IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/rvmgts/v15y2021i7d10.1007_s11846-020-00414-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Minou Weijs-Perrée

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Marko Orel

    (University of Economics in Prague)

  • Felix Gauger

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

  • Andreas Pfnür

    (Technical University of Darmstadt)

Abstract

Coworking spaces have become a central component of new work environments, with large international chains. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether user preferences for the physical workspace design are consistent across countries, which the uniformity of such chains seems to suggest. A comparison between the user preferences of coworking spaces between the Netherlands (n = 219), Germany (n = 98) and the Czech Republic (n = 79) is performed using a mixed multinomial logic model for each country. Besides statistical utility of attributes, also motivations for working in coworking spaces are analysed. The findings show that there are some consistencies in preferences across countries. Typical real estate characteristics like accessibility and contract options came forward to be the most important attributes in choosing which coworking space to work at in all three countries. However, significant differences in the desired quality levels of specifically these attributes were found between the countries as well, and only the less important attributes showed similar preferences internationally. This suggests that identical world-wide implementations of the same concept, might serve multi-nationals but possibly will not attract local users. The identified differences in preferences can help to position more specific, dedicated coworking spaces within local markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Marko Orel & Felix Gauger & Andreas Pfnür, 2021. "User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 2025-2048, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:rvmgts:v:15:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11846-020-00414-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11846-020-00414-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11846-020-00414-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11846-020-00414-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Clauss & Peter Harengel & Marianne Hock, 2019. "The perception of value of platform-based business models in the sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 605-634, June.
    2. Victor Cabral & Willem Van Winden, 2020. "The promise of coworking environments: a content analysis of the positioning of collaborative workspaces in Amsterdam," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 399-423.
    3. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Sven M. Laudien & Viktor Fredrich & Lars Görmar, 2018. "Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 385-410, March.
    4. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    5. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    6. Sarah Cheah & Yuen-Ping Ho, 2019. "Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Nathalie Mitev & Francois-Xavier Vaujany & Pierre Laniray & Amélie Bohas & Julie Fabbri, 2019. "Co-working Spaces, Collaborative Practices and Entrepreneurship," Progress in IS, in: Kai Riemer & Stefan Schellhammer & Michaela Meinert (ed.), Collaboration in the Digital Age, chapter 0, pages 15-43, Springer.
    10. Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Clippard, Maria & Pfnür, Andreas, 2018. "The effectiveness of physical office environments for employee outcomes - An interdisciplinary perspective of research efforts," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 110776, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Aurélie Leclercq Vandelannoitte & Henri Isaac, 2016. "The new office: how coworking changes the work concept," Post-Print hal-01603367, HAL.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    13. Julian Waters-Lynch & Jason Potts, 2017. "The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of coordination," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(4), pages 417-433, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Reema Bera & Bhargab Maitra, 2021. "Analyzing Prospective Owners’ Choice Decision towards Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Urban India: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Jinsoo Hwang & Seong Ok Lyu & Sun-Bai Cho, 2019. "In-Flight Casinos, Is It Really a Nonsensical Idea? An Exploratory Approach Using Different Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Junyi Shen & Yusuke Sakata & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "A Comparison between Latent Class Model and Mixed Logit Model for Transport Mode Choice: Evidences from Two Datasets of Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-05, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    7. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    8. Partha Deb & Chenghui Li & Pravin K. Trivedi & David M. Zimmer, 2006. "The effect of managed care on use of health care services: results from two contemporaneous household surveys," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 743-760, July.
    9. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    10. Martey, E., 2018. "Heterogeneous Demand for Quality Soybean in Northern Ghana," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277013, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Atella, Vincenzo & Deb, Partha, 2008. "Are primary care physicians, public and private sector specialists substitutes or complements? Evidence from a simultaneous equations model for count data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 770-785, May.
    12. Staus, Alexander, 2008. "Standard and Shuffled Halton Sequences in a Mixed Logit Model," Working Papers 93856, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    13. Grigolon, Anna B. & Borgers, Aloys W.J. & Kemperman, Astrid D.A.M. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2014. "Vacation length choice: A dynamic mixed multinomial logit model," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 158-167.
    14. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Ida, Takanori, 2010. "Anomaly, impulsivity, and addiction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 194-203, April.
    16. Li, Baibing & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Risky weighting in discrete choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-21.
    17. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Yang, Chih-Wen & Sung, Yen-Ching, 2010. "Constructing a mixed-logit model with market positioning to analyze the effects of new mode introduction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 175-182.
    19. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei, 2009. "Interdependency among addictive behaviours and time/risk preferences: Discrete choice model analysis of smoking, drinking, and gambling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 608-621, August.
    20. Partha Deb & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2006. "Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of a negative binomial regression model with multinomial endogenous treatment," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 246-255, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Coworking spaces; MMNL; User preferences; Space attributes; Workplace;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D16 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Collaborative Consumption
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe
    • O57 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Comparative Studies of Countries
    • R30 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - General
    • P25 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:rvmgts:v:15:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11846-020-00414-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.