The impacts of remote work on residential space – Does it lead to spatial inequalities and segregation?

Authors: Riku Reunamäki and Olle Järv

The WinWin4WorkLife project recently published a review article: “The Impacts of Remote Work on Residential Space: A Review on Relocation, Multilocality, and Spatial Inequality” by Riku Reunamäki, Veronique Van Acker, and Olle Järv in Social Inclusion as part of the special issue “Digital Transition and New Forms of Spatial Inequality.”

Why this review

The impacts of remote work are not limited to the organisation of work itself. Remote work offers flexibility in terms of where, when, and how people work (Spreitzer et al., 2017), and one of the biggest consequences of this flexibility concerns residential space – where people choose to live. Remote work enables some workers to move to more affordable, spacious, or otherwise desirable neighbourhoods, whether those are in cities, suburbs, or rural areas.

In addition to moving permanently, remote work also supports multilocal living, defined as living and spending time in more than one home (Randall et al., 2022). Multilocal living is especially popular in the Nordic countries, where many families own a rural second home for vacationing (Müller, 2021), but owning multiple homes is a growing phenomenon worldwide.

However, remote work is not possible in every occupation, and even if it were, not everyone can afford to move to a more desirable neighbourhood or buy a second home from which to work remotely. These differences in opportunities and economic situations can lead to what is called spatial inequality: On one hand, remote work could lead to higher rental prices, segregation, and unaffordable neighbourhoods in cities (Gil et al., 2023). On the other hand, it may also widen the gap in skills and resources between urban and rural regions, as well as between developed and developing countries (Braesemann et al., 2022).

We recently conducted a review of existing research on how remote work affects residential relocation, multilocal living, and spatial inequality. Our aim was to look at how these topics have been studied – and to identify gaps in the research that still need to be explored.

What we know

The research on residential relocation shows a willingness to move away from the cities (Stefaniec et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2023), but there seems to be a disconnect between what people intend to do and what they actually do. Some studies found that while remote workers are indeed slowly moving out of central urban areas, they often choose to move to suburbs or secondary cities within the same metropolitan area rather than heading to the countryside (Moser et al., 2022). Other studies see a link between remote work and relocation but question the causality: are remote workers moving farther away from their workplaces, or are those who already live farther away more willing to work remotely (de Abreu e Silva, 2022)?

Regarding multilocal living, the research highlights three main impacts of remote work. First, multilocal living is sometimes more of a necessity based on circumstances rather than a voluntary choice. For example, people may want to live in the countryside but cannot find job opportunities there and are forced to rent an apartment closer to their urban workplace, or they might be in a long-distance relationship and their spouse is working in a different city (Garde, 2021). Second, remote work is also increasingly done from rural second homes, like summer cottages, which are predominantly meant for leisure. They can provide “getaways” from the hectic urban life and opportunities for more focused and uninterrupted work (Bürgin et al., 2021). Third, the rural municipalities where these second homes are located see remote work and multilocality as an opportunity to revitalise their shrinking regions with ageing populations (Di Marino et al., 2023; Schmidt-Thomé & Lilius, 2023).

According to existing research, the most noticeable impact of remote work on spatial inequality is that remote jobs are becoming more concentrated in larger cities, and rural regions are less attractive. Urban centres provide more job opportunities and higher wages, even though the cost of living is also higher (Irlacher & Koch, 2021). But when people do move from cities to rural areas, it can drive up property values, forcing (younger) locals to leave because they cannot afford the rising prices – contributing to spatial segregation by age groups (Åberg & Tondelli, 2021).

What we don’t know (yet)

There are also many issues regarding the impacts of remote work on residential space that the current literature does not cover and which we see as potential areas for future research. In general, most of the studies we reviewed were from Europe or North America, and they typically focused on only single metropolitan regions instead of looking at entire countries. In addition, the country‐comparative perspective is almost completely missing. Accordingly, we would like to see more studies from around the world and comparisons between two or more countries.

When it comes to residential relocation, most studies do not clearly say how far remote workers are willing to move: to the suburbs, to a nearby smaller city, or to the countryside. In addition, most studies look at the intention to move but offer no insights into actual decisions. It is also unclear whether opportunities for remote work drive changes in where people live or if the choice of residence influences how much people want to work remotely. So, we suggest research that explores the reasons behind moving as well as long-term studies that track how remote work and location choices are connected over time.

The literature recognises that remote work makes multilocal living possible, but we are still far from understanding the outcomes for individuals and communities. For example, forced multilocality challenges the common belief of multilocality being a result of increased freedom and flexibility; often, it is more a necessity than a choice. Where and for whom this is the case, and what can be done about it, needs more research attention. There are also gaps in our understanding of whether remote work and multilocal living can help revitalise rural municipalities and how. And since more people are working from their rural second homes, especially in the Nordic countries, the ways in which remote work is transforming these second homes from places of leisure and relaxation into places for mixing work and holiday use should be studied.

Finally, we do not know much about how residential relocation due to remote work affects the social fabric of neighbourhoods, and whether it leads to inequalities and segregation in cities. We are also unsure how living temporarily in second homes affects the communities where primary homes are left empty for weeks or months, and what happens in areas that experience seasonal inflows of these temporary residents.

Ongoing and future research

The WinWin4WorkLife project addresses residential relocation issues in five case study regions across Europe. We examine intentions to relocate as well as forecast residential relocations based on individuals’ activity and travel behaviour under various remote working scenarios. The forecasting models enable us to evaluate spatial inequalities within the studied regions. Additionally, the project aims to provide new insights on the nexus between multilocal lifestyles and remote working arrangements using survey and interview data. Remote work influences where people live, how they organise their daily lives, and whether these issues lead to spatial inequalities and segregation. This makes remote work a very important topic for urban and regional planning and policy. Thus, we encourage scholars in the social sciences to pay more attention to how remote work affects the social and spatial functioning of society. This review – and spatial perspectives more broadly – provides a solid platform for further research.