Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
TYPE Community Case Study
PUBLISHED 25 April 2023
DOI 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Rodrigo Lozano,
University of Gävle, Sweden
REVIEWED BY
Savindi Caldera,
Grith University, Australia
Laura Bravi,
University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Italy
*CORRESPONDENCE
Susanna Vanhamäki
susanna.vanhamaki@lab.fi
RECEIVED 03 February 2023
ACCEPTED 06 April 2023
PUBLISHED 25 April 2023
CITATION
Villanen M, Vanhamäki S and Hämäläinen R-M
(2023) Encouraging sustainable mobility:
community case study on workplace initiatives
in Lahti, Finland. Front. Sustain. 4:1158231.
doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
COPYRIGHT
©2023 Villanen, Vanhamäki and Hämäläinen.
This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Encouraging sustainable mobility:
community case study on
workplace initiatives in Lahti,
Finland
Marjut Villanen1, Susanna Vanhamäki2*and
Riitta-Maija Hämäläinen3
1Faculty of Business, LAB University of Applied Sciences, Lahti, Finland, 2Faculty of Technology, LAB
University of Applied Sciences, Lahti, Finland, 3Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme, Lahti, Finland
The transport sector represents about 30 per cent of all carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions in developed countries. Developing sustainable transport and mobility
play a central role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable mobility
means a mind shift where transport in private cars is replaced by dierent modes
of more sustainable mobility, such as, walking, biking, and public transport. The
transformation toward more sustainable mobility plays a key role in reaching CO2
emission reduction goals. However, in addition to the environmental perspective,
also social and economic aspects are interconnected in the change. In this
sustainability shift, employers can encourage the employees through oering
and supporting new alternatives for mobility. This article aims to study how
dierent sustainable mobility initiatives provided by an employer are adopted by
employees. This case study presents a set of pilots implemented at a workplace
in Lahti, Finland in May-October 2022. The mobility forms oered for commuting
were fringe benefits from employment, that is, employer-subsidized commuter
tickets and employer-provided bicycle benefits. Travel during the workday was
supported through introducing the use of shared electric city bikes and scooters.
The research data consisted of short surveys before (n=70) and at the end of the
pilots (n=66), and thematic interviews (n=8) during the implementation period.
The pilots were implemented in collaboration with the employer and two local
universities. Before the pilots, the main part of the employee participants was using
private cars for commuting and travel during the workday. Results show that the
pilots were successful in introducing more sustainable ways of mobility. However,
the employer’s role in preparing, supporting, and planning the continuation of
support for sustainable commuting and mobility is essential.
KEYWORDS
sustainable mobility, workplace, commuting, employer initiatives, case study
Introduction
Population growth, industrialization, urbanization, and prosperity has increased people’s
mobility with motorized means and characterized the development of society since the
middle of the 20th century. Currently, transport represents about 30% of all carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions in developed countries (UNECE, 2022). The European Union
has set a target for 2030 of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55%
compared to the levels in 1990 (EU, 2021). Furthermore, the transport sector has an
Frontiers in Sustainability 01 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
objective to deliver a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050. This
requires not only development of sustainable and smart mobility
and transport systems, but also engaging citizens and communities
in the sustainability shift. For citizens, sustainable mobility means a
mind shift where transport in private cars is replaced by different
modes of more sustainable transport, such as, walking, biking,
and public transport. A transformation toward more sustainable
mobility plays a key role in reaching CO2 emission reduction goals.
Sustainable mobility originates from the concept of sustainable
development, a well-known paradigm popularized in the 1980s
through the Brundtland report published by the United Nations
(WCED, 1987;Gallo and Marinelli, 2020). A few years later,
sustainable transport, associated with sustainable mobility, was
introduced (EC, 1992). Referring to its origin, the concept of
sustainable mobility points out the importance of environmentally
friendly transport, including the social, and economic factors.
Furthermore, the concept presently includes a broader set of
transport impacts on society including social equity, health, quality
of life and economic aspects (Berger et al., 2014). A related term
is micromobility, a growing new trend that includes the utilization
of human-powered micro-vehicles such as bicycles, as well as new
micro-vehicles such as e-scooters and e-bikes (Oeschger et al.,
2020). Micromobility has the potential to help solve many of the
transport related challenges that cities worldwide are facing and can
provide a solution for the modal shifts away from private motorized
vehicles (Oeschger et al., 2020). However, it is important to keep
in mind that most travel, in everyday life, is embedded in broader
routines and habits that help people to organize their daily lives
(Berger et al., 2014). Thus, the social perspectives of sustainable
mobility are crucial.
Mobility is not gender neutral. Significant differences between
men and women can be found (Kawgan-Kagan, 2020). According
to research implemented in Spain, women’s choice is greatly
influenced by, for example, their income, family, and household
structure, while men’s choice of transport is more resistant to
changes (Sánchez and González, 2016). This is related to women
taking care of a larger share of organizing family life. Also, Kawgan-
Kagan (2020) confirms the same findings in Germany. Statistics
collected in Finland (Statistics Finland, 2021) show that although
the differences between genders have leveled out over the decades,
there is still variation between women and men in the way they
travel. Men make most of their daily journeys as car drivers,
whereas for women daily trips are more evenly divided between
driving a car, being a passenger in a car and walking. Furthermore,
many different aspects promote car traffic. Cities are planned for
cars, the main users of which are men. Car traffic is prioritized,
for example in the maintenance of roads, whereas the maintenance
of bike lanes and sidewalks comes only after the roads have been
cleared (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2021).
Sustainable mobility supports and improves people’s wellbeing
(Bartle and Chatterjee, 2019). According to the World Health
Organization (2023), chronic diseases and conditions are major
public health issues: cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, memory
disorders, musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders. A
sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor for the mentioned chronic diseases
(World Health Organization, 2023). Therefore, commuting and
sustainable mobility enhance and promote physical activity and
health among the working age population, decrease days of
absence from work and minimize the health care and social
benefit costs.
Previous studies have shown that employers can support
sustainable transport alternatives among employees (e.g.,
Vanoutrive et al., 2010;Van Malderen et al., 2012;Bartle and
Chatterjee, 2019;Ramesh and Colby, 2019). Employers means
of promoting sustainable mobility are, for example, subsidizing
public-transport passes, and investing in infrastructure (e.g.,
bike sheds, showers, preferred parking for those who car-pool).
Furthermore, awareness-raising initiatives with respect to benefits
of sustainable transport modes are other possible methods. This
includes improving the mobility culture. Another key issue is
also to assign a responsible person with enough resources to
support the sustainable commuting measures at the workplace
(Hoerler et al., 2019). However, in rural areas, where mobility
relies heavily on individual car usage, the situation can be different.
Soder and Peer (2018) claim that from both societal and business
perspectives, it is actually not efficient to promote sustainable
mobility in rural areas via employers, because employers have
little incentive to implement measures for supporting sustainable
mobility among their employees. The costs related to implementing
such measures exceed the corresponding benefits. Moreover, free
car parking at work is related to more driving (Hamre and
Buehler, 2014;Hoerler et al., 2019). To conclude, however, the
relationship between commuter benefits and the likelihood to
walk and cycle has been scarcely explored (Bueno et al., 2017),
and, also, the interaction effects among commuter benefits have
received relatively little attention in the literature (Hamre and
Buehler, 2014). This case study aims to find out how different
sustainable mobility initiatives provided by an employer are
adopted by employees. The study was implemented at the
Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme, which is a public
authority providing health care and social services in Päijät-Häme
region in Finland. The authority employs ∼7,600 persons in
ten municipalities. The share of women among the employees
is 89 per cent. In its new strategy 2023–2025, Wellbeing service
county of Päijät-Häme aims to be economically, ecologically,
and socially sustainable and responsible, thus more sustainable
commuting is one of the focus areas (Wellbeing service county of
Päijät-Häme, 2022). A transformation toward more sustainable
mobility and reducing CO2 emissions is set as part of corporate
responsibility and sustainable development in the strategy, and
in the environment programme of the Wellbeing services county
of Päijät-Häme. Based on a study made in 2018, in Wellbeing
service county of Päijät-Häme about 60 per cent of employees
use cars for commuting (Päijät-Häme Joint Authority for Health
Wellbeing, 2018). The potential to reduce commuting related
emissions was estimated to be about 25% based on the opinion of
employees. This case study confirms the same level of private car
use (61%).
The structure of the remaining part of the manuscript begins
with presenting the context of the research including methods used.
This is followed by a presentation of the results and a discussion.
At the end, the outcomes of the research are concluded, and
limitations and possibilities for future research in the area are
pointed out.
Frontiers in Sustainability 02 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
Context
Setting
This community case study was carried out as part of the
“By bike, scooter, and bus in Wellbeing services county of Päijät-
Häme” (PPBP) project. The aim of the project was to promote
sustainable commuting and to support the wellbeing and resilience
of the Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme’s employees.
The project was implemented between February and December
2022, while the pilots were operated between May and October.
The project targeted especially private car users. The project was
initiated to promote the employer’s strategy and goals of the
environment program. In addition to promote sustainable mobility
also increase in daily activity to bring health benefits and to improve
overall wellbeing of the employees was emphasized. The project
strengthened local cooperation and utilized new mobility services
such as city-e-bikes and e-scooters. Based on the experiences of
the pilots, the Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme aimed to
build recommendations to provide occupational benefit packages
for employees. The pilots were expected to provide information on
short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes for planning,
developing and selecting further actions on sustainable mobility.
PPBP was a collaborative project managed by the Wellbeing
services county of Päijät-Häme carried out in cooperation with LAB
University of Applied Sciences, LUT University, the City of Lahti,
and several service providers.
The project involved several pilots, of which this article will
focus on four more in detail (Table 1). In two pilots, the employer’s
measures were aimed at sustainable commuting. Activities in focus
were employer-subsidized commuter tickets for local transport
and employer-provided bicycle benefits. In Finland, employer-
subsidized commuter tickets are personal tickets meant for
commuting. They are classified as tax-fee income up to 3,400
€/year. An employer-provided bicycle benefit is a bicycle intended
for the employee’s personal use for commuting. In Finland, the
bicycle benefit is deductible income up to 1,200 euros a year
(Tax Administration, 2022). In the other two pilots, measures
for increasing sustainable mobility by shared city e-bikes and e-
scooters during the working day were supported. Units of the
Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme located in the city center
of Lahti tested shared city-e-bikes and e-scooters.
Study design
A case study method can be used when conducting qualitative,
applied comprehensive research for investigating complex
phenomena that are closely linked to real-world contexts (Yin,
2018). The case study is typically suitable when the research
involves several actors and perspectives. A case should cover an
entire process and allow the observation of how the phenomenon
developed over time (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). To increase
the validity of a case study, it is important to include several
data collection methods to enable the in-depth understanding
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). The strength of a case study
is the depth, as it explains details within the case variance
(Flyvbjerg, 2011). On the other hand, the case-study method can be
criticized as being too descriptive, as it can be challenging to gather
all available data (Lune and Berg, 2017). Moreover, the case study
does not explain how widespread a phenomenon is (Flyvbjerg,
2011). Thus, based on understanding one specific case, other
similar cases can be better comprehended and implemented in new
contexts. Several data collection methods were used in this study:
discussions and meetings with the employer, small-scale surveys
and interviews with the employees involved, desktop research and
participatory observation.
A small-scale survey studies the relationships between
variables. In this method a sample of people is measured through
a number of variables and relationships between the variables are
studied based on the resulting data (Punch, 2003). In this case
study, the number of participants in the surveys were rather small,
therefore the data analysis is descriptive. Moreover, the surveys
were targeted to the employees involved in the pilots, thus the
small sample size was determined by external limitations. The
interviews conducted with the employees were semi-structured.
This means that the researcher orients herself according to a
predefined frame, but the core message of the replies is necessarily
not found in the direct context of each question asked (Schmidt,
2004). This enables concentration on a specific theme but allows
for discussion. Together, the surveys and interviews form the main
data source for the case study.
The joint initial survey was conducted online before the start
of the pilots in May 2022. The survey mapped the participants’
expectations, motivations, background information about the
commuting habits, such as the method of travel, the length of the
trip and the time spent. The survey also included more general
questions related to values and environmental awareness. Finally,
the respondents were also asked if they would be willing to
participate in an online interview.
During the pilot period online interviews were carried out
with eight participants who, through the survey, expressed
their willingness to participate (June–August 2022). The aim of
these interviews was to collect more in-depth information about
employees’ experiences during the pilots.
At the end of the piloting period (October–November 2022)
the user experiences were collected from different pilot groups
though separate surveys. This enabled shorter questionnaires to
ensure greatest possible number of respondents. Though, most
of the questions were same for all the pilots, only few questions
were prepared especially for certain groups. Such were, for
example, questions about feeling of safety that was asked of
e-scooter users.
Results
All together 83 participants signed up for participating in the
pilots, however, 70 actually enrolled the pilots and replied to the
initial survey. The research data consisted of short surveys before
(n=70) and at the end of the pilots (n=66), and thematic
interviews (n=8) during the implementation period. In the
following, the most interesting points of the surveys and interviews
will be highlighted.
Frontiers in Sustainability 03 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
TABLE 1 Description of the four pilot groups: number of participants (initial survey), number of respondents (final survey), number of private car users
(final survey), overall satisfaction rating (grade average from final survey), and age group (initial survey).
Pilot groups
Employer-
subsidized
commuter ticket
Employer-
provided
bicycles
City-e-bikes E-scooters All
Number of participants (initial survey) 13 14 22 21 70
Number of respondents (final survey) 13 13 21 19 66
Private car users (respondents, final survey) 6 11 13 12 42
Overall grade average (grades 4–10) 9.3 8.5 8.5 8.7 8.7
Age group
18–29 yrs. 0 1 2 3 6
30–39 yrs. 2 3 9 7 21
40–49 yrs. 4 4 7 5 20
50–59 yrs. 6 6 3 6 21
60–69 yrs. 1 0 1 0 2
The four pilots and their respective number of participants
are presented in Table 1. The pilot groups were: (1) employer-
subsidized commuter tickets for local transport, (2) employer-
provided bicycle benefit, (3) city e-bikes, and (4) e-scooters. Pilots
1 and 2 focused on commuting, while pilots 3 and 4 focused on
mobility during the working day.
The initial survey collected background information from the
participants including age group. Participants in the pilots were
evenly representing three age groups: 30–39 years, 40–49 years, and
50–59 years. There were only a few participants in the youngest
(18–29 years) and oldest (60–69 years) age groups. When reviewing
the different pilots by age groups, it can be seen that city-e-bikes
and e-scooters were of more interest to younger age groups than
employer- subsidized commuter ticket.
The participants were asked to evaluate their satisfaction with
the pilot period on a scale of 4–10, 4 representing the failed and
10 the excellent review. This scale was used because it corresponds
to the Finnish primary school assessment and is therefore familiar
to everyone regardless their age and educational background. All
four pilots received good or very good overall ratings. Satisfaction
with the pilots was also widely expressed in the answers to open
ended questions. Many of the respondents praised the opportunity
to participate in the pilots:
“The pilot was a very positive experience as a whole and I
hope that electric scooters could become a permanent form of
mobility during the working day.” (Electric scooter)
“There are only roses and positive feedback to give for this
pilot. All in all, a good action which, in addition to increasing
work motivation, reduced the carbon footprint and saved money
on fuel costs. I hope from the bottom of my heart that the same
experiment will continue next year, and if that doesn’t happen,
I would probably pay for the use of the city-e-bike myself.”
(Employer-provided bicycle benefit)
“An absolutely profitable pilot and the opportunity to get
employer-provided bicycle benefit should be extended to all
employees. There were a lot of interested colleagues, who would
also be interested to have this opportunity. Only good things to
say.” (Employer-provided bicycle benefit)
“All in all, a positive pilot. The employer could continue
to support the use of employer-subsidized commuter ticket.”
(Employer-subsidized commuter ticket)
The original goal of the PPBP project was to involve especially
private car users to participate into the pilots. This goal was well-
achieved in the pilot groups employer-provided bicycle benefit
(11/13, 85%), city-e-bikes (13/21, 62%), and e-scooters (12/19,
63%). Only in the pilot group employer-subsidized commuter
ticket less than half (6/13, 46%) of the respondents mentioned
private car as the main mode of transport before the pilot.
When reviewing the two pilot groups, employer-subsidized
commuter ticket and employer-provided bicycles, aimed at
sustainable commuting (Table 2), it can be seen that a clear majority
(11/14) of the participants in the employer-provided bicycle group
spent no more than half an hour on their one-way commute
before the pilot period. Their one-way commuting distance was
also shorter than in the group of employer-subsidized commuter
ticket users. The participants of the employer-subsidized commuter
ticket pilot spent slightly longer time on commuting as almost half
of them traveled over 30 min. Private car was the most common
mode of transport before the pilot period in both groups, although
in the employer-subsidized commuter ticket group bus was equally
common. Walking and cycling did not receive any mentions from
the employer-subsidized commuter ticket users and only two from
the employer-provided bicycle group.
Almost all participants in the employer-provided bicycle pilot
(10/13) replied that they used the new way of commuting most of
the time during the pilot period. When participants were asked why
they did not use their employer-subsidized bicycle, the main reason
given was weather conditions (7/13 mentions). Other reasons were
insecure and poor bicycle parking conditions, inadequate dressing
rooms, missing lockers (6/13 mentions).
Frontiers in Sustainability 04 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
TABLE 2 Background information on commuting before the pilot period (time spent commuting one-way, commuting distance one-way and most
common mode of commute before the pilot period) and the impact of the pilot period on participant’s travel time and wellbeing.
Employer-subsidized commuter ticket
Initial survey n=13
Employer-provided bicycles Initial survey
n=14
Initial—survey time spent commuting one-way before the pilot period
<10 min 1 2
10–20 min 5 5
20–30 min 1 4
30–40 min 2 2
>40 min 4 1
Employer-subsidized commuter ticket
Final survey n=13
Employer-provided bicycles Final survey
n=13
Final survey—Commuting distance one-way before the pilot period
<5 km 1 2
5–9 km 7 9
10–15 km 3 1
>15 km 2 1
Final survey—Most common mode of commute before the pilot period
Walking 0 0
Cycling 0 2
Bus 5 0
Private car 6 11
Other 2 0
Final survey—Impact on travel time. Comparing the chosen mode of commute in the pilot period to the mode of commute before
the pilot period, it was
Faster 0 7
As fast 7 3
Slower 6 3
Final survey—Impact on wellbeing
Significant positive impact 2 5
small positive impact 5 6
No impact 6 2
Negative impact 0 0
“I think the hardest part was the dressing rooms, possibility
to dry clothes, old bike racks where you can’t lock the bike from
the frame.” (Employer-provided bicycle benefit)
All participants in the employer-subsidized commuter ticket
pilot (13/13) reported that they used mainly public transport, that
is, bus, for commuting. The most common reason for not using the
bus was being in a hurry (5/13). Other reasons mentioned were the
need to move from one place to another during the working day,
where the private car was necessary.
In the initial survey many participants mentioned travel speed
and getting quickly from one place to another as the reason for
using a private car for commuting. However, in the final survey,
especially the employer-provided bicycle users were of the opinion
that cycling was a faster way to travel to work (7/13).
A significant majority of the employer-provided bicycle pilot
(11/13) were of the opinion that cycling had a positive impact on
their wellbeing: six participants felt that cycling had a small positive
impact and five felt that it had a significant positive impact. This
same result did not emerge as strongly in the employer-subsidized
commuter ticket group, although a majority (7/13) felt at least a
small positive impact on their wellbeing.
Figure 1 shows the participants’ reasons for taking part in the
pilots. This was asked in the initial survey through a multiple-
choice question where it was possible to choose 1–3 motives.
The desire to try something new received the most mentions
(44%). Also matters related to health benefits (33%), increased daily
Frontiers in Sustainability 05 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
FIGURE 1
Reasons to participate (initial survey, responses in %).
exercise (40%), and promoting wellbeing (23%) were considered
as important reasons to participate. Issues related to driving
private cars, such as the increasing fuel price (26%), making
parking easier (14%), and making traveling easier (26%), were also
mentioned. The environmental issues did not receive particularly
many mentions, personal reasons seem to be more important
according to the respondents.
“To walk at least part of the journey, that is, it’s a personal
advantage to be able to move around a bit. In addition to the
health motive, also the desire to try something new.” (Employer-
subsidized commuter ticket)
When the participants were asked how often they did
use their chosen mode of transportation during the pilot
period, most respondents answered either mainly or occasionally
(Figure 2). Only three respondents (city-e-bikes 2, e-scooters
1) did not really participate in the pilots. These three people
mentioned that they had many difficulties using the operating
applications and therefore were unable to use the device. Other
reasons that reduced usage were the limits of the geographical
area in which the city-e-bikes and e-scooters could be used,
availability and parking spaces, weather related issues (e.g.,
heavy rain), or other work-related matters such as the need to
transport a large number of medical devices for the home care
service customers.
In the final survey, all participants were asked if the pilot had
any impact on their actions or way of thinking in general. Different
statements were given as possible answer options. As Figure 3
shows, the statement “I have reduced the use of my private car” got
the most mentions. The answers also show that the chosen mode
of transport has influenced the way people travel in their free time;
cyclists’ cycle more, e-scooter users use scooters also in their free
time and commuter ticket users travel more by bus. Based on the
answers, it seems that the pilot period had positive effects on the
participant’s overall physical activity: increasing exercise, traveling
more by bicycle, and walking more. The respondents were almost
without exception willing to continue using their chosen mode of
transportation also in the future.
“[When traveling by bus] I liked the fact that there’s also a
little bit of walking and I got useful exercise at the same time.”
(Employer-subsidized commuter ticket)
“It’s new and positive thing that using e-scooter is fun, so this
pilot has added an extra fun element to going to work, you can
also be outside, instead of sitting in the car.” (Electric scooter)
“The best employee benefit so far in my career.” (Employer-
provided bicycle benefit)
“Much more pleasant way to commute, stress decreased both
during and after commuting, also more pleasant working days,
and beneficial exercise at the same time.” (Employer-provided
bicycle benefit)
Social facilities at the workplace and bicycle parking
were pointed out as shortcomings at the workplace, both
in the interviews and in the open-ended answers of the
surveys. These were, for example, lack of lockers for
clothes and other equipment, lack of place to dry wet
clothes, low number of showers and lack of safe bicycle
parking facilities.
In the employer-subsidized commuter ticket pilot, the
employer financially supported the purchase of a season ticket
for public transport. Some of the comments in the interviews
and open-ended questions clearly highlighted financial reasons
for participation:
“Honestly, the fact that I got a little bit money back from the
employer for the bus ticket price, so it was financial.” (Employer-
subsidized commuter ticket)
“Money was the biggest motivation for participating.
Getting support for commuting costs.” (Employer-subsidized
commuter ticket)
Frontiers in Sustainability 06 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
FIGURE 2
How often the chosen mode of transport was used (final survey, responses in number of people).
FIGURE 3
The impact of the pilot on participants’ way of thinking (final survey, responses in number of people).
“The employer’s support is very important. We have at
the workplace discussed about the benefit, which is certainly
important for both everyday exercise and environmental issues.”
(Employer-provided bicycle benefit)
All in all, the employer’s support for sustainable commuting
provided during the pilot period was seen as important
and highly valuable. The support included, in addition to
financial benefits, also human resources for guidance and
information. All pilot groups were highly satisfied with the
provided support (employer-subsidized commuter ticket 11/13,
employer-provided bicycle benefit 10/13, city e-bikes 21/21,
e-scooters 19/19).
Discussion and conclusion
Basically, mobility can become more sustainable in several
ways: people can travel more efficiently, they can travel differently,
or they can travel less. This case study focused on employer’s ways
to encourage toward sustainable mobility, more precisely, on how
different sustainable mobility initiatives provided by an employer
were adopted by employees. The study provided new aspects on
the relationship between commuter benefits and actual change in
commuting habits that has been scarcely studied (e.g., Hamre and
Buehler, 2014;Bueno et al., 2017).
Despite the limited number of participants and relatively
short time, all the implemented pilots show positive results. The
Frontiers in Sustainability 07 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
participants were loyal to utilizing the piloted sustainable mobility
forms and eager to continue the new ways of mobility also after
the pilot period. As also Ramesh and Colby (2019) have confirmed,
encouraging employers to offer free or subsidized commuter
tickets have major effects on employees utilizing public transport.
Furthermore, the results support earlier findings in the literature
that suggest commuter benefits for walking, cycling, and public
transportation may be effective at supporting more sustainable
mobility. Decreasing the use of private cars has an impact on
reducing transport-based greenhouse gas emissions, that is one of
the central goals of the European Union (EU, 2021).
The pilot was successful in involving private car users. In
addition, the participants’ commuting distances were short enough
to allow them to switch to alternative modes of transport. However,
the results are based on pilots in a strongly female-dominated
workplace. Previous research has shown that women usually utilize
more diverse means of mobility (Sánchez and González, 2016;
Kawgan-Kagan, 2020). Thus, the positive results may partly be
explained by the fact that the pilots were implemented in a female-
dominated workplace.
This study confirms, as also pointed out by Bartle and
Chatterjee (2019) that sustainable mobility supports people’s
wellbeing. The interest to participate seemed to be strongly
based on personal motives linked to wellbeing and economic
issues. These were for example, increased daily exercise and
decreased costs related to private car use. Overall, participating
in a sustainable mobility pilot can be a significant gamechanger
in mobility habits, also affecting free time mobility. In the
future, it would be worthwhile to consider, if sustainable mobility
should be promoted more through emphasizing personal benefits
rather than cutting CO2-emissions. Employers have an active
role in both implementing sustainable mobility incentives and in
supporting the continuation. This includes provision of sustainable
mobility services for employees as well as appropriate facilities,
such as, safe and covered well-located bicycle parking, dressing
rooms, lockers, and showers. These initiatives show an employer’s
commitment to the mobility shift and corporate responsibility.
As Hoerler et al. (2019) point out it is important to assign
a responsible person supporting the sustainable commuting
measures at the workplace. In this pilot, the support provided
by the employer was perceived as sufficient and positive. The
Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme will continue to support
the employer-provided bicycle benefit, city-e-bikes and e-scooters.
Moreover, developing bicycle parking and social facilities will
be improved.
The short time period, small number of participants and female
dominated workplace formed limitations of this study. A follow-
up study would provide interesting information of continuation of
sustainable mobility services and behavior in the Wellbeing services
county of Päijät-Häme. Furthermore, a longer piloting period and
widening the study to several workplaces would form an interesting
set up for future studies. Also, the gender aspect would be worth
a further investigation: would the implementation of a sustainable
mobility pilot give different results in a male dominated or other
types of workplaces?
This article studied the employer’s role in supporting different
forms of sustainable mobility. As a conclusion the results confirm
that employer can have an active role in enabling sustainable
mobility and introducing incentives. Furthermore, the ways of
commuting can affect the overall mobility behavior. The case study
shows that a change in commuting ways have an impact also on
general mobility habits and increases the level of daily physical
activity. This underlines the positive impacts of sustainable mobility
both from health and environmental aspects.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
MV, SV, and R-MH contributed to conception and design of
the study. R-MH originated and conceptualized the pilot project
for the employees. MV collected and processed the data. MV and
SV designed the manuscript and wrote the first draft. All authors
contributed to article writing, manuscript revision, and approved
the submitted version.
Funding
Traficom, the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency,
Wellbeing services county of Päijät-Häme and LAB University
of Applied Sciences funded the project in which the data was
collected. Traficom will also publish a report in Finnish on the
project implementation on their webpage in spring 2023.
Acknowledgments
The authors would thank the members of the project advisory
group, particularly Minna Aho, Project Manager, Wellbeing
services county of Päijät-Häme for the management of the project,
support, and contribution in this study. We also thank LUT
and LAB students for great assistance in supporting the project
implementation and the pilots, especially Marianne Kämi and
trainees Mari Karhinen and Taru Metsä.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Frontiers in Sustainability 08 frontiersin.org
Villanen et al. 10.3389/frsus.2023.1158231
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
References
Bartle, C., and Chatterjee, K. (2019). Employer perceptions of the business
benefits of sustainable transport: a case study of peri-urban employment areas
in South West England. Transport. Res. Part A Policy Prac. 126, 297–313.
doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.012
Berger, G., Feindt, P., Holden, E., and Rubik, F. (2014). Sustainable mobility—
Challenges for a complex transition. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 16, 303–320.
doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2014.954077
Bueno, P., Juan Gomez, C., Peters, J. R., and Vassallo, J. M. (2017). Understanding
the effects of transit benefits on employees’ travel behavior: evidence from the
New York-New Jersey Region. Transport. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 99, 1–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.009
EC (1992). European Commission. A Community Strategy for ‘Sustainable Mobility’,
Green Paper on the Impact of Transport. on the Environment; COM (1992) 46 Final.
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building
from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 25–32.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
EU (2021). European Union. REGULATION (EU) 2021/1119 OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 June 2021establishing
the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No
401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). “Case study,” in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research
Denzin,4th Edn, eds N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage), 301–316.
Gallo, M., and Marinelli, M. (2020). Sustainable mobility: a review of possible
actions and policies. Sustainability 12, 7499. doi: 10.3390/su12187499
Hamre, A., and Buehler, R. (2014). Commuter mode choice and free car
parking, public transportation benefits, showers/lockers, and bike parking at work:
evidence from the Washington, DC Region. J. Public Transport. 17, 67–91.
doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.17.2.4
Heinrich Böll Stiftung (2021). Women on the Move: Sustainable Mobility and
Gender. Available online at: https://eu.boell.org/en/women-on-the- move-sustainable-
mobility-and- gender (accessed January 24, 2023).
Hoerler, R., Haerri, F., and Hoppe, M. (2019). New solutions in sustainable
commuting—The attitudes and experience of european stakeholders and experts in
Switzerland. Soc. Sci. 8, 220. doi: 10.3390/socsci8070220
Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2020). Are women greener than men? A preference analysis of
women and men from major German cities over sustainable urban mobility. Transport.
Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect. 8, 100236. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100236
Lune, H., and Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative Research Methodsfor the Social Sciences.
Pearson: Harlow.
Oeschger, G., Carroll, P., and Caulfield, B. (2020). Micromobility and public
transport integration: the current state of knowledge. Transport. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 89, 102628. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102628
Päijät-Häme Joint Authority for Health and Wellbeing (2018). Action Plan for
Smart and Safe Commuting. Available online at: https://docplayer.fi/145007050-
Viisaan-ja-tur vallisen-tyomatkaliikkumisen-toimenpidesuunnitelma- paijat-hameen-
hyvinvointiyhtyma.html (accessed January 27, 2023).
Punch, K. F. (2003). Survey Research: The Basics. Cornwall: Sage.
Ramesh, G., and Colby, L. (2019). The relationship between financial incentives
provided by employers and commuters’ decision to use transit: results from
the Atlanta Regional Household Travel Survey. Transp. Policy 74, 103–113.
doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.005
Sánchez, I. O., and González, E. M. (2016). “Gender differences in commuting
behavior: women’s greater sensitivity,” in ScienceDirect. Transportation Research
Procedia 18 (2016) 66 – 72. XII Conference on Transport Engineering, CIT 2016, 7-9
June 2016 (Valencia).
Schmidt, C. (2004). “The analysis of semi-structured interviews,” in A Companion
to Qualitative Research, eds U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke (Hamburg:
Sage), 253–258.
Soder, M., and Peer, S. (2018). The potential role of employers in
promoting sustainable mobility in rural areas: evidence from Eastern
Austria. Int. J. Sustain. Transport. 12, 541–551. doi: 10.1080/15568318.2017.14
02974
Statistics Finland (2021). Driving Has Become More Equal - Women Still Move
More Diversely Than Men. Available online at: https://www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/
artikkelit/2021/autoilu-on- tasa-arvoistunut-naiset-liikkuvat-edelleen- miehia-
monimuotoisemmin/ (accessed January 24,2023).
Tax Administration (2022). Fringe Benefits From Employment. Available online
at: https://www.vero.fi/en/individuals/tax-cards- and-tax-returns/income/earned-
income/fringe-benefits- from-employment/ (accessed January 31, 2023).
UNECE (2022). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Climate Change
and Sustainable Transport. Available online at: https://unece.org/climate-change-and-
sustainable-transport (accessed January 12, 2023).
Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I., Vanoutrive, T., Verhetsel, A., and
Witlox, F. (2012). On the mobility policies of companies: what are the good
practices? The Belgian case. Transport Policy 21, 10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.
12.005
Vanoutrive, T., Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I.,
Verhetsel, A., and Witlox, F. (2010). Mobility management measures
by employers: overview and exploratory analysis for belgium. European
J. Trans. Infrastr. Res. 10, 121–141. doi: 10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.
2.2878
WCED (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
United Nations. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed January 12,2023).
Wellbeing service county of Päijät-Häme (2022). Päijät-Häme
Hyvinvointialuestrategia 2023–2025. Strategy. Available online at: https://www.
paijatha.fi/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Paijat-Hameen_hyvinvointialue_strategia.
pdf (accessed March 28 2023).
World Health Organization (2023). Physical Activity. WHO. AAvailable online
at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/physical-activity (accessed
January 31, 2023).
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th
Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Frontiers in Sustainability 09 frontiersin.org
