Content uploaded by Behnam Asadieh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Behnam Asadieh on Mar 27, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Liberation from location ties: A descriptive systematic review of shifts in
location perception during and after the COVID-19 pandemic
Behnam Asadieh
*
, Paulina Maria Neisch
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Working from home
Location
Place
Outmigration
Urban planning
COVID-19
Polycrisis
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a paradigm shift in the relationship between work, home, and urban
structures, creating a situation where working from home (WFH) has become a signicant driver of change. This
descriptive-systematic review, using PRISMA 2020, investigates the impact of WFH during the COVID-19
pandemic on conventional location ties, which had far-reaching implications for urban geographies, work ar-
rangements, and residential preferences. It includes studies related to location, WFH, and the pandemic indexed
on Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases from 01. Jan 2019 to Jan 04, 2024. Key themes include
changes in perceptions and urban development (outmigration and city planning, mobility, and socioeconomics).
The ndings revealed that, while WFH during the pandemic has deemed the necessity of job proximity and
prompted a re-evaluation of residential choices, permanent and unanimous population shifts haven’t necessarily
occurred, and responses have been context-based. Instead, a complex and transitional phase with hybrid work
and evolving “place” and “location” perceptions has emerged that reects the centrality of home and neigh-
borhood for the future when remote work is prevalent. Proximity-based concepts like the 15-minute city and the
focus on mixed-use neighborhoods are discussed. Authors caution that unmanaged transitions may exacerbate
existing socioeconomic inequities as the extent of these changes depends heavily on the context, organizational
policies, and socioeconomic factors. A holistic “polycrisis” approach is crucial for resilient, equitable post-
pandemic urban planning. Longitudinal studies are recommended to track trends and inform future strategies.
Introduction
Historically, health crises, including pandemics, have affected the
cities’ development to solve urban challenges (Martínez and Short,
2021). Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented dis-
ruptions to urban life, reshaping economic activities, mobility patterns,
and social interactions (Ha et al., 2023; Honey-Ros´
es et al., 2021; Tan
et al., 2023). Dwellings were used for multiple purposes, including
working from home (WFH), which rapidly became a new norm
(Ottosson and Back, 2021). While WFH was anticipated decades before
the Covid-19 pandemic (Ishida et al., 2001), the pandemic accelerated
its implementation, with remote work expected to persist post-pandemic
(Barrero et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2022). The rise of WFH
has triggered signicant adjustments, extending beyond the workplace
to impact housing (Doling and Arundel, 2022), transportation (Kramer
and Kramer, 2020; Raquel et al., 2024), urban development (Sanchez
and Larson, 2024; Yu et al., 2019), and beyond. Previously, proximity to
workplaces dictated where people lived. This traditional notion of
location and the preferential residential ties to it have shaped human
geographies are evolving (Chi and Boydstun, 2017; Levine, 1998).
However, normalization of WFH during the pandemic held the potential
to reshape urban geographies, impacting not only residential prefer-
ences but also land use patterns, transportation networks, and neigh-
borhood dynamics (Nello-Deakin et al., 2024; Semple et al., 2023; Zhao
and Gao, 2023).
While early research on COVID-19
′
s urban impacts has focused on
environmental quality, socio-economic effects, governance, and trans-
portation (Shari and Khavarian-Garmsir, 2020), the spatial conse-
quences of WFH remain underexplored. Ilham et al. (2024) reviewed
how the pandemic inuenced residential preferences. They highlighted
a potential shift towards urban decentralization, driven by reduced
proximity needs to workplaces post-pandemic, alongside evolving resi-
dential preferences for affordable, desirable homes and a growing reli-
ance on cars over sustainable transport, fueled by the rise of online
shopping. Fewer studies have engaged with the evolving notion of place
itself (Vasconcelos, 2024), leaving a critical gap in understanding how
* Corresponding author at: G1402, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Ave, Kowloon Tong, China.
E-mail addresses: basadieh2-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (B. Asadieh), p.neisch@cityu.edu.hk (P.M. Neisch).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-
research-interdisciplinary-perspectives
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101395
Received 17 October 2024; Received in revised form 16 March 2025; Accepted 18 March 2025
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
Available online 22 March 2025
2590-1982/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
the pandemic has reshaped individuals’ ties to their residential loca-
tions. Therefore, this study aims to explore existing literature related to
the evolving nature of location ties since the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic from an urban development perspective.
The authors’ conceptualization of the notion of place and location is
similar to the “distance-decay model” presented by Lenntorp (1976),
which refers to a concept in spatial analysis and human geography that
examines how the interaction between locations diminishes as the dis-
tance between them increases. This model, which focuses on behavioral
factors, determines infrastructural limitations, place requirements, and
authority constraints that create potential path areas. The meaning of
this distance decay has changed substantially through the technological
advances that enable people to meet spatiotemporal necessities of ac-
tivities (Ellegård and Vilhelmson, 2004).
To achieve the objective, we employed a descriptive-systematic re-
view method, following the PRISMA 2020 model, to identify relevant
indexed studies on the scientic databases. The following chapters
elaborate on the methods employed in this research and present the
ndings, discussions, and concluding remarks. Given the absence of
empirical research on the direct impact of WFH on liberation from
location ties during and after the pandemic, this study lays the
groundwork for further investigation. Moreover, given the broad rele-
vance of the topic, it offers insights into necessary planning policies and
precautions.
Methods
This systematic review follows the guidelines outlined by the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) framework (Liberati et al., 2009). The search strategy for
identifying relevant studies focused on the impact of WFH on location
ties during the COVID-19 pandemic. Authors employed a variety of
search keywords and their synonyms to ensure comprehensive coverage.
The primary keywords used included “working from home,” “location,”
and “COVID-19 pandemic.” However, recognizing the diverse termi-
nology used by scholars, additional alternatives and variations of these
keywords were included in the search. Table 1 presents the keywords
and their different forms and synonyms.
A pilot search on the Scopus database was conducted on Oct 20,
2023, to form the initial framework for selecting the related research
and rene our search strategy. Based on that, we prepared the rst
structure and checked the feasibility of the review. Then, the second
search on Nov 8, 2023, led to the rst draft of the review by getting the
papers from the mentioned databases. Subsequently, we updated our
search to Jan 04, 2024, and added the newly published articles to our
review since most of the related articles were published recently. The
search was conducted across multiple databases, including Scopus, Web
of Science, and PubMed. The following code outlines the structured
approach used in the search strategy, ensuring systematic retrieval of
relevant literature:
TITLE-ABS-KEY (((work* AND (from OR at) AND home) OR wfh OR
telework* OR telecommut*) AND (place OR location) AND ((covid19
OR covid-19 OR “COVID 19
″
OR sars-cov-2 OR coronavirus OR
pandemic)) AND PUBYEAR >2019 AND PUBYEAR <2025 AND
(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, ”English“)).
Screening and eligibility criteria
The screening and data collection processes were independently
conducted by two reviewers. Given the broad scope of the study, the
authors narrowed the focus to examine the impact of working from
home since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Papers discussing
specic job types, such as remote nursing or surgery, were excluded due
to their limited generalizability. Distinctions were made between “work
from home” and “work at home,” with the former referring to white-
collar ofce workers, while the latter encompassed informal and
manufacturing work types. This study reects work from home and
considers employees as white-collar ofce workers. Likewise, articles
with an epidemiological perspective were also excluded as they pri-
marily addressed virus prevention measures. Additionally, the review
was limited to papers written in English and excluded those relying
solely on pre-pandemic data or focusing solely on quarantine periods.
Given the subjectivity of the topic, the selection and inclusion processes
were restricted to articles discussing location and conventional ties, as
framed in the introduction. Moreover, we have intended to select gen-
eral discussions concerning our criteria. Therefore, studies with detailed
targets that might be relevant to specic situations were excluded.
EndNote X9 was utilized to manage references, with duplicates
removed through both software and manual investigations. Initially,
titles and abstracts were screened to select relevant papers for full-text
review. Any discrepancies in the screening process were resolved
through discussion between the reviewers. Selected papers underwent
detailed reviews to extract relevant literature. The ow diagram shown
in Fig. 1 presents the review process from the identication to inclusion.
A total of 1795 articles were initially identied through primary
searches across databases. Following removal of 507 duplicate papers,
we excluded 1219 papers through screening titles and abstracts.
Excluded papers were primarily irrelevant to the topic or relevant to
only specic job types (e.g., medicine, information technology), often
with a different research focus. During the full-text screening stage, a
further 35 papers were excluded for various reasons, including lack of
Table 1
Search keywords.
Key words Synonyms
Working from
home
work* from home, work* at home, WFH, telework*,
telecommut*, wfh
Location Location, Place
COVID-19
pandemic
COVID-19, COVID19, “COVID 19”, sars-cov-2, coronavirus,
pandemic Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the selection process. n =number.
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
2
direct mention of location and liberation, reliance on pre-COVID-19
data, non-generalizable results due to study limitations, and focus on
quarantine or lockdown-related issues. Ultimately, we included 34
studies in the nal review.
Content analysis approach
The content analysis followed an inductive approach. This approach
was selected to ensure a data-driven understanding of the impact of
WFH on location ties during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the literature
on this specic topic is relatively emerging and exploratory. To enhance
the reliability of the literature analysis, two independent reviewers
coded and categorized data from selected studies. Any discrepancies
were resolved through iterative discussions. The rigorous process of
continuous discussion and alignment ensured a consistent coding
structure and thematic identication. The absence of persistent dis-
agreements between reviewers was attributed to the iterative discus-
sions and detailed coding guidelines, which mitigated potential
subjective biases. The resolution process through dialogue fostered a
deeper understanding of the thematic patterns emerging from the
literature, strengthening the robustness of the ndings.
Results
The results of the reviewed articles are presented in two main sec-
tions: general changes in perceptions and urban development (out-
migration and city planning, mobility, and socioeconomics). These
sections provide a comprehensive overview of the ndings from the
reviewed literature, offering insights into the broader impacts of work-
ing from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 2 summarizes the
key ndings of the reviewed papers.
Perceptional changes
The impact of working from home extends beyond traditional
workplace boundaries, reshaping perceptions of the physical environ-
ment from buildings to city planning. Across literature, several inter-
locking themes emerge. Authors such as Grant et al. (2023) and Gibson
et al. (2023) report that the transition to remote work has led to a
newfound liberation from traditional physical workspaces. The quali-
tative interviews and expert opinions captured in these studies reveal an
increased desire for exibility and autonomy offered by WFH and a
collective re-evaluation of the role that the physical environment plays
in shaping professional life. Grant et al. (2023) discuss how altered ex-
pectations regarding place and space prompt adjustments to home
workspaces, reducing the value of commuting and traditional on-site
ofces.
However, this transformation is not unidirectional. For instance, H.
M. Kim et al. (2023) posit that mitigated burnout through autonomy in
work-location decisions may challenge the traditional ve-day ofce
attendance model. However, Gibson et al. (2023) point to a paradox:
despite the increased independence from physical spaces, many experts
still underscore the irreplaceable value of face-to-face interactions for
fostering innovation and maintaining organizational culture. Therefore,
they emphasize the role of companies in embracing the future of remote
work through innovation and virtual work, recognizing the value of
remote connectivity for accessing specialized expertise and professional
cultures. Additionally, studies like those by Iva Durakovic et al. (2022)
contribute to the subject by noting that remote work skills develop over
time. As employees grow more adept at discerning which tasks benet
from in-person collaboration versus those that can be handled remotely,
reliance on supervisors can be reduced through technological and
leadership advancements. Consequently, the concept of place identity
becomes increasingly uid.
Adding further complexity to the discussion, research by Krajˇ
cík
et al. (2023) and Eunhwa Yang et al. (2021) reveals a nuanced picture of
Table 2
Summary of reviewed papers.
# Authors Key Points Focus
Perceptions
1 (Grant et al.,
2023)
Openness towards exible hybrid working.
Fundamental change in employment’s place
and space expectations.
WFH
focus
2 (Gibson et al.,
2023)
Independence of performance and
organizational culture from physical space.
Re-evaluation of the role of work in people’s
lives. More physical-space-free solutions are
being introduced.
WFH
focus
3 (H. M. Kim et al.,
2023)
Greater autonomy in work-location
decisions might reduce burnout.
Dual
focus
4 (E. Yang et al.,
2023)
Decreased balance of physical boundaries
between the workplace and home.
Introduced post-COVID hybrid workplace
with exibility. Increased exibility of
workplace location during the covid.
WFH
focus
5 (Krajˇ
cík et al.,
2023)
Growing in importance of time and
localization exibility.
WFH
focus
6 (I. Durakovic
et al., 2023)
Technological and leadership advancements
are needed to support hybrid work and
virtual age.
Higher effectiveness of physical proximity
for creative tasks.
Ofces won’t disappear because of their
core purpose in providing organizational
culture.
WFH
focus
7 (Ilaria Mariotti
et al., 2023)
Coworking spaces tend to sprawl close to
main urban areas due to economic reasons.
Increasing rate of remote work among
highly knowledge workers.
WFH
focus
8 (Ring, 2022) Importance of creating ‘thickness’ in thin
places.
The necessity of rethinking how work is
organized and sustaining organizational
culture. Adjust the size of future ofce
spaces.
WFH
focus
9 (Risi et al., 2020) Digital platforms have restructured
everyday life and blurred the boundaries
between work and home. Digital platforms
have colonized and remodeled social life.
covid
focus
Urban development
10 (Yiu et al., 2023) Flattening trend of rental gradient.
Increasing rents in lower-density suburbs.
Strong increases in commute distances after
the pandemic.
Willingness to WFH is linked with moving
farther away from workplace. WFH trend is
emerging and will likely be a long-term
shift.
covid
focus
11 (Moore-Cherry
et al., 2023)
Proximity, accessibility, and density
highlight an ideal that privileges the
relocalization of work, home and leisure
activities.
covid
focus
12 (Sun et al., 2023) Key role of income in social distancing,
teleworking, daily travel, and accessibility
to life supplies.
covid
focus
13 (Magriço et al.,
2023)
Higher likelihood of ofce-based
occupations to WFH.
Higher frequency of WFH being depends on
the occupation, employment, and income.
Commute time is a signicant determinant
of WFH. Strength of return to ofce was
dictated by the employers.
Dual
focus
14 (Wang et al.,
2023)
Stable teleworkers prefer living in large
houses and are not very interested in urban
areas.
Stable teleworkers comprise the lowest
share of urban and the largest share of
suburban residents.
Positive attitude toward the location
exibility. Stable teleworkers have the
lowest vehicle ownership.
WFH
focus
15 (Van Acker et al.,
2024)
Full time teleworkers had higher residential
attachment and satisfaction.
WFH
focus
(continued on next page)
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
3
employee preferences. While location and time exibility are broadly
valued, the desire for full-time WFH remains limited. Hybrid work,
where employees split time between the ofce and home, became
familiar post-COVID with work locations having minimal inuence on
certain tasks, as some were better suited to home while others thrived in
ofce environments (H. M. Kim et al., 2023; Eunhwa Yang et al., 2021).
Coworking spaces within neighborhoods as an alternative to traditional
ofces follow the same logic. According to Ilaria Mariotti et al. (2023),
while coworking spaces offer a exible solution to reduce the de-
pendency on specic locations for work, economic factors have limited
their expansion beyond central areas.
In addition, the literature points to an emerging trend where the
physical and digital realms converge. Regarding the practicality, Ring
(2022) explored organizational concepts of place, contrasting “thick”
places, which meet comprehensive employee and employer needs, with
Table 2 (continued )
# Authors Key Points Focus
Working from home becomes more of a
norm after the pandemic. It will be
accompanied by large-scale residential
relocations.
16 (Lu and Giuliano,
2023)
Key role of income in social distancing,
telework, daily travel.
covid
focus
17 (Al-Akioui and
Monzon, 2023)
18 % of the sample relocated their homes,
with 13 % of them to the peripheral zones.
Younger people relocated more than others.
More than 30 % of relocated people
increased teleworking habits.
A signicant increase in active travel and
teleworking in the city center.
Implementing 15-minute city planning
strategies.
WFH
focus
18 (Sweet and Scott,
2023)
Weakened bid-rent theory and more
complex narrative of places of work
The geography of telework is linked more
with the work locations, rather than
residential locations. Ofce work is likely to
be reduced in downtown areas.
WFH
focus
19 (Hensher et al.,
2023)
Workspaces may recover to some extent
given that the COVID-19 was the dominant
driver. Expected reduction in leased or
owned ofce space ranging based on WFH
frequency.
WFH
focus
20 (Fatmi et al.,
2022)
Residential location and attributes and
socioeconomics signicantly inuence the
frequency of WFH post COVID-19.
Families with children, middle-aged females
who have longer commute, those living in
bigger houses, and higher income
individuals prefer to work-from-home
frequently after the pandemic. Vehicle
ownership discourage individuals to WFH.
WFH
focus
21 (Liang et al.,
2023)
Low telecommuting frequency induces
relocations to the city center, while a high
telecommuting frequency drives people
further from there, affecting urban
development and land use patterns.
Telecommuting will continue to persist even
after the pandemic. A large proportion of
telecommuters are partial telecommuters.
WFH
focus
22 (de Abreu e Silva,
2022)
Higher frequency of teleworking and higher
probability of living in suburban locations.
Preferences associated with suburban
environments.
Longer commute of teleworkers.
Telework does not directly lead to sprawl. If
residential preferences match with current
location patterns, it could help to sustain the
current levels of sprawl.
WFH
focus
23 (Moser et al.,
2022)
Reduction in commuting days can alter
spatial distribution of residential demand.
Organizational adaptations to the new
normal can entail additional effects.
Decentralization of residential demand can
reduce housing prices in the core.
WFH
focus
24 (Reades and
Crookston, 2021)
The pandemic changed businesses’
perception about locations.
The core importance of in person
interactions in large cities remains.
The pandemic only accelerated existing
trends rather than creating fundamentally
new ones. Businesses relocations are not
necessarily internal.
covid
focus
25 (Caicedo et al.,
2021)
Low-income people went back to in-site
work sooner and they mostly use public
transportation.
covid
focus
26 (Iio et al., 2021) Higher income brackets experienced larger
percentage drops in the radius of gyration
and the number of distinct visited locations
covid
focus
27 (Liu and Su, 2021) Reduced housing demand in central
neighborhoods because of diminished
proximity to job and the reduced attraction
of consumption amenities. Future demand
Dual
focus
Table 2 (continued )
# Authors Key Points Focus
for central locations will recover to some
extent through time.
28 (Jay et al., 2020) Key role of income in social distancing and
ability to work remotely.
covid
focus
29 (Cheung et al.,
2023)
Dispersed distribution of workplace during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
WFH
focus
30 (Thulin et al.,
2023)
WFH is expected to become a post-pandemic
norm.
Most interviewees wanted a partial return to
their regular workplaces.
Social contact was the main motive to the
return.
Adjusting home to work life, re-evaluation
of housing preferences and activated plans
for relocation, especially among
interviewees living in small apartments.
The new demands concern larger homes and
access to a garden, and a functioning social
life.
Proximity to the workplace and the diverse
amenities of the central city have become
less important. Teleworking now fosters
stronger ties to the home and local area,
emphasizing stability rather than travel
farther for work.
WFH
focus
31 Interest in technological advances facilitates
adaptability to remote working.
As the distance between place of residence
and workplace increases, adaptation to
remote working also increases.
Importance of improving the quality of
public facilities in neighborhoods. The
number of people relocating within and
between cities is likely to increase as remote
working increases.
WFH
focus
32 (I. Mariotti et al.,
2022)
Some people relocated to secondary
residences in less populated areas.
While cities will retain their role, work in
the ofce will be limited to two to three days
a week. Municipalities with a strong
broadband connection are more suitable for
hosting remote workers.
WFH
focus
33 (Manhertz and
Lee, 2022)
Remote work has created new opportunities
for homeownership. The ability to work
remotely allows households to consider
more affordable housing.
WFH
focus
34 (R. Shearmur
et al., 2022)
Work locations became uid and variable
rather than xed.
Traditional mappings of economic activity
need to adapt to the new realities.
The shift was in different possible workplace
locations rather than a complete switch
from ofces in city centers to homes in the
suburbs. Mapping where businesses are
located doesn’t fully show where economic
activity happens anymore.
Dual
focus
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
4
“thin” places that lack such facilities. Pre-pandemic, ofces were
essential for organizational performance. Post-pandemic, technological
advances enabled thin spaces to support professional stability and
development, diminishing the need for traditional ofce spaces. Addi-
tionally, Risi et al. (2020) discuss how digital platforms reshaped social
life, a trend likely accelerated by the pandemic. In general, the trans-
formation of work environments is both a technological and a cultural
process. As organizations continue to navigate this change, investments
in digital infrastructure and reimagined physical spaces will be crucial in
fostering a work culture that is resilient and adaptive.
Urban development
The impact of WFH extends well beyond individual perceptions and
enters the realm of urban development. The changes in work location
preferences have precipitated shifts in residential patterns, urban plan-
ning strategies, and transportation dynamics. In this section, we explore
three interrelated aspects of urban development: outmigration, city
planning, and mobility and socioeconomics.
Outmigration
One notable consequence of widespread WFH, reecting weakened
location ties, has been the re-evaluation of residential and spatial pref-
erences as traditional on-site ofce presence loses importance. Thulin
et al. (2023) illustrate how remote work, once a pandemic necessity, has
transformed into a voluntary lifestyle choice that prompted many em-
ployees to seek larger, nature-adjacent homes in outer-city locales over
residences located near jobs. Similarly, both Wang et al. (2023) and de
Abreu e Silva (2022) reveal that frequent telecommuters increasingly
favor suburban or peripheral areas, further underscoring a collective
shift away from traditional urban cores. Moreover, Fatmi et al. (2022)
add a dynamic layer by demonstrating that the relationship is bidirec-
tional: individuals living further from urban centers tend to work
remotely more often, which in turn may drive further suburbanization
and urban sprawl.
Recent studies reveal a complex interplay between the decentralizing
forces of telework and the enduring appeal of urban centers. Although
de Abreu e Silva (2022) posits that no direct link to urban sprawl was
found, changes in location preferences could lead to relocations. If
preferences align with existing housing characteristics, urban sprawl
may persist, with city morphology evolving based on WFH adoption
rates and local socioeconomic conditions. However, stable remote
workers were the smallest share of urban residents but the largest pro-
portion in the suburbs (Wang et al., 2023). Inadequate suburban
transport infrastructure during the pandemic, combined with the safety
of less crowded environments, contributed to this trend (Fatmi et al.,
2022).
Sweet and Scott (2023) offer an urban economic perspective by
demonstrating that in Toronto, higher teleworking rates near the city
center challenge conventional commute-location trade-offs, suggesting
that telework may decouple work from home and promote residential
sprawl. In contrast, Reades and Crookston (2021) take a moderate
stance, cautioning against both overstating and underestimating the
pandemic’s role in urban development. Contrary to predictions of
radical shifts in work patterns, they highlight the enduring importance
of face-to-face interactions, especially in knowledge-intensive in-
dustries, and the unique role of cities. Complementing blurred line be-
tween the work locations, R. Shearmur et al. (2022) add that the
possibilities of work locations have primarily changed rather than
distinct shifts from central ofces to suburban districts. This suggests
that teleworking does not reinforce traditional work-home ties but
instead centers around shifting work locations, likely diminishing
downtown ofce hubs (Sweet and Scott, 2023). Therefore, the spatial
positioning of organizations plays a crucial role in predicting future
trends.
From a real estate perspective, literature revealed that increased
teleworking is reshaping urban residential patterns and long-term set-
tlement strategies. In Munich, Moser et al. (2022) argue that reduced
commute times are catalyzing spatial shifts in residential demand,
prompting organizations to rethink their settlement strategies. This
evolving dynamic is conrmed in the work of Yiu et al. (2023). They
observed a signicant attening of the curve during the pandemic. Liu
and Su (2021) tracked housing demand using ZIP code patterns and
noted a shift from costly city centers to more affordable suburbs, fueled
by reduced proximity requirements. This pattern is further supported by
Cheung et al. (2023), who highlighted workplace dispersal from central
business districts to suburban areas in Auckland, New Zealand. These
shifts reect accelerated relocation to suburban areas driven by the
feasibility of WFH and online shopping, reducing concerns about dis-
tance from ofces (Yiu et al., 2023).
Additional insights highlight both opportunities and challenges
within this real estate transformation. Manhertz and Lee (2022) found
that remote work in the US facilitated homeownership opportunities,
especially for renters, though broader housing scarcity and affordability
issues limited its impact. In Lombardy and northern Italy, I. Mariotti
et al. (2022) addressed that while rapid COVID-19 transmission initially
restricted location choices, prompting some residents to relocate to
secondary homes in less populated areas, real estate prices did not
immediately affect remote work trends. Thus, the impact of partial
remote work on geographic exibility and homeownership is likely to
unfold gradually over time.
While telework continues to foster geographic exibility by dimin-
ishing the importance of proximity to central workplaces, its long-term
impact on urban morphology will depend on how effectively urban
planning can adapt to these new residential dynamics. Studying three
Japanese metropolises, Liang et al. (2023) concluded that teleworking’s
impact on residential choices is unlikely to fully revert to pre-pandemic
patterns. While many remain partial telecommuters, higher remote
work frequencies may drive relocations farther from city centers,
inuencing urban development. Long-term transformation may emerge
as new ties and norms. Thulin et al. (2023) highlighted the potential for
a stationary lifestyle due to increased remote work, advocating for
“monolocality,” where new place attachments replace traditional loca-
tion ties.
Similarly, Van Acker et al. (2024)found that in Sydney, workers who
predominantly operated from home demonstrated greater satisfaction
and attachment to their living spaces, reinforcing the idea that strong
local ties can counteract an outright urban exodus. Such new norms can
lead to adjusted demands. Pak¨
oz and Kaya (2023) reported from Istan-
bul, Turkey, that extended remote work reshapes residential choices,
emphasizing home and neighborhood characteristics. As relocation rates
rise, they stress the need to enhance suburban areas and improve urban
quality of life to manage future population movements effectively. So-
cioeconomic factors also play a crucial role, as inequalities may inu-
ence satisfaction. Thus, predictions of reduced urban exodus hinge on
addressing these factors; without improvements, preferences for loca-
tions untethered to central workplaces may drive population shifts.
City planning
Urban planning stands at the forefront of reimagining city
morphology in an era marked by shifting work and commuting patterns.
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, models like the 15-minute city gained
prominence (Moore-Cherry et al., 2023). Although the 15-minute city
concept predates the pandemic, concerns over virus transmission have
highlighted its importance. This approach promotes sustainable urban
neighborhoods where essential services are accessible within a 15-min-
ute walk or cycle, reconguring urban spaces to enhance access to
meaningful work like ofces, shops, and factories. Moore-Cherry et al.
(2023) explored its feasibility in Ireland, noting signicant dislocations
between affordable housing and employment hubs. They also referenced
proximity-based alternatives, such as the 20-minute neighborhood
model. Similar approaches have been adopted globally in cities like
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
5
Melbourne, Ottawa, Stockholm, Shanghai, Singapore, and Hailsham.
Other studies complement this vision by suggesting that alternative
proximity-based models, such as the 20-minute neighborhood, may also
be viable. For instance, Hensher et al. (2023) observed that ofce va-
cancy rates in Sydney, Australia, have yet to return to pre-pandemic
levels, highlighting the need for suburban development to support the
20-minute city concept. This model aims to reduce commuting distances
and inuence transportation and land use patterns. The interplay be-
tween city planning and individual location choices could reshape future
work and living environments, transforming urban functions. This can
be further highlighted by R. Shearmur et al. (2022), who suggest that
new mappings of economic activity are required to adapt to new
realities.
Mobility and socioeconomics
The COVID-19 pandemic has also fundamentally altered mobility
patterns, revealing inherent socioeconomic disparities in how in-
dividuals adjust their travel behaviors. Magriço et al. (2023) identied
commute time as a signicant factor for WFH adoption. The decline in
rail commuting during the pandemic suggested two potential outcomes:
job changes facilitating remote work or relocations enabled by tele-
commuting. Similarly, Al-Akioui and Monzon (2023) observed
increased active travel and teleworking in Madrid’s city center, along-
side a suburban relocation trend that reduced public transport use and
increased car ownership. To address these shifts, they recommended
adopting 15-minute city planning strategies.
While these studies highlight behavioral adaptations in travel pat-
terns, the role of socioeconomic factors emerges as a decisive inuence
on mobility. Iio et al. (2021) observed in Greater Houston that travel
distances were initially unaffected by socioeconomic status, but income
disparities emerged as low-income individuals faced greater difculty
reducing travel compared to higher-income workers. This uneven dy-
namic is further illustrated by Caicedo et al. (2021) in Bogot´
a where BRT
use declined unevenly: lower-income populations, lacking cars and
facing longer commutes, saw minimal reductions, while higher-income
groups reduced usage signicantly. Post-lockdown, low-income areas
quickly returned to pre-pandemic rates, unlike sustained reductions in
wealthier areas.
The disparity might be due to the fact that high-income communities
were more likely to telework and adhere to social distancing due to
better service access and delivery options (Sun et al., 2023). Easier ac-
cess to essential services and improved delivery options facilitated
greater compliance among higher-income groups. Lu and Giuliano
(2023) and Jay et al. (2020) noted that lower-income and minority
neighborhoods, constrained by job types and household responsibilities,
experienced less reduction in work-related and shopping travel and, in
some cases, continued working outside the home due to fewer telework
opportunities. Collectively, these ndings reveal a complex interplay
between remote work, mobility, and socioeconomic status.
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed work, home, and urban
structures, positioning WFH as a major force of change. This shift re-
imagines the concept of location, inuencing urban geographies, work
patterns, and residential choices. Through a systematic review, this
study explores how WFH reshapes conventional location ties, uncover-
ing notable shifts despite the subjective nature of location.
The literature highlighted an apparent shift mainly in how people
perceive location as a result of the temporary changes in work ar-
rangements imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although not all
pandemic-induced changes may persist, historical evidence suggests
that sustained relocation trends can lead to lasting behavioral shifts that
inuence urban development (Nygaard and Parkinson, 2021). There-
fore, the controversy lies in the extent to which these changes last in the
post-pandemic time. The key factors identied include perceptions and
urban development. Heinrich et al. (2024) identied similar themes
concerning hybrid spaces: experiences of place, mobility, and social
interaction. Regarding the perceptions, the shifts represent a transitional
liquidity in time and the place, marked by partial teleworking and multi-
local work arrangements (Iva Durakovic et al., 2022; Gibson et al., 2023;
Grant et al., 2023; H. M. Kim et al., 2023; Krajˇ
cík et al., 2023).
Most reviewed papers primarily focused on the workplace, high-
lighting that residential location was inuenced by changes in work
arrangements. However, the pandemic’s impact on work locations
largely represents temporary adjustments rather than permanent pop-
ulation shifts (Perales and Bernard, 2023; Rowe et al., 2023). Regarding
the causality without considering the pandemic, path analysis by S.-N.
Kim (2016) noted that job location plays a key role in the decision to
telecommute, while the likelihood of relocation solely due to working
off-site was found insignicant (Muhammad et al., 2007). In other
words, while teleworking does not directly drive suburbanization,
longer commutes increase the probability of relocation, as supported by
the reviewed literature (Fatmi et al., 2022).
A closer look at causality reveals that technology, particularly
broadband access, has facilitated location-independent work arrange-
ments (Messenger and Gschwind, 2016; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016),
fostering liberation from spatiotemporal constraints (Ellegård and Vil-
helmson, 2004). Information and communication technology has
reshaped traditional notions of place by facilitating hybrid and multi-
local work. As we already live in hybrid spaces (de Souza e Silva,
2023), the workplace concept requires to be redened (Harrison et al.,
2003). However, this shift requires organizational adaptation to
accommodate remote work, such as integrating thick spaces within thin
spaces to support this transition (Ring, 2022).
Similarly, organizations are positioned at the forefront of innovation
and the future of remote work, necessitating technological investment
(Gibson et al., 2023). However, remote work frequency remains limited
to only a few days per week, both in practice and in employees’ pref-
erences (Asadieh and Neisch, 2024a). Likewise, the current state, as
reected in the reviewed literature, shows a small share of telecom-
muters, partial hybridity of work, and restricted multi-locality (Krajˇ
cík
et al., 2023; Thulin et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023). While, Reuschke and
Ekinsmyth (2021) argue that even minor shifts toward hybrid work
could signicantly inuence urban structures, longitudinal studies are
needed to track these trends in city development.
While information and communication technology previously
encouraged inward migration due to concentrated economic activities
(Sohn et al., 2002), recent studies observed an increase in outward
relocation through reduced reliance on proximity to urban infrastruc-
ture (Wu et al., 2024). This evolving role of technology, as noted in the
outmigration section, requires further investigation, as the pandemic
alone does not fully explain these shifts. Instead, a broader perspective is
needed—such as the concept of “polycrisis”—which examines the
interconnected inuences of environmental, economic, political,
geopolitical, social, health, and technological factors (Asadieh and
Neisch, 2024b; Davies and Hobson, 2023; Lawrence et al., 2024;
Matloviˇ
c and Matloviˇ
cov´
a, 2024). These complex interactions under-
score the importance of holistic approaches to understanding cause and
effect.
Historically, job proximity largely inuenced residential choices (Chi
and Boydstun, 2017; Levine, 1998). While the literature also shows that
the pandemic decoupled work location from residence, this shift was
already underway (Felstead and Henseke, 2017). From an urban plan-
ning viewpoint, remote work has no longer restricted work to designated
spaces (Richard Shearmur, 2017). Consequently, the ability to work
remotely may affect relocation choices (Mokhtarian, 1991). The litera-
ture showed that the pandemic has altered how individuals perceive
residential areas, prioritizing larger homes and proximity to nature
(Melo, 2022). Additionally, telecommuter households are more likely to
become homeowners in residences with characteristics matching sub-
urban homes (Zhu et al., 2023). The reviewed literature also conrmed
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
6
an accelerated outmigration trend during the pandemic (Liu and Su,
2021; Yiu et al., 2023).
However, urban-to-rural relocations were already observed prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic (Steinführer et al., 2024). Therefore, the
pandemic may have only accelerated the ongoing trends (Reades and
Crookston, 2021). Moreover, nancial restrictions could signicantly
limit the ability of many individuals to relocate, which may reduce the
overall inuence of teleworking and changing residential preferences
(Chen et al., 2023). Consequently, in the current situation, even if
remote work becomes more prevalent in the post-pandemic era, it is
unlikely to trigger widespread shifts in residential patterns (Van Acker
et al., 2024). With the prevalence of hybrid work models and increasing
nancial constraints, the concept of “shrinking homes” is likely to
become more prominent in the foreseeable future (Hubbard, 2024).
This scenario does not alter changing location perceptions, which
may turn potential relocators into actual relocations (de Abreu e Silva,
2022; Van Acker et al., 2024). Additionally, it aligns with the “distance-
decay model” presented by Lenntorp (1976) which focuses on behav-
ioral factors, determines infrastructural limitations, place requirements,
and authority constraints that create potential path areas. Therefore,
understanding these shifts is vital for future-ready policies. It is also
noteworthy that with less need to live near jobs, new dynamics like
“monolocality” and the centrality of homes will emerge (Thulin et al.,
2023; Van Acker et al., 2024). Remote workers increasingly prioritize
mixed-use spaces, proximity to homes, and accessibility when choosing
third places to work (Li et al., 2024). This trend is driving urban planners
to design neighborhoods that cater to remote work lifestyles.
One of the tting urban planning concepts has been the newly
introduced model of 15-minute cities (Allam et al., 2022). While it was
introduced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic by Moreno et al. (2021), the
pandemic increased its popularity as an index to evaluate the cities’
livability and visualize the post-pandemic city typology (Moore-Cherry
et al., 2023). However, it is not without criticism. Pozoukidou and
Chatziyiannaki (2021) argue that it is not a “radical new idea.” More-
over, it must be tailored to local contexts to be effective (Khavarian-
Garmsir et al., 2023). Given the strengthened role of home as an
informal workplace, individuals are increasingly anchored to their
neighborhoods. As a result, proximity-based models like the 15-minute
city may gain more traction in the future. This concept is also in line with
the notion of “pocket of local order” in which Ellegård and Vilhelmson
(2004) describes home as a place that the concept of “return” is referred
to.
Regarding mobility, the reduction in daily commutes due to remote
work has had a mixed impact on travel patterns. While work-related
travel decreased during the pandemic, non-work travel, such as leisure
and errands, increased. This highlights the complexity of predicting
future mobility trends and the importance of exible urban planning to
adapt to changing behaviors. Additionally, mobility patterns during the
pandemic were heavily inuenced by restrictive measures, which may
bias existing literature on location perception. Future research is rec-
ommended to analyze aggregated time spent in various locations,
especially at home, to monitor shifts in spatiotemporal patterns
(Ellegård and Vilhelmson, 2004; Richard Shearmur, 2021). This aligns
with Lenntorp’s concept, which emphasizes the role of daily activi-
ties—both in and out of the home—on shaping travel behavior (Ellegård
and Vilhelmson, 2004).
Research and policy recommendations
This study illuminates transformative shifts in the spatial ties be-
tween work and residence driven by the normalization of remote work.
The ndings challenge long-held assumptions about proximity and
urban development, revealing subtle but signicant changes in resi-
dential preferences and the broader urban fabric. Moving forward, there
is a pressing need to explore the long-term impacts of these evolving
dynamics. Future research should delve deeper into how remote work,
in conjunction with technological advancements and shifting socioeco-
nomic conditions, reshapes urban spaces over time. Such investigations
will be vital in rening our understanding of urban change in a post-
pandemic world.
At the same time, these insights call for a rethinking of urban plan-
ning and policy frameworks. While further research is needed,
controlled planning is key, as decoupled work and place can exacerbate
or mitigate socioeconomic inequalities (MacLeavy et al., 2024). Given
the discussed benets and drawbacks, this transitional phase allows
guiding development toward resilient city planning by modeling sce-
narios based on geographical, socioeconomic, and cultural factors. Well-
designed cities can reduce inequities while improving health, sustain-
ability, and resilience, but this requires rethinking city planning with
nature-based solutions, limited urban expansion, and climate change
mitigation, as exemplied by 15-minute cities (Giles-Corti et al., 2023).
Urban practitioners are encouraged to design adaptive, resilient neigh-
borhoods that accommodate exible work patterns while ensuring
equitable access to resources.
Studies have discussed the changing role of municipalities in sub-
urban areas (Krasilnikova, 2024). Moreover, the perceptive attention
toward rural living increased during the pandemic (Silva et al., 2024).
Investing in suburban areas not only ts renewed interests (Halfacree,
2024), but also avoids unwanted urban development and environmental
consequences of urban sprawl (Behnisch et al., 2022; Denham, 2021).
Urban planners can leverage these insights to design resilient and WFH-
accommodating cities with mixed-use neighborhoods, enhanced public
transit, and improved digital infrastructure.
Limitations
This systematic review has several limitations. Its descriptive nature
prevents establishing causal relationships. The subjective nature of
“place” and “location,” varying across studies, posed a synthesis chal-
lenge. Therefore, the possibility of missing relevant studies due to
publication bias, database limitations, or the specic keywords used
cannot be discounted. Heterogeneity in methodology and outcome
measures further limited analysis, resulting in primarily descriptive re-
sults. While a quality assessment was performed, the review remains
susceptible to limitations in the original research. The focus on studies
within the specic timeframe may exclude more recent work.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged work, home, and urban
structures, with remote work emerging as a pivotal factor in reshaping
location ties. This systematic review reveals the dynamic and multifac-
eted relationship between working from home and the notion of loca-
tion, highlighting shifts in perceptions and the future of urban
development. While the pandemic accelerated existing trends and
underscored the inuence of technology on location-independent work,
it did not necessarily trigger novel and permanent population shifts.
Instead, it familiarized a form of transitional liquidity in location and
place, with hybrid work models, multilocality, and evolving residential
preferences becoming more prominent.
The ndings emphasize the importance of understanding the inter-
play between WFH, technology, and urban structures. Organizational
strategies also play a pivotal role, as companies must adapt their work
arrangements and invest in technological and spatial solutions to enable
and support remote work to expect actual transformations. While job
location remains a key factor in residential choices, technology’s role in
facilitating remote work and the increasing prioritization of home and
neighborhood amenities are reshaping urban landscapes. Consequently,
new dynamics have emerged where the home itself may become a
central point, representing a new form of location tie shaped by the new
preferences.
The 15-minute city concept, though subject to debate, exemplies
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
7
the growing focus on proximity and mixed-use spaces. However, these
developments call for thoughtful and equitable planning strategies.
Controlled investments in infrastructure, enhanced digital connectivity,
and mixed-use neighborhoods are essential to avoid exacerbating so-
cioeconomic inequalities. Ultimately, a comprehensive “polycrisis”
perspective, integrating environmental, social, economic, and techno-
logical dimensions, is vital for creating resilient and inclusive urban
environments that accommodate the changing paradigms of work and
location in the post-pandemic landscape.
Funding sources
This research has been supported by the CityU Strategic Research
Grant 7005654 and Start-Up Grant 7200700.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Behnam Asadieh: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Project adminis-
tration, Methodology, Conceptualization. Paulina Maria Neisch:
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation,
Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
Al-Akioui, A., Monzon, A., 2023. Spatial Analysis of COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on
Mobility in Madrid Region. Sustainability 15 (19), 14259.
Allam, Z., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Chabaud, D., Moreno, C., 2022. The 15-minute city offers
a new framework for sustainability, liveability, and health. Lancet Planet. Health 6
(3), e181–e183.
Asadieh, B., Neisch, P.M., 2024a. Exploring a representative model for associations
between health dimensions and home as an informal ofce. Cities Health 1–18.
Asadieh, B., Neisch, P.M., 2024b. From the City to the Suburb: City Dynamics in the Time
of a Polycrisis. Sustainability 16 (24), 10809.
Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J., 2021. Why working from home will stick. Retrieved
from.
Behnisch, M., Krüger, T., Jaeger, J.A., 2022. Rapid rise in urban sprawl: Global hotspots
and trends since 1990. PLOS Sustainability Transform. 1 (11), e0000034.
Caicedo, J.D., Walker, J.L., Gonz´
alez, M.C., 2021. Inuence of Socioeconomic Factors on
Transit Demand During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Bogot´
a’s BRT
System. Front. Built Environ. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2021.642344.
Chen, R., Zhang, M., Zhou, J., 2023. Jobs-housing relationships before and amid COVID-
19: An excess-commuting approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 106, 103507.
Cheung, K.S., Chuang, I.T., Yiu, C.Y., 2023. Decoding the work-from-home phenomenon:
insights from location-based service data. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 10 (1), 873–875.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2023.2278577.
Chi, G., Boydstun, J., 2017. Are gasoline prices a factor in residential relocation
decisions? Preliminary ndings from the American housing survey, 1996–2008.
J. Plan. Educ. Res. 37 (3), 334–346.
Davies, M., Hobson, C., 2023. An embarrassment of changes: International Relations and
the COVID-19 pandemic. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 77 (2), 150–168.
Abreu e Silva, J., 2022. Residential preferences, telework perceptions, and the intention
to telework: insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area during the COVID-19
pandemic. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 14, 142–161.
Souza e Silva, A., 2023. Hybrid spaces 2.0: connecting networked urbanism, uneven
mobilities, and creativity, in a (post)pandemic world. Mobile Media Commun. 11 (1),
59–65.
Denham, T., 2021. The limits of telecommuting: Policy challenges of counterurbanisation
as a pandemic response. Geogr. Res. 59 (4), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
5871.12493.
Doling, J., Arundel, R., 2022. The home as workplace: a challenge for housing research.
Hous. Theory Soc. 39 (1), 1–20.
Durakovic, I., Aznavoorian, L., Candido, C., 2022. Togetherness and (work) Place:
Insights from Workers and Managers during Australian COVID-Induced Lockdowns.
Sustainability 15 (1), 94.
Durakovic, I., Aznavoorian, L., Candido, C., 2023. Togetherness and (work)Place:
Insights from Workers and Managers during Australian COVID-Induced Lockdowns.
Sustainability 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010094.
Ellegård, K., Vilhelmson, B., 2004. Home as a pocket of local order: Everyday activities
and the friction of distance. Geograska Annaler: Series b, Human Geography 86 (4),
281–296.
Fatmi, M.R., Orvin, M.M., Thirkell, C.E., 2022. The future of telecommuting post COVID-
19 pandemic. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 16, 100685.
Felstead, A., Henseke, G., 2017. Assessing the growth of remote working and its
consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. N. Technol. Work. Employ.
32 (3), 195–212.
Gibson, C.B., Gilson, L.L., Grifth, T.L., O’Neill, T.A., 2023. Should employees be
required to return to the ofce? Organ. Dyn. 52 (2), 100981.
Giles-Corti, B., Foster, S., Lynch, B., Lowe, M., 2023. What are the lessons from COVID-19
for creating healthy, sustainable, resilient future cities? NPJ Urban Sustain. 3 (1), 29.
Grant, K., McQueen, F., Osborn, S., Holland, P., 2023. Re-conguring the jigsaw puzzle:
Balancing time, pace, place and space of work in the Covid-19 era. Econ. Ind. Democr.
0143831X231195686.
Ha, T.V., Asada, T., Arimura, M., 2023. Changes in mobility amid the COVID-19
pandemic in Sapporo City, Japan: an investigation through the relationship between
spatiotemporal population density and urban facilities. Transp. Res. Interdiscip.
Perspect. 17, 100744.
Halfacree, K., 2024. Counterurbanisation in post-covid-19 times. Signier of resurgent
interest in rural space across the global North? J. Rural. Stud. 110, 103378.
Harrison, A., Wheeler, P., Whitehead, C., 2003. The distributed workplace: Sustainable
work environments. Routledge.
Heinrich, A.J., Heitmayer, M., Smith, E., Zhang, Y., 2024. Experiencing Hybrid Spaces A
scoping literature review of empirical studies on human experiences in cyber-
physical environments. Comput. Hum. Behav., 108502
Hensher, D.A., Wei, E., Beck, M.J., 2023. The impact of COVID-19 and working from
home on the workspace retained at the main location ofce space and the future use
of satellite ofces. Transp. Policy 130, 184–195.
Honey-Ros´
es, J., Anguelovski, I., Chireh, V.K., Daher, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.,
Litt, J.S., Oscilowicz, E., 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on public space: an early
review of the emerging questions–design, perceptions and inequities. Cities Health 5
(sup1), S263–S279.
Hu, J., Xu, H., Yao, Y., Zheng, L., 2021. Is Working from Home Here to Stay? Evidence
from Job Posting Data after the Covid-19 Shock. Evidence from Job Posting Data
after the COVID-19 Shock (October 27, 2021).
Hubbard, P., 2024. Small is beautiful? Making sense of ‘shrinking’homes. Urban Stud.
00420980241249049.
Iio, K., Guo, X., Kong, X., Rees, K., Wang, X.B., 2021. COVID-19 and social distancing:
Disparities in mobility adaptation between income groups. Transp. Res. Interdiscip.
Perspect. 10, 100333.
Ilham, M.A., Fonzone, A., Fountas, G., Mora, L., 2024. To move or not to move: A review
of residential relocation trends after COVID-19. Cities 151, 105078.
Ishida, T., Ishiguro, H., Nakanishi, H., 2001. Connecting digital and physical cities. Paper
Presented at the Kyoto Workshop on Digital Cities.
Jain, T., Currie, G., Aston, L., 2022. COVID and working from home: Long-term impacts
and psycho-social determinants. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 156, 52–68.
Jay, J., Bor, J., Nsoesie, E.O., Lipson, S.K., Jones, D.K., Galea, S., Raifman, J., 2020.
Neighbourhood income and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in
the United States. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 (12), 1294–1302.
Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R., Shari, A., Sadeghi, A., 2023. The 15-minute city: Urban
planning and design efforts toward creating sustainable neighborhoods. Cities 132,
104101.
Kim, H.M., Grau, P.P., Sripada, R.K., Van, T., Takamine, L., Burgess, J., Zivin, K., 2023.
Autonomy in work location decision and burnout in behavioral health providers:
Lessons learned from COVID-19. J. Affective Disord. Rep. 14, 100652.
Kim, S.-N., 2016. Two traditional questions on the relationships between telecommuting,
job and residential location, and household travel: revisited using a path analysis.
Ann. Reg. Sci. 56 (2), 537–563.
Krajˇ
cík, M., Schmidt, D.A., Bar´
ath, M., 2023. Hybrid Work Model: An Approach to
Work–Life Flexibility in a Changing Environment. Admin. Sci. 13 (6), 150.
Kramer, A., Kramer, K.Z., 2020. The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
occupational status, work from home, and occupational mobility. In 119, 103442.
Krasilnikova, N., 2024. Re-thinking the role of municipalities in mobility transitions: Co-
working spaces in suburban and rural areas as a “new normal”. Cities 145, 104672.
Lawrence, M., Homer-Dixon, T., Janzwood, S., Rockst¨
om, J., Renn, O., Donges, J.F.,
2024. Global polycrisis: the causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Global
Sustain. 7, e6.
Lenntorp, B., 1976. Paths in space-time environments. A time-geographic study of
movement possibilities of individuals. Lund studies in geography. S´
erie b, Human
Geogr. 44.
Levine, J., 1998. Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balance. J. Am. Plann. Assoc.
64 (2), 133–149.
Li, W., Zhang, E., Long, Y., 2024. Unveiling ne-scale urban third places for remote work
using mobile phone big data. Sustain. Cities Soc. 103, 105258.
Liang, J., Miwa, T., Wang, J., Morikawa, T., 2023. Impact of telecommuting on Japanese
Citizen’s travel, activities, and residential locations: Experiences and future
expectations under COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Transport Stud. 9, 100105.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.,
Moher, D., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-
analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and
elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (4). W-65-W-94.
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
8
Liu, S., Su, Y., 2021. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the demand for density:
Evidence from the US housing market. Econ. Lett. 207, 110010. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.econlet.2021.110010.
Lu, Y., Giuliano, G., 2023. Understanding mobility change in response to COVID-19: A
Los Angeles case study. Travel Behav. Soc. 31, 189–201.
MacLeavy, J., Mills, S., Mazer, K., Reuschke, D., 2024. Reshaping the Geography of
Work: Remote Worker Migration and Regional Dynamics in the Post-Pandemic Era.
In: The Handbook for the Future of Work. Routledge, pp. 299–313.
Magriço, D., Sheehy, C., Siraut, J., Fuller, T., 2023. Survey evidence on COVID-19 and its
impact on rail commuting patterns in Great Britain. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 11,
100965.
Manhertz, T., Lee, A., 2022. Renters at the Tipping Point of Homeownership: Estimating
the Impact of Telework. CITYSCAPE 24 (1), 259–285.
Mariotti, I., Akhavan, M., Rossi, F., 2023. The preferred location of coworking spaces in
Italy: an empirical investigation in urban and peripheral areas. Eur. Plan. Stud. 31
(3), 467–489.
Mariotti, I., Di Matteo, D., Rossi, F., 2022. Who were the losers and winners during the
Covid-19 pandemic? The rise of remote working in suburban areas. Reg. Stud. Reg.
Sci. 9 (1), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2022.2139194.
Martínez, L., Short, J.R., 2021. The pandemic city: Urban issues in the time of COVID-19.
Sustainability 13 (6), 3295.
Matloviˇ
c, R., Matloviˇ
cov´
a, K., 2024. Polycrisis in the Anthropocene as Key Research.
Melo, P.C., 2022. Will COVID-19 hinder or aid the transition to sustainable urban
mobility? Spotlight on Portugal’s largest urban agglomeration. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract.
14, 80–106.
Messenger, J.C., Gschwind, L., 2016. Three generations of Telework: New ICT s and the
(R) evolution from Home Ofce to Virtual Ofce. N. Technol. Work. Employ. 31 (3),
195–208.
Mokhtarian, P.L., 1991. Telecommuting and travel: state of the practice, state of the art.
Transportation 18, 319–342.
Moore-Cherry, N., Andersen, C.S., Kayanan, C.M., 2023. Engaging 15-Minute Cities as a
New Development Model: The Potential of Waterford City. In: Urban Planning for the
City of the Future: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Emerald Publishing Limited,
pp. 139–160.
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., Pratlong, F., 2021. Introducing the “15-
Minute City”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic
cities. Smart Cities 4 (1), 93–111.
Moser, J., Wenner, F., Thierstein, A., 2022. Working From Home and Covid-19: Where
Could Residents Move to? Urban Plan. 7.
Muhammad, S., Ottens, H.F., Ettema, D., de Jong, T., 2007. Telecommuting and
residential locational preferences: A case study of the Netherlands. J. Hous. Built
Environ. 22, 339–358.
Nello-Deakin, S., Diaz, A.B., Roig-Costa, O., Miralles-Guasch, C., Marquet, O., 2024.
Moving beyond COVID-19: Break or continuity in the urban mobility regime?
Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 24, 101060.
Nygaard, C.A., Parkinson, S., 2021. Analysing the impact of COVID-19 on urban
transitions and urban-regional dynamics in Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 65
(4), 878–899.
Ottosson, T., Back, E., 2021. Working From Home, The New Normal?: A qualitative study
of the working from home phenomenon’s future, through an international
perspective. In.
Pak¨
oz, M.Z., Kaya, N., 2023. Personal Adaptations to Remote Working in the Post-
Pandemic City and Its Potential Impact on Residential Relocations: The Case of
Istanbul. Transp. Res. Rec. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231174239.
Perales, F., Bernard, A., 2023. Continuity or change? How the onset of COVID-19 affected
internal migration in Australia. Popul. Space Place 29 (2), e2626.
Pozoukidou, G., Chatziyiannaki, Z., 2021. 15-Minute City: Decomposing the new urban
planning eutopia. Sustainability 13 (2), 928.
Raquel, I.I.V., del Rosario, R.G.E., Nathaly, M.D.J., Eliana, C.U.J., Ana, G.P.D., 2024.
Study of new forms of urban displacements during COVID-19 by means of the mobile
sig application in the city of Arequipa. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 25, 101127.
Reades, J., Crookston, M., 2021. Face-to-Face and Central Place: Covid and the Prospects
for Cities. Built Environ. 47 (3), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.2148/BENV.47.3.326.
Reuschke, D., Ekinsmyth, C., 2021. New spatialities of work in the city. Urban Stud. 58
(11), 2177–2187. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211009174.
Ring, M., 2022. Organising for thin places during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human
Geographies 16 (2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2022.162.1.
Risi, E., Pronzato, R., Di Fraia, G., 2020. Living and working conned at home:
Boundaries and platforms during the lockdown. J. Cult. Anal. Social Change 5 (2),
1–4.
Rowe, F., Calaore, A., Arribas-Bel, D., Samardzhiev, K., Fleischmann, M., 2023. Urban
exodus? Understanding human mobility in Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic
using Meta-Facebook data. Popul. Space Place 29 (1), e2637.
Sanchez, N.C., Larson, K., 2024. Shared autonomous micro-mobility for walkable cities.
Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 27, 101236.
Semple, T., Fountas, G., Fonzone, A., 2023. Who is more likely (not) to make home-based
work trips during the COVID-19 pandemic? The case of Scotland. Transp. Res. Rec.
2677 (4), 904–916.
Shari, A., Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R., 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities
and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total Environ.
749, 142391.
Shearmur, R., 2017. The Millennial urban space economy: Dissolving workplaces and the
de-localization of economic value-creation. In: The Millennial City. Routledge,
pp. 65–79.
Shearmur, R., 2021. Conceptualising and measuring the location of work: Work location
as a probability space. Urban Stud. 58 (11), 2188–2206.
Shearmur, R., Ananian, P., Lachapelle, U., Parra-Lokhorst, M., Paulhiac, F., Tremblay, D.
G., Wycliffe-Jones, A., 2022. Towards a post-COVID geography of economic activity:
Using probability spaces to decipher Montreal’s changing workscapes. Urban Stud.
59 (10), 2053–2075. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211022895.
Silva, L., Bezzo, F.B., Manfredini, F., Giavarini, V., Di Rosa, C., 2024. Away from the
cities? A medium-to-long-term investigation of how the COVID-19 pandemic has
changed population spatial patterns in Italy, 09697764241276193 Eur. Urban Reg.
Stud.
Sohn, J., Kim, T.J., Hewings, G.J., 2002. Information technology impacts on urban
spatial structure in the Chicago region. Geogr. Anal. 34 (4), 313–329.
Steinführer, A., Osterhage, F., Tippel, C., Kreis, J., Moldovan, A., 2024. Urban–rural
migration in Germany: A decision in favour of ‘the rural’or against ‘the urban’?
J. Rural. Stud. 111, 103431.
Sun, Q., Zhou, W., Kabiri, A., Darzi, A., Hu, S., Younes, H., Zhang, L., 2023. COVID-19
and income prole: How communities in the United States responded to mobility
restrictions in the pandemic’s early stages. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 15 (3), 541–558.
Sweet, M., Scott, D.M., 2023. What might working from home mean for the geography of
work and commuting in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Canada?,
00420980231186499 Urban Stud.
Tan, S., Fang, K., Lester, T.W., 2023. Post-pandemic travel patterns of remote tech
workers. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 19, 100804.
Thulin, E., Vilhelmson, B., Brundin, L., 2023. Telework after connement: Interrogating
the spatiotemporalities of home-based work life. J. Transp. Geogr. 113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103740.
Van Acker, V., Ho, L., Mulley, C., 2024. “Home sweet home”. How staying more at home
impacted residential satisfaction and residential attachment during the COVID-19
pandemic in Sydney, Australia. Travel Behav. Soc. 34, 100671.
Vasconcelos, D.d.O., 2024. The new socio-spatial dimensions of creativity: theorising
creative hybrid-places in the digital age. In: Routledge Companion to Creativity and
the Built Environment (pp. 365-375): Routledge.
Vilhelmson, B., Thulin, E., 2016. Who and where are the exible workers? Exploring the
current diffusion of telework in Sweden. N. Technol. Work. Employ. 31 (1), 77–96.
Wang, X., Kim, S.H., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2023. Teleworking behavior pre-, during, and
expected post-COVID: Identication and empirical description of trajectory types.
Travel Behav. Soc. 33, 100628.
Wu, L., Niu, Q., Liang, X., Jiang, Y., Zhang, H., 2024. Impacts of virtual amenities on
residential relocation and decentralization of megacity: An empirical study in
Wuhan, China. Appl. Geogr. 167, 103273.
Yang, E., Kim, Y., Hong, S., 2021. Does working from home work? Experience of working
from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. J. Corporate Real
Estate 25 (1), 50–76.
Yang, E., Kim, Y., Hong, S., 2023. Does working from home work? Experience of working
from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. J. Corporate Real
Estate 25 (1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2021-0015.
Yiu, C.Y.E., Cheung, K.S., Wong, D., 2023. Does work from home reshape the urban
rental structure? Early evidence from a rental gradient analysis in Auckland. Int. J.
Housing Markets Anal. 16 (3), 535–551.
Yu, R., Burke, M., Raad, N., 2019. Exploring impact of future exible working model
evolution on urban environment, economy and planning. J. Urban Manag. 8 (3),
447–457.
Zhao, P., Gao, Y., 2023. Discovering the long-term effects of COVID-19 on jobs–housing
relocation. Human. Social Sci. Commun. 10 (1), 1–17.
Zhu, P., Guo, Y., Maghelal, P., 2023. Does telecommuting inuence homeownership and
housing choice? Evidence based on pre-pandemic data. Hous. Stud. 1–34.
B. Asadieh and P.M. Neisch
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 31 (2025) 101395
9
