On modeling telecommuting behavior: option, choice, and frequency
Tóm tắt
The current study contributes to the already substantial scholarly literature on telecommuting by estimating a joint model of three dimensions—option, choice and frequency of telecommuting. In doing so, we focus on workers who are not self-employed workers and who have a primary work place that is outside their homes. The unique methodological features of this study include the use of a general and flexible generalized hurdle count model to analyze the precise count of telecommuting days per month, and the formulation and estimation of a model system that embeds the count model within a larger multivariate choice framework. The unique substantive aspects of this study include the consideration of the “option to telecommute” dimension and the consideration of a host of residential neighborhood built environment variables. The 2009 NHTS data is used for the analysis, and allows us to develop a current perspective of the process driving telecommuting decisions. This data set is supplemented with a built environment data base to capture the effects of demographic, work-related, and built environment measures on the telecommuting-related dimensions. In addition to providing important insights for policy analysis, the results in this paper indicate that ignoring the “option” dimension of telecommuting can, and generally will, lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the behavioral processes governing telecommuting decisions. The empirical results have implications for transportation planning analysis as well as for the worker recruitment/retention and productivity literature.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Basar, G., Bhat, C.R.: A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay area. Transp. Res. Part B 38(10), 889–904 (2004)
Bernardino, A., Ben-Akiva, M.: Modeling the adoption of telecommuting: comprehensive framework. Transp. Res. Rec. 1552, 161–170 (1996)
Bhat, C.R., Guo, J.Y.: A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp. Res. Part B 41(5), 506–526 (2007)
Castro, M., Paleti, R., Bhat, C.R.: A latent variable representation of count data models to accommodate spatial and temporal dependence: application to predicting crash frequency at intersections. Transp. Res. Part B 46(1), 253–272 (2012)
Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I.: Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles-Traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation 32(1), 37–64 (2005)
Dambrin, C.: How does telework influence the manager-employee relationship? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 4(4), 358–374 (2004)
Ellen, I.G., Hempstead, K.: Telecommuting and the demand for urban living: a preliminary look at white-collar workers. Urban Stud. 39(4), 749–766 (2002)
Ettema, D.: The impact of telecommuting on residential relocation and residential preferences. J. Transp. Land Use 3(1), 7–24 (2010)
Fotheringham, A.S.: Some theoretical aspects of destination choice and their relevance to production-constrained gravity models. Environ. Plan. A 15(8), 1121–1132 (1983)
Golden, L.: Limited access: disparities in flexible work schedules and work-at-home. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 29(1), 86–109 (2008)
McCrate, E.: Flexible hours, workplace authority, and compensating wage differentials in the U.S. Feminist Econ. 11(1), 11–39 (2005)
Mokhtarian, P.L., Meenakshisundaram, R.: Patterns of telecommuting engagement and frequency. Prometheus 20(1), 21–37 (2002)
Morganson, V.J., Major, D.A., Oborn, K.L., Verive, J.M., Heelan, M.P.: Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements: differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction and inclusion. J. Manag. Psychol. 25(6), 578–595 (2010)
Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Which came first, the telecommuting or the residential/job relocation? An empirical analysis of causality. Urban Geogr. 27(7), 590–609 (2006)
Peters, P., Tijdens, K.G., Wetzels, C.: Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and practices in telecommuting adoption. Inform. Manage. 41(4), 469–482 (2003)
Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A.: Modeling agent interdependency in group decision making. Transp. Res. Part E 40(1), 63–79 (2004)
Safirova, E., Walls, M.: What have we learned from a recent survey of teleworkers? Evaluating the 2002 SCAG Survey. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 04-43, Washington D.C. (2004)
Sener, I., Bhat, C.R.: A copula based sample selection model of telecommuting choice and frequency. Environ. Plan. A 43(1), 126–145 (2010)
Siha, S.M., Monroe, R.W.: Telecommuting’s past and future: a literature review and research agenda. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(4), 455–482 (2006)
Singh, P., Paleti, R., Jenkins, S., Bhat, C.R.: Supplementary Note: Additional Information on Data Sources and Sample Description. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin. Available at http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/ABSTRACTS/Telecommuting/SuppNote.pdf (2012)
Tang, W., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.: The role of neighborhood characteristics in the adoption and frequency of working at home: empirical evidence from Northern California. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-21 (2008)
Tayyaran, M.R., Khan, A.M.: Telecommuting and residential location decisions: combined stated and revealed preferences model. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34(10), 1324–1333 (2007)
Thompson, L.F., Aspinwall, K.R.: The recruitment value of work/life benefits. Pers. Rev. 38(2), 195–210 (2009)
Tremblay, D.G.: Balancing work and family with telework? Organizational issues and challenge. Women Manag. Rev. 17(3/4), 157–170 (2002)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: National Household Travel Survey. Available at: http://nhts.ornl.gov (2009)
Walls, M., Safirova, E., Jiang, Y.: What drives telecommuting? Relative impact of worker demographics, employer characteristics, and job types. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 111–120 (2007)
Zhou, L., Qing, S., Winters, L.: Telecommuting as a component of commute trip reduction program. Transp. Res. Rec. 2135, 151–159 (2009)