The future of multilocational work and New Working Spaces in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities: A Norwegian perspective

ABSTRACT

Since the early 2000s, several developments in technology, as well as in cultural and economic contexts, have dramatically influenced ways of working in the Nordic countries and beyond. However, there is a lack of a clear overview of the increase in New Working Spaces (NWS) (e.g., coworking areas, public libraries and coffee shops equipped as workspaces, and other collaborative hubs). The aim of the article is to explore the possibilities for multilocational work, including the growth of NWS that are gradually appearing in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. The authors conducted a literature review, and they studied the phenomenon empirically by providing a comprehensive overview of the NWS spanning all of Norway, with a main focus on the five counties of Vestland, Agder, Innlandet, Nordland, and Viken. In addition to spatial analyses (including concentration, centrality, and types of spaces), semi-structured interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic with the managers of NWS. The sample represented hubs emerging recently opened. The findings revealed that varied opportunities exist for multilocational work, including new forms and places for working, which can contribute to revitalizing several districts. An ongoing need is for policymakers, planners, municipalities, and private investors to address future visions and strategies.

KEYWORDS:

• multi-locational work
• New Working Spaces
• Norway
• small and medium-sized urban municipalities
• rural municipalities

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, new ways and views of working have been discussed among progressive policymakers and academics in several fields (e.g., urban and regional planning, economics, sociology, information technology, transportation). This has been due to advancements in technology and thinking about flexible working. Also, since the early 2000s, remote working,¹ teleworking,² and coworking have been explored, while the spectrum of new forms of work has broadened to cover, for example, virtual coworking (Sinitsyna et al. 2022), and multilocational work (Bürgin et al. 2021), and New Working Spaces (NWS) have proliferated in many countries. In this context, scholars have investigated the implications of NWS for local communities, mainly within urban contexts, such as large cities and metropolitan areas. However, there is little knowledge about the phenomenon in smaller urban municipalities and in rural municipalities, particularly the effects related to moving to the post-industrial and knowledge-based economy (Knapp & Sawy 2021). Moreover, the role of NWS as urban and rural hubs in particular regions is not yet fully acknowledged in terms of economic potential, community-building, place attachment, development of digital skills, mobility, and the provision of public services (Lange et al. 2022).

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge workers tended to choose large urban centers and there was a growing trend of accommodation in flexible working spaces, such as coworking spaces (CS) (Knapp & Sawy 2021). Aside from large urban centers, few scholars have discussed the links between small and medium-sized urban municipalities and rural municipalities (seen as community-based actors) on the one hand, and their role in promoting urban and economic development on the other hand (Knapp & Sawy 2021). NWS located in smaller and rural municipalities can not only support innovation and economic development in those areas, but they can also form bridges with larger urban contexts (Capdevila 2021; Hölzel & de Vries 2021). Some local policies and measures have contributed to rethinking the meaning of mobility and travelers’ plans to use NWS in smaller centers (Thao et al. 2021).

During the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the revitalization of smaller and rural municipalities—through the presence of digital nomads, and remote workers and their families—were increasingly debated among policymakers and academics (Tomaz et al. 2022). A growing trend of people escaping from the bigger cities and searching for healthier and safer living and working environments has been noted (Willberg et al. 2021). The main needs expressed include proximity to green areas, less crowded areas, and shorter commutes to the workplace (Venter et al. 2020), as well as more spacious dwellings (e.g., with a garden or terrace, and an extra room for working from home) (Nanda et al. 2021). These trends have occurred within national and local variations, allowing people to work from locations other than traditional offices (Eurofound 2020).

Some studies show that there are new opportunities for multilocational work, including a proliferation of NWS in smaller municipalities and rural areas that contribute to regional development, the growth of new businesses, an increased labor force, and the implementation of new technologies (e.g., Hölzel & de Vries 2021). Small centers can attract people who choose different types of flexible working (remote working, coworking, and “multi-local” working). For example, in addition to their homes and offices, remote workers may work in alternative locations such as NWS, while multi-local workers (who work and live in multiple locations) can rent a desk in a NWS that is often more affordable compared to a working space in a metropolis (Greinke & Lange 2022). This can happen with or without the benefits of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Vartiainen 2021).

In Germany (Hölzel & de Vries 2021), the UK (Reuske et al. 2021) and Switzerland (Bürgin et al. 2021), some people have tried to manage their work-life balance by choosing to work temporarily and/or more permanently in remote areas (Bürgin et al. 2021). This phenomenon is similar to that emerging in the Nordic countries. In Finland, areas in which workplaces are typically concentrated have seen a decrease in population dynamics within the urban regions, while there has been an increase in population in rural areas that have a high number of second homes (Willberg et al. 2021). There is an increasing tendency for workers to remain for prolonged periods in second homes located in smaller and rural municipalities, such as summer cottages in Finland (Lehtonen et al. 2019) and cabins (hytter) in Norway (Venter et al. 2020).

Thus, the aim of this article is to explore opportunities for multilocational work, including the growth of NWS in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities, and the resulting revitalization of these areas, focusing on the Norwegian context. Since the early 2000s, there has been renewed interest in Norwegian policies focusing on revitalizing sparsely settled regions and distant communities (Knudsen 2018; Rye & Slettebak 2020).

Norwegian scholars have analyzed policies concerning the increasing rate of innovation, jobs, and value creation. However, there has been some rhetorical discourse on the importance of, and need for such policies, rather than paying attention to the number of people who are willing to live in remote and marginal places (Knudsen 2018). A local community debate in Norway has emphasized both people’s well-being and the attractiveness of locations as societal goals (Knudsen 2018). In this context, an understanding of local settings contributes to interpreting regional and local differences across Norway, while avoiding generalizations.

In order to examine the Norwegian context, we used the classification of municipalities provided by Statistics Norway (2020a): small (up to 4,999 inhabitants), medium (between 5,000 and 19,999 inhabitants), and large (at least 20,000 inhabitants). On average, rural communities have 4,020 inhabitants and they meet three further criteria (Rye & Slettebak 2020): (1) centrality—availability of jobs and services within 90 minutes by car; (2) settlement density—more than 50% of the local population resides in sparsely populated areas; and (3) labor markets—more than 7% of the working population is engaged in the primary sector (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, and forestry). Of the 426 municipalities in Norway, 273 are classified as rural, in which 18.4% of Norwegians live (Rye & Slettebak 2020).

This article is structured as follows. The next section reviews studies of new forms of multilocational work and the proliferation of NWS in smaller municipalities and rural areas (there is little on this topic for medium-sized municipalities). Thereafter, we discuss the current policies on digitalization and the evolution of coworking spaces, and culture. Additionally, the Norwegian settlements (districts and municipalities) of the NWS are presented, as well as general information about the sample of 14 emerging NWS. Then we describe the methodologies used in our study, including spatial analyses and semi-structured interviews, as well as the data analysis. This is followed by a presentation of the main results on the concentration, centrality, and types of NWS in the five selected counties and related districts in Norway, as well as the findings on managers’ perspectives on the revitalization of small and medium-sized urban municipalities and of rural municipalities, new ways of working, and multi-local habits, as well as the managers’ visions for the future. In the Discussion section, we highlight the contribution of the study to new knowledge about multilocational work, including the growth of NWS in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. In the Conclusions section, in addition to the main outcomes, we summarize our discussion of the role of NWS in decentralized areas and new opportunities for multi-local workers.

Literature review

Rural–urban multilocational working practices

Since the early 2000s, there has been an increasing number of people who, for job-related and family reasons—and more recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic—have lived in multiple residences (first, second, and third homes) (Weichart 2015) and have worked in different physical environments (e.g., homes, clients’ premises, vehicles, and public spaces) (Ojala & Pyöriä 2018; Reuschke & Ekinsmyth 2021). This phenomenon has become known as the ‘multi-locality of living and working’, and it has been observed mainly among knowledge workers in several European countries, including Germany, Austria, UK, Finland, and Norway (Ojala & Pyöriä 2018; Reuschke et al. 2021; Di Marino 2022).

The practices of people living and working in more than one place can affect both urban and regional development in terms of mobility, place of residence and domicile, the provision of public services, company locations, and employer strategies (Greinke & Lange 2022). NWS can be implemented through various types of flexible working arrangements (e.g., flex office—an activity-based office concept, coworking, total home office, and partial home office). The combination of NWS and flexible working times can contribute to employees’ job satisfaction and higher levels of performance (Davidescu et al. 2020). In this context, NWS—such as coworking spaces (CS), and especially NWS closer to the “place of departure of multi-locals,” as highlighted by Greinke & Lange (2022, 74)—might attract workers and avoid long-distance commuting. In addition, since the early 2010s, other third places, such as public and private services, have been transformed and had new services added to them, such as public libraries (Yang et al. 2019), coffee shops (Mimoun & Gruen 2021; Shearmur et al. 2021; Fang et al. 2022), and restaurants (Florida 2014). Some of these spaces are used as informal workspaces, but more recently some public libraries and cafés have been intentionally reconceptualized in order to offer formal facilities and spaces for remote working (Galluzzi 2011).

Multi-local habits have been less thoroughly investigated in smaller municipalities and rural areas (Bürgin et al. 2021; Greinke & Lange 2022). Increasingly, companies are considering ways to attract and retain workers who do not want to relocate in order to be close to their offices (Greinke & Lange 2022). Despite this desire for flexibility, place still matters, particularly in terms of accessibility, access to users, and the location of NWS. Thao et al. (2021) explored the mobility profile of coworkers in small urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. Similarly, Hölzel & de Vries (2021) studied the attractiveness of CS in those places, their proximity to other services, and multi-local habits of the people who lived there. They found that as an alternative to remote working from home, a CS in a smaller urban municipality and in a rural municipality could provide several benefits and opportunities to users, such as the avoidance of social isolation, the separation private and professional life, and avoidance and/or reduction in commuting times and distances. The presence of CS in the center of smaller urban municipalities and of rural municipalities may support the survival of existing services, such as grocery stores, cafés, and restaurants, and encourage the establishment of new shops and services (Hölzel & de Vries 2021).

Hölzel & de Vries (2021) discuss the additional and temporary use of CS during the day, and over the whole week. This suggests that people work from other places too, thus adopting a multi-local lifestyle. In smaller urban municipalities and in rural municipalities people might choose to work from home and/or from the CS, but the reasons for choosing one over the other need to be further investigated in each local setting (Hölzel & de Vries 2021; Thao et al. 2021. Thus, NWS such as CS can play an important role within the complex multilocational framework and in understanding multi-local habits in different contexts.

In Norway, the increased presence of people who lived in multiple locations and might also have worked in different places (so-called ‘part-time inhabitants’) before the COVID-19 pandemic has been monitored and reported by several scholars (see the overview by Knudsen 2018, 287). Scholars have emphasized multi-local living and the use of a second home for recreational purposes (e.g., holidays) and have studied related economic and environmental impacts on urban and peripheral regions (e.g., Xue et al. 2020). The debate has also focused on rearranging taxation according to geographical location, in order to account for the different places in which people want to live, and to allow people to use a broad range of public services beyond their fixed domicile (Knudsen 2018). On the one hand, this approach may redistribute existing economic resources, and on the other hand it could support a new link (social and economic) between rural and urban living (Knudsen 2018).

The dichotomy between urban versus rural areas that is discussed in the multilocality literature (e.g., Nadler 2016), has been challenged by those who can live in both urban and rural contexts (Knudsen 2018). However, little is known about the kind of facilities and spaces for multi-local workers that can be found in addition to the home, especially in smaller municipalities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased demand for second homes emerged in Nordic countries (e.g., in Finland (Willberg et al. 2021; Häkkänen et al. 2022) and in Norway (Statistics Norway 2021)). During the first wave of the pandemic, the Norwegian Government did not allow people to move to their cabins (hytter), since health and emergency services in those areas were inadequate to cater for the potential number of newcomers. Rural municipalities and smaller urban municipalities in Finland faced similar challenges (Willberg et al. 2021). Between subsequent waves of the pandemic, those who could work from their second homes started to do so, particularly in Finland, where summer cottages were used for prolonged periods of time (Lehtonen et al. 2019; Häkkänen et al. 2022). A new debate is now flourishing in the Nordic countries and its focus is on the relations between increased remote working and multi-locality, and the ways in which policies should be adjusted to accommodate these trends (Nordregio 2021).

The growth of New Working Spaces in smaller municipalities and in rural areas

In recent decades, population numbers in smaller municipalities and in rural areas³ in several countries have declined due to the lack of jobs and IT infrastructure, as well as the effects of globalization (Beňo 2021). Nevertheless, in some countries, technological development, a new demand for work-life balance, increased flexible working practices, and the more recent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have progressively motivated people to return to smaller municipalities and rural areas (Beno 2021).

Although the emergence of NWS in smaller municipalities and in rural areas is increasing (e.g., in Germany, Switzerland, UK, Norway, and Finland), relevant studies remain limited (Knapp & Sawy 2021). In particular, Knapp & Sawy (2021) refer to the role of the public sector that should function as an operator and/or financial supporter, especially in revitalizing rural areas and smaller towns in order to attract creative people. In analyzing the phenomenon, Moriset (2011) was the first scholar in the field to recognize the role of coworking spaces as a driving force for revitalizing rural communities in France. Moriset (2011) also found that rural areas could benefit from a large variety of public subsidies that might become available, particularly in order to attract and retain knowledge workers.

Furthermore, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies had focused on the challenges of users and managers of NWS in smaller municipalities and in rural areas, revealing some similarities and differences between them and those in urban areas. For example, a common challenge among NWS in smaller municipalities and in rural areas is the lack of public transport and resulting high dependency on the use of cars (Hölzel & de Vries 2021; Thao et al. 2021). Hence, commuting and driving time are among the main factors that need to be analyzed, in comparison to working in bigger metropolitan areas (e.g., in Wales, UK (Reuske & Ekinsmyth 2021)). Thao et al. (2021) found that NWS in smaller municipalities were characterized by the provision of technical services, community culture, and a “cozy” atmosphere. NWS such as CS are seen as part of the social infrastructure and predominantly a place to overcome social isolation (Knapp & Sawy 2021), as well as places that tend to be more comfortable than home (Tremblay & Scaillerez 2020).

Unlike large urban areas, workers in smaller municipalities and in rural areas can face barriers, such as limited access to a variety of knowledge and skills, poor IT infrastructure, difficulty in networking with other small entrepreneurs, and difficulty in developing solid businesses (for the case of Austria, see Knapp & Sawy 2021, and for Canada see Tremblay & Scaillerez 2020). Nevertheless, more recently, NWS in peri-urban areas and rural areas are being reserved by companies for their employees—and for longer periods than used by self-employed workers and entrepreneurs (for the case of Montreal, see Tremblay & Scaillerez 2020). In Switzerland, for example, there are several tourism-oriented CS, which are supported by the state (Thao et al. 2021).

Some studies that have focused on rural areas have found that the establishment of CS can provide valuable infrastructure for business creation and to support the local context (Gauger et al. 2021). Similarly, from an analysis of the case of Catalonia in Spain, Capdevila (2021) claims that the success of urban coworking encourages actors to develop collaborative spaces in rural areas, which in turn helps to develop local socio-economic conditions.

The key factor in the success of smaller communities is an opportunity for creative people to cooperate (through subcontracting, joint ventures, and many other forms of shared activities) (Hyyryläinen 2008). For example, shared resources among Finnish employees in the national public services have led to increased flexible working places and practices. The practices of Finnish public services are now driven by digitalization and an increase in remote working. This has changed the way in which central government work is carried out in meeting the service needs of citizens. Multilocational work and individual choices about the place in which to work are supported by the idea of an ecosystem of places. According to Valtiovarainministeriö (2021), such an ecosystem would include CS and other shared facilities among different public service providers.

NWS have been acknowledged as a strategic component of regional development in smaller municipalities and rural areas (Knapp & Sawy 2021), particularly considering the impacts of digital transformation on working and networking practices (Lange et al. 2022). The growth of NWS depends on the local contexts and working culture:

The establishment and diffusion of coworking spaces in smaller municipalities and rural areas depends on the extent to which the associated working practices can be adapted to the regional circumstances and the ways coworking spaces can function as organizational units under these conditions. (Knapp & Sawy 2021, 117)

These places can become new social and creative hubs for innovation and can revitalize vacant spaces in the centers of smaller and rural municipalities (for the cases of France, Belgium, and Portugal see Tomaz et al. 2022, and for the cases of Italy, Norway, France, and Spain see Mariotti et al. 2020). The extent of local participation and skills available are further factors to evaluate in studies of smaller municipalities and rural areas (Knapp & Sawy 2021). Within a region, active centers in the form of socio-economic and cultural hubs can attract workers from neighboring municipalities (Lange et al. 2022; Tomaz et al. 2022). To conclude, local approaches to the degree of innovation, digitalization, and private and public investments in smaller and rural municipalities vary from region to region, which clearly affects the vision for these new forms of working and the places for them.

The context of Norway and the NWS selected for study

Urban and rural settlements and internal migration patterns

Norway has a population of 5,402,171 people, 82% of whom live in urban settlements, with less than 1,000,000 inhabitants in rural areas (Statistics Norway 2020a). Norway is characterized by small population units, and a total of 356 municipalities (Statistics Norway 2020b). The average population size of the municipalities is 12,100 inhabitants (Rye & Slettebak 2020).

Generally speaking, centralization of the population is evident within and around the big cities of the country (Statistics Norway 2020a). In many other municipalities, population numbers are declining, for example along the Swedish border and in northern Norway. The 2020–2050 projections for the municipal population state that “60 percent (216) of the municipalities is expected to grow. 20 percent of the municipalities have particularly high growth of 15 percent or more. 140 municipalities are expected to experience population decline” (Statistics Norway 2020a). However, the growing phenomenon of counter-urbanization has been noted in the Nordic countries, even before the COVID-19 pandemic (Nordregio 2021). Many young adults between the ages of 30 years and 40 years have recently moved to rural regions (Nordregio 2021). Internal migration data shows that relocation away from Oslo was extremely high during the pandemic (Statistics Norway 2023a). In 2020, there was also evidence of increasing relocation to other Norwegian cities, such as Bergen, Trondheim, and Stavanger (Statistics Norway 2023a). The migrants consisted mainly of young adults with children, who were in search of larger dwellings. Many moved to medium-sized to large municipalities in other parts of Viken County (in which Oslo is located), such as Lillestrøm, Nordre Follo, Asker, and Bærum (Statistics Norway 2023a). These internal migration patterns have since tended to stabilize.

Current policies on digitalization

Since the early 2000s, Norway has invested in digitalization, and recent data from the digital economy and society index (European Commission 2022) show that 92% of the population are Internet users, of whom 92% have fixed broadband; furthermore, 86% have at least basic digital skills, and 100% of the national land area has full 4G coverage, while 67% is ready for 5G. Compared to other countries, Norway presents a lower level of digital divide among urban and rural areas, due to a robust digital foundation (Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 2021).

The timely implementation of digitalization prior to the COVID-19 pandemic helped the country to adjust quickly to remote working and subsequent changes to working and living environments. Before the pandemic, 36% of workers worked remotely (9% as a permanent solution and 27% when necessary) (Nergaard 2020), while the prevalence of remote working was just above 11% in the EU 27 (European Commission 2020; Sostero et al. 2020). Within the first two years of the pandemic, remote working (for a prolonged time) rose to ca. 39% (Holgersen et al. 2021). This was similar to the European trends, which showed 40% of workers working remotely (Eurofound 2020).

Digitalization and remote working can make the rural areas more attractive and competitive, considering the new job sectors and opportunities, particularly in innovation, development and research (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 2021). In this context, it is recognized that economic instruments can be effective, such as investment in infrastructure and knowledge production, geographical zoning for taxation purposes, and various forms of subsidies for business activities (Knudsen 2018). However, it is important to examine the differences among local settings that are generated by multiple factors, such as variation in labor markets (Rye & Slettebak 2020), as well as stakeholders’ interests and private/public investments. Local communities in some decentralized areas have taken several initiatives, while other areas have been left behind in terms of structural transformations (Knudsen 2018).

The evolution of næringshager and coworking in Norway

In addition to existing policies, the Norwegian authorities have great ambitions to create equivalent living conditions and sustainable regions all over Norway, to enable people to live wherever they prefer. As an example of public investment, the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development owns and has partly financed a national program of 40 næringshager (literal translation: “business gardens”) (Kommunal – og distriktsdepartment 2004). In Norway, a næringshag is a small business center, with co-located start-up companies (in contrast to a business park, which is an area composed of company offices and light industrial premises). The main goal of the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development’s program is to spur innovation, development, and new businesses in smaller municipalities and rural areas, as well as all over the country. Since their beginning over 25 years ago, næringshager have prioritized the provision of opportunities to the younger generations and, to some extent, to female entrepreneurs. Næringshager have been evaluated several times at the national level (Clausen et al. 2011), with mention being made of the positive effects on profitability and well-being for the companies and individuals involved (Waldahl et al. 2014). Furthermore, following the early stages, many næringshag companies have progressed from being instrumental in the development of co-located companies to becoming development players at the regional level (Alteren et al. 2009).

To some extent, rural næringshager represent one of the oldest types of coworking infrastructure, and they have played an important part in the development of local businesses. Most business næringshager are top-down structures, governed by the authorities, which means that they are highly structured, with their own programs and public ventures. Nevertheless, as other needs and different audiences have arisen since 2007, new types of workplaces have emerged, which have been initiated both privately and through private/public collaborations. This means that within the same small municipality it is possible to find both a næringshag and a CS operating side by side. Some of them cooperate or compete with each other, while others have no interaction at all.

Since 2017, the coworking scene in Norway has grown in terms both of typologies and business models, even in smaller municipalities and rural areas. The main categories used are derived from a German study (Bertelsmann Stiftung n.d.), which describes seven business models of NWS that tend to develop in smaller and rural municipalities: coworking classic, commuter port, bottom hub, retreat, workation, new village center, and housing and work projects. In Norway, several examples of these different models are now visible. Some of them resemble the “coworking classic” types, which are diverse business spaces run by private, public, or mixed ownerships and provide a productive working atmosphere and an inspiring community. Others are “bottom hubs,” which are places often supported by the municipality (e.g., Kontorfellesskapet 1724 located in Vang, a municipality of 1,680 inhabitants (Statistics Norway 2023b), in the district of Valdres, Innlandet County. However, if they do not want to receive any public funding, these hubs can operate quite independently. There is also a growing number of NWS that are used for “workations,” especially in the north of Norway. Examples are evident in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities, such as the Arctic Coworking Lodge in Vestvagoy Municipality (11,5740 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2023c) in Nordland and Trevarefabrikken in Henningsvær fishing village in Vågan Municipality (9,774 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2023b).

The districts and municipalities in which the NWS are located and data on the selected NWS

The 14 selected NWS analyzed in this study (Table 1) are located in five counties in Norway, namely Vestland, Agder, Innlandet, Nordland, and Viken (Fig. 1). In the county of Vestland, one of the selected NWS is located in the district of Sunnfjord (43,324 inhabitants; Askheim 2023a), in Førde Municipality (10,495 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), which is the administrative center of Sunnfjord kommune (15,125 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022). Another NWS is located in the district of Nordfjord (32,838 inhabitants; Askheim 2023b), in Sandane (2,482 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), which is the administrative center of Gloppen Municipality (Gloppen kommune n.d.). Two NWS are located in Florø town (8,942 inhabitants) and Måløy town (3,303 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), which were merged within Kinn Municipality (17,199 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2023b) in 2020. Kinn’s territory lies between Nordfjord and Sunnfjord districts (Kinn kommune 2023).

Fig. 1. Concentration of coworking spaces (CS) in the five selected counties of Vestland, Innlandet, Agder, Nordland, and Viken, Norway

Table 1. New Working Spaces (NWS) observed in the selected five counties (Source: desk research and information from interviewed managers)

Name of the NWS	County	Concept*^,**	Year	Size (m^2)	Members	Companies	Municipalities
Peak Sunnfjord	Vestland	Vacant office space and coworking space in the center of western Norway	2017	450	100	20	Florø
	Vestland	Innovation in creative interaction	2019	2,500		10	Førde
	Vestland	Modern business center in Måløy, a multifunctional hub	not yet open	8,000	–	–	Måløy
	Vestland	Unknown	not yet open	–	–	–	Sandane
Coworx	Agder	The CoWorx experience is an entrepreneurial hub and social environment	2018	300	26–27	52	Mandal
Væxt	Nordland	An inspiring environment for sharing culture and socialization, as well as an arena for networking	2012	1,800	60–70	50	Mosjøen
	Nordland			250			Mo i Rana
	Nordland			100			Hattfjelldal
	Nordland			250			Sandnessjøen
	Nordland		2022	250			Brønnøy
	Nordland		2022	110			Hemnesberget
Park Hamar	Innlandet	Ideas grow and germinate	2018	6,000	190	20	Hamar
Innovasjon Centre	Innlandet	A place where people and ideas meet	2018	600	25–30	10	Ringebu
Tanken Coworking	Viken	Creation of a social and competence-rich community	2017	750	10–12	3–4	Ål

Notes: *For the concepts of each NWS see each NWS’s home page on the Internet; **Some Norwegian text has been translated into English by the authors of this article

The NWS examined in the county of Agder is located in Mandal (11,122 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), the fourth largest town in the county. Mandal is the administrative center of Lindesnes Municipality (12,585 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022) (Lindesnes kommune 2023).

The NWS analyzed in Innlandet County is in the district of Hamar (93,999 inhabitants), in Hamar Municipality (28,520 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022). Another NWS is located in Midt-Gudbrandsdal district, which comprises three municipalities (total 6668 inhabitants in 2022; Statistics Norway 2020c; 2022), in Ringebu Municipality (1,369 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), which is an attractive location for cabin dwellers and tourists.

The NWS selected in Nordland County are located Mosjøen, Mo i Rana, Sandnessjøen, Hattfjelldal, Brønnøy and Hemnesberget (Table 1) in the district of Helgeland (83,644 inhabitants in 2021; Thorsnæs & Scott 2023). Møsjøen town (9,794 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), in Vefsn Municipality (13,233 inhabitants in 2022; Engerengen et al. 2023), is located at the foot of the mountain Øyfjellet (Vefsn kommune n.d.). Mo i Rana is the administrative center of Rana Municipality (22,809 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), the third largest municipality in northern Norway (Rana kommune n.d.). Sandnessjøen town (5,956 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022) is the administrative center of Alstahaug Municipality (ca. 7,500 inhabitants; Alstahaug kommune 2023), on the Helgeland coast (Alstahaug kommune n.d.). The mountain municipality of Hattfjelldal (505 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022), and Brønnøy Municipality (4,995 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022). Hemnesberget village is in Hemnes Municipality (3,866 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022). The NWS selected in the county of Viken is in the district of Buskerud (283,148 inhabitants in 2019; Thorsnæs 2023), in Ål Municipality (2,721 inhabitants; Statistics Norway 2022).

In sum, the premises of the selected NWS are located in six small and rural municipalities, seven medium-sized municipalities, and one large municipality (Hamar). The NWS in Hamar (Park Hamar) is also the hub for the surrounding medium-sized municipalities of Løten and Stange. Data relating to the 14 selected NWS are listed in Table 1.

The 14 selected NWS provide chargeable facilities, such as single offices, meeting rooms, and desks in open spaces. These spaces are used by freelancers, start-ups, and, in several cases, as permanent premises by public and private companies. In addition, employees and remote workers may visit the NWS for shorter periods of time. In terms of public support, the Innovasjon Centre (Innlandet) is supported by Ringebu Municipality, the Park Hamar is supported by the municipalities of Løten, Hamar, and Stange, and the Hamar district. In the case of the Væxt (Nordland), the six municipalities in which the NWS are located have participated in compiling the business plans of the NWS.

Methods, data collection, and analysis

Semi-structured interviews and content analysis

Between January and March 2021, and in June 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted by one of the four authors, with six managers of the selected NWS (Table 1). Some of the managers coordinated more than one workplace. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some difficulties were experienced in arranging the interviews with the managers in terms of their availability and time constraints.

The interviews covered several topics, including the impact of the NWS on the municipality, the role of the NWS within master planning activities, the role of policies, the effects of COVID-19 on the NWS and surrounding areas, future challenges, and working trends after the pandemic (Di Marino & Mariotti 2022). Three main themes/categories were explored after considering the main outcomes from the literature review; thus, three categories were identified deductively (Mayring 2014), namely: (1) the role of NWS in revitalizing decentralized areas; (2) new ways of working; and (3) future visions. The interviewees were anonymized (as M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6), and a qualitative content analysis was conducted using coding (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Qualitative content analyses: categories and codes

The database of NWS in Norway

Two of the four co-authors of this article have built a comprehensive database on NWS in Norway by collecting data from different Internet sources. The database captures several attributes of NWS (types of NWS, accessibility, business model, building typology, services provided by the NWS, characteristics of the surrounding areas, current and future land-use classification, as well as contacts and social media details. The main desk research was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021, but the database has been frequently updated since then (15 new NWS opened during COVID-19 in small and medium-sized urban municipalities, and in rural municipalities).

Spatial analyses

The data collected in the authors’ database on NWS in Norway were georeferenced, and several spatial analyses were conducted to examine the geographical distribution of the NWS (urban or rural), the centrality of NWS, and types of NWS (public and/or private CS) (see Figs. 1 and 3). Thus, the data provide an overview of the location and concentration of the NWS at county level, with a major focus on the five counties selected in the study (Vestland, Agder, Innlandet, Nordland, and Viken) and related districts (Fig. 1).

Fig. 3. Distances between the main Norwegian cities and the selected coworking spaces (CS)

The density of businesses in Norway (data extracted from the Statistics Norway 2020) is shown in Fig. 1. Several studies state that the CS are located mainly in the densest areas of business activities and therefore this location factor is observed mainly in urban districts (e.g., Babb et al. 2018), while studies of regional contexts remain very limited. Among other methods, we executed a buffer analysis to detect the centrality of the selected public and private CS in proximity to the main cities. Euclidean buffers were measured at 20 km intervals as the distance in a two-dimensional Cartesian plane from the center of the main cities in Norway (Fig. 3). The proximity was based on the flying distance from the main cities. However, a better estimation of the centrality of the CS can be determined using the network distance.

Results

Spatial analyses and types of NWS in Norway

Since 2013, the number of NWS in Norway has increased, and 13 more NWS opened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concentration of NWS and some business activities (e.g., high-technology, business, and finance) is higher in the south and west of Norway, and lower in the north of the country (Figs. 1 and 3). This phenomenon can be related to less densely populated areas in the north, as well as traditional local industries that are prevalent there (fishery, forestry, and aquaculture). However, high-tech firms are well established in Trondheim (linked to NTNU and SINTEF).

As of May 2022, Norway had a total of 155 NWS. The highest concentration of NWS (n = 56) was observed in Oslo, the capital of Norway, with 696,400 inhabitants (Statistics Norway 2022). The reasons for such a concentration of NWS in the city can be found in the high number of innovative firms, as well as investments in technology and data platforms supporting the development of start-ups and entrepreneurs, supportive ecosystems, and access to funding (Moonen et al. n.d.). Nonetheless, in Viken County a debate continues about the very low concentration of NWS. In each of the most important centers in Viken County (e.g., Bærum og Asker district, Lillestrøm Municipality, and the cities of Drammen and Fredrikstad), there are only between one and five NWS. In large urban settlements in the other four counties, the concentration of NWS is similarly much lower. In Vestland, Bergen (the second largest city in Norway, with 267,117 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022) and Stavanger (the fourth largest city, with 221,693 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022) have eight and nine NWS respectively. In Agder, Kristiansand (the sixth largest city in Norway, with 65,506 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022) has only two NWS. In the county of Troms and Finnmark, Tromsø kommune (77,700 inhabitants; 77,992 in 2022) (Lysnes n.d.) offers only two NWS, whereas in Trondheim (the third most populated city, with 194,860 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022), there are 8 NWS.

Of the 155 NWS (55%), 86 are located in large urban settlements, while 45% of NWS are found in small, medium-sized municipalities and in rural municipalities. Some of the NWS presented in this study are located in rural areas. This is the case in Hovden (410 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022), in which one of the premises of Coworx opened recently, and in Hemnesberget (1,252 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022), in which the sixth Væxt opened in 2013. The rural municipalities of Måløy (3,303 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022) and Sandane (2,482 inhabitants) (Statistics Norway 2022) have been identified by Peak Sunnfjord for investment and the opening of more NWS in the future.

The distances from the main cities to the districts in which the selected NWS are located are shown in Fig. 3. All the NWS examined offer good accessibility to public transport (particularly to Park Hamar in Hamar, and Coworx in Mandal), as well as to Væxt and Peak Sunnfjord. Some of the NWS are fairly close to main cities: Park Hamar is 127 km north of Oslo, and Coworx is 45 kmsouthwest of Kristiansand. A different picture is provided by Peak Sunnfjord in Førde, which is ca. 205 km north of Bergen, and by Tanken Coworking in Ål and the Innovasjon Centre in Ringebu, which are ca. 250 km northwest and north of Oslo respectively. Mo i Rana, one of the Væxt premises, is 470 km north of Trondheim.

We estimate that multi-local workers maybe able to reach Hamar from Oslo in ca. 90 minutes by car, or 1 hour 25 minutes by train. This rather short distance should allow them to move between Hamar and Oslo quite often. Similarly, people can travel from Kristiansand to Mandal in 1 hour by bus or 50 minutes by car. Coworx in Mandal is reasonably accessible, as are other costal NWS. The development of more services and infrastructure would support multi-local workers who are there for several reasons (tourism and job-related reasons), in addition to more regular remote workers, and coworkers who live permanently in Mandal.

The case of Vestland County presents some differences. The NWS in Sunnfjord can be reached by either car or bus from Bergen (205 km) in 3 hours 45 minutes, as well as from Ålesund (240 km) in ca. 4 hours 45 minutes. The distances from the main cities suggest that if multi-local people want to work in Sunnfjord, they would be advised to stay there over a prolonged period of time. Considering the distances of Tanken Coworking and the Innovasjon Centre from the main cities (at least 3 hours by car to reach Oslo), we (the authors of this article) assume that the users of NWS in these areas are mainly locals and tourists who may remain there for longer periods. The same assumption may be made for Væxt in Helgeland. Furthermore, the concentration of six branches of Væxt in Helgeland offers a good network of places and infrastructure for the district, and a regional hub for the whole county of Nordland. NWS can become attractive hubs in such dispersed areas, even though it may be difficult to move frequently between them.

Role of the NWS in revitalizing decentralized areas

Although the six managers are aware that there is constant urban growth in the largest cities worldwide, they believed that one of the main aims for themselves was to create new opportunities in other places (as mentioned, for example, by M1 and M5). Coworking can be one attraction factor for the districts and municipalities in which CS are located. The practice of coworking itself can encourage other people to move to the same location because of the quality of life—in other words, the sense of community that is often prevalent in smaller locations (M2, M5, and M6). During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the managers (M1) realized that smaller municipalities could provide several opportunities for people with families and those seeking a better work-life balance. These places either are or can become new destinations for people who are willing and able to move from cities into rural areas (M2, M5, and M6).

More employees are likely to choose rural coworking if their employers were to rent the space for them. Some of the NWS in our study (e.g., Peak and Coworx) showed evidence of the presence of start-ups, freelancers working alone, and more remote workers. These were people who worked for Norwegian and international companies, who wanted to work in a creative working environment, surrounded by peers from other companies (M5). In some NWS, such as Væxt, in addition to young entrepreneurs, employees, and students, there was evidence of pensioners who had chosen those places as ones in which to work.

Some counties in which the selected NWS are located may become more attractive in the future (M1 and M1). Vestland County may further appeal to families, as it offers several services and activities, such as sports and skiing (M2). During the COVID-19 pandemic, contact with nature and outdoor activities became increasingly important for all (including remote workers). In Agder County, a case in point is Mandal, a tourist town that increases from ca. 11,100 inhabitants (Statistics Norway 2022) to 40,000–50,000 people in the summer. It is strategically located (only 50 minutes by car from Kristiansand to the northeast). As predicted by one of the managers (M1), after the completion of the new highway (E39), the municipality may become attractive for more than simply tourist reasons.

Naturally, the attractiveness of an NWS is related to the centrality of its location, which is also important in smaller and rural municipalities. Coworkers and other remote workers experience an urban feeling when working in central areas, where they can easily walk to a cafeteria, a training center, and other facilities (M2). In the cases analyzed, we found that the NWS could contribute to revitalizing the municipalities by occupying unused buildings, thus rendering the centers more attractive. Some policymakers, politicians, and municipal authorities have noticed these tangible impacts of NWS on the development of local communities (M1). This can be interpreted as an important signal to the NWS from the authorities that are focusing on innovation and the attractiveness of small and medium-sized urban municipalities and of rural municipalities. Although the coworking culture and spaces have not yet been recognized by all politicians, several projects developed in the CS have received financial support. According to some managers (M2 and M3), more could be done in that sense. For example, the NWS of Park Hamar and Innovasjon Centre have been supported by their municipalities, demonstrating that some local politicians believe in the contribution of NWS to the revitalization of municipalities, innovation, and the generation of new knowledge (M4 and M5).

Furthermore, the managers interviewed believed that technology, innovation, and digitalization played a key role in society rapidly adapting to the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The selected NWS were open most of the time during that period, albeit with some physical restrictions. Some NWS lost income that would have been generated from events, courses, and gatherings, but at the same time their activities and member numbers increased. For example, in Væxt, between 80% and 90% of people were able to continue working. This was quite unique compared to the situation in large cities. Similarly, Nordland County presented almost normal conditions during the pandemic; for example, the location of Væxt in Mosjøen was mainly open and full of people, although the one in Mo i Rana experienced some periods of closure.

New ways of working and multi-local habits

In thinking about new ways of working, the managers interviewed mentioned the need for more flexibility at work. They referred to the use of different spaces for working during the whole week, and we found implicit and explicit references to multi-local habits. A couple of managers (M1 and M5) stated that there would be a “new normal” in Norway, going forward; it would be possible to work at home on one, two, or three days a week, with this being accepted by employers and working communities. In effect, this would help to balance people’s work life and childcare commitments. Thus, we see that the traditional way of working—originally inspired by the Fordist approach (from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., five days per week)—is now being challenged by new ways of working (M1). There was a common understanding among the managers interviewed that new multi-local habits might grow, for example in rural municipalities, at home, in CS, and in cafés (M2, M4, and M5). Greater awareness of a variety of places in which to work may become part of new mindsets and strategies adopted by private companies and the public sector (M4). According to M4, remote workers and coworkers were able to find an ideal work-life balance in the counties of the selected NWS, away from major cities.

The more flexible and multi-local working style is highly linked to the nature of the workspaces themselves, implying a need for new attractive offices, and investment in innovative designs that appeal to users. More attractive and flexible offices will need more spaces for meetings, both for companies and in the public sector. The renters might commit to signing for one to two years of use, rather than five to ten years, as was previously common. M2 stated: “You can increase the rent prices if you offer flexibility.”

Among the users (members) of NWS, the frequency with which they occupy the offices can vary. In some NWS, some members (both coworkers and remote workers) are permanent, while others are temporary. In some areas, during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cabins (hytter) were used for 70–90 days per year (compared to 40–50 days beforehand), and it was clear that some people preferred to continue to work in those more dispersed areas (M5 and M6). Even more members could be attracted if the NWS were to offer a greater variety of activities, such as new job opportunities and the ability to become involved in the local community (M6).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, workers perceived a different way of continuing to deliver their products and services, while distributing their working hours across the whole week (and between home and coworking spaces). It is important to encourage more flexibility in the future. One disadvantage is that the more people work from home, the fewer social interactions they have, which can lead to increasing social exclusion (besides those infected with COVID-19)—a phenomenon that could possibly accelerate. Thus, M3 was of the opinion that NWS could more easily attract those people who had been working from home for some time.

Future visions

When the managers were discussing their visions for rural areas, their perspectives focused on current and future challenges, the need for financial incentives, and policies in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. NWS can represent an important factor in terms of attractiveness in such municipalities for some groups of people, and this can become a strategically important aspect for the municipalities when considering migration from the larger cities (especially from Oslo). According to some of the managers (M3 and M1), the extent of relocation to decentralized districts will certainly increase. Digital and multi-local work has helped people to establish and customize their work, and to create synergies within the coworking environment, while remaining connected to their employers in the major cities. The phenomenon has also contributed to the development of new jobs in these municipalities (M2 and M5). It is also important to recognize the added value for families to live in smaller communities and for their children to grow up in such environments (M5).

However, understanding of the coworking culture is not evident everywhere, and in some rural areas the concept has still not been acknowledged or accepted. Some municipalities are working increasingly in partnership with NWS and developing business plans with them, but this is sometimes perceived as being in competition with other businesses (e.g., in Helgeland) (M3). Therefore, it is important for those who are coworking to position themselves and work towards specific business targets. In other districts, such as Sunnfjord, politicians are in favor of these new forms of collaboration and innovation (M2).

It remains important to raise further awareness among municipalities and state agencies that NWS exist, together with the possibilities and benefits that coworking can offer in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. Furthermore, people can increasingly choose to live in decentralized districts, due to the enablers offered by digital technologies. This tendency was already considered possible before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, as confirmed by the managers interviewed. New users and new company employees can now sit and work in NWS—such as restaurants and coffee shops—in the municipalities investigated (M5). The managers hoped that the number of users might increase, but they informed there were not enough new apartments and houses (either as first or second homes) in the more dispersed areas (M5 and M6). Thus, advertising and promoting the NWS have some positive and negative implications for living environments, as well as impacts on neighboring municipalities (M4).

Discussion

The outcomes of our study contribute to elaborating on new knowledge about multilocational work, including the growth of NWS in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities. This article provides the first comprehensive understanding of the concentration of NWS across Norway, as well as the centrality and types of NWS, and their distances from the main cities, all of which may help to understand the new links among urban and rural contexts. Another major focus of the study is the focus on the NWS located in the five counties of Vestland, Innlandet, Agder, Nordland, and Viken (Table 1).

Firstly, the findings indicate that NWS can be part of a new larger network of urban and rural places in which new forms of multilocational work can be performed, thus confirming some of the limited outcomes from other studies (Bürgin et al. 2021; Hölzel & de Vries 2021). The distances between the NWS and the main cities, as analyzed in our study, may support the further thinking processes of multi-local workers who choose to spend shorter or longer periods in the municipalities analyzed, as well as in other similar places (Figs. 1 and 3). Thus, many workers may need to make choices about the combination of multiple places for both rural and urban working (first, second, and third homes, office, CS, or public library). It might well turn out that there is no longer any need to work seven hours per day, or to be present in the workplace for seven hours per day. These new approaches will enable more possibilities to manage family duties and, in general, to create a more flexible daily life, as envisioned by some of the interviewed managers.

Secondly, findings from existing research and other empirical cases tend to confront urban versus rural CS (Thao et al. 2021), as well as to highlight the challenges and difficulties in opening NWS in decentralized areas, and the lack of them in smaller municipalities and rural areas (Gauger et al. 2021; Knapp & Sawy 2021). The case of Norway reveals a different picture. Besides the major cities and large municipalities (which contain 55% of NWS), the remaining 45% of NWS are concentrated in small, medium-sized, and rural municipalities. Our study shows that the opening and development of NWS are taken seriously by different local actors, both public and private (see the municipalities in the cases of Innovasjon Centre and Park Hamar in Innlandet, and private stakeholders in the other selected cases in the section The districts and municipalities in which the NWS are located and data on the selected NWS). We (the authors of this article) assume that this diffusion and establishment of NWS in Norway can be related to some extent to the national and county policies on retaining or attracting people to smaller and rural towns, as well as investments made in digitalization and innovation. However, the effective implementation of county policies and related challenges should be further investigated, considering the key role played by local communities and those people who are willing to live and work in those areas (Knudsen 2018).

The cases analyzed in this article show that, on the one hand, there is emerging recognition of the role of NWS in revitalizing small, medium-sized, and rural municipalities, among managers, policymakers and politicians. However, on the other hand, there is also some reluctance: for example, some local businesses view NWS as competitors (see the case in Helgeland, in the section Future visions). To this end, it would be important to conduct interviews with the managers of other NWS to examine the reactions of local communities and relevant stakeholders. Thus, we cannot generalize from local settings about the impacts of regional and national policies. We need to keep in mind that the development of NWS is closely related to the presence and interests of stakeholders (in both the private and public sectors) who believe in making their local communities more attractive by using local expertise and networks, and by further developing local socio-economic pathways.

The outcomes of our study are in line with recent research that refers to the adaptation of new spaces and ways of working that respond to certain regional and/or local circumstances (Knapp & Sawy 2021). The analysis of further local settings would provide a wider and more comprehensive picture of the multiplicity of variables that may affect multi-local habits, the opening of more NWS, and related challenges in other decentralized areas of Norway.

The type of study we undertook has never been previously conducted in Norway, and analyses of multilocal working in small and medium-sized urban municipalities and in rural municipalities in other countries remain rather limited. Considering the challenges in collecting data from both managers and users, single or comparative case studies are often used as research strategies. In this article we seek to pioneer new fields within multilocational working practices and among new users (e.g., remote workers, including employees in formal companies). The qualitative analysis of the interview data presented in this article is not intended to generalize about the phenomenon, but rather to interpret the selected local contexts. Further studies should examine multi-local behaviors (through surveys and interviews with the users of NWS) in small and medium-sized municipalities and in rural municipalities, as well as the implications for more sustainable urban and regional development, planning, and mobility.

Conclusions

The outcomes of our study show that even before the COVID-19 pandemic multilocational work and NWS in Norway were seen to retain local people and attract newcomers. In contrast to several other studies that highlight the role of smaller municipalities and rural areas during the pandemic, the last 20 years (i.e., since the early 2000s) have seen growing awareness of the importance of decentralized areas in Norway. However, further in-depth studies should continue to analyze the differences among local communities regarding initiatives (private or public) that could make smaller municipalities and rural areas more attractive. A wider analysis could also identify further decentralized areas and understand to what extend they have been involved in structural transformations, and the levels of interest stakeholders and local authorities in addressing future visions and strategies, including multilocational work and NWS.

Acknowledgements

The article is partially based upon research for COST Action CA18214 “The geography of New Working Spaces and the impact on the periphery,” a research network funded by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) and the EU.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The concept of remote working is used both by employees and by self-employed workers, and it refers to when work is either fully or partially done outside the regular place of work (ILO 2020; Eurofound 2022).

2 Teleworking refers to work arrangements outside employer’s premises and enabled by ICT (ILO 2020; Eurofound 2022).

3 In this section and in subsequent sections, mentions of “smaller and rural municipalities” mean that some smaller municipalities are in rural areas and some are not in in rural areas.