Mariottietal_2021_Book_Springer (1).pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342814996
The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends
Chapter · April 2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_15
CITATIONS
22
READS
9,758
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
firm migration View project
HAPPY: Health Accessibility transport Public Policies for elderlY View project
Irene Manzini Ceinar
University College London
14 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Ilaria Mariotti
Politecnico di Milano
135 PUBLICATIONS 1,546 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Irene Manzini Ceinar on 27 April 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking
Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends
Irene Manzini Ceinar and Ilaria Mariotti
Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic has altered the way of working, the habits and
lifestyle of every citizen worldwide. All sectors of the economy had to respect «social
distancing» in order to minimise the chances of transmission of the virus, although
with different degrees. Specifically, most of the service workers had to move from
traditional work in the office to work at home through remote or tele-working, as in
the case of the creative and innovative class of workers, to which most coworkers
of the coworking spaces belong. Within this framework, the present chapter aims
to explore the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on coworking spaces by describing
the results of an international survey addressed to coworking managers. Moreover,
future trends for the coworking business model and its location dynamics are put
forward together with policy implications.
1 Introduction
The pandemic caused by the massive spread of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2
in 2019–2020, well known as Covid-19, has rapidly altered the habits and lifestyle
of every citizen worldwide and will have effects in the medium-long run (Mariotti
and Di Matteo 2020). As at the time of writing, the majority of the world’s countries
continues to fight the rapid spread of Covid-19, and many people are confined to
their homes in order to minimize the risks of contagion and transmission of the
virus. The forced need to comply with “social distancing” (Joan Subirats 2020) is
radically altering the way people move through, live in, and think about the urban
environment. This has inevitably raised the need to also reshape the working methods
of individuals: many private professionals and public employees are been urged to
I. M. Ceinar (B)
The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London-UCL, London, UK
e-mail: i.ceinar.17@ucl.ac.uk
I. Mariotti
Department of Architecture and Urban Studies -DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
e-mail: ilaria.mariotti@polimi.it
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects
and Development Trajectories, Research for Development,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_15
277

278 I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti
work from home, also called remote or tele-working. The economic sectors have been
hit by the pandemic with different degrees according to their physical proximity and
exposure to infection. Specifically, services, also including coworking spaces, retail
trade and the organisation of events have been mainly hit, while agriculture, which
is characterised by little to no physical proximity, has not entered the lockdown
phase. Most of the service workers had to move from traditional work in the office
(Second place) to work at home (First place) through remote or tele- working, as in
the case of the creative and innovative class of workers, to which most coworkers of
coworking spaces (Third place) belong. This has greatly altered the foundations of
the coworking space that mainly concern a sense of community amongst the people
working there (Coworkers, hereinafter CWs), which may enable them to benefit
from knowledge transfer, informal exchange, cooperation, and forms of horizontal
interaction with others, as well as business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012). According
to the literature, coworking spaces (hereinafter CSs) represent a lifestyle (Deskmag
2011; McWilliams 2015) or “homes away from home” (Ross and Ressia 2015) where
unrelated people relate in an inclusively sociable atmosphere, offering both the basis
of community and celebration of it (Oldenburg 1989), and self-employed workers,
freelancers, innovative start-ups and businesses can interact thus reducing the risks of
isolation (Gandini 2015; Merkel 2018), and increasing the opportunities for meeting
and the exchange of knowledge and experience, with the purpose of fostering a
sense of local place and community. Furthermore, the coworking space’s staff plays
a crucial role in the sense of attachment to the place as they promote, support, and
accelerate the dynamics in favour of relationships of trust and friendship, enhancing
the production of domestic feelings and new business opportunities (Pais 2012).
Generally speaking, co-constructing a sense of community (Garrett et al. 2017) is an
ongoing objective for CS managers. In fact, one of the key aspects of the community
side of CSs is the organisation of events open to the community and to the public
that contribute, sometimes significantly, to the manager’s revenues (Mariotti and Di
Matteo 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic has forced CS’ managers to support their
communities with online social-services, home-delivery provision and, remote work
(Coworker.com 2020; Italian Coworking Survey 2020). Besides, in Phase 2 of the
pandemic, CSs were equipped to respect the social distancing measures.
Withinthisframework,thepresentchapteraimstoexploretheeffectsoftheCovid-
19 pandemic on CSs by describing the results of an international survey addressed
to CS managers worldwide.1
It is discussed whether and how the “nature” of these
working spaces has been undermined and which measures have been undertaken by
the CSs managers to face the pandemic. Besides, future trends for the CSs business
model as well as its location dynamics are put forward together with policy implica-
tions. The chapter is structured into five sections. The Introduction is followed by a
1The book chapter is supported by COST Action CA18214 ‘The geography of New Working Spaces
and the impact on the periphery’, which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework programme of the
European Union (project website: http://www.new-working-spaces.eu/; European Union Website:
https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA18214).

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces … 279
literature review about the effects of the pandemic on the economic sectors as well
as on the new geography of work. Section three is dedicated to the impact of the
pandemic on the CSs’ proximity typologies and their “sense of community”. The
results of the survey, addressed to coworking mangers worldwide, are presented and
discussed in section four, while the last section is dedicated to conclusions, policy
implications and further research to predict future trajectories for the coworking
economy.
2 Social Distancing, Sectors, and New Geographies
Early lockdowns in Phase 1 of the pandemic, and physical and social distancing
measures undertaken in Phase 2 (i.e. remote and tele-working and the closure of
schools), helped to tamp down the pandemic and flatten the curve in some cities
(Kington 2020). Besides, psychological mechanisms led to physical isolation and
a desire to leave the chaotic and apparently unsafe city centres. Due to Covid-19,
people were not allowed to move about and travel for work purposes. By the end
of March, nearly two-thirds of knowledge workers in North America were working
remotely as a reaction to “social distancing” measures, according to an estimate from
the software company Netskope (Canzanese 2020). According to a new MIT report
(Brynjolfsson et al. 2020), 34% of Americans, who previously commuted to work,
reported that they were working from home by the first week of April 2020 due to
Covid-19 (Molla 2020).
According to a national report (ISTAT, May 2020) on commuting in Italy before
Covid-19, in 2019, 22 million people moved to work and 11 million to go to school
every day. These figures represent 36.44% of the national population. Within those,
12 million employees and 3.5 million students commuted between regions every day.
However, during the lockdown phase, commuting was not allowed, while with the
beginning of Phase II, only 10% of workers (approximately 300 thousand people)
are using public transport, according to initial estimates (Il Sole 24 Ore 2020).
In order to face the uncertainty of the current situation, many companies are estab-
lishing systems that enable staff to work from home rapidly, evolving the concept
of “working from everywhere” (Ross and Ressia 2015) to which more workers
are getting accustomed. The sectors of the economy are characterised by different
degrees of physical proximity to other people and exposure to infection and disease
risk (Barbieri et al. 2020).2
This is especially true for the majority of the health industry, that could not be
put on lockdown, and for several other sectors, mainly related to personal services,
2This analysis is run by the National Institute for Public Policies Analysis (INAPP) using the ICP
survey concerning about 16,000 workers occupied in around 800 occupations, according to the 5-
digit CP2011 classification (the Italian equivalent of the ISCO-08 ILO’s classification) (see Barbieri
et al., 2020).

Fig. 1 Distribution of occupations by physical proximity and sector. Source Barbieri et al. (2020,
p. 10)
leisure and recreation, which are not directly exposed to infections and diseases but
need physical proximity to operate.
Overall, the retail trade sector seems to be at higher risk of contagion because
of physical proximity in the workplace, but also service activities (i.e. bar, restau-
rants, events) such as those performed in the CSs. On the other hand, a less risky
sector, which is little exposed to physical proximity is agriculture. Nevertheless,
most workers who can operate from home have not been put under lockdown (i.e.
public administration, some education subsectors, but also creative workers), and are
currently (in Phase 2) working, thus nullifying the risk level. Therefore, both physical
proximity and exposure to infection and disease risk were the main issues during the
lock down in Phase 1 of the pandemic, while social distancing was applied to all.
Figure 1 shows the occupational distribution in each percentile rank of the physical
proximity index in the main five sectors of the economy (Barbieri et al. 2020, p. 10).
It results that most of the employment in occupations highly exposed to interpersonal
contacts is in the services sector (including healthcare) and in retail trade. As stated
by Barbieri et al. (2020), manufacturing makes up the bulk of employment between
30 and 80 percent of the physical proximity index distribution. Agriculture, which
also provides us with necessary goods, accounts for most of the employment at the
other end of the spectrum (little to no physical proximity) (Fig. 1).
Besides, there is a positive correlation between the share of remote working and
income percentile (Fig. 2): higher income workers are more actual or potential home
workers, while frontline workers in health care, delivery and grocery stores, that are
particularly exposed to the virus, cannot stay at home.
This analysis underlines the strong impact of the pandemic on CSs. Indeed, it
will be explained in Sect. 3, during Phase 2, specific measures have been applied in
the spaces, also concerning the services often offered by the CSs such as cafés and
restaurants, which are highly exposed to physical proximity.

Fig. 2 Relationship between remote working and percentile income. Source New York Times
Census, cited in Kluth (2020)
The implications of physical and social distancing for big cities are immense and
there is clear evidence of a deep seismic shift in the work culture. In examining
the trajectory factors that exacerbate this pandemic, the virus has set in motion a
great migration away from dense, populous urban centres, effectively putting an
end to the back-to-the-city movement of the past couple of decades (Florida 2020).
Proximity and density are, indeed, two common factors correlated to the spread of
Covid-19 and its death rate (Kutchler et al. 2020; Beam Dowd et al. 2020). Richard
Florida states that «The very same clustering of people that makes our great cities
more innovative and productive also makes them, and us, vulnerable to infectious
disease» (Florida 2020) referring to density as a key factor in determining vulnerable
urban places. Across the world, Covid-19 has taken roots and hit hard in several
types of places (Hopkins University 2020 in UK Office for National Statistics 2020).
First of all, the large dense cities such as New York and London, highly visited
by flows of visitors and tourists, diverse global populations and dense residential
areas. Secondly, industrial centres like Wuhan, Detroit, and Northern Italy, which
are connected through supply chains. Thirdly, the most touristic places, such as the
ski slopes of Italy, Switzerland and France (Italian National Institute of Statistics
2020).
Jed Kolko’s analysis on Indeed (2020), finds density to be significantly associated
with Covid-19 deaths across US counties, along with other factors. His analysis also
finds that Covid-19 death rates per capita are higher in counties with older populations
and larger shares of minorities, and colder, wetter climates. Besides, as in the case of
Wuhan (China), and the Pianura Padana (north of Italy), the presence of particulate
has enhanced the transmission of the virus.
Yet, density is likely just one of the key factors that determine how vulnerable
places are to the virus. Beam Dowd et al. (2020) argue that population age structure,

supported by a high degree of residential proximity, may explain the remarkable
variation in fatalities across countries and why countries such as Italy are especially
vulnerable (Gatto 2020; Credit 2020) (Figs. 3 and 4).
Richard Florida’s article mainly focuses on the geography of Covid-19 in the US.
Using data developed by the New York Times he argues that rural recreation counties
suffer from a rate of Covid-19 cases that is more than two and a half times higher
than for other rural counties, referring to Bishop and Marema (Bishop and Marema
2020). His analysis only looks at the US panorama, and other parts of the world may
be overlooked.
However, like the Italian case, it is not density or proximity in itself that makes
cities susceptible, but the kind of density and proximity as well as the way they
impact daily habits and lifestyle. In fact, areas can be dense and still provide places
for people to isolate and be socially distant while supporting the population with
online social services, home-delivery, and education and work remotely.
This density gap is vividly apparent in the geographic breakdown of Covid-19
across New York City: the virus is hitting hardest not in uber-dense Manhattan but
in the less-dense outer boroughs, like the Bronx, Queens, and even far less dense
Staten Island. The graph below cited in Florida, 2020 shows the Covid-19 death rate
by type of county as of 1st of April. Large urban counties top the list, falling off by
degree of density, from the high-density suburbs down to the rural areas.
In terms of working practices, some work typologies are still partially hidden due
to their fluidity in the job market, as well as their possibility to work remotely, such
as freelancers.
Another key aspect of CSs is the location of the space itself (Vartiainen et al.
2007; Mariotti et al. 2020); several scholars argue that CSs tend to be located in
Fig. 3 Covid-19 death rate by type of county as of 1st of April, New York. Source New York Times
Census, cited in Indeed (2020)

Fig. 4 Relationship between remote working and percentile income, New York. Source Kluth,
cited in Florida (2020)
dense, urbanised areas that are easily reachable by public transport (Mariotti et al.
2017, 2020). Many are the factors affecting the locations of CSs: (i) the degree of
accessibility to urban areas (central and most accessible, peripheral neighbourhoods
or small towns and sparse regions); (ii) proximity to relevant activities, services, etc.,
as well as proximity to specific economic sectors and categories (Yang and Bisson
2019); (iii) potential clusters of aggregation.
Due to the high concentration of amenities (Van Oort et al. 2003), the presence of
a good local public transport network (Mariotti et al. 2017), and the availability of
open access public Wi-fi (Di Marino and Lapintie 2017), CSs are mainly localised
in urban areas and in highest knowledge and innovation intensity suburban clusters.
Therefore,densityandproximityarebothcoreaspects of thecoworkingeconomyand
key elements for the Covid-19 expansion. From the spatial point of view, this makes
CSs potentially more vulnerable to the virus, being both in a condition of working
in most affected locations and in an open floor-plan kind of building configuration.
The location aspect of working practices during the pandemic has been discussed by
several scholars, highlighting the decision to work from home, also called remote
working or tele-working, with impacts on CSs location patterns. From the current
trends, it is possible to summarise two main mechanisms, accelerated by the effect of
social distancing (Subirats 2020) regarding digital workers: (a) the costs of distance–
those who can afford smart working will migrate to smaller cities and peri-urban
territories—; and (b) the organised forms of mutualistic cooperation (for example,
home delivery) that will generate sustainable mutual aid solutions to be socially
connected with the community.

3 Coworking Spaces: Proximity and Sense of Community
Users of CSs may exploit the following proximity measures a là Boschma (2005): (i)
Geographical: the spatial or physical distance—short distances bring people together,
favouring contacts and facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge; (ii) Social:
socially embedded relations between actors at the micro-level (based on friendship,
kinship and past experience) that may stimulate interactive learning due to trust and
commitment (elements of social capital e.g. trust); (iii) Institutional: common habits,
routines, established practices, rules, or laws that regulate the relations and interac-
tions between individuals, which may reduce uncertainty and bases for economic
coordination and interactive learning; (iv) Cognitive: people sharing the same knowl-
edge base and expertise may learn from each other, facilitating effective communica-
tion; and (v) Organisational: such as networks, which are mechanisms that not only
coordinate transactions but also enable the transfer and exchange of information and
knowledge beneficial for learning and innovation (for a review see: Mariotti and
Akhavan 2020). Specifically, geographical proximity is related to co-location in the
same space, and traces back to the economic geography literature where proximity is
considered fundamental as it “underpins the joint production, circulation and sharing
of knowledge” (Gertler 2008, p. 203). The key role of geographical and social prox-
imity has been recognised since the beginning of the 1900s (Weber 1909/1929), and
they have been addressed as two genetic conditions necessary, though not enough,
for an area to be an industrial district (Marshall 1925; Becattini 1990; Capello 2007).
Some studies have confirmed that the different proximity dimensions should not be
considered separately, and it is crucial to study their interaction. While the prox-
imity literature is generally based on the level of companies, only a few studies have
focused directly on the importance of proximity dimensions at the workplace level.
The empirical work by Parrino (2015)—on CSs in Milan and Barcelona—has shed
light on the theoretical framework of proximity in CSs and specifically examined
the role of proximity in facilitating interactions and the transmission of knowledge
among workers in CSs, and the relational potential of geographical proximity of CSs.
Within this context, the sense of community represents an added value of CSs,
and it is related to the other forms of proximity. As described by Akhavan and
Mariotti (2018, p. 3), “the term “community” has several definitions, and Hillery
(1955) has identified 94 of them. One of the basic meanings of community comes
from two Latin words, namely “com” and “munis”: “com” means “together” and
“munis” means “to serve”, hence “to serve together””. Besides, Bellah et al. (1985,
p. 333) define community as “a group of people who are socially interdependent,
who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain
practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it. Such a community
is not quickly formed. It almost always has a history and so is also a community of
memory, defined in part by its past and its memory of the past”.
Nevertheless, despite any definition, according to the above-mentioned studies,
in every community three main aspects can be identified: (i) it is a union of people
with a particular social structure, for instance, a rural community or an urban one;

(ii) there is a sense of belonging or community spirit; and (iii) all the activities of
any community are self-contained and take place in a certain geographical area.
In the literature of several disciplines there is a tendency to delineate co-working
focusing not simply on physical space (office) provision, but, more importantly,
on establishing a community and a quality of working behaviour, “working-alone-
together”, which involves having a shared working environment and flexible work
activities (Spinuzzi 2012; Capdevila 2017, 2014, 2013; Fuzi et al. 2014; Bilandzic
2016).
In the more recent literature, CSs are acknowledged as potential “serendipity
accelerators” designed to host creative people and entrepreneurs, who endeavour
to break isolation and to find a convivial environment that may favour meeting
and collaboration (Moriset 2014). Kwiatkowski and Buczynski (2011) have defined
coworking by five main values: collaboration (the willingness to cooperate with
others to create shared values), community (intangible benefits, shared purpose),
sustainability (do good to do well and offset the environmental footprint of the
space), openness (free sharing of ideas, information and people), and accessibility
(financially and physically accessible, diversity). In other words, CSs can be defined
as a “phenomenon that happens in shared, collaborative workspaces in which the
emphasis is on community, relationship, productivity and creativity” (Fuzi et al. 2014,
p. 4). Fuzi (2015) also argues the importance of CSs in promoting entrepreneurship
in sparse regions through creating the necessary hard infrastructure.
Unlike traditional third places such as libraries and bars, CSs are designed and
planned specifically as facilitators for work by providing the basic necessities such as
desks, technological needs (WiFi), meeting rooms, and other equipment to develop
their own network. Such contemporary shared workplaces, therefore, offer geograph-
ical proximity and non-hierarchical relationships, which may generate socialization
and, consequently, business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012). One diffused hypothesis
is that sharing the same space may provide a collaborative community to those kinds
of workers—such as self-employed professionals and freelancers—who otherwise
would not enjoy the relational component associated with a traditional corporate
office (Mariotti et al. 2017).
Most of the definitions of CSs refer to the sense of community. The following
Table 1 summarises some of the main definitions of CS, which shows the importance
of community, proxied by the terms: sharing, interactions, and collaborations.
Here, it is worth underlining that among other terms such as “sharing” and “col-
laboration”, in almost all studies on CSs, “community” is repeated and emphasized
as an added value. Nevertheless, only one study has in particular studied the “emer-
gence of community in coworking spaces” (Garrett et al. 2017): with an in-depth
analysis on a CS in the Midwestern US, the authors have discovered that sense of
community at work “was achieved through three overlapping interacts—endorsing,
encountering, and engaging; and by co-constructing a sense of community, indepen-
dent workers can satisfy their need for social connection, while maintaining their
desired autonomy and independence” (ibid: 837–88).

Table 1 Definition of coworking space
Contribution Discipline Definition of CS
Spinuzzi (2012) Sociology CSs are open-plan office
environments in which people
work alongside other unaffiliated
professionals for a fee
Capdevila (2013) Business/Management CSs are defined as localised
spaces where independent
professionals work sharing
resources and their knowledge
with the rest of the community
Bilandzic and Foth (2013) Technology CSs provide a flexible and
autonomous use of office and
social space that eases the direct
interaction among the users for
social, learning and
business-related interests
Moriset (2014) Geography CSs as potential “serendipity
accelerators” …beyond the room
layout, coworking is first an
atmosphere, a spirit, and a
lifestyle
Avdikos and Kalogeresis (2017) Economy It helps freelance designers
become more embedded in
business networks (in terms of
collaborations), both local and
foreign, compared with working
alone
Robelski et al. (2019) Psychology/ Health care As a telework arrangement,
coworking spaces are becoming
an increasingly established
workplaces for the self-employed
and freelancers working in
creative lines of business, as
opposed to home offices that are
mainly used by remote
employees
Source Mariotti and Akhavan (2020, p.40)
4 Comparing the International Impact of Covid-19
on Coworking Spaces
As stated above, one of the most obvious consequences of Covid-19 has been the
massive rise in the number of people working from home, and consequently, the
huge impact on coworking operations and accessibility. This has led to the creation
of several surveys promoted all over the world to measure the implications for the
coworking economy, in particular for small and medium-sized coworking spaces.

Fig. 5 Top consequences that coworking spaces worldwide have experienced as a result of the
Covid-19 lockdown. Source: Coworker.com
In this chapter, we consider the findings highlighted by an international survey
run by Coworker.com survey, between 16th-18th of March 2020 in 172 countries
worldwide, that brings a broad international overview on the discussion.
The survey highlighted the situation during the first phase of the pandemic. Since
then, the situation has become more acute as more nations—including Italy, Spain,
France and the UK—have entered lockdown and the majority of coworking members
have been forced to stay at home.
Starting from a broad perspective, the survey “How Coworking Spaces are
Navigating Covid-19” (Coworker.com 2020) collected information from 350 CSs
and 364 remote workers worldwide (Coworker.com and Coworking Insights, May
2020) about how CSs are navigating COVID-19, engaging with their members, and
sustaining their operations during the lockdown phase. The survey identified a signif-
icant drop in the number of people working from their space since the outbreak by
71.67% of spaces all over the world. This has been followed by a negative impact
on membership and contract renewals, reported by 40.8% of CSs, along with a drop
in the number of new membership enquiries by 67% of spaces (Fig. 5).
Furthermore, CSs have seen more members choosing to work from home, delays
of move-in dates for new coworkers, and a shift to providing online-only services,
such as audio editing and recording (Fig. 6).
The consequences of Covid-19 on CSs are both threatening and highly disruptive
to coworking operators across the world, who are reinventing the space itself to keep
the community together while facing the lack of physical proximity.
In this sense, a large number of CSs are finding alternative ways to deal with the
effects of the outbreak in a positive way. By reassessing their services and creating
new solutions, many spaces have adopted alternative business models to contain
the spread of Covid-19, support their community’s current needs, and establish a
structured online network to boost future subscriptions.
The survey has collected insightful experiences on how CSs adjusted their busi-
ness models or introduced innovative activities to engage during the lockdown, for

Fig. 6 Responses from the “How is your coworking space navigating the consequences of Covid-
19?” survey—prediction of long-term effects for CSs. Source Coworker.com
instance streaming events, online support for the organisation and management of
remote working, listening service to members and local residents, social breaks such
as morning coffee on Zoom, online FuckUp Night event, virtual happy hours, tax and
labour policy support related to Covid-19, direct help during the emergency (such as
3D printing of mechanical parts for hospital respirators), etc.
The efforts of CSs to keep their community together are currently adding more
value to the negative effects of the economic crisis on coworking members. In fact,
along with the community actions, CSs are putting in place strategical measures to
counterbalance the economic effects, such as membership suspension, lower pricing
for new members and discounts to current members, new student memberships for
university students transitioning to online classes and ability to roll over unused days
(Coworker.com 2020).
Moreover, to find a way to mitigate the risks and get back to a more normal
situation, CSs are forced by consumer demand (especially at the enterprise level) to
up-level their cleaning procedures and frequency. In this regard, guidelines and best
practices have been put in place to deal with the virus in practical terms.
In order to create a safe work environment there are specific preventive measures
that CSs are implementing. For instance, the Global Workspace Association (GWA,
https://www.globalworkspace.org/) launched the guide “Coronavirus: A Guide to
Protecting Your Flexible Office Space” providing a toolkit for “flexible office oper-
ators” while the SocialWorkplaces (SocialWorkplaces.com 2020) proposes to train
coworking staff on hygiene practices, implement cleaning protocols and new hygiene

procedures (i.e.clean things like door handles, taps, light switches, etc.), as well as the
“namaste instead of handshake habit” to avoid physical contact between members
and the digital thermometer station: «Are you suffering any of these symptoms?
Please, take your temperature!» (Coworker.com survey).
Aside from the good educational hygiene behaviours, SocialWorkplaces enhances
the remote working of members, allowing people to take home furniture from the
CS to be able to work from home.
Similarly, Coworker.com promotes the “Most common measures by coworking
spaces to stop the spread of Covid-19”, highlighting the importance of more frequent
sanitization of all high-frequency touchpoints (supported by 84.56% of respondent
CSs) as well as making hand sanitizer accessible throughout the space (embraced by
74.16% of respondent CSs).
At the national level, the Italian Rete COWO drafted a manifesto based on good
criteria including good hygiene-sanitary practices for coworkers to promote working
in healthy spaces as a common strategy for the whole community. It is also impor-
tant to use face masks in presence of coughing or sneezing symptoms, and the re-
configuration of the space in order to allow 1.5–2 m from one seat to another (Rete
COWO 2020).
An interesting trend has emerged regarding the relationship with the city and the
geographical location of the space itself.
Recently, some interesting local initiatives have emerged, such as making part-
nerships with local businesses to assist members and their families, including addi-
tional services by food delivery companies (Coworker.com 2020), or diversifying the
portfolio by expanding the network to public and/or private spaces (e.g. municipal
libraries, cafés, etc.) scattered across the territory, and using the main space in the
inner centre for different uses: «We are now using the space for different business
needs, such as storage» (York_space, Moscow in Coworker.com 2020).
Something similar has been experienced in Italy, where only the 60% of CSs
has physically shut down (Italian Coworking Survey 2020), while other spaces are
subletting, sometimes at rather high costs, to companies and workers of essential
activities guaranteeing, at this stage, an important service to local contexts, such as
Talent Garden Calabiana in Milan.
Being the current situation ongoing with long-term trajectory predictable, it is
possible to summarise the transformation actions that CSs worldwide are putting in
place, splitting them into three representative categories:
(i) New digital offering, such as organizing virtual classes and workshops, online
weekly community lunches, or providing a platform for hanging out;
(ii) Immediate financing aid and hygiene guidelines, such as adjusted cancella-
tion policies to allow for more relaxed cancellation periods, lower pricing for
new members and discounts to current members and the ability to roll over
any unused days to future months for part-time shared desk members or to
pause membership entirely. But also to structure a set of general rules for good
hygiene-sanitary practices;

(iii) Long-term strategies, such as changing marketing strategies to reflect a new
focus on selling private office memberships, space rearrangement to guarantee
healthy and safe working conditions for future opening, and in some cases the
temporary relocation in peripheral or rural areas (those less impacted by the
virus) to attract more users.
These new actions, impacting on the coworking business models, showcase the
adaptability of the coworking industry, which reflects its nature of being adaptable
and providing flexible solutions in whichever manner is needed most (Coworker.com
2020) (Fig. 7).
As explored above, CSs worldwide adjusted their business model or introduced
new business models in response to the outbreak. Furthermore, probably for the first
time in the history of work, a massive number of people experienced remote working
and its pros and cons.
19?” survey—prediction of long-term effects for CSs. Source Coworker.com

19?” survey—number of coworking members that plan to go back to coworking after the pandemic.
Source Coworker.com
While there are certainly some challenges to remote work, the majority of people
seem to believe it has more benefits than drawbacks, including a better work-life
balance and boosted productivity. Perhaps most significantly, people who were forced
to work remotely for the first time as a result of the pandemic have found it to be
an overall positive experience, rating remote work a 70 out of 100 on average. As
a result of this increased productivity and satisfaction, 88.6% of the respondents
who regularly utilised CSs prior to the pandemic said they will plan on returning
to them post-pandemic (Coworker.com 2020). Moreover, a majority of first-time
remote workers who worked in an office prior said they would consider joining a
coworking space in the future (Fig. 8).
However, studies reveal that social distancing has been followed by an increased
fear regarding physical proximity (Florida 2020), especially in the work environment
(Molla 2020). Findings from the European SocialWorkplaces survey (https://social
workplaces.com/product/survey-impact-of-covid-19-on-coworking-spaces/) reveal
that CS owners and employees have been witnessing their members having two main
fears in the presence of this sudden outbreak of Covid-19. Firstly, is the “direct” fear
of catching the virus in crowded areas, such as communal spaces or on public trans-
port when commuting to the workplace, and taking it home to one’s family, loved
ones or vulnerable people. Secondly, is the “indirect” fear related to the economic
impact. Members are afraid of the severe economic consequences that Covid-19
might bring to their jobs and lives. Lastly, some members voiced their concern that
their CSs might be forced to shut down and they are afraid of losing their community
and workspace (SocialWorkplaces.com 2020).

19?” survey—number of people that consider joining a coworking space after the pandemic. Source
Coworker.com
Despite the uncertain situation during the first phase of the lockdown, data
collected reveal an optimistic trend regarding the coworking economy, with a signif-
icant number of corporates and SMEs that will adjust their policies to reflect the
success they experienced during the pandemic with a remote workforce.
From an international perspective, a significant majority of those that worked
from a CS before lockdowns said they plan on returning to the space once isolation
ends, plus people that weren’t previously exposed to coworking spaces before the
pandemic will look to try coworking for the first time (Coworker.com 2020) (Fig. 9).
5 Conclusions and Future Trajectories
Coworking is a social practice that focuses on social (proximity) and the other prox-
imity measures a là Boschma (2005), which are enhancing the sense of community
and mutual support (Rus and Orel 2015, Garrett et al. 2017). Even if many spaces
have decided to close temporarily, there are potential opportunities that may come
from the current situation. Several coworking managers are optimistic that things
will return to normal once the curve has flattened, leading into speculative long-term
positive effects: "Companies are thinking about decentralization of work, improving
efficiency, and reducing costs. Compulsory work-from-home or opting for a nearby
coworking space may be an eye-opener for corporates" (manager of CoworkCascais
Portugal, in Coworker.com 2020).
However, no shared space is free from the potential of Covid-19 contamination
and, despite actions taken to ensure the safety of members, a new way of working
is emerging, totally transforming the work paradigm. In fact, as highlighted by a

Colliers survey (Neubauer 2020), 82% of employees around the globe hope to work
from home at least once a week after the pandemic, representing a potential for CS
trend that could accelerate as a result of more remote work (Boerner 2020).
Advancing the observation of Florida and Pedigo (2020) about how the pandemic
should prompt cities to “embrace telework”, CSs can play a key role in the trans-
formation process, hosting the relocated remote workers and helping them plug into
the local scene (Strangler 2020), as well as becoming a lifeline for small businesses
that operate on the periphery (Katz et al. 2020).
From the perspective of local administrators, attracting CSs located in urban areas
that have been greatly affected by the Covid-19 to peripheral or rural suburbs might
be a good strategy. This can also be implemented by offering incentives and/or tax
benefits to relocate to their municipality (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). However, it
cannot be denied that creative, innovative, and skilled workers are more willing to live
in metropolitan areas (Florida 2002), where transport accessibility and others public
infrastructures, such as broadband, are more efficient, although remote areas show
a higher quality of life. An interesting example has been experienced in Norway,
where the public administration promoted the re-location of public CSs to periph-
eral areas by hosting them in public libraries or other public premises (Di Marino
and Lapintie 2018). It should be, therefore, necessary to verify: (i) the potential
demand of members and managers and their willingness to pay for these services,
evaluating also the long-term trajectories in terms of sustainability; (ii) the technical
feasibility and start-up costs; (iii) the risk of shifting the coworking concept, due to
the loss of dynamism and involvement in sharing the space in favour of a more static
and utilitarian use of it. This scenario, beyond the complexity of the time being,
is characterised by the uncertainty of the operation’s time lane and, therefore, by
the impossibility to estimate the investment payback time (Mariotti and Di Matteo
2020).
Just as important as economic impact is the community dimension that will be
critically important for recovery and rebound post-pandemic. As we move into a
future defined by some ever-present level of social distancing, community ties could
fray (Strangler 2020). In this sense, it is interesting to understand how the more
resilient CSs (Gandini and Cossu 2019) were able to keep the community together,
while big and medium-size spaces (Avdikos and Merkel 2019) struggled more.
In fact, the so called resilient CSs (Gandini and Cossu 2019), or community-led
CSs (Avdikos and Merkel 2019) embrace the evolution of work in a direction of
flexibility and independence, preferring a deep relationship with the context with the
purpose to benefit the local context through entrepreneurial activities. Although the
paper is the result of a joint work of the authors, the sections may be attributed as
follows: Sect. 3 to Ilaria Mariotti, Sect. 4 to Irene Manzini Ceinar, Sects. 1, 2 and 5
to the two authors.

References
Avdikos V, Kalogeresis A (2017) Socio-economic profile and working conditions of freelancers
in co-working spaces and work collectives: evidence from the design sector in Greece. Royal
Geograph Soc. Area 49(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12279
Avdikos V, Merkel J (2019) Supporting open, shared and collaborative workspaces and hubs: recent
transformations and policy implications. J Urban Res Pract 1(10):1753–5077. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17535069.2019.1674501
Barbieri T, Basso G, Scicchitano S (2020) Italian workers at risk during the Covid-19 epidemic.
INAP WP, Rome. http://oa.inapp.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/661
Beam Dowd J, Adriano L, Rotondi V, David B, Block P, Ding X, Mills MC (2020) Demographic
science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A. 2020 May 5;117(18):9696-9698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004911117.
BecattiniG(1990)TheMarshallianindustrialdistrictassocio-economicnotion.In:PykeF,Becattini
G, Sengenberger W (eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Cooperation in Italy, International
Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva, pp 37–51
Bellah R, Madsen R, Sullivan W, Swidler A, Tipton S (1985) Habits of the heart: middle America
observed. Hutchinson, London
Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user motivations and
perceived barriers to social learning. Library Hi Tech 31(2):254–273
Bishop B, Marema T (2020) Pandemic spreads into rural America at rate similar to urban
areas. Daily Yonder. https://www.dailyyonder.com/pandemic-spreads-into-rural-america-at-rate-
similar-to-urban-areas/2020/04/01/ Accessed April 2020
Boerner D (2020) In A Post-Pandemic Future, Coworking May Be Multifamily’s Newest Amenity
Read more at https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/multifamily/multifamily-developers-may-
look-for-bigger-units-and-more-coworking-post-pandemic-104100?utm_source=CopyShare&
utm_medi. https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/multifamily/multifamily-developers-may-
look-for-bigger-units-and-more-coworking-post-pandemic-104100 Accessed April 2020
Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. J Region Stud 39(1):61–
74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Brynjolfsson E, Horton J, Ozimek A, Rock D, Sharma G (2020) COVID-19 and remote work: an
early look at US data. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, CA
Canzanese R (2020) Remote Work Increasing Exponentially Due to COVID-19. https://www.
netskope.com/fr/blog/remote-work-increasing-exponentially-due-to-covid-19 Accessed March
2020
Capdevila I (2017) A typology of localized spaces of collaborative innovation. In: van Ham M,
Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Syrett S, Mason C (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods—towards an
understanding of the economies of neighbourhoods and communities. Edward Elgar Publishers,
Cheltenham, UK, pp 80–97
Capello R (2007) Regional Economics, Routledge, London and New York, NY
Coworker.com (2020) Survey: how coworking spaces are navigating COVID-19. https://www.cow
orker.com/mag/survey-how-coworking-spaces-are-navigating-covid-19 Accessed March 2020
Credit K (2020) Socio-demographic disparities in COVID-19 case rates and testing: an exploratory
spatial analysis of ZIP code data in Chicago, IL. RSPP Working Paper nº 2020.002, Special Series
on Covid-19.
de Peuter G, Cohen N, Saraco F (2017) The ambivalence of coworking: on the politics of an
emerging work practice. Eur J Cult Stud 20(6):687–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/136754941773
2997
Deskmag (2011) Coworking 101: a new definition. https://www.deskmag.com/en/coworking-spa
ces-101-a-new-definition Accessed March 2020
Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2017) Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. J Urban Technol
24:5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1297520

Florida R (2020) The geography of Coronavirus. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/
coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/ Accessed April 2020
Florida R, Pedigo S (2020) How our cities can reopen after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Avenue: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/24/how-our-cities-can-reo
pen-after-the-covid-19-pandemic/ Accessed March 2020
Fuzi A, Clifton N, Loudon G (2014) New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and
innovation: the co-working space. R & D Management Conference 3–6 June, Stuttgart.
Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera Theory Polit Organ
15:193–205
Gandini A, Cossu A (2019) The third wave of coworking: ‘neo-corporate’ model versus ‘resilient’
practice. Eur J Cult Stud 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419886060
Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the
emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organiz Stud 38(6):821–842. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0170840616685354
Gatto M (2020) Diffusione e dinamica dell’epidemia di COVID-19. LinkedIn di AlumniPolimi.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aW_8SlnqGT3Cqn15e18e_xBy6pblRRU9/view, Intervieweur.
Accessed April 2020
Grasselli G (2020) Critical care utilization for the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy. Italy, JAMA-
American Medical Association, Early Experience and Forecast During an Emergency Response
Hillery G (1955) Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociol 20:111–123
Hopkins University (2020) Coronavirus resource center. Johns Hopkins University & Medicine:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Il Sole 24 Ore (2020) Lavoro, Cgil: 8 milioni di italiani in smart working con
epidemia Covid-19. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/lavoro-cgil-8-milioni-italiani-smart-wor
king-epidemia-covid-19-AD7aAMR?refresh_ce=1 Accessed May 2020
ISTAT (2020) Gli spostamenti sul territorio prima del COVID-19. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/
242574. Accessed May 2020
ISTAT (2020) ISTAT during the Covid-19 emergency. https://www.istat.it/en/archivio/240106
Italian Coworking (2020) La riaccensione: ci saranno più opportunità per i coworking dopo
l’emergenza? https://www.italiancoworking.it/la-riaccensione-ci-saranno-piu-opportunita-per-i-
coworking-dopo-lemergenza/ Accessed April 2020
Italian Coworking Survey 2020 (2020) Italian coworking. https://www.italiancoworking.it/italian-
coworking-survey-2020/?mc_cid=6aa9626fd6&mc_eid=711106bfb7 Accessed April 2020
Joan Subirats CF (2020) Re-inventing the city—Coronavirus emergency observatory (F. p. Urbana,
Intervieweur) Accessed March 2020
Katz B, Saadine M, Higgins C (2020) Saving small business: supersize the local role.
The new localism. https://www.thenewlocalism.com/newsletter/saving-small-business-supers
ize-the-local-role/ Accessed April 2020
Kington T (2020) As Italy extends quarantine zone, many flee; angry officials tell them to go back.
Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-08/italy-extends-qua
rantine-across-north-many-flee Accessed March 2020
Klaus I (2020) Pandemics are also an urban planning problem. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/
design/2020/03/coronavirus-urban-planning-global-cities-infectious-disease/607603/ Accessed
March 2020
Kluth A (2020) This pandemic will lead to social revolutions. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomb
erg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-11/coronavirus-this-pandemic-will-lead-to-social-revolutions
Accessed April 2020
Kutchler T, Russel D, Stroebel J (2020) The geographic spread of COVID-19 correlates with
structure of social networks as measured by Facebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03055. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2004.03055
Kwiatkowski A, Buczynski B (2011) Coworking: how freelancers escape the coffee shop office and
tales of community from independents around the world. Cohere Coworking

Li H, Liu Z, Ge J (2020) Scientific research progress of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in the first five
months. J Cellul Molec Med 24:6558–6570. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.15364
Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2020) Coworking in emergenza Covid-19: quali effetti per le
aree periferiche? EyesReg 10(2). Eyesreg. http://www.eyesreg.it/2020/coworking-in-emergenza-
covid-19-quali-effetti-per-le-aree-periferiche/
Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: the evidence from Italy.
Eur Spat Res Pol 27(1):37–52. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.02
Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban
effects. J Urban Technol 24:47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556
Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Rossi F (2020) The location of coworking spaces in Urban vs. Peripheral
Areas, European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895080
Marshall A (1925) Principles of economics. Macmillan, London
McWilliams D (2015) The flat white economy. Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd., London
Mélypataki G (2020) Dematerialisation of workplace in non-classical labour law rela-
tions. Zbornik Radova 53, 671.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338336402_Demateria
lisation_of_workplace_in_non-classical_labour_law_relations
Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera Theory Politic Organiz 15(1):121–139
Merkel J (2018) Freelance isn’t free. Coworking as a critical urban practice to cope with informality
in creative labour markets. Urban Stud 56(3), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801878
2374
Molla R (2020) How coronavirus could force the work-from-home movement. https://www.vox.
com/recode/2020/2/26/21153343/coronavirus-covid-19-work-from-home-remote-pandemic.
Accessed February 2020
Molla R (2020) This is the end of the office as we know it. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/14/
21211789/coronavirus-office-space-work-from-home-design-architecture-real-estate. Accessed
April 2020
Mould O, Vorley T, Liu K (2014) Invisible creativity? Highlighting the hidden impact of freelancing
in London’s creative industries. Eur Plan Stud 22(12):2436–2455. https://doi.org/10.1080/096
54313.2013.790587
Neubauer K (2020) Survey: 69% of companies plan to shrink office footprint, increase
remote work read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news/commercial-real-estate/
new-surveys-show-that-work-from-home-is-expected-to-be-more-permanent-104187 Accessed
April 2020
Nixey C (2020). Death of the office. The economist 1843: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/
death-of-the-office. Accessed June 2020
Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place. Da Capo Press, New York
Pais I (2012) La rete che lavora. Mestieri e professioni nell’era digitale. Egea, Milano
Parrino L (2013) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manag
Res Pract 13(3):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47
Robelski S, Keller H, Volker H, Mache S (2019) Coworking spaces: the better home office? A
psychosocial and health-related perspective on an emerging work environment. J Environ Res
Public Health 16(13): 2379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132379
Ross P, Ressia S (2015) Neither office nor home: coworking as an emerging workplace choice.
Employ Relat Rec 15:42–57
Rus A, Orel M (2015) Coworking: a community of work. Teorija in Praksa 52(6):1017–1038
Silvia Fanzecco, Talent Garden Calabiana (2020) Webinar SofàSoGood Resistenze Digitali—
coworking e Community. (I. R. Emilia, Intervieweur) Accessed April 2020
Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus
Technic Commun 26(4):400–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070
Strangler D (2020) here are three reasons COVID-19 makes coworking spaces even more
important. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danestangler/2020/04/03/here-are-three-reasons-covid-
19-makes-coworking-spaces-even-more-important/#5dbbac2433ac Accessed April 2020

UK Office for National Statistics (2020) Coronavirus (COVID-19). https://www.ons.gov.uk/people
populationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases
Van Oort F, Weterings A, Verlinde H (2003) Residential amenities of knowledge workers and the
location of ICT-FIrms in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie
94(4):516–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00278
Vartiainen M, Hakonen M, Nieminen M (2007) Distributed and mobile work—places, people and
technology. Otatieto, Tampere
Waters-Lynch J, Potts J, Butcher T, Dodson J, Hurley J (2016) Coworking: a transdisciplinary
overview. SSRN Electr J. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296669434
Weber A (1929) Theory of the location of industries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Yang E, Bisson C (2019) Coworking space as a third-fourth place: changing models of a hybrid
space in corporate real estate. J Corpor Real Estate 21(4):324–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcre-
12-2018-0051
View publication stats

Mariottietal_2021_Book_Springer (1).pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Mariottietal_2021_Book_Springer (1).pdf

Recently uploaded

Mariottietal_2021_Book_Springer (1).pdf