The purpose of this study was to investigate how people in Skellefteå municipality transport behavior looks like. Skellefteå municipality is working on developing the traffic planning, but are the improvement opportunities similar to that the people in this study put forward. To investigate what limitations and other underlying factors there are that can influence these people's choice of means of transport. To see if these people could consider switching to using more environmentally friendly means of transport during their daily commute. Since Skellefteå municipality's goal is that car use within the municipality should not continue to relatively increase. To investigate and analyze this, seven respondents from the municipality of Skellefteå were interviewed, what their daily commutes look like and their experiences and opinions within the various transport options. The results show that depending on the stage of life the respondents are in, there are more or fewer restrictions on their daily commute. The people in the study also faced limitations in their daily commute that could be explained by restrictions in time geography that affected their movement between their home and work. With all aspects in mind, changing means of transport within the daily commute is seen as complex. Currently, the people in this study do not see public transport in Skellefteå as an alternative that would replace the car within their daily commute, as public transport does not meet their needs. But to use a bicycle within its daily commute as more likely, as the measures presented by the municipality and the improvement opportunities presented by the respondents in this study agreed to some extent. The development that the municipality of Skellefteå is carrying out in pedestrian and bicycle traffic could lead to these respondents switching to a certain extent using bicycles as an alternative means of transport within their daily commute. Nudging is used to see how the municipality of Skellefteå works with measures that could promote traffic behavior among the municipality's residents, which could result in more environmentally friendly passenger traffic.

The Western Australian (WA) mining industry directly employs approximately 56,000 people. Almost half work Fly-in/Fly-out commute arrangements (FIFO, e.g. employees living in a city are flown to a remote worksite where they live and work during their work roster) and approximately half work more than 50 hours per week, on average. There are many anecdotal claims that FIFO has negative impacts on WA mining employees, leading to an elevated risk of high stress levels, depression, binge drinking, recreational drug use and relationship break-ups. Previous studies found FIFO can be stressful, and have negative impacts on WA employees 'and partners' lifestyles and relationships. This project investigated the long-term (Study One) and short-term (Study Two) impacts of FIFO and extended working hours on a representative sample of WA FIFO mining employees and partners. In Study One, a total of 222 FIFO and Daily Commute (DC) mining employees and partners completed an anonymous questionnaire investigating long-term impacts on work satisfaction, lifestyle, relationships and health. A subgroup of 32 Study One FIFO employees and partners also participated in Study Two; a detailed study of the short-term impacts of FIFO and extended working hours and how these impacts fluctuate in intensity during the mining roster. Study Two participants completed a diary and provided saliva samples each day throughout a complete mining roster. The main findings of the study were that FIFO and extended working hours had negative impacts on employees work satisfaction and FIFO was frequently reported to be disruptive to employees 'and partners' lifestyle, in the long-term. However, FIFO and extended working hours did not lead to poor quality relationships, high stress levels or poor health, on average in the long-term; there were generally no significant differences in these characteristics between FIFO and DC employees, or between the FIFO sample and the wider community. There were minor differences between FIFO and DC employees in long-term health characteristics, and Study One employees had similar, or in some cases poorer health outcomes than other community samples.