The Impact of Education and Gender on Commuting

in Austria

Thomas Gamsjger

Meitner Monographs

The Impact of Education and Gender on Commuting

in Austria

Thomas Gamsjger

Abstract
Background: The distance between home and work represents a barrier that separates the two distinct
spheres of the lives of all those who are fortunate enough to have a job. Previous studies on commuting
have concluded that the level of education positively correlates with the distance. In addition, women
were found to prefer shorter commutes. The aim of the current investigation was to subject the impact
of education and gender to further scrutiny by using data on the entire employed workforce of Austria.
Methods: The distances between home and work were obtained from the national statistical office for
the year 2012 and were analysed with respect to compulsory, secondary and tertiary education as well
as gender.
Results: Data on more than 3.9 million employees strongly confirmed the positive correlation between
education and commuting distance with on average 20.7, 24.2 and 26.0 kilometres, respectively for the
three different groups of educational level. The commuting distance of women amounted to 20.5
kilometres, that of men to 26.7 kilometres.
Conclusions: The current investigation was able to firmly corroborate the previous findings. As
empirical explanations of the underlying mechanisms remain scarce, the available evidence suggests
that socio-economic factors mainly related to income may strongly influence the decision to commute
over longer or shorter distances.

Introduction
As only very few employed persons live exactly at the place of work, which would not in itself be
entirely desirable, commuting is an inextricable necessity in earning one's livelihood. In Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the average time spent to get to work
and back amounts to 38 minutes per day.13 Higher values have been established in other investigations:
In an analysis of data from the American Time Survey (ATUS) 62.2 minutes were found,3 whereas
Canadian census data provided the input for very similar findings of 63 minutes.20
Among the multitude of factors found to influence the patterns of commuting, several of them
deserve increased attention. Using data from the European Labour Force Survey, a positive correlation
between the commuting distance and the educational level was observed,9 conclusions that were also
drawn in an investigation conducted with data from England.2 Likewise, an analysis of data from the
Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey concluded that commuting
times of highly educated persons are considerably longer than those of the less educated, underpinned
by a strong correlation between commuting times and income.5 Gender appears to be another relevant
factor. That women tend to commute, on average, over shorter distances compared to men is mainly
attributed to different preferences for various occupations.2, 5, 11, 16
It is the aim of the current investigation to subject the impact of the effects of educational level
and gender on commuting distance to further scrutiny by using data comprising the employed
workforce of an entire country (albeit, with Austria's population of approximately 8.5 million, a
comparatively small one).

Methods
Data about the country's workforce are freely retrievable from the national statistical office (Statistik
Austria) with 2012 being the latest available data set, in which all active employees were included.18
Whereas the two possible values of the parameter 'gender' are quite self-evident, the parameter
'educational level' offers three different values, compulsory, secondary and tertiary education.12 Instead
of raw data on all individuals, the statistical office only provides frequency data categorised on
consecutive bands of distance beginning with 10 kilometre intervals, which are widened as the distance
increases (Table 1). The last band was labelled '400 kilometres and beyond'. As this imprecise
definition precluded further calculations, these data points were omitted from the analysis.
To approximate the average commuting distance in each group, it was necessary to 'reverse-calculate'
the cumulative distances of all individuals in each distance interval by multiplying the mean distance of
the interval with the number of individuals. The sum of all the cumulative distances divided by the total
number of all individuals in the same group then gave the mean commuting distance. Due to this
approach, which is unavoidable in that only categorised data were available, it was not possible to
calculate the standard deviation of the means. Instead, groups were compared using the chi-squared
goodness-of-fit test.6 A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All calculations were carried out
using standard spreadsheet software.

Results
The total number of all employed persons in 2012 amounted to more than 3.9 million. The 'reversecalculations' of the average commuting distances for the parameters 'education' and 'gender' are shown
in tables 1 and 2 (numbers in italics representing calculated values). The omitted values due to the
imprecise definition of the accompanying label '400 kilometres and beyond' constituted only between
0.38 and 0.52 % of the respective groups, a proportion which was not able to alter the overall findings.
The analysis shows that the average commuting distance increases from 20.7 kilometres in the
compulsory education group via 24.2 kilometres with secondary education to 26.0 kilometres in the
tertiary education group (p < 0.05).
Likewise, a significant difference can be observed between female (20.5 kilometres) and male
employees (26.7 kilometres; p < 0.05).

Table 1. Calculation of the mean commuting distances by levels of education (in kilometres).
Compulsory education
Distance
category

Mean
distance

Number of
persons

Secondary education

Cumulative
distance

Number of
persons

Cumulative
distance

Tertiary education
Number of
persons

Cumulative
distance

0-9

4,5

416.319

1.873.436

1.395.114

6.278.013

350.138

1.575.621

10-19

14,5

125.953

1.826.319

488.185

7.078.683

99.336

1.440.372

20-29

24,5

47.292

1.158.654

230.097

5.637.377

42.616

1.044.092

30-39

34,5

25.269

871.781

133.930

4.620.585

30.740

1.060.530

40-49

44,5

13.614

605.823

76.995

3.426.278

17.566

781.687

50-59

54,5

9.991

544.510

54.186

2.953.137

14.499

790.196

60-99

79,5

18.589

1.477.826

100.275

7.971.863

28.732

2.284.194

100-139

119,5

7.183

858.369

37.800

4.517.100

9.592

1.146.244

140-199

169,5

9.599

1.627.031

39.844

6.753.558

12.736

2.158.752

200-299

249,5

8.623

2.151.439

34.029

8.490.236

9.111

2.273.195

300-399

349,5

Sum
Mean
distance

3.418

1.194.591

15.277

5.339.312

4.450

1.555.275

685.850

14.189.775

2.605.732

63.066.139

619.516

16.110.157

20.7

24.2

Chi-squared test statistic/

Degrees of freedom

9.41/2
0,01

26.0

Table 2. Calculation of the mean commuting distances by gender (in kilometres).

Female
Distance
category

Mean
distance

Number of
persons

Male

Cumulative
distance

Number of
persons

Cumulative
distance

0-9

4,5

1.074.017

4.833.077

1.087.554

4.893.993

10-19

14,5

320.880

4.652.760

392.594

5.692.613

20-29

24,5

133.775

3.277.488

186.230

4.562.635

30-39

34,5

76.420

2.636.490

113.519

3.916.406

40-49

44,5

41.090

1.828.505

67.085

2.985.283

50-59

54,5

29.362

1.600.229

49.314

2.687.613

60-99

79,5

54.109

4.301.666

93.487

7.432.217

100-139

119,5

19.224

2.297.268

35.351

4.224.445

140-199

169,5

22.463

3.807.479

39.716

6.731.862

200-299

249,5

18.258

4.555.371

33.505

8.359.498

300-399

349,5

Sum

8.849

3.092.726

14.296

4.996.452

1.798.447

36.883.057

2.112.651

56.483.015

Mean
distance

20.5

26.7

Chi-squared test statistic/

Degrees of freedom

29.6/1

0,001

Figure 1 shows the average commuting distances for the different educational levels and gender.

Commuting distance (kilometres)

30

Gender

Education

25
20
15
10
5
0

Compulsory

Secondary

Tertiary

Female

Figure 1. Average commuting distances.

Male

Discussion
In this quantitative investigation, it was possible to support the notion that education and gender exert
considerable impact on commuting. Whereas compulsory education is associated with an average
commuting distance of 20.7 kilometres, this value increases with advanced educational levels reaching
26.0 kilometres in commuters with completed tertiary education. In addition, the previously described
finding that women tend to commute over shorter distances was likewise corroborated. In light of the
already published literature on the subject, the current study draws considerable strength from the fact
that it is based on data covering the entire employed workforce of Austria amounting to more than 3.9
million persons.
Sound explanations for these differences in commuting distances are scarce. What has been put
forward so far mainly centres on the individual commuter's weighing of personal preferences. In order
to approach this question in a systematic way, commuting can be characterised from an economic
point of view, as a trade-off between costs and benefits:16, 19 The costs of commuting are readily
experienced. Most obviously, getting from home to work and back again takes time. As the total
amount of time during a day is not only finite but to a considerable degree taken up by the externally
defined working hours, longer commuting especially encroaches on leisure and family time,
occupations, on which time is spent in a comparatively more discretionary way (at least in principle).
But additional costs weigh in including financial expenditures and extra psychological costs due to the
mental burden associated with commuting, which may even lead to physical stress. As external factors,
noise, crowds and pollution may come to bear compounded by potential inner conflicts due to
irreconcilable time demands. But these costs can be accompanied by multiple benefits. Accepting
longer commuting distances may enhance career opportunities as in a wider area a higher number of
suitable employers might be within reach, probably luring potential employees with financially more
attractive packages. Therefore, a more rewarding job could be combined with living in a better
environment or with cheaper housing. Table 3 collates the various aspects of costs and benefits.

Table 3. Costs and benefits of (longer) commuting.

Costs
Expenditure of time and, therefore, less leisure
and family time
Financial expenditures for travelling, out-ofpocket costs

Benefits
Wider choice of employers
Career advancement

Psychological costs, mental stress

Financial benefits due to higher remuneration

Physical stress

Better living environment

Cheaper housing

Rational decision makers would be able to reach an equilibrium where the net result of considering the
costs and benefits is optimised. But in what has been described as the 'commuting paradox', this kind of
optimal steady state is actually not reached in that longer commuting is associated with markedly lower
subjective well-being.19 The classical economic assumptions apparently do not hold. Apart from the fact
that perfect information on the labour and housing markets is typically not obtainable for the
unassuming commuter, a major additional factor appears to shift the scales: transaction costs. In
economics, transactions costs are the costs incurred in making an economic exchange.1, 21 In more
6

mundane parlance: Employees cannot change their jobs or their place of abode on a whim, even if it
were absolutely rational to do so. The principally guiding aim of reducing one's net commuting costs by
seeking employment nearer to home (or, conversely, by relocating the household) is hampered by
factors which increase 'friction'.19 Transaction costs prevent people from immediately adjusting to
changes in economic circumstances. To give examples: Moving the entire household to a different
place not only costs money, it also necessitates investing a considerable amount of time for planning,
organising and managing such a complex undertaking. What is more, the other family members might,
in fact, have no intrinsic incentive to move at all given their own employment or social networks.
Looked at form the opposite angle, a good job might be on offer much nearer to home, but it is far from
certain that all the intangible positive aspects of the current work place are replicable in the new
environment. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that people tend to stay where they are, sticking
to the status quo, which is in itself an important theme in the academic field of decision making.10, 17
'When in doubt, do nothing,' might be an apt description.4 Only if the incentives to make bold
decisions become overriding, the resistance to change can be surmounted. The anticipated new
benefits might even have to outweigh the potential loss of the old ones by a wide margin until the
'tipping point' is actually reached.
In considering these multiple aspects, the following contributing factors for the positive
correlation between higher income and longer commuting can be delineated: Higher education is
invariably associated with higher income. To begin with, travel expenditures are then of comparatively
little concern. Even so, of greater importantance appears to be that the more affluent are much better
suited to choose higher quality housing in a better environment. As such circumstances are typically
located at greater distances especially from city centres, the increased emphasis on living conditions
comes at the price of longer commuting. Home ownership in itself increases the potential transaction
costs on relocating the household in large measure, greatly raising the inclination to stay and commute
instead.7, 16, 19 Moreover, apart from aspects of income, higher education might be associated with more
frequent deliberate career steps even after a definite home had already been established, the potentially
narrower labour market for the highly educated and specially trained notwithstanding.
Overall, and despite intensive efforts to the contrary, women fare considerably worse in terms of
income. A larger proportion compared to men is to be found in low-wage and part-time employments,
which render long commutes most immediately uneconomical. In addition, the still uneven distribution
between women and men of the workload associated with children and the household demand less
time be spent on commuting.16
Not only is commuting characterised by considerable individual costs (both monetary and nonmonetary) and a high degree of negative affect, it also places a burden on the economy as a whole in
terms of unproductive time expenditure and resource consumption along with its associated
environmental impact.19 Therefore, one might expect government regulation to encourage shorter
commuting distances. Remarkably, in several countries governments pursue the somewhat paradoxical
strategy of regarding commuting costs as tax-deductible expenses.8, 15 Austria is one of those
countries.8, 14 In addition to this fiscal incentive to accept longer commuting, governments forgo
considerable amounts of tax revenues.
A relevant limitation of this investigation stems from the fact that only highly aggregated data
were available from the national statistical office precluding a more in-depth analysis of potential
patterns and associations. In addition, the actual differences of the distances might appear to be of only
minor practical effect. Even so, in that the data set extends to the entire employed workforce of the
country, the findings rest on a comparatively firm footing and are able to reveal underlying patterns.
Even though multiple inferences are possible with respect to the contributing causal factors that
determine the decisions on where to live and where to work, additional studies to elucidate these

complex questions at the intersection of multiple disciplines ranging from economics to psychology are
definitely warranted.
In conclusion, using data on more than 3.9 million employees this investigation was able to
corroborate the notion that higher levels of education are associated with longer commuting distances,
irrespective of gender. Still, that women tend to commute less was likewise confirmed. Economic
factors and, at the same time, the often intangible aspects of personal behaviour contribute to this
picture with its strikingly constant features across different countries and societies. Policymakers and
employers might take the underlying aspects into account and base their decisions on sound
scientifically established knowledge.

References
1) Allen DW. Transaction costs. In: Bouckaert B and De Geest G (Eds.). Encyclopedia of law and
economics, Volume I. The history and methodology of law and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing
2000
2) Benito A, Oswald AJ. Commuting in Great Britain in the 1990s. University of Warwick 2000
3) Christian TJ. Trade-offs between commuting time and health-related activities. J Urban Health 2012;
89: 746-757
4) Fleming SM, Thomas CL, Dolan RJ. Overcoming status quo bias in the human brain. PNAS 2010;
107: 6005-6009
5) Flood M, Barbato C. Off to work Commuting in Australia. The Australia Institute 2005
6) Gamsjger T. Pearson's test. Meitner Monographs 2015
7) Groot SPT, de Groot HLF, Veneri P. The educational bias in commuting patterns: Micro-evidence
for the Netherlands. Tinbergen Institute 2012
8) Harding M. Personal tax treatment of company cars and commuting expenses: Estimating the fiscal
and environmental costs. OECD Taxation Working Papers 2014; No. 20
9) Huber P. Are commuters in the EU better educated than non-commuters but worse than migrants?
Austrian Economic Research Institute 2009
10) Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J
Econ Perspect 1991; 5: 193-206
11) Levinson DM. Accessibility and the journey to work. J Transport Geography 1998; 6: 11-21
12) OECD. Education at a glance 2014 Country note Austria. OECD 2014
13) OECD. Work life balance. In: How's life? Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing 2011
14) Paetzold J, Winner H. Taking the high road? Compliance with commuter tax allowances and the
role of evasion spillovers. The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare
State 2014
15) Potter S, Enoch M, Rye T et al. The tax treatment of employer commuting support: An international
review. Transport Reviews 2006; 26: 221-237
16) Preston V, McLafferty S. Gender differences in commuting in suburban and central locations. Can J
Regional Science 1993; XVI: 237-259
17) Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertainty 1988; 1: 7-59
18) Statistik Austria: www.statistik.at
19) Stutzer A, Frey BS. Stress that doesn't pay: The commuting paradox. Scand J Econ 2008; 110: 339366
20) Turcotte M. The time it takes to get to work and back. Statistics Canada 2005
21) Williamson OE. The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. Am J Sociol
1981; 87: 548-577

Author
Dr. Thomas Gamsjger, University Hospital St. Plten-Lilienfeld, Propst-Fhrer-Strae 4, 3100 St. Plten, Austria
Date of publication
6 January 2015
Citation
Gamsjger T. The impact of education and gender on commuting in Austria. Meitner Monographs 2015
9