T.R. Vogl
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
4 records found
1
Coworking space users
A literature review on characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences in urban and non-urban areas
Purpose
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users. ...
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users. ...
Purpose
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users.
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users.
Tourism, coworking spaces, and knowledge services
Urban-rural co-agglomeration as local innovation proxy
This paper examines how interactions between knowledge-intensive services (KIS) firms and coworking spaces (CWS) in different types of tourist subregions may shape local innovation ecosystems (LIE) in Bavaria. By differentiating between types of tourism—cultural, sports, regional, and international—and contrasting urban and non-urban contexts, the study investigates how tourism environments influence the presence and configuration of CWS in the context of LIE. Using K-density functions and regional firm-level data, the analysis reveals that non-urban CWS are often located in areas characterized by international, sports and cultural tourism, attracting digital nomads and working tourists. While urban CWS show stronger co-location with knowledge-intensive services (KIS), in peripheral areas, tourism emerges as a key factor associated with CWS development. The findings suggest that tourism-oriented CWS may foster local innovation ecosystems, calling for policies that connect tourism planning with digital infrastructure and support for mobile workers.
...
This paper examines how interactions between knowledge-intensive services (KIS) firms and coworking spaces (CWS) in different types of tourist subregions may shape local innovation ecosystems (LIE) in Bavaria. By differentiating between types of tourism—cultural, sports, regional, and international—and contrasting urban and non-urban contexts, the study investigates how tourism environments influence the presence and configuration of CWS in the context of LIE. Using K-density functions and regional firm-level data, the analysis reveals that non-urban CWS are often located in areas characterized by international, sports and cultural tourism, attracting digital nomads and working tourists. While urban CWS show stronger co-location with knowledge-intensive services (KIS), in peripheral areas, tourism emerges as a key factor associated with CWS development. The findings suggest that tourism-oriented CWS may foster local innovation ecosystems, calling for policies that connect tourism planning with digital infrastructure and support for mobile workers.
Unveiling Locational Synergies in Urban and Non-Urban Areas
Exploring the Colocation Patterns of Coworking Spaces and Knowledge-Intensive Services
This study examines the colocation patterns of coworking spaces (CWSs) and knowledge-intensive services (KIS) in Bavaria, Germany. Using K-density functions, the findings reveal that urban areas foster CWS development through economic diversity and interdisciplinary knowledge environments. Tailored regional policies, including incentives for operators, investments in digital infrastructure and initiatives to attract digital nomads, are recommended to promote CWSs in urban and non-urban areas. These insights emphasise the role of CWSs in driving innovation, economic resilience and sustainable work practices, providing valuable guidance for policymakers and stakeholders in diverse regional settings.
...
This study examines the colocation patterns of coworking spaces (CWSs) and knowledge-intensive services (KIS) in Bavaria, Germany. Using K-density functions, the findings reveal that urban areas foster CWS development through economic diversity and interdisciplinary knowledge environments. Tailored regional policies, including incentives for operators, investments in digital infrastructure and initiatives to attract digital nomads, are recommended to promote CWSs in urban and non-urban areas. These insights emphasise the role of CWSs in driving innovation, economic resilience and sustainable work practices, providing valuable guidance for policymakers and stakeholders in diverse regional settings.
Examining location factors of coworking spaces in peripheral areas
An empirical study of rural coworking in Germany
Purpose
The coworking spatial model has evolved from predominantly metropolitan settings to include more nuanced, fewer core sites in recent years. CSs have emerged in peripheral areas that enjoy privileges in terms of housing and office markets. However, there is still limited insight into the location factors driving the popularity of CSs in peripheral areas. Hence, the study aims to investigate location determinants of coworking spaces in peripheral areas with emphasis on the significance of living conditions, real market characteristics and tourism development.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, an urban hierarchy perspective is applied to statistically test the potential demographic, economic, infrastructural, tourism-related and real estate market factors influencing the presence of coworking spaces (CSs).
Findings
The results reveal that areas with CSs demonstrate higher housing prices, a higher influx of tourists and lower living area per inhabitant. The authors argue that CSs are attracted by a vibrant tourism sector and housing market and vice versa. Moreover, it is argued that the location factors for rural CSs partly differ from urban CSs.
Originality/value
The research has practical implications for the location decisions of corporates and operators and enhances theoretical understanding of CSs in non-urban areas and their location patterns. ...
The coworking spatial model has evolved from predominantly metropolitan settings to include more nuanced, fewer core sites in recent years. CSs have emerged in peripheral areas that enjoy privileges in terms of housing and office markets. However, there is still limited insight into the location factors driving the popularity of CSs in peripheral areas. Hence, the study aims to investigate location determinants of coworking spaces in peripheral areas with emphasis on the significance of living conditions, real market characteristics and tourism development.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, an urban hierarchy perspective is applied to statistically test the potential demographic, economic, infrastructural, tourism-related and real estate market factors influencing the presence of coworking spaces (CSs).
Findings
The results reveal that areas with CSs demonstrate higher housing prices, a higher influx of tourists and lower living area per inhabitant. The authors argue that CSs are attracted by a vibrant tourism sector and housing market and vice versa. Moreover, it is argued that the location factors for rural CSs partly differ from urban CSs.
Originality/value
The research has practical implications for the location decisions of corporates and operators and enhances theoretical understanding of CSs in non-urban areas and their location patterns. ...
Purpose
The coworking spatial model has evolved from predominantly metropolitan settings to include more nuanced, fewer core sites in recent years. CSs have emerged in peripheral areas that enjoy privileges in terms of housing and office markets. However, there is still limited insight into the location factors driving the popularity of CSs in peripheral areas. Hence, the study aims to investigate location determinants of coworking spaces in peripheral areas with emphasis on the significance of living conditions, real market characteristics and tourism development.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, an urban hierarchy perspective is applied to statistically test the potential demographic, economic, infrastructural, tourism-related and real estate market factors influencing the presence of coworking spaces (CSs).
Findings
The results reveal that areas with CSs demonstrate higher housing prices, a higher influx of tourists and lower living area per inhabitant. The authors argue that CSs are attracted by a vibrant tourism sector and housing market and vice versa. Moreover, it is argued that the location factors for rural CSs partly differ from urban CSs.
Originality/value
The research has practical implications for the location decisions of corporates and operators and enhances theoretical understanding of CSs in non-urban areas and their location patterns.
The coworking spatial model has evolved from predominantly metropolitan settings to include more nuanced, fewer core sites in recent years. CSs have emerged in peripheral areas that enjoy privileges in terms of housing and office markets. However, there is still limited insight into the location factors driving the popularity of CSs in peripheral areas. Hence, the study aims to investigate location determinants of coworking spaces in peripheral areas with emphasis on the significance of living conditions, real market characteristics and tourism development.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, an urban hierarchy perspective is applied to statistically test the potential demographic, economic, infrastructural, tourism-related and real estate market factors influencing the presence of coworking spaces (CSs).
Findings
The results reveal that areas with CSs demonstrate higher housing prices, a higher influx of tourists and lower living area per inhabitant. The authors argue that CSs are attracted by a vibrant tourism sector and housing market and vice versa. Moreover, it is argued that the location factors for rural CSs partly differ from urban CSs.
Originality/value
The research has practical implications for the location decisions of corporates and operators and enhances theoretical understanding of CSs in non-urban areas and their location patterns.