Abstract
The paper focuses on the socioeconomic characteristics of workers at home and those who walk to work and these are compared with commuters (those who travel to work by motorized transportation). Understanding of such characteristics of these people is useful for purposes of designing policies that encourage these forms of "travel" to work, if it is believed desirable for planning or environmental purposes. For example, subsidizing public transportation may also have an impact on the proclivity to work at home or walk to work. Using a large census data set for Israel, separate subsamples are analyzed for heads of household and for their spouses. Metropolitan areas as well as peripheral urbanized areas are analyzed separately. Logit analysis is used to identify those variables that affect the likelihood of different groups of people to walk to work or to work at home.It is shown that walkers to work tend to be lower-income, less-educated people with lower asset ownership rates. Females are overrepresented amongst them, while "high-status" professionals are underrepresented. Workers at home appear to be a more complex group. They tend to have higher levels of education and wealth than commuters, but earn less on average. They include proportionately more females. The likelihood of working at home increases with home size and with ownership of some durable goods. The workers at home may in fact be comprised of two or more differing groups with contrasting characteristics, one higher-income and higher-educated, the other with lower socio-economic indicators. Because they may be a heterogeneous group, development of planning policies to encourage non-vehicle commuting may require different policy tools for the different subgroups.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brewer AM & Hensher DA (2000) Distributed work and travel behavior: the dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees. Transportation 27(1) (February): 117-148.
Chamberland D (1997) Housing and communities for a changing workforce. Urban Design, Telecommuting and Travel Forecasting Conference, Williamsburg, VI.
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998. Stationery Office, Publications Center, London, UK.
Deming WG (1984) Work at home: data from the CPS. Monthly Labor Review (February), 14-20.
Eash R (1999) Destination and mode choice models for nonmotorized travel. Transportation Research Record (1674): 1-8.
Frank LD & Pivo G (1994) Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel. Transportation Research Record (1466): 44-52.
Gerstein P, Marlor D, Brail S, Keyes J & Mulla Z (1995) Planning for telework and home-based employment: a Canadian survey on integrating work into residential environments. Center for Future Studies in Housing and Living Environments.
Gomez-Ibanez JA (1991) A global view of automobile dependence. Journal of the American Planning Association 57(3).
Hamer R, Kroes E & Van Ooststroom H (1991) Teleworking in the Netherlands: an evaluation of changes in travel behavior. Transportation 18(4): 365-382.
Handy SL (1993) Regional versus local accessibility: neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Built Environment 28(4): 253-267.
Hanson S & Hanson P (1982) The travel-activity patterns of urban residents: dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics. Economic Geography 57: 179-202.
JALA Associates, Inc. (1990) California Telecommuting Pilot Project Final Report, #7540-930-1400-0, California Department of General Services, North Highlands, CA, June.
Kennedy P (1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review 71(4) (September): 801ff.
Kitamura R, Nilles J, Fleming D & Conroy P (1990) Telecommuting as a transportation planning measure: initial results of State of California Pilot Project. Transportation Research Record 1285: 98-104.
Knight D & Williams R (1999) Green travel plans. Traffic Engineering and Control 40(1): 22-23.
Levin MR (1997) Goodbye Uglyville, Hello Paradise: Telecommuting and Urban Development Patterns. Urban Design. Telecommuting and Travel Forecasting Conference, Williamsburg, VI.
Mokhtarian PL (1991) Telecommuting and travel: state of the practice, state of the art. Transportation 18: 319-342.
Mokhtarian PL & Henderson DK (1998) Analyzing the travel behavior of home-based workers in the 1991 CALTRANS statewide travel survey. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 1(3) (October): 25-41.
Pendyala RM, Goulias KG & Kitamura R (1991) Impact of telecommuting on spatial and temporal patterns of household travel. Transportation 18(4): 383-409.
Pratt JH (1993) Myths and Realities of Working at Home: Characteristics of Homebased Business Owners and Telecommuters. US Small Business Administration, June.
Salomon I (1986) Telecommunications and Travel Relationships: A Review. Transportation Research 20A(3): 223-238.
Salomon I and Ben-Akiva M (1983) The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models. Environment and Planning A 15: 623-638.
Scottish Office Central Research Unit (1999) “Research on Walking,” monograph, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Shriver K (1997) Influence of environmental design on pedestrian travel behavior in four Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record (1578): 64-75.
Steiner R (1999) Residential density and travel patterns: review of the literature. Transportation Research Record (1466): 37-43
Stundenmund AH (1997) Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide, 3rd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yen JR (2000) Interpreting employee telecommuting adoption: an economic perspective. Transportation 27(1) (February): 149-164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Plaut, P.O. Non-commuters: the people who walk to work or work at home. Transportation 31, 229–255 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORT.0000016459.21342.9d
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORT.0000016459.21342.9d