Why Aren’t More People Telecommuting?: Explanations from Four Studies
Abstract
Despite the proven “bottom-line” benefits of telework, companies are still reluctant to implement new ways of organizing their workforces. That is particularly true of the practice of allowing employees to work from home offices. The findings of four studies that identify factors that must be considered in overcoming the barriers to telework are presented: (a) a report of the Telecommute America! public-private effort to promote awareness and understanding of telecommuting and telework; (b) a survey of Houston, Texas, employers required to submit trip reduction plans under the Clean Air Acts; (c) an evaluation of the city and county of Denver, Colorado, TRP 2000 training program, and (d) the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, telecommuting assistance initiative of the North Texas Clean Air Coalition.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Transportation Implications of Telecommuting. U.S. Department of Transportation. April 1993.
2. Research Recommendations to Facilitate Distributed Work. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
3. Nilles J. M., et al. Telecommunications Transportation Tradeoffs. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1974.
4. AT&T, State of Arizona Telecommuting Pilot Six-Month Evaluation. Arizona Energy Office; AT&T, 1991.
5. The Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project Work-at-Home Component, Final Report. Report PRD 92-15. Office of Personnel Management, Jan. 1993.
6. JALA Associates, Inc. California Telecommuting Pilot Project—Final Report. California Department of General Services, North Highlands, June 1990.
7. Puget Sound Telecommuting Demonstration Executive Summary. Revised. Washington State Energy Office, Nov. 1992.
8. Southern California Association of Governments: Evaluation Report Telecommuting Pilot Project. Aug. 1988.
9. Handy S. L., and Mokhtarian P. L. Planning for Telecommuting: Measurement and Policy Issues. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995.
10. Telecommuting Review, April 1995.
11. Sun, Baytown, Tex., March 9, 1993.
12. Dallas Morning News, Sept. 21, 1994.
13. Survey of Fortune 1000 Executives. 1995 Telecommute America!, Oct. 1995.
14. Fay N. Telecommuting in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Case Study of Two Regional Telecommuting Programs. Proc., New International Perspectives on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organisation, Brunel University, West London, United Kingdom, 1996.
15. Pratt J. H. Telecommuting—Checking into It. Reverchon Press, 1996.
16. Li F. Team-Telework as an Organisational Innovation: A Theoretical Perspective. Proc., New International Perspectives on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organisation. Brunel University, West London, United Kingdom, 1996, pp. 231–246.
17. Limberg D. Introducing Telework by Design. Proc., New International Perspectives on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organisation. Brunel University, West London, United Kingdom 1996, pp. 246–261.
18. Van der Wielen J. M., and Taillieu T. C. Recent Conceptual Developments in Telework Research. Proc., Organizational Management Group, Association of Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1995.
19. Büssing A. Social Tolerance of Telecommuting, Family and Leisure and the Quality of Life. Proc., New International Perspectives on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organisation. Brunel University, West London, United Kingdom, 1996, pp. 60–79.
20. Bernardino A., Ben-Akiva M., and Salomon I. Stated Preference Approach to Modeling the Adoption of Telecommuting. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 22–30.
21. Sullivan M. A., Mahmassani H. S., and Yen J. Choice Model of Employee Participation in Telecommuting Under a Cost-Neutral Scenario. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 42–48.
22. Mokhtarian P. L., and Solomon I. I. Modeling the Choice of Telecommuting: Setting the Context. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1994, pp. 749–766.
23. Pratt J. H. Travel Behavior Impact of Telecommuting Following the San Francisco Earthquake: A Case Study. In Transportation Research Record 1305, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 282–290.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published: January 1997
Issue published: January 1997
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 21
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 3
- Home-based telework in France: Characteristics, barriers and perspecti...
- Propensity to Telecommute...
- Urban design in the digital age: a literature review of telework and w...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
