaciones en Ecuador, 2014–2017. Cienc. Innovación Salud 2020, 2020, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kahale, D.T. Algunas consideraciones sobre el accidente de trabajo “in itinere”. Rev. Univ. Cienc. Trab. 2007, 8, 143–157. [Google Scholar]
  14. Elhadad, F.I.A.; Galán, Á.M.M. Accidente de trabajo in itínere: Potenciar su investigación como propuesta preventiva. Riesgos Para Sanid. Sevillana 2013, 5, 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tucker, P.; Albrecht, S.; Kecklund, G.; Beckers, D.G.; Leineweber, C. Work time control, sleep & accident risk: A prospective cohort study. Chronobiol. Int. 2016, 33, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aertsens, J.; de Geus, B.; Vandenbulcke, G.; Degraeuwe, B.; Broekx, S.; De Nocker, L.; Panis, L.I. Commuting by bike in Belgium, the costs of minor accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 2149–2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ortega, S.G. El origen y el destino del desplazamiento en el accidente “in itinere”: Una interpretación flexible en torno a las características del trayecto así como del concepto de domicilio del trabajador. Rev. Española Derecho Trab. 2014, 168, 335–348. [Google Scholar]
  18. Steinberger, F.; Schroeter, R.; Watling, C.N. From road distraction to safe driving: Evaluating the effects of boredom and gamification on driving behaviour, physiological arousal, and subjective experience. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 75, 714–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chow, A.H.; Santacreu, A.; Tsapakis, I.; Tanasaranond, G.; Cheng, T. Empirical assessment of urban traffic congestion. J. Adv. Transp. 2014, 48, 1000–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. He, F.; Yan, X.; Liu, Y.; Ma, L. A traffic congestion assessment method for urban road networks based on speed performance index. Procedia Eng. 2016, 137, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bono, J.E.; Glomb, T.M.; Shen, W.; Kim, E.; Koch, A.J. Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 1601–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scott-Parker, B.; Jones, C.M.; Rune, K.; Tucker, J. A qualitative exploration of driving stress and driving discourtesy. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 118, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thomas, P.; Morris, A.; Talbot, R.; Fagerlind, H. Identifying the causes of road crashes in Europe. Ann. Adv. Automot. Med. 2013, 57, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  24. Taylor, A.H.; Dorn, L. Stress, fatigue, health, and risk of road traffic accidents among professional drivers: The contribution of physical inactivity. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2006, 27, 371–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Burch, K.A.; Barnes-Farrell, J.L.; Sorensen, M.B. Examining the Relationship between Experienced Workplace Incivility and Aggressive Driving Behaviors on the Work-to-Home Commute. J. Bus Psychol. 2023, 38, 283–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Burch, K.A.; Barnes-Farrell, J.L. When work is your passenger: Understanding the relationship between work and commuting safety behaviors. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Vargas-Garrido, H.; Moyano-Díaz, E.; Andrades, K. Sleep problems are related to commuting accidents rather than to workplace accidents. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. El Corte Inglés. Información Corporativa. 2023. Available online: https://www.elcorteingles.es/informacioncorporativa/es/ (accessed on 28 March 2024).
  29. Cosme, F.; Alonso, F.; Tortosa, F.; Faus, M. Accidentes in itinere en el marco de la salud: Estudio de su prevalencia e impacto en una compañía española. Rev. Española Salud Pública, 2024; pending publication. [Google Scholar]
  30. Howse, E.; Cullerton, K.; Grunseit, A.; Bohn-Goldbaum, E.; Bauman, A.; Freeman, B. Measuring public opinion and acceptability of prevention policies: An integrative review and narrative synthesis of methods. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2022, 20, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kent, J.L. Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2014, 65, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, Y.; Kim, E.J.; Jang, S.; Kim, D.K. A comparative analysis of the users of private cars and public transportation for intermodal options under Mobility-as-a-Service in Seoul. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 24, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abdullah, M.; Dias, C.; Muley, D.; Shahin, M. Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on travel behavior and mode preferences. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect 2020, 8, 100255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Monterde-i-Bort, H.; Sucha, M.; Risser, R.; Kochetova, T. Mobility patterns and mode choice preferences during the COVID-19 situation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eisenmann, C.; Nobis, C.; Kolarova, V.; Lenz, B.; Winkler, C. Transport mode use during the COVID-19 lockdown period in Germany: The car became more important, public transport lost ground. Transp. Policy 2021, 103, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, T.; Fu, X.; Hensher, D.A.; Li, Z.C.; Sze, N.N. Effects of proactive and reactive health control measures on public transport preferences of passengers—A stated preference study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transp. Policy 2024, 146, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chang, H.L.; Yeh, T.H. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age, gender, and risky behaviors in Taipei, Taiwan. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Corgozinho, M.M.; Montagner, M.Â. Sociodemographic profile of motorcyclists and their vulnerabilities in traffic. Rev. Bras. Med. Trab. 2022, 20, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Freeman, J.; Scott-Parker, B.; Wong, I.; Haworth, N. Vulnerable road user groups: A review of younger drivers, motorcyclists and older drivers. Vulnerable Groups Incl. 2012, 3, 14889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Varotto, S.; Glerum, A.; Stathopoulos, A.; Bierlaire, M. Modelling travel time perception in transport mode choices. In Proceedings of the 14th Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, 14–16 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hergesell, A.; Dickinger, A. Environmentally friendly holiday transport mode choices among students: The role of price, time and convenience. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 596–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Woods, R.; Masthoff, J. A comparison of car driving, public transport and cycling experiences in three European cities. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gil, C.G. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS): Una revisión crítica. Papeles Relac. Ecosociales Cambio Glob. 2018, 140, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pucher, J.; Dill, J.; Handy, S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S106–S125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McNeil, N. Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2247, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Beirão, G.; Cabral, J.S. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transp. Policy 2007, 14, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In The Perception of Risk; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016; pp. 137–153. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sanders, R.L. Perceived traffic risk for cyclists: The impact of near miss and collision experiences. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 75, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tao, D.; Zhang, R.; Qu, X. The role of personality traits and driving experience in self-reported risky driving behaviors and accident risk among Chinese drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 99, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Crundall, D. Hazard prediction discriminates between novice and experienced drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 86, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ngueutsa, R.; Kouabenan, D.R. Accident history, risk perception and traffic safe behaviour. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Jiménez-Mejías, E.; Martínez-Ruiz, V.; Amezcua-Prieto, C.; Olmedo-Requena, R.; de Dios Luna-del-Castillo, J.; Lardelli-Claret, P. Pedestrian-and driver-related factors associated with the risk of causing collisions involving pedestrians in Spain. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 92, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Watling, C.N.; Armstrong, K.A.; Smith, S.S.; Obst, P.L. Crash risk perception of sleepy driving and its comparisons with drink driving and speeding: Which behavior is perceived as the riskiest? Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016, 17, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Knight, P.J.; Iverson, D.; Harris, M.F. Early driving experience and influence on risk perception in young rural people. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ringhand, M.; Vollrath, M. Effect of complex traffic situations on route choice behaviour and driver stress in residential areas. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 274–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Faus, M.; Fernández, C.; Alonso, F.; Useche, S.A. Different ways…same message? Road safety-targeted communication strategies in Spain over 62 years (1960–2021). Heliyon 2023, 9, e18775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Faus, M.; Alonso, F.; Fernández Fernández, C.; Useche, S. Assessing the “virality” of a road safety communication campaign intended to change behavior: A case study in Spain. Front. Sustain. Cities 2024, 5, 1295516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Di Stasi, L.L.; Diaz-Piedra, C.; Morales, J.M.; Kurapov, A.; Tagliabue, M.; Bjärtå, A.; Catena, A. A cross-cultural comparison of visual search strategies and response times in road hazard perception testing. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 148, 105785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Murray, W.; Ison, S.; Gallemore, P.; Nijjar, H.S. Effective occupational road safety programs: A case study of Wolseley. Transp. Res. Rec. 2009, 2096, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Salminen, S. Two interventions for the prevention of work-related road accidents. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Faus, M.; Alonso, F.; Esteban, C.; Useche, S.A. Are Adult Driver Education Programs Effective? A Systematic Review of Evaluations of Accident Prevention Training Courses. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 2023, 12, 62–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Useche, S.A.; Faus, M.; Alonso, F. Is safety in the eye of the beholder? Discrepancies between self-reported and proxied data on road safety behaviors—A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 964387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Politis, I.; Georgiadis, G.; Nikolaidou, A.; Kopsacheilis, A.; Fyrogenis, I.; Sdoukopoulos, A.; Papadopoulos, E. Mapping travel behavior changes during the COVID-19 lock-down: A socioeconomic analysis in Greece. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dolbilina, V.; Sato, H.; Jiang, M.; Morikawa, T. Analysis of Preference between Commuting and Teleworking Considering Risk Perceptions during COVID-19. Urban Reg. Plan. Rev. 2023, 10, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lund, J.; Aarø, L.E. Accident prevention. Presentation of a model placing emphasis on human, structural and cultural factors. Saf. Sci. 2004, 42, 271–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. López-Ruiz, M.; Martínez, J.M.; Pérez, K.; Novoa, A.M.; Tobías, A.; Benavides, F.G. Impact of road safety interventions on traffic-related occupational injuries in Spain, 2004–2010. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 66, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Nævestad, T.O.; Laiou, A.; Rosenbloom, T.; Elvik, R.; Yannis, G. The role of values in road safety culture: Examining the valuation of freedom to take risk, risk taking and accident involvement in three countries. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 84, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Newnam, S.; Muir, C. Workplace road safety and culture: Safety practices for employees and the community. In Traffic Safety Culture: Definition, Foundation, and Application; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; pp. 221–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, D.J.; Joseph Sirgy, M. Work-life balance in the digital workplace: The impact of schedule flexibility and telecommuting on work-life balance and overall life satisfaction. In Thriving in Digital Workspaces: Emerging Issues for Research and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 355–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Saxena, R. Achieving work life balance through flexible work schedule: A conceptual study. Asian J. Manag. 2018, 9, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Barros, V.; Cruz, C.O.; Júdice, T.; Sarmento, J.M. Is taxation being effectively used to promote public transport in Europe? Transp. Policy 2021, 114, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Asfaw, A.; Rosa, R.; Pana-Cryan, R. Potential economic benefits of paid sick leave in reducing absenteeism related to the spread of influenza-like illness. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 59, 822–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Faus, M.; Alonso, F.; Fernández, C.; Useche, S.A. Are traffic announcements really effective? A systematic review of evaluations of crash-prevention communication campaigns. Safety 2021, 7, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Simić, N.; Ivanišević, N.; Nedeljković, Đ.; Senić, A.; Stojadinović, Z.; Ivanović, M. Early Highway Construction Cost Estimation: Selection of Key Cost Drivers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Calvo-Poyo, F.; Navarro-Moreno, J.; de Oña, J. Road investment and traffic safety: An international study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05245 g001
Figure 1. Evolution of commuting traffic accidents.
Figure 1. Evolution of commuting traffic accidents.
Sustainability 16 05245 g001
Sustainability 16 05245 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of the means of transport used and preferred for commuting traveling. Note: the x-axis, from left to right, represents the means of transport: pedestrian, public transport, bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, and a combination of two or more means of transport.
Figure 2. Comparison of the means of transport used and preferred for commuting traveling. Note: the x-axis, from left to right, represents the means of transport: pedestrian, public transport, bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, and a combination of two or more means of transport.
Sustainability 16 05245 g002
Sustainability 16 05245 g003
Figure 3. Perception of risk in different scenarios and situations according to whether or not they have suffered an accident on the way to work. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Figure 3. Perception of risk in different scenarios and situations according to whether or not they have suffered an accident on the way to work. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Sustainability 16 05245 g003
Sustainability 16 05245 g004
Figure 4. Correlations between the study variables. Note: Values marked with an asterisk (*) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05) and values marked with two asterisks (**) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01).
Figure 4. Correlations between the study variables. Note: Values marked with an asterisk (*) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05) and values marked with two asterisks (**) indicate a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01).
Sustainability 16 05245 g004
Sustainability 16 05245 g005
Figure 5. Evaluation of preventive measures potentially applicable in the company analyzed. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Figure 5. Evaluation of preventive measures potentially applicable in the company analyzed. Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Sustainability 16 05245 g005
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the sample.
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of the sample.
Demographic FeatureCategoryTotal
n%
GenderFemale44166.3%
Male22433.7%
Total665100.0%
Age range25 years111.7%
26–35 years507.5%
36–45 years23735.6%
46–55 years25037.6%
56–65 years66517.6%
Total665100.0%
Time in commuting<10 min659.8%
11–20 min28843.3%
21–30 min21932.9%
31–40 min527.8%
41–50 min304.5%
>50 min111.7%
Total665100.0%
DriverYes60490.8%
No619.2%
Total665100.0%
Table 2. Coefficients of the multiple linear regression model in which the response variable is the “Perceived risk home–work commute”.
Table 2. Coefficients of the multiple linear regression model in which the response variable is the “Perceived risk home–work commute”.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.
BDesv. ErrorBeta
(Constant)2.5160.296 8.490<0.001
Gender0.0530.0620.0330.8510.395
Age0.0080.0030.0852.2260.026
Journey time−0.0020.003−0.023−0.5220.602
Journey distance0.0200.0040.2225.065<0.001
Accident while driving−0.1900.080−0.091−2.3870.017
Road training received0.0020.0800.0010.0300.976
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernández, C.; Alonso, F.; Tortosa, F.; Faus, M. Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125245

AMA Style

Fernández C, Alonso F, Tortosa F, Faus M. Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):5245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125245

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernández, Cosme, Francisco Alonso, Francisco Tortosa, and Mireia Faus. 2024. "Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125245

APA Style

Fernández, C., Alonso, F., Tortosa, F., & Faus, M. (2024). Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company. Sustainability, 16(12), 5245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125245

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop