Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
Findings
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Energy Findings
    • Resilience Findings
    • Safety Findings
    • Transport Findings
    • Urban Findings
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Blog
  • covid-19
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

https://findingspress.org/feed
Transport Findings
May 24, 2023 AEST

What do People want to do instead of Commuting to Work?

Robert B. Noland, Hannah Younes, Wenwen Zhang,
Work from homeCOVID-19TelecommutingTime use
Copyright Logoccby-sa-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.75441
Findings
Noland, Robert B., Hannah Younes, and Wenwen Zhang. 2023. “What Do People Want to Do Instead of Commuting to Work?” Findings, May. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.32866/​001c.75441.
Save article as...▾
Download all (1)
  • SI
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a sudden shift to working at home. People stopped commuting to their jobs. We fielded two surveys in New Jersey during the pandemic and included questions on what respondents did with time saved from not commuting as well as which activities they wished to see continue after the pandemic subsides. Key results include that a majority of respondents reported spending more time with their family, almost half spent time watching TV or were on the internet, a large share slept later, and many walked more for exercise. We also queried respondents on activities they would like to continue after the pandemic is over, with nearly half desiring to work at home at least some of the time and about a third desiring to commute less. We also present results by gender, finding some differences in time use and preferences.

1. QUESTIONS

In March 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the world commuting to work came to a halt. While many people could not work, those who could were suddenly put in a situation where they had to work from home, except for those classified as “essential”. This led to massive time savings for many, one study estimating that during the early months of the pandemic this came to 60 million hours per day in the US (Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2020). The exogenous shock of being forced to work at home provides an opportunity to examine how this time was used and examine what people saw as the benefits associated with not commuting. Based on a survey of New Jersey residents we answer three questions:

  1. What activities did people engage in with the time saved?

  2. What activities do they hope to continue post-COVID?

  3. Are there differences in how men and women spent their newfound time?

The fundamentals of transportation planning posit that there is utility to reducing commute time and this is used as justification for large road expansions (though these are long known to be ineffective at congestion reduction, see e.g. Noland and Lem (2002)). There is a literature that has proposed that there are benefits to commuting (see e.g. Ory et al. (2004)) at least for some people, perhaps due to the separation of work and home activities. Research by Hensher, Beck, and Balbontin (2021) suggests that the increase in working from home may have increased the value of time (with implications for transport appraisal based on the value of time). Some studies have examined the reallocation of activities during the pandemic, concluding that some increase their work activities, but leisure and home-based activities also increase (Hensher, Beck, and Balbontin (2022) for Australia, and Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (2020) for the US).

2. METHODS

We collected two rounds of data using a Qualtrics online research panel. Our target population was residents in New Jersey, USA. The surveys both included a large battery of questions related to travel behavior, but we focus here on just the two questions described below. Both waves of the survey were collected during the winter peaks of the pandemic. The first survey was administered between November 30th, 2020 and February 25th, 2021 (N=1419) and the second survey between December 1st, 2021 and February 22nd, 2022 (N=1032), the latter coinciding with the Omicron wave. Responses from those who were employed were 936 and 732, respectively. Of these 73% (n=683) during the first survey worked from home at least some of the time, dropping to 63% (n=460) during the second survey. This reduction is not surprising as despite the intensity of the Omicron wave many employers were allowing in-office activity to occur more frequently. Over 97% of respondents in both surveys reported being employed before Covid.

While Qualtrics claims to provide representative data, we found that the second survey had a smaller proportion of older people compared to Census data on the New Jersey population. Thus, we weighted both samples using the PopGen software (Konduri et al. 2016; MARG 2016) so that it would be representative of New Jersey’s population on age, income, ethnicity, and gender. A few records (nine in survey 1, two in survey 2) were dropped for those who indicated “prefer not to answer” for gender and ethnicity, as these could not be weighted. We have included unweighted and weighted summary statistics for both surveys as supplemental material. This includes summary statistics for the full dataset and the subsample of those who were employed, along with the Census data for New Jersey. The subsample is based on the weighted full sample. The main shortcoming of the data is that we over represent those with more education.

Our analysis is focused on two questions included in our survey:

  • On days you work or study from home, have you been able to engage in other activities with the time saved by not commuting?

  • Which of the following experiences (if any) have you had during the pandemic that you would most like to continue after COVID-19 is no longer a threat?

Both questions contained a list of activities and respondents could select as many as they wished. An “other” option was also provided, but received very few open text responses most without useful information. While the first question also asked about studying at home, we excluded those who were only students so we could focus exclusively on those with jobs.

We also produce a cross tabulation of these questions by gender. We use the Chi Squared test to determine whether there are differences between the two years (comparing the responses between winter 2020-21 and winter 2021-22) and between genders (comparing the genders in each survey).

3. FINDINGS

We report our findings for each question, for both surveys (winter 2020-21 and winter 2021-22), and by reported gender (men and women). Results are displayed in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. We highlight key results, but the tables are a rich source of information for readers to examine.

The largest share of our respondents report that time spent not commuting allows them to spend more time with their family, with a small increase during the second Covid wave (54% and 57%, respectively). Increased time was also spent on other household activities, in particular for watching TV and using the internet (about 48% of respondents, though women reported more time in this activity than men during the second wave). More women also reported spending more time preparing and enjoying meals than men, as well as on household chores, the latter even more so during the Omicron wave (47% of women, vs. 33% of men).

Time spent not commuting also allowed individuals to schedule their time, including work activities differently. About a quarter of our respondents reported working longer hours than before. Over a third of respondents reported sleeping later and this increased to 44% in the second wave. Respondents also reported an increase in making their own schedule between the first and second waves. A larger fraction of women reported sleeping later as a result of working from home in both waves. Time savings would have also occurred from not preparing for a day at work, such as personal grooming or getting dressed up, though we did not ask explicitly about these activities.

Time was also spent on recreational activities, in particular walking for exercise was reported by over 40% of respondents. Men reported both more running and bicycling for exercise than women in both waves.

Our respondents reported that they would like to see various activities continue after the pandemic is over (Table 3 and Table 4). Nearly half of our respondents indicated a preference to continue working at home, at least some of the time; interestingly women expressed a greater preference for this in the second wave of our survey. About one-third of the respondents expressed a preference for less commuting, driving, and traveling, though the preference for these were less than the preference for working at home. More women than men expressed a preference for less commuting, driving, and traveling. About 40% indicated they would like to continue to take more walks. More time with family and cooking at home more frequently were also experiences that about 40% indicated they would like to see continue.

These findings all provide a useful perspective on how we think about commute time, working at home, and the associated benefits.

Table 1.On days you work or study from home, have you been able to engage in other activities with the time saved by not commuting? Comparison of both surveys, percent based on those reporting working from home at least one day per week.
Working from home (N=683), Winter 2020/21 (%) Working from home (N=460), Winter 2021/22 (%) Chi Squared (P value)
Family/household activities
Spend more time with family 54.4 57.2 0.350
Watch more TV or spend more time on the internet 47.5 48.6 0.715
Spend more time cooking or enjoying meals 38.3 39.5 0.683
Spend more time on household chores 32.9 39.6 0.020
Personal scheduling / work activities
Work longer hours than before 26.3 29.3 0.265
Wake up later in the morning 35.7 43.5 0.008
I can make my own schedule 16.6 28.0 0.000
Recreational activities
Spend more time on personal hobbies 22.1 24.4 0.365
Walk for exercise 43.1 46.0 0.333
Running or other exercise activities 20.9 19.4 0.536
Bicycle for exercise 17.2 13.8 0.123

Note: All results weighted to be representative of the New Jersey population.

Table 2.On days you work or study from home, have you been able to engage in other activities with the time saved by not commuting? Comparison between men and women respondents, both surveys. Percent based on those reporting working from home at least one day per week.
Working from home (N=683),
Winter 2020/21 (%)
Working from home (N=460),
Winter 2021/22 (%)
Men (N=315) Women (N=368) Chi Squared (P-value) Men (N=240) Women (N=220) Chi Squared (P-value)
Family/household activities
Spend more time with family 53.8 55.1 0.734 58.1 56.3 0.697
Watch more TV or spend more time on the internet 48.4 46.5 0.620 42.6 55.0 0.008
Spend more time cooking or enjoying meals 31.0 46.5 0.000 34.1 45.3 0.014
Spend more time on household chores 30.3 35.8 0.128 32.7 46.8 0.002
Personal scheduling / work activities
Work longer hours than before 26.6 25.9 0.836 30.9 27.7 0.452
Wake up later in the morning 27.0 45.4 0.000 38.4 48.8 0.025
I can make my own schedule 16.3 17.0 0.807 24.2 32.0 0.063
Recreational activities
Spend more time on personal hobbies 23.9 20.1 0.231 20.0 28.9 0.026
Walk for exercise 40.4 46.1 0.134 47.5 44.5 0.519
Running or other exercise activities 23.0 18.6 0.157 20.5 18.3 0.552
Bicycle for exercise 20.6 13.5 0.013 17.3 10.1 0.026

Note: All results weighted to be representative of the New Jersey population.

Table 3.Which of the following experiences (if any) have you had during the pandemic that you would most like to continue after COVID-19 is no longer a threat? Comparison of both surveys, percent based on those reporting that they are employed.
Working population (N= 936),
Winter 2020/21 (%)
Working population (N= 732),
Winter 2021/22 (%)
Chi Squared
(P value)
Preferences that might affect transportation
Working from home, at least some of the time 47.0 47.6 0.80
Commuting less 29.0 35.2 0.01
Driving less 34.8 34.7 0.95
Traveling less 27.8 25.5 0.30
Taking more walks 40.7 43.5 0.25
Shopping online more 40.2 43.5 0.18
Conducting meetings online 25.5 33.6 0.00
Cooking at home more often 43.5 48.5 0.04
Other preferences
Spending more time with family 40.9 43.4 0.32
Spending less money 36.5 47.2 0.00
A slower pace of life 30.2 34.0 0.10
Keeping in touch with family and friends using video-conferencing 28.5 25.0 0.11

Note: All results weighted to be representative of the New Jersey population.

Table 4.Which of the following experiences (if any) have you had during the pandemic that you would most like to continue after COVID-19 is no longer a threat? Comparison between men and women respondents, both surveys, percent based on those reporting that they are employed.
Working population (N= 936),
Winter 2020/21 (%)
Working population (N= 732),
Winter 2021/22 (%)
Men (N=438) Women (N=498) Chi Squared
(P value)
Men
(N=378)
Women (N=354) Chi Squared
(P value)
Preferences that might affect transportation
Working from home, at least some of the time 49.1 44.6 0.169 42.9 52.6 0.009
Commuting less 25 33.7 0.004 30.7 40 0.008
Driving less 33.6 36.2 0.405 32.6 36.8 0.233
Traveling less 29 26.4 0.375 24.9 26.2 0.687
Taking more walks 35.3 41.1 0.069 38.1 49.2 0.002
Shopping online more 37.4 43.6 0.054 36.1 51.2 0.000
Conducting meetings online 26.4 24.4 0.483 32 35.3 0.345
Cooking at home more often 40.8 46.6 0.074 42.8 54.4 0.002
Other preferences
Spending more time with family 41.7 40 0.597 41.7 45.1 0.354
Spending less money 30.2 43.8 0.000 43.7 50.8 0.054
A slower pace of life 23.6 37.9 0.000 27.8 40.5 0.000
Keeping in touch with family and friends using video-conferencing 26.4 30.9 0.129 22.4 27.8 0.092

Note: All results weighted to be representative of the New Jersey population.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the New Jersey Policy Lab at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers for supporting this work. Evan Iacobucci assisted with development of the first survey instrument.

While the New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education (OSHE) administers the partnership that funds the New Jersey State Policy Lab, these findings do not necessarily represent the policy or endorsement of OSHE or the state of New Jersey.

Submitted: March 18, 2023 AEST

Accepted: May 17, 2023 AEST

References

Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis. 2020. “60 Million Fewer Commuting Hours per Day: How Americans Use Time Saved by Working from Home.” University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper, no. 2020–132.
Google Scholar
Hensher, David A., Matthew J. Beck, and Camila Balbontin. 2021. “What Does the Quantum of Working from Home Do to the Value of Commuting Time Used in Transport Appraisal?” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 153:35–51. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2021.09.001.
Google Scholar
———. 2022. “Time Allocation of Reduced Commuting Time during COVID-19 under Working from Home.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 56 (4): 399–428.
Google Scholar
Konduri, Karthik C., Daehyun You, Venu M. Garikapati, and Ram M. Pendyala. 2016. “Application of an Enhanced Population Synthesis Model That Accommodates Controls at Multiple Geographic Resolutions.” In Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Google Scholar
MARG. 2016. PopGen: Synthetic Population Generator. https:/​/​www.mobilityanalytics.org/​popgen.html.
Google Scholar
Noland, Robert B., and Lewison L. Lem. 2002. “A Review of the Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes in Transportation and Environmental Policy in the US and the UK.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 7 (1): 1–26. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s1361-9209(01)00009-8.
Google Scholar
Ory, David T., Patricia L. Mokhtarian, Lothlorien S. Redmond, Ilan Salomon, Gustavo O. Collantes, and Sangho Choo. 2004. “When Is Commuting Desirable to the Individual?” Growth and Change 35 (3): 334–59. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1468-2257.2004.00252.x.
Google Scholar

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system