Factors associated with commuting stress among tertiary education employees in Georgetown, Guyana

Introduction

The majority of contemporary urbanisation, a complex social and economic process that occurs through various forms of urban growth and expansion drastically altering the social and physical environment in which people live and operate, is occurring in low and middle income countries(LMICS).[1,2] Not surprisingly these changes can have a significant impact on both physical and mental health on urban inhabitants.[3–5] Increased access to modern technology in the urban environment has induced a fast-paced life which is also characterised by a heavy workload, fast paced lifestyle, communication, quick decisions, multitasking, pressure to be active on social media, and high mobility, all of which have a direct impact on people’s health [6,7] however for the purposes of this paper, there is going to be an exclusive focus on high mobility.

The majority of mobility in the urban environment consists of the daily commute which appears to be intensifying in both the developed and developing world. This intensification is a result of an increase in both the frequency and length/duration of commutes to work.[8,9] There is a significant body of literature that examines how the increased intensity of commuting to and from work can have detrimental effects on health. Impacts of lengthy commutes include an increased incidence of respiratory illnesses, muscular injuries, and reduced physical activity along with the associated undesirable health outcomes.[10–14] Additionally, an emerging body of scholarship reveals that a lengthy commute to workplaces is also associated with poor mental health which may be expressed as stress.[15–19] The commute is more often than not a daily activity, thus if it is stressful, a person may be placed under stress on an ongoing basis.

Stress is the physiological and psychological response to a situation that a person has perceived to be negative and has made a determination that they do not have the resources to address the problem, accounting for all other factors.[20–22] In addition to being an indicator of poor mental health, chronic exposure to stress is also associated with many chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCDs) including but not limited to diabetes, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular pathologies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and malignant neoplasms.[23] CNCDs continue to be a significant public health concern globally, accounting for most of the reported global mortality and morbidity with the global burden rapidly shifting towards the LMICs.[24–26] Furthermore, long-term exposure to stress is more likely to be in a state of constant anger and irritability, leading to strained personal relationships which can further lead to to potential isolation, anxiety, and depression. If it is severe enough, it may even lead to suicide.[27–29]

The question therefore becomes who is more likely to experience commuter stress and there have been a few studies that attempted to examine these factors. For example, women are more likely to experience commuter stress than men.[30–34] Similarly, active commuters are less likely to experience stress than passive commuters.[35–37] The issue however with the majority of these studies either examined only the intrinsic factors (factors related to the commuter) or the extrinsic factors (factors related to the commute process). Also, almost all of the previous studies were conducted in economies that were considered fully urbanised (that is, more than 50% of their population live in urban agglomerations) and there has been a dearth of studies that examined this issue in economies that are in transition to urbanisation. Also, the majority of previous studies used only Likert or binary scales to examine stress experienced during the commute. They did not focus on the physical and psychological symptoms of stress. In order to address the preceding gaps identified, this paper aims to to identify what factors (both extrinsic and intrinsic) are associated with experiencing stress while engaged in the daily commute using in an emerging economy that has less than 50% of its population living in an urban environment using symptomatology to measure commuting stress.

The next section of this paper detailed the methods This is followed by the presentation of the results which consists of the presentation of the sample characteristics, the individual risk factor assessment and regression models that include all of the factors that were tested. These results and the implications with respect to the literature are then discussed in the next section after which some final conclusions along with some recommendations are made.

Method

Results

Out of 505 questionnaires initially distributed, several were excluded from the final analysis for various reasons: 22 had over 10% of questions unanswered; 24 were completed by individuals working fewer than 30 hours per week; 2 were filled out by minors under the age of 18; 29 were from respondents who neither worked or lived in the study area; and 1 came from a remote worker. This left 427 valid questionnaires for final analysis There participants were relatively diverse with respect to gender, age, relationship status, ethnicity, religious affiliation, educational levels, length of commute,total life stress levels and where they resided. Table 1 shows the nominal characteristics of the participants included in the final analysis while table 2 provides a summary of the numerical characteristics.

The three most frequently reported symptoms associated with stress while engaged in the daily commute are complaints about feeling fatigued, excessive sweating and feeling hassled.

The four least commonly reported symptoms are feelings of indigestion, chest pains, dizziness and bowel dysfunction. Figure 1 shows the distribution of all the symptoms examined in this study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Distribution of symptoms experienced by respondents

The results in Table 3 shows that after controlling for resilience, coping, perceived life stress, satisfaction with job, income levels and educational attainment, commuting stress levels measured using symptomatology were significantly higher in females, persons who used public means of transportation, persons with longer commute times and persons who were not satisfied with commute infrastructure. Age and location of residence appear to have no effect on the level of commuting stress as measured using symptomatology.

Discussion

The main aim of this paper was to determine what factors were associated with experiencing commuter stress during the daily commute using symptomatology. After controlling for resiliency, coping, perception of job, total life stress, income levels and education all of which can contribute to how persons perceive hassles in their lives, the regression model demonstrated that females, persons who used public transportation, persons who have longer commute times and persons who are less satisfied with the commute infrastructure are more likely to report that they experience symptoms associated with stress while engaged in the daily commute compared to males, persons who use private transportation, persons who have shorter commute times and persons who are more satisfied with the commute infrastructure respectively. Once all controlled variables were accounted for, it appears that for this study population, age, where they live and whether or not they actively or passively commuted did not have any meaningful impact on whether they would report if they experienced stress associated symptoms while engaged in the daily commute. These findings are for the most part consistent with what is already published in the literature that used alternative methods of measuring commuting stress. In the present study, the non-association that was found between the active/non-active commuting and commuting stress was discordant with previous studies, however this could be explained due to sampling inefficiencies which resulted in the majority of the sample being users of non-active commuting modes.

The findings of this study are limited to persons who are employed with the University of Guyana or one of its affiliate organisations/institutions for at least 6 months and have to commute to work on a daily basis. Despite these limitations however, the findings of this study add to the existing knowledge in a few ways. Firstly, this appears to be the first time an attempt was made to examine all of the factors (both the intrinsic and extrinsic) that could potentially contribute to commuting stress in a single study. Previous research tended to only focus on a few of the factors and there was very little consistency across studies as to how commuting stress should be measured. Secondly, for the most part, commuting stress has been measured either by using electrodermal activity or a single Likert-point scale, however, this study used symptomatology. The only other study that used symptomology to assess commuting stress was conducted by Rezapour et al., (2021), however, the focus was narrow with respect to both the factors examined and the symptoms used when compared to the present study. Further, Rezaour treated each symptom as an individual outcome whereas in the present study, all of the symptoms were reduced to a single value that factored in any positive emotions that may occur on the daily commute to give a more holistic view of the stress experienced on the daily commute. The third way in which this paper contributes to the literature is the fact that symptomology could now potentially be used as an alternative method for measuring commuting stress as the findings of this study for the most part replicate that of what exists in the available literature. Furthermore, in doing so, this study strengthens the findings in the previously published studies as the findings are similar even when using a different method to measure the outcome variables. The fourth way in which this study contributes to the existing literature is that it expands the list of factors that can be considered when thinking about commuting stress. The two novel factors that emerged in this study are people’s perception of their jobs, their satisfaction with the commute infrastructure in place, and whether or not they commute via public or private means. The fifth and final way in which this paper contributes to the literature is that it adds to the geographical diversity in which this issue was examined. A cursory review of previous papers would reveal that the studies which have examined this issue have been skewed towards North America, Europe and Asia, where there has been heavy investment in public transportation, with little to no studies emanating from South and Central America, the Caribbean and Africa. Furthermore, the majority of studies that are available were conducted in economies that have completed the urban transition, that is more than 50% of their total population lives in urban areas. At the time of data collection, Guyana, located in South America is an economy in transition with less than 50% of its population living in urban agglomerations.

Conclusions

We found that both the intrinsic and the extrinsic factors interact in complex ways to influence the overall stress experienced during commuting. Understanding these can help in designing interventions to make commuting a less stressful experience, whether it involves improving public transit systems, encouraging flexible work arrangements, or promoting stress management strategies for individuals. Interventions such as these can significantly reduce their exposure to stress which stands as an independent risk factor for CNCDs that continues to plague both the developed and developing world. As a policy response following three measures can be implemented. First, at a personal level, health care providers could be provided with some tools that they can use on their own to reduce stressful situations. For example, one could provide mindfulness - often used as a therapeutic technique to manage stress and promote mental wellbeing. It is a practice that involves focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations. [53–54]

The second, establishment of guidelines to ensure that the infrastructure that is being used by commuters is mentally friendly, refers to physical infrastructure designed and constructed with an understanding of the psychological and emotional impact it has on individuals who interact with it. It aims to create an environment that promotes mental well-being and reduces stress levels. City planners and transportation officials can create an infrastructure that supports mental well-being and reduces the stress associated with commuting. In the long run, mentally friendly infrastructure can contribute to happier, healthier, and more productive communities. This will require high-level interventions as there may be a need to make the public transportation system less chaotic, ensure that there is more greenery along major thoroughfares, and just simply ensure that the commuting infrastructure such as roads and footpaths are maintained.

The third and final way that is proposed to reduce the stress on the daily commute for organisations is to ensure that their employees are meaningfully engaged. An employee who is meaningfully engaged at work is deeply connected and committed to their role, their team, and their organisation. They find their work fulfilling and significant, feel that they are making a valuable contribution, and are motivated to do their best. To foster meaningful engagement, organisations need to provide supportive leadership, opportunities for growth and development, a positive work environment, and recognition for contributions and achievements. While everyone’s circumstances are different, and a range of factors can influence commute-related stress, a positive relationship with their work and their workplace can indeed help mitigate stress during their commute. For example, when employees find meaning in their work and feel valued in their roles, they may experience less anxiety about workplace challenges or pressures. This positive mindset can extend to their commute, making them less stressed about potential delays or complications on their way to work. Similarly, employees who are empowered to manage their workloads effectively may have more flexible schedules, allowing them to avoid peak commuting times or opt for less stressful modes of transport. In an organisation that nurtures meaningful engagement, the employee is likely to handle commuting stresses more effectively, viewing them as minor inconveniences which can contribute to an overall reduction in stress, both within and outside of work