Short- and Long-Term Impacts of Workplace Relocation: A Survey and Experience from the University of Luxembourg Relocation

Abstract

Workplace relocation can have a significant impact on commuting trips as well as on the location and number of activities scheduled within the home-work tour. This often exogenous, non-voluntary event affects the entire activity-travel behavior of the employees. As response, employees can adopt several short- and long-term adaptation strategies to cope with such change, the most obvious being commuting mode shifting, acquire new mobility resources (e.g., buying a car) or changing residential location. As workplace relocation can be consequence of national policies aimed at decongesting the city centers or to favor the development of new business areas, undesired macroscopic changes in modal shares and in land developments may be observed. While a decrease in the commuting time after a workplace relocation is, in some cases, observed, an increase in car use for the commuting trip may be observed as well. This paper aims at providing an in-depth understanding of the effect of workplace relocation on travel behavior by reviewing and selecting the relevant scientific literature on the topic, which has in the last years gained popularity. The findings and observations summarized by the literature review are then complemented with the specific example of the relocation of the University of Luxembourg employees. Finally, we indicate potential directions for research, which are currently underexplored.

Full text

sustainability
Review
Short- and Long-Term Impacts of Workplace
Relocation: A Survey and Experience from the
University of Luxembourg Relocation
François Sprumont 1, Ali Shateri Benam 2and Francesco Viti 3,*
1Movesion Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, L-4362 Luxembourg, Luxembourg;
francois.sprumont@movesion.com
2Department of Engineering, University of Rome, La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy; ali.sh.benam@gmail.com
3MobiLab Transport Research Group, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette,
L-4364 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
*Correspondence: francesco.viti@uni.lu
Received: 16 August 2020; Accepted: 9 September 2020; Published: 11 September 2020


Abstract:
Workplace relocation can have a significant impact on commuting trips as well as on
the location and number of activities scheduled within the home-work tour. This often exogenous,
non-voluntary event affects the entire activity-travel behavior of the employees. As response,
employees can adopt several short- and long-term adaptation strategies to cope with such change,
the most obvious being commuting mode shifting, acquire new mobility resources (e.g., buying a car)
or changing residential location. As workplace relocation can be consequence of national policies
aimed at decongesting the city centers or to favor the development of new business areas, undesired
macroscopic changes in modal shares and in land developments may be observed. While a decrease
in the commuting time after a workplace relocation is, in some cases, observed, an increase in car
use for the commuting trip may be observed as well. This paper aims at providing an in-depth
understanding of the effect of workplace relocation on travel behavior by reviewing and selecting the
relevant scientific literature on the topic, which has in the last years gained popularity. The findings
and observations summarized by the literature review are then complemented with the specific
example of the relocation of the University of Luxembourg employees. Finally, we indicate potential
directions for research, which are currently underexplored.
Keywords: workplace relocation; travel behavior; commuting; trip chaining; mode choice
1. Introduction
Workplace relocation can be a decision made by the employer to seek (expected) advantages for
the company (lower rental costs, higher accessibility, opportunity for expansion, access to labor market,
etc.) and to meet societal goals (contributing to less pressure on central business districts, development
or requalification of peripheral areas, etc.). The global employee relocation market was valued at
$29 billion in 2017 and is forecasted to grow up to $32 billion by 2021. Despite many key drivers that
can guide the decision of where to relocate firms, rarely does this decision consider the impact on the
mobility of the relocated employees.
Relocating the workplace is an important life event that has the potential to impact employees’
commuting behavior as well as their entire daily mobility and habits, since often daily activities are
chained to the home-work trip. Many studies indicate that workplace relocations are often associated
with increased car commuting rates (e.g., [
1
,
2
]). Hence, urban planners or policy makers might wish
to monitor and manage the mobility of firms in order to mitigate or, at least, anticipate possible
Sustainability 2020,12, 7506; doi:10.3390/su12187506 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 2 of 22
negative effects in terms of sustainable mobility. This process may need a long transition period to
push commuters towards more sustainable transport modes [3].
Residential relocation and change in the employment status are the two life events having the
most impact on travel behavior [
4
,
5
]. Although these two life events are, in most cases, resulting from
individuals’ or households’ choice, this is not always true for workplace relocation, hence some workers
have no other choice than to develop adaptation strategies in order to cope with changes in their
daily routine. To cope with office relocation, workers might adopt various short-, mid-, and long-term
adaptation strategies [
6
]. Shifting to a different mode seems a rather intuitive adaptation response,
but individuals might also change job, move residence, modify their habitual activity locations,
modify their activity pattern (e.g., activity sequence, activity duration), acquire or adopt new mobility
solutions, etc. [7].
The aim of this study is to systematically review and discuss studies that specifically focus on the
impact of workplace relocation on travel behavior, and more specifically on mode choice, looking at
both short-term and long-term effects. To complement the literature survey, we share our experience
following the monitoring and recurring data collection and analysis of the University of Luxembourg
relocation, which, in its comprehensiveness and complexity represents a perfect example to show
quantitatively workplace relocation impacts. In this sense, this review is complementary to a recent
work where the literature addressing and analyzing the impact of workplace location on travel behavior
has been reviewed [
8
]. In line with earlier work, this study focuses on relocations as a decision from
the employer (or due to some adopted policy) perspective, and not from the employee. This is rather
common since most of workplace relocations do not result from individual decisions, unless this
decision is made as response to changing the job. For a comprehensive overview of relocation of
residence and job places as a choice made by individuals, the reader can refer also to the work of Van
Ommeren [9].
Differently from previous works, the main objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the impact of workplace relocation on travel behavior, and to identify possible knowledge
gaps suggesting future research directions. A second objective is to provide researchers with advice
on which methodology (related to data collection, analysis, and comparison techniques) should be
adopted depending on the investigated research question. Therefore, in Section 2we begin with an
overview of the different data collection strategies and methodological approaches adopted in past
works to study workplace relocation impacts. Section 3focuses on short-term impacts, in particular
in the travel behavior. This is an extensively researched topic, which we enrich by discussing two
relatively less explored aspects. First, we discuss the impact on the full daily activity-travel patterns,
and in particular how job relocation can change the location and number of activities performed in the
home-work trip chain. Second, we show that commuting travel surveys may not give the full picture if
only data from the typical day is collected. We show in fact from our case study that atypical days
can be very frequent, and the travel behavior and experience may be significantly different. Section 4
explores the longer-term dimension and in particular the effects of relocation to car ownership and
residential choice. Finally, Section 5discusses the implications of workplace relocation to develop
and implement sustainable transport policies, and more generally to company mobility management
strategies, and provides the main conclusions of this study.
2. Workplace Relocation Impact: Some Background
The impact of changing the job location may involve decisions at different levels and may depend
on external and contextual characteristics. Figure 1provides a graphical representation of the different
variables involved and affecting mode choice, and modal shifts in case of relocations.
We can broadly distinguish four types of factors determining mode choice, related to characteristics
of the workers, of the company, to the environment, and to the transportation services. Changes in
individual/household characteristics may be exogenous and not influenced by changes in workplace
location, like for instance the individual socio-economic characteristics (education, age, family

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 3 of 22
composition), whereas income could be impacted (e.g., salary raise to compensate for the relocation).
Vice versa, they could be factors that favor or discourage modal shifts (e.g., mobility impairments).
Other factors such as car ownership or residential location can be long-term decisions that have been
done in response (or sometimes in anticipation) to workplace relocation.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
Figure 1. Main determinants of commuting mode choice.
Employer characteristics can also explain commuting mode shifts. In particular, providing or
limiting facilities such as bike and car parking spots, corporate mobility services (carpooling, car-
sharing) and generally mobility management solutions at the enterprise level have an impact on
commuters’ behavior, and these measures may be more effective depending on the size and type of
business. For instance, large employers can enjoy the economy of scale of shared mobility, as well as
flexible working hours and part time allow to reduce the number of trips to work. Similarly,
improvements in the quality of the available transportation systems (road capacities, public transport
and other collective services, bike paths, etc.) at the new site may partly explain changes in travel
behavior, when compared to the situation at the old sites. Additionally, decisions can be different
depending on the specific context and be driven by national trends (sustainable policies, land use
development) or external events (weather conditions). Finally, psychosocial characteristics such as
social norms and status, environmental concerns, habits, as well as intentions and perceptions may
be determinants explaining differences in mode choices. We will not go in depth on these last
characteristics and the reader can refer to the comprehensive review by De Witte et al. [10].
Following the scheme depicted in Figure 1, in this paper we analyze and discuss the literature
investigating the relation between the above variables. To complement the literature review, we share
our experience and the results of the University of Luxembourg relocation, which is used as case
study. Being a very complex and interdisciplinary problem, involving human behavior and factors,
transportation engineering, economics and spatial planning, providing a concise and coherent
analysis is extremely difficult. Our approach does not pretend to be exhaustive, but to provide a
number of points for discussion and to highlight potentially unexplored research directions.
This paper specifically focuses on the modification of the employees’ travel behavior after their
workplace relocation. Other stakeholders, such as recurrent business visitors or delivery companies
may also have to adapt their mobility pattern to the new location [11]. Although it is a relevant
category, we did not perform deeper analysis in this respect.
Figure 1. Main determinants of commuting mode choice.
Employer characteristics can also explain commuting mode shifts. In particular, providing
or limiting facilities such as bike and car parking spots, corporate mobility services (carpooling,
car-sharing) and generally mobility management solutions at the enterprise level have an impact on
commuters’ behavior, and these measures may be more effective depending on the size and type of
business. For instance, large employers can enjoy the economy of scale of shared mobility, as well
as flexible working hours and part time allow to reduce the number of trips to work. Similarly,
improvements in the quality of the available transportation systems (road capacities, public transport
and other collective services, bike paths, etc.) at the new site may partly explain changes in travel
behavior, when compared to the situation at the old sites. Additionally, decisions can be different
depending on the specific context and be driven by national trends (sustainable policies, land use
development) or external events (weather conditions). Finally, psychosocial characteristics such
as social norms and status, environmental concerns, habits, as well as intentions and perceptions
may be determinants explaining differences in mode choices. We will not go in depth on these last
characteristics and the reader can refer to the comprehensive review by De Witte et al. [10].
Following the scheme depicted in Figure 1, in this paper we analyze and discuss the literature
investigating the relation between the above variables. To complement the literature review, we share
our experience and the results of the University of Luxembourg relocation, which is used as case
study. Being a very complex and interdisciplinary problem, involving human behavior and factors,
transportation engineering, economics and spatial planning, providing a concise and coherent analysis

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 4 of 22
is extremely difficult. Our approach does not pretend to be exhaustive, but to provide a number of
points for discussion and to highlight potentially unexplored research directions.
This paper specifically focuses on the modification of the employees’ travel behavior after their
workplace relocation. Other stakeholders, such as recurrent business visitors or delivery companies
may also have to adapt their mobility pattern to the new location [
11
]. Although it is a relevant category,
we did not perform deeper analysis in this respect.
2.1. Literature Selection Strategy and Overview of Selected Papers
The available literature on workplace relocation is vast enough to discuss possible general trends,
and to highlight the relevance of contextual specificities. In particular, we reviewed and classified
works based on the types of data collected and analyzed (e.g., census data collected over multiple
years, dedicated travel surveys, etc.), the study approach (single relocation study, analysis of a large
number of firms, etc.), and the methodology adopted for the analysis (quantitative, descriptive, etc.).
Moreover, general conclusions on the impact observed in terms of travel time, distance, and mode
changes are synthetically summarized.
A large variety of keywords were used (i.e., employment decentralization, jobs suburbanization,
offices relocation, etc.), combined with a variety of definitions related to mobility (i.e., travel behavior,
commuting traveling, daily mobility, activity-travel patterns, etc.). Hence, it was not possible to use
a structured paper selection approach (as suggested by e.g., [
12
]). Instead, a backward snowballing
method was used to identify topical papers and extract the relevant results.
The effect of workplace relocation on commuting patterns became a main a subject of study since
the 1960s [
13
–
16
] but this research question has mainly gained popularity in the 1990s (e.g., [
17
–
22
])
especially thanks to new data collection techniques (e.g., digital surveys). Geographically, case studies
are reported for the US [
18
,
23
–
27
], Europe [
1
,
7
,
13
–
17
,
19
,
22
,
28
–
31
], Australia [
32
–
34
], and Asia [
2
,
20
,
21
].
Figure 1shows the geographical spread of the studies considered in this literature review.
The selected papers for this study cover a long period of time (1966–2020) and have a broad
geographical spread (see Table 1and Figure 2for an overview). In the 1960s, employment decentralization
was the dominant spatial trend in American metropolitan areas and many studies focused on the
impact of decentralized offices in the commuting mode choice [
13
,
14
]. Some of the reviewed scientific
studies dealt exclusively with office decentralization but did not include information on the mobility
aspects. Wabe [
14
] explained how “The location of Offices Bureau” was fostering companies to move
from central London to the periphery. Yang et al. [
2
] provided another example of decentralization
planned by national governmental policies using data from Kunming, China. The impact of massive
workplace relocations (or Government Job Resettlement (GJR) using their terminology) from the urban
center to new towns located at the periphery was studied. According to Aarhus [
19
], suburban areas
become attractive as they may offer faster licensing procedures, planning or construction authorizations,
and other administrative regulations. Concerning the drawback for institutions for moving from a
central to a peripheral site, we can mention the loss of prestige and attractiveness, the possible longer
distance from the “places of power,” increased difficulty in reaching the institution’s location for
visitors, etc.

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 5 of 22
Table 1. Overview and classification of selected papers.
Publications Spatial Context Type of Data Study Approach Methodology General Conclusion on:
Time Distance Mode
Aarhus (2000) Oslo, Norway Post relocation interview with
representatives of 5 companies Single relocation Qualitative analysis NA NA Car increase
Aguiléra et al. (2009) Paris, France
1982 and 1999 metropolitan
census data +1983 and 2001 Paris
travel surveys
Suburbanization trend
Thorough descriptive
comparison Stable Slight increase
Slight car use decrease
Alpkokin et al. (2008) Istanbul, Turkey Workplaces’ location in 1985
and 1997
Decentralization trend
Employment cluster
dynamics analysis Decrease NA NA
Angel and Blei (2016) USA Workplace relocation of several
firms in 40 US cities
Decentralization trend
Descriptive analysis Decrease Decrease NA
Bell (1991) Melbourne, Australia Prior and ex ante travel survey Single relocation Thorough descriptive
comparison Decreased NA Car increase
Burke et al. (2011) Brisbane, Australia Regional travel survey, stated
preference surveys
Decentralization trend
forecasting
Modeling and Simulation
approach low decrease low decrease PT increase
Cervero & Landis (1992)
San-Francisco bay area
Survey on 320 former downtown
workers
Suburbanization trend
Submarket analysis and
stepwise regression Decrease Stable car increase, PT
decrease
Cervero & Wu (1998)
San-Francisco bay area
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
between 1980 and 1990
Suburbanization trend
Decomposition analysis NA increase Car increase
Cervero (1991) USA
Transportation and land use data
at the building level for 6
suburban centers
Suburban centres
analysis
Stepwise regression and
elasticities analysis NA NA NA
Cumming et al. (2019) Kelowna, Canada Stated Preference Survey Single relocation (to
downtown) Modal shift modeling Decrease Decrease Car shift to PT and
carpool
Daniels (1970) Greater London, UK 1961 and 1966 national
employment census data
Decentralization trend
Thorough descriptive
comparison Large decrease Possible decrease Car increase
Daniels (1972) Greater London, UK
Survey implemented in 1969 on
63 decentralized offices (7143
respondents)
Several relocations Descriptive analysis and
linear regression NA NA Car increase
Daniels (1981) Greater London, UK
2 cross-sectional travel surveys
(1969 and 1976) implemented on,
respectively, 7143 and 7760
workers)
Several relocations Descriptive analysis and
linear regression NA NA Car increase
Frater et al. (2019) Christchurch, NZ Focus group interviews
Several relocations
from suburb to
downtown
Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) NA NA Car shift to PT, soft
modes and carpool
Gerber et al. (2020) Montreal, Canada Retrospective survey for before
and after relocation Single relocation Discrete choice modeling Slight decrease NA NA

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 6 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Publications Spatial Context Type of Data Study Approach Methodology General Conclusion on:
Time Distance Mode
Gordon et al. (1989) 25 largest urbanized
areas in USA
1977 and 1983 Nationwide
Personal Transportation
Study survey
Decentralization trend
Thorough descriptive
comparison Decrease NA NA
Gordon et al. (1991) 20 American cities
American Housing Survey data
for 1980 and 1985 for the 20
biggest American
metropolitan area
Decentralization trend
Aggregated commuting
behavior comparison Decrease Decrease NA
Hanssen (1995) Oslo, Norway Prior and ex ante 1-day
travel diary Single relocation Thorough descriptive
comparison Stable Increase car increase,
PT decrease
Kim (2008) Seattle area, USA
Household panel data (2
consecutive years) between 1989
and 1997
Co-location
hypothesis testing
Descriptive comparison and
location choice modeling Stable Stable NA
Levinson & Kumar (1994) Washington DC, USA
Detailed person travel survey for
1968 and 1988 in
Washington DC, USA
Decentralization trend
Thorough descriptive
comparison
Stable or slight
decrease Increase NA
Li et al. (2016) Brisbane, Australia Traffic volumes Modeled Single
relocation
Transport modeling and
Simulation approach low decrease low decrease transit trip increase
Naess & Sandberg (1996) Oslo, Norway Travel survey of 485 workers
from 6 institutions Single relocation Multivariate Regression
Analysis NA Increase Shift to car
Olaru et al. (2004) Melbourne, Australia Focus group interviews Single relocation
Descriptive comparison and
quantitative analysis Slight increase Slight increase Decrease of soft
modes use
Patella et al. (2019) Rome, Italy Focus group interviews Single relocation
(to downtown) Discrete Choice Models Decrease Decrease
Potential car
decrease/use of
Park&Ride
Rau et al. (2019) Munich, Germany Quasi-longitudinal survey data
based on retrospection
Single relocation
(to suburbs)
Mobility Biographies
Approach NA NA Shift to car
Sim et al. (2001) Tampines, Singapore
Household survey (N =1797),
Employees survey (N =439) and
Employers survey (N =25) in
Tampines area (1998)
Suburban job park
assessment
Thorough descriptive
comparison
Potential
decrease Potential decrease Potential car decrease
Sprumont et al. (2014) Luxembourg Travel survey before the
relocation (329 replies)
Modelled Single
relocation Discrete Choice Models Slight increase Increase Shift to car
Sprumont et al. (2018) Luxembourg
2 weeks travel diary before and
after relocation (51 and 43
individuals)
Single relocation Standard Deviational
Ellipses NA NA NA
Vale (2013) Lisbon, Portugal Retrospective questionnaire Single relocation Discrete Choice Models Slight increase Slight increase Car increase

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 7 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Publications Spatial Context Type of Data Study Approach Methodology General Conclusion on:
Time Distance Mode
von Behren et al. (2018) Karlsruhe, Germany Face-to-face interviews before
and after relocation
Relocation from
suburb to downtown
Thorough descriptive
comparison Slight decrease Slight decrease Car use decrease
Walker et al. (2015) Godalming, UK 3 Surveys (1 before, 2 after) to
assess employees’ mode habits Single relocation Linear mixed-effects model
and logistic regression NA NA Train increase,
car decrease
Wabe (1967) London, UK
Questionnaire on a firm
workforce (600 staff) 2 years after
the relocation
Single relocation Thorough descriptive
comparison
Important
decrease Possible decrease Car increase
Yang et al. (2016) Kunming, China Stated Preference +Revealed
Preference survey Single relocation Discrete Choice
Models (MNL) NA NA From soft and PT to
car use
NA: Not Addressed; PT, public transport.

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 8 of 22
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
2.1. Literature Selection Strategy and Overview of Selected Papers
The available literature on workplace relocation is vast enough to discuss possible general
trends, and to highlight the relevance of contextual specificities. In particular, we reviewed and
classified works based on the types of data collected and analyzed (e.g., census data collected over
multiple years, dedicated travel surveys, etc.), the study approach (single relocation study, analysis
of a large number of firms, etc.), and the methodology adopted for the analysis (quantitative,
descriptive, etc.). Moreover, general conclusions on the impact observed in terms of travel time,
distance, and mode changes are synthetically summarized.
A large variety of keywords were used (i.e., employment decentralization, jobs suburbanization,
offices relocation, etc.), combined with a variety of definitions related to mobility (i.e., travel behavior,
commuting traveling, daily mobility, activity-travel patterns, etc.). Hence, it was not possible to use
a structured paper selection approach (as suggested by e.g., [12). Instead, a backward snowballing
method was used to identify topical papers and extract the relevant results.
The effect of workplace relocation on commuting patterns became a main a subject of study since
the 1960s [13–16] but this research question has mainly gained popularity in the 1990s (e.g., [17–22])
especially thanks to new data collection techniques (e.g., digital surveys). Geographically, case
studies are reported for the US [18,23–27], Europe [1,7,13–17,19,22,28–31], Australia [32–34], and Asia
[2,20,21]. Figure 1 shows the geographical spread of the studies considered in this literature review.
The selected papers for this study cover a long period of time (1966–2020) and have a broad
geographical spread (see Table 1 and Figure 2 for an overview). In the 1960s, employment
decentralization was the dominant spatial trend in American metropolitan areas and many studies
focused on the impact of decentralized offices in the commuting mode choice [13,14]. Some of the
reviewed scientific studies dealt exclusively with office decentralization but did not include
information on the mobility aspects. Wabe [14] explained how “The location of Offices Bureau” was
fostering companies to move from central London to the periphery. Yang et al. [2] provided another
example of decentralization planned by national governmental policies using data from Kunming,
China. The impact of massive workplace relocations (or Government Job Resettlement (GJR) using
their terminology) from the urban center to new towns located at the periphery was studied.
According to Aarhus [19], suburban areas become attractive as they may offer faster licensing
procedures, planning or construction authorizations, and other administrative regulations.
Concerning the drawback for institutions for moving from a central to a peripheral site, we can
mention the loss of prestige and attractiveness, the possible longer distance from the “places of
power,” increased difficulty in reaching the institution’s location for visitors, etc.
Figure 2. Geographical spreading of the selected studies.
Figure 2. Geographical spreading of the selected studies.
Some studies [
18
,
22
,
25
,
26
,
35
] describe the aggregated effect of employment suburbanization
at the regional level using census data. Even if this is unlikely, job suburbanization trends might
happen without the relocation of a single company. Creation of a new company in the suburbs,
disappearance of business in the city centers might contribute to job sub-centering process. For instance,
Aguilera et al. [
22
] using the metropolitan travel survey of Paris in 1983 and 1991, showed the effect
of job-decentralization without analyzing specifically a company relocation. Studies using both
approaches, i.e., either the analysis of job suburbanization trends or single relocation events, have been
included in this literature review. Indeed, it is assumed that single decentralizations are, among other
things, the cause of employment suburbanization trends.
2.2. Case Study: The University of Luxembourg Relocation
To enrich this literature review with evidence-based analysis, we used our experience with the
University of Luxembourg relocation. This case study is exemplary, since it involves and allows us
to discuss and provide empirical findings related to most of the determinants illustrated in Figure 1,
thanks to the availability of different dataset obtained over a long period (8 years) and using different
data collection strategies and modeling techniques, which will be further introduced in Section 3.
Figure 3provides a timeline of the major events determining the workplace relocation dynamics
(national policies, moving phases, introduction of mobility services) on top, while at the bottom the
different data collection campaigns are shown.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
Some studies [18,22,25,26,35] describe the aggregated effect of employment suburbanization at
the regional level using census data. Even if this is unlikely, job suburbanization trends might happen
without the relocation of a single company. Creation of a new company in the suburbs, disappearance
of business in the city centers might contribute to job sub-centering process. For instance, Aguilera et
al. [22] using the metropolitan travel survey of Paris in 1983 and 1991, showed the effect of job-
decentralization without analyzing specifically a company relocation. Studies using both approaches,
i.e., either the analysis of job suburbanization trends or single relocation events, have been included
in this literature review. Indeed, it is assumed that single decentralizations are, among other things,
the cause of employment suburbanization trends.
2.2. Case Study: The University of Luxembourg Relocation
To enrich this literature review with evidence-based analysis, we used our experience with the
University of Luxembourg relocation. This case study is exemplary, since it involves and allows us
to discuss and provide empirical findings related to most of the determinants illustrated in Figure 1,
thanks to the availability of different dataset obtained over a long period (8 years) and using different
data collection strategies and modeling techniques, which will be further introduced in Section 3.
Figure 3 provides a timeline of the major events determining the workplace relocation dynamics
(national policies, moving phases, introduction of mobility services) on top, while at the bottom the
different data collection campaigns are shown.
Figure 3. Timeline of the main events related to the University of Luxembourg relocation.
The University of Luxembourg is a young university welcoming 6500 students and more than
1800 staff members and is the only public university in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, a small
European country facing big mobility challenges. Every day, in addition to more than 250,000
generated commuting trips produced by the 626,000 residents, the country welcomes around 200,000
cross-border workers, which represent almost 43% of the total work force [36]. While 73% of the
workers living in Luxembourg commute by car, the share reaches 85% for cross-border workers [37].
Despite being a car-dependent country, ambitious modal split targets have been adopted since almost
a decade through a National Sustainable Mobility Plan, based on which, by 2025, 25% of all trips
should be performed using non-motorized modes of transportation (walking and cycling), while of
the remaining 75%, 25% should be done by public transport (PT). These targets have also been
differentiated by commuting distances [38].
The high congestion levels experienced in Luxembourg are related to the historical monocentric
development of the country: approximately 50% of jobs are located in Luxembourg City. In order to
decrease the pressure to the capital (in terms of commuting flow, residential prices, etc.), and to reach
a more balanced development of the country, a decentralized concentration [39–41] land use policy has
been implemented in 2006. One of the main projects following this policy is the creation of the Cité de
Sciences in Belval, an area located in the South-West region of the country. This site, a former
industrial area, hosts today most of the university facilities, research centers, company headquarters,
Figure 3. Timeline of the main events related to the University of Luxembourg relocation.
The University of Luxembourg is a young university welcoming 6500 students and more than
1800 staffmembers and is the only public university in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, a small

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 9 of 22
European country facing big mobility challenges. Every day, in addition to more than 250,000 generated
commuting trips produced by the 626,000 residents, the country welcomes around 200,000 cross-border
workers, which represent almost 43% of the total work force [
36
]. While 73% of the workers living in
Luxembourg commute by car, the share reaches 85% for cross-border workers [
37
]. Despite being a
car-dependent country, ambitious modal split targets have been adopted since almost a decade through
a National Sustainable Mobility Plan, based on which, by 2025, 25% of all trips should be performed
using non-motorized modes of transportation (walking and cycling), while of the remaining 75%, 25%
should be done by public transport (PT). These targets have also been differentiated by commuting
distances [38].
The high congestion levels experienced in Luxembourg are related to the historical monocentric
development of the country: approximately 50% of jobs are located in Luxembourg City. In order to
decrease the pressure to the capital (in terms of commuting flow, residential prices, etc.), and to reach a
more balanced development of the country, a decentralized concentration [
39
–
41
] land use policy has been
implemented in 2006. One of the main projects following this policy is the creation of the Cit
é
de Sciences
in Belval, an area located in the South-West region of the country. This site, a former industrial area,
hosts today most of the university facilities, research centers, company headquarters, a hotel, theatres,
music hall, a train station, and various types of accommodation, especially for students and university
staff. This new activity center is also expected to increase the attractiveness of the surrounding cities,
favoring the expansion of the whole region. The University of Luxembourg started relocating to
Belval from 2015. Formerly, the majority of the university activities were located on three campuses
located in Luxembourg City (Kirchberg and Limpertsberg) or in its close surroundings (Walferdange).
The Walferdange campus, hosting more than 600 employees, was the first to fully relocate, followed by
two more waves in 2016 (the university administration) and in 2017 and 2018 with part of the Faculty
of Science and Technology. To handle the transition period, with staffcommuting almost daily to and
from different campuses, the university adopted different mobility management measures to improve
the accessibility of the campuses. In particular, in 2015 a corporate car-sharing system was introduced,
together with an inter-campus shuttle (later discontinued due to high operating costs and low usage).
Also, since 2013 public transport monthly passes have been provided with a discount, initially set to
30% and then raised to 50% from 2015. To date, around 75% of the staffmembers currently have the
main office in Belval, but daily interactions between campuses are frequently observed, especially for
meetings and for lectures.
This relocation activity of the University of Luxembourg represented an excellent case study for
analyzing short and long-term changes in mobility patterns and habits due to workplace relocation.
For this purpose, four travel surveys collecting the commuting behavior of a minimum of 35% of the
university staffwere performed (2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020). In addition, two waves of a 2-week
travel diary were collected in 2015 and 2016 with a sample from the staffmembers of the Walferdange
campus, in order to obtain additional insights into the whole activity-travel behavior of the relocated
staff. Some in-depth analyses performed with this data were published in earlier papers [
7
,
31
,
41
],
and main results are used in this paper to showcase and support the findings from the literature survey,
and to provide empirical and evidence-based arguments for exploring further research opportunities.
3. Data Collection and Methodological Approaches
3.1. Data Collection Strategies
Analyzing job relocation trends requires, first, to have comparable databases collected at two or
more collection periods. Choosing the correct interval of time is however not straightforward since a
too short period may not allow long-term changes to be observed, whereas a too long period may result
in observing changes caused by relocation with more general societal trends. For instance, Cervero and
Wu [
18
] used data (size and density) from employment centers in the San-Francisco Bay Area in both
1980 and 1990 to generate and then analyze journey-to-work statistics. Similarly, in order to analyze

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 10 of 22
the workplace location dynamics in Istanbul, Alpkokin et al. [
35
] used employment data in 1985 and
1997, while Gordon et al. [
24
,
25
] used data from the American Housing Survey of 1980 and 1985 for
the twenty largest American metropolitan areas, hence providing general analyses at a nationwide
level. Many studies such as [
11
,
17
,
19
,
23
] used different data collection approaches. Bell [
6
] used prior
and ex-ante cross sectional surveys to assess the impact of a workplace decentralization in Tooronga,
Australia. Cervero and Landis [
23
] identified and selected workers whose jobs had been relocated
from downtown to the suburbs and asked retrospective questions about their travel behavior before
relocation and questions about their behavior after the move. Similarly to [
6
], Hanssen [
17
] collected
travel behavior information before and after the event using a one-day travel diary.
An important time interval between two data sets allows to observe mid- and long-term effects of a
relocation, but ongoing general trends might also affect the assessment of the firm relocation [
15
,
16
,
42
,
43
].
Daniels [
15
,
16
] explains that while significant increases in car ownership rates were observed 8 years after
companies decentralization, this associated to general car ownership trends in the UK during the 1960s
and the 1970s. Levinson and Kumar [
44
], who used travel survey data of 1968 and 1988, mention that this
rather long period was also characterized by “Metropolitan trends” (car ownership increase, population
and travel demand increase, etc.) and also by important transportation infrastructure developments.
Implementing a data collection phase before and after the relocation can also lead to response
rate issues. As pointed out by Sprumont et al. [
7
], a large time gap between the before and after data
collection might have several drawbacks. First, some workers may have meanwhile decided to quit
their job, other might have decided to relocate their house or other anchor activities (children’s school
location, preferred shopping places, etc.). These mid- and long-term adaptations might interact with
short-term adaptations. Bell [
6
] implemented an ex-ante survey 5 months before the relocation and
a second survey was implemented 10 months after the relocation (15 months’ time between prior
and ex ante surveys). In this study, constituted of 846 valid replies, only 50% of respondents were
in common if compared to the first wave. Daniels [
15
,
16
,
42
] performed a data collection campaign
8 years after implementing a first survey. It turned out that only 27% of the workers who participated
to the first data collection phase also took part in the second phase. In addition, some employees’
companies did not understand how they could contribute to the survey since they had been recruited
years after the settlement of the firm to that actual location [
42
]. Wabe [
43
] also faced issues while
collecting data from a firm (600 employees in total) 2 years after it moved from the London CBD to
the suburbs. Indeed, no information was available regarding the share of workers who had quit the
company in the meantime. Assessing the effect of workplace relocation after a large time interval
might be tricky in the sense that some firms might not consider themselves as decentralized [42].
The adopted data collection method is an equally important aspect if compared to the number
and frequency of times a survey campaign is performed. Stated preference surveys are a classical
method to obtain information on travel behavioral changes (mode choice, change in individuals’
socio-demographic characteristics, etc.). Yang et al. [
2
] used stated preference surveys to assess the
impact of Government Job Relocation (GJR) in Kunming, China. They acknowledged the possibility
that respondents, when filling the stated preferences experiment, may have chosen hypothetical
travel modes without realizing all the implications for the data analysis (travel time, access to public
transport services, etc.). Aarhus [
19
] opted instead for a focus group analysis with representatives of five
companies in Oslo (Norway). This approach provided valuable information about the determinants
of location selection of relocating companies, but did not provide precise information on modal split
variations, commuting times or distance increases, etc. Walker et al. [
45
], when studying the relocation
of a pro-environmental charity institution (WWF) in the United Kingdom, adopted a very interesting
strategy, which consisted on collecting information 19 months prior to the relocation and then 1 and
4 weeks after the move. This peculiar data collection was implemented in order to test behavioral
attitudes related to travel mode selection. Specific data were collected such as the Environmental
Attitude Inventory (EAI) and a Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI). Sprumont and Viti [
41
] also developed
and implemented a similar sophisticated data gathering process. One month before and one year

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 11 of 22
after the relocation, they implemented a travel diary data set on 51 employees. For 2 weeks (including
weekends) respondents provided information on all their activities (location, activity type, duration)
and trips (time, mode), hence giving useful information on complete activity-travel chains. In addition,
a stated preference survey was also collected using the same individuals to enrich the dataset with
socio-demographic and other travel behavior-related data. Asking retrospective questions about travel
behavior before a workplace relocation combined with questions regarding the behavior after the
move seems good trade-offbetween data quality and time investment, as it was done recently by
Gerber et al. [
46
]. However, depending on the timing of the data collection phase, results provided
by retrospective questions might be distorted by time. This issue was already raised by Wabe [
43
],
who highlighted that when asking for the commuting time at the previous workplace some inaccuracies
might arise. Finally, access to human resources data allows to analyze other dynamics such as residence
location of previously employed and new employees. These data have been also used in this paper to
link our literature review to the specific case study.
Obviously, the data collection strategy to adopt depends on the research question and has to
be developed carefully. Assessing the impact of an event, workplace relocation in this case, means
that sufficient data collected both before and after the event will be needed, which causes additional
complexity in the research process, and a challenge in collecting large, statistically significant datasets.
3.2. Methodological Approaches
The methodology for travel behavior analysis varies according to the research question. Studies
covering most of the aspects of commuting pattern modification (commuting mode, distance, and
time) due to workplace relocation mostly rely on thorough descriptive analyses (e.g., [
6
,
15
,
16
,
42
,
43
]).
This allows researchers to adopt data-driven approaches such as linear or multivariate regression
methods [
11
,
45
]. As an alternative, travel behavior modeling can leverage the data and provide additional
interpretation and prediction opportunities. For example, Vale [
1
], Yang et al. [
2
], and Gerber et al. [
46
] used
discrete choice models (Multinomial Logit, MNL) with revealed and stated preference data to compare
the variation of parameter estimates between anticipated and actual mode choice. Sprumont et al. [
31
]
used MNL to forecast future modal shifts at the new workplace using travel survey data prior to
workplace relocation. Similarly, but at a larger scale, Li et al. [
33
] and Burke et al. [
32
] predicted
different decentralization scenarios for 2031 at the city level using transport modeling techniques to
estimate aggregated modal shares, vehicle kilometers and vehicle hours travelled. This long-term
forecasting approach allows to analyze and test various policy regulations to mitigate the possible
drawbacks of workplace decentralization.
In order to analyze decentralization impacts, Alpkokin et al. [
35
] used employment dynamic
clustering analysis. Walker et al. [
45
] applied methods from psychology to analyze travel habit
formations and decays during workplace relocation. They used data from Environmental Attitude
Inventory (EAI) and a Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI) to develop a linear mixed-effects model to
compare habits strength for the new and old location and logistic regression to predict travel mode
change. In order to assess the employees’ activity space variation after a workplace relocation,
Sprumont and Viti [
41
] used Geographical Information System (GIS) tools and more specifically
Standard Deviational Ellipses (SDE) to assess the variation of the activity space related to a disruptive
event in the activity-travel routine. Notably, this approach allowed to gain additional insight into the
impact of relocation to the whole daily and weekly activity-travel behavior of the employees.
Obviously, no methodology is arguably better than another and, often, different methodologies
may be applied to common datasets. The research question will suggest a specific methodology, which
will likely influence the data collection strategy. A narrow, very specific research question can lead to
specific data gathering processes and less conventional methodological approaches.

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 12 of 22
4. Short-Term Impact of Workplace Relocation
4.1. Workplace Relocation and Changes in Commuting Mode
Modal shifts related to workplace relocation can be related to modifications of (1) the Public
Transport (PT) accessibility, (2) the road accessibility, (3) the parking provision, and (4) the share of
employees with a short distance to work [
16
]. Of course, a relocation from the city center to the suburbs
has the potential to affect all of the aforementioned 4 elements.
The modal split variation is partially due to a modification of the distance to the Central Business
District (CBD) and the urban density [
24
]. Bell [
6
] showed that after a decentralization from Melbourne
downtown to a suburban area 8.5 km away from the CBD, car use increased from 34% to 76%.
Hanssen [
17
], using data from Oslo, indicated that the suburbanization of an insurance company
increased car use from 25% to 41% despite that the new worksite was well served by public transport.
More significant modal shift observations were provided by Wabe [
43
], who indicated that a firm
decentralization in London led to an increase in car use from 8% to 71%. However, as pointed
out by Yang et al. [
2
], the relocation of the employees is not necessarily leading to higher car use.
Indeed, many studies show that relocation or decentralization of firms is indeed often associated with
higher car use levels [
6
,
15
,
16
,
42
,
43
]. However, counter examples can be found e.g., in the studies
from Walker et al. [
45
] and Sim et al. [
21
], who mention a (possible) modal shift towards sustainable
alternatives (mainly, from car to PT).
For the University of Luxembourg, changes in mode choices were very different from those
forecasted by discrete choice models [
31
] when forecasting the effects of relocating to Belval (Table 2).
A predicted increase of car use was not confirmed by the data, and, on the contrary, it decreased
substantially in favor of a higher share of public transport trips. This may be due to the changes in
transportation infrastructure and services, together with mobility management measures that were
meanwhile adopted to guarantee a better accessibility to the new campus (new public transport lines,
paid vs. free parking at the old campuses, public transport pass subsidies, introduction of a corporate
car sharing system), together with long-term factors that are more difficult to be incorporated in travel
prediction models (residential changes, company workforce turnover).
Table 2. Modal split at the University of Luxembourg collected with four travel survey waves.
2012 (%) 2014 (%) 2016 (%) 2020 (%)
Soft Modes 9 6 5 12
Bus 21 19 28 20
Car 51 54 44 47
Train 20 22 23 21
100% 100% 100% 100%
Often, people tend to stick to a commuting mode they are familiar with, as long as the commuting
time remains below an acceptable threshold, hence showing mode selection habits [
1
]. This travel
mode inertia explains why, using data from Lisbon (Portugal), 73.3% of employees facing an office
decentralization did not opt for a new mean of transport. In order to keep (or achieve) important share
of public transport users after a relocation, the provision of good transit service at the new location is
of paramount importance. However, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with good public transport
provision is not guaranteed to lead to lower share of car use among the commuters [
17
]. On the other
hand, free parking and good road accessibility can be important car incentives jeopardizing TOD goals.
Indeed, compared to the CBD, suburban locations often enjoy a less congested road network. Moreover,
due to cheap land availability, the provision of free parking spots is often a reality in suburban working
sites and the less congested road conditions play a role as well. Cervero [
47
] confirmed that, at least for
the American context, suburban areas are also associated with free parking (because of cheap land
availability) and poor public transport connections. Hanssen [
17
] showed that after a company move

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 13 of 22
from the center to the suburb the share of public transport users having to make one or more transfers
increased from 8% to 28%. Hence, the employment suburbanization is sometimes leading to a less
favorable public transport accessibility.
Interestingly, Walker et al. [
45
] found that travel habits weakened immediately after a workplace
relocation regardless if the employees shift to a new mode or not. Habits of workers who opted for a
new mode did not disappear brutally but slowly decayed after the post-move period and during a
period of 4 weeks. A disruptive event such as a workplace relocation is hence a good opportunity
to foster modal shift but according to [
45
] this “window of opportunity for change” can also be seen
as a “window of vulnerability to relapse.” After a workplace decentralization, Bell [
6
] observed that
car started to be seen as a “faster, more reliable, less expensive, more comfortable, cleaner and more
convenient” commuting mode. If a certain share of workers shifts from, for instance, public transport
to car, this could partly explain why, in some job decentralization studies, the commuting distance
increase but the commuting time remains roughly constant [1].
Due to the enormous possible impact on travel behavior, numerous studies were undertaken to
understand the aggregated effect on commuting time, distance, and mode. Workplace decentralization
may not necessarily imply increasing commuting distances. Whereas some studies reported longer
commuting times and distances (e.g., [
11
,
22
,
24
,
25
,
43
], others found commuting distances to reduce as
locations may get closer to the residential areas. Angel and Blei [
48
] reported from a study involving
40 cities that average commuting distances were 1.6 times shorter than commuting to the CBD. This is
in line with the co-location concept introduced by Gordon et al. [
24
], which posits that companies
may select suburban locations in order to locate themselves closer to their employees, who had slowly
moved to the suburb. Kim [
49
] provided an interesting study on the effect of co-location on commuting
time stability and mentions that “little evidence contradicts the co-location hypothesis.” Despite a
probable shortening of the commuting time, the overall environmental impact appears to be dramatic.
Indeed, despite the intense debate on the co-location hypothesis regarding the commuting time or
distance there is little doubt regarding the significant car use increase. Levinson and Kumar [
44
] or
Gordon et al. [
24
] also underlined the fact that dispersed or polycentric metropolitan structures are
associated with shorter commuting times. Regarding the commuting time, Wabe [
43
], analyzing the
London area data, observed that after a company suburbanization, the average commuting time of
the employees was halved. The good road conditions and the massive shift towards car use are an
explanation for this important commuting time decrease [
32
]. Similarly, as observed in the Australian
context, the decrease in the home-to-work time would be partially due to the non-congested road
network state for reverse commuting (from the center to the suburbs) [
33
]. Cervero and Landis [
23
]
proposed interesting workers submarket analysis and indicate that if the aggregated commuting time
was decreasing due to switch to faster mode and stable commuting distance this situation was not
verified for all types of residential areas. In analogy to [
22
], Cervero and Landis [
23
] showed that,
for instance, reverse commuters (e.g., downtown resident whose new workplace is in the suburbs)
were facing an important increase of their commuting time and distance.
4.2. Activity Pattern Modification and Changes in the Daily Mobility
When analyzing the commuting behavior, often studies focus on the commuting trip. This may
provide a short-sighted vision of the impacts of workplace relocation for two reasons. First, commuting
represents only 1 out of 3–4 trips performed on average by an individual, and chained activities,
performed during the day, may equally affect commuting mode choice (e.g., business trips, picking
up or dropping offchildren, etc.). Second, travel behavior may differ significantly across weekdays,
making it difficult to really capture the temporal variability of mode choices.
Workplace relocations are affecting the commuting trip characteristics (road and PT accessibility,
parking provision, commuting distance) and when the home-work-home trip is routinized, the entire
daily activity pattern is also affected. Moving may be associated with a change in the lifecycle stage
and household scheduling. Aguilera et al. [
22
] showed that job suburbanization was associated with a

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 14 of 22
decrease in the number of daily journeys performed by working central city residents. Bell [
6
] showed
that relocating a workplace to an isolated new site can have important impact on the daily activities
performed. In total, the workplace relocation led to a 10% decrease in the number of activities
performed during a day (from 2.2 to 2 activities). The modification of the activity pattern is the example
of a short-term adaptation due to a workplace decentralization. Bell [
6
] shows that the number of
shopping activities performed per day decreased from 23.8% to 15.2%.
Sprumont and Viti [
41
] showed that, after the relocation of the Walferdange campus, most of the
activity locations close to the former working site that were previously visited were not re-visited
after the relocation. This is showcased in Figure 4, where the location of all activities visited by three
individuals, each representative of the three distinct clusters of staffmembers derived from the data
analysis (see [
41
] for more details), is presented, together with their resulting Standard Deviational
Ellipse (SDE), which geometrically and synthetically represents the spatial coverage of the activity
locations. In this theory, home and work locations are seen as anchor points, and the ellipses delimit the
space where individuals can seek for the locations of the other (chained) activities. The figure reveals
that not only a large number of activity locations changed once the employee workplace has been
relocated, but also the number of performed activities in a working day changed. By performing this
analysis, Sprumont and Viti [
41
] concluded that the national objective, which was meant to decrease
pressure (in terms of trips mainly) from Luxembourg city, was achieved also because only very few
respondents still had activities close to their former working place.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
Figure 4. Daily activity locations, home and work location of three representative employees.
Apart from the influence of workplace relocation to chained activities, mobility habits may be
affected because of new induced trips, or because the daily routine of an employee may significantly
differ from one day of the week to another. In this sense the literature on workplace relocation we
found misses to provide sufficient evidence and therefore it may be an opportunity for future
research. Its relevance is demonstrated by the results of the 2020 Travel Survey of the University of
Luxembourg, where it was asked for the first time to report a non-typical day, if this was occurring
non-sporadically. Interestingly, 42.4% of the respondents stated to have a non-typical day, and 66%
of these respondents indicated to perform this alternative commuting pattern at least once a week.
Table 3 shows how typical and atypical days may differ in terms of commuting behavior. Notably,
non-typical days are characterized by a lower number of modes used over the day, in accordance
with a higher car usage and a higher number of activities chained to the commuting trip.
Table 3. Comparison of typical vs. atypical days.
Typical Day Non-Typical Day
Average commuting
time (min) 43 min 52 min
Average number of
modes used 2.1 1.6
Modal split 38% car, 51% public transport,
11% soft modes
47% car, 44% public transport,
9% soft modes
Satisfaction 50% are satisfied or very satisfied 37% are satisfied or very satisfied
Activities on the way 14% reported at least one activity 19% reported at least one activity
Another interesting finding, when collecting information about atypical days, is that stated
satisfaction may be very different for those days. As welfare and satisfaction have been recently
deemed fundamental metrics for company’s performance and employees’ productivity and
attachment to the employer [50], and it has been more extensively researched in the last years also in
the context of workplace relocation (e.g., [7,46]), it will be relevant in future studies to draw more
Figure 4. Daily activity locations, home and work location of three representative employees.
Apart from the influence of workplace relocation to chained activities, mobility habits may be
affected because of new induced trips, or because the daily routine of an employee may significantly
differ from one day of the week to another. In this sense the literature on workplace relocation we
found misses to provide sufficient evidence and therefore it may be an opportunity for future research.
Its relevance is demonstrated by the results of the 2020 Travel Survey of the University of Luxembourg,
where it was asked for the first time to report a non-typical day, if this was occurring non-sporadically.
Interestingly, 42.4% of the respondents stated to have a non-typical day, and 66% of these respondents
indicated to perform this alternative commuting pattern at least once a week. Table 3shows how
typical and atypical days may differ in terms of commuting behavior. Notably, non-typical days are

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 15 of 22
characterized by a lower number of modes used over the day, in accordance with a higher car usage
and a higher number of activities chained to the commuting trip.
Table 3. Comparison of typical vs. atypical days.
Typical Day Non-Typical Day
Average commuting time (min) 43 min 52 min
Average number of modes used 2.1 1.6
Modal split
38% car, 51% public transport, 11%
soft modes
47% car, 44% public transport, 9%
soft modes
Satisfaction 50% are satisfied or very satisfied 37% are satisfied or very satisfied
Activities on the way 14% reported at least one activity 19% reported at least one activity
Another interesting finding, when collecting information about atypical days, is that stated
satisfaction may be very different for those days. As welfare and satisfaction have been recently
deemed fundamental metrics for company’s performance and employees’ productivity and attachment
to the employer [
50
], and it has been more extensively researched in the last years also in the context
of workplace relocation (e.g., [
7
,
46
]), it will be relevant in future studies to draw more attention to
collecting different mobility habits beyond the single commuting trip, and to identify those critical
aspects that affect commuting satisfaction.
Focusing in particular on the role of atypical days, this may partly explain the changes in
commuting satisfaction after workplace relocation, as reported in Figure 5. Since in 2020 the survey
included the option ‘Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ a fair comparison of the results could not be
performed and hence the 2020 results have been separated from the other three survey results. Figure 5a
shows how commuting satisfaction had changed overall during the first part of the relocation phase,
and in particular how the share of satisfied and very satisfied commuters had reduced in 2016 (60%)
with respect to the previous years (69% and 63%, respectively, in 2012 and 2014), when campus Belval
was populated by a minor share of employees. In 2020 (Figure 5b), the satisfied and very satisfied
commuters have notably reduced (48%, probably also due to the high number of ‘neutral’ respondents),
but this number is even lower when looking at the atypical days (37%).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
attention to collecting different mobility habits beyond the single commuting trip, and to identify
those critical aspects that affect commuting satisfaction.
Focusing in particular on the role of atypical days, this may partly explain the changes in
commuting satisfaction after workplace relocation, as reported in Figure 5. Since in 2020 the survey
included the option ‘Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ a fair comparison of the results could not be
performed and hence the 2020 results have been separated from the other three survey results. Figure
5a shows how commuting satisfaction had changed overall during the first part of the relocation
phase, and in particular how the share of satisfied and very satisfied commuters had reduced in 2016
(60%) with respect to the previous years (69% and 63%, respectively, in 2012 and 2014), when campus
Belval was populated by a minor share of employees. In 2020 (Figure 5b), the satisfied and very
satisfied commuters have notably reduced (48%, probably also due to the high number of ‘neutral’
respondents), but this number is even lower when looking at the atypical days (37%).
Figure 5. Change in stated commuting satisfaction according to the four survey campaigns.
5. Long-Term Impact of Workplace Relocation
5.1. Car Ownership
The increase in car ownership due to a workplace relocation or a job decentralization has rarely
been the main focus of research studies. Notwithstanding, each time it has been analyzed, the
workplace relocation has been associated with higher car ownership. However, the low number of
studies and, sometimes, long time intervals affected by existing ongoing national trends do not allow
any clear generalization [44].
Bell [6], analyzing the relocation of a major company in Melbourne (Australia), observed an
increase in car ownership after the decentralization of the workplace. Indeed, a decrease (from 28.9%
to 24.8%) of households owning only one car was reported, and the post-relocation travel survey
revealed that 8.2% of the respondents bought a car because of the new work location. Hanssen [17]
reported how in a Norwegian held study an increase of car possession of 10% was measured among
the employees, after a workplace decentralization of 20 km.
Regarding car ownership variation after company relocation, Daniels [16,42] observed that,
while between 1969 and 1976 household car ownership of employees at the decentralized office
increased from 72.4% to 79.7%, this was possibly related to a general ongoing national trend rather
than a direct effect of the workplace decentralization. Levinson and Kumar [44], when analyzing the
impact of the job decentralization pattern in Washington DC between 1968 and 1988, also faced
similar issues. Indeed, for this specific area the number of cars per person increased from 0.48 to 0.73
and household car ownership increased from 1.6 to 2.0.
Figure 5.
Change in stated commuting satisfaction according to the four survey campaigns in 2012,
2014 and 2016 (a), and in 2020 (b).

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 16 of 22
5. Long-Term Impact of Workplace Relocation
5.1. Car Ownership
The increase in car ownership due to a workplace relocation or a job decentralization has rarely
been the main focus of research studies. Notwithstanding, each time it has been analyzed, the workplace
relocation has been associated with higher car ownership. However, the low number of studies and,
sometimes, long time intervals affected by existing ongoing national trends do not allow any clear
generalization [44].
Bell [
6
], analyzing the relocation of a major company in Melbourne (Australia), observed an
increase in car ownership after the decentralization of the workplace. Indeed, a decrease (from 28.9%
to 24.8%) of households owning only one car was reported, and the post-relocation travel survey
revealed that 8.2% of the respondents bought a car because of the new work location. Hanssen [
17
]
reported how in a Norwegian held study an increase of car possession of 10% was measured among
the employees, after a workplace decentralization of 20 km.
Regarding car ownership variation after company relocation, Daniels [
16
,
42
] observed that, while
between 1969 and 1976 household car ownership of employees at the decentralized office increased
from 72.4% to 79.7%, this was possibly related to a general ongoing national trend rather than a direct
effect of the workplace decentralization. Levinson and Kumar [
44
], when analyzing the impact of
the job decentralization pattern in Washington DC between 1968 and 1988, also faced similar issues.
Indeed, for this specific area the number of cars per person increased from 0.48 to 0.73 and household
car ownership increased from 1.6 to 2.0.
For the University of Luxembourg case, we observed rather counterintuitive trends, when
comparing the statistics of the four travel surveys. In fact, in 2012 the car ownership of the staff
members was 66%, well below the national statistics, while it became consistent with national trends
(around 76%) in the following three surveys. This may be related to the moving to Belval, since people
expected to have a poor public transport connection to the campus. However, this is not consistent
with the observed mode choice, since, as shown previously in Table 2, car trips have reduced from
2012 to 2020. Hence, we cannot reliably explain these changes in trends, which may be also affected by
company turnover (see Section 5.3).
5.2. Residential Choice
Vega and Reynolds-Feighan [
51
] point out that a strong correlation exists between residential
suburbanization (also associated with higher car use levels) and the employment decentralization
process, as residence and workplace location choice are often jointly determined [
52
]. Thus, a workplace
relocation (imposed by the employer) can affect the relationship between the commuting mobility and
residential choices. A study focusing on the relocation of the CSIRO Atmospheric Research laboratory
from Aspendale to Clayton, two locations distanced 13 km from each other in Victora (Australia),
indicated that families living in the immediate proximity of Aspendale and families with children will
need to change considerably their trip chaining and repartition of daily activities. This may lead to
relocation decisions or changes of jobs if their travel time precludes meeting family commitments [
53
].
On working days, home and work locations can be seen as anchor points determining the whole
daily mobility patterns. This is at the foundation of location choice theories and analysis methods such
as the SDE method used in Sprumont and Viti [
41
] and presented in Section 4.2, and in many other
studies in the domain of Geography and Spatial Planning (e.g., [
54
]). However, in these works focused
on individuals whose residential location remained unchanged. In [
41
], in total eight individuals
(18.6%) relocated their house, but not necessarily because of the workplace relocation.
Changes in residential locations observed in travel surveys can be also caused by a strong company
turnover, which may be only partly related to workplace relocation (employees quitting because of
commuting travelling dissatisfaction). This is for instance the case of the University of Luxembourg,
where turnover especially of PhD students, but also the sensible growth of the number of staffmembers

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 17 of 22
may explain the dynamics of changes in residential locations, as shown in Figure 6. This figure shows
the change in number of university staffby municipality in between 2011 and 2014. As one can
notice, a higher number of workers in 2014 is observed in the South-West side of the country, i.e.,
nearer to the new campus. It should be highlighted that the first relocation involving a significant
number of employees occurred in 2015, hence this picture may suggest that, irrespectively whether
the variations are attributable to newcomers or ‘old’ employees, residential location is a strategic
choice that is influenced by workplace relocation. Therefore, acquiring insight into the reasons and the
temporal characteristics of employees relocating their home, and relate them to workplace relocation
characteristics (e.g. commuting distances and travel times, poorer connectivity and accessibility, etc.)
may be an interesting research question that has not been fully addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22
Figure 6. Change in number of residents by municipality between 2011 and 2014.
While residential relocation due to a suburbanization of the working location is assumed to be
a rather long-term decision, Bell [6] indicated that 10 months after a workplace relocation 15.4% of
respondents to the prior survey indicated a change of residence; however, only 2% claimed that this
decision was directly related to the new workplace location. Ten months after the move, Bell [6]
observed a modification of the spatial pattern of the employees’ living place. As mentioned by Naes
and Sandberg [11], in the long term, residential changes among the employees and staff turnover did
not balance the immediate increase in home-to-work distances due to the workplace relocation.
Hanssen [17] collected a one-day travel diary before and after the workplace relocation and did
not find important changes in the residential location of the employees. As opposed to [6], it is
possible that Hanssen [17] did not find any residential relocation trend because of the small distance
between the old and the new workplace (the study considered a 6 km relocation between the old and
the new workplace, for a major insurance company counting 1200 employees).
According to the co-location hypothesis [24,25,44,49] the average commuting time has either
remained constant or decreased in large American cities since the 1970s due to a location adjustment
of both firms and households. Gordon et al. [25] mentioned that both firms and households moving
towards suburban areas “do a very nice job of achieving balance and keeping commuting times
within tolerable limits without costly planning interventions.” Cervero and Landis [23] showed that
workers whose employment has been relocated to the suburbs might decide to follow their job and
relocate their house.
5.3. Workforce Turnover
When working with prior and ex-ante workplace relocation cross-sectional surveys, differences
in aggregated modal split are presented (e.g., [6]). However, by using this data collection approach,
information on workers whose contract ceased between the two data collection phases is unknown.
Daniels [42] indicated that only 27% of the employees who participated to the first data collection
phase also took part to the second phase. So far, little is known regarding the magnitude and the
reasons for this behavior. Of course, some natural reasons without link to the relocation (contract
ending before the relocation, better job opportunity) might explain some departures. This is roughly
in line with [49], who indicated that in many European and US cities, annually, approximately 20%
of employed workers changed workplaces within the same metropolitan area.
Figure 6. Change in number of residents by municipality between 2011 and 2014.
While residential relocation due to a suburbanization of the working location is assumed to be
a rather long-term decision, Bell [
6
] indicated that 10 months after a workplace relocation 15.4% of
respondents to the prior survey indicated a change of residence; however, only 2% claimed that this
decision was directly related to the new workplace location. Ten months after the move, Bell [
6
]
observed a modification of the spatial pattern of the employees’ living place. As mentioned by Naes
and Sandberg [
11
], in the long term, residential changes among the employees and staffturnover did
not balance the immediate increase in home-to-work distances due to the workplace relocation.
Hanssen [
17
] collected a one-day travel diary before and after the workplace relocation and did
not find important changes in the residential location of the employees. As opposed to [
6
], it is possible
that Hanssen [
17
] did not find any residential relocation trend because of the small distance between
the old and the new workplace (the study considered a 6 km relocation between the old and the new
workplace, for a major insurance company counting 1200 employees).
According to the co-location hypothesis [
24
,
25
,
44
,
49
] the average commuting time has either
remained constant or decreased in large American cities since the 1970s due to a location adjustment
of both firms and households. Gordon et al. [
25
] mentioned that both firms and households moving
towards suburban areas “do a very nice job of achieving balance and keeping commuting times within
tolerable limits without costly planning interventions.” Cervero and Landis [
23
] showed that workers

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 18 of 22
whose employment has been relocated to the suburbs might decide to follow their job and relocate
their house.
5.3. Workforce Turnover
When working with prior and ex-ante workplace relocation cross-sectional surveys, differences
in aggregated modal split are presented (e.g., [
6
]). However, by using this data collection approach,
information on workers whose contract ceased between the two data collection phases is unknown.
Daniels [
42
] indicated that only 27% of the employees who participated to the first data collection
phase also took part to the second phase. So far, little is known regarding the magnitude and the
reasons for this behavior. Of course, some natural reasons without link to the relocation (contract
ending before the relocation, better job opportunity) might explain some departures. This is roughly in
line with [
49
], who indicated that in many European and US cities, annually, approximately 20% of
employed workers changed workplaces within the same metropolitan area.
Some workers, because of a particular lifestyle or specific mode choice attitude [
55
], may prefer a
job-position downtown (or oppositely in the suburbs) [
6
]. Then, a workplace suburbanization might
affect workers differently because of their mode preferences or lifestyle. While a workplace relocation
can be related to higher car use levels among the concerned workforce, new hired employees (possibly
locally to the new worksite) could have different modal split statistics with lower car use level [
17
].
However, Daniels [
16
,
42
] contradicts this assumption and highlights that staffreplacement and new
recruits did not lead to lower car use levels even 8 years after the company relocation. Wabe [
43
]
raised an important issue regarding the employees’ status and their adaptation regarding the company
relocation. Consultants, who can represent an important share in engineering or IT companies, might
be totally neglected by studies analyzing the effect of workplace relocation on firms’ workforce. Firstly,
consultants or sub-contractors may not be considered in the data collection phase targeting the company
employees. Secondly, these specific worker categories often have complex residential and commuting
mobility patterns due to the specificity of their position.
We could not unfortunately get reliable information regarding turnover dynamics for the University
of Luxembourg case study. However, in the 2016 travel survey, 60% of the respondents were already
working on the Belval campus. To these people it was asked if they previously had worked on another
campus. Interestingly, 71% (254 people) were previously working on another campus and among
them around 50% (113) indicated that they adopted new travel habits. Only a minority purchased a
car (9 people) or relocated their living place (15 people). Also, one-sixth of the respondents (41 people)
working previously on another campus acquired a public transport pass after the relocation. However,
concerning these long-term adaptations, it is very difficult to prove if they are directly caused by
the relocation, since they are choices that may be done as response to other life events (having a
child, marrying).
6. Conclusions
While the impact of a workplace relocation may lead to a shift from public transport mode to a
private one, concluding that the new worksite leads to a less sustainable mobility behavior appears
short-sighted. Indeed, due to mode choice inertia [
1
], the “movers” might continue or start to use car
to keep that travel time acceptable but the “newcomers” might have a different modal split. While
workers who relocate might be better offbecause of faster commuting and the use of a “superior form
of transportation” (the car) the social and environmental impact might be negative [
23
]. Even in case of
invariant commuting distance after an office relocation, the energy needed by the employees to reach
their new worksite is perceived as significantly bigger [11].
While workplace decentralization was reported to lead to shorter commuting time partly because
of a less congested road network [
17
], an increasing number of firms moving to specific sub-centers
may badly affect the local network. On the other side, decentralization by moving company location

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 19 of 22
from the center to the periphery might decrease crowding in public transport lines directed towards
the city-center, to the advantage of workers commuting therein.
Many, but not all considered scientific studies have underlined an increase in the share of car
commuters after workplace decentralization. However, as pointed out by [
2
], there is no causal relation,
workplace relocations do not lead ipso facto to higher car use among workers. Sim et al. [
21
] conclude
that in Singapore, a place exhibiting high reliability public transport services, workplace relocations
have the potential to lead to lower car use for commuting trips. Walker et al. [
45
] showed also that car
use increase after a workplace relocation is not automatically leading to higher share of private vehicle
use for the home-to-work trip.
Implications for Transport Policy and the Need for Mobility Management
While a relocation can have a detrimental effect on the commuting mobility, it does not mean
that the new location is unsustainable regarding transportation. A workplace relocation from the city
CBD to a peripheral Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area will likely generate an unsustainable
modal shift from the movers, while the aggregated modal share of the newcomers might be virtuous.
Such trend has never been reported in the scientific literature, but it is expected that, in the long run,
the aggregated modal split will converge to the modal split of the new-coming employees. Building
density also seems to matter, because a 10-storey decentralized office will exhibit a 4% higher transit
use compared to a 1-storey building. Thus, clearly, when developing decentralized office centers,
planners should keep in mind that a bigger suburban project with high and mixed-use buildings will
positively affect public transport use. When developing suburban office centers, size counts [47].
Aggregated modal split differentials are mainly due to variation of the relative public transport
and road network accessibility, the change in parking management schemes and the share of workers
living within short distances [
19
]. In other words, when assessing the impact of workplace relocation
on the commuting behavior, the contexts of both the old and the new workplace are crucial [11].
Without any national or regional policy regarding suburban parking regulations or voluntary
sustainable transport strategy, car use will remain an over-attractive commuting alternative [
56
].
Free parking lots, uncongested (or barely congested) suburban networks will still push workers to use
private motorized modes of transportation despite efficient public transport services. Cervero [
47
]
provided an interesting example with two major companies located close-by. The first company
provides a non-free parking lot to 34% of its workers and the second one has 730 free spaces for
650 workers. While at the first company, 35% of the workers carpool and 12% come by transit, only 8%
of the employees of the second company carpool and 85% drive alone.
Mode choice inertia will lead workers to stay with the mode they were using prior to the workplace
relocation as long as there is no major commuting time increase [
1
]. Thus, in order to anticipate
commuting mode shift due to an office suburbanization, the modal split before the relocation is an
acceptable benchmark value. However, as pointed out by Walker et al. [
45
], the workplace relocation
can be considered as a discontinuity in the habitual commuting pattern and thus can potentially be a
good opportunity to push away workers from Single Occupant Vehicles with tailored transport and
mobility management policies. Thus, depending on the involvement level of the different parties
(regional authorities, city government, private and public institutions), whether a specific planning
policy or a “laissez-faire” approach is implemented in terms of travel behavior—more specifically
car use—workplace relocations could be seen at the same time as a potential threat or an unexpected
opportunity. In this respect workplace travel plans can be regarded as important tools to engage
employers in promoting sustainable travel choices. Travel Plans have been implemented to secure
the permission for relocations in UK [
57
]. An analysis of 19 case studies showed that travel plans
resulted in 52% of the car users were persuaded to use alternative modes to the car. Another notable
example of successful travel planning is reported in the TravelSmart Workplace program adopted
in Perth, Australia. By May 2007 the program had supported 22 employers to develop travel plans.
Actions implemented under the plans included providing information on travel alternatives, improving

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 20 of 22
workplace facilities and offering incentives to change. Travel alternatives were promoted before the
move, employees involved in developing the travel plan successfully advocated for good cycle facilities
at the new site, and the employer reduced the number of employees given vehicle and parking
privileges. Before and after surveys showed that most workplaces reduced car commuting, averaging
−
10% in relative terms [
58
]. Local experience suggests that expanding and sustaining travel demand
management in workplaces depends on integrating travel plan measures into good business practice
and building a supportive culture.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization and methodology, F.S. and F.V., literature collection, F.S., A.S.B., and F.V.;
writing—review and editing, F.V., F.S., and A.S.B.; visualization, F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Fonds Nationale de Recherche (project STABLE AFR N. 7951609).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Vale, D.S. Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on
commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. J. Transp. Geogr.
2013,32, 38–48. [CrossRef]
2.
Yang, X.; Day, J.E.; Langford, B.C.; Cherry, C.R.; Jones, L.R.; Han, S.S.; Sun, J. Commute responses to
employment decentralization: Anticipated versus actual mode choice behaviors of new town employees in
Kunming, China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017,52, 454–470. [CrossRef]
3.
Bamberg, S. Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior? Results from a
theory-driven intervention study. Environ. Behav. 2006,38, 820–840. [CrossRef]
4.
Rau, H.; Manton, R. Life events and mobility milestones: Advances in mobility biography theory and
research. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016,52, 51–60. [CrossRef]
5.
Schoenduwe, R.; Mueller, M.G.; Peters, A.; Lanzendorf, M. Analysing mobility biographies with the life
course calendar: A retrospective survey methodology for longitudinal data collection. J. Transp. Geogr.
2015
,
42, 98–109. [CrossRef]
6.
Bell, D.A. Office location—City or suburbs? Travel impacts arising from office relocation from city to suburbs.
Transportation 1991,18, 239–259.
7.
Sprumont, F.; Astegiano, P.; Viti, F. On the consistency between commuting satisfaction and traveling utility:
The case of the University of Luxembourg. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2017,17, 248–262.
8.
Zarabi, Z.; Lord, S. Toward More Sustainable Behavior: A Systematic Review of the Impacts of Involuntary
Workplace Relocation on Travel Mode Choice. J. Plan. Lit. 2019,34, 38–58. [CrossRef]
9. van Ommeren, J. Commuting and Relocation of Jobs and Residences; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2000.
10.
De Witte, A.; Hollevoet, J.; Dobruszkes, F.; Hubert, M.; Macharis, C. Linking modal choice to motility:
A comprehensive review. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013,49, 329–341. [CrossRef]
11.
Naess, P.; Sandberg, S.L. Workplace location, modal split and energy use for commuting trips. Urban Stud.
1996,33, 557–580. [CrossRef]
12. Van Wee, B.; Banister, D. How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Transp. Rev. 2016,36, 278–288.
13. Wabe, J.S. Office Decentralisation: An Empirical Study. Urban Stud. 1966,3, 35–55. [CrossRef]
14. Daniels, P.W. Office decentralization from London—Policy & practice. Reg. Stud. 1969,3, 171–178.
15. Daniels, P.W. Employment Decentralization and the Journey to Work. Area 1970,2, 47–51.
16. Daniels, P.W. Transport changes generated by decentralized offices. Reg. Stud. 1972,6, 273–289. [CrossRef]
17.
Hanssen, J.U. Transportation impacts of office relocation: A case study from Oslo. J. Transp. Geogr.
1995
,3,
247–256. [CrossRef]
18.
Cervero, R.; Wu, K.-L. Sub-centring and commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980–1990.
Urban Stud. 1998,35, 1059–1076. [CrossRef]
19.
Aarhus, K. Office location decisions, modal split and the environment: The ineffectiveness of Norwegian
land use policy. J. Transp. Geogr. 2000,8, 287–294. [CrossRef]
20.
Malone-Lee, L.C.; Sim, L.L.; Chin, L. Planning for a more balanced home–work relationship: The case study
of Singapore. Cities 2001,18, 51–55. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 21 of 22
21.
Sim, L.L.; Malone-Lee, L.C.; Chin, K.H.L. Integrating land use and transport planning to reduce work-related
travel: A case study of Tampines Regional Centre in Singapore. Habitat Int. 2001,25, 399–414. [CrossRef]
22.
Aguil
é
ra, A.; Wenglenski, S.; Proulhac, L. Employment suburbanisation, reverse commuting and travel
behaviour by residents of the central city in the Paris metropolitan area. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
2009,43, 685–691. [CrossRef]
23.
Cervero, R.; Landis, J. Suburbanization of jobs and the journey to work: A submarket analysis of commuting
in the San Francisco bay area. J. Adv. Transp. 1992,26, 275–297. [CrossRef]
24.
Gordon, P.; Kumar, A.; Richardson, H.W. Congestion, changing metropolitan structure, and city size in the
United States. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 1989,12, 45–56. [CrossRef]
25.
Gordon, P.; Richardson, H.W.; Jun, M.-J. The commuting paradox evidence from the top twenty. J. Am.
Plan. Assoc. 1991,57, 416–420. [CrossRef]
26.
Giuliano, G.; Small, K.A. Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ.
1991
,21, 163–182.
[CrossRef]
27. Dubin, R. Commuting Patterns and Firm Decentralization. Land Econ. 1991,67, 15–29. [CrossRef]
28.
Von Behren, S.; Puhe, M.; Chlond, B. Office relocation and changes in travel behavior: Capturing the effects
including the adaptation phase. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018,32, 573–584. [CrossRef]
29.
Patella, S.M.; Sportiello, S.; Petrelli, M.; Carrese, S. Workplace relocation from suburb to city center: A case
study of Rome, Italy. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019,7, 357–362. [CrossRef]
30.
Rau, H.; Popp, M.; Namberger, P.; Mögele, M. Short distance, big impact: The effects of intra-city workplace
relocation on staffmobility practices. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019,79, 102483. [CrossRef]
31.
Sprumont, F.; Viti, F.; Caruso, G.; König, A. workplace relocation and mobility changes in a transnational
metropolitan area: The case of the University of Luxembourg. Transp. Res. Procedia
2014
,4, 286–299.
[CrossRef]
32.
Burke, M.I.; Li, T.; Dodson, J. What happens when government workers move to the suburbs? Impact on
transport of planned decentralization of employment in Brisbane, Australia. Transp. Res. Rec.
2011
,2255,
110–116. [CrossRef]
33.
Li, T.; Burke, M.; Dodson, J. Transport impacts of government employment decentralization in Australian
city—Testing scenarios using transport simulation. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2017,58, 63–71. [CrossRef]
34.
Frater, J.; Vallance, S.; Young, J.; Moreham, R. Disaster and unplanned disruption: Personal travel planning
and workplace relocation in Christchurch, New Zealand. Case Stud. Transp. Policy
2019
,8, 500–507. [CrossRef]
35.
Alpkokin, P.; Cheung, C.; Black, J.; Hayashi, Y. Dynamics of clustered employment growth and its impacts
on commuting patterns in rapidly developing cities. Transp. Res. Part A 2008,42, 427–444. [CrossRef]
36.
STATEC. Available online: https://statistiques.public.lu/fr/acteurs/statec/index.html (accessed on 10
September 2020).
37.
MMTP. Available online: https://transports.public.lu/fr/publications/situation- actuelle/enquete-luxmobil-
2017/enquete-Luxmobil.html (accessed on 10 September 2020).
38.
MMTP. Available online: https://transports.public.lu/fr/contexte/strategie/modu2.html/(accessed on 10
September 2020).
39.
Decoville, A.; Klein, O. The limits of polycentrism at the city-regional scale: The case of Luxembourg. Eur. J.
Spat. Dev. 2014,1, 1–20.
40.
Chilla, T.; Schulz, C. Spatial development in Luxembourg: Mimetic evolution or emergence of a new planning
culture? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2015,23, 509–528. [CrossRef]
41.
Sprumont, F.; Viti, F. The effect of workplace relocation on individuals’ activity travel behavior. J. Transp.
Land Use 2018,11, 985–1002. [CrossRef]
42.
Daniels, P.W. Transport changes generated by decentralized offices: A second survey. Reg. Stud.
1981
,15,
507–520. [CrossRef]
43.
Wabe, J.S. Dispersal of employment and the journey to work: A case study. J. Transp. Econ. Policy
1967
,1,
345–361.
44.
Levinson, D.M.; Kumar, A. The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.
1994,60, 319–332. [CrossRef]
45.
Walker, I.; Thomas, G.O.; Verplanken, B. Old habits die hard: Travel habit formation and decay during an
office relocation. Environ. Behav. 2015,47, 1089–1106. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 7506 22 of 22
46.
Gerber, P.; El-Geneidy, A.; Manaugh, K.; Lord, S. From workplace attachment to commuter satisfaction before
and after a workplace relocation. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020,71, 168–181. [CrossRef]
47.
Cervero, R. Land Uses and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers; Working Paper; University of California
Transport Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1991.
48.
Angel, S.; Blei, A.M. The productivity of American cities: How densification, relocation, and greater mobility
sustain the productive advantage of larger U.S. metropolitan labor markets. Curr. Res. Cities
2016
,51, 36–51.
[CrossRef]
49.
Kim, C. Commuting time stability: A test of a co-location hypothesis. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
2008
,
42, 524–544. [CrossRef]
50.
Zarabi, Z.; Gerber, P.; Lord, S. Travel satisfaction vs. life satisfaction: A weighted decision-making approach.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5309. [CrossRef]
51.
Vega, A.; Reynolds-Feighan, A. A methodological framework for the study of residential location and
travel-to-work mode choice under central and suburban employment destination patterns. Transp. Res. Part
A Policy Pract. 2009,43, 401–419. [CrossRef]
52.
van Ommeren, J.; Rietveld, P.; Nijkamp, P. Residence and workplace relocation: A bivariate duration model
approach. Geogr. Anal. 1996,28, 315–329. [CrossRef]
53.
Olaru, D.; Smith, N.; Marquez, L.; McNamara, C. Presenting impacts of office relocation on stafftravel.
In Proceedings of the 26th Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research (CAITR), Melbourne,
Australia, 8–10 December 2004.
54.
Perchoux, C.; Kestens, Y.; Thomas, F.; Hulst, A.V.; Thierry, B.; Chaix, B. Assessing patterns of spatial behavior
in health studies: Their socio-demographic determinants and associations with transportation modes
(the RECORD Cohort Study). Soc. Sci. Med. 2014,119, 64–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
De Vos, J.; Derudder, B.; Van Acker, V.; Witlox, F. Reducing car use: Changing attitudes or relocating?
The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012,22, 1–9. [CrossRef]
56.
Cumming, I.; Weal, Z.; Afzali, R.; Rezaei, S.; Idris, A.O. The impacts of office relocation on commuting mode
shift behaviour in the context of Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Case Stud. Transp. Policy
2019
,
7, 346–356. [CrossRef]
57.
Cairns, S.; Newson, C.; Davis, A. Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK. Transp. Res.
Part A Policy Pract. 2010,44, 473–494. [CrossRef]
58.
Wake, D. Reducing car commuting through employer-based travel planning in Perth, Australia. TDM Rev.
2007,15, 11–13.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).