4.6 Article

WILL COVID-19 jump-start telecommuting? Evidence from California

期刊

TRANSPORTATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-023-10424-x

关键词

Telecommuting; COVID-19; Structural equation modeling; California

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health concerns and government restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a surge in telecommuting. A study conducted in California found that 4.2% of workers expect to continue telecommuting post-pandemic, with those in management, business/finance/administration, and engineering/architecture/law/social sciences fields more likely to benefit. Higher education and smaller household size were also associated with increased telecommuting.
Health concerns and government restrictions have caused a surge in work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a sharp increase in telecommuting. However, it is not clear if it will perdure after the pandemic, and what socio-economic groups will be most affected. To investigate the impact of the pandemic on telecommuting, we analyzed a dataset collected for us at the end of May 2021 by Ipsos via a random survey of Californians in KnowledgePanel & COPY;, the largest and oldest probability-based panel in the US. Our structural equation models account for car ownership and housing costs to explain telecommuting frequency before, during, and possibly after the pandemic. We found that an additional 4.2% of California workers expect to engage in some level of telecommuting post-pandemic, which is substantial but possibly less than suggested in other studies. Some likely durable gains can be expected for Californians who work in management, business / finance / administration, and engineering / architecture / law / social sciences. Workers with more education started telecommuting more during the pandemic, a trend expected to continue post-pandemic. Full time work status has a negative impact on telecommuting frequency, and so does household size during and after the pandemic.

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