Changing socioeconomic conditions are increasing the flexible workforce, such as home workers that are believed to internalize the need for home-work space in their housing consumption. Analysis of census data in thirteen Canadian metropolitan areas shows that households where one or both maintainers work from home have a greater propensity to reside in larger single-family detached houses than comparable households with maintainers who commute to work. The home-work variable increases the probability of single-family dwelling occupancy more than age, immigration, and household size, demographic variables generally highly associated with single-family dwelling occupancy. Although issues of causality cannot be empirically resolved here, if home work requires more space, it is one of the factors that would influence the tendency to continue to reside in the larger single-family dwellings. These dwellings have greater environmental impacts than more compact housing types that planners promote as part of their sustainability goals.
Akyeampong, E.B., and R. Nadwodny (Statistics Canada). 2001. Evolution of the Canadian workplace: Work from home. Perspectives (Winter):30-36.
2.
Alonso, W.1964. Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Anas, A., R. Arnott, and K. Small.1998. Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature36:1426-64.
4.
Andrey, J., K.R. Burns, and S.T. Doherty.2004. Toward sustainable transportation: Exploring transportation decision making in teleworking households in a mid-sized Canadian city. Canadian Journal of Urban Research13 (2): 257-77.
5.
Arrais, P.2007. Working from home gaining in popularityThe Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, Canada. January 12, C15.
6.
Bailey, D., and N. Kurland.2002. A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behaviour23:383-400.
7.
Balakrishnan, T.R., and Z. Wu.1992. Home ownership patterns and ethnicity in selected Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Sociology17 (4): 389-403.
8.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.
9.
Berke, P.2002. Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal of Planning Literature17 (1): 21-36.
10.
Boris, E.1994. Home to work: Motherhood and the politics of industrial homework in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Bourne, L.S., and J. Simmons.2003. New fault lines? Recent trends in the Canadian urban system and their implications for planning and public policy . Canadian Journal of Urban Research12 (1): 1-27.
12.
Bromley, R.D.F., A.R. Tallon, and C.J. Thomas.2005. City centre regeneration through residential development: Contributing to sustainability. Urban Studies42 (13): 2407-29.
13.
Bunting, T., and P. Filion.1996. The dispersed city: Its spatial and temporal dynamics. In The dynamics of the dispersed city: Geographic and planning perspectives on Waterloo Region, edited by P. Filion, T. Bunting, and K. Curtis, 9-54. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo Department of Geography Publication Series.
14.
Burton, E.2000. The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies37 (11): 1969-2006.
15.
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.2000. Practices for sustainable communities. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
16.
———. 2003. Greyfield redevelopment case studies: Lakeshore Village, Oakville. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
17.
Canadian Telework Association.2007. Canadian studies on telework. http://www.ivc.ca/studies/canadianstudies.htm (accessed on February 10, 2007).
18.
Castells, M.2000. The rise of the network society. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
19.
Cho, C.J.1997. Joint choice of tenure and dwelling type: A multinomial logit analysis for the City of Chongju. Urban Studies34 (9): 1459-73.
20.
Choo, S., P. Mokhtarian, and I. Salomon.2005. Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled? An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation32 (1): 37-64.
21.
Clark, W.A.V.1992. Comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of residential mobility and migration. Environment and Planning A24:1291-1302.
22.
Clark, W.A.V., M.C. Deurloo, and F.M. Dieleman.2000. Housing consumption and residential crowding in U.S. housing markets. Journal of Urban Affairs22 (1): 49-63.
23.
Clark, W.A.V., Y. Huang, and S. Withers.2003. Does commuting distance matter? Commuting tolerance and residential change. Regional Science and Urban Economics33:199-221.
24.
Clark, W.A.V., and J.L. Onaka1983. Life cycle and housing adjustments as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Studies20 (1): 47-57.
25.
Conroy, M., and P.R. Berke.2004. What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development . Environment and Planning A36:1381-96.
26.
Ellen, I., and K. Hempstead.2002. Telecommuting and the demand for urban living: A preliminary look at white-collar workers. Urban Studies39 (4): 749-66.
27.
Filion, P.2001. The urban policy-making and development dimension of Fordism and post-Fordism: A Toronto case study. Space Polity5 (2): 85-111.
28.
Fishman, R.2005. The fifth migration. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (4): 357-66.
29.
Giddens, A.1991. The consequences of modernity. London : Polity.
30.
———. 1998. Risk society: The context of British politics. In The politics of risk society, edited by J. Franklin, 23-34. Cambridge, UK: Polity .
31.
Gill, T.2006. Countering the economic effects of bird flu through teleworking . Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning1 (1): 27-36.
32.
Giuliano, G.1998. Information technology, work patterns and intra-metropolitan location: A case study. Urban Studies35 (7): 1077-95.
33.
Giuliano, G., and K.A. Small.1993. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies30 (9): 1485-1500.
34.
Glaeser, E., and E. Khan.2003. Sprawl and urban growth National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, no. 9733. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
35.
Golob, T.2000. TravelBehaviour.COM: Activity approaches to modeling the effects of information technology on personal travel behaviourVersion 3. 9th International Association for Travel Behaviour research conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
36.
Gordon, D., and K. Tamminga.2002. Large-scale traditional neighbourhood development and pre-emptive ecosystem planning: The Markham experience, 1989-2001 . Journal of Urban Design7 (3): 321-40.
37.
Graham, S., and S. Marvin.1996. Telecommunications and the city: Electronic spaces, urban places. New York: Routledge.
38.
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).2007. Market potential for teleworking in Greater Vancouver: Web panel study of human resource managers, large GVRD organizations. Vancouver, Canada: GVRD TransLink.
39.
Gunder, S.2006. Sustainability: Planning's saving grace or road to perdition . Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (2): 208-21.
40.
Gurstein, P.1995. Planning for telework and home-based employment: A Canadian survey on integrating work into residential environments. Ottawa and Vancouver: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Centre for Human Settlements , University of British Columbia.
41.
———. 2001. Wired to the world, chained to the home: Telework in daily lifeVancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
42.
Haddon, L., and M. Brynin.2005. The character of telework and the characteristics of teleworkers. New technology, work and employment20 (1): 34-46.
43.
Hanson, S.1996. Gender work and space in an information society. Women's Travel Issues proceedings from the second national conference. Baltimore, MD: U.S. Department of Transportation.
44.
Hanson, S., and G. Pratt.1995. Gender, work, and space. New York: Routledge.
45.
Hardill, I., and A. Green.2003. Remote working: Altering the spatial contours of work and home in the new economy. New Technology, Work and Employment18 (3): 212-22.
46.
Harpaz, I.2002. Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organization and society. Work Study51 (2): 74-80.
47.
Harris, R.2006. Housing: Dreams, responsibilities, and consequences. In Canadian cities in transition: Local through global perspectives , edited by T. Bunting and P. Filion, 272-86. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.
48.
Helling, A., and P. Mokhtarian.2001. Worker telecommunication and mobility in transition: Consequences for planning. Journal of Planning Literature15 (4): 511-25.
49.
Holden, E.2004. Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment19 (1): 91-109.
50.
Hopkinson, P., P. James, and T. Maruyama.2002. Sustainable teleworking: Identifying and evaluating the economic, environmental and social impacts of teleworking Deliverable no. 3: Conceptual paper, version 2. Brussels , Belgium: European Commission Information Society Technologies Programme.
51.
Hughes, K.D.2003. Pushed or pulled? Women's entry into self-employment and small business ownership. Gender, Work and Organization10 (4): 433-54.
52.
———. 2006. Exploring motivation and success amongst Canadian women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship19 (2): 107-20.
53.
Industry Canada.2005. Key small business statistics Catalogue no. Iul-9/2005-2E. Ottawa : Industry Canada.
54.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).1980. Report on World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable DevelopmentGland, Switzerland: IUCN.
55.
Jabareen, Y.2006. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (1): 38-52.
56.
Jakubec, L.2004. 2001Census housing series issue 7 revised: Immigrant households. Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
57.
Jarvis, H.2001. Urban sustainability as a function of compromises households make deciding where and how to live: Portland and Seattle compared. Local Environment6 (3): 239-56.
58.
Johnson, L.C.2003. The co-workplace: Teleworking in the neighbourhood. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
59.
Johnson, L.C., J. Andrey, and S. Shaw.2007. Mr. Dithers comes to dinner: Telework and the merging of women's work and home domains in Canada. Gender, Place and Culture14 (2): 141-61.
60.
Johnson, L.C., and R.E. Johnson1982. The seam allowance: Industrial home sewing in Canada. Toronto, Canada: Women's Press.
61.
Junestrand, S., and K. Tollmar.1998. The dwelling as a place for work. Lecture Notes in Computer Science1370:230-47.
62.
Kestens, Y., M. Theriault, and F. Des Rosiers.2006. Heterogeneity in hedonic modelling of house prices: Looking at buyers' household profiles. Journal of Geographic Systems8:61-96.
63.
Kim, S.J.1992. A model of rental housing choices in the Korean market . Urban Studies29 (8): 1247-64.
64.
Kohlhase, J.E.1986. Labour supply and housing demand for one- and two-earner households. The Review of Economics and Statistics68 (1): 48-57.
65.
Krueger, R., and L. Savage.2007. City-regions and social reproduction: A “place” for sustainable development? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31 (1): 215-23.
66.
Lake, A.2004. Planning in the information ageFlexibility . http://www.flexibility.co.uk/issues/modgov/planning.htm (accessed on November 10, 2004).
67.
Laryea, S.1999. Housing ownership patterns of immigrants in Canada Working paper no. 99-19. Vancouver, Canada: Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM).
68.
Ley, D.1996. The new middle class and the remaking of the central city . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
Lund, J., and P. Mokhtarian.1994. Telecommuting and residential location: Theory and implications for commute travel in mono-centric metropolis. Transportation Research Record1463:10-14.
70.
Maclennan, D.1977. Some thoughts on the nature and purpose of house price studies. Urban Studies14:59-71.
71.
Massey, D.1995. Spatial divisions of labour. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.
72.
McLeod, P.B., and J.R. Ellis.1982. Housing consumption over the family life-cycle: An empirical analysis. Urban Studies19 (2): 177-85.
73.
Meligrana, J., and A. Skaburskis.2005. Extent, location and profiles of continuing gentrification in Canadian metropolitan areas, 1981-2001. Urban Studies4 (9): 1569-92.
74.
Mendez, P., D. Hiebert, and E. Wyly.2006. Landing at home: Insights on immigration and metropolitan housing markets from the longitudinal survey of immigrants to Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research15 (2): 82-104.
75.
Mills, E.1969. The value of urban land. In The quality of urban environment, edited by H. Perloff , 231-53. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press.
76.
Mokhtarian, P.1991. Defining telecommuting. Transportation Research Record1305:273-81.
77.
———. 1997. The transportation impacts of telecommuting: Recent empirical findings. In Understanding travel behaviour in an era of change , edited by P. Stopher and M. Lee-Gosselin, 91-106. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
78.
Mokhtarian, P., G. Collantes, and C. Gertz.2004. Telecommuting, residential location, and commute-distance traveled: Evidence from State of California employees . Environment and Planning A36 (10): 1877-97.
79.
Mokhtarian, P., I. Salomon, and S. Choo.2005. Measuring the measurable: Why can't we agree on the number of telecommuters in the U.S.?Quality and Quantity39 (4) 423-52.
80.
Moos, M., J. Andrey, and L.C. Johnson.2006. The sustainability of telework: An ecological-footprinting approachSustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy2 (1): 3-14. http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol2iss1/0511-020.moos.html (accessed in August 2007 ).
81.
Moos, M., and A. Skaburskis.2007. The characteristics and location of home workers in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Urban Studies44 (9): 1781-808.
82.
Moos, M., J. Whitfield, L.C. Johnson, and J. Andrey.2006. Does design matter? The ecological footprint as a planning tool at the local level. Journal of Urban Design11 (2): 195-225.
83.
Muth, R.1969. Cities and housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
84.
Myers, D., and E. Gearin.2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate12 (4): 633-59.
85.
Newman, K., and E. Wyly.2006. The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies43 (1): 23-57.
86.
Newman, P., and J.R. Kenworthy.1999. Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press.
87.
Nilles, J.1991. Telecommuting and urban sprawl: Mitigator or inciter? Transportation18:411-32.
88.
Nilles, J.M.2000. Telework America 2000 research: Key findings. International Telework Association and Council and Jala International Inc . http://www.telecommute.org (accessed on May 10, 2007).
89.
Norton, E., H. Wang, and A. Chunrong.2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal4 (2): 154-67.
90.
Parker, S.C.1996. A time series model of self-employment under uncertainty . Economica63:459-75.
91.
Plaut, P.2004. Non-commuters: The people who walk to work or work at home. Transportation31:229-55.
92.
———. 2006. The intra-household choices regarding commuting and housing . Transportation Research Part A40:561-71.
93.
Quigley, J., and D. Weinberg.1977. Intraurban residential mobility: A review and synthesis. International Regional Science Review1:41-66.
94.
Roitz, J., and E. Jackson.2006. AT&T adds business continuity to the long list of telework's advantages. Journal of Organizational Excellence25 (2): 3-12.
95.
Roseland, M.2005. Toward sustainable communities: Resources for citizens and their governments. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society .
96.
Shaw, S., J. Andrey, and L. Johnson.2003. The struggle for life balance: Work, family, and leisure in the lives of women teleworkersWorld Leisure45 (4): 15-29.
97.
Shearmur, R.2007. Travel from home: An economic geography of commuting distance in Montreal. Urban Geography27 (4): 330-59.
98.
Shen, Q.2000. New telecommunications and residential location flexibility . Environment and Planning A32 (8): 1445-63.
99.
Siha, S.M., and R.W. Monroe.2006. Telecommuting's past and future: A literature review and research agenda. Business Process Management Journal12 (4): 455-82.
100.
Simpson, W.1992. Urban structure and the labour market: Worker mobility, commuting, and underemployment in cities. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
101.
Skaburskis, A.1996. Race and tenure in Toronto. Urban Studies33 (2): 223-52.
———. 1999. Modelling the choice of tenure and building type. Urban Studies36 (13): 2199-215.
104.
Small, K.A., and S. Song.1992. “Wasteful” commuting: A resolution. The Journal of Political Economy100 (4): 888-98.
105.
Statistics Canada.1991. Census of Canada: Public use microdata, households and housing fileStatistics Canada (producer). Using Canadian Census Analyzer at University of Toronto (distributor). http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca/census/index.html (accessed on April 26, 2006).
106.
———. 1996. Census of Canada: Public use microdata, households and housing fileStatistics Canada (producer). Using Canadian Census Analyzer at University of Toronto (distributor). http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca/census/index.html (accessed on April 26, 2006).
107.
———. 2001a. Census of Canada: Public use microdata, households and housing fileStatistics Canada (producer).Using Canadian Census Analyzer at University of Toronto (distributor). http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca/census/index.html (accessed on April 26, 2006).
108.
———. 2001b. Census definitions: Journey to work, place of work statushttp://www.12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/pop097.htm (accessed on March 23, 2007).
109.
———. 2003. 2001 census analysis series: Where Canadians work and how they get there. Catalog no. 96F0030XIE2001010Ottawa , Canada: Ministry of Industry.
110.
Statistics Canada and Human Resources Development Canada.2002. Results from the survey of self-employment in Canada Report no. SP-465-01-02E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada.
111.
Sullivan, C.2003. What's in a name? Definitions and conceptualizations of teleworking and homeworking. New Technology, Work and Employment18 (3): 158-65.
112.
Valpy, M.2007. Cracks begin to show in Canada's suburban dream. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, March 17, A9.
113.
Walker, L., and W. Rees.1997. Urban density and ecological footprints: An analysis of Canadian households. In Eco-city dimensions , edited by M. Roseland , 96-112. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society.
114.
Wheaton, W.2004. Commuting, congestion and employment dispersal in cities with mixed land use. Journal of Urban Economics55:417-38.
115.
Wiewel, W., J. Persky, and M. Sendzik.1999. Private benefits and public costs: Policies to address suburban sprawl. Policy Studies Journal27 (1): 96-114.
116.
Yanz, L., B. Jeffcott, D. Ladd, and J. Atlin.1999. Policy options to improve standards for women garment workers in Canada and internationally. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada.
