Advertisement

The Tenuous and Complex Relationship Between Flexible Working Practices and Travel Demand Reduction

  • Julian Burkinshaw
Chapter

Abstract

Any reduction in dependence on fossil fuels within transport requires a fundamental transition going beyond only technological changes. The automobile commute is a central concern due to its contribution to carbon emissions, but has proven stubbornly resistant to established policy approaches. Flexible working practices are considered useful in accomplishing these reductions. Drawing from 29 qualitative interviews, this chapter challenges the efficacy of these approaches. It argues that flexibility of work does not necessarily equate to commute flexibility, with limitations arising from working and other everyday practices. Flexibility within working practices is found to be minimal, having limited effects upon the timing of travel and overall travel demand for work, raising questions as to the future scope of these approaches to reduce energy demand.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number EP/K011723/1] as part of the RCUK Energy Programme and by EDF as part of the R&D ECLEER Programme.

Bibliography

  1. Alexander, B., M. Dijst, and D. Ettema. 2010. Working from 9 to 6? An analysis of in-home and out-of-home working schedules. Transportation 37: 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldock, J., and J. Hadlow. 2004. Managing the family: Productivity, scheduling and the male veto. Social Policy & Administration 38: 706–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breedveld, K. 1998. The double myth of flexibilization trends in scattered work hours, and differences in time-sovereignty. Time & Society 7: 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cass, N., and J. Faulconbridge. 2016. Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social practice. Transport Policy 45: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garhammer, M. 1995. Changes in working hours in Germany the resulting impact on everyday life. Time & Society 4: 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kelly, E.L., P. Moen, and E. Tranby. 2011. Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict schedule control in a white-collar organization. American Sociological Review 76: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim, S.-N., S. Choo, and P.L. Mokhtarian. 2015. Home-based telecommuting and intra-household interactions in work and non-work travel: A seemingly unrelated censored regression approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 80: 197–214.Google Scholar
  8. Line, T., J. Jain, and G. Lyons. 2011. The role of ICTs in everyday mobile lives. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1490–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lyons, G. 2013. Business travel—The social practices surrounding meetings. Research in Transportation Business & Management 9: 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moen, P., E. Kelly, and Q. Huang. 2008. Work, family and life-course fit: Does control over work time matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior 73: 414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pooley, C.G., D. Horton, G. Scheldeman, et al. 2011. Household decision-making for everyday travel: A case study of walking and cycling in Lancaster (UK). Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1601–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Røpke, I., and T.H. Christensen. 2012. Energy impacts of ICT – Insights from an everyday life perspective. Telematics and Informatics 29: 348–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schieman, S., and P. Glavin. 2008. Trouble at the border: Gender, flexibility at work, and the work-home interface. Social Problems 55: 590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schieman, S., and M. Young. 2010. Is there a downside to schedule control for the work-family interface? Journal of Family Issues 31: 1391–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shove, E. 2010. Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A 42: 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shove, E., M. Watson, and N. Spurling. 2015. Conceptualizing connections energy demand, infrastructures and social practices. European Journal of Social Theory 18: 274–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Southerton, D. 2006. Analysing the temporal organization of daily life: Social constraints, practices and their allocation. Sociology 40: 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2009. Re-ordering temporal rhythms: Coordinating daily practices in the UK in 1937 and 2000. In Time, consumption and everyday life: Practice, materiality and culture, 49–63. Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  20. Spurling, N., A. McMeekin, E. Shove, et al. 2013. Interventions in practice: Re-framing policy approaches to consumer behaviour. Manchester: Sustainable Practices Research Group. Available at: http://www.sprg.ac.uk/uploads/sprg-report-sept-2013.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  21. Van Ommeren, J.N., and E. Gutiérrez-i-Puigarnau. 2011. Are workers with a long commute less productive? An empirical analysis of absenteeism. Regional Science and Urban Economics 41: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watson, M. 2012. How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 488–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wight, V.R., and S.B. Raley. 2009. When home becomes work: Work and family time among workers at home. Social Indicators Research 93: 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yeraguntla, A., and C. Bhat. 2005. Classification taxonomy and empirical analysis of work arrangements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1926: 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Burkinshaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations