## 4 Results
### Energy Consumption and Emissions Avoided from Private Vehicles  
The methodology described in Section 2.2 was applied to each of the workers who use a private motorised vehicle for at least part of the home-work route, to estimate the energy and emission savings that can be associated to remote working. A first interesting aspect to highlight is the contribution of the car in multimodal trips, which is often neglected in the literature. In our sample, of the total 1270 workers that used to commute at least partially by car, one-third was using it as part of multimodal combinations. In this case, they travelled on average 21 km per day by car, compared to an average of 43 km for those travelling exclusively by car. This finding suggests that the contribution of car usage as part of a multimodal trip should not be neglected when accounting for total commuting impacts. For this reason, we included also partial car trips in our analysis of avoided emissions. Table 5 reports some indicators in the four cities for remote workers that would have exclusively or partially used private cars for commute. The average number of days worked remotely per week varies from 1.7 for Trento to 2.8 for Rome, and so do the average distance that would have been travelled by car, from 27.7 km/day in Turin to 40.9 km/day in Trento. Daily avoided carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption also vary accordingly. Considering the entire sample of the four cities, the average respondent that commutes at least partially by car works remotely 2.1 days per week, avoiding approximately 35 km per day of car travel, which in turn leads to 6 kg/day of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions savings and 85 MJ/day of fuel savings. Considering average annual figures, based on 48 working weeks (to account for holidays), each remote worker saves around 600 kg of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and 8.6 GJ of fuel. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Modes for Daily Needs** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Remote Working**} \\ \hline
**Company Work-Place** & **Foot/Bike** & **Public Transport \& Rail** & **car/2-Wheeler** \\ \hline foot/bike & 81.0\% & 6.3\% & 12.7\% \\ \hline public transport \& rail & 48.7\% & 18.1\% & 33.2\% \\ \hline car/2-wheeler & 33.5\% & 1.8\% & 64.7\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Frequencies of the modes of travel for daily needs when working remotely and at office. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**City** & **Workers** & **Remote Days per Week** & **Avoided Distance by Car (km/day)** & **Avoided CO\({}_{2}\) Emissions (kg/day)** & **Avoided Fuel Consumption (MJ/day)** \\ \hline Bologna & 371 & 2.3 & 34.1 & 5.9 & 86.3 \\ Rome & 281 & 2.8 & 39.2 & 6.8 & 95.0 \\ Trento & 311 & 1.7 & 40.9 & 6.5 & 90.9 \\ Turin & 306 & 1.8 & 27.7 & 4.8 & 68.0 \\ \hline Total & 1269 & 2.1 & 35.4 & 6.0 & 85.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Selected average indicators for remote workers travelling exclusively or partially by car for each city. The CO2 emission estimates per capita for the workers commuting partially or exclusively by private cars can be extended to the entire group of respondents, to compare average figures with the literature. In the cities considered in this study, each remote worker leads to an average emissions saving of 3.8 kg of CO2 per day. This remains a conservative estimation, because only emissions of private transport means have been computed. A study for the US [67] estimated that approximately 3.9 million Americans telecommuted in 2014 and that telecommuters saved between 17 and 23 kg of CO2 emissions a day. The higher values for the US context are often explained by average longer commuting routes and higher specific emissions due to higher car sizes and lower efficiency. A recent study by the International Energy Agency [68] estimates the net CO2 emissions savings from remote working in different areas, including both transport savings and additional household energy consumption.