Smart working useful to reduce traffic and pollution, but 'cannot be considered as green leverage'

Smart working? An important tool for reducing traffic and pollution as well as energy consumption, but it cannot be considered a "Green" lever because the benefits depend on variables such as consumption habits and the energy efficiency of means of transport and the places where the activity takes place. This is one of the aspects highlighted by ENEA researchers Roberta Roberto and Alessandro Zini in their study Remote Work: Evolving Travel Behaviours and Their Impacts on Environmental Sustainability.

"Moving work from the office to other locations such as the home or co-working centres affects the demand for mobility, with repercussions on traffic, consumption and air quality," the two authors clarify. However, the reduction in consumption and emissions is far from obvious and can be mitigated by various factors, such as so-called rebound effects.

One example? "Those who move to peripheral areas," they argue, "could face an increase in the distances travelled that would negate the environmental benefits gained by reducing the number of trips. If on the one hand there is a reduction in traffic, "that alone is not enough", on the other hand there is the issue of consumption where people work. "The increase in the number of hours spent at home for professional reasons," they go on to add, "leads to energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting and electronics that risks cancelling out the environmental benefits gained from reduced travel, especially if offices remain operational and are not managed efficiently.

In the study, the researchers also examined a survey conducted by the research agency on about 2,000 teleworking employees in the public administration in four Italian cities (Bologna, Rome, Trento and Turin). "On average, before the adoption of teleworking, the sample travelled about 30 km per day to go to the office, with an average travel time of 1 hour and 20 minutes," the research agency emphasised. A significant proportion, about 12 per cent, travelled particularly long distances, over 100 km per day. Rome stood out as the most critical case, with an average journey of 2 hours, probably due to longer distances and severe traffic congestion. Before the adoption of remote working, private vehicles dominated the travel patterns, with 47% of the sample using cars. On average, working remotely for 2.1 days per week resulted in daily savings of 6 kg of CO₂ emissions and 85 MJ of fuel per worker (equivalent to 260 litres of petrol or 237 litres of diesel)'. Over a standard working year of 48 weeks, "each teleworker thus saved approximately 600 kg of CO₂ and 8.6 GJ of fuel".

The most significant emission reductions occurred in cities such as Rome, where journeys are on average longer and the use of private transport is prevalent. The study also showed a rebound effect limited, however, to an increase in neighbourhood mobility.