W11P155

Sustainable Urban Development: Exploring the Impact of Telecommuting

by Jeong Hyun Cho Introduction The advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and urban mobility, along with growth in the service and knowledge-based economic sectors, is generating more and more locationindependent employment positions (Sohn et al., 2003). During the last few decades, teleworking became an increasing worldwide phenomenon affecting up to one-third of employees in some countries (Eurofound and ILO, 2017), and signaling a future evolution of workplace. Besides, the recent COVID-19 crisis is leading millions of people globally to involuntarily experience working remotely, which is expected to have significant upswing in their adoption (Global Workplace Analytics, 2020).

Since the improvement of ICT in the 1980s, there has been a continuous discourse about telecommuting and its effect on urban spatial structure and development patterns. While the definition of telecommuting varies amongst sources, this literature review adopts the definition of Di Martino and Wirth (1990, p.530): “a flexible work arrangement whereby workers work in locations remote from their central offices or production facilities, with no personal contact with coworkers, but the ability to communicate with co-workers using ICT”. By extension, the comprehensive definition of “telecommuting” (or “teleworking”, “remote working”, and “flexible working”) covers a variety of situations, of which the common means being working from home and in coworking spaces.

This literature review aims to explore how telecommuting can contribute to a more sustainable urban development pattern. The paper begins with investigating the extensive range of impacts of telecommuting on cities based on three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. This is followed by examining various factors that affect the impacts. From this, the paper proposes urban planning guidelines for accommodating the rising trend for telecommuting within sustainable urban development.

Figure 1: Three pillars of sustainability and impacts of telecommuting

Environmental impact Many authors question whether the net environmental effects of telecommuting are positive due to various rebound effects. The numerous environmental implications can be classified into three aspects: transportation, residential relocation, and resource.

Transportation: Telework-induced travel changes appear environmentally positive (Choo et al., 2005) due to reductions in automobile use (Wood, 2003; Mokhtarian et al., 1992) which helps in lowering carbon emissions and reducing congestion (Zhang et al., 2005). However, some critics point out its negative implication, explained as the rebound effect, that telecommuting also induces non-commute work travel and increased travel of other household members (Kim, 2017; Kitou & Horvath, 2003) which can generate local congestion (Vu & Vandebona, 2007).

Residential Relocation: Several articles raise the issue regarding the impact of telecommuting on residential relocation to rural areas. Referring to the discourse of compact city in urban regional planning, this form of urban sprawl leads to environmental problems due to low-density development and congestion (Duany et al., 2000; Muhammad et al., 2007). On the contrary, by supporting the existing criticism on compact city models (Burton, 2000), some authors have a positive view of the relocation as the counter-urbanization can reduce the concentration in urban centres and alleviate pressure on existing infrastructures (Vallicelli, 2018). Therefore, the impact of residential relocation on sustainable development remains controversial.

Resources: The use of resources relating to energy, product, and material is another aspect of telecommuting’s impact on the environment. Moos et al. (2006) assesses the environmental impact of telework-induced behavioural changes using the Ecological Footprint (EF) approach by comparing the EF of office and home. The negative impacts are illustrated as increased household energy usage, expansion of living space, and increased consumption of additional equipment at home. Although offset by positive impacts such as decreased workplace-energy consumption and waste reduction from the workplace, the net impact is assumed as negative.

However, this EF assessment overlooks the teleworking mode using coworking spaces, which could alleviate negative impacts through shared facilities.

Economic Impact The impact of teleworking on the economy is related to traffic, workspace efficiency, and consumption. Firstly, the environmentally positive travel changes from teleworking also entail significant economic benefits by saving time and cost as a result of reduced traffic congestion (Yu et al., 2019; Marinelli, 2010).

Teleworking also significantly benefits the workspace by reducing the immense costs of office rental and energy consumption. Combined with sharing floor space and facilities in coworking spaces, the economic benefits can be magnified (Voordt, 2003). Furthermore, a flexible working model will boost business collaboration, promote creativity, and drive innovation (Jackonen et al., 2017) through enhanced social interaction at coworking spaces (Spinuzzi, 2012).

On the other hand, a potential threat to the local economy is the decrease of consumption from the teleworkers working from home due to less frequency of socialising away from the residence (Moos et al., 2006). This behavioural change can cause serious damage, especially to high street retailers such as restaurants and clothing stores. Notwithstanding, this can be mitigated if the telework takes place in shared workplaces where socialising is facilitated.

Social Impact Teleworking can imply a better work-life balance leading to improved health conditions of employees, declined unemployment rate in rural areas and amongst the vulnerable population, and wider career opportunities for women with children (Dima et al., 2019; Shat et al., 2003). However, the threat of social isolation and loneliness associated with home-based teleworking can be mitigated through a shared workplace (Johnson, 1999, 2003).

Another important social implication of teleworking is the aggravation of inequality among different occupations

and social groups. The recent coronavirus quarantine is clear evidence of unfairness caused by different teleworking suitability amongst professions. Ellder (2019) claims that telework is rising in all parts of the labour market, albeit in a different speed. The socio-demographic group of low income and education level, workers in labour-intensive industries and those with limited accessibility to ICT have gain much less from teleworking. This implies a risk of a further fragmented society and social divide due to the transition favouring the workforce in knowledge-based economic sectors ruling out the labour-intensive workforce who are location-dependent.

Factors for telecommuting impact Telecommuting is not necessarily a determinant factor, but an opportunity that can provide grounds for the abovementioned impacts alongside other aspects. The prominent factors mentioned from the literature reviewed can be classified as; sociocultural context, urban spatial context, individual household characteristics, and mode of teleworking.

Sociocultural contexts such as, but not limited to, preference for urban life can be critical to residential location decisions. For example, Kim et al. (2012) demonstrates that the option of telecommuting had minor effect on relocation to rural areas because South Koreans have a strong preference for a high-tech and urbanized society which outweighs the interest of living in low density areas.

Urban spatial contexts such as proximity and mobility within the city are a pivotal factor that influences the sustainable effect of telecommuting. The quality and access to the local transportation network, the spatial scale, diversity, and density which relates to the ability to provide amenities in a walkable distance can motivate an environmentally positive travel behavior (Boussauw, 2010). For instance, telecommuters from a suburban cardominant district will more likely induce the rebound effect of non-commuting travels than those in compact and walkable neighbourhood.

Another conventional but dominant aspect is the individual household characteristics such as the family lifecycle stage and household members. The option of telecommuting might not result in residential relocation due to contrasting members’ opinions and lifecycle stages (Muhammad et al., 2007). Even if the relocation takes place, the rebound effect of travel can also be caused by other members’ needs for travel (Kim, 2017).

Lastly, the mode of telecommuting influences the extent of the effects of telecommuting (Kim et al., 2012) as part-time telecommuting is geographically dependent on workplaces. Vu and Vandebona (2007) inspected that full-day telecommuters can save more travel time and fuel than part-day telecommuters. Moreover, teleworking from coworking spaces is identified as more sustainable in all three aspects than working from home, potentially mitigating several of the negative impacts mentioned above.

Conclusion Although there are numeral positive impacts from telecommuting on all three pillars of sustainability, there are certain rebound effects and challenges that must be taken into consideration. The remote working culture can provide benefits from the reduced commute, equal opportunity, and improved wellbeing, but can hinder sustainable development by inducing additional travel and consumption at home with social isolation.

Meanwhile, the rising trend of coworking spaces offsets some of these negative effects while boosting efficiency and the local economy. Yet, unfair distribution of the benefits remains a challenge. Lastly, the residential relocation due to telecommuting has dual effects: detriments from low-density urban sprawl but potential benefits from alleviating the environmental burden in metropolitan areas.

Learning from this exploration of implications and various factors of telecommuting, the following urban design and planning guidelines can be derived: First, the new residential location for telecommuters should be designed as a compact and dense community. It should be a pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood, where walking and cycling is the normal mode of travel. This walkability combined with a functional mix of land use and physical proximity to diverse activities and amenities can prevent extra emissions from unnecessary travel. Furthermore, urban structures such as coworking spaces should be provided with good accessibility from teleworkers. This ‘sharing nature’ of workplace functions is a key instrument to achieve sustainability with expected positive

impacts such as facilitating urban consumption and vitalizing the local economy, meeting the needs for social gathering, and offsetting the wasted resources from individual home working.

Figure 2: Urban Planning Guideline for Sustainable Telecommuting

In conclusion, teleworking can be a useful contribution to achieving a sustainable future. City planners and urban researchers must identify teleworking as a new opportunity and develop an eco-managed programmes such as ‘Project Telework’ in Norway (Heinonen & Kuosa, 2005), as well as design and build the urban structures that supports sustainable transitions through telecommuting. In addition, planners must be aware of the threat of social inequality and design our future cities to be more inclusive so telecommuting can benefit the whole society.

(Word count: 1645)

Bibliography Boussauw, K., Neutens, T. & Witlox, F., 2012. Relationship between Spatial Proximity and Travel-to-Work Distance: The Effect of the Compact City. Regional Studies, 6, 46(6), pp. 687-706.

Burton, E., Jenks, M., Williams, K. 2013. The Potential of the Compact City for Promoting Social Equity. 4 7.pp.

29-39.

Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P. L. & Salomon, I., 2005. Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation, 1, 32(1), pp. 37-64.

Di Martino, V. & Wirth, L., 1990. Telework: A New Way of Working and Living. International Labour Review, 129.

Dima, A. M., Tuclea, C. E., Vrânceanu, D. M. & Tigu, G., 2019. Sustainable social and individual implications of telework: A new insight into the Romanian labor market. Sustainability (Switzerland), 1 7.11(13).

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. & Speck, J., 2000. Suburban nation : the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American Dream.

Elldér, E., 2019. Who is eligible for telework? Exploring the fast-growing acceptance of and ability to telework in Sweden, 2005-2006 to 2011-2014. Social Sciences, 8(7).

Global Workplace Analytics, 2020. 'Work-At-Home After Covid-19, Our Forecast' [Online]. Available from: https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/work-at-home-after-covid-19-our-forecast (Accessed 24 April 2020) Heinonen, S. & Kuosa, T., 2005. Ecological realities of telework in four different futures: living, working and travelling in new knowledge-intensive communities. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 2(3-4), pp. 329-357.

Jakonen, M., Kivinen, N., Salovaara, P. & Hirkman, P., 2017. Towards an Economy of Encounters? A critical study of affectual assemblages in coworking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 1 12, 33(4), pp. 235-242.

Johnson, L. C., 1999. Bringing Work Home: Developing a Model Residentially-Based Telework Facility. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg.

Johnson, L. C., 2003. The co-workplace : teleworking in the neighbourhood. UBC Press.

Kim, S. N., 2017. Is telecommuting sustainable? An alternative approach to estimating the impact of homebased telecommuting on household travel. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7 2, 11(2), pp.

72-85.

Kim, S. N., Mokhtarian, P. & Ahn, K. H., 2012. The Seoul of alonso: New perspectives on telecommuting and residential location from South Korea. Urban Geography, 1 11, 33(8), pp. 1163-1191.

Kitou, E. & Horvath, A., 2003. Energy-related emissions from telework.

Marinelli, P., Cleary, N., Worthington-Eyre, H. & Doonan, K., 2010. Flexible workplaces: achieving the worker’s paradise and transport planner’s dream in Brisbane. 9. 33.

Eurofound and the International Labour Office. 2017. Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour Office, Geneva.

Mokhtarian, P., 1991. An Empirical Analysis of the Transportation Impacts of Telecommuting Moos, M., Andrey, J. & Johnson, L. C., 2006. The sustainability of telework: an ecological-footprinting approach.

Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 4, 2(1), pp. 3-14.

Muhammad, S., Ottens, H. F., Ettema, D. & Jong, T., 2007. Telecommuting and residential locational preferences: A case study of the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 7 12, 22(4), pp.

339-358.

Shaw, S. M., Andrey, J. & Johnson, L. C., 2003. The Struggle for Life Balance: Work, Family, and Leisure in the Lives of Women Teleworkers. World Leisure Journal, 1 1, 45(4), pp. 15-29.

Sohn, J., Kim, T. J. & Hewings, G. J., 2003. Information technology and urban spatial structure: A comparative analysis of the Chicago and Seoul regions. Annals of Regional Science, 9, 37(3), pp. 447-462.

Spinuzzi, C., 2012. Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 26(4), pp. 399-441.

Vallicelli, M., 2018. Smart cities and digital workplace culture in the global European context: Amsterdam, London and Paris. City, Culture and Society, 1 3, 12, pp. 25-34.

Van Der Voordt, T. J. M., 2003. Costs and Benefits of Flexible Workspaces Work in progress in the Netherlands VU, S. T. & Vandebona, U., 2007. A model for analysis of impacts of telecommuting on network travel time.

AUSTRALASIAN TRANSPORT RESEARCH FORUM (ATRF), 30TH, 2007, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, VOL 30, 9.

Wood, G., 2003. Modelling the Ecological Footprint of Green Travel Plans Using GIS and Network Analysis: From Metaphor to Management Tool?. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30 8, 30(4), pp. 523-540.

Yu, R., Burke, M. & Raad, N., 2019. Exploring impact of future flexible working model evolution on urban environment, economy and planning. Journal of Urban Management, 1 12, 8(3), pp. 447-457.

Zhang, X., Yang, H., Huang, H. J. & Zhang, H. M., 2005. Integrated scheduling of daily work activities and morning-evening commutes with bottleneck congestion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(1), pp. 41-60.