Digital multilocality: New modes of working between center and periphery in Switzerland

Bürgin, Reto; Mayer, Heike; Kashev, Alexander; Haug, S.

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.024

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings reveal that usage issues can occur, aligning with Cowie et al (2019) showing the vulnerability of a hub in the rural. By offering a place to innovate and collaborate, it was even the aim that our rural digital hub pilot helped to tackle socio-economic regional struggles such as youth outmigration (Bürgin et al, 2021). In the end, the established hub of our case study had a wide-ranging target group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A successful example is the establishment of a high-technology sector in Twente, stimulated by the regional university (Benneworth and Hospers, 2007). Remote and socio-economically struggling regions have also recognised the potential of digital technologies to attract location-independent workers (Bürgin et al, 2021).…”

Section: Hub Characteristics and Their Appearance In Rural Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hubs, hopes and high stakes for a relatively disadvantaged low tech place

Rundel

Salemink

2021

Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition to a digitally inclusive and knowledge-based rural society can be challenging. Digital hubs are often proposed as a way of overcoming digital exclusion in rural and small-town contexts, yet studies into how to set up such a hub in these challenging contexts are scarce. While hubs are usually associated with an urban environment, this case study deals with the development of a rural digital hub over several years in a small town in East Groningen (NL). In the context of an Interreg project, observations during project meetings, in-depth interviews and document analysis were conducted to closely monitor the hub’s development process. Initially, the hub initiators aimed at stimulating business activities and innovation linked to digital technologies. Thereby, an originally urban digital hub concept was copied into a rural context without a rural translation. Along the way, they were forced to adapt and scale down the scope of the project while at the same time, a broader target group had to be formulated. Moreover, the municipality lacked an overarching digital strategy, which compromised demand aggregation and supply synchronisation – two essential ingredients for rural digital hubs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hub Characteristics and Their Appearance In Rural Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hubs, hopes and high stakes for a relatively disadvantaged low tech place

Rundel

Salemink

2021

Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six analysed papers have discussed that working in a CSs has an impact on the work-life balance, creativity or productivity, health, and well-being of the users (B€ urgin et al, 2021;H€ olzel and de Vries, 2021;Mariotti et al, 2021a, b; Katon an e Kov acs and Zolt an, 2017; Bouncken et al, 2020;Buksh and Mouat, 2015). Two studies assessed the effects in terms of work-life balance and creativity or productivity as an outcome of the usage of a CS (B€ urgin et al, 2021;H€ olzel and de Vries, 2021). B€ urgin et al (2021) found positive associations between the work-life balance and working in the periphery.…”

Section: Effects On Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides the positive effects, four studies have also underlined the risks related to a successful implementation of CSs in rural areas (Tremblay and Scallerez, 2020; Katon an e Kov acs and Zolt an, 2017; Mariotti et al, 2021a, b;B€ urgin et al, 2021). Tremblay and Scallerez (2020) found that CSs located in rural areas with few self-employed workers could suffer from low demand for space.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Research Linesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following this perspective, it is possible to see further benefits for other stakeholders, for example, the ability to use the spaces in a more cost-efficient just time manner in the case of independent creative or knowledge workers or even public and private organizations (Ross and Ressia, 2015). Based on a corporate perspective, the complementary use of coworking spaces in rural areas could enhance the well-being (B€ urgin et al, 2021;H€ olzel and de Vries, 2021;Mariotti et al, 2021a, b;Katon an e Kov acs and Zolt an, 2017;Bouncken et al, 2020;Buksh and Mouat, 2015) of the employees and reduce the required office space per employee in expensive metropolitan regions and thus lower the rental costs (Yang et al, 2019;Soroui, 2020). In this regard, a more recent study by Tomaz et al (2021) depicts that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the flows of creative workers to rural areas can be explained by factors including lower housing prices, the availability of large houses and easy access to major urban centres.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Research Linesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic literature review of the effects of coworking spaces on the socio-cultural and economic conditions in peripheral and rural areas

Vogl

Akhavan

2022

JPIF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe literature on coworking spaces (CSs) is growing fast; notably, this topic has attracted a wide range of contributions from various disciplines during the past years. Although CSs first appeared in major cities, small towns and rural areas are also becoming attractive. To date, no literature review has systematically studied the effects of such collaborative-flexible new working spaces proliferating in non-urban areas. Therefore, this paper aims to present a systematic literature review about the effects of coworking spaces located in peripheral and rural areas.Design/methodology/approachThe methodological approach is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, also known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study provides different aspects and identifies indicators from various cross-studies published in 10 years (2011–2021).FindingsResults show that, in the past decade, Europe has recorded the highest number of publications on the topic of coworking spaces (CSs); the main research focus was on spatial planning. CSs foster communities of specialized and high-skilled workers, attract businesses and venture capitalists and may accelerate urban revitalisation processes. The regeneration of spaces can positively affect the value of commercial properties in the vicinity and attract developers. Moreover, by establishing communities and networks beyond the working life, coworking was found to reduce depopulation and even foster the influx of non-urban areas.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study can be transferred to policymakers to be considered in designing tailored policies in non-urban areas and also places-that-don't matter.Originality/valueBy date, this study is the first attempt to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the effects of coworking spaces in peripheral and rural areas. This is important since this typology of flexible-collaborative working space is gaining public attention, especially during the pandemic and the development of such spaces in non-urban areas.

show abstract

Systematic Literature Review of Location Factors of Coworking Spaces in Non-urban Areas

Vogl,

Sinitsyna,

Micek

2024

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global COVID-19 pandemic fostered the relocation of remote workers and freelancers from metropolitan to non-urban areas. During the first waves of the pandemic, regional migration flows affected the local demand for flexible working spaces in non-urban regions and attracted the interest of the local stakeholders. As a result, a growing number of coworking spaces (CSs) were established in non-urban areas. Yet the scientific discussion on what determines the location of non-urban CSs remains fragmented and has not been analyzed systematically. This chapter presents a systematic literature review (PRISMA) of recent evidence (2010–2022 publication period) on the topic of location factors of CSs in non-urban (rural) areas, and it outlines the main characteristics of CSs’ locations. Analysis is performed on the macro, meso, and micro spatial scales and, in addition, the COVID-19 factor is taken into account. The results of our study indicate that since 2010, the most frequently and continuously analyzed location factors have been those at the regional (meso) level. Secondly, the micro and macro levels of analysis have increasingly gained scientific interest since 2020 but have remained under-researched. Finally, our results show a gradually increasing frequency of occurrences of the COVID-19 factor, which since 2021 has been the most discussed location factor.

show abstract

Digital multilocality: New modes of working between center and periphery in Switzerland

Cited by 26 publications

References 36 publications

Hubs, hopes and high stakes for a relatively disadvantaged low tech place

Hubs, hopes and high stakes for a relatively disadvantaged low tech place

A systematic literature review of the effects of coworking spaces on the socio-cultural and economic conditions in peripheral and rural areas

Systematic Literature Review of Location Factors of Coworking Spaces in Non-urban Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About