4.6 Article

Stated benefits of teleworking in Mexico City: a discrete choice experiment on office workers

期刊

TRANSPORTATION
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 1743-1807

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-022-10293-w

关键词

Remote working; Shared office; Value of commuting time; Value of bike parking infrastructure; Megacities; Mexico City

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the willingness and preferences for teleworking among office workers in Mexico City through a discrete choice experiment. The study finds that the respondents are willing to take a cut in their monthly paycheck in exchange for teleworking two days a week from a shared office. The research also reveals that wealthier respondents value commuting time more and are more willing to pay for teleworking.
Commuting is expensive in megacities of emerging economies. By decreasing work-related trips, teleworking may reduce congestion and commuting time. Taking Mexico City's office workers' as case study, this paper reports findings from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) exploring willingness to see a cut in monthly paycheck in exchange for teleworking two days a week from a shared office. This DCE explores preferences for bike parking spaces at shared office's facilities, and walking commuting time to shared office. This design allows estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) for teleworking across commuting time scenarios. Monthly WTP for teleworking 2 days a week starts at (2019) USD 76.68-if commuting time is zero. As 1 h of commuting time is valued at USD 61.97 on a monthly basis, WTP for teleworking 30 min away from home is USD 45.69. Wealthier respondents report higher value for commuting time and WTP for teleworking. Monthly value of bike parking infrastructure is USD 14.70-reaching USD 30.98 for commuters that walk or (motor-)bike less than 50 min. We illustrate how these stated benefits can inform cost-benefit analysis of transportation, housing, and labor policies that enable teleworking and/or reduce commuting times in Mexico City.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据