IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i13p2379-d245633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coworking Spaces: The Better Home Office? A Psychosocial and Health-Related Perspective on an Emerging Work Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Swantje Robelski

    (Institute for Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine (ZfAM), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Seewartenstraße 10, Haus 1, 20459 Hamburg, Germany
    Helena Keller and Swantje Robelski have equal contribution.)

  • Helena Keller

    (Department of Health, City of Kiel, Fleethörn 18-24, 24103 Kiel, Germany
    Helena Keller and Swantje Robelski have equal contribution.)

  • Volker Harth

    (Institute for Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine (ZfAM), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Seewartenstraße 10, Haus 1, 20459 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Stefanie Mache

    (Institute for Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine (ZfAM), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Seewartenstraße 10, Haus 1, 20459 Hamburg, Germany)

Abstract

With the ongoing flexibilization of work, new trends concerning work outside the company’s premises such as coworking spaces are on the rise. Coworking spaces are designed to offer collaboration and community in furnished and equipped workspaces on a rental base. There is a growing body of scientific literature on coworking spaces with empirical results of qualitative and quantitative research. The present study adds to the latter by examining psychosocial demands experienced by coworkers in Germany based on a quantitative survey ( n = 112). Among coworkers the home office was or still is another frequently used workplace. However, can the coworking space be seen as a better alternative to the home office in terms of work- and performance-related, social, environmental and health-related aspects? Results showed moderate to low psychosocial demands regarding quantitative workloads. Compared to the home office, the coworking space proved to be the preferred work arrangement. Results are discussed with regard to current literature and workplace design. In conclusion, coworking spaces can be seen as an alternative to the home office that was highly valued in the present sample. It is recommended to further emphasize aspects of work environment and ergonomics in order to create health-promoting and satisfying workplaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Swantje Robelski & Helena Keller & Volker Harth & Stefanie Mache, 2019. "Coworking Spaces: The Better Home Office? A Psychosocial and Health-Related Perspective on an Emerging Work Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2379-:d:245633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2379/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2379/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelius A. Rietveld & Hans van Kippersluis & A. Roy Thurik, 2015. "Self‐Employment and Health: Barriers or Benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1302-1313, October.
    2. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Andreas J. Reuschl, 2018. "Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 317-334, January.
    3. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    4. Ignasi Capdevila, 2015. "Co-Working Spaces And The Localised Dynamics Of Innovation In Barcelona," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 1-28.
    5. Ilaria Mariotti & Carolina Pacchi & Stefano Di Vita, 2017. "Co-working Spaces in Milan: Location Patterns and Urban Effects," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 47-66, July.
    6. Karl Brenke, 2016. "Home Office: Möglichkeiten werden bei weitem nicht ausgeschöpft," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 83(5), pages 95-105.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Christian Höcker & Yassien Bachtal & Andreas Pfnür, 2022. "Work from home: bane or blessing? Implications for corporate real estate strategies [Work from Home: Fluch oder Segen? Implikationen für das betriebliche Immobilienmanagement]," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 8(2), pages 101-137, October.
    2. Mittal Ella & Rani Tamanna, 2022. "Do Social Interactions Really Moderate Job Productivity in Coworking Spaces?," Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 145-160, September.
    3. Erik Rådman & Erik Johansson & Petra Bosch-Sijtsema & Hendry Raharjo, 2023. "In search of member needs in coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 881-907, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021. "What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges Ahead," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    2. Nina Thornton & Martin Engert & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2023. "Finding new purpose for vacancies in rural areas: a taxonomy of coworking space business models," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1395-1423, September.
    3. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Sascha Kraus & Juan F. Martínez-Pérez, 0. "Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    4. Alexandra Rese & Lars Görmar & Alena Herbig, 2022. "Social networks in coworking spaces and individual coworker’s creativity," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 391-428, February.
    5. Ilaria Mariotti & Mina Akhavan, 2021. "Gli spazi di coworking prima e durante la pandemia covid-19: tipologie, geografia ed effetti," ECONOMIA E SOCIET? REGIONALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 66-84.
    6. Coll Martínez, Eva & Méndez Ortega, Carles,, 2019. "Location of Co-Working Spaces in the city," Working Papers 2072/351588, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    7. Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin & Till Marius Gantert & Julia Verena Maier, 2022. "Acceptance of matchmaking tools in coworking spaces: an extended perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1911-1943, August.
    8. Kolja Oswald & Xiaokang Zhao, 2020. "What Is a Sustainable Coworking Space?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Sascha Kraus & Juan F. Martínez-Pérez, 2020. "Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1465-1481, December.
    10. Janet Merkel, 2019. "‘Freelance isn’t free.’ Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(3), pages 526-547, February.
    11. Mittal Ella & Rani Tamanna, 2022. "Do Social Interactions Really Moderate Job Productivity in Coworking Spaces?," Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 10(1), pages 145-160, September.
    12. Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin, 2021. "Two heads are better than one: matchmaking tools in coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1045-1069, May.
    13. Bettina Stadler & Franz Astleithner & Paul Malschinger, 2023. "Arbeitszeit zwischen Selbst- und Fremdbestimmung: Analysen des Mikrozensus Ad-hoc-Moduls 2019," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 241, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    14. Ruud Gerards & Sanne Wetten & Cecile Sambeek, 2021. "New ways of working and intrapreneurial behaviour: the mediating role of transformational leadership and social interaction," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 2075-2110, October.
    15. Manuel Sánchez-Pérez & Nuria Rueda-López & María Belén Marín-Carrillo & Eduardo Terán-Yépez, 2021. "Theoretical dilemmas, conceptual review and perspectives disclosure of the sharing economy: a qualitative analysis," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 1849-1883, October.
    16. Lucas DuPriest, 2019. "Coworking Spaces in La Paz, Bolivia: Urban Effects and Potential Creation of New Opportunities for Local Economic Development," Development Research Working Paper Series 07/2019, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    17. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Ratzmann, Martin & Kraus, Sascha, 2021. "Anti-aging: How innovation is shaped by firm age and mutual knowledge creation in an alliance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 422-429.
    18. Guo, Liwen & Cheng, Zhiming & Tani, Massimiliano & Cook, Sarah & Zhao, Jiaqi & Chen, Xi, 2022. "Air Pollution and Entrepreneurship," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1196, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    19. Srikant Devaraj & Marcus T. Wolfe & Pankaj C. Patel, 2021. "Creative destruction and regional health: evidence from the US," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 573-604, April.
    20. Sofia Morgado, 2021. "Urban Rehabilitation, Social Innovation, and New Working Spaces in Lisbon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2379-:d:245633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.