1. User preferences for coworking space characteristics
Minou Weijs-Perrée
Jasper van de Koevering
Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek
Theo Arentze

2. Introduction The growth of new types of multi-tenant offices
 sharing facilities/services, cost savings and knowledge spillovers
Increased popularity of coworking spaces

3. Introduction Academic research is still limited
Little is known about user preferences
The aim of this study is:
‘To analyse the user preferences of coworking space characteristics and the influence of user characteristics on these preferences’

4. Motivations for working at a coworking space
Community
Professional
support
Collaboration
Coworking
space
Social
interaction
Affordable
Vibrant
atmosphere

5. Methodology| Data collection instrument
User characteristics
Top 3 motivations
User preferences
Work-related characteristics
Business sector
# Hours working in coworking space
User group
Position in organisation
Socio-demographic characteristics
Gender
Age
Education level

6. Methodology| Data collection instrument
Attribute-based stated choice method
Accessibility
Layout
Diversity in spaces
Atmosphere & interior
Events
Lease contract
Tenant diversity
Reception & hospitality

7. Methodology| Attribute based stated choice method
The experimental design
 27 profiles/alternatives
Questionnaire
 nine choice sets
 3 versions randomly distributed
Attribute 
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
None of these options
Accessibility
 By car
By car
By public transport
Atmosphere/ interior aesthetics
Homey
Industrial
Layout of the space
Open layout
Closed layout
Diversity in supply spaces
Standard
Reception and hospitality
No reception and no host
Reception but no host
Events
None
Sometimes
Diversity of tenants
Strong diversity
Moderate diversity
Lease contract
Long term
Short term
No contract ○ ●

8. Methodology| Data collection procedure
66 coworking spaces in NL
were approached
25 coworking spaces
16 coworking spaces were visited personally
219 useful questionnaires

9. Methodology | Mixed multinomial logit model
Analyze user preferences of coworking spaces characteristics
A mixed multinomial logit model (MMNL)
A very efficient discrete choice model
It is able to capture unobserved heterogeneity
A constant utility parameter  the alternative ‘none of these options’
A random parameter was estimated for each attribute
Multiple MMNL models were estimated with interaction variables (e.g. age * accessibility by car)
 entered in the model as non-random parameters

10. Results | Motivations

11. Results | Model (goodness of fit ρ2= 0.2376)
Attributes
Attribute level
Coefficient
Random parameters
Constant
1.365***
Accessibility
By car and public transport
0.693***
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics
Industrial
-0.163***
Layout of the space
Open layout
0.051
Type of lease contract
No contract
0.362***
Diversity of tenants
No diversity of tenants
-0.331***
Reception and hospitality
No reception and no host
-0.220***
Non-random parameters
By car
-0.939***
By public transport (reference)
0.246
Modern
-0.302**
Homey (reference)
0.465
Half open layout
0.328***
Closed layout (reference)
-0.379
Short term contract
-0.048
Long term (reference)
-0.314
Moderate diversity of tenants
0.168***
Strong diversity of tenants (reference)
0.163
Reception but no host
0.172***
Reception and active host (reference)
0.048
Events
None
-0.182***
Sometimes
Often (reference)
0.014
Diversity in supply spaces
Basic coworking space
-0.061
Standard coworking space
0.123**
Premium coworking space (reference)
-0.062

12. Results | Influence of user characteristics
Attributes
Attribute level
Coefficient
Interaction parameters
Accessibility
Age (≥ 35 years) * By car and public transport
-0.222**
Age (≥ 35 years) * By car
0.562***
Manager * By car
0.193*
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics
High education level * Modern
0.353***
Type of lease contract
Age (≥ 35 years) * No contract
0.300*
High education level * Short term contract
0.463***
Self-employed * No contract
0.352**
Hours working (≥ 20 hours) * No contract
-0.406**

13. Results | Total utility of attributes

14. Conclusion Owners or managers could:
 Create a vibrant and creative atmosphere with homey interior
 A half-open lay-out with workstations for different work activities
 Not focus on selecting a specific group of tenants
 A coworking space without a coworking host
 A fitness centre and bar are not preferable for coworkers
Monitor the needs and preferences and adapt to these preferences

15. Limitations and future research
Characteristics of the current coworking spaces were not taken into account
By using the attribute stated choice model, hypothetical choices were measured
Differences between different types of multi-tenant offices, with regard to user preferences
A larger dataset with data of coworking spaces in different countries could increase the generalizability of the results

17. Appendix 1 | Sample characteristics%
Mean
St. deviation
Gender
Male 68
Female 32
Age
34.6
11.2
< 24 years 16
25-34 years 39
35-44 years 25
> 45 years 20
Education level
Low education 14
High education 86
Position in organization
Supporting staff 3
Regular employee 22
Manager 8
Board/owner 42
User type
Self-employed worker, freelancer or entrepreneur 54
Employee of company (2-10 employees) 18
Employee of company (11 or more employees)
Student 12
Hours in coworking space
21.3
14.3
Transport to coworking space
By car 51
By bike
Walking 5
By public transport

18. Appendix 2 | Model results 1
Attributes
Attribute level
Coefficient
Random parameters
Constant
1.365***
Accessibility
By car and public transport
0.693***
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics
Industrial
-0.163***
Layout of the space
Open layout
0.051
Type of lease contract
No contract
0.362***
Diversity of tenants
No diversity of tenants
-0.331***
Reception and hospitality
No reception and no host
-0.220***
Non-random parameters
By car
-0.939***
By public transport (reference)
0.246
Modern
-0.302**
Homey (reference)
0.465
Half open layout
0.328***
Closed layout (reference)
-0.379
Short term contract
-0.048
Long term (reference)
-0.314
Moderate diversity of tenants
0.168***
Strong diversity of tenants (reference)
0.163
Reception but no host
0.172***
Reception and active host (reference)
0.048
Events
None
-0.182***
Sometimes
Often (reference)
0.014
Diversity in supply spaces
Basic coworking space
-0.061
Standard coworking space
0.123**
Premium coworking space (reference)
-0.062

19. Appendix 3 | Model results 2
Attributes
Attribute level
Coefficient
Interaction parameters
Accessibility
Age (≥ 35 years) * By car and public transport
-0.222**
Age (≥ 35 years) * By car
0.562***
Manager * By car
0.193*
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics
High education level * Modern
0.353***
Type of lease contract
Age (≥ 35 years) * No contract
0.300*
High education level * Short term contract
0.463***
Self-employed * No contract
0.352**
Hours working (≥ 20 hours) * No contract
-0.406**
Distns. of RPs. Std.Devs or limits of triangular
Constant
3.266***
By car and public transport
0.328***
Industrial
0.273***
Layout of the space
Open layout
0.288***
No contract
0.859***
Diversity of tenants
Basic coworking space
0.378***
Reception and hospitality
No reception and no host
0.464***