*4.2. Summary of Responses*

One quarter of the respondents indicated using more than one coworking space. 7% use three coworking spaces and one is using five coworking spaces. Some of the people who use several coworking space are working in different countries, such as Switzerland and Germany or Austria and Germany. One of the coworking space is frequently in major cities, while the other used coworking space is in more rural regions, but there are exceptions, where people use more than two coworking spaces, although the majority are located in more rural regions (n = 32).

A majority of 41% use their main coworking space for 1 year, 28% for 2 year and only single person are using their primary coworking space for 6 or 9 years. If they are using more than one coworking space, the second most common used coworking space is in use for 1 year (n = 29) (Figure 1).

Less than one third (28%) of the respondents indicate that they are using coworking spaces each day. The same amount of people state that they are using the coworking space 3 days a week. Nearly one third (31%) of people are using coworking spaces 1 or 2 times a week. And 14% are using a coworking space 1 or times in a month (n = 29) (Figure 2).

**Figure 1.** Start year of the work in coworking spaces.

**Figure 2.** Frequency of use per week or month.

Some 10% of the respondents spend less than 4 h per day spend in a coworking space, whereas 11% spend 4 to 6 h in a coworking space, but most (41%) of the respondents spend 6 to 8 h in a coworking space. 14% of the respondents spend 8 to 10 h in a coworking space and the same amount stay more than 10 h in the coworking space (n = 29).

Most (46%) people work at a fixed or dedicated desk. Additionally, 21% also have a specific own desk, but during their absence, this desk is also usable for others. Nearly a third are working at various desks, so called 'hot desk' (n = 28). A majority of the tenants have a fixed desk, and hot desk users mentioned that they would like to have a fixed desk, if they would not have another desk somewhere else.

A majority of 64% are working in an open space office. 21% of the tenants have their desk in a dual office and 14% are working in a single office (n = 29).

Nearly every user (93%) of a coworking space utilizes the kitchen in the coworking spaces. Printer, WLAN/LAN and social place/meeting point are used by about 80%. Nearly 70% are using conference rooms for 4 to 10 people, 35% are using conference rooms

for more than 10 people. A postal address is used by 35%. Two participants mentioned that they are using telephone boxes, to be undisturbed while calling. A single person mentioned lunch service, social events and training are be used (n = 29).

Service as noise protection, carsharing, lockers cubicles are mentioned one time. Multiple named are conference technic, team/social events, café/mess and back office. One person is desiring more colleagues (n = 12).

Nearly half of the respondents (49%) are using a car to get to the coworking space. 7% are going by public transport, 23% are riding a bike and 21% get there by foot. Due to weather conditions or the location of each cowering space, different means of transportation may be used on different days. Taking this into account, multiple responses are possible. Approximately 40% state that they need 10 min commuting time to travel to the coworking space. 11% need only 5 minutes to get there. 14% need 15 min and 18% are 30 min on the way. Another 14% need more than 30 min to get to the coworking space. Two people indicate that their traveling commuting time extends by more than one third, when they go by bicycle instead of by car (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** Means of transportation/modal split.

Some tenants of coworking spaces are traveling around and visit different coworking spaces at more than 150 km distance from their residence. Nearly a quarter of the respondents are using two coworking spaces, some are using up to five coworking spaces. Some are switching between commuting by car, bicycle or afoot, even if this doubles or triples their commuting time. It can be assumed that the traveling means depends on weather conditions [138]. Some of the tenants are using two or more coworking spaces, one close to their residence and another one in larger towns (Figure 4). The point shown in Figure 4 is that people may use different coworking spaces at different times, for different reasons and under different circumstances and related to the distance between residence and coworking space the respondents are using different modes of travel.

**Figure 4.** Conjunction of workplace and residence by means of transportation.

The most used services in the vicinity are bakeries, which 89% of the users visit. They spend 5 € per day at most, although some (19%) spend more than 5 € in bakeries. 67% are visiting restaurants or taverns and spend there up to 5 € (22%), from 6 to 10 € (44%) and up to 20 € (33%) per day. 56% of the tenants are going to supermarkets/grocery stores and spend there 20 to 30 € (10%), 10 to 20 € (26%) or up to 10 € (64%) each day. 29.6% of the tenants are going to kiosks, all of them spent less than 5 € each day. Small quantities (4%) are using laundries, childcare, post office and medical practices in the vicinity of the coworking space. Single named are e.g., fishmonger, town hall or drugstore (n = 23).

In response to the question "How much more would you be willing to spend on products or services in the vicinity of the coworking space compared to out-of-town offerings?" 22% of the respondents indicate not being willing to spend more for central offer or service related to an out-of-town offer. However, 55% would spend 5 to 25% more than an out-of-town offer. And another 22% are willing to spent more than 40% up to 50% above the price of out-of-town offers.

Approximately 41% of the tenants of the coworking spaces work for an employer. Others are freelancer or companies using the coworking space as a company headquarter. Some responded being an association/club or volunteer (n = 27) (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** Willingness to spend more on products or services in the vicinity of the coworking space compared to out-of-town offerings.

The largest group (41%) of the coworkers have between 37 up to 40 regular working hours, which corresponds to regular full employment hours in the frame of the German Working Time Act [106]. A group of 20% are regular working between 10 and 30 hours, which indicates a part time employment [107]. Out of this group a majority of more than

60% is working 30 hours per week, some only work 10 hours per week. Indicated by the reduced working hours, it could be assumed that this group of workforce is occupied by other things, like childcare, care of relatives or they have only a part-time position [108]. At the other end of the scale are a group of workers (22%) that state to work regular 50 to 60 hours per week. Considering the Working Time Act [106], this must be a group of freelancers or entrepreneurs (n = 27) (Figure 6).

**Figure 6.** Regular weekly working hours of the tenants of the coworking space.

#### **5. Discussion**

The initial findings confirm that location of work and economic activity significantly affects complex spatial relations [41–44] as indicated in the Introduction. As long as wage labor or entrepreneurship is needed to afford life, the location of work is very important and also spatially related to many other aspects of life [113]. The relevancy of the spatial relation of people depends on the life phase, but is dominated by their primary relation to work, education, supplemented by shopping, leisure, sports, social services and child care, amongst others [113]. The work commuting is the main reason to travel [113]. Remote work could reduce the time for commuting [117]. There are also negative effects of remote work, such as social isolation, feeling disregarded or the stress from unseparated private and professional life [94,95]. Considering that, to be able to reach performance levels in a coworking space to a similar extent as in a conventional working place, it is necessary to make it to a kind of a "third place" [96]. If this third place is located close to the place of residence, it could reduce the daily commute [93,116,117], allocated spending capacity [120] and increase the vividness in rural villages and small towns [121,122].

Given these theoretical findings and hypotheses, the core questions remain: (1) which amenities coworkers asked for in rural coworking spaces, (2) how can coworkers in rural coworking spaces be described according their personal and professional characteristics (3) how do coworking facilities in rural areas and their users influence local offers, services for mobility, consumption, shopping, catering, social and cultural life? We elaborate on each of these in the following subsections.

(1) Which amenities coworkers asked for in rural coworking spaces?

As the empirical survey results show, those respondents who work in a coworking space outside of a major city also tend to execute their job in more than one coworking space only (see Figure 4). Some are clearly traveling around in a larger region and are using several coworking spaces. If they are using more than one coworking spaces at least one of them is located in a major city. It seems that a relation to a major city is still relevant for coworkers and that these types of respondents value the need to travel as a crucial part of their job, to meet people in real. In these cases, it seems that the coworking spaces act as a linking point in local networks.

Most coworkers are renting a fix desk in an open space [99], but they are also missing the opportunity to separate in particular to make telephone calls or to work undisturbed. This indicates a demand of variation in the work environment, not only variations from day to day, what several of the participants already experience, also variation during the day. There is a demand for variation in the exchange with others as well as apart from others, such as for concentrated work or undisturbed calls. The demand of noise protection indicates a similar need. Especially in open spaces, tenants seem to be disturbed by noise, presumably from other users. This is classical critique on acoustics in open spaces offices [130]. For certain types of work, these office forms are rather unsuitable [131,132]. On one hand the users in our survey indicates a demand of noise protection and separation as often in open plan offices [133]—on the other hand they express a desire to meet and network, what also corelate with the literature [129]. It would therefore make sense to offer different types of workstations, one for concentrated, undisturbed work and one for networking. A crucial aspect of using multiple work spaces is apparently not so much related to the facilities offered by the work spaces, but by the specifics of the location where coworkers are going to—such as specific locations or surroundings which make the meetings different than simply by regular communication means.

(2) How can coworkers in rural coworking spaces be described according their personal and professional characteristics?

With 41% the share of employed coworker in this survey is higher than the average numbers in coworking spaces [102]. That could indicate that tenants avoid commuting to headquarters of remote employers, save time for the commuting, relieve traffic infrastructure and with that reduce the CO2 emission. Considering the increasing traveling distance and time [114,116], it is an advantage to avoid the commuting at least on some days of the week. A majority of the respondents are driving to the coworking space by car, only a small amount could go by bike or on foot (see Figure 3). Reasons for this variation could be a lower population density at certain locations, which increases the catching area for such a coworking space, as long as the number of users of rural coworking spaces is still low. Only a small group of users live so close that they can walk or take the bike. It is typical for rural regions that longer travel distances between home and destination are covered by car [124,126]. Only short distance commuters are saving time saving if it is done on foot or by bicycle [125]. The background of people is also broad. One can find freelancers, entrepreneurs and various types of employees in rural coworking spaces. The age distribution is broader than in coworking spaces in an urban environment [103]. This might be related to the motivation to use rural coworking spaces as a means to spare the traveling time to a distant company office.

(3) How do coworking facilities in rural areas and their users influence local offers, services for mobility, consumption, shopping, catering, social and cultural life?

The usage of the coworking space is temporarily during the day and during the week (see Figure 2). That indicates that work is also operated somewhere else, implying a multi-local lifestyle [127], during travel, at the employers office or at home. Not all regular working hours are used for work. Perhaps the time is also used for childcare, leisure or social engagement. The time which is spent on other activities than working is not only used to recover from and for work, but also to pursue other goals in life. With the saved time, people could get more engaged in social commitments, contribute to associations or similar activities. Their presence in the rural town could thus be higher, resorting in more vitality and vividness in the center of the village and small towns [22,126,127].

Coworking spaces in a rural context are more or less a new form of telecommuting [91]. Most tenants use their main coworking space for 1 or 2 year (see Figure 1). The invention of coworking as a concept started from 1995. The term coworking was introduced in 1999 and the first so designated coworking space opened in 2005 in San Francisco [98]. The number

of coworking spaces are increasing rapidly since 2005, mainly in agglomerations. In rural regions, towns or villages are existing some coworking spaces for some time [109]. Since the last 2–3 years the number of coworking spaces outside of major cities is growing rapidly.

The responses reveal that the tenants of coworking spaces use several offers and services, like bakeries, supermarkets, kiosk and taverns or restaurants in the vicinity of the coworking space, nearly each day, where they spend up to 30 € per day. With the rising number of tenants in coworking spaces a considerable spending capacity is available in vicinity of the coworking space. Arriving and leaving the coworking space, as well as the lunch break at the neighboring restaurant or butcher, increase the presence of people—not cars—in public spaces and thus provide more liveliness. In future research it would be interesting to find out, if that potential really reaches local stores, services, groceries and enrich the vitality of their vicinity. Possibly, coworking spaces will bring enough purchasing power to local centers, if they are located there, to enable any retailers that may still be present to generate substantial turnover and continue to exist. Small supermarkets, grocery stores or retailers in the central locations of towns and small cities have been suffering for years from competition with newly established, large-scale retailers on the outskirts of settlements [121]. Vacant, historic buildings can also be converted into coworking spaces and thus find a new use (Figures 7 and 8).

**Figure 7.** Coworking space in a village, former hayloft, exterior view.

**Figure 8.** Coworking space in a village, former hayloft, interior view.

In the political program of action "Unser Plan für Deutschland-Gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse überall" were measures recommended to improve equivalent living conditions, including the support of coworking spaces [38]. Some regional development agencies already provide funding programs, partly direct for coworking spaces [111,112]. However, the eligibility criteria so far do not seem to take into account the impact of each location—in-town or in commercial areas.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The research aim was to detect the habit and demands of users of rural coworking spaces and assess the influence on local offers and services for mobility, consumption, shopping, catering, social and cultural. We found that in order to operate remote work in a rural area a coworking space provides several benefits and opportunities for the user/tenant, such as avoiding social isolation, separating private and professional life, avoiding or reducing the commute sometimes. In addition, from a perspective of the municipality a coworking space located in the village or town center support local offers from retailer and services, like grocery stores, bakeries, butcheries, restaurants and cafes—and provide their vicinity with passers-by frequency and vividness. The increasing turnover of local retailers and services could make them more profitable and secure their survival.

These findings are relevant, for several reasons and related to e.g., the increasing distance between residence and workplace [116], the increasing share of remote work, which is growing since years. This brings stress to people and to town centers [21]. When located in the town center, coworking spaces can bring liveliness and spending capacity back to the heart of those towns, which are suffering from the donut-effect. Further research should investigate under which conditions which types of public space, retail and services in the vicinity coworking space are beneficial. So far it seems reasonable that coworking spaces in rural towns should be located at a central location, where daily goods and services are available and where the tenants of the coworking space can contribute to vividness and vitality of the town and to the turnover—and with that maybe to longer persist of the resident suppliers.

With the contact limitation and lockdown due to the Virus Covid-19 the share of remote work got a boost [69–71] and am majority of employees would prefer to continue working remote [70,74]. That will increase remote work [71], people could move to remote rural towns, avoiding high rents and dense populated major cities, work from home or in an rural coworking space. Coming research should find out, if this group of working people tends to work from home, which are usually larger in the countryside and offer more space [17] for domestic study—or would this people go for a desk in an coworking space in the town center?

One of the main influence factors on land management is the kind of land use [6–8]. Depending on the share of work which is done closed to the place of residence and the question where people settle (see Section 1. Introduction) the use of land is strong influenced [9]. Will this trend to remote work lead to a higher demand on settlement area and land consumption at the outskirts of major cities or will this trend bring liveliness, vitality, spending capacity and inhabitants back to rural town centers?

The findings exhibit some limitations, which necessitate further research. As the survey could not trace under which conditions coworking space user opt for increasing or decreasing their economic spending, subsequent research and empirical investigations could investigate the behavior of coworking tenants related to means of transport, their consumer behavior and how the vicinity of coworking spaces get influenced by the presence of coworking spaces and their tenants. Additionally, the survey results could not provide sufficient input for constructing a theoretical cause-effect relational model. Such a construction would require a more extensive data collection, which would investigate the variations in impact of coworking spaces on their surroundings. This includes amongst others how it affects land demand and supply. Practical research into trends of coworking given the experiences due to the crises by the virus Covid-19 and the issued contact restrictions.

There are a number of issues which would require an extension of the investigation to truly understand the causes and effects. First, the conditions under which knowledge workers either live in rural areas, or previously guided their decision to move to rural areas may be a crucial factor for the decision to opt for coworking spaces. Secondly, the workload conducted at a coworking space may differ based on the available facilities. Thirdly, it still remains unclear to which extent supporting conditions, such as access to basic amenities and connections to socio-cultural aspects play a role. Fourthly, what the current research could not find out was whether there exists trend that brings liveliness, vitality, spending capacity and inhabitants back to rural town centers? And will this help to reverse or stop the growth of the "Donut" [22,24] around the towns and villages. Finally, the relations of coworking spaces to the urban-rural divide, urban-rural land use and spatial justice issues needs further empirical research.

**Author Contributions:** This manuscript is a part of M.H.'s ongoing Ph.D. research. M.H. has written the article under the guidance of W.T.d.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reason.

**Acknowledgments:** This research received no funds. We thank all participants of the survey and all operators of rural coworking space, who distribute the survey among their tenants.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
