# The COVID-19 pandemic: a challenge or an opportunity for sustainable mobility? A qualitative interview study in Île-de-France

Sonia Adelé, Corinne Dionisio, Julie Bulteau

► To cite this version:

Sonia Adelé, Corinne Dionisio, Julie Bulteau. The COVID-19 pandemic: a challenge or an opportunity for sustainable mobility? A qualitative interview study in Île-de-France. European Transport Research Review, 2026, 18 (1), pp.5. 10.1186/s12544-026-00766-9. http://hal-05484636

HAL Id: hal-05484636

https://hal.science/hal-05484636v1

Submitted on 30 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The COVID-19 pandemic: a challenge or an opportunity for sustainable mobility? A qualitative interview study in Île-de-France

Sonia Adelé¹* ID, Corinne Dionisio¹ and Julie Bulteau²

**Abstract**

In an effort to counter the COVID-19 pandemic, France introduced safety measures that changed people's capacity to move around. To what extent can these changes be opportunities for more sustainable mobility in the long term? While numerous studies have analyzed the impact of the pandemic on mobility using quantitative or short-term data, few have explored how individuals themselves experienced and reinterpreted these changes over time. In this article, we address this gap by providing a qualitative, longitudinal perspective on how residents of the Paris region adjusted their mobility practices during and after the pandemic. Between March and April 2023, we conducted qualitative interviews to discover what had occurred during and after the pandemic. Through 19 biographical interviews with people from the Parisian region, we get a retrospective view of the pandemic's impact on mobility from March 2020 to April 2023. The results show that the pandemic had very little effect on the mode of transport, but did have a long-term effect on the frequency of work-related trips (particularly with the strong growth of work from home), and to a lesser extent on the frequency of travel for leisure and non-food purchases. Even though participants share the perceived risk of using public transport, this does not lead to a modal shift. Our findings highlight the importance of situating the effects of the pandemic within broader contextual, personal, and professional dynamics, offering new insights into how crisis-driven disruptions can shape long-term mobility patterns.

**Keywords** Travel behavior changes, Work from home, Post-COVID-19 mobility, Biographical in-depth interview, Thematic analysis, Case study

## 1 Introduction

Research on mobility behavior has largely demonstrated that it is routine in nature [1]. Consequently, measures to reduce single-occupancy car use often prove ineffective. Nevertheless, certain decision windows may open up because of various habit-breaking events [2]. These

may be endogenous events (life events) or exogenous events (changes in transport supply, climatic events, etc.). Such events may be planned or occur unexpectedly. In some cases, a research team can manipulate the range of choices, for example by offering free transport for a given period [3]. When an event temporarily disturbs mobility habits, the persistence of behavioral change becomes an issue and most individuals return to their previous habits [3, 4]. According to these authors, the change becomes permanent if the alternative is considered superior to the previous habits. Theoretically, Verplanken et al. [5] refer to the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis (HDH). The idea is

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Sonia Adelé
sonia.adele@univ-eiffel.fr
¹Univ Gustave Eiffel, COSYS-GRETTIA, Marne-la-Vallée F-77454, France
²Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, CEARC, Guyancourt 78280, France</footnote>
that the goals and values that guided the initial behavior
may disappear when behavior becomes habitual. A dis-
continuity may make individuals reconsider long-term
goals and values when making a choice [5].

The COVID-19 pandemic is a striking example of
an exogenous event that caused a break in habits [6–8]
and could have been a catalyst for change towards more
sustainable mobility patterns (less mobility in terms of
trips and distance traveled by car, and more active mode
trips). It affected almost the entire world population
and all areas of daily life (work, leisure, shopping, etc.).
Indeed, during the pandemic, people's mobility in most
countries was almost completely stopped for periods of
several weeks, and then severely restricted for several
months or even years [6, 9–16]. Studying the impacts on
individual mobility and its sustainability reveals the effect
of discontinuity on the adoption of more virtuous mobil-
ity behaviors. The European Parliament identified four
possible post-crisis scenarios for the urban mobility sys-
tem: a return to the pre-COVID situation, the prevailing
demand for private transport, an overall reduced trans-
port demand and an integrated multimodal mobility with
active modes and public transport [17].

Our study offers a novel contribution by examining the
underexplored context of France [18], with a particular
focus on the inhabitants of the Île-de-France region. It
seeks to assess whether or not and to what extent mobil-
ity changes induced by the COVID-19 health crisis have
led to enduring sustainable transformations (increase in
the use of active modes or reduction in the frequency of
trips and their distance). Most existing studies on mobil-
ity during the COVID-19 pandemic have relied on quan-
titative data that capture short-term behavioral changes,
but they provide limited insight into how individuals
themselves made sense of these disruptions and reorga-
nized their daily lives over time. A qualitative approach
is therefore essential to grasp the complexity of par-
ticipants' profiles and to reconstruct the interactions
between different spheres of everyday life (work, leisure,
and family). Biographical interviews, in particular, offer
holistic narratives that reveal not only behavioral adjust-
ments but also the subjective meanings attached to them.
Furthermore, the analysis considers the influence of long-
term factors, both individual (e.g. shifts in household
composition, career developments) and contextual (e.g.
the war in Ukraine, rising fuel prices), which may have
shaped mobility behavior beyond the direct impact of the
health crisis.

We chose to use in-depth autobiographical semi-
structured interviews to obtain information that was
retrospective (what happened), current (what is hap-
pening now) and prospective (what will happen in the
future). Participants were specifically questioned about
their mobility for different purposes, targeting several

dimensions: destinations, distances traveled, modes used
(car sharing and ridesharing are excluded from the scope
of this article [19–21]), number of trips [22, 23], trip fre-
quency [22] and their distribution over time [11, 24].

The rest of this article is divided into five parts. Firstly,
we present existing studies methods and results on the
impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mobility. This section
concludes with a presentation of our research questions.
The second part sets out the methodology used to collect
and analyze the data. The third part presents the results
obtained, which are then discussed in the fourth part.
Finally, the conclusion presents the main contributions of
this research.

## 2 Literature review

The literature review covers a period from 2020 to 2024
for journal articles and conference papers. Systematic
research has been done on the Scopus database with
the keywords Covid AND Travel behavior OR Mobility.
Results have been considered only for studies on behav-
ior in developed countries (social and economic criteria).

### 2.1 The COVID-19 pandemic, a global drop in mobility with a major impact on public transport

Almost all the studies published to date share this clear
observation. The pandemic reduced overall mobility for
periods of time that depend on the restrictions put into
place and citizens' motivation to stay at home ([12, 16,
25, 26] for a systematic review). For example, in Aus-
tralia, Beck and Hensher [10] found that the number of
trips per day was halved. Commuter trips in particular
were affected [10, 27, 28], but a return to normal took
place quite quickly [29]. Unfortunately, this quick return
to normal did not apply to public transport. In France,
Moreau et al. [30] studied the number of entries in sta-
tions between 2017 and June, 30, 2022 and showed a
slow recovery process. As might be expected in a situa-
tion where contact with others presents a risk, individual
modes accounted for more trips, to the detriment of col-
lective modes [26, 31]. Public transport was the big loser
in the crisis [15, 18, 22, 25–27, 32–45]. For example, El
Zein [18] showed that, in Lyon, France, public transport
use was more affected (33% less use) than car use (7%
less use) and bicycle use (30% more use) in mid-2020.
In April 2021, in Berlin, Germany, Kellerman et al. [22]
highlighted that trip frequencies by public transport were
still about 51% below the pre-pandemic level of April
2019, with a GPS-based tracking method. It should be
added that the perception of risk was not the only rea-
son for such a fall in the use of public transport. Indeed,
transport operators frequently reduced their transport
services during the pandemic [26].

There is no consensus on the pandemic's effects on
the share of active modes [26]. While some empirical
studies highlight the sharp increase in the use of active transport modes [32, 40, 46], in their literature review, Buehler and Pucher [47] showed great variations among countries, cities, as well as variations by gender, age, ethnicity and income group. They also highlighted that the largest increase in cycling was for recreation, exercise, and stress relief. By comparison, cycling to work, university, schools, and shopping generally declined. In the USA, Qu et al. [48] stress the wide disparities in the impact of the health crisis on active mobility behavior. The differences observed are certainly linked to the specific characteristics of the areas studied. In Montréal, Canada, Victoriano-Habit & El-Geneidy showed the influence of local accessibility in the increase on active trips for non-work utilitarian purposes of people telecommuting [49]. This local accessibility was measured through an assessment of amenities within a 30-minute walk of a location. In Spain, researchers observed differences between rural areas [13] and peri-urban areas [50] where users have shifted from public transport to the car, and urban areas where active modes have replaced public transport. In Italy, Ceccato et al. [51] associated the change from public transport with the distance traveled, with the car becoming more prevalent when the distance is between 10 km and 30 km. In Belgium, Macharis et al. [8] highlighted an explosion in cycling volume, with more than double the pre-crisis level. The same type of result was observed in Germany [43] and in France [18]. This increase in usage also applies to self-service bicycles [52] with the possibility, however, that this increase is mainly associated with leisure and exercise trips, as shown by Sung in South Korea [53] and Buehler and Pucher in a review [47]. Finally, in Germany, Tuitjer and Schaefer [54] observe that cycling is opening up to new profiles (users with a low level of education and those without dependent children). It should be noted that this increase is also linked to public initiatives to promote cycling, particularly in Paris [55].

For those who continued to travel in the UK, particularly for work, this pandemic period was associated with quiet roads and rather empty public transport [56].

## 2.2 A major increase in WFH (work from home) and in digital solutions

The second point of convergence in the existing literature on the COVID-19 crisis is the significant increase in the proportion of employees working from home [29, 32, 42, 49, 51, 57–60]. This may involve both new telecommuters or an increase in the number of telecommuted days for former telecommuters [26]. Beck and Hensher [61] in Australia and Al-Akioui and Monzon [50] in Spain noted a 20% increase in the number of days worked from home. Olde Kalter et al. [62] in the Netherlands identified that 58% of non-telecommuter started the practice

during the pandemic. In Canada, Sweet and Scott [63] reported a rise in the modal share of WFH from 7.4% to 16.9%. In the Netherlands, Taale et al. [64] observed a shift from 3.8 to 3.1 days of commuting. Overall, the ability to work from home can reinforce social inequalities, as not all workers had equal access to WFH. Telecommuters were more likely to be older men in Australia [61] with high incomes in Australia and in Germany [54, 61]. Conversely, Asmussen et al. [65] highlighted more equal access to WFH between professional groups and sectors in the USA.

More broadly, studies highlighted an increase in the use of all digital media for work, leisure, shopping, culture and sport [24, 40, 42, 66–72]. This included video-conferencing, e-commerce, meal delivery services and streaming platforms.

In some cases, this increase in WFH has had a trade-off effect in terms of relocations to low-density car-dependent areas [50, 73, 74], an increase in non-commuting trips [73, 75], or less physical activity [73]. Those effects had already been highlighted in research unrelated to COVID-19 [76] but this observation is not shared by the entire scientific community [77]. Note, for example in France, Pigalle et al. [78] showed that the majority of telecommuters did not change their frequency of non-work activities. On the other hand, they noted some effects on food shopping (lower frequency or a change in the shopping location) and on leisure activities, personal business and social life (higher frequency but close-by and a concentration on WFH days). The same effect can be seen for non-work activities with complementarity, substitution, neutrality or modification effects between online practices and travel [70]. There is no consensus on the positive effect of WFH on the sustainability of mobility in general. Some authors pointed out that WFH mainly concerned public transport users [77, 79] and did not reduce car use [78].

## 2.3 A vision of the future yet to be defined

As the vast majority of the COVID-19 studies took place during the pandemic, most of the data available in the literature on the lasting nature of the changes observed is based on answers to questions about the future. Due to the very different survey methods (mode choice, travel patterns or activity behavior), it is difficult to compare the results. They seem to converge towards the long-lasting character of WFH and teleconferencing practices, and even an intensification of these practices, which WFH employees desire [6, 10, 24, 28, 34, 35, 51, 56–58, 60–63, 65, 80–83]. Beck and Hensher [61] estimated that WFH could reduce commuting by around 30% each day.

With regard to the use of e-commerce and shopping mobility in the Madrid region, Cano-Leiva et al. [84] carried out a post-pandemic study. They show a positive
but modest effect on the use of e-commerce and the fre-
quenting of shopping venues closer to home. The drop
in shopping-related mobility mainly concerned previous
e-commerce users and shoppers using public transport
and the car.

As far as modal choice is concerned, the majority of
available studies also believed that the use of public
transport would return to normal [6, 9, 41, 81, 85] and
that the use of active modes was on the increase, because
of positive experiences during the pandemic [6]. Others
emphasized an overall more positive view of these modes
[17, 27]. There was nevertheless a possible but not neces-
sarily structural loss of public transport users [9, 24, 68,
86] in favor of active modes [8, 12, 34, 56, 62, 87], the car
[34, 51, 83, 87, 88] or WFH [83]. This reduction could be
explained by the perception of risk [25, 35, 89], which
was sometimes considered as a moderately influential
factor [102].

However, some papers contrast by showing that the
health crisis will have no impact on future mobility [23,
55, 90, 91], or, to a lesser extent, that modal shares will
remain more or less the same [82, 89]. We also find in the
literature that there will be no new normality [92] and
that the health crisis ultimately opens up more challenges
than opportunities for decarbonizing mobility [42, 45],
and that the environmental benefits of the pandemic are
unclear [32]. Finally, this result may depend on the way
in which mobility is studied. For example, Bouzaghrane
et al. [67] studied mobility through the prism of people's
schedules. They showed that the time spent at home has
increased and that individual schedules have become
more regular in a post-pandemic world but with new
behaviors. These same authors pointed out that the stud-
ies do not take a broad enough view of mobility (particu-
larly with regard to schedule habits).

## 2.4 A need for qualitative research

Very few studies have been carried out on the general
population using a qualitative method. In-depth qualita-
tive studies are needed [6, 93]. In our literature review,
we identified fewer than ten interview studies, even
though studies on the pandemic period are extremely
numerous. It is interesting to note that the interview
studies examining changes in mobility during and after
the health crisis, carried out during the pandemic, tend
to show an anticipated return to pre-crisis normality
[23, 90]. The other interview studies are more focused
on a particular theme and on the exclusive pandemic
period. Nikolaeva et al. [94] looked at the relationship
with mobility, which is both a constraint and a source
of interaction with the world. Yılmaz et al. [95] looked
specifically at public transport users in Turkey and their
strategies for adjusting travel times and switching to indi-
vidual modes. Colaço et al. [96] surveyed Portuguese

residents in Lisbon to highlight the aspects of everyday
life that were disrupted by the pandemic immobility. In
Oslo, Norway, Hoff et al. [97] looked specifically at the
well-being associated with mobility adaptations. Kokkola
et al. [98] highlighted the sociability on public transport
during the pandemic in Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
Although the samples for these qualitative studies are
small, between 10 and 50 interviews, they allow for a
depth and breadth of analysis not possible with question-
naire surveys.

## 2.5 Research questions

Analysis of the research carried out on the effects of
the COVID-19 crisis on mobility shows that it is diffi-
cult to conclude whether mobility behavior has changed
towards greater sustainability (an increase in active mode
use, reduction in travel range and reduction in the trip
frequency). Firstly, there is too little research on the
long-term effects, particularly since the end of the health
crisis [37, 41, 47, 48, 90]. We also believe, as do others,
that researchers have paid too little attention to the col-
lateral impacts of other changes that may have occurred
over such a long period, which may potentially explain
a divergence in behavior unrelated to the health crisis
[48]. Eliasson [91] mentioned, for example, the impact
of fuel prices. Lastly, there are an inadequate number of
in-depth qualitative studies available on COVID mobility
studies to give a broad view of mobility in all its dimen-
sions [37]. Only a qualitative study allows us to consider
the participants' profiles in all their complexity and to
reconstruct the interactions between different areas of
daily life. In addition, interviews provide holistic descrip-
tions that allow us to measure and understand behavior
with the subjective meaning that participants give it.
Finally, in the case of a retrospective study, the interac-
tion between the participant and the interviewer helps to
recollect different moments in life and to explore differ-
ent topics in greater depth.

To overcome the gaps in the current literature, we pro-
pose to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. How was people from the Île-de-France's mobil-
ity disrupted during the health crisis in terms of fre-
quency, mode, destination (and therefore distance), and
travel time for all possible reasons, whether personal or
professional?

RQ2. What coping mechanisms did Île-de-France resi-
dents with limited mobility use in order to maintain their
personal and professional activities?

RQ3. Did the changes that affected mobility during the
pandemic result in changes in frequency, mode, locations
and time of travel after it (one year later)?

RQ4. How do people in the Île-de-France region feel
about traveling during a health crisis?
**RQ5.** What are the sources of mobility changes unrelated to the pandemic (exogenous or endogenous events) that may have affected mobility habits during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and which may be intertwined with the effects of the pandemic in questionnaire studies or mobility data analyses?

As existing studies highlighted that one of the pandem-
ic's major changes is the extension of WFH, we will also
propose a focus on WFH with the following secondary
research questions:

**RQ6.** How was WFH set up during the health crisis?

**RQ7.** How have employers' and employees' attitudes regarding WFH changed because of the health crisis?

**RQ8.** What satisfactions and difficulties do telecommuters perceive?

**RQ9.** Did the adoption of WFH during the health crisis have an impact on mobility (frequency, mode, time, and locations) for non-commuting trips (leisure, socializing, childcare, shopping, groceries, personal business)?

# 3 Materials and methods

**3.1 Procedure**

The study presented in this article is a part of a broader
study that comprises two phases. The first part was a
questionnaire administered by a pollster in Decem-
ber 2022 (more than 6 months after the lifting of all the
restrictions) to a panel of Île-de-France region inhabit-
ants based on age, gender, socio-professional category
and area of residence (from dense urban to rural). We
chose a retrospective approach to better capture how
mobility behavior stabilized after restrictions were lifted,
rather than only short-term reactions. This allowed us
to distinguish between temporary and more durable
changes. When the survey was administered, partici-
pants were invited to take part in a follow-up interview
study. Of the 972 participants in the questionnaire sur-
vey, 110 volunteers were invited to take part. They were
chosen 1/because they had not changed their residence
during the pandemic (to control the effect of this mobility
parameter), 2/to maximize the differences between the
profiles. In particular, we looked for people who had or
had not experienced changes in their mobility during the
pandemic period by varying the transport modes used.
We also focused on people who had or had not started
WFH during the pandemic. Of the 110 people invited, 19
responded favorably to an uncompensated interview. The
interviews were conducted by telephone between March
and April 2023; they lasted between 31 min and 2h02
with an average of 58 min. They were all recorded.

In accordance with ethics and GDPR rules, all partici-
pants received a detailed information pack and gave their
written consent.

**3.2 Material**

The interview took the form of the pandemic timeline. The questions focused on the previous period, then on the different phases of government measures, and concluded with a discussion about current mobility and the long-lasting character of these mobility habits. Given the time between the pandemic and the interviews, a chronological semi-structured interview technique was used for the pandemic period to help participants reconstruct the sequence of events. At each stage of the timeline, the interviewer asked the interviewee about any professional or personal changes he or she had undergone that might have had an impact on his or her mobility. The initial instruction was: "I am going to give you some information about the different phases of the pandemic, and you will tell me if anything has changed in terms of your personal and professional mobility in those phases." Subsequently, follow-up questions were aimed at supplementing what had been said or exploring the information sought concerning mobility. To that end, an example could be, "Did you participate in any sports activities before the pandemic?"; for the frequency, a possible question could be, "Have you changed how often you shop for groceries?" Some questions were focused more specifically on ways of coping with restrictions, for example, "Did you replace family gatherings with something else?"

The phases that were questioned are described in Table 1 below, which shows the sequence of the various measures taken by the French authorities.

**3.3 Participants**

This qualitative study is not intended to be representa-
tive or generalizable. Rather, the diversity of the partici-
pants (maximum variation sampling) is favored in order
to guarantee the depth of the study, using the following
criteria: change/no change in transport modes, started
WFH/not, age, gender, with/without children, occupa-
tion, residence area and type of housing.

The sample was made up of 19 residents from the Île-
de-France region. Figure 1 shows their age (M=53),
gender, household composition (including number of
children), living area and type of housing. During the
pandemic, eight belonged to the high professional cat-
egory (manager), 6 were employees and intermediate
professions, and 3 were retirees. Five have an educational
level below or up to the high school diploma. The others
have a level higher than high school. Their main mode of
transportation (commuting for employees) is the car in 9
cases and public transportation in 8 cases.

Details of the participants are given in Table 2. Given
the long period studied, some information has changed
over time. The age, mode of transport and household
size given are those at the time of the survey. If several
occupations are indicated, they correspond to successive
<table><caption>**Table 1** List of the phases used in the interview guide (WFH is work from home)</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>Date</th><th>Measures</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">2020</td><td>March 17 to May 10</td><td>First lockdown (closing of education sites, travel limited to essential needs)</td></tr><tr><td>May 11 to June 1</td><td>100 km travel limit, WFH recommended, school reopening</td></tr><tr><td>June 2 to June 21</td><td>Reopening of secondary schools with capacity limits</td></tr><tr><td>June 22 to July 9</td><td>Reopening of cultural sites with strict health regulations</td></tr><tr><td>October 17 to 29</td><td>Curfew from 9 PM to 6 AM</td></tr><tr><td>October 30 to December 14</td><td>Second lockdown (travel limited to essential needs but schools still open)</td></tr><tr><td>December 15 to March 19</td><td>Curfew from 8 PM to 6 AM and then from 6 PM to 6 AM), WFH recommended</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">2021</td><td>March 20 to May 2</td><td>Third lockdown (10 km travel limit, WFH 4 days a week mandatory, 50% capacity in secondary schools, curfew from 7 PM to 6 AM, spring holidays moved forward)</td></tr><tr><td>May 3 to May 18</td><td>WFH 4 days a week mandatory, secondary and high schools with capacity limits, curfew from 7 PM to 6 AM</td></tr><tr><td>May 19 to June 8</td><td>Curfew from 9 PM to 6 AM, WFH 4 days a week mandatory, reopening of bars and restaurants with capacity limits</td></tr><tr><td>June 9 to 29</td><td>Curfew from 11 PM to 6 AM, introduction of the vaccination certificate, WFH recommended</td></tr><tr><td>June 30 to July 8</td><td>Most restrictions lifted, except for indoor mask-wearing and nightclub closure, WFH recommended</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2022</td><td>January 3 to February 2</td><td>WFH mandatory 3 days a week</td></tr><tr><td>February 3 to March 14</td><td>WFH recommended, end of all the measures (vaccination certificate, mask ...)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Characteristics of the sample (age, gender, living area, housing type, household size and number of children)</figcaption></figure>

situations during the pandemic. All other information remains unchanged. Participants have been given fictitious names chosen from the most common first names in their year of birth and cultural environment to facilitate their identification when quoted.

## 3.4 Analysis method

The interviews were conducted in French and manually transcribed in full before analysis. There was a mix of inductive and deductive coding. It was done by shifting between the categories anticipated during the literature review (primarily the various dimensions used to characterize the change in mobility for each travel purpose, namely frequency, mode, time and locations, and

secondarily, the different phases of the pandemic) and the themes discovered when reading the interviews. The first two authors coded separately, and then the codes were compared to come to a consensus. In case of disagreement, the definitions of the codes were discussed to reach an agreement.

Coding was carried out using NVivo software, which consisted in cutting the speech into extracts with a given unique meaning. An extract could be several sentences, one sentence, or even a few words. These extracts were then assigned to a category (reason for travel, period of the pandemic, impact on mobility). Each category can thus be characterized by the number of extracts or interviewees assigned to it. Those quantities are not
<table><caption>**Table 2** Characteristics of the participants (♂ male, ♀ female, ... not concerned)</caption><thead><tr><th>First name (+ gender)</th><th>Age</th><th>Household size</th><th>Occupation (/when there is a change during the pandemic)</th><th>Education (high school diploma, - or +)</th><th>Paris/ Inner/ Remote suburbs</th><th>House/Apartment</th><th>Access to a car (Yes/No)</th><th>Main mode for commuting/else</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jean ♂</td><td>64</td><td>1</td><td>Retired</td><td>H +</td><td>R</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>... /car</td></tr><tr><td>Alain ♂</td><td>50</td><td>4</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>R</td><td>A</td><td>N</td><td>WFH or PT/walking</td></tr><tr><td>Patricia ♀</td><td>64</td><td>1</td><td>Retired</td><td>H -</td><td>R</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>... /car</td></tr><tr><td>Michel ♂</td><td>64</td><td>2</td><td>Retired</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>... /car</td></tr><tr><td>Christine ♀</td><td>60</td><td>2</td><td>Professional/Retired</td><td>H</td><td>R</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>... /car</td></tr><tr><td>Christophe ♂</td><td>53</td><td>1</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>P</td><td>A</td><td>N</td><td>PT/walking</td></tr><tr><td>Evelyne ♀</td><td>62</td><td>1</td><td>Technician/ Retired</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>... /car or walking</td></tr><tr><td>Julie ♀</td><td>33</td><td>3</td><td>Administrative</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>PT/car</td></tr><tr><td>Laurent ♂</td><td>55</td><td>1</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>Car/car</td></tr><tr><td>Stéphane ♂</td><td>54</td><td>1</td><td>Technician</td><td>H</td><td>I</td><td>A</td><td>N</td><td>PT/walking</td></tr><tr><td>David ♂</td><td>52</td><td>4</td><td>Manager</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>WFH or PT or car/car</td></tr><tr><td>Mustapha ♂</td><td>55</td><td>1</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>I</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>WFH or PT/car</td></tr><tr><td>Julien ♂</td><td>40</td><td>3</td><td>Manager</td><td>H +</td><td>P</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>WFH or PT/PT</td></tr><tr><td>Sandrine ♀</td><td>49</td><td>1</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>R</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>WFH or car/car</td></tr><tr><td>Céline ♀</td><td>45</td><td>3</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>R</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>Car/car</td></tr><tr><td>Sophie ♀</td><td>51</td><td>2</td><td>Professional/Jobseeker</td><td>H +</td><td>P</td><td>A</td><td>N</td><td>... /bicycle or walking or PT</td></tr><tr><td>Pascal ♂</td><td>58</td><td>1</td><td>Office staff</td><td>H -</td><td>R</td><td>H</td><td>Y</td><td>WFH or PT/car or bicycle</td></tr><tr><td>Catherine ♀</td><td>57</td><td>2</td><td>Professional</td><td>H +</td><td>R</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>Walking or car/car or PT</td></tr><tr><td>Joseph ♂</td><td>57</td><td>3</td><td>Sales staff</td><td>H</td><td>P</td><td>A</td><td>Y</td><td>Car/PT or car</td></tr></tbody></table>

presented for statistical weight. They can be understood as an indicator of the dominance of the different topics. An in-depth analysis of each theme found inside the biggest categories is presented in the text following each data table and in Tables 4 to 7 (for parts 4.2 to 4.5) or in Appendix 1 (for part 4.1). Themes are highlighted in bold in the text.

The extracts were coded in one single theme according to the category to which they referred. Two periods were distinguished: the pandemic period, which covers the period from 17 March 2020 to 14 March 2022 and the post-pandemic period, which covers the period after 14 March 2022. Sometimes extracts refer to the pre-pandemic period in order to compare it with the pandemic period or the post-pandemic period. These extracts were classified according to the period with which the pre-pandemic period was being compared. While it would have been better to code the pandemic period into several sub-periods (since restrictions varied over time), this would have been impossible given the imprecision of participants' discourse due to a lack of memory.

Saturation is an indicator of adequate sample size in qualitative research. The saturation of the collected data was verified with the method proposed by Hennink et al. [99] (see also Hennink & Kaiser [100] for a review). They explored the concept by distinguishing between thematic saturation and meaning saturation. Thematic saturation

is defined as the point at which coding begins to stabilize. Meaning saturation is defined as the point at which the themes have been fully understood. For thematic saturation, we observed the addition of new codes (themes or subthemes) as the interviews were added. For meaning saturation, we selected 13 codes that represent 1/5 of our coding table, following the method proposed by Hennink et al. [99], which consists in varying the nature of the codes (concrete or conceptual) and their prevalence (frequent or infrequent). A concrete code captures explicit and definitive subjects (e.g. frequency of travel), while a conceptual code reflects thoughts, opinions, attitudes, and emotions (e.g. satisfaction associated with WFH). We separated the codes according to their prevalence in relation to the average code prevalence, which in our study is 7. A code is frequent if it exceeds or equals the prevalence of 7 and infrequent if its prevalence is less than 7.

## 4 Results

The 19 interviews comprise 693 extracts divided into 12 categories, 136 themes at the finest level of detail:

* Mobility changes for personal activities (leisure, social and family life, eating out, food purchase, other purposes) – 73 themes
* Mobility changes for professional activities – 4 themes and 15 subthemes

* Traveling during the pandemic – 5 themes and 12 subthemes

* Focus on WFH – 9 themes and 24 subthemes

* Mobility changes unrelated to the pandemic – 7 themes and 12 subthemes

In terms of thematic saturation, the first 10 interviews provide more than 90% of the identified themes (called near saturation by Squire et al. [101]). The remaining interviews provided only 6 themes. In terms of meaning saturation, of the 13 selected codes, 3 reached saturation before the 10th interview, 7 before the 15th interview, 12 before the 19th interview. In general, codes with a low prevalence reached saturation later. As the last three interviews added very little information to the data collected (two codes and three contents) -which is all the more remarkable given the great diversity of the sample-, we can consider that our sample gives a sufficient overview of the issues addressed.

For Sect. 4.1, we present the results for each category, starting with a table presenting the dimensions of mobility affected by the pandemic and associated metrics, followed by explanations of the themes illustrated by interview extracts. A table summarizing all the themes is provided in Appendix 1. For Sects. 4.2 to 4.5, we first present a table with the impact on mobility and the themes explaining those impacts. Those themes are then explained and illustrated by interview extracts in the following text.

The interview extracts were translated from French using DeepL, then proofread and corrected by the authors and a native English speaker. The French and English versions of each extract are available at https://sharedocs.huma-num.fr/wl/?id=xinTm991NAyB822myM9cYpRs0Fai3kub. Where relevant, we have indicated in the following section, the number of interviews concerned by a theme or even the fictitious names of the participants concerned.

## 4.1 The impact of COVID-19 on mobility for personal activities

The first analysis concerns changes in personal mobility linked to the pandemic. Within this topic, we identified 8 categories of trip purposes. For these categories, we noted, where applicable, changes in terms of travel frequency, mode of transport used, locations frequented or times of travel (Table 3). Inside those sub-categories we analyzed 73 themes (19 for leisure, 13 for social and family life, 15 for eating out, 13 for food purchase, 13 for other purposes). They are presented in bold in the text, and are explained and illustrated by verbatim quotes. A summary table of the themes is presented in Appendix 1.

### 4.1.1 Leisure activities

Along with work-related mobility, leisure mobility has been one of the hardest hit by the health crisis. Mainly, the frequency of these activities has been affected (100% of interviews mention this subject). During the pandemic, it was impossible to access all leisure facilities whether cultural or sporting because of **closures imposed by the prohibition of this travel purpose** (particularly at the start of the pandemic).

> *During the lockdown, all that [evening classes and choir singing] stopped. Catherine.*

When it was possible again to move, our sample showed 3 different profiles. Thirteen **returned as soon as the premises were reopened or authorization to go out was granted to make up for lost time** (Catherine, Christine, Christophe, Jean, Joseph, Julien, Laurent, Michel, Mustapha, Patricia, Sandrine, Sophie, Stéphane):

> *As soon as the authorizations were lifted, I went back to my life as it was before as quickly as possible. Patricia.*

> *As soon as things got going again, I went back [to the stadium to watch a soccer game]. I couldn't wait. As a supporter ... Mustapha.*

Five interviewees only **returned more than one year and a half** after the beginning of the pandemic (Alain, Céline, David, Evelyne, Julie) due to a **fear of infection**. This was the case for David who said: *"In other words, we didn't go back to the cinema or the restaurant. We really kept it to a minimum. Until we'd been vaccinated and even after we'd been vaccinated, we were very careful.", or refusal to be vaccinated, which results in inaccessibility to leisure venues: "I really restricted my movements because I didn't want to get vaccinated and as I didn't want to go and do tests when I needed to show proof of a pass, well I didn't go [to the restaurant or the museum]."* Céline.

For the same participant, we can observe differences regarding leisure activities, for example, between cinema, hiking and sport. Sport sometimes took longer to return to, because of **organizational complexities** (access to the swimming pool, for example): *"Oh, it was complicated to take it up again, because I didn't understand when the swimming pool was open. So I took it up, but only a short time ago."* Catherine.

To a lesser extent, interviewees recount the **development of digital activities** (videoconferencing sports or English lessons, subscriptions to streaming services), **indoor activities** (cycling or reading), **running in his neighborhood** or **relocations to closer venues or to larger spaces to ensure distance**:
<table><caption>**Table 3** Sub-categories related to mobility changes for personal activities linked to COVID-19 with the number of interviews and extracts during and after the pandemic</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Personal changes linked to COVID-19</th><th rowspan="2">Sub-categories<br>Type of Changes</th><th colspan="2">During the pandemic</th><th colspan="2">After the pandemic</th></tr><tr><th>Interviews<sup>1</sup></th><th>Extracts<sup>2</sup></th><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Categories & Explanations</td><td rowspan="4"><strong>Leisure</strong><br>Sports and cultural leisure activities</td><td>Frequency</td><td>19</td><td>77</td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Times</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Mode</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4"><strong>Social and family life</strong><br>Contact with friends and family outside the home</td><td>Frequency</td><td>17</td><td>38</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Times</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Mode</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4"><strong>Restaurants</strong><br>Meals cooked outside the home</td><td>Frequency</td><td>18</td><td>33</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Times</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mode</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4"><strong>Food purchases</strong><br>Supermarkets, local shops, markets, deliveries or pick-up</td><td>Frequency</td><td>11</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>14</td><td>24</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Times</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mode</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Other purchases</strong><br>Clothing, DIY, pets, beauty products ...</td><td>Frequency</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><strong>Medical appointments</strong><br>Dentists, doctors, hospital admissions</td><td>Frequency</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Mode</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Physical activity</strong><br>Outings for fresh air, dog walking or exercise</td><td>Frequency</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Volunteering</strong><br>Unpaid work for a non-profit</td><td>Frequency</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>19<sup>3</sup></td><td>292<sup>4</sup></td><td>17</td><td>68</td></tr></tfoot></table>

During the lockdown, I subscribed to Amazon Prime and Netflix. Christophe.

They [the fitness center] had an Instagram account on which there were classes every day at different times of the day. So maybe I didn't do it every lunchtime, but at least every other lunchtime I'd put on Instagram and do my class like that, telling myself that at least I'm keeping more or less in shape. Sophie.

Very marginally, we observe modal changes (walking or cycling rather than taking the metro to enjoy the pleasure of going out) or changes in timing (for example, going to the cinema on a weekday to avoid the crowds or earlier to comply with curfews).

In the post-pandemic period, we found that the frequency of leisure activities had changed (14). On the one hand, there are **people who have reduced their frequency** (8): "From going to the cinema 6 times a year, I'm down to maybe 2 a year now." Alain. They explain this by

a loss of motivation (especially for sport activities), by the replacement of activities outside the home with activities at home (reading, streaming platforms), or by a reorganization of their personal time: "Even to restaurants and cinemas ... it's funny because I hear that everywhere ... It's simple, since the pandemic I've stopped going. And now, I don't even want to go, it's put me off. No." Pascal.

On the other hand, we find **people who have increased it due to a desire to enjoy life** (2): "I even go a bit more now. To the cinema, to the restaurant, both of them, and other outings. I went to the theater, something I rarely did before." Catherine.

We observed strong variations in the types of activity (cinema for some and sport for others) depending on the individual. This is certainly due to the interest of the activity for the person concerned.

### 4.1.2 Social and family life

This field of activity was also widely mentioned in the interviews, with the question of frequency coming first

<footnote n="1">¹The number of interviews corresponds to the number of participants who mentioned the sub-category</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²The number of extracts corresponds to the number of times the sub-category is mentioned by one or more participants</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³The total number of interviews is the number of interviews mentioned in at least one of the sub-categories</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴The total number of the extracts corresponds to the sum of all mentions of the sub-categories</footnote>
(17), followed by location (15). The time of day was mentioned only marginally (**a wedding on a Monday** and **early return from a visit due to curfew**), and the mode was not mentioned at all. As far as frequency is concerned, the first idea most frequently mentioned is the **cutting off of all social life outside the home**: "*There weren't any friends.*" Joseph.

Furthermore, **social life at work was sometimes also impaired** for those who continued to work on site. Ending this may have been forced **by regulations or by the conviction that contact should be avoided** at all costs in order to limit the spread of the disease. This **avoidance of social contact disappeared after the pandemic** for almost all the participants. Only one participant reported that he met less frequently with friends because of **the lose in the connection**: "*Now it's true that with COVID things have changed a bit. Relationships have drifted apart a bit. The links have loosened up a bit.*" Alain.

For some, the **absence of contact lasted longer during the pandemic, in particular, to avoid contamination** (4): "*It took us longer than that to see friends again. I couldn't give you a precise date, but I think we went two years without seeing our friends.*" David.

Activities to **accompany children to school or to their activities also came to a halt, and then were scaled back** because of the half-group school classes: "*My son had to go to a half-group, so obviously I went less often because there was ... yes, that's right, there was a week of distance learning and a week of face-to-face classes, that's it.*" Céline.

During the pandemic, **long-distance online social life was intensified** with family and friends (3). Those interviewed expressed a **need to check in on their loved ones** during this difficult time. For others, this period was an **opportunity to look after their grandchildren** (1): "*At the time of the lockdown, I went to pick up my grandson every day because my son was telecommuting, my daughter-in-law being in the trade sector, she had to work.*" Patricia.

In 15 interviews, the **end of physical contact was associated with an intensification or start of online or phone contact** (traditional calls, MMS, video calls, video happy hours) with people usually seen in person:

> With the family we did a bit of videoconferencing on the phone, on WhatsApp. Yes, yes, we've had a few WhatsApp happy hours with my children, my brothers and sisters and other members of the family. Christine.

> With friends we use WhatsApp and Telegram a lot more. Only because if we sent each other text messages by phone, it wasn't very expensive, but when

> we wanted to talk for longer or send each other photos and things like that we used WhatsApp. Laurent.

> All interviewees have returned to physical contact as a priority: "*We've stopped now. But during the lockdown, we did a few [videocalls], just to keep in touch.*" Sandrine.

### 4.1.3 Meals out

The subject of eating out was mentioned as much as that of social and family life. The frequency of this activity came up in almost all the interviews. For all of them, this activity **had stopped completely, because restaurants were closed** for a long period: "*I used to go to restaurants and all that. But as soon as COVID started, I stopped doing that.*" Sandrine.

According to the participants, **restaurant attendance resumed quickly, because it was missed, but infrequently at first**: "*I go back to restaurants much less often. For sure.*" Catherine.

Some **did not return to it throughout the pandemic period due to a fear of contamination** and also because **not going out to restaurants was not really felt to be a loss**. (2) For some, the pandemic was an **opportunity to try out meal delivery services (2) or takeaway sales (1)**, or to **go to closer restaurants in order to avoid excessive travel, which was thought to contribute to the spread of the virus (1)**:

> We used to have meals delivered to our homes. That's when we started using Just Eat. Alain.

> The restaurants were also doing what we call take-away. So we'd take something with us and then go somewhere and eat. Stéphane.

Two people also mention having **shifted their meal-times to comply with the curfew**.

In the post-crisis period, **all but three participants returned to their restaurant habits**. For those who do not go out as much as they used to, **meals at restaurants have been replaced by meals at others' homes, meals deliveries or are considered unimportant**: "*I have to admit that since COVID, I go out to eat a lot less. [...] It's not that I'm afraid, but we go to eat at each other's houses more often.*" Sophie.

Only 1 **returned more intensely than before because it was a big loss**: "*And that [going to restaurants with friends], I do it more since the pandemic.*" Céline (who refused to be vaccinated).

### 4.1.4 Food purchase

The fourth most frequently mentioned subject is food shopping. For this subject, the shop itself is often
mentioned (14). In other words, participants mainly **changed where they bought their groceries** during the pandemic. These changes were primarily aimed at **limiting contact to avoid infection**. This theme also includes behavior such as **baking bread at home** (1) *"We tried making bread like everyone else. It kept us busy for a while, but it didn't work out very well."* (Catherine), **ordering at the drive-in** (2), *"I started doing drive-in orders. I'd done very little before and then I started doing it 100%."* (David), **stop going to the farmers market**, which had become too complicated, too narrow, less user-friendly or closed altogether (3). *"I went to the farmers market less. There were fewer people at the supermarkets and people kept their distance, whereas in the market, the aisles are small."* Laurent. The second reason for the changes was the **distance limit** imposed by the French authorities. In this case, participants report **switching supermarkets for a supermarket closer** to their home (7). *"I only shopped in the shop next door to me. It's an Auchan, which I don't really like, but it was the closest one."* Sandrine. Finally, we found several participants who used the available time and constraints as an opportunity to **re focus on neighborhood life by favoring small shops** (3). *"What we used to do before COVID was to do some shopping, let's call it back-up shopping, and at the weekend we'd go and do some major shopping in a shopping center such as Carrefour, Auchan or Leclerc. But we've stopped doing that. We don't shop at big supermarkets anymore. Well, it's extremely rare."* Julien.

Regarding frequency (11), our sample covers all scenarios. Those who **reduced food purchase frequency to limit their outings by planning or using reserves** (5): *"We went ... as little as possible. In other words, we made a shopping list to go out once a week or once every 10 days."* Catherine. We also found interviewees whose habits were the same or only changed slightly (3): *"Basically, if I had to sum it up, I'd say I stop there 2 or 3 times a week when there was no pandemic, and I had to go there twice a week during the pandemic."* Céline. **Grocery shopping was also a way to go out legally.** 2 interviewees increased their mobility for grocery shopping to see more people: *"The shopping center is, let's say, 500m from where I live, so I went there every day at least to buy bread or ... the pretext was bread, but I always met a few people."* Michel.

Eight interviewees talked about changing when they did their grocery shopping **mainly to avoid crowds and thus possible contagion**. Strategies vary from person to person, ranging from **going when the supermarket opens, to going at lunchtime, or in the middle of the afternoon**. Weekdays were preferred to weekends.

Only two participants (2) replaced going by car by **walking or cycling** for local purchases **in order to exercise**.

After the health crisis, all but three interviewees went back to their previous habits. Julien and Christophe continue to favor **smaller supermarkets close to home that they can walk to**. David continues to use the **drive-in** because he finds it more convenient than spending time in the store. There is no change in frequency.

### 4.1.5 Other personal activities: medical appointments, non-food purchases, physical activity, volunteer work

Other activities are mentioned much less frequently. For example, there were **medical appointments that were staggered in time or done by video**. There was also a **drop in the frequency of volunteer work, non-food purchases (replaced by online purchases in 4 cases):** *"[During the pandemic] I used to go to a pet shop website and order online."* (Stéphane). The interviewee also expressed a **bigger need to clear one's head or stretch one's legs**. In the post-crisis period, Christophe continued to **shop less frequently for non-food items**, while Pascal and Sophie remained primarily online shoppers.

## 4.2 The impact of COVID-19 on mobility for professional activities

The second analysis concerns changes in work-related mobility linked to the pandemic. Within this topic, we have identified 4 themes and 15 sub-themes (Table 4).

Concerning the workplace, 16 interviews tell us about the changes brought about by the pandemic (as a reminder, 3 of our participants are retired and were already retired before the pandemic).

Interviewees emphasized a **switch to WFH**, alternating between WFH and the office at **different rates depending on the period of the pandemic** (10): *"Before COVID I was automatically 100% in the office. So what did COVID change? I switched to 100% telecommuting during the periods when we were in lockdown."* Alain.

*"Yes, I went back to the office. On the other hand, I don't really know how often. It could have been 1 or 2 days a week."* (Christophe). The teachers switched to distance learning, in particular using videoconferencing, and then returned to school (1). In two companies, the **switch to WFH arrived late** (2): *"The implementation of WFH did not happen immediately at my employer's, so I continued to go to my office. [...] It took a while, I can't remember exactly, but let's say almost 6 months, maybe a bit longer ..."* Pascal.

All those who started WFH during the health crisis continue to do so today. Those who were already doing so have **increased the number of days they telecommute**:

*"These were telecommuting agreement changes. I changed it to 2 days a week. Mustapha."*
<table><caption>**Table 4** Themes related to work-related mobility changes linked to COVID-19 with the number of interviews and extracts during and after the pandemic</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Professional changes linked to COVID-19</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">During the pandemic</th><th colspan="2">After the pandemic</th></tr><tr><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Themes, Explanations and sub-themes</td><td><strong>Workplaces</strong></td><td>14</td><td>68</td><td>7</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>At home or at work</td><td>Switch to WFH<br>Late switch to WFH<br>Variation in the rate of WFH</td><td></td><td>Continuation of WFH<br>Increase in the number of days telecommuted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><strong>Work rhythm</strong></td><td>Hours and intensity of work</td><td>13<br>Drop in workload positively perceived<br>Part-time work<br>Increased workload<br>Increase in working hours</td><td>26</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Meeting and business trips</strong></td><td>8</td><td>20</td><td>7</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>(Im)mobility associated with these work activities</td><td>Increase in videoconferencing use whenever possible</td><td></td><td>Long-term adoption of videoconferencing<br>Limitation of business travel</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Commuting Mode</strong></td><td>Work commuting mode</td><td>7<br>Remplacement of public transport (limitation of the spread of the virus, reduced frequency)<br>Remplacement of walking (limitation of time spent outside, files for WFH)</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td>16</td><td>130</td><td>9</td><td>21</td></tr></tbody></table>

So now, since 1 January 2022, we have a WFH contract. Sandrine.

The interviews also touched on the subject of the pace of work. Changes in work pace were characteristic of the pandemic and have not continued. In the majority of cases, the pandemic was associated with a **drop in workload** (8), sometimes with the **need for part-time work** (4):

> Even if, overall, there was a slowdown, meaning that business is no longer as buoyant as it used to be [during the pandemic]. Julien.

> The company where I worked was completely blocked. So, from one day to the next, I didn't go to work. And I was working part-time. I only worked one day a week. Christine.

This **slowdown** was mainly positively perceived (4) with more time for leisure, family, and less pressure.

However, for some, the **workload** increased (3) because of the need to reorganize work to ensure a continuity of service (medical, retail) or because of WFH, which makes it easy to increase working hours (1).

As far as meetings and business travel are concerned, the majority of respondents emphasized the **use of videoconferencing whenever possible** (8). Yet, they said that videoconferencing is not appropriate for all types of meetings. Seven interviews emphasized the **long-term adoption of videoconferencing** both on the employee

and employer sides and the **limitation of business travel** after the end of the health crisis:

> Well, we've developed videoconferencing, which we hadn't used much before. And now it has become an everyday tool. Mustapha.

> Zoom meetings have become a habit now. We do a lot of them at work, which we didn't do as much before. Meetings that are a bit more informative are now done more at home, so more by videoconference. Laurent.

When it comes to transport modes, there is a wide variety of responses, **with car use, ridesharing, walking or cycling replacing public transport, mainly to limit the spread of COVID-19 or to avoid a reduced transport frequency**:

> Well, it depended on what time I started because, there was no metro until a certain time. So sometimes, I'd walk part of the way because I'm not too far from work. I'm only 1h00 away, so sometimes I'd walk or sometimes I'd take the bus. Sometimes my colleagues took me, too. Evelyne.

> It seems to me that I got into the habit of going by car at the very beginning. Julien.

> On Monday morning [at the very beginning of the pandemic], I went by bike because I think ... I don't even know if there was public transport. Sophie.
In two cases, the car replaced walking to limit the time spent outdoors because of the controls or to transport files for WFH. Only Sandrine changed permanently. She still uses her car instead of walking to transport her files for WFH.

## 4.3 Traveling during the pandemic

The third analysis concerns participants' observations on travel conditions during the pandemic. Within this topic, we have identified 5 themes and 12 subthemes (Table 5).

The interviews tell us about users' perceptions of the different transport modes. **Road traffic was very low** (3): "And in this case, there weren't many people on the road." (Sandrine). However, **congestion worsened during curfew periods** (1). This reduction in road traffic made the **streets very quiet** (2). At the height of the crisis, **public transport was very quiet and rarely used** (4): "Ah well, it was good because there really weren't many people around so ... it was ideal public transport." (Christophe). However, when employees started to return to work, public transport was **too infrequent and therefore busier** (3): "There were fewer trains, so we were squeezed together, which was very unpleasant. A lot of tension between people. It wasn't nice." (Alain). For others, public transport **was not running at the times they needed it** (2).

For some interviewees, public transport was associated with an **increased risk of contagion** (8): "I was afraid to take the metro because there were people coughing and spitting, so I preferred to go on foot." (Evelyne). Most interviewees believed that **forced close contact** on public transport was more likely to promote contagion. For this reason, everyone wore a **mask and washed their hands**. This risk of contamination resulted in five cases of

**temporary avoidance.** The others, who continued to use public transport knowing the risk, did not feel in danger. Alain was resigned to an absurd obligation to return to work because he had **no other means of transportation available**.

Four interviewees stressed other users' **lack of respect for the mask-wearing rules**: "I considered that people on public transport were quick to take them [masks] off." (Sophie).

## 4.4 Focus on WFH

The fourth analysis concerns participants' observations on WFH before and during the pandemic. Within this topic, we have identified 9 themes and 24 subthemes (Table 6).

### 4.4.1 Previous practices and views

People who telecommuted during the health crisis and have continued to do so since tell us many interesting things about WFH. In particular, they tell us about what was done before (3 were already telecommuting) and their employer's and their own perceptions of WFH. Five mentioned that WFH was **badly perceived, refused or reserved for a privileged few** in their companies or administrations: "As a service provider, telecommuting was frowned upon by clients because a service provider is someone you pay to work but who doesn't actually work when he's not in the office." Alain.

The **use of videoconferencing tools was sometimes banned** (1). On the contrary, 1 interviewee said that **WFH was already fully accepted** up to 3 days a week. Two interviewees expressed a rather **negative previous opinion** on WFH (**no difficulty in traveling**, desire for social contacts at work): "Because it wasn't something

<table><caption>**Table 5** Themes related to users' perception on travel conditions with the number of interviews and extracts</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Traveling during the COVID-19</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Metrics</th></tr><tr><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="11">Themes, Explanations and sub themes</td><td><strong>Perceived risk</strong><br>Perceived risk associated with public transport use</td><td>12<br>Risk of contagion (close contact)<br>Protections taken (mask, hand washing)<br>Temporary avoidance vs. no feeling of danger<br>vs. no other solution</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Perceived Public transport</strong><br>Transport conditions (frequency, load, etc.)</td><td>8<br>Quiet at the beginning<br>Too infrequent and busy trains and subways<br>Reduced operating hours of public transport</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Perceived Other users</strong><br>Opinion on the behavior of others</td><td>4<br>No respect of mask-wearing rules</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Perceived Traffic</strong><br>Road traffic conditions (load)</td><td>4<br>Low traffic<br>Congestion worsened due to curfew</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Perceived Streets</strong><br>Streets conditions (noise)</td><td>2<br>Very quiet streets</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>16</td><td>45</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tfoot></table>
<table><caption>**Table 6** Themes related to WFH before and during the pandemic with the number of interviews and extracts</caption><thead><tr><th>Focus on WFH</th><th>Themes, explanations and subthemes</th><th>Metrics</th><th></th></tr><tr><th>Period concerned</th><th></th><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Before the pandemic</td><td><strong>Practices</strong><br>What was done before the pandemic</td><td>4<br>3 already telecommuting</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Employer's view</strong><br>Pre-pandemic viewpoint about WFH</td><td>7<br>WFH badly perceived, refused, limited Videoconference banned<br>WFH fully accepted</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Employee's view</strong><br>Pre-pandemic viewpoint about WFH</td><td>3<br>Not needed<br>Preference for social contact</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Job content</strong><br>Nature of work that makes WFH possible or not</td><td>7<br>Fully/partially telecommutable job<br>Not telecommutable</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>First moments</strong><br>The start of crisis WFH</td><td>13<br>Difficult beginnings (kids, no tools, no space) but stayed productive enough<br>Already prepared</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">During the pandemic</td><td><strong>Drawbacks</strong><br>Related to WFH</td><td>5<br>Intrusive nature of videoconferencing<br>Difficulty to be concentrated online<br>Weight gain<br>WFH imply to transport the work tools</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Benefits</strong><br>Related to WFH</td><td>9<br>Time for personal life<br>Different lifestyle<br>Greater ability to concentrate</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Side effects</strong><br>Changes in mobility due to WFH</td><td>5<br>More local trips done on foot<br>Timing of grocery shopping<br>Use of car to transport files</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Keeping social contact</strong><br>Importance of keeping in touch with colleges</td><td>3<br>Lack of social contact</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>16</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

that interested me in the sense that I don't live very far from where I work and it takes me a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to get to work, so it wasn't something that interested me.” Christine.

Alain expressed an interest in WFH for a limited time, but not full time because of the same **desire for social contacts**.

Whether or not interviewees telecommute obviously also depends on the content of the job. Two have a 100% telecommutable job. For 3 others, only a majority of the work is telecommutable and finally, some cannot telecommute at all (2). They have contact with customers or work in the medical field.

### 4.4.2 Crisis WFH

For everyone, especially those who were not telecommuting before the health crisis, the **first few days or months were quite difficult**. Employees found themselves having to **manage their children's schooling** at the same time as their work (2): “My son made faces at working remotely

and would do anything not to work. So I had to be with him all the time to help him get on with his work.” Alain.

Some **did not have the required tools**, or the tools did not work in conditions where 100% of employees were telecommuting (7):

> Ironically, the servers weren't able to handle all the accesses from all the employees. Julien.

> I had everything I needed, or almost, except for paper files. Well, I didn't have access to them, so I did without it and that was that. I didn't have a printer either, so there are certain things I needed to print out to be able to keep working. So, I managed without printing. Sandrine.

Some people also **struggled to find a space** in their home that was suitable for WFH (5). In all these cases, employees managed to remain sufficiently productive, for better or worse. For others, everything went very well
with **no particular difficulties especially because the tools were already available** (4).

#### 4.4.3 WFH review

Nine interviews highlight the positive effects of WFH, with **transport time that can be reinvested** (7), a **different lifestyle** with more time spent cooking or enjoying the weekend, and a **greater ability to concentrate at home**: "It was starting to become something that was practical and well balanced in family life. It allows you to do 2 or 3 errands on days when you're telecommuting, between midday and 2 o'clock, do the washing, do the cleaning, that sort of thing. And you're a lot freer at the weekend for leisure activities, which is really nice." Julien.

On the other hand, maintaining social contacts is a major issue. Three interviewees told us how important it is to see their coworkers at certain times during the week. Moreover, during this pandemic period marked by drastic travel restrictions, the feeling of a **lack of social contact at work** was even more pronounced: "I mainly wanted to get out of the house because I'd stayed inside, I hardly ever went out, so I didn't see anyone. I wanted to get out, move around and meet people. That's what I wanted." Christophe.

Another negative effect of WFH could be an increase in travel for other reasons. Five interviews tell us about the side effects of WFH on their mobility. In 3 cases, the interviewees mentioned **local trips** made possible by being at home (medical appointments, shopping in local shops, having a drink at the local café). All these trips are

done on foot: "[For appointments scheduled on telecommuting days] I walk there because my doctors or dentists are close to my home." Mustapha.

In one case, the change concerns the **timing of food shopping**, which the person concentrates on non-WFH days to make trips-chaining (1). Because WFH means that files have to be transported, **walking is replaced by driving** on certain days (1). Finally, the participants pointed out other difficulties associated with WFH. Examples include the somewhat **intrusive nature of videoconferencing**, which brings people into others' homes (1), the **difficulty of following a professional training** course entirely online, the **weight gain** associated with the possibility of accessing food at any time, and the **obligation to move heavy files and computers**.

### 4.5 Changes in mobility unrelated to COVID-19

The fifth analysis concerns changes in mobility not attributable to the pandemic. Within this topic, we have identified 7 themes and 12 sub-subthemes (Table 7).

Thirteen interviews contained information on changes in mobility not attributable to the pandemic, but which had occurred during this period.

For Catherine, these changes were the consequences of **having received a bicycle**. For 4 people, they were triggered by **strikes or work on public transport lines**. For 6 people, they were the result of **changes in their professional career** (new job, professional training, loss of job, retirement):

<table><caption>**Table 7** Themes related to mobility changes unrelated to COVID-19 with the number of interviews and extracts</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Mobility Changes not linked to COVID-19</th><th colspan="2">Metrics</th></tr><tr><th>Interviews</th><th>Extracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Themes</strong><br>and subthemes</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Career changes</strong><br>Finding a job or a professional training add a reason to travel.<br>Changing employers changes the modal possibilities.<br>Retirement and unemployment removes a reason to travel.</td><td>6</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Personal points of view</strong><br>Awareness of environmental issues encourages people to change their behavior (buying less, therefore traveling less, making more use of active transport modes)<br>The pleasure of traveling by active transport modes can be a factor for change.</td><td>5</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Family life</strong><br>The birth of a child involves a change in travel patterns and transportation modes.<br>Children who can walk make it possible to use public transportation.<br>Children becoming independent when traveling to school eliminate the trip to accompany them.</td><td>5</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Public Transport disruptions</strong><br>Strikes or works involve WFH or finding another mode of transportation.</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fuel price</strong><br>Raised prices make car use more expensive.</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td><strong>New bike</strong><br>Acquiring a bike is an opportunity to change mode.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Parking problems</strong><br>The difficulty to park discourages car use.</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td>13</td><td>50</td></tr></tbody></table>
> *My mobility automatically changed when I retired. Christine.*

> *No, I was no longer working ... so I had job interviews by video, but in any case, I didn't travel, well, very little ... Sophie.*

Five people were prompted by **changes in their family life** (birth of a child, children learning to walk, children becoming more independent as they traveled to school):

> *In my personal life, it was not so much COVID that changed things, but the fact that my children have grown up. Alain.*

> *Now that he can walk, well, we go by bus. Julien.*

Three people were influenced by **rising fuel prices**, and 2 people by **parking issues**. In 5 other cases, the change was described as linked to **an environment awareness or a pleasure associated with a transport mode**:

> *This awareness, it's not the pandemic that made me ... It's an awareness that was already there, but let's just say that it was a kind of accelerator ... that might have happened without the pandemic, because now we can see climate change, it's a reality. So, we see it every day. Catherine.*

# 5 Discussion

In order to organize the information, we have chosen to present the discussion in parts that correspond to one or more research questions.

## 5.1 RQ1 & RQ2 – disruption during the pandemic and compensations

Our results confirm the unanimous findings of other studies on the extent of the impact on mobility during the health crisis [6, 9–16, 25, 26], showing that the people of Île-de-France have greatly reduced their mobility, in particular for all reasons considered unnecessary. We observe the strongest impacts on the frequency of travel associated with social life, leisure activities and eating out. Depending on the phase of the pandemic, the associated activities and trips were reduced to none or very limited ones. For most of our participants, these breaks were difficult to endure. Other trips were less affected, such as grocery shopping or going out for fresh air. Our

results confirm that work-related travel is particularly impacted [9, 27, 28]. With the exception of non-telecom-mutable occupations (technical, medical, and teaching professions), we also observe a near-disappearance of work-related travel at the start of the pandemic, followed by a sharp decrease for part-time work or WFH compatible jobs.

The participants report a range of ways to pursue their personal and professional activities without traveling. In this, we find the same trends as existing studies in other countries [24, 39, 42, 66–72]. They maintain a social life by using online means of communication with their friends and family. They do sport by videoconference or with equipment at home. They replace the cinema with subscriptions to video streaming services. To a lesser extent, restaurant meals are replaced by takeaways and deliveries, non-food purchases in shops are replaced by internet orders, and medical appointments are made via videoconference.

In terms of transport modes, we do not see any marked changes. There are some substitutions of public transport mainly by car, and rarely by walking or cycling. Of our eight users who primarily use public transportation (for commuting), only two stopped using it for a very limited time, including Julie, who was pregnant at the time. Most of those who stopped using public transportation were already occasional users and were more attached to their cars for everyday use. Our results confirm those of Buehler and Pucher [47], who did not find a boom in cycling in their literature review, and run counter to those who found an increase in active modes [8, 18, 32, 40, 43, 46].

## 5.2 RQ3 – what about the behavior after the pandemic?

Our results demonstrate effects favorable to a lasting mobility reduction, some of which have not yet been explored in the literature. For example, we show a downward trend in the frequency of trips for leisure purposes (in particular, going to the cinema, and restaurants to a lesser extent) and non-food purchases (not always replaced by online purchases), as attested by the work of Cano-Leiva et al. [84]. On the other hand, there are some weak signs that some people are making up for lost time by increasing their leisure mobility.

Our results in favor of a reduction in work-related travel (due to WFH and videoconferencing) are in line with those observed in the literature [6, 10, 24, 28, 34, 35, 51, 56–58, 60–63, 65, 80–83]. Social and family life and
grocery shopping returned to pre-pandemic levels. The interviews show how much the participants value face-to-face contact with their loved ones, but also with their colleagues and even with strangers living in their neighborhood. The interviews also revealed a few changes in supply locations, with people moving closer to home, thereby limiting the distance traveled and allowing the use of walking as shown by Pigalle et al. [78].

Our results seem to support existing research on the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis. Changes that are perceived as favorable in terms of personal and professional quality of life and in terms of congruence with goals and values are lasting [3–5]. In the cases where individuals were undergoing changes that were difficult to cope with (no longer being able to go out or see their friends), they returned to their old habits as quickly as possible.

From the point of view of transport modes, none of the reported changes linked to the crisis are considered to be long-lasting. Therefore, we could say, as others have [82, 89], that modal shares remain more or less the same. We confirm the results obtained concerning the return to normality in the use of public transport [6, 9, 41, 81, 85]. In terms of the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis, this means that individuals remained convinced that the mode of transport they initially chose was the best solution for them (in terms of public transport, for example).

Ultimately, the health crisis seems to have had a positive effect on the frequency of travel, particularly for work-related trips, but also to a lesser extent for leisure and shopping trips.

## 5.3 RQ4 – traveling during the pandemic

In the interviews, we observe that public transport was perceived differently depending on the time period of the pandemic. It was rather pleasant when it was not very busy, then horrible when people started using it again, even though the service was at an altered level. Public transport was generally associated with a risk of contamination, especially as other passengers did not always respect the mask-wearing rules. However, no one reported that a strategy of avoiding public transport had been implemented after the end of the health crisis. Thus, although public transport was indeed perceived as risky by our participants, such as in other studies [25, 35, 89], we would therefore tend to agree with Lizana et al. [102] who consider that perceived risk is ultimately a

moderately influencing factor, especially since it seemed to be fading and then disappearing in our sample. The decline in public transport ridership was therefore only a temporary phenomenon during the pandemic. This situation could be very characteristic of the Île-de-France region, where Paris is a hub for work and where cars are not a desirable solution from both a traffic and parking perspective. From this perspective, the health crisis has not been detrimental to the use of more sustainable modes of transportation.

## 5.4 RQ 5 – changes in mobility as a result of the crisis or changes in lifestyle?

The results obtained when people are questioned openly about a long period of their lives lead us to put into perspective the effects of the health crisis on mobility, as Buehler and Pucher [47] and Eliasson [91] have pointed out. Other factors influencing mobility have been relatively rarely highlighted in the literature on the pandemic. In fact, in general, in the space of 2 years, people change jobs or retire, children are born and grow up, the cost of living rises, there is more talk of the environmental crisis, and transport networks change. In our small sample, selected to avoid changes in interviewees' residences, we observe many sources of non-crisis-dependent changes in mobility. For this reason, we would like to draw researchers' attention to all the contextual, personal and professional factors that can explain mobility when conducting new studies on long-lasting crisis situations.

## 5.5 RQ6 & RQ7 – crisis WFH and changing attitudes

Only three people in our sample (out of 14 if we exclude retired people and people whose work cannot be telecommuted at all) were already working from home before the health crisis. For all the others, WFH was a novelty during the pandemic. This non-practice was mainly linked to their employers' negative perception of WFH but sometimes to their own decisions, according to what the employees told us. Due to the French government's severe restrictions on in-person work, as well as employers' responsibility to protect their employees' health, WFH became the norm. This constraint has allowed both companies and employees to see the advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting in order to form a more informed opinion. The trial therefore once again enabled companies and their employees to break with old habits
and discover new ways of doing things that proved to be
beneficial. The need to travel to attend meetings has also
been eliminated by this same phenomenon, thanks to the
experimentation with videoconferencing meetings.

As crisis WFH is a special case, due to its sudden
introduction, a number of pitfalls, which were subse-
quently overcome, accompanied it. It is not easy to work
from your living room while supervising your children's
schooling and without being able to connect to your
company's server when you need to. Both employees
and companies have shown considerable adaptability in
continuing to work despite the difficult conditions. Nev-
ertheless, the slowdown in business activity has greatly
helped to make the initial period of WFH, with its impro-
vised arrangements, more bearable.

5.6 RQ8 & RQ9 – satisfactions, difficulties and side effects of WFH

In general, views on WFH are very positive, particularly
regarding work/life balance, although care is taken to
maintain social contacts. This explains why all partici-
pants wish to continue WFH, as has already been shown
by numerous studies [6, 10, 24, 28, 34, 35, 51, 56–58,
60–63, 65, 80–83]. The difficulties mentioned tend to be
linked to a particular moment in the crisis for activities
that were temporarily carried out remotely.

Our participants mentioned relatively few collateral
effects linked to WFH, with few additional trips made
on WFH days, with trips tending to be made on foot
and in the immediate vicinity, as shown by Pigalle et al.
[78]. This might suggest a genuinely positive effect of the
health crisis on the sustainability of our behavior, since
we observe little or no substitution trips. Our results
would therefore confirm those of Faber et al. [77] rather
than those of Balbontin et al. [75] and Campisi et al. [73].
However, our results should be treated with caution, as
respondents were selected from those who did not move
during the health crisis. Indeed, one of the collateral
effects often highlighted in the literature is relocation to
more car-dependent areas [50, 73, 74].

5.7 Policy, planner and employer recommendations

The results of our research seem to suggest that it is easier
to reduce the frequency or scope of trips than to change a
transport mode and that the area in which action is easi-
est and most effective is travel for work purposes.

The widespread adoption of WFH represents an
unprecedented policy-level intervention, affecting

commuting patterns, household behavior, and business
practices. This measure has had an impact in many areas:
on the lives of people who develop a neighborhood life,
do their grocery shopping closer to home, cook more,
and enjoy more time with their family or friends. Finally,
from a business perspective, WFH makes it possible to
opt for flex-office arrangements by limiting the space
required for economic activity. This measure, through
the massive reduction in commuting, also had a signifi-
cant impact on the negative externalities associated with
cars (reduced congestion, lower pollutant emissions) and
on the overload of public transport networks. Indeed, a
recent French study [103] indicates that expanding WFH
could significantly reduce commuting trips and the asso-
ciated CO2 emissions. Given that commuting is predomi-
nantly done by car -the most carbon-intensive mode of
transport- each WFH day can prevent, on average, nearly
4.5 kg of CO2 emissions per person.

This obligation on companies has led to a positive
change in the way WFH is perceived by both employ-
ees and employers. WFH has therefore remained at an
unprecedented level, allowing its positive effects on sus-
tainable development to continue. However, the press
seems to indicate that some companies are backtrack-
ing on allowing their employees to telecommute. While
permanent WFH does not seem desirable for reasons
expressly mentioned by our participants (lack of physical
activity, feeling of isolation, loss of social ties with col-
leagues) [104], telecommuting a few days a week seems
to have a positive effect in terms of reducing travel,
especially since we do not see any effect in our sample
on travel for other reasons that could be done by car. To
maximize its effects, it would be interesting to consider
how WFH days are distributed, so that the proportion
of employees who commute is spread out over the week.
Well-distributed WFH could make it possible to rethink
public transportation options such as road transport net-
works. Coordinated efforts among companies, metropol-
itan authorities, and transport operators could play a key
role in maximizing the broader societal benefits of WFH.
Efforts could also be made to further expand WFH across
all sectors of activity and levels of the professional hierar-
chy. In a recent French study [105], WFH was found to be
more prevalent among managerial staff, whose tasks can
more frequently be performed from home, particularly in
the financial, information, and communication sectors.

Still in the field of work, remote meetings are another
positive outcome of COVID in terms of reducing the
frequency of business travel. Studies are needed to understand which meetings can be held effectively remotely and which ones require travel.

Specifically regarding the perceived risk associated with public transportation, our study shows that it is not necessary to rebuild confidence in public transport, because the level of concern and the barriers for use have already disappeared [106].

Policy-makers and companies should encourage well-distributed WFH and remote meetings, monitor its environmental impacts, and consider complementary measures to support employee well-being.

## 5.8 Limitations and future research perspectives

Our research has its limitations. Due to our difficulty in finding participants who volunteered to take part in these interviews without compensation, we were unable to obtain a larger sample. Unfortunately, our sample was lacking in young people, students and self-employed workers. Nevertheless, researching a varied sample of participants allows us to identify important common patterns that are true across variations. The lack of young people in our sample may explain the low shift to cycling and walking (and the absence of a shift to micromobility). In addition, it should be noted that young people are more likely than other segments of the population to use public transportation. A few available studies focus on young people. Hasiak [107] shows results that are quite similar to ours for a population of students from all over France. Mobility was in sharp decline among students due to the switch to distance learning (also shown by Tuitjer & Schaefer in Germany [54]), and a fear of infection has little impact on public transport use. For future studies, a larger sample size would allow for useful comparisons between socio-demographic groups.

Another important limitation relates to the retrospective nature of the information collected. It is likely that individuals have forgotten certain events or have a distorted view of their past feelings. Clearly, a longitudinal qualitative study covering the entire pandemic period and the following year would have been preferable. Compared to existing studies, our study differs in its realism regarding post-pandemic behavior, as it reflects the present situation of our participants. These interviews can be seen as a good basis for orienting the researchers' approach if they wish to set up a questionnaire survey with a view to scaling up. In particular, studies on the combined effects of the pandemic and endogenous and exogenous other events would be particularly useful.

# 6 Conclusion

Using an in-depth interview approach, this study aims to establish whether the health crisis has been an opportunity to redirect people's mobility towards greater sustainability (an increase in the use of active transport modes and a reduction in trip frequency). Following an overview of the research on COVID-19s mobility impact, we noted a lack of qualitative research, research on the French situation and research on the lasting nature of the impact. Based on an interview study with 19 Île-de-France region residents with different mobility profiles before, during and after the pandemic, we were able to highlight the following key findings. Some of the reductions in travel frequency during the pandemic seemed to persist a year after restrictions were lifted. These include mobility for leisure (less travel for sports activities, the cinema), meals out (less travel to go out to restaurants) and work (less commuting and business trips), for the most part. For all these travel purposes, the pandemic provided an opportunity to try out new ways of doing things, which participants ultimately considered to be better than their old practices. The constraints imposed during the health crisis therefore allowed people to consider other ways of doing things and compare them with what was done before. Activities outside the home that could be eliminated, because they could be replaced by activities at home (online or offline), free time that could be reallocated to other tasks with no necessity to make a trip, meals at restaurants that were not so important and could be replaced by deliveries or meals at friends' house, and commuting and business travel replaced by video conferencing. For food shopping, we have observed some weak signs in favor of relocation to stores closer to homes. From this perspective, the pandemic could be seen as an opportunity to refocus on neighborhood life, where people can enjoy getting around using sustainable modes of transport.

Finally, our interviews showed the importance of situating the health crisis' effects on mobility within the context of all the other sources of change that can occur over a long period. Not all changes occurring during the pandemic were necessarily due to the pandemic.

Ultimately, our results lead us to opt for the scenario of a general reduction in demand for mobility [17]. In this respect, we could say that the pandemic was indeed a window of opportunity [6–8] towards less mobility or local mobility in relation with the growing awareness of ecological issues.
<table><caption>**Table 8 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Purpose</th><th>Impact</th><th>Theme during the pandemic</th><th>Theme after the pandemic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Food purchase</td><td rowspan="10">Frequency</td><td>Better planning</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Reserves available</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>No longer go to farmers markets (complicated, overcrowded)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Willingness to go out and meet people (small shops)</td><td>Drive-in because of lack of time to buy groceries</td></tr><tr><td>To limit contamination (making bread at home, drive-through)</td><td>Closer and smaller shops for environmental reasons</td></tr><tr><td>Changes to comply with the rules (go to only one supermarket, a closer supply (supermarket))</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Changes to limit contamination (no longer go to farmers market)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Changes to refocus on neighborhood life (small shop)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To get physical activity</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Modes<br/>Moments</td><td>Less busy times to avoid the crowds</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Due to curfew</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>No more shopping or window-shopping with the emergence of sustainability concerns (buying less and differently)</td><td>Less willingness to buy (not a loss, too much stuff)</td></tr><tr><td>No more volunteering</td><td>More walks (new habit, pleasure)</td></tr><tr><td>Cancellation of medical appointments</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Other purposes</td><td rowspan="5">Frequency</td><td>Going out to relieve tension/feel good</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Going out near the house</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>More online shopping (books, DIY, clothes, cosmetics, animal food and litter)</td><td>Online shopping due to cost</td></tr><tr><td>Online medical appointments</td><td>Online second-hand shopping (more sustainable)</td></tr><tr><td>Locations</td><td>Other locations:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Online:</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank all the participants in the survey for their time. Furthermore, they would like to express their heartfelt thanks to Stacey Benoit for proofreading. Finally, they express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments.

**Author contributions**

Conceptualisation: SA; Data Curation: SA, CD; Formal analysis and investigation: SA, CD; Funding acquisition: JB; Methodology: SA, CD, JB; Project administration: JB; Resources: JB, SA; Supervision: SA; Validation: SA, CD; Visualisation: SA, CD; Writing - original draft: SA, CD, JB; Writing - review & editing: SA, CD, JB.

**Funding**

This article has been published open access with support of the European Conference of Transport Research Institutes (ECTRI). This research is part of the COMOPOCOV Project funded by M.S.H. Paris-Saclay as part of the Emergence 2022–2023 project.

**Data availability**

Insofar as participants have not given their consent for unlimited re-use of their data, the raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

**Declarations**

**Competing interests**

The authors declare no competing interests.

Received: 25 February 2025 / Accepted: 31 December 2025

Published online: 29 January 2026

**References**

1. Gärling, T., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). Introduction: Habitual travel choice. *Transportation*, 30(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021230223001

2. Adjei, E., & Behrens, R. (2023). Breaking commuter mode-use habits: An exploration of deliberative decision-making windows and their implications for travel demand management. *Journal of Urban Mobility*, 3, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100041

3. Thøgersen, J., & Møller, B. (2008). Breaking car use habits: The effectiveness of a free one-month travelcard. *Transportation*, 35(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9160-1

4. Parkes, S. D., Jopson, A., & Marsden, G. (2016). Understanding travel mode behaviour during mega-events: Lessons from the London 2012 games. *Transportation Research Part A*, 92, 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.07.006

5. Verplanken, B., Roy, D., & Whitmarsh, L. (2018). Cracks in the wall: Habit discontinuities as vehicles for behaviour change. In B. Verplanken (Ed.), *The psychology of habit: Theory, mechanisms, change, and contexts* (pp. 189–205). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97529-0_11

6. De Haas, M., Faber, R., & Hamersma, M. (2020). How COVID-19 and the Dutch 'intelligent lockdown' change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the Netherlands. *Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives*, 6, 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100150

7. Lehmann, P., de Brito, M. M., Gawel, E., Groß, M., Haase, A., Lepenies, R., Otto, D., Schiller, J., Strunz, S., & Thrän, D. (2021). Making the COVID-19 crisis a real opportunity for environmental sustainability. *Sustainability Science*, 16, 2137–2145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01003-z

8. Macharis, C., Tori, S., de Séjournet, A., Keseru, I., & Vanhaverbeke, L. (2021). Can the COVID-19 crisis be a catalyst for transition to sustainable urban mobility? Assessment of the medium-and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mobility in Brussels. *Frontiers in Sustainability*, 2, 725689. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.725689

9. Anke, J., Francke, A., Schaefer, L. M., & Petzoldt, T. (2021). Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the mobility behaviour in Germany. *European Transport Research Review*, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00469-3

10. Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2022). Australia 6 months after COVID-19 restrictions-part 1: Changes to travel activity and attitude to measures. *Transport Policy*, 128, 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.06.006
11. Bohman, H., Ryan, J., Stjernborg, V., & Nilsson, D. (2021). A study of changes in everyday mobility during the Covid-19 pandemic: As perceived by people living in Malmö, Sweden. *Transport Policy*, **106**, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2021.03.013

12. Pawluk De-Toledo, K., O'Hern, S., & Koppel, S. (2024). "I saw a fox in Melbourne CBD": Urban travel behaviour changes during COVID-19 and beyond. *Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour*, **100**, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.11.010

13. Echaniz, E., Rodríguez, A., Cordera, R., Benavente, J., Alonso, B., & Sañudo, R. (2021). Behavioural changes in transport and future repercussions of the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. *Transport Policy*, **111**, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2021.07.011

14. Hintermann, B., Schoeman, B., Molloy, J., Schatzmann, T., Tchervenkov, C., & Axhausen, K. W. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 on mobility choices in Switzerland. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **169**, 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103582

15. Kim, S., Jang, K., & Yeo, J. (2023). Non-linear impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on human mobility: Lessons from its variations across three pandemic waves. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, **97**, 104769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104769

16. Melo, P. C. (2022). Will COVID-19 hinder or aid the transition to sustainable urban mobility? Spotlight on Portugal's largest urban agglomeration. *Regional Science Policy & Practice*, **14**, 80–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12518

17. Lozzi, G., Rodrigues, M., Marcucci, E., Teoh, T., Gatta, V., & Pacelli, V. (2020). *Research for TRAN committee - Covid-19 and urban mobility: Impacts and perspectives: Rapid-response briefing*. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Accessed 24 January 2025 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/747305: Brussels

18. El Zein, A., Beziat, A., Pochet, P., Klein, O., & Vincent, S. (2022). What drives the changes in public transport use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? Highlights from Lyon metropolitan area. *Regional Science Policy & Practice*, **14**, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12519

19. Ivaldi, M., & Palikot, E. (2023). Sharing when stranger equals danger: Ridesharing during Covid-19 pandemic. *Transport Policy*, **141**, 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2023.07.005

20. Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M. (2022). To use or not use car sharing mobility in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic? Identifying sharing mobility behaviour in times of crisis. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, **19**(5), 3127. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053127

21. Jin, T., Cheng, L., Wang, S., Cao, J., Schwanen, T., & Witlox, F. (2023). Do built environment factors have different effects on ridesourcing usage before and after the COVID-19 pandemic? *Cities*, **141**, 104520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104520

22. Kellermann, R., Conde, D. S., Rößler, D., Kliewer, N., & Dienel, H. L. (2022). Mobility in pandemic times: Exploring changes and long-term effects of COVID-19 on urban mobility behavior. *Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives*, **15**, 100668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100668

23. König, A., & Dreßler, A. (2021). A mixed-methods analysis of mobility behavior changes in the COVID-19 era in a rural case study. *European Transport Research Review*, **13**, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00472-8

24. Ma, W., Hoen, F. S., & Törset, T. (2023). No way back? A survey on changes in travel demand post-pandemic in Norway. *Case Studies on Transport Policy*, **11**, 100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.100942

25. Lee, S., Park, S., Yang, S., Park, J., & Lee, J. (2022). Contributing factors to the change in travel mode choice after COVID-19 in Korea using bivariate probit model. *International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development*, **13**(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.22712/SUSB.20220016

26. Lee, K. S., & Eom, J. K. (2024). Systematic literature review on impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding measures on mobility. *Transportation*, **51**(5), 1907–1961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10392-2

27. Awad-Núñez, S., Julio, R., Gomez, J., Moya-Gómez, B., & González, J. S. (2021). Post-COVID-19 travel behaviour patterns: Impact on the willingness to pay of users of public transport and shared mobility services in Spain. *European Transport Research Review*, **13**, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00476-4

28. Faber, R., Hamersma, M., De Haas, M., & Krabbenborg, L. (2023). Estimating post-pandemic effects of working from home and teleconferencing on travel behaviour. *European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research*, **23**(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2023.23.1.6733

29. Xi, H., Li, Q., Hensher, D. A., Nelson, J. D., & Ho, C. (2023). Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on travel behavior in different socio-economic

segments. *Transport Policy*, **136**, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2023.03.014

30. Moreau, H., Côme, É., Samé, A., & Oukhellou, L. (2024). How has the Paris rail public-Transportation network recovered after the COVID-19 pandemic? Applying a mixture of regressions model. *Transportation Research Record*, **03611981241277817**. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241277817

31. Molloy, J., Schatzmann, T., Schoeman, B., Tchervenkov, C., Hintermann, B., & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Observed impacts of the Covid-19 first wave on travel behaviour in Switzerland based on a large GPS panel. *Transport Policy*, **104**, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2021.01.009

32. Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S., & Dia, H. (2022). A systematic review of the impacts of the coronavirus crisis on urban transport: Key lessons learned and prospects for future cities. *Cities*, **127**, 103770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103770

33. Burris, M., Brown, A., Gupta, H., Wang, J., Figueroa-Medina, A. M., Del Valle-González, C. A., & Del Valle-Pérez, A. F. (2023). Factors influencing traveler use of transit before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. *Journal of Public Transportation*, **25**, 100058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2023.100058

34. Currie, G., Jain, T., & Aston, L. (2021). Evidence of a post-COVID change in travel behaviour-self-reported expectations of commuting in Melbourne. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **153**, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.09.009

35. Downey, L., Fonzone, A., Fountas, G., & Semple, T. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on future public transport use in Scotland. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **163**, 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.06.005

36. Halefom, T. H., Moglia, M., Nygaard, C., & Pojani, D. (2024). Sustainability Implications of working-from-home (WFH): A systematic review of the travel behavior literature. *Journal of Planning Literature*, **08854122241259414**. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122241259414

37. Henrion, V., Ingvardson, J. B., & Nielsen, O. A. (2023). The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel behaviour in the greater Copenhagen area. *Journal of Advanced Transportation*, **2023**(1), 9964912. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9964912

38. Monterle-I-Bort, H., Sucha, M., Risser, R., & Kochetova, T. (2022). Mobility patterns and mode choice preferences during the COVID-19 situation. *Sustainability*, **14**(2), 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020768

39. Parker, M. E., Li, M., Bouzaghhrane, M. A., Obeid, H., Hayes, D., Frick, K. T., Rodriguez, D. A., Sengupta, R., Walker, J., & Chatman, D. G. (2021). Public transit use in the United States in the era of COVID-19: Transit riders' travel behavior in the COVID-19 impact and recovery period. *Transport Policy*, **111**, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranol.2021.07.005

40. Paul, T., Chakraborty, R., & Anwari, N. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on daily travel behaviour: A literature review. *Transportation Safety and Environment*, **4**(2), tdac013. https://doi.org/10.1093/tse/tdac013

41. Przybylowski, A., Stelmak, S., & Suchanek, M. (2021). Mobility behaviour in view of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-public transport users in Gdansk case study. *Sustainability*, **13**(1), 364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010364

42. Renn, O., Engels, A., Mack, B., Becker, S., & Camier, C. (2022). Will short-term behavior changes during the COVID-19 crisis evolve into low-carbon practices? *GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society*, **31**(3), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.31.3.6

43. Schaefer, K. J., Tuitjer, L., & Levin-Keitel, M. (2021). Transport disrupted-substituting public transport by bike or car under Covid 19. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **153**, 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.09.002

44. Vega-Gonzalo, M., Gomez, J., & Christidis, P. (2023). How has COVID-19 changed private car use in European urban areas? An analysis of the effect of socio-economic characteristics and mobility habits. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **172**, 103679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103679

45. Zhang, X., & Cheng, T. (2023). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on multimodal human mobility in London: A perspective of decarbonizing transport. *Geo-Spatial Information Science*, **26**(4), 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2022.2122876

46. Zarabi, Z., Waygood, E. O. D., & Schwanen, T. (2024). Understanding travel mode choice through the lens of COVID-19: A systematic review of pandemic commuters. *Transport Reviews*, **44**(2), 368–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2280190

47. Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2024). COVID-19 and cycling: A review of the literature on changes in cycling levels and government policies from 2019 to
2022. Transport Reviews, 44(2), 299-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.20
23.2205178

48. Qu, T., Gates, T. J., Xu, C., Seguin, D., & Kay, J. (2022). The disparate impact of COVID-19 pandemic on walking and biking behaviors. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, **112**, 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103494

49. Victoriano-Habit, R., & El-Geneidy, A. (2024). Studying the interrelationship between telecommuting during COVID-19, residential local accessibility, and active travel: A panel study in Montréal, Canada. *Transportation*, **51**(3), 1149–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-022-10369-7

50. Al-Akioui, A., & Monzon, A. (2023). Spatial analysis of COVID-19 pandemic impacts on mobility in Madrid region. *Sustainability*, **15**(19), 14259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914259

51. Ceccato, R., Baldassa, A., Rossi, R., & Gastaldi, M. (2022). Potential long-term effects of Covid-19 on telecommuting and environment: An Italian case-study. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, **109**, 103401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103401

52. Goh, H., Choi, G., & Song, Y. (2023). How the COVID-19 pandemic changed travel behaviour? A case study on public bikes in Seoul. *Research in Transportation Economics*, **101**, 101339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2023.101339

53. Sung, H. (2023). Causal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily ridership of public bicycle sharing in Seoul. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, **89**, 104344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104344

54. Tuitjer, L., & Schaefer, K. J. (2025). Immobility and COVID-19: Comparing mobility reduction among socio-demographic groups in a large German city during the pandemic. *Transportation*, **52**(2), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10434-9

55. Theodoridis, C., & Theodoridis, Y. (2021). Sustainable urban mobility in the post-pandemic era (position paper). In *Proceedings of the GIScience Advancing Movement Data Science Workshop (AMD'21), Virtual, 27 September 2021*. Accessed 24 January 2025. https://somayehdodge.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/amd20_paper_5-2.pdf

56. Chatterjee, K., & Crawford, F. (2021). Changing work and work-related travel and the impact of COVID-19. *Built Environment*, **47**(3), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.47.3.336

57. Chalabi, G., & Dia, H. (2024). Telecommuting and travel behaviour: A survey of white-collar employees in Adelaide, Australia. *Sustainability*, **16**(7), 2871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072871

58. Javadinasr, M., Maggasy, T., Mohammadi, M., Mohammadain, K., Rahimi, E., Salon, D., Conway, M. W., Pendyala, R., & Derrible, S. (2022). The long-term effects of COVID-19 on travel behavior in the United States: A panel study on work from home, mode choice, online shopping, and air travel. *Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour*, **90**, 466–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.09.019

59. Rostami, A., Kamjoo, E., Bamney, A., Gupta, N., Savolainen, P. T., & Zockaie, A. (2023). Investigating changes in travel behavior over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. *Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour*, **96**, 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.06.001

60. Wang, X., Kim, S. H., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2023). Teleworking behavior pre-during, and expected post-COVID: Identification and empirical description of trajectory types. *Travel Behaviour and Society*, **33**, 100628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100628

61. Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2022). Australia 6 months after COVID-19 restrictions part 2: The impact of working from home. *Transport Policy*, **128**, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.06.005

62. Olde Kalter, M. J., Geurs, K. T., & Wismans, L. (2021). Post COVID-19 teleworking and car use intentions. Evidence from large scale GPS-tracking and survey data in the Netherlands. *Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives*, **12**, 100498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100498

63. Sweet, M., & Scott, D. M. (2022). Insights into the future of telework in Canada: Modeling the trajectory of telework across a pandemic. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, **87**, 104175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104175

64. Taale, H., Kalter, M. J. O., Haaijer, R., & Damen, C. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 and policy measures on commuting in the Netherlands. *Case Studies on Transport Policy*, **10**(4), 2369–2376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.10.018

65. Asmussen, K. E., Mondal, A., Batur, I., Dirks, A., Pendyala, R. M., & Bhat, C. R. (2024). An investigation of individual-level telework arrangements in the COVID-era. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **179**, 103888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103888

66. Bin, E., Andruetto, C., Susilo, Y., & Pernestål, A. (2021). The trade-off behaviours between virtual and physical activities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic period. *European Transport Research Review*, **13**, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00473-7

67. Bouzaghrane, M. A., Obeid, H., González, M., & Walker, J. (2024). Human mobility reshaped? Deciphering the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on activity patterns, spatial habits, and schedule habits. *EPI Data Science*, **13**(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00463-4

68. Cawood, E. N., Fiorello, D., & Christidis, P. (2023). Mobility patterns after the pandemic: A survey in 20 European cities. *Transportation Research Procedia*, **72**, 611–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.446

69. Chowdhury, A. Z., Titiloye, I., Sarker, M. A. A., & Jin, X. (2024). Exploring unobserved heterogeneity in ICT usage and travel pattern changes as the pandemic subsides: A quasi-longitudinal analysis in Florida. *International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2024.04.010

70. Colaço, R., de Abreu, & Silva, J. (2023). Interactions between online shopping, in-store shopping and weekly travel behavior: An analysis before and in the aftermath of COVID-19 in Lisbon, Portugal. *Transportation Research Record*, **03611981231194628**. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231194628

71. Matson, G., McElroy, S., Lee, Y., & Circella, G. (2023). Longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 impacts on mobility: An early snapshot of the emerging changes in travel behavior. *Transportation Research Record*, **2677**(4), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221090241

72. Shi, H., & Goulias, K. G. (2024). Long-term effects of COVID-19 on time allocation, travel behavior, and shopping habits in the United States. *Journal of Transport & Health*, **34**, 101730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101730

73. Campisi, T., Tesoriere, G., Trouva, M., Papas, T., & Basbas, S. (2022). Impact of teleworking on travel behaviour during the COVID-19 era: The case of Sicily, Italy. *Transportation Research Procedia*, **60**, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.033

74. Ilham, M. A., Fonzone, A., Fountas, G., & Mora, L. (2024). To move or not to move: A review of residential relocation trends after COVID-19. *Cities*, **151**, 105078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105078

75. Balbontin, C., Hensher, D. A., & Beck, M. J. (2024). The influence of working from home and underlying attitudes on the number of commuting and non-commuting trips by workers during 2020 and 2021 pre-and post-lockdown in Australia. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **179**, 103937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103937

76. Cerqueira, E. D. V., Motte-Baumvol, B., Chevallier, L. B., & Bonin, O. (2020). Does working from home reduce CO₂ emissions? An analysis of travel patterns as dictated by workplaces. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, **83**, 102338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102338

77. Faber, R. M., Hamersma, M., Brimaire, J., Kroesen, M., & Molin, E. J. (2024). The relations between working from home and travel behaviour: A panel analysis. *Transportation*, **51**(6), 2173–2197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10401-4

78. Pigalle, E., Aguilera-Belanger, A., & Chevallier, L. B. (2022, June). Télétravail et mobilités: quels changements des activités quotidiennes? In *4èmes Rencontres Francophones Transport-Mobilité (RFTM) 2022* pp. 414–415

79. Zheng, Y., Caros, N. S., Aloisi, J., & Zhao, J. (2023). Examining the interactions between working from home, travel behavior and change in car ownership due to the impact of COVID-19. *Travel Behaviour and Society*, **33**, 100634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100634

80. Belton Chevallier, L., Aguilera, A., Viana Cerqueira, E., Pigalle, E., & Motte-Baumvol, B. (2024). Mapping out the current and ideal weekly distribution of remote work in France after COVID-19. *International Journal of Sustainable Transportation*, **18**(11), 962–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2024.2425276

81. Ton, D., Arendsen, K., De Bruyn, M., Severens, V., Van Hagen, M., Van Oort, N., & Duives, D. (2022). Teleworking during COVID-19 in the Netherlands: Understanding behaviour, attitudes, and future intentions of train travellers. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, **159**, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.019

82. Brůhová Foltýnová, H., & Brůha, J. (2024). Expected long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel behaviour and online activities: Evidence from a Czech panel survey. *Travel Behaviour and Society*, **34**, 100685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100685

83. Kroesen, M., Le, H. T., De Vos, J., Ton, D., & de Bruyn, M. (2023). Revealing latent trajectories of (intended) train travel during and after COVID-19. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, **124**, 103952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103952

84. Cano-Leiva, J., Gomez, J., Alves, G. F., & Vassallo, J. M. (2024). How has COVID-19 changed individuals' e-commerce and shopping mobility habits? Evidence
from Madrid region. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, 190, 104295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104295

85. Merlhiot, G., Le Boennec, R., Roger, S., Métayer, N., Bueno-García, M., & Coeugnet, S. (2021, June). Les impacts de la crise sanitaire sur les habitudes de déplacement: premiers enseignements en France. In *3èmes Rencontres Francophones Transport Mobilité (RFTM) 2021*

86. Tiznado-Aitken, I., Palm, M., & Farber, S. (2024). Segmenting transit ridership: From crisis to opportunity. *Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice*, 190, 104239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104239

87. Harrington, D. M., & Hadjiconstantinou, M. (2022). Changes in commuting behaviours in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. *Journal of Transport & Health*, 24, 101313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101313

88. Myftiu, J., Gigliarano, C., Maggi, E., & Scagni, A. (2024). University commuting during the COVID-19 pandemic: Changes in travel behaviour and mode preferences. *Research in Transportation Business & Management*, 53, 101091. https://doi.org/10.117/03611981221145133

89. Loa, P., & Habib, K. N. (2023). Identifying the determinants of anticipated post-pandemic mode choices in the greater Toronto area: A stated preference study. *Transportation Research Record*, 2677(6), 199-217. https://doi.org/10.117/03611981221145133

90. Delbosc, A., & McCarthy, L. (2021). Pushed back, pulled forward: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on young adults' life plans and future mobility. *Transport Policy*, 107, 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpol.2021.04.018

91. Eliasson, J. (2022). Will we travel less after the pandemic? *Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives*, 13, 100509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100509

92. Gim, T. H. T., & Park, Y. (2024). Influences of COVID-19 pandemic on travel patterns across past, present, and future. *International Journal of Urban Sciences*, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2024.2356533

93. Nikiforiadis, A., Mitropoulos, L., Kopelias, P., Basbas, S., Stamatiadis, N., & Kroustali, S. (2022). Exploring mobility pattern changes between before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown periods for young adults. *Cities*, 125, 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103662

94. Nikolaeva, A., Lin, Y. T., Nello-Deakin, S., Rubin, O., & von Schönfeld, K. C. (2023). Living without commuting: Experiences of a less mobile life under COVID-19. *Mobilities*, 18(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2022.2072231

95. Yılmaz, Ş., Findik, G., & Öz, B. (2024). A qualitative study on transportation experiences of public transport users in Türkiye during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour*, 100, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.11.009

96. Colaço, R., Kappler, L. B., & Silva, J. D. A. (2024). Pandemic immobilities and consequences for commuting: Implications for mobility of COVID-19 mandatory telecommuting. *Journal of Transport Geography*, 114, 103780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103780

97. Hoff, S. C., Böcker, L., & Wethal, U. B. (2024). Post-/pandemic mobility adaptations and well-being in Oslo, Norway: A longitudinal mixed-methods

approach. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, 129, 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104147

98. Kokkola, M., Nikolaeva, A., & Brömmelstroet, M. T. (2023). Missed connections? Everyday mobility experiences and the sociability of public transport in Amsterdam during COVID-19. *Social & Cultural Geography*, 24(10), 1693-1712. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2022.2084148

99. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? *Qualitative Health Research*, 27(4), 591-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

100. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. *Social Science & Medicine*, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

101. Squire, C. M., Giombi, K. C., Rupert, D. J., Amoozegar, J., & Williams, P. (2024). Determining an appropriate sample size for qualitative interviews to achieve true and near code saturation: Secondary analysis of data. *Journal of Medical Internet Research*, 26, e52998. https://doi.org/10.2196/52998

102. Lizana, M., Choudhury, C., & Watling, D. (2024). Analysing the impacts of individual-level factors on public transport usage during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis. *Transport Reviews*, 44(2), 434-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2295967

103. Godzinski, A., & Taszka, S. (2024). Télétravailler davantage: quel effet sur les émissions de CO2 des déplacements domicile-travail? *Théma Essentiel transports, Juillet 2024, CGDD*. Accessed 1 April 2025 https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/publications/thema_essentiel_32_teletevrailler_davantage_quel_effet sur les émissions_de_c02_des_de_lacements_domicile_travail_juillet2024_0.pdf

104. Hall, C. E., Brooks, S. K., Mills, F., Greenberg, N., & Weston, D. (2024). Experiences of working from home: Umbrella review. *Journal of Occupational Health*, 66(1), uiad013. https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiad013

105. Askenazy, P., Di Nallo, U., Ramajo, I., & Thiounn, C. (2025). Télétravail et présentiel: le travail hybride, une pratique désormais ancrée dans les entreprises. *INSEE analyses n°105, mars 2025*. INSEE. Accessed 1 April 2025 https://www.ins.ee.fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/8379375/ia105.pdf

106. CEREMA. (2024). *Ruptures et mutations: quel bilan de la crise sanitaire de la Covid-19 sur les mobilités?*. Accessed 4 December 2024 https://www.cerema.fr/fr/actualites/ruptures-mutations-quel-bilan-crise-sanitaire-covid-19

107. Hasiak, S. (2023). Public transport mobility and COVID-19 health crisis: What changes in students' mobility behaviors? *Transportation Research Procedia*, 72, 1531-1538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.620

## Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.