Photo: Yadid Levy / norden.org

Though remote working practices had already been introduced through the expansion of ICTs before the pandemic, the continuation of remote work at higher levels since COVID-19 has reframed how work takes place across space and time. There are a variety of terms and working models that emphasise where remote work happens, and the lifestyles attached to these particular and/or fluid sites of employment activity (see Box 7). Even during the pandemic, survey results indicated that employees used a variety of locations for work activities outside of the employer’s office or their own home (Eurofound, 2020). These alternative opportunities have been used to combat negative effects of working from home (e.g., isolation, home-based distractions, poor internet connection), but there is room for discussion regarding how they are enabled through spatial planning, and to whom and by what modes they are accessible.

A co-working space is “a kind of office space where people work at the same location on their own project or tasks and have the opportunity to network, socialize, or cooperate with their ‘space mates’” (Hölzel & de Vries, 2021, 4). Distinct from other remote working practices, co-working implies collaborative efforts among other colleagues from the same or different organisations in a space designated for work-related activities (as opposed to, for example, the home, a café, or a public library). Some larger employers may have their own designated co-working spaces, or remote employees and freelance workers may independently seek out co-working spaces.

Several new business models have developed out of this form of remote work, relying on repeated and regular visits from employees to rent space for temporary use. Examples such as Regus, WeWork, and Convendum are now also paralleled by cafés offering co-working subscriptions. Other online “matchmaking” platforms such as Workaround

https://workaround.io/se/en

have emerged in the past decade, within the Nordic context as well as elsewhere, to connect remote workers and office spaces, thereby supplying both companies with the opportunity to profit from underutilised space and workers to benefit by renting out the resourced spaces they require. Other related terms include telecommuting centres.

In the recent academic literature, several researchers refer to third places as spaces which employees have repurposed for remote work. For example, Li et al. (2024) use third places as a categorisation of one location in which remote workers choose to work (including cafés, tea houses, libraries, community centres, bookstores, and co-working spaces).

The idea of the “third place” was first described in Ray Oldenburg’s 1989 seminal work evaluating the problem of place in America. In his critique on the lack of vibrant public life, he highlights the importance of “public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg, 1999, 16), naming them “third places” to distinguish them from the two primary anchors of American life: the settings of home and of work. It may be useful to stress that this repurposing of the term “third place” in recent literature reimagines these spaces, not as distinct from home and work, but rather as spaces where home and work merge. Such a redefinition emphasises a unique phenomenon in which places formerly providing leisure, democratic exchange, and social life have been reimagined for alternative and potentially conflicting purposes, which may be private or exclusive rather than promoting more democratic public life.

Other location-based concepts have emerged in recent literature, such as home-based work (Lopez & Rodriguez, 2020; Dianat et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2022), office-based work (Zhang et al., 2022), and temporary workplaces (Di Marino et al., 2018; Asmussen et al., 2023). Such terms highlight the fluid functionality of spaces that have the minimum criteria for making work possible (e.g., IT infrastructure, spatial requirements, charging resources, audio restrictions, geographical demands, costs for access, and other potential social/cultural norms). Such criteria differ depending on the worker and the specific task. Di Marino et al. (2023) refer to new working spaces as a category that includes the likes of “co-working spaces and libraries which provide formal and informal spaces for working” and “attract not only self-employed workers and entrepreneurs but also an increasing number of employees (whose tasks can be remotely performed) as well as corporate teams” (Di Marino et al., 2023, 599). Di Marino and colleagues point out that these working spaces often provide residents more workplace flexibility that is at relatively shorter distances to their homes compared to the primary office space, therefore potentially enabling a more positive work-life balance.

If office-based work is on one end of the spectrum of location-specific concepts, the notion of nomadic work sits on the opposite end and conveys the idea of location independence. This is the idea that one can conduct their work from anywhere, free from the restraints of space and time. Referring to Makimoto and Manners’ introduction of the term in the late 1990s, a digital nomad is “a category of mobile professionals, who perform their work remotely from anywhere in the world, utilizing digital technologies, while ‘digital nomadism’ refers to the lifestyle that is developed by these highly mobile location independent professionals” (Hannonen, 2020). The concept has been linked to the idea of working “anytime, anywhere” (Müller, 2016, in Hannonen, 2020; Nash et al., 2021) and often refers to a particular sociodemographic of professional – a young freelancer or entrepreneur who combines work with leisure travel, thus adopting a particular lifestyle.

Several academic studies highlight the varied expressions and perceptions of alternative spaces for facilitating remote work from a spatial perspective (e.g., where such facilities are located and how employees access them), a policy perspective (e.g., what role the government plays in providing such spaces), and from a user perspective (e.g., how do remote workers perceive these spaces and their limitations for conducting work).

In their survey of rural remote workers using coworking spaces outside of major urban areas in Germany, Hölzel and de Vries (2021) found that the coworking space tenants use the services and offerings available in the area of the coworking space. “Possibly, coworking spaces will bring enough purchasing power to local centres, if they are located there, to enable any retailers that may still be present to generate substantial turnover and continue to exist” (Hölzel & de Vries, 2021, 13). Many respondents (remote workers in rural areas) also indicated that they frequent more than one coworking space. The work of Hölzel and de Vries (2021) showed that, in rural areas, those using coworking spaces accessed these remote workspaces by car rather than by bicycle or on foot. The results suggest that lower population densities in rural areas may mean that, even if people are able to work remotely, their decision to use a coworking space to do so may not necessarily have a great effect on travel mode. Similar results were seen in the study of a telecommuting centre in Stockholm (Vaddadi et al., 2022), and the notion that more people use cars for leisure trips has also been highlighted in Helsinki as a potential concern (Lönnqvist & Salorinne, 2022).

Bieser et al. (2021) established a telecommuting “living lab” to study the effects of a telecommuting centre south of Stockholm, which offered a more convenient working location for residents in the area who were employed at a major IT company northwest of the city. The study, which was developed between 2019 and 2021, reported that employees decreased their trips to the office from 86% to 57% by substituting most of these trips with working at the nearby telecommuting centre instead. In doing so, the employees in this area of the city significantly decreased their travel time. Unsurprisingly, more time was spent on chores and leisure activities on those days which employees worked from home compared to days when they travelled either to the telecommuting centre or to the employee office. Time spent on travel using car or public transport was longest on days when the employees worked at the employer office, but, perhaps surprisingly, car travel time was shortest on days when working from the telecommuting centre. When people worked from home, they spent more time travelling by car than on days when they worked from the telecommuting centre. On days when the employees worked at the telecommuting centre, they spent more time cycling or walking compared to days when they worked from home. Overall, the study provides an interesting test case for how alternative office spaces can influence travel behaviour. However, the authors importantly note how adopting telecommuting practices at a larger scale can also influence when and where a telecommuter spends his/her time (where leisure activities, chores, errands take place) compared to days in the office.

Taking a more urban perspective, in their study of third places in Beijing in 2022, Li et al. (2024) found that of the approximately 61% of employees who had the potential to work remotely, around 11% chose to work from third places, and 4% chose commercial third places. Those who chose to work from third places tended to select places “characterized by high-density mixed-use surroundings, proximity to residential communities, and convenient access to subway stations, among other built environment attributes” (Li et al., 2024, 12). The study gives insights for how planners and designers can use third places in their own urban strategies for developing sustainable cities. The authors clarify that their results are most relevant for other “high-density international cities that house a substantial digital economic and high-tech industries” (Li et al., 2024, 11).

Several Nordic studies have looked at alternative working spaces in urban environments. In a survey conducted in the Nordic Region by WSP (2022), around 40% of respondents from the Nordic capitals expressed interest/high interest in the possibility to work from a co-working hub in their local area (WSP, 2022). Between 18% (Copenhagen) and 25% (Helsinki) were neutral to the idea. Analysing co-working spaces in Oslo and Lisbon, Di Marino et al. (2023) found that co-working spaces in Oslo were predominantly concentrated in central urban districts. The authors relate this to the city’s generally monocentric, albeit multifunctional, layout. Overall, the authors conclude that new working spaces are distributed non-uniformly, thereby limiting residents’ ability to live and work from a co-working space within the same neighbourhood. In a Stockholm-based study evaluating the ability for telecommuting centres to encourage sustainable travel, researchers found that placing a neighbourhood telecommuting centre near a key public transport hub (with, e.g., access to the commuter train) encouraged employees to access the centre by sustainable methods; however, this was not always the case, with some employees who would otherwise take travel by commuter train to their office (located about 30 kilometres away), elected to travel by car when working from the telecommuting centre (see Vaddadi et al., 2022).  

In their survey in the Nordic countries within this remote work project, Randall et al. (2022-b) also heard from local and regional actors who expressed some initial planning strategies for addressing population changes (both permanent and temporary) related to remote work. These included actions like establishing or improving co-working spaces, improving digital connectivity, and generally increasing remote work possibilities as a way to support local development. Such strategies, if they exist at all, are context-specific, and while remote work plays a role, it is one of many factors within overall development strategies.

Perhaps the most developed strategy coming out of the Nordics in relation to remote work is with Iceland’s work centres. The notion of work centres emerged when telework practices were first introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. Iceland included the strategy of introducing job centres in rural areas before the pandemic. As described in their Regional Plan for 2018-2024, such remote work hubs were part of a process to prevent residential location from disabling people from accessing jobs (Randall et al., 2022-a). In a new study in Iceland, there is considerable interest among both individuals working remotely and human resource managers in implementing co-working space in most municipalities. This is a way to counteract the social isolation of remote workers by providing them with a workspace alongside others in similar situations (Gísladóttir et al., 2024). In the international research, Gurstein (2023) also suggests that future reconsideration of work centres at the neighbourhood scale could contribute to a better work life for those opting to work from home since they provide local community members to interact with others during the workday.

Other Nordic countries have also explored alternative remote working spaces. For example, several municipalities in the Swedish ÖMS region report that increased remote work has led to the establishment of co-working facilities and office hotels (ÖMS, 2023). In Jämtland Härjedalen (Sweden), the region has a plan for enabling hybrid work by establishing regional work hubs for remote workers across the region’s municipalities. However, positive development with in-migration and remote work opportunities is not witnessed evenly across the regions, with some municipalities benefitting much more than others. Sometimes this is the case because of lacking digital infrastructure or an uneven spread of coworking spaces, or other differences in services that are provided in the municipalities (Bogason et al., 2024-a).

It is also apparent that the role of space itself plays a unique role in shaping how we work—an idea picked up on by Nash et al. (2021) in their study of nomadic work. By conducting interviews and analysing images from digital nomads, they challenge the concept of location independence, identifying the reality that despite being unbound to traditional office spaces, nomadic workers maintain “a pattern of distinguishable spatial needs that they must seek out in order to facilitate practices that are imperative to their lifestyle” such as internet connectivity, electrical outlets, and spaces that foster concentration, collaboration, or other work requirements. These concerns were also highlighted in a study of a neighbourhood telecommuting centre pilot project in the Stockholm region, where participants expressed the need for technical adjustments of the centre in order to correspond to the actual needs of workers (e.g., meeting booths, private rooms, or computer monitors; see Vaddadi et al., 2022).

Several authors also challenge the dichotomy of home and work, especially for understanding everyday travel patterns in an increasingly mobile and urbanised society. For example, Zhang et al. (2022) highlight how “personal heterogeneity and increasingly complex activity-travel patterns” complicate the otherwise fixed anchors of human mobility between home and work/school. “The assumption that people’s schedules are anchored at home (or home and work) applies to the majority of people. However, it may fail to account for those non-typical behaviours and then lead to biases in behaviour description, travel demand estimation, and potential activity space and accessibility measures” (Zhang et al., 2022). This applies to those who work from alternative locations (co-working spaces or other public spaces) or under hybrid circumstances.  

Literature on digital nomadism is most often connected to the discourse on tourism. The intricacies of the topic are beyond the scope of this particular report, but the concept was mentioned in one report: Gurstein (2023) notes that remote work is often offered as an inducement when recruiting highly skilled workers. In parallel, remote work is also said to produce potentially precarious gig-based work conditions, most often affecting digital nomads and lower skilled workers. According to the Global Remote Work Index—an evaluation of factors such as cybersecurity, infrastructure, economics, and social safety produced by NordLayer – the Nordic countries rank highly as attractive “remote work destinations” (with Denmark placing first, Sweden in fifth, Finland ranked 11^th, and Iceland 13^th. Norway ranks 20^th).

https://nordlayer.com/global-remote-work-index/#countries-score-table

The ranking targets digital nomads by taking into account social, economic, and cultural factors linked to remote working that attract or repel employees with location flexibility. The index also provides insights regarding factors like tourism attractiveness, cost of living, healthcare, personal rights, and English proficiency. While the index measures only by country, some of these indicators could be valuable for municipalities to consider at a municipal level to understand attraction factors, not only for digital nomads seeking the right back drop for their work, but also remote workers considering which neighbourhoods or areas nearby urban centres enable the work-life settings they seek.

As described in the urban case studies made in the Remote work and multilocality post-pandemic project (Granath Hansson & Gudmundsdottir 2024), the Finnish municipality Raseborg launched competitions where the prizes were one-week remote work stays in the municipality. Prizes included accommodation in picturesque houses and an introduction to town life by local hosts. The competitions were well-received, and the municipality hopes that the initiative will induce people to spend more time there. In the rural case studies, Bogason et al. (2024-a) highlight Jämtland Härjedalen as a region in Sweden that experiences high degrees of lifestyle migration during the COVID-19 pandemic, with people relocating to the area to enjoy skiing and other outdoor activities. The ability for people to work remotely from such a region could increase its attractiveness for digital nomads. Similarly, the Icelandic municipality of Stykkishólmur attracts many tourists, especially to Snæfellsjökull National Park. The municipality sees remote work as a potential to transform tourists who may otherwise participate in digital nomadism into more permanent residents. Åland also uses remote work as a tourism strategy, inviting visitors to extend their holiday on the islands by working as well. This is made possible due to Åland’s digital infrastructure and Visit Åland provides a list to help tourists find accommodations well-suited for remote work. Bornholm also strategically attracts digital nomads by investing in digital infrastructure and co-working spaces on the island and seeks to benefit from temporary workers both socially and economically (Bogason et al., 2024-a).