Dissertation-Bhupender M.arch-Ekistics by bhupender Vashisth

TITLE:

“IMPACT OF COMMUTING ON WELL-BEING AND PRODUCTIVITY OF COMMUTER” Dissertation Report Submitted by

BHUPENDER (202001690)

in partial fulfillment for passing the first semester of

M.arch (Ekistics)

Under the guidance of

Dr. Qamar Irshad & Ar. Mohammad Juned

Faculty of Architecture and Ekistics Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, Delhi 110025

0|P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have guided and helped me until this stage of my dissertation project. Without the support of these people, it would have been very difficult to complete this task smoothly.

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation guides Dr. Qamar irshad & Ar. Mohammad Juned for his guidance, support, constant motivation, suggestions, and regular discussions. And I am also thankful to all my mates who provide suggestions and criticism which ultimately helped me in the enhancement of the quality of my dissertation. And a special thanks to all the participants for taking out time and participating in the survey. Above all, my heartfelt thanks to my parents and friends, who have been a constant source of encouragement and support.

BHUPENDER Student ID: 202001690

(M.arch Ekistics Semester-1)

1|P a g e

Abstract

Due to rapid urbanization and economic developments we are expecting a boom in the migration pattern and a high commuting demand shortly so we need to understand the effects of daily commuting on individual’s well-being so that we can design and plan our cities and transit system accordingly. My study tries to find the impacts of such long commuting hours on an individual’s overall mental health and productivity. Reducing commute time can have positive effects on the well-being and productivity of commuters as long commute hours possess mental well-being threats such as stress, anxiety, nervousness, fatigue, dissatisfaction with life, etc. The findings of this study add to the growing literature in the studies of the relationship between commuting and well-being. This study can be used in making our transit system or workplaces and planning more user-friendly, less harmful, and overall form a healthy and productive society.

2|P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE: .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 Acknowledgment .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER -1.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 7 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Introduction:................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Aim: ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Objective: ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Importance of the study: .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Scope of the study:.................................................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Limitation of the study: ........................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER -2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2.Review of Related Literature: ..................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER -3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 16 3.1 Area of study : .......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Research design: ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Data Type:................................................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.1 Primary data: ..................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Secondary data: ................................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Research tools: .......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Sample Size: .............................................................................................................................................. 18 3.5.1 Population size: .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.5.2 Confidence level: ................................................................................................................................ 18 3.5.3 The margin of error (confidence interval):...................................................................................... 19 3.6 SamplingTool: .......................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER -4........................................................................................................................................................ 20 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 About the Questionnaire: ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Analysis of the Responses: ....................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 4.2.2 Modes of Commuting and Average commuting time : ................................................................... 24 3|P a g e

4.2.3 Types of activities For Commuting: ................................................................................................. 26 4.2.4 Satisfaction with life : ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.2.5 Life Satisfaction and Commuting Time: .......................................................................................... 28 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.2.6 Commuting and Subjective Well-Being:.......................................................................................... 34 4.2.7 Feelings while commuting between work and home/after commuting from home/after commuting from the workplace: ............................................................................................................... 36 4.2.9 Factors affecting overall dissatisfaction with commuting: ............................................................. 39 CHAPTER -5 SUMMARY/CONCLUSION/SUGGESTIONS ........................................................................... 42 5.1 Summary of Findings: ............................................................................................................................. 43 5.2 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................................... 44 5.3 Suggestions: .............................................................................................................................................. 44 References : ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Annexure: Summary of Responses ................................................................................................................... 49

4|P a g e

TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE

CONTENT

PAGE NO.

NO. 1

Hypothesized Pathways connecting the built environment,

commuting, and employee productivity. (Ma & Ye, 2019)

Age Group

Gender

Education Level

Family Income (Monthly in Rupees)

Employment Status

How often do you commute

Marital Status

No. of Children

Commuting mode and gender

Distance of commute (one way)

Average time spent on commuting (one way)

Commuting mode and overall satisfaction

Types of activity involved for commuting (the main reason for commuting)

Satisfaction with life

Satisfaction with work

Satisfaction with household income

Satisfaction with personal income

Satisfaction with dwelling

Satisfaction with leisure(free time)

Satisfaction with family life

Satisfaction with health

Relationship between satisfaction with life and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with work and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with household income and commuting hours

5|P a g e

Relationship between satisfaction with personal income and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with dwelling and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with leisure time and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with family life and commuting hours

Relationship between satisfaction with health and commuting hours

Relationship between overall satisfaction with all indicators and commuting hours

Overall job performance

Overall Mental health

Do you feel that lesser commuting time would have been more productive for you

How much commuting time would be more appropriate for you and you're well-being? (or What do you suggest to be a more convenient duration of commuting?)

36-A

Shows feelings while commuting between workplace and home on a scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately)

36-B

Relationship between commute mode and feelings while commuting between workplace and home

37-A

Shows feelings after commuting from home to work on a scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately

37-B

Relationship between commute mode and feelings after commuting from home to workplace

38-A

Shows feelings after commuting from workplace to home on a scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately)

38-B

Relationship between commute mode and feelings after commuting from workplace to home

39-A

Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute process (factor 1)

39-B

Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute process (factor 2)

39-C

Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute process (factor 3)

6|P a g e

CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION

7|P a g e

1.1 INTRODUCTION: Commuting is defined as traveling from one’s home and workplace on regular basis. Initially, there was no commuting. Before the Industrial Revolution, most people lived and worked in rural areas. Visits were rare to try; it was expensive and often unnecessary for the residents of the agricultural community. Our current definition of travel - regular longdistance travel between home and work - did not exist until the 19th century. As agriculture provides ways to new forms of energy and productivity, the need for workers in urban areas escalated. Immigrants and residents have turned to cities for more sustainable work, tightened housing supplies, and created living standards to live in an unhealthy area. By the mid-1800s, the slums in the industrial area were so overcrowded that working families began to move out, and many wealthy residents set up columns in the suburbs. In New York City, for example, the segregation demanded by wealthy New Yorkers made travel to their workplace difficult - vendors and bankers sometimes walked two miles or more (about 40 blocks, or ~ 40 minutes) from Midtown to Wall Street. Then in 1814, the Fulton Ferry Company gave birth to the first American passenger terminal: Brooklyn Heights. Heights has grown in popularity due to its new spirit and proximity to Manhattan; it took an average passenger an hour from work to get home. In 1860, Fulton’s Ferries carried 100,000 workers across the East River each day. Three important factors, namely. the allocation of economic activities and the availability of jobs in space, the distance between residence and work, and the wage gap between source and destination, collectively determine the decision of workers to move or leave. In addition to these factors, transportation access, time, and transportation costs are very important in communicating the decision to go to work. While the theoretical forms in residential and workplace are at a high level, in the context of developing countries are limited, especially between rural and urban areas. In fact, to date, most travel documents have continued to migrate. This is despite an increase in the number of migrant workers from rural and urban areas. It is also true that the number of passengers daily is greater if it is not larger than the seasonal or permanent migration of any year (Chandrasekhar et al., 2017). Additionally, with the dependence on non-farm employment and earnings among rural households, commuting has become a far more important channel to be understood and facilitated. 8|P a g e

The industrial revolution gave rise to various innovations such as the telephone, the sewing machine, X-ray, Light bulb, the combustible engine which further give rise to the railways and other transport systems and set up for the industries of various types within the society. Industrial areas were overrun with slums, working families moving out, and more affluent citizens settling on the outskirts of cities. This produces several daily commuters and hence produced new urban problems of traffic jam /long travel time and thus affects the mental wellbeing of any individual and society. Long commuting hours often give rise to pollution and deterioration of natural resources. This further creates other problems such as mental breakdown, stress, other health issues, and many unnoticed but connected problems such as violence, unsafe environment for women, etc. My study tries to find the impacts of such long commuting hours on an individual’s overall mental health and productivity. This study can be used in making our transit system or workplaces and planning more userfriendly, less harmful, and overall form a healthy and productive society.

1.2 AIM: To study the effects of commuting on the well-being and productivity of an individual.

1.3 OBJECTIVE : 

To study the modes of commute by different people



To study the effects (psychological/Mental health issues) of commuting on individuals



To examine the role of commuting in day to day life



To identify various factors affecting the commute process



To study and analyze the productivity of commuters



To understand the types of activities that need commuting and their relationship with commute time

9|P a g e

1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY: India’s urban population is expected to grow from 410 million in 2014 to 814 million by 2050. India, China, and Nigeria- together are expected to account for 37 percent of the projected growth of the world’s urban population between 2014 and 2050. India is estimated to add 404 million urban dwellers, China 292 million, and Nigeria 212 million. (2014 Revision of the World Urbanization Prospects, 2014) Due to rapid urbanization and economic developments we are expecting a boom in the migration pattern and a high commuting demand shortly so we need to understand the effects of daily commuting on individual’s well-being so that we can design and plan our cities and transit system accordingly. This study helps us understand aspects of mental health and productivity issues related to commuting.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY: 

The scope of the study is limited to the commuters of NCR (Palwal to Delhi).



Limited to study the psychological effects/mental health and productivity.



Commuting pattern



Commuting factor which affects the mental well being like lack of good transportation system, environmental pollution, etc.

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY: Access - My study depends on having access to people and organizations, but due to the ongoing pandemic many companies have a work from home policy nowadays so it might affect my study. Lack of time- Due to the pandemic semester span has been reduced which acts as a limitation to my study.

10 | P a g e

CHAPTER -2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

11 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2.REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE: In the past decades, subjective well-being has become a crucial component of the agenda of governments, and measures of subjective well-being are often wont to assess the prices and benefits of policies e.g., (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004),(Dolan et al., 2008),(Tinkler, 2015). consistent with the planet Happiness Report 2015 of the United Nations, happier and more satisfied people are more likely to be healthier, productive, and pro-social, leading to benefits for the society as an entire, i.e. higher economic productivity, stronger social welfare, greater societal resilience to natural hazards, and greater mutual care (World Happiness Report 2015 | The World Happiness Report, n.d.). Therefore, most governments and international organizations regard subjective well-being because the most comprehensive measure of wealth, replacing traditional measures like Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and a few social indicators (“OECD Guidel. Meas. Subj. Well-Being,” 2013). Commuting is a crucial component of daily work activities, significantly contributing to the wellbeing of the working population, yet its impact on employee productivity has surprisingly been little studied. Employee productivity (also mentioned as workforce productivity) is broadly defined because of the efficiency of a worker, and it's important for organizations and societies. (Diener, 2012) Understanding the connection between commuting and well-being may offer insight into workers' quality of life and contribute to programs and policies designed to raised support population well-being. Further, understanding how commuting is said to how we feel offers insight into ways of improving existing transportation services, prioritizing investments, and theorizing and modeling the prices and benefits of the visit work. A growing body of evidence shows that commuting is often detrimental to people’s wellbeing and overall life satisfaction. Indeed, recent studies supported large scale national surveys show that commuting duration is negatively related to subjective well-being which the magnitude of this effect outweighs the economic benefits of traveling to and from work, like cheaper housing and better pay(Bryson et al., 2016)(Morris & Guerra, 2015)(Roberts et al., 2011)(Stutzer & Frey, 2008) . More specifically, commuting contributes to elevated stress levels, and more so if an individual travels by car instead of a bicycle or conveyance.

12 | P a g e

Stress is one of the most serious physical and mental health implications of commuting. Almost all commuting can be stressful rushing to get to work or school in the morning is often an unpleasant experience and some modes may be causing more stress than others. Discovering the mode-specific factors that contribute to a stressful commute highlights where policy focused on increasing sustainable mode-share can be effective. Sustainable mode use can be made more attractive by minimizing the factors that make sustainable modes stressful. Perhaps more importantly, commuting is almost ubiquitous: a hefty share of any population travels daily and, correspondingly, the stress experienced while commuting affects a large number of people.(Avila-Palencia et al., 2017)(Legrain et al., 2015). Not all studies agree, however(Ory et al., 2004)report that a particular portion of the population enjoys the activity of commuting, and (Friman et al., 2017) found feelings during commutes to be predominantly positive or neutral. There are increasing debates in both academia and industry concerning how commuting might influence employee productivity. There are claims, for instance, that workers with an extended commute are more likely to be burned out, stressed, and fall ill (Wener et al., 2003)(Novaco & Gonzalez, 2009) and thus more likely to be absent from work and perform poorly at work. There also are claims that workers who commute by walking and bicycling are more productive due to the health, cognitive and psychological benefits of active travel (Handy et al., 2014). Although these claims assume a causal relationship between commuting and productivity, studies that directly examine this relationship are quite sparse. The movement of people in rural and urban areas is reflected in a diverse group of developing countries. Various studies have highlighted the importance of getting closer to the city utilizing transportation for domestic workers. A recent study in North-East Thailand revealed that people are willing to travel up to 12.42 miles from rural areas to work in industrial clusters. (Shirai et al., 2019). In Indonesia, rural-urban commuting has been observed within the 60-km periphery of industrialized cities (Douglass, 2019). A study of two villages from Bihar in India revealed the importance of distance to the city and communication (Datta et al., 2014). They find that in Chandkura, a village near Patna, the capital of Bihar, workers were commuting up to 30 km every day while migration was observed in Mahisham, a village that was not near a large city.

13 | P a g e

In addition to the proximity to cities, the most important determinant of travel is the gradient of income, e.g. The level of income decreased as the distance to the city increased. The wage gradient is also a function of the distribution of jobs by industries and activities that continue to be carried out in rural and urban areas as well. Based on data analysis from India Human Development Survey 2004-2005, (Sharma, 2016) identifies the following patterns in the context of India. First, in locations closer to the city, one is more likely to observe regular wage or salaried individuals or self-employed rather than workers being engaged in agricultural activities. A stylized fact is that income from non-farm activities decreases as the distance from urban settlements increases. This pattern is also observed in other countries. Proximity to urban centers is associated with an increase in non-farm employment in Ghana (Diao et al., 2019) (Sharma & Chandrasekhar, 2014) find that the average wages of ruralurban commuters are the highest followed by workers living and working in rural areas, with rural workers with no fixed place of work having the lowest average wages. Similar results are evident in China. (Duvivier et al., 2013) find wages to be higher by 15% in the vicinity of the city as compared to remote hinterland workers. The wage differential and unemployment rate are related. (Sharma & Chandrasekhar, 2014) find that regional rural and urban unemployment rates and rural-urban wage differentials are important to push and pull factors in the decision to commute. However, subjective well-being covers a wider range of concepts than just life satisfaction. Subjective well-being is defined as a person's cognitive and affective evaluation of his or her life, and encompasses different elements: the cognitive component consists of life satisfaction and satisfaction with specific life domains (e.g., satisfaction with family life, work satisfaction), while the affective component refers to positive emotions, moods and feelings (e.g., joy, pride) and negative ones (e.g., anger, worry) a person has(Diener, 2012). In contrast to the above-mentioned studies on the effect of commuting on overall life satisfaction, much less is known about the consequences of commuting on satisfaction with other life domains and emotions, although it has been shown that a distinction is important on both empirical and theoretical grounds e.g., (Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. - PsycNET, n.d.),(Kahneman & Deaton, 2010) Thus, this article aims to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between commuting distance and well-being by considering several components of subjective wellbeing, such as cognitive evaluations of one's life and specific life domains (i.e., satisfaction 14 | P a g e

with family life, leisure time, income, work, and health), positive emotions (i.e., happiness), and negative ones (i.e., anger, worry, sadness), and potential explanatory factors in links between commuting and well- being. Since the aim of (transport) policies is to increase individuals' well-being, it is worthwhile to investigate how this different component of wellbeing depends on the travel to work (Olsson et al., 2013).

15 | P a g e

CHAPTER -3 METHODOLOGY

16 | P a g e

3.1 AREA OF STUDY : This study would be conducted in the NCR region of India focusing on daily commuters from Palwal district to Delhi and NCR.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative research to create an in-depth understanding of mental health problems and productivity of individuals associated with the commuting process.

Figure.1

Hypothesized Pathways connecting the built environment, commuting, and employee productivity. (Ma & Ye, 2019)

3.3 DATA TYPE: 3.3.1 PRIMARY DATA: 

Interviews



Questionnaire(Major research data has been gathered through a questionnaire containing 30 questions for the understanding of the relationship between commuting distance and well-being by considering several components of 17 | P a g e

subjective well-being, such as cognitive evaluations of one's life and specific life domains (i.e., satisfaction with family life, leisure time, income, work, and health), positive emotions (i.e., happiness), and negative ones (i.e., anger, worry, sadness), and potential explanatory factors in links between commuting and wellbeing.) 

Data collection from statistical surveys conducted earlier on related issues.



Sample size

3.3.2 SECONDARY DATA: 

Published Journals/Articles on related study



Books



Online data available



Statistical data from



Various News Sources etc

3.4 RESEARCH TOOLS: 

Primary and secondary data

3.5 SAMPLE SIZE: 3.5.1 POPULATION SIZE: Palwal city is governed by Municipal Corporation which comes under Palwal Metropolitan Region. Palwal city is located in the Haryana state of India. As per the provisional reports of Census India, the population of Palwal in 2011 is 128,730; of which male and female are 68,316 and 60,414 respectively. Although Palwal city has a population of 128,730; its urban/metropolitan population is 131,926 of which 69,997 are males and 61,929 are females. (Handbook, 2011) Population size: 131,926.

3.5.2 CONFIDENCE LEVEL: It Indicates the degree of confidence that the data is representative of the entire population. 18 | P a g e

The confidence level is 95%.

3.5.3 THE MARGIN OF ERROR (CONFIDENCE INTERVAL): It is the percentage of error that may exist in our sample. The larger the margin of error, the lower the confidence level of the results. The margin of error for this study has been taken as 10% (Maximum). 3.5.4 SAMPLE SIZE: 100 (Size, n.d.)

3.6 SAMPLINGTOOL: Simple random sampling: Simple random sampling is defined as a sampling technique where every item in the population has an even chance and likelihood of being selected in the sample. Here the selection of items entirely depends on luck or probability, and therefore this sampling technique is also sometimes known as a method of chances. Simple random sampling is a fundamental sampling method and can easily be a component of a more complex sampling method. The main attribute of this sampling method is that every sample has the same probability of being chosen.

19 | P a g e

CHAPTER -4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

20 | P a g e

4.1 ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE: A questionnaire of 30 questions was prepared comprising of various types of questions including the background of the people (i.e.their age/sex/education level/employment status/marital status/number of children), modes of commuting/average time spent, and distance of commuting for one way/reason for commuting, to understand the relationship between commuting distance and well-being by considering several components of subjective well-being, such as cognitive evaluations of one's life and specific life domains (i.e., satisfaction with family life, leisure time, income, work, and health), positive emotions (i.e., happiness), and negative ones (i.e., anger, worry, sadness), and potential explanatory factors in links between commuting and well- being.

4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES: 4.2.1 A total of 103 participants responded to 30 question questionnaire of the survey conducted in one week. Out of 103 responses, 63.1% are male,35 % are female,1% are transgender and 1 % preferred not to disclose their gender identity.

Figure.2

Majority of the respondent falls into the working-age population out of which 58.3% are from the age group of 16-25 years. Combining them with 26-40 makes a total of 86.5% of all respondents.

21 | P a g e

Figure.3

Figure.4

Figure.5

Figure.6

22 | P a g e

Figure.7

Figure.8

Figure.9

23 | P a g e

4.2.2 MODES OF COMMUTING AND AVERAGE COMMUTING TIME : Commuting behavior was measured by asking respondents their primary mode used for commuting. Original mode choices include eight categories, including car personal, carpool with others, walking(Pedestrian), two-wheeler, bus/tram, metro/transit, bus,auto-rickshaw, and mix of earlier stated modes of transport. Respondents were also asked to report their commuting distance and typical commuting time (one-way). Figure.13 shows Commuting mode and Overall Satisfaction with various indicators. Commuters commuting with personal transport modes seem more satisfied than the ones traveling on public transport. People traveling by bus seem less satisfactory. Pedestrian Transgender

Mix of above stated modes (e.g. Rickshaw+Metro or Car+Metro) By two wheeler

Prefer not to say By metro

By Car(Personal) Male By Car pooling

By Bus

Female

By Auto-ricksaw 0

Figure.10

Figure.11

Figure.12 24 | P a g e

Figure.13 Commuting mode and Overall Satisfaction with various indicators 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with health

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with health

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with health

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with health

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with health

25 | P a g e

4.2.3 TYPES OF ACTIVITIES FOR COMMUTING: Major activities were divided into 13 parts as mentioned below:             

Social Life and entertainment travel(i.e.meeting friends and family, attending functions, social gatherings, etc) Travel(travel due to some specific reasons) Eating Shopping and Services Travel by purpose (for the sake of traveling/hobby) Food Management (activities of food service) Education Activities related to employment Hobbies, Games, and Computing Household and Family Care Mass Media Personal Care Teaching

Figure.14

Figure 14 represents the major three reasons for commuting on the x-axis and no. of respondents on the y-axis. It can be interpreted from the above graph that Activities related to Employment are one of the main reasons for commuting followed by Household and Family care and then Social life and entertainment-related travel.

26 | P a g e

4.2.4 SATISFACTION WITH LIFE : Respondents are asked to cognitively evaluate one's life and certain life domains. The questions read as follows: “How satisfied are you today with the following areas of your life?: health, work/job, household income, personal income, dwelling, leisure time, family life” and “How satisfied are you with your life, all things considered?” The respondents are asked to give a response on a 5-point scale, where the lowest value (0) is labelled “completely dissatisfied” and the highest value (5) is labelled “completely satisfied” Graphs representing the responses as per the questionnaire are as follows:

Figure.15

Figure.16

Figure.17

Figure.18

27 | P a g e

Figure.19

Figure.20

Figure.21

Figure.22

4.2.5 LIFE SATISFACTION AND COMMUTING TIME: Following graphs represents a relationship between life satisfaction and the various satisfaction indicators considered. Figure.31 Shows relationship between Overall Satisfaction with all indicators and commuting hours We can clearly see from the graph that people with lesser commuting time (in this case 10-30 minutes) are more satisfied as compared to more commuting time. 28 | P a g e

40 1 2 30

3 4

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.23 Relationship between Satisfaction with life and commuting hours

40 1 2 30

3 4

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.24 Relationship between Satisfaction with work and commuting hours

29 | P a g e

50 1 40

2 3

4 5

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.25 Relationship between Satisfaction with household income and commuting hours

25 1 20

2 3

4 5

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.26 Relationship between Satisfaction with personal income and commuting hours

30 | P a g e

40 1 2 30

3 4 5

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.27 Relationship between Satisfaction with dwelling and commuting hours

40 1 2 30

3 4

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.28 Relationship between Satisfaction with leisure time and commuting hours

31 | P a g e

40 1 2 30

3 4 5

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.29 Relationship between Satisfaction with family life and commuting hours

40 1 2 30

3 4 5

0 10-30 Minutes

1-2 Hour

30-60 Minutes

Below 10 minutes

More than 2 hours

Figure.30 Relationship between Satisfaction with health and commuting hours

32 | P a g e

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with health 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time) 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

More than 2 hours

5 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with work 5 - Sum of Satisfaction with life 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with health 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time) 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

Below 10 minutes

4 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with work 4 - Sum of Satisfaction with life 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with health 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time) 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling

30-60 Minutes

3 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with work 3 - Sum of Satisfaction with life 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with health 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

1-2 Hour

2 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with work 2 - Sum of Satisfaction with life 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with health 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with family life 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with leisure(Free time)

10-30 Minutes

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with dwelling 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with personal income 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with household income 1 - Sum of Satisfaction with work

1 - Sum of Satisfaction with life

Figure.31 Relationship between Overall Satisfaction with all indicators and commuting hours 33 | P a g e

4.2.6 COMMUTING AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING: Employee productivity was measured by self-answered responses by the respondents and their overall self-reported mental health taking into consideration the effects of commuting if any. The respondents are asked to give a response on a 5-point scale, where the lowest value (0) is labeled “completely dissatisfied” and the highest value (5) is labeled “completely satisfied” 62.1 % of respondents responded their mental health below the satisfactory level (4). And 63.1 %of respondents responded their job performance (considering the effects of commuting if any) below the satisfactory level (4). Thus we can conclude that commuting possesses negative effects on the mental health and productivity of the commuter.

Figure.32 Responses for overall Job Performance (considering the effects of commuting)

Figure.33 Relationship between overall Mental Health 34 | P a g e

 59.2% felt that lesser commuting time would have been more productive for them 24.3% also felt a possibility that lesser commuting time would have been more productive for them (Figure.32)  73.8% participants suggested a time lesser than 30 minutes to be more appropriate commuting time for their well-being (Figure.33)

Figure.34

Figure.35

35 | P a g e

4.2.7 FEELINGS WHILE COMMUTING BETWEEN WORK AND HOME/AFTER COMMUTING FROM HOME/AFTER COMMUTING FROM THE WORKPLACE:

Figure.36-A Shows feelings while commuting between workplace and home on scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately)

 As per graph commuters feel impatient for commuting to end and a mix of other feeling as happy/neutral/tired/nervous/anxious etc.

Tired Pedestrian

Sad/Depressed

Mix of above stated modes (e.g. Rickshaw+Metro or Car+Metro)

Relaxed

By two wheeler Neutral By metro Nervous/Anxious By Car(Personal) Impatient For It To End By Car pooling Happy By Bus Frustrated By Auto-ricksaw Angry/Hostile 0

Figure.36-B Relationship between commute mode and feelings while commuting between

workplace and home 36 | P a g e

Figure.37-A Shows feelings after commuting from home to workplace on scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately)  As per graph commuters feel impatient/nervous and moderately happy after commuting from home.

Tired Pedestrian Sad/Depressed Mix of above stated modes (e.g. Rickshaw+Metro or Car+Metro)

Relaxed

By two wheeler Neutral By metro Nervous/Anxious By Car(Personal) Impatient For It To End By Car pooling Happy By Bus Frustrated By Auto-ricksaw Angry/Hostile 0

Figure.37-B Relationship between commute mode and feelings after commuting from home to workplace 37 | P a g e

Figure.38-A Shows feelings after commuting from workplace to home on scale of 3(Extreme/Very/Moderately)  As per graph commuters feel happy and tired after commuting from work.

Tired

Sad/Depressed Pedestrian Mix of above stated modes (e.g. Rickshaw+Metro or Car+Metro)

Relaxed

By two wheeler Neutral

By metro By Car(Personal)

Nervous/Anxious

By Car pooling Happy

By Bus By Auto-ricksaw

Frustrated

Angry/Hostile

Figure.38-B Relationship between commute mode and feelings after commuting from workplace to home 38 | P a g e

4.2.9 Factors affecting overall dissatisfaction with commuting:

Participants were asked 3 major issues(out of 10 issues related to commuting and transportation) responsible for their overall dissatisfaction with the commute process as per the order of factor 1 being the major issue followed by factor 2 and then factor 3.

10 Issues related to commuting and transportation acting as variables are as follows: 

Traffic Jam



Co-commuters



Noise pollution



Air Pollution



Uncomfortable public transport



Unpleasant views while commuting



Feel Unsafe



Lack of public transport



Bad Roads and infrastructure conditions



Distance between workplace and home

As per figure 35-A, 35-B & 35-C, “Traffic Jam is one of the most responsible issue for commuter dissatisfaction, followed by Air Pollution and Bad Roads and infrastructure conditions.” After these three major factors, Uncomfortable public transport plays a vital role in commuter dissatisfaction.

39 | P a g e

Figure.39-A Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute process (factor 1)

Figure.39-B Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute 40 | P a g e process (factor 2)

Figure.39-C Factors responsible for overall dissatisfaction of commuter with commute process (factor 3)

41 | P a g e

CHAPTER -5 SUMMARY/CONCLUSION/SUGGESTIONS

42 | P a g e

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

 The majority of the commuters fall into the working-age population.  Commuters commuting with personal transport modes seem more satisfied than the ones traveling on public transport due to Uncomfortable public transport.  Activities related to Employment are one of the main reasons for commuting followed by Household and Family care and then Social life and entertainment-related travel.  People with lesser commuting time (10-30 minutes) are more satisfied as compared to more commuting time.  59.2% of participants felt that lesser commuting time would have been more productive for them,24.3% also felt a possibility that lesser commuting time would have been more productive for them (Figure.32)  73.8% of participants suggested a time lesser than 30 minutes to be more appropriate commuting time for their well-being (Figure.33)  Commuters feel impatient for commuting to end and a mix of other feelings as happy/neutral/tired/nervous/anxious etc.  Commuters feel impatient/nervous and moderately happy after commuting to the workplace from home.  Commuters feel happy and tired after commuting from work to home.  “Traffic Jam is one of the most responsible issues for commuter dissatisfaction, followed by Air Pollution and Bad Roads and infrastructure conditions.” After these three major factors, Uncomfortable public transport plays a vital role in commuter dissatisfaction.

43 | P a g e

5.2 CONCLUSION:

The findings of this study add to the growing literature in the studies of the relationship between commuting and well-being. We can conclude that commuting possesses some mental and physical effects on commuters and hence affects the well-being and productivity of the commuter. Traffic Jam is one of the most responsible issues for commuter dissatisfaction, followed by Air Pollution and Bad Roads and infrastructure conditions.” Commuting involves much more than just covering the distance between home and work. Commuting not only takes time but also generates extra costs, causes stress, and intervenes in the relationship between work and family. The commute process affects the overall life satisfaction of the commuter. People with lesser commuting time (10-30 minutes) are more satisfied as compared to more commuting time.73.8% of participants suggested a time lesser than 30 minutes to be more appropriate commuting time for their well-being.

5.3 SUGGESTIONS: Reducing commute time can have positive effects on the well-being and productivity of commuters. By reducing commute time to 10-30 minutes we can achieve satisfaction in commuter’s life and its subjective well-being. By improving roads and infrastructure we can improve the overall life satisfaction and can reduce the negative effects of the commute process.

44 | P a g e

REFERENCES : 2014 revision of the World Urbanization Prospects. (2014). Avila-Palencia, I., De Nazelle, A., Cole-Hunter, T., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Jerrett, M., Rodriguez, D. A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). The relationship between bicycle commuting and perceived stress: A cross-sectional study. In BMJ Open (Vol. 7, Issue 6, p. 13542). BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013542 Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1359–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00472727(02)00168-8 Bryson, A., Clark, A. E., Freeman, R. B., & Green, C. P. (2016). Share capitalism and worker wellbeing. Labour Economics, 42, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.09.002 Chandrasekhar, S., Naik, M., & Roy, S. N. (2017). On the importance of triangulating data sets to examine Indians on the move. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(47), 60–68. Datta, A., Rodgers, G., Rodgers, J., & Singh, B. (2014). Contrasts in Development in Bihar: A Tale of Two Villages. Journal of Development Studies, 50(9), 1197–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.925539 Diao, X., Magalhaes, E., & Silver, J. (2019). Cities and rural transformation: A spatial analysis of rural livelihoods in Ghana. World Development, 121, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.001 Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist, 67(8), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029541 Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001

45 | P a g e

Douglass, M. (2019). A Regional Network Strategy for Reciprocal Rural–Urban Linkages: An Agenda for Policy Research with Reference to Indonesia. In The Earthscan Reader in Rural–Urban Linkages (pp. 124–154). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800486-7 Duvivier, C., Li, S., & Renard, M. F. (2013). Are workers close to cities paid higher nonagricultural wages in rural China? Applied Economics, 45(30), 4308–4322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2013.778953 Friman, M., Olsson, L. E., Ståhl, M., Ettema, D., & Gärling, T. (2017). Travel and residual emotional well-being. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 49, 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.06.015 Handbook, D. C. (2011). District census handbook. Handy, S., van Wee, B., & Kroesen, M. (2014). Promoting Cycling for Transport: Research Needs and Challenges. In Transport Reviews (Vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 4–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.860204 Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107 Legrain, A., Eluru, N., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Am stressed, must travel: The relationship between mode choice and commuting stress. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 34, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.08.001 Ma, L., & Ye, R. (2019). Does daily commuting behavior matter to employee productivity? Journal of Transport Geography, 76(October 2018), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.03.008 Morris, E. A., & Guerra, E. (2015). Are we there yet? Trip duration and mood during travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 33, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.06.003 Novaco, R. W., & Gonzalez, O. I. (2009). Commuting and well-being. In Technology and 46 | P a g e

Psychological Well-being (pp. 174–205). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635373.008 OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. (2013). In OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en Olsson, L. E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., & Fujii, S. (2013). Happiness and Satisfaction with Work Commute. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0003-2 Ory, D. T., Mokhtarian, P. L., Redmond, L. S., Salomon, I., Collantes, G. O., & Choo, S. (2004). When is Commuting Desirable to the Individual? Growth and Change, 35(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2004.00252.x Roberts, J., Hodgson, R., & Dolan, P. (2011). “It’s driving her mad”: Gender differences in the effects of commuting on psychological health. Journal of Health Economics, 30(5), 1064–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.07.006 Sharma, A. (2016). Urban Proximity and Spatial Pattern of Land Use and Development in Rural India. Journal of Development Studies, 52(11), 1593–1611. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1166207 Sharma, A., & Chandrasekhar, S. (2014). Growth of the Urban Shadow, Spatial Distribution of Economic Activities, and Commuting by Workers in Rural and Urban India. World Development, 61, 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.04.003 Shirai, Y., Leisz, S., Fox, J., & Rambo, A. T. (2019). Commuting distances to local non‐farm workplaces and out‐migration: The case of Northeast Thailand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 60(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12223 Size, D. S. (n.d.). Using Published Tables Using Formulas To Calculate A Sample Size Using A Census For Small Populations. Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679442.2008.00542.x Tinkler, L. (2015). The Office for National Statistics experience of collecting and measuring 47 | P a g e

subjective well-being. In Statistics in Transition (Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 373–396). Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. https://doi.org/10.21307/stattrans-2015-021 Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. - PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02842-000 Wener, R. E., Evans, G. W., Phillips, D., & Nadler, N. (2003). Running for the 7:45: The effects of public transit improvements on commuter stress. Transportation, 30(2), 203– 220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022516221808 World Happiness Report 2015 | The World Happiness Report. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2015/

48 | P a g e

ANNEXURE: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

49 | P a g e

50 | P a g e

51 | P a g e

52 | P a g e

53 | P a g e

54 | P a g e

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

Dissertation-Bhupender M.arch-Ekistics

Articles inside

References

Chapter 2.Review of Related Literature

4.2.3 Types of activities For Commuting

Abstract

4.2.6 Commuting and Subjective Well-Being

4.2.9 Factors affecting overall dissatisfaction with commuting

Acknowledgment

5.1 Summary of Findings

1.1 Introduction