Relationships between Teleworking and Travel Behavior in the Brazilian COVID-19 Crisis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Behaviors during the Pandemic
2.2. Teleworking
3. Materials and Method
3.1. Database
3.1.1. Secondary Data
3.1.2. Primary Data
3.2. Methodological Procedure
3.2.1. Methodological Procedure Adopted in the First Approach
3.2.2. Methodological Procedure Adopted in the Second Approach
4. Results Relative to the 2020 Aggregated Data: Secondary Data
4.1. Preliminary Exploratory Data Analysis
4.2. Cluster Analysis Results
4.3. Multinomial Logit Model Results
5. Results Related to Primary Data—Year 2022
5.1. Characteristics of the Pilot Sample
5.2. Characterization of the Final Sample Obtained
5.3. Comparisons between Socioeconomic Characteristics, Region of Origin, and Work Regime
5.4. Comparisons between Mobility and Work Regime
5.5. Comparisons between ICT Cognitive Engagement and Proficiency and Work Regime
6. Discussions Regarding the Main Findings
7. Conclusions, Contributions, and Research Constraints
7.1. Summarizing the Findings and Main Conclusions
- Socioeconomic and Region: Education level and country region are associated to regime work;
- Travel characteristics: Average travel distance and average travel time are also associated to regime work;
- Travel characteristics: Travel frequency of work trips are also related to regime work;
- ICT cognitive engagement and proficiency: Preference for computer jobs, proficiency in using virtual meeting platforms, and proficiency in using activity management platforms are also associated to regime work.
7.2. Methodological Constraints and Future Studies
7.3. Contributions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nguyen, M.H. Factors influencing home-based telework in Hanoi (Vietnam) during and after the COVID-19 era. Transportation 2021, 48, 3207–3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Getting Your Workplace Ready for COVID-19: How COVID-19 Spreads. 2020. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331584 (accessed on 27 June 2022).
- Belzunegui-Eraso, A.; Erro-Garcés, A. Teleworking in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues da Silva, A.N.; Pitombo, C.S.; Pedreira Junior, J.U.; Ciriaco, T.G.M.; Costa, C.S. Changes in mobility and challenges to the transport sector in Brazil due to COVID-19. Transp. Amid Pandemics 2023, 1, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FIOCRUZ—Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde. Monitora COVID-19. 2021. Available online: https://bigdata-covid19.icict.fiocruz.br/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Fatmi, M.R. COVID-19 impact on urban mobility. J. Urban Manag. 2020, 9, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamshiripour, A.; Rahimi, E.; Shabanpour, R.; Mohammadian, A. How is COVID-19 reshaping activity-travel behavior? Evidence from a comprehensive survey in Chicago. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C. To Cope with a New Coronavirus Pandemic: How Life May Be Changed Forever. Chin. J. Int. Law 2020, 19, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shibayama, T.; Sandholzer, F.; Laa, B.; Brezina, T. Impact of covid-19 lockdown on commuting: A multi-country perspective. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2021, 21, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astroza, S.; Tirachini, A.; Hurtubia, R.; Carrasco, J.A.; Guevara, A.; Munizaga, M.; Figueroa, M.; Torres, V. Mobility Changes, Teleworking, and Remote Communication during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Chile. Findings 2020, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, C.S.; Pitombo, C.S.; de Souza, F.L.U. Travel Behavior before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil: Mobility Changes and Transport Policies for a Sustainable Transportation System in the Post-Pandemic Period. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenelius, E.; Cebecauer, M. Impacts of COVID-19 on public transport ridership in Sweden: Analysis of ticket validations, sales and passenger counts. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 8, 100242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreev, P.; Salomon, I.; Pliskin, N. Review: State of teleactivities. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2010, 18, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Góes, G.V. COVID-19 e o Impacto das Teleatividades no Transporte Metropolitano e Não Metropolitano. Nota Tec. N° 83-IPEA 2021, 1, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benita, F. Human mobility behavior in COVID-19: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mamani-Benito, O.; Esteban, R.F.C.; Hernández, R.M.; Tito-Betancur, M.; Chaparro, J.E.T.; Saavedra-López, M.A.; Calle-Ramírez, X.M.; Sierra-Liñan, F. Worldwide Scientific Production on Teleworking in Scopus in Times of COVID-19. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 2022, 12, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilles, J. Telecommunications and Organizational Decentralization. IEEE Trans. Commun. 1975, 23, 1142–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, T.D.; Golden, T.D.; Shockley, K.M. How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2015, 16, 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurofound and International Labour Office. Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mokhtarian, P.L. Defining Telecommuting; Working Paper Series; Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 1991; p. 1305. [Google Scholar]
- Chong, S.; Huang, Y.; Chang, C.H. Supporting interdependent telework employees: A moderated-mediation model linking daily COVID-19 task setbacks to next-day work withdrawal. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 1408–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caringal-Go, J.F.; Teng-Calleja, M.; Bertulfo, D.J.; Manaois, J.O. Work-life balance crafting during COVID-19: Exploring strategies of telecommuting employees in the Philippines. Community Work Fam. 2021, 25, 112–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, J.; Languilaire, J.-C.; Lawthom, R.; Nieuwenhuis, R.; Petts, R.J.; Runswick-Cole, K.; Yerkes, M.A. Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19. Community Work Fam 2020, 23, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Contreras, F.; Baykal, E.; Abid, G. E-Leadership and Teleworking in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond: What We Know and Where Do We Go. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 590271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buomprisco, G.; Ricci, S.; Perri, R.; de Sio, S. Health and Telework: New Challenges after COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. J. Environ. Public Health 2021, 5, em0073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pedreira Junior, J.U.; Galindo, E.P.; Batista, A.H.; Pitombo, C.S.; Rodrigues da Silva, A.N. The panorama of public officials’ meeting trips after the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact level, recovery, and prospects. Front. Future Transp. 2022, 3, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, V.C.; Goshima, C.Y.S.; Junior, J.U.P.; Pitombo, C.S. Comparações Entre Teletrabalhadores e Trabalhadores Presenciais Segundo Características Socioeconômicas, Uso de Tecnologias e Mobilidade. Anais do 36° Congresso de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes. 2022. Available online: https://proceedings.science/anpet-2022/trabalhos/comparacoes-entre-teletrabalhadores-e-trabalhadores-presenciais-segundo-caracter?lang=pt-br (accessed on 1 January 2023).
- Soza-Parra, J.; Circella, G.; Sperling, D. Changes in activity organization and travel behavior choices in the United States. Transp. Amid Pandemics 2023, 1, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Google LLC. Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports. 2021. Available online: https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ (accessed on 19 August 2021).
- Góes, G.S.; Martins, F.D.S.; Nascimento, J.A.S.D. Potencial de Teletrabalho na Pandemia: Um Retrato no Brasil e no Mundo. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2020. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2020/06/potencial-de-teletrabalho-na-pandemia-um-retrato-no-brasil-e-no-mundo/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Góes, G.S.; Martins, F.D.S.; Nascimento, J.A.S.D. O Trabalho Remoto e a Pandemia: O Que a Pnad COVID-19 nos Mostrou. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2021/02/o-trabalho-remoto-e-a-pandemia-o-que-a-pnad-covid-19-nos-mostrou/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho, S.S. Os Efeitos da Pandemia Sobre os Rendimentos do Trabalho e o Impacto do Auxílio Emergencial: Os Resultados dos Microdados da PNAD COVID-19 de Setembro. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2020. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2020/11/os-efeitos-da-pandemia-sobre-os-rendimentos-do-trabalho-e-o-impacto-do-auxilio-emergencial-os-resultados-dos-microdados-da-pnad-covid-19-de-setembro/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho, S.S. Os Efeitos da Pandemia Sobre os Rendimentos do Trabalho e o Impacto do Auxílio Emergencial: Os Resultados dos Microdados da PNAD COVID-19 de Novembro. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2021/01/os-efeitos-da-pandemia-sobre-os-rendimentos-do-trabalho-e-o-impacto-do-auxilio-emergencial-os-resultados-dos-microdados-da-pnad-covid-19-de-novembro/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho, S.S. Os Efeitos da Pandemia Sobre os Rendimentos do Trabalho e o Impacto do Auxílio Emergencial: Os Resultados dos Microdados da PNAD COVID-19 de Agosto. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2020. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2020/09/os-efeitos-da-pandemia-sobre-os-rendimentos-do-trabalho-e-o-impacto-do-auxilio-emergencial-os-resultados-dos-microdados-da-pnad-covid-19-de-agosto/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho, S.S. Os Efeitos da Pandemia Sobre os Rendimentos do Trabalho e o Impacto do Auxílio Emergencial: Os Resultados dos Microdados da PNAD COVID-19 de Junho. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2020. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2020/07/os-efeitos-da-pandemia-sobre-os-rendimentos-do-trabalho-e-o-impacto-do-auxilio-emergencial-os-resultados-dos-microdados-da-pnad-covid-19-de-junho/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho, S.S. Os Efeitos da Pandemia Sobre os Rendimentos do Trabalho e o Impacto do Auxílio Emergencial: Os Resultados dos Microdados da PNAD COVID-19 de Julho. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2020. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2020/08/os-efeitos-da-pandemia-sobre-os-rendimentos-do-trabalho-e-o-impacto-do-auxilio-emergencial-os-resultados-dos-microdados-da-pnad-covid-19-de-julho/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Góes, G.S.; Martins, F.D.S.; Nascimento, J.A.S.D. O Trabalho Remoto na Pandemia nas Unidades Federativas Brasileiras: A Heterogeneidade das Suas Realidades. Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2021; pp. 1–11. Available online: https://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/10875/20/CC_52_nota_20_teletrabalho.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2023).
- IBGE. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios: PNAD COVID-19. Rio de Janeiro, 2020. Available online: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/trabalho/27946-divulgacao-semanal-pnadcovid1.html (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- de Carvalho Caldas, M.U.; Pitombo, C.S.; Assirati, L. Strategy to reduce the number of parameters to be estimated in discrete choice models: An approach to large choice sets. Travel. Behav. Soc. 2021, 25, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderberg, M.R. Cluster Analysis for Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1973; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everitt, B.S.; Landau, S.; Leese, M.; Stahl, D. Cluster Analysis, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Análise Multivariada de Dados, 6th ed.; Artmed Editora S.A: São Paulo, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kassambara, A. Multivariate Analysis I: Practical Guide to Cluster Analysis in R. Unsupervised Machine Learning, 1st ed.; STHDA: Marseille, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sibson, R. SLINK: An optimally efficient algorithm for the single-link cluster method. Comput. J. 1973, 16, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.E.; Lerman, S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand; MIT Press: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Front. Econ. 1974, 1, 105–142. Available online: https://eml.berkeley.edu/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2023).
- Ortúzar, J.D.; Willumsen, L.G. Modelling Transport; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, V.A.; de Carvalho Caldas, M.U.; Souza Pitombo, C. Investigação do comportamento relativo a viagens encadeadas a partir de participação em atividades, variáveis socioeconômicas e características agregadas das alternativas modais. Transportes 2021, 29, 173–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, K. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1900, 50, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goodman, L.A. Snowball Sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1961, 32, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zylka, J.; Christoph, G.; Kroehne, U.; Hartig, J.; Goldhammer, F. Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassambara, A.; Mundt, F. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R Package Version 1.0.7. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Therneau, T.; Atkinson, B.; Ripley, B. Rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees. R Package Version 4.1.17. 2022. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpart (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Bierlaire, M. A short introduction to PandasBiogeme. In Technical Report TRANSP-OR 200605; Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mangiafico, S. Rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. R Package Version 2.4.26. 2023. Available online: https://rcompanion.org/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- López-Igual, P.; Rodríguez-Modroño, P. Who is teleworking and where from? Exploring the main determinants of telework in Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 18797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Horn, C.E.; Storen, D. Telework: Coming of Age? Evaluating the Potential Benefits of Telework. In Telework: The New Workplace of the 21st Century; Herman, A.M., Ed.; US Department of Labor: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Vilhelmson, B.; Thulin, E. Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2016, 31, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alizadeh, T. Teleworkers’ Characteristics in Live/Work Communities: Lessons from the United States and Australia. J. Urban Technol. 2012, 19, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dingel, J.I.; Neiman, B. How many jobs can be done at home? J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Lu, J.; Gao, S.; Wang, S.; Liu, Z.; Wei, H. Staying at Home Is a Privilege: Evidence from Fine-Grained Mobile Phone Location Data in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2022, 112, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Góes, G.S.; Martins, F.D.S.; Nascimento, J.A.S.D. Trabalho Remoto no Brasil em 2020 sob a Pandemia do COVID-19: Quem, Quantos e Onde Estão? Carta Conjunt.–IPEA. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cartadeconjuntura/index.php/2021/07/trabalho-remoto-no-brasil-em-2020-sob-a-pandemia-do-covid-19-quem-quantos-e-onde-estao/ (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 1974, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBGE. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua. 2017. Available online: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/17270-pnad-continua.html?edicao=18971&t=publicacoes (accessed on 27 June 2022).
- Baltar, F.; Brunet, I. Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res. 2012, 22, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voicu, M.C.; Babonea, A.M. Using the Snowball Method in Marketing Research on Hidden Populations. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2011, 1, 1341–1351. Available online: https://scholar.archive.org/work/z4gmjcvopbhf3d5g7c4v6l3v2m/access/wayback/http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2011_articles/index.php?dir=02_economy%2F&download=cks_2011_economy_art_054.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2022).
- de Campos, C.I.; Pitombo, C.S.; Delhomme, P.; Ferreira, S. What are the risk behaviors of Brazilian and Portuguese drivers? An exploratory approach using self-reported data. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 1746–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciriaco, T.G.M.; Pitombo, C.S.; Assirati, L. Travel behavior and activity resilience regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: An approach based on smartphone panel data. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2023, 12, 100998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Secondary Public Data | Source |
---|---|
Daily percentage travel variations for workplaces in relation to the baseline, for each Brazilian state. | COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports [29] |
Number of people in teleworking (potential). | Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA)—Conjuncture Letter No 47 [30] |
Potential teleworking ranking. | |
Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranking. | |
Teleworking potential percentage. | |
Number of people effectively teleworking. | Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA)—Conjuncture Letter No 50 [31] |
Percentage of people engaged in teleworking. | |
Gini index. | |
Mean labor income effectively received. | Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA)—Conjuncture Letter No 48, 49 and 50 [32,33,34,35,36] |
Mean labor income usually received. | |
Profile of employed and active people regarding gender, age, color, education, service sector, and economic activity. | Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA)—Conjuncture Letter No 52 [37] |
Profile of people in teleworking regarding gender, age, color, education, service sector, and economic activity. | |
Unemployment rate. | Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—National Household Sample Survey: PNAD COVID-19 [38] |
Percentage of people employed and away from work due to social distancing in the total employed population. | |
Proxy of the informality rate of employed people. | |
Number of daily cases and deaths. | Monitors COVID-19 [5] |
Variable | In-Person | Part-Time Teleworking | Full-Time Teleworking | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
Female | 78 | 61.4% | 26 | 50.0% | 35 | 51.5% | 139 | 56.3% |
Male | 47 | 37.0% | 26 | 50.0% | 33 | 48.5% | 106 | 42.9% |
Other | 2 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.8% |
Age | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
18–24 | 25 | 19.7% | 16 | 30.8% | 22 | 32.4% | 63 | 25.5% |
25–30 | 46 | 36.2% | 24 | 46.2% | 25 | 36.8% | 95 | 38.5% |
31–35 | 14 | 11.0% | 5 | 9.6% | 9 | 13.2% | 28 | 11.3% |
36–40 | 9 | 7.1% | 1 | 1.9% | 5 | 7.4% | 15 | 6.1% |
41–45 | 10 | 7.9% | 3 | 5.8% | 3 | 4.4% | 16 | 6.5% |
46–50 | 14 | 11.0% | 1 | 1.9% | 4 | 5.9% | 19 | 7.7% |
51–55 | 6 | 4.7% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 7 | 2.8% |
56–60 | 3 | 2.4% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 1.6% |
61 or more | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Educational level | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
Complete high school | 13 | 10.2% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.5% | 14 | 5.7% |
Incomplete undergraduate degree | 20 | 15.7% | 9 | 17.3% | 18 | 26.5% | 47 | 19.0% |
Complete undergraduate degree | 80 | 63.0% | 35 | 67.3% | 34 | 50.0% | 149 | 60.3% |
Master’s degree | 10 | 7.9% | 7 | 13.5% | 13 | 19.1% | 30 | 12.1% |
Doctoral degree | 4 | 3.1% | 1 | 1.9% | 2 | 2.9% | 7 | 2.8% |
Region | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
North/Northeast | 32 | 25.2% | 7 | 13.5% | 4 | 5.9% | 43 | 17.4% |
Midwest | 4 | 3.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 5.9% | 8 | 3.2% |
South | 9 | 7.1% | 1 | 1.9% | 2 | 2.9% | 12 | 4.9% |
Southeast | 82 | 64.6% | 44 | 84.6% | 58 | 85.3% | 184 | 74.5% |
Car ownership | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
0 | 17 | 13.4% | 9 | 17.3% | 20 | 29.4% | 46 | 18.6% |
1 | 65 | 51.2% | 27 | 51.9% | 32 | 47.1% | 124 | 50.2% |
2 | 37 | 29.1% | 11 | 21.2% | 11 | 16.2% | 59 | 23.9% |
3 or more | 8 | 6.3% | 5 | 9.6% | 5 | 7.4% | 18 | 7.3% |
Variable | In-Person | Part-Time Teleworking | Full-Time Teleworking | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TF (work) general | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 38 | 29.9% | 7 | 13.5% | 50 | 73.5% | 95 | 38.5% |
Until 3 times/month | 8 | 6.3% | 15 | 28.8% | 15 | 22.1% | 38 | 15.4% |
Until 3 times/week | 3 | 2.4% | 19 | 36.5% | 2 | 2.9% | 24 | 9.7% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 56 | 44.1% | 7 | 13.5% | 1 | 1.5% | 64 | 25.9% |
More than 5 times/week | 22 | 17.3% | 4 | 7.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 26 | 10.5% |
TF (work) on foot | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 100 | 78.7% | 40 | 76.9% | 64 | 94.1% | 204 | 82.6% |
Until 3 times/month | 10 | 7.9% | 4 | 7.7% | 2 | 2.9% | 16 | 6.5% |
Until 3 times/week | 3 | 2.4% | 4 | 7.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 7 | 2.8% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 11 | 8.7% | 4 | 7.7% | 2 | 2.9% | 17 | 6.9% |
More than 5 times/week | 3 | 2.4% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 1.2% |
TF (work) bicycle | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 120 | 94.5% | 51 | 98.1% | 65 | 95.6% | 236 | 95.5% |
Until 3 times/month | 4 | 3.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 2.9% | 6 | 2.4% |
Until 3 times/week | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.4% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 2 | 1.6% | 1 | 1.9% | 1 | 1.5% | 4 | 1.6% |
More than 5 times/week | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
TF (work) ride | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 90 | 70.9% | 36 | 69.2% | 63 | 92.6% | 189 | 76.5% |
Until 3 times/month | 10 | 7.9% | 7 | 13.5% | 4 | 5.9% | 21 | 8.5% |
Until 3 times/week | 4 | 3.1% | 6 | 11.5% | 1 | 1.5% | 11 | 4.5% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 18 | 14.2% | 3 | 5.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 21 | 8.5% |
More than 5 times/week | 5 | 3.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | 2.0% |
TF (work) driver | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 47 | 37.0% | 24 | 46.2% | 59 | 86.8% | 130 | 52.6% |
Until 3 times/month | 6 | 4.7% | 12 | 23.1% | 5 | 7.4% | 23 | 9.3% |
Until 3 times/week | 11 | 8.7% | 6 | 11.5% | 1 | 1.5% | 18 | 7.3% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 46 | 36.2% | 6 | 11.5% | 2 | 2.9% | 54 | 21.9% |
More than 5 times/week | 17 | 13.4% | 4 | 7.7% | 1 | 1.5% | 22 | 8.9% |
TF (work) public | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 96 | 75.6% | 38 | 73.1% | 61 | 89.7% | 195 | 78.9% |
Until 3 times/month | 6 | 4.7% | 10 | 19.2% | 5 | 7.4% | 21 | 8.5% |
Until 3 times/week | 4 | 3.1% | 3 | 5.8% | 1 | 1.5% | 8 | 3.2% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 20 | 15.7% | 1 | 1.9% | 1 | 1.5% | 22 | 8.9% |
More than 5 times/week | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.4% |
TF (work) app | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 92 | 72.4% | 33 | 63.5% | 61 | 89.7% | 186 | 75.3% |
Until 3 times/month | 23 | 18.1% | 10 | 19.2% | 7 | 10.3% | 40 | 16.2% |
Until 3 times/week | 9 | 7.1% | 4 | 7.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 13 | 5.3% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 2 | 1.6% | 3 | 5.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | 2.0% |
More than 5 times/week | 1 | 0.8% | 2 | 3.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 1.2% |
TF (work) taxi | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
None | 126 | 99.2% | 51 | 98.1% | 67 | 98.5% | 244 | 98.8% |
Until 3 times/month | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.5% | 2 | 0.8% |
Until 3 times/week | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.4% |
Between 3 and 5 times/week | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
More than 5 times/week | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
TT (work) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
Less than 15 min | 48 | 37.80% | 16 | 30.80% | 3 | 4.40% | 67 | 37.4% |
15–30 min | 44 | 34.60% | 13 | 25.00% | 5 | 7.40% | 62 | 34.6% |
30–45 min | 7 | 5.50% | 7 | 13.50% | 1 | 1.50% | 15 | 8.4% |
45–60 min | 6 | 4.70% | 3 | 5.80% | 1 | 1.50% | 10 | 5.6% |
1–2 h | 7 | 5.50% | 7 | 13.50% | 4 | 5.90% | 18 | 10.1% |
More than 2 h | 3 | 2.40% | 2 | 3.80% | 2 | 2.90% | 7 | 3.9% |
TD (work) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
Less than 1 km | 11 | 8.70% | 1 | 1.90% | 1 | 1.50% | 13 | 7.2% |
1–5 km | 45 | 35.40% | 19 | 36.50% | 6 | 8.80% | 70 | 38.7% |
6–10 km | 26 | 20.50% | 8 | 15.40% | 3 | 4.40% | 37 | 20.4% |
11–15 km | 18 | 14.20% | 6 | 11.50% | 1 | 1.50% | 25 | 13.8% |
More than 15 km | 21 | 16.50% | 12 | 23.10% | 3 | 4.40% | 36 | 19.9% |
Variable | In-Person | Part-Time Teleworking | Full-Time Teleworking | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Confidence to handle computers (ICT Cognitive Engagement 1) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.4% |
2 | 3 | 2.4% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 1.2% |
3 | 10 | 7.9% | 1 | 1.9% | 2 | 2.9% | 13 | 5.3% |
4 | 22 | 17.3% | 4 | 7.7% | 6 | 8.8% | 32 | 13.0% |
5 | 91 | 71.7% | 47 | 90.4% | 60 | 88.2% | 198 | 80.2% |
Ability to solve computer problems (ICT Cognitive Engagement 2) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 9 | 7.1% | 1 | 1.9% | 1 | 1.5% | 11 | 4.5% |
2 | 8 | 6.3% | 2 | 3.8% | 2 | 2.9% | 12 | 4.9% |
3 | 17 | 13.4% | 6 | 11.5% | 3 | 4.4% | 26 | 10.5% |
4 | 38 | 29.9% | 13 | 25.0% | 21 | 30.9% | 72 | 29.1% |
5 | 55 | 43.3% | 30 | 57.7% | 41 | 60.3% | 126 | 51.0% |
Ease to become acquainted with new computer programs (ICT Cognitive Engagement 3) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 2 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.8% |
2 | 4 | 3.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 1.6% |
3 | 13 | 10.2% | 1 | 1.9% | 3 | 4.4% | 17 | 6.9% |
4 | 31 | 24.4% | 13 | 25.0% | 17 | 25.0% | 61 | 24.7% |
5 | 77 | 60.6% | 38 | 73.1% | 48 | 70.6% | 163 | 66.0% |
Preference for computer jobs (ICT Cognitive Engagement 4) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 10 | 7.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 10 | 4.0% |
2 | 12 | 9.4% | 1 | 1.9% | 1 | 1.5% | 14 | 5.7% |
3 | 15 | 11.8% | 6 | 11.5% | 9 | 13.2% | 30 | 12.1% |
4 | 32 | 25.2% | 8 | 15.4% | 16 | 23.5% | 56 | 22.7% |
5 | 58 | 45.7% | 37 | 71.2% | 42 | 61.8% | 137 | 55.5% |
Interest on new computer technologies (ICT Cognitive Engagement 5) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 6 | 4.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.5% | 7 | 2.8% |
2 | 3 | 2.4% | 1 | 1.9% | 2 | 2.9% | 6 | 2.4% |
3 | 23 | 18.1% | 3 | 5.8% | 7 | 10.3% | 33 | 13.4% |
4 | 29 | 22.8% | 12 | 23.1% | 19 | 27.9% | 60 | 24.3% |
5 | 66 | 52.0% | 36 | 69.2% | 39 | 57.4% | 141 | 57.1% |
Proficiency in virtual meeting platforms use (ICT Proficiency 1) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 6 | 7.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 6 | 2.4% |
2 | 11 | 8.7% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 12 | 4.9% |
3 | 20 | 15.7% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 21 | 8.5% |
4 | 36 | 28.3% | 9 | 17.3% | 12 | 17.6% | 57 | 23.1% |
5 | 54 | 42.5% | 41 | 78.8% | 56 | 82.4% | 151 | 61.1% |
Proficiency in activity management platforms use (ICT Proficiency 2) | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % |
1 | 10 | 7.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 1.5% | 11 | 4.5% |
2 | 16 | 12.6% | 4 | 7.7% | 4 | 5.9% | 24 | 9.7% |
3 | 34 | 26.8% | 13 | 25.0% | 13 | 19.1% | 60 | 24.3% |
4 | 35 | 27.6% | 15 | 28.8% | 13 | 19.1% | 63 | 25.5% |
5 | 32 | 25.2% | 20 | 38.5% | 37 | 54.4% | 89 | 36.0% |
Group | Variable | Scale | Levels | Hypothesis | Tests |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socioeconomics | Gender | Nominal | Female; male; other | H0: there is no association between socioeconomic variables and work regimes. H1: there is an association between socioeconomic variables and work regimes. | Chi-squared [49] |
Age | Ordinal | 18–24; 25–30; 31–40; 41–50; 51–60; 61 or more | |||
Educational level | Ordinal | Complete high school; incomplete undergraduate degree; complete undergraduate degree; master’s degree; doctoral degree | |||
Region | Nominal | City and state | |||
Car ownership | Ordinal | 0; 1; 2; 3 or more | |||
Type of work | Nominal | In-person; part-time teleworking; Full-time teleworking | |||
Travel | Average time | Quantitative | - | H0: there is no difference between quantitative travel related variables and work regimes. H1: there are differences between quantitative travel related variables and work regimes. | Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test [52] |
Average distance | Quantitative | ||||
Travel | Travel frequency (by purpose and travel mode) | Ordinal | None; until 3 times/month; until 3 times/week; between 3 and 5 times/week; more than 5 times/week | H0: there is no association between travel variables and work regimes. H1: there is an association between travel variables and work regimes. | Chi-squared [49] |
Travel time (by purpose, on main travel mode) | Ordinal | Less than 15 min; 15–30 min; 30–45 min; 45–60 min; 1–2 h; more than 2 h | |||
Travel distance (by purpose, on main travel mode) | Ordinal | Less than 1 km; 1–5 km; 6–10 km; 11–15 km; more than 15 km | |||
ICTs | Confidence to handle computers (ICT Cognitive Engagement 1) | Ordinal | Agreement scale (1: completely disagree to 5: completely agree) | H0: there is no association between ICTs related variables and work regimes. H1: there is an association between ICTs related variables and work regimes. | Chi-squared [49] |
Ability to solve computer problems (ICT Cognitive Engagement 2) | Ordinal | ||||
Ease to become acquainted with new computer programs (ICT Cognitive Engagement 3) | Ordinal | ||||
Preference for computer jobs (ICT Cognitive Engagement 4) | Ordinal | ||||
Interest on new computer technologies (ICT Cognitive Engagement 5) | Ordinal | ||||
Proficiency in virtual meeting platforms use (ICT Proficiency 1) | Ordinal | ||||
Proficiency in activity management platforms use (ICT Proficiency 2) | Ordinal |
Methodological Stage | Software and Packages | Database |
---|---|---|
Cluster analysis | R Language: Factoextra [53] | Public aggregated data (secondary data) |
Multinomial logit | R Language: Rpart [54] | Public aggregated data (secondary data) |
Python Language: Biogeme [55] | ||
Non-parametric tests | R Language: Rcompanion [56] | Self-reported data (primary data) |
Variable | May | June | July | August | September | October | November |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of people engaged in teleworking (%). | 10.94 | 10.53 | 9.52 | 9.08 | 8.41 | 7.71 | 7.34 |
Average percentage travel variations for workplaces in relation to the baseline (%). | −25.47 | −18.51 | −13.73 | −7.49 | −5.78 | −1.55 | 0.64 |
Cluster | Minimum (%) | Maximum (%) | Number of Observations | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | −43.94 | −24.33 | 26 | High decrease |
2 | −23.68 | −14.19 | 34 | Moderate decrease |
3 | −13.81 | −7.06 | 49 | Slight decrease |
4 | −6.81 | −1.00 | 46 | Very slight decrease |
5 | −0.03 | 10.87 | 34 | Increase |
Variable and Parameter | Description | |
---|---|---|
(A) | POAj | Percentage of employed and away from work people due to social withdrawal in the total employed population (%). |
(B) | POTRj | Percentage of people engaged in teleworking (%). |
(C) | RTELETj | Potential teleworking ranking (1 to 27). |
(D) | NORTHj | (0) No; (1) yes |
(E) | Bivariablej (i = alternative, variable j = association to predictor variables for each individual) | Coefficients |
(F) | ASCi (i = alternative) | Alternative-specific conditional logit |
Variable | Count | Mean | Std | Minimum | 25% | 50% | 75% | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
POTRj | 189 | 9.075 | 4.594 | 3.1 | 6.2 | 7.9 | 10.1 | 25.8 |
POAj | 189 | 8.958 | 7.399 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 6.3 | 12.0 | 35.2 |
Variable | n | % | ||||||
NORTHj | ||||||||
0 | 140 | 74.1% | ||||||
1 | 49 | 25.9% |
Cluster | Independent Variable | β | Odds Ratio (OR) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | High decrease | (Intercept) | −42.313 | 0.026 ** | |
POAj | 1.631 | 5.108 | 0.022 ** | ||
POTRj | 1.047 | 2.851 | 0.052 * | ||
3 | Slight decrease | (Intercept) | 2.795 | 0.000 *** | |
POAj | −0.355 | 0.701 | 0.000 *** | ||
RTELETj | 0.071 | 1.074 | 0.021 ** | ||
4 | Very slight decrease | (Intercept) | 12.170 | 0.000 *** | |
POAj | −0.806 | 0.447 | 0.000 *** | ||
POTRj | −0.730 | 0.482 | 0.000 *** | ||
5 | Increase | (Intercept) | 15.579 | 0.000 *** | |
POAj | −1.408 | 0.245 | 0.000 *** | ||
POTRj | −1.096 | 0.334 | 0.000 *** | ||
NORTHj | 3.712 | 40.944 | 0.000 *** |
Observed Cluster | Estimated Cluster | Correct % | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
1 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 96.1% |
2 | 1 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 58.8% |
3 | 0 | 6 | 27 | 16 | 0 | 55.1% |
4 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 33 | 4 | 71.7% |
5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 22 | 64.7% |
Global % | 13.8% | 15.3% | 25.4% | 31.2% | 14.3% | 67.2% |
Cluster | Observed n | Estimated n | Residual |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 26 | 26 | 0.0 |
2 | 34 | 29 | 5.0 |
3 | 49 | 48 | 1.0 |
4 | 46 | 59 | −13.0 |
5 | 34 | 27 | 7.0 |
Test statistics | |||
Chi-squared | 5.562 | ||
Degrees of freedom | 4 | ||
Significance level | 0.234 | ||
Reference distribution’s value: |
Variable | Regime Work | Chi-Square Statistic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 (p-Value) df | χ2 Reference (95%) | χ2 (p-Value) df for Pairs of Regimes | ||||||
In-Person vs. Full-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | In-Person vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | Full-Time Teleworking vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | |||
Gender | 3.363 (0.186) 4 | 9.49 | - | - | - | |||
Age | 13.581 (0.653) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
Educational level | 19.501 (0.007) 8 | 15.51 | 13.647 (0.011) 4 | 9.49 | 6.960 (0.141) 4 | 9.49 | 4.087 (0.405) | 9.49 |
Region | 18.999 (0.002) 6 | 12.59 | 13.529 (0.001) 3 | 7.81 | 7.906 (0.047) 3 | 7.81 | 5.029 (0.164) 3 | 7.81 |
Car ownership | 10.145 (0.112) 6 | 12.59 | - | - | - |
Variable | p-Value (for Pairs of Regimes) | ||
---|---|---|---|
In-Person vs. Full-Time Teleworking | In-Person vs. Part-Time Teleworking | Full-Time Teleworking vs. Part-Time Teleworking | |
Average travel distance | 0.000 | 0.338 | 0.000 |
Average travel time | 0.000 | 0.021 | 0.000 |
Variable | Regime Work | Chi-Square Statistic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 (p-Value) df | χ2 Reference (95%) | χ2 (p-Value) df for Pairs of Regimes | ||||||
In-Person vs. Full-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | In-Person vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | Full-Time Teleworking vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | |||
TF (work) general | 143.780 (0.000) 8 | 15.51 | 67.388 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 64.751 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 53.519 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (work) on foot | 14.357 (0.069) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (work) bicycle | 2.442 (0.956) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (work) ride | 28.037 (0.000) 8 | 15.51 | 15.321 (0.003) 4 | 9.49 | 9.753 (0.034) 4 | 9.49 | 12.848 (0.002) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (work) driver | 72.389 (0.000) 8 | 15.51 | 51.231 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 21.868 (0.001) 4 | 9.49 | 23.294 (0.001) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (work) public | 28.512 (0.001) 8 | 15.51 | 11.576 (0.013) 4 | 9.49 | 17.257 (0.001) 4 | 9.49 | 5.983 (0.083) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (work) app | 18.863 (0.012) 8 | 15.51 | 9.691 (0.024) 4 | 9.49 | 4.794 (0.300) 4 | 9.49 | 16.021 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (work) taxi | 4.498 (0.416) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (market) general | 18.780 (0.014) 8 | 15.51 | 14.251 (0.003) 4 | 9.49 | 13.401 (0.008) 4 | 9.49 | 1.625 (0.818) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (leisure) general | 20.322 (0.006) 8 | 15.51 | 13.244 (0.010) 4 | 9.49 | 11.091 (0.021) 4 | 9.49 | 1.948 (0.763) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (health) general | 20.269 (0.013) 8 | 15.51 | 13.203 (0.009) 4 | 9.49 | 17.203 (0.002) 4 | 9.49 | 0.920 (0.935) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (O) on foot | 15.716 (0.037) 8 | 15.51 | 13.720 (0.006) 4 | 9.49 | 7.076 (0.135) 4 | 9.49 | 2.007 (0.726) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (O) bicycle | 9.633(0.273) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (O) ride | 17.222 (0.032) 8 | 15.51 | 8.486 (0.071) 4 | 9.49 | 3.839 (0.436) 4 | 9.49 | 17.026 (0.002) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (O) driver | 15.375 (0.046) 8 | 15.51 | 7.119 (0.130) 4 | 9.49 | 6.033 (0.194) 4 | 9.49 | 10.788 (0.027) 4 | 9.49 |
TF (O) public | 5.174 (0.760) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (O) app | 5.333 (0.715) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TF (O) taxi | 5.292 (0.260) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - | |||
TT (work) | 124.160 (0.000) 10 | 18.31 | 94.282 (0.000) 5 | 11.07 | 7.734 (0.264) 5 | 11.07 | 58.824 (0.000) 5 | 11.07 |
TT (market) | 13.519 (0.325) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
TT (leisure) | 22.214 (0.033) 10 | 18.31 | 16.918 (0.009) 5 | 11.07 | 6.167 (0.397) 5 | 11.07 | 8.077 (0.238) 5 | 11.07 |
TT (health) | 11.038 (0.540) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
TD (work) | 137.110 (0.000) 8 | 15.51 | 114.720 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 6.102 (0.304) 4 | 55.253 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | |
TD (market) | 18.913 (0.032) 8 | 15.51 | 11.160 (0.046) 4 | 9.49 | 10.930 (0.040) 4 | 5.675 (0.330) 4 | 9.49 | |
TD (leisure) | 20.012 (0.033) 8 | 15.51 | 12.019 (0.036) 4 | 9.49 | 14.138 (0.013) 4 | 3.412 (0.678) 4 | 9.49 | |
TD (health) | 11.719 (0.307) 8 | 15.51 | - | - | - |
Variable | Regime Work | Chi-Square Statistic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 (p-Value) df | χ2 Reference (95%) | χ2 (p-Value) df for Pairs of Regimes | ||||||
In-Person vs. Full-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | In-Person vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | Full-Time Teleworking vs. Part-Time Teleworking | χ2 Reference (95%) | |||
ICT Cog. Engagement 1 | 12.978 (0.087) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
ICT Cog. Engagement 2 | 11.308 (0.176) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
ICT Cog. Engagement 3 | 10.706 (0.213) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
ICT Cog. Engagement 4 | 22.243 (0.005) 10 | 18.31 | 11.619 (0.018) 4 | 9.49 | 12.939 (0.010) 4 | 9.49 | 1.476 (0.761) 4 | 9.49 |
ICT Cog. Engagement 5 | 10.576 (0.224) 10 | 18.31 | - | - | - | |||
ICT Proficiency 1 | 48.259 (0.000) 10 | 18.31 | 34.514 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 22.065 (0.000) 4 | 9.49 | 2.6622 (0.531) 4 | 9.49 |
ICT Proficiency 2 | 23.062 (0.003) 10 | 18.31 | 18.666 (0.001) 4 | 9.49 | 7.4236 (0.110) 4 | 9.49 | 4.1535 (0.397) 4 | 9.49 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suzuki Goshima, C.Y.; Dias, V.C.; Pedreira Junior, J.U.; Pitombo, C.S. Relationships between Teleworking and Travel Behavior in the Brazilian COVID-19 Crisis. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 739-767. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3020043
Suzuki Goshima CY, Dias VC, Pedreira Junior JU, Pitombo CS. Relationships between Teleworking and Travel Behavior in the Brazilian COVID-19 Crisis. Future Transportation. 2023; 3(2):739-767. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3020043
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuzuki Goshima, Carolina Yumi, Valentina Carvalho Dias, Jorge Ubirajara Pedreira Junior, and Cira Souza Pitombo. 2023. "Relationships between Teleworking and Travel Behavior in the Brazilian COVID-19 Crisis" Future Transportation 3, no. 2: 739-767. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3020043
APA StyleSuzuki Goshima, C. Y., Dias, V. C., Pedreira Junior, J. U., & Pitombo, C. S. (2023). Relationships between Teleworking and Travel Behavior in the Brazilian COVID-19 Crisis. Future Transportation, 3(2), 739-767. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3020043