Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Shows telecommuting reduces GHG emissions in South Korea, suggesting significant environmental benefits.
The COVID-19 pandemic substantially increased telecommuting, intensifying debate over its environmental impacts. Despite a growing literature, most studies evaluate telecommuting at an aggregate level and pay limited attention to heterogeneous travel responses across trip purposes. This study addresses this gap by analyzing how telecommuting affects travel distance by trip purpose and estimating the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in South Korea. Using data from the 2021 National Individual Travel Survey covering 133,326 individuals, we estimate a Tobit model disaggregating travel behavior by trip purpose and transportation mode. Travel distances are calculated from origin–destination coordinates using geographic information systems (GIS) and combined with mode-specific emission factors to quantify the environmental impacts. The results show that telecommuting significantly reduces work trip distance, including commuting and business trips. Within nonwork travel, however, telecommuting generates offsetting effects: shopping travel increases, whereas dining travel decreases. As these purpose-specific responses counteract each other, telecommuting has no significant effect on total nonwork travel. These patterns also reveal gender heterogeneity in nonwork travel behavior. Overall, telecommuting reduces total daily travel by an estimated marginal effect of 28.73 km. A national-scale scenario analysis indicates a maximum annual GHG reduction from telecommuting in South Korea of up to 7.75 Mt∙CO2e, equivalent to 1.16% of national net GHG emissions. These findings suggest that the environmental benefits of telecommuting depend on heterogeneous behavioral responses across trip purposes and modes. Maximizing these benefits requires behavioral guidelines to curb rebound travel, urban planning that localizes discretionary trips, and targeted policy incentives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: