Sandro Serpa
Maria José Sá
Rolando Lalanda Gonçalves- 1Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of the Azores; Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences - CICS.UAc/CICS.NOVA.UAc, Ponta Delgada, Portugal
- 2Interdisciplinary Centre for Childhood and Adolescence – NICA – UAc, Ponta Delgada, Portugal
- 3CIPES – Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Portugal
The digital nomad phenomenon takes on a growing relevance in a digitalized society. This position paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the phenomenon of attraction policies for digital nomads, in its advantages, limitations and motivations, so as to justify a political and social intervention that is intended to be rigorously based.
1 Introduction
The transformations with globalization, international mobility, digitalization, technology, artificial intelligence, the internet of things, and the metaverse, among other changes, have brought about profound changes in the way of working (Angiello, 2022; Hannonen, 2020; Sá et al., 2021; Ferreira and Serpa, 2018; Serpa et al., 2021; Sá and Serpa, 2023; Serpa, 2021). These changes increased with the pandemic caused by COVID-19 and the transformations that its combat shaped, with lockdown and the need to increase telework, namely through remote working policies (Ferreira and Serpa, 2021; Loryn, 2022; Nichols, 2022). According to Christoph (2021, p. 43), “Interpersonal relations have changed, the digital educational and professional reality has given a new shape to human expectations; space and time take on a new meaning, our everyday life is situated in an increasing technological dimension.”
The concept of digital nomadism is itself multidisciplinary and complex (Reczuch, 2020; Serpa et al., 2017; Thompson, 2018; Hannonen, 2020; Wang et al., 2018; Cook, 2022), as seen in the very pertinent association between digitalization, economy and sociocultural phenomenon developed by Bonneau and Aroles (2021), through a lifestyle based on a huge flexibility between spatial mobility, personal and family life, and working hours (Matsushita, 2022) that ultimately calls into question the boundaries of the organization (Mourato et al., 2023; Cook, 2022). However, research on the topic of digital nomads is still taking its first steps (Šímová, 2022).
In this context, there has been a normalization, increase and importance of digital nomadism (Hermann and Paris, 2020; Reichenberger, 2018; Al-Hadi and Al-Aufi, 2019; Abdelgawad, 2021; Ahuja et al., 2020), for the moment, very concentrated in Western countries (Frick and Marx, 2021). Digital nomads are regarded as a niche population to some extent privileged (Papanikolaou et al., 2023). Furthermore, strategies are mainly focused in the increasing attempt to attract them through government policies directly and specifically targeted at them. As, in a very current and pertinent way, Mourato et al. (2023, 10) state,
[…] the destinations should facilitate the life of digital nomads in not only both legal and bureaucratic terms, but also in the sense of building a community for this specific niche. Most governments already offered a mix of “Nomad Visa” (that most nomads do not need), tax breaks, even though most nomads do not pay taxes in the country of residence, empty tourism pictures as promotion, and empty global promises on how good it is to work from there. However, nomads are looking for community, connection, giving back, and nature. Recently, Portugal approved a law proposal to create a Remote Work visa, seeing remote work with repopulation as a goal. In fact, it is important to help and empower the people that want to lead the change in small communities. It is necessary to give local government support to facilitate and reinforce the need for the leaders in the community to work together, to build dynamic coworking and meeting spaces that support the right activities, to bring people from the outside to inspire change and feed with inspiration, to understand that villages might be the best place to live, that cities are overcrowded and a person does not need to live in one to work in a big corporation, and finally, to understand that community is what humans seek and what brings the power to people.
This position paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the phenomenon of digital nomads’ attraction policies in terms of its advantages, limitations and motivations, so as to justify a political and social intervention by policymakers that is intended to be rigorously grounded (Šímová, 2022). To achieve this goal, we will address the policies to attract digital nomads, starting by explaining what digital nomads are, after which the Policy Agenda on Digital Nomads will be analyzed, focusing on the dimension of attracting and retaining digital nomads as a political strategy, which, with variations, is the basis of many policy options.
2 Materials and methods
This research study used a qualitative method to search and analyze data. Thus, the analysis of the collected data was carried out through content analysis, as it enables the compression of a high amount of data into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding (Bardin, 2013; Mayring, 2014; Krippendorff, 2018). This is a powerful technique as it enables to filter large volumes of data more easily and systematically (Mayring, 2014; Quivy and Campenhaudt, 2005).
The authors carried out a literature search on the B-ON (2024) and SCILIT (2024) databases. While the B-ON (online) database incorporates the Web of Knowledge, SciELO, and DOAJ databases, among others, the SCILIT database encompasses all documentation to which a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) has been assigned. This literature search resulted in 70 publications, described in Table 1.
Table 1. Document sources analyzed and their characterization.
The search terms used were digital nomads, policy agenda, coworking, digitalization, new forms of work, location independence, and coliving, which were mentioned either in the title or the abstract. The search was performed between 2 and 19 March 2023.
This article analyzed only studies that use a qualitative approach and qualitative methods and instruments, such as interpretive philosophy and an inductive approach (Ay and Güzel, 2024), in-depth case study (Matsushita, 2022), inductive content analysis (Chevtaeva, 2021), social constructivism approach (Pacheco and Azevedo, 2022) narrative interviews and netnography (Aufschnaiter et al., 2021), ethnography (Prester et al., 2019), grounded theory (Von Zumbusch and Lalicic, 2020), and participant observation (Thompson, 2018).
As this is a rather new field of study, information on digital nomads is still scarce, fragmented and non-scientific, and the vast majority of studies use a qualitative approach to analyze this phenomenon in particular (Shawkat et al., 2021). Thus, this still emergent phenomenon needs to be further studied, not only using both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Other studies (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Tavares and Brea, 2020; Rodríguez-Campo et al., 2019; Otoo et al., 2021; Hosany and Gilbert, 2010; He et al., 2020; Patwardhan et al., 2020; Agyeiwaah et al., 2021) use quantitative methods, but they focus on tourism attraction in general, and not specifically on the topic of digital nomads.
3 Attraction of digital nomads
3.1 Digital nomads
Digital nomads, while not necessarily being a homogeneous group (Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023; Reichenberger, 2018), are, then, individuals who have the possibility to work anytime and anywhere (Richter and Richter, 2020), articulating with somewhat undefined or, at least, gray boundaries, more or less successfully, work, leisure and travel in their lifestyle (Reichenberger, 2018; Šímová, 2022), and who prioritize variables such as cheaper living costs when looking for places to work and live for a given period of time (Ehn et al., 2022); their lifestyle is, thus, referred to as digital nomadism (Hannonen, 2020).
Digital nomads are, therefore, professionals who, in comparison with the traditional concept of professional, have the particularity of developing their work in a digital way and at a distance, using the Internet to do so. They have no geographic ties, having the possibility to choose where they work and live, thus reflecting a lifestyle characterized by constant and unconstrained mobility. These professionals tend to be young and highly skilled graduates, who have developed their professional activity in several countries, having had contact with different socio-economic and cultural contexts (Angiello, 2022). Some authors argue that digital nomads envisage the workplace in a fluid way, in a context of liquid modernity (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2017; Eckhardt and Bardhi, 2020; Aufschnaiter et al., 2021). Their way of life combines the dichotomies autonomy and structure/stability (Prester et al., 2019), freedom and discipline (Cook, 2020) or liquidity and solidity (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2017). According to Mancinelli (2020), digital nomads give up a sedentary life, characterized by the accrual of material goods, stability and comfort, to adopt a new system of values guided by minimalism, uncertainty and risk.
To understand digital nomads as “mobile transnational online workers” (Loryn, 2022, p. 13), it is relevant to consider the following four dimensions in an articulated way: (1) digital work; (2) gig economy/work; (3) nomadic work; and (4) adventure and global travel (Nash et al., 2018; Sutherland and Jarrahi, 2017), always in an attempt to balance freedom, stability, mobility and flexibility, in a context of digitalization (Reczuch, 2020; Richter and Richter, 2020; Mancinelli, 2020; Hannonen, 2020; Hermann and Paris, 2020; Reichenberger, 2018).
But to what extent is this demand for flexibility reflected in the way these individuals work and live, as well as in the role they take on in a context of extreme variability (Hemsley et al., 2020; Thompson, 2018; Von Zumbusch and Lalicic, 2020)?
First, co-living spaces should ensure that their community managers are doing everything they can to maximize the opportunities for users to network and socialize within the co-living spaces, thus creating the sense of community. Second, co-living spaces, especially when operated under a franchise model or other models where multiple properties are operated under the same brand name, should maintain their service standards across all locations to ensure that the co-living experiences are contributing to digital nomads’ well-being in a consistent manner. Last but not least, facilitators should make sure that the design of the co-living properties are actually promoting well-being as such, whereby adequate spaces are dedicated to members for exercise, work, socializing and rest, respectively (Von Zumbusch and Lalicic, 2020, 451).
Flexibility and mobility are, then, ways of life (Angiello, 2022; Richter and Richter, 2020; Bonneau and Aroles, 2021), in a permanent articulation between the formal and the informal (Barbosa et al., 2021; Frick and Marx, 2021; Arifa et al., 2022; Cook, 2022). “Coworking spaces are not only seen as work-life habitats, but also as places of innovation and well-being” (Pacheco and Azevedo, 2022, p. 195).
Digital nomads may be associated with a differentiated mobile lifestyle with a management of their personal and professional identity very much based on the virtual world marked by volatility and plurality (Reczuch, 2020; Serpa and Ferreira, 2018; Ahuja et al., 2020; Reichenberger, 2018). This lifestyle adopted by digital nomads is described by Bala (2021, 341) as.
Having the ability to travel all the time requires high adaptability. Each new location nomads are able to redefine themselves and start from scratch. Try something new. Take a risk. Be able to handle a lot of daily inconveniences, to take care of the unexpected, free to choose. Live without the crutches of usual comfort.
However, one cannot fall into a romanticized image (Bonneau et al., 2022; Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023; Reichenberger, 2018; Nash et al., 2018; Cook, 2020; De Vaujany et al., 2021; Samek Lodovici et al., 2021) of idealized independence and freedom of the digital nomadism lifestyle, as these professionals need to find a balance between autonomy and stability, between freedom and discipline, which makes their lifestyle not entirely liquid and their mobility projects anchored in sources of solidity (Aufschnaiter et al., 2021). In the words of Cook (2020, 8),
Digital nomads then are engaged in a love/hate relationship with the Western institution of work. They might initially proclaim that they are escaping the ‘traditional office’ or the ‘9 to 5’, but they end up performing and reformatting these structures in their daily routines. […] In today’s globalized and connected world, it seems it does not really matter if you are working in an office or in a coworking space, as an employee or as a freelancer; all workers are required to be responsible, self-motivated, flexible and disciplined. From these pressures it seems there is currently no escape, whoever you work for or wherever you are (p. 388).
Thus, the lifestyle adopted by digital nomads is only apparently ideal, in an optimal combination between work and leisure (materialized in permanent travels), inasmuch that, according to Bonneau and Aroles (2021, 23), “[…] achieving and sustaining constant mobility is a challenge and not everyone carries equal changes of ‘making it’. At some point, even the most convinced nomads realize that their quest for a leisure-driven lifestyle actually means that they are always working while travelling.” Furthermore, and following Thompson (2018, 40), employers have some advantages in adopting these new forms of working, as they do not need to worry about providing their workers, the digital nomads, with “[…] full-time employment, benefits, office space and paid leave.” In turn, and as a consequence on the workers’ side, they “[…] have the freedom to work constantly, as their precarious and competitive salary is often decreasing and at the mercy of an algorithm” (Thompson, 2018, 40).
Digital nomads, by the roles performed, are usually entrepreneurs or freelance specialists (Cook, 2020; Richter and Richter, 2020), demonstrating high-level skills and literacy (Al-Hadi and Al-Aufi, 2019; Reczuch, 2020; Nash et al., 2018; Christoph, 2021; Sá and Serpa, 2018; Sá et al., 2021; Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022), which is one of the reasons why much of the policy agenda at the international level puts forth, very explicitly and intentionally, attempts to attract these digital nomads (Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023), as discussed in the following sub-section.
3.2 Policy agenda on digital nomads
Many countries are already demonstrating, in the policies implemented by their governments, the adoption of measures to motivate digital nomads and attract these professionals, for example, with the establishment of legal conditions, such as the creation of specific visas (Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022; Hermann and Paris, 2020; Bozzi, 2020; Al-Hadi and Al-Aufi, 2019; Chevtaeva, 2021; Orel, 2021; ETIAS, 2023).
Parreño-Castellano et al. (2022) argue that the political agenda regarding the attraction of digital nomads has both state-level policies (e.g., attractive taxation, visa-free stays, e-residency or digital nomad visas) and regional-level policies (e.g., the organization of symposiums and conventions of digital nomads and campaigns to attract and promote their locations). In the case of Spain, the authors mention that by the end of 2022, the government has prepared a draft of the Law for the Promotion of the Start-up Ecosystem, which includes the establishment of a new visa for remote workers from foreign companies, and that digital nomads working for companies of the European Economic Area (Schengen Area) do not need a visa for stays of over 3 months and can be Spanish residents, provided that they are self-employed or work as employees and are entitled to an health insurance (Parreño-Castellano et al., 2022).
Another example of the design of policies that aim to attract digital nomads is Portugal. This country has strategies that seek to increase the conditions for hosting digital nomads, namely by offering coworking spaces via the refurbishment of public spaces and infrastructures not being used, the mobilization of infrastructures with available capacity (e.g., business hubs of the national network or other equipment currently intended for other purposes) aiming to boost the potential of attraction at both the national and regional levels (Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022).
In Thailand, several provinces and metropolitan areas are increasingly focusing their attraction policies on “[…] accommodating technology-driven guests through the rebranding and reshaping of existing infrastructure, or by constructing desired work-leisure hubs,” which consist of remotely located coworking spaces (Orel, 2021, 4). These policies aiming for the development of work-leisure infrastructures in Thailand resulted in efforts of the Thai government to foster creative tourism to respond to the demands of the digital. However, the author stresses that this form of tourism may negatively influence the local environment as a result of overcrowding and depletion of resources in these regions; so, the balance between sustainable development and the increase in the conditions to host digital nomads is frail, and caution should be taken when designing these policies (Orel, 2021).
Other country destinations for digital nomads are, according to the research by Ay and Güzel (2024), Croatia, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia, as a result of attraction policies put in place by the governments of these countries, namely by providing good conditions for digital nomads to carry out their work (in terms of accessibility, facilities, and supportive services). Adding to the countries that are most attractive to digital nomads, Zhou et al. (2024), in their study of the countries’ strategies to attract these digital workers, point out Saudi and Colombia.
In their mobility, digital nomads need to find workspaces that allow them to develop their activity (Von Zumbusch and Lalicic, 2020; Nash et al., 2018; Al-Hadi and Al-Aufi, 2019; Chevtaeva, 2021). This need of digital nomads to find spaces that articulate work with leisure (Von Zumbusch and Lalicic, 2020; Richter and Richter, 2020; Orel, 2021) is potentially shaping new forms of tourism (Reichenberger, 2018; Chevtaeva, 2021; Gede et al., 2021), and digital nomads cannot, in a reductionist way, be considered just another type of tourism, as they are a segment with specific and differentiated needs (Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023). It is, therefore, essential that the various stakeholders (academic leaders, companies and the government) articulate themselves to create the optimal conditions for this emerging trend, which combines leisure and work, to take into account, on the one hand, the transformation of regional environments and the way this transformation occurs and, on the other hand, that the resulting development safeguards the interests of the local economy and the inhabitants of these areas (Orel, 2021).
This attraction attempt takes place at various levels, such as international entities (for example, the European Union), or at the country level (national, regional and even local), for example, in Portugal, to “Position Portugal as a country of excellence to attract Digital Nomads” (Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022, 174). The study states, in this respect, that,
[…] from a public policy perspective, digital nomadism can facilitate the settlement of people in different territories, especially outside urban centers, and enhance the attraction of new residents. Digital nomadism can boost local economies, promote increased consumption and bring greater dynamism in the respective rental markets, as well as deepen cultural exchange and the creation of coworking centers (Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022, 73).
This study, published by the Office of Strategy and Planning of the Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security of the Portuguese Government, proposes to policymakers the strategies detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Digital nomad attraction proposals for Portugal [Adapted from the Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security, 2022, 174–175].
However, we should be aware that this kind of presence (by definition tending to be highly provisional and temporary) is not necessarily positive for the receiving community (Christoph, 2021; Orel, 2019, 2021; Chevtaeva, 2021; Thompson, 2018). For example, and quite pertinently, two very relevant comments follow:
For those nomads who seek constructed community in expensive, all-inclusive communities such as co-living/co-working spaces, their privilege extends to an insulated bubble-like existence transporting a comfortable, middle-class, Western environment, to any location around the global, while excluding the local population and cultural contexts (Thompson, 2018, 28);
The optimistic atmosphere perceived in blogs, conferences and official pages about the business opportunities of the nomadic way of life does not correspond to the difficulties that some reveal. Moreover, we might wonder to what extent digital nomadism causes greater precariousness than the workers would have with a model of life more rooted in their places of origin, due to the underutilization of their family and social capital. Despite this, their mobile behavior allows them to live or feel privileged in relation to the population of the host places. Mobility thus becomes an instrument to live an illusion of privilege, which must be interpreted as a loss of self-criticism and as a factor of distancing and segregation with respect to local communities (Parreño-Castellano et al., 2022, 15).
4 Conclusion
In this brief reflection on the movement of policies to attract digital nomads as a strategy of many political entities, it is safe to ascertain that it has to be based in a more justified way (Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023) and has to observe the difficulties that policy makers at national, regional and even transnational levels face in managing the digital nomadicity phenomenon, considering its flexible and disruptive nature (Sánchez-Vergara et al., 2023). If these issues are not properly addressed, they involve the potential of reproducing old and producing new social inequalities (Sá and Serpa, 2022).
Public action has, to a certain extent, reproduced the optimistic and uncritical vision that emerges in the media, in events that debate the issue of digital nomadicity, in business marketing and the discourses and stances of the digital nomads themselves. Thus, it is paramount that public and political action be concerned with understanding the different profiles of digital nomads and the implications that the arrival of these professionals may have in the regions (Parreño-Castellano et al., 2022).
This is neither a new nor an original position, but it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered or justified when designing strategies to promote this trend, which makes it even more relevant to reinforce it at the present time. Above all, it is a matter of striking a balance between the advantages for countries, their populations and their environment of digital nomadicity and the negative effects that this socio-economic and cultural phenomenon may have at the national and local level of the regions where it occurs.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
SS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by national funds through FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., within the scope of the projects «UIDB/04647/2020» of CICS.NOVA – Centro Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais da Universidade Nova de Lisboa and «UIDB/00757/2020 – DOI: https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/00757/2020» of CIPES – Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, by national funds through FCT/MEC.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdelgawad, N. (2021). Mobile nomadic digital identity. Millen. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2, 110–116. doi: 10.47340/mjhss.v2i1.7.2020
Agyeiwaah, E., Defour, F., Otoo, F. E., and Goh, B. (2021). Understanding backpacker sustainable behavior using the tri-component attitude model. J. Sustain. Tour. 29, 1193–1214. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1875476
Ahuja, S., Nikolova, N., and Clegg, S. (2020). “Identities, digital nomads, and liquid modernity” in The Oxford handbook of identities in organizations. ed. A. D. Brown (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 863–880.
Al-Hadi, N. A., and Al-Aufi, A. S. (2019). Information context and socio-technical practice of digital nomads. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. 68, 431–450. doi: 10.1108/GKMC-10-2018-0082
Angiello, G. (2022). European cities embracing digital nomads. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 15, 157–161. doi: 10.6093/1970-9870/9033
Arifa, Y. N., Khapova, S. N., and El Baroudi, S. (2022). Digital nomading as identity work: career change shapes what they love about work and life. SA J. Indust. Psychol./SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde 48:a2008. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v48i0.2008
Aufschnaiter, C., Schwarz, S., and Hemetsberger, A. (2021). “Anchors on the move: digital nomads’ solid footholds in liquidity” in NA – Advances in consumer research. eds. T. W. Bradford, A. Keinan, and M. Thomson (Duluth: Association for Consumer Research), 27–31.
Ay, E., and Güzel, M. O. (2024). Digital nomads in destination marketing. Emerald insight – Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 16, 316–328. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-03-2024-0050
Bala, H. A. (2021). “Designing eco cities with the understanding of digital nomads” in Present and future paradigms of Cyberculture in the 21st century. eds. S. Atay, G. Kurubacak-Meriç, and S. Sisman-Uğur (Hershey: IGI Global), 79–95.
Barbosa, B., Borges, M. G., and Serpa, S. (2021). The informal in the formal of organizations: the organizational structure in sociological analysis. Sci. Insights 36, 260–264. doi: 10.15354/si.21.rp008
Bardhi, F., and Eckhardt, G. M. (2017). Liquid consumption. J. Consum. Res. 44, 582–597. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx050
B-ON. (2024). What is B-ON? Available at: https://www.b-on.pt/en/what-is-b-on/ [Accessed September 3, 2022].
Bonneau, C., and Aroles, J. (2021). “Digital nomads. A new form of leisure class?”, in Experiencing the New World of work, eds J. Aroles, F.-X. Vaujanyde, and K. Dale Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 157–178.
Bonneau, C., Aroles, J., and Estagnasié, C. (2022). Romanticisation and monetisation of the digital nomad lifestyle: the role played by online narratives in shaping professional identity work. Organization 30, 65–88. doi: 10.1177/13505084221131638
Bozzi, N. (2020). #digitalnomads, #solotravellers, #remoteworkers: a cultural critique of the traveling entrepreneur on Instagram. Soc. Media Soc. 6:205630512092664. doi: 10.1177/2056305120926644
Chen, G., Zhao, L., and Huang, S. (2020). Backpacker identity: scale development and validation. J. Travel Res. 59, 281–294. doi: 10.1177/0047287519829255
Chevtaeva, E. (2021). “Coworking and coliving: the attraction for digital nomad tourists” in Information and communication Technologies in Tourism. eds. W. Wörndl, C. Koo, and J. L. Stienmetz (Cham: Springer), 202–209.
Christoph, M. (2021). Digital nomadism as a key perspective of changes in the labour market. Lifelong Learn. 11, 39–58. doi: 10.11118/lifele20211101039
Cook, D. (2020). The freedom trap: digital nomads and the use of disciplining practices to manage work/leisure boundaries. Inf. Technol. Tour. 22, 355–390. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00172-4
Cook, D. (2022). Breaking the contract: digital nomads and the state. Crit. Anthropol. 42, 304–323. doi: 10.1177/0308275X221120172
De Vaujany, F.-X., Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A., Munro, I., Nama, Y., and Holt, R. (2021). Control and surveillance in work practice: cultivating paradox in “new” modes of organizing. Organ. Stud. 42, 675–695. doi: 10.1177/01708406211010988
Eckhardt, G. M., and Bardhi, F. (2020). New dynamics of social status and distinction. Mark. Theory 20, 85–102. doi: 10.1177/1470593119856650
Ehn, K., Jorge, A., and Marques-Pita, M. (2022). Digital nomads and the Covid-19 pandemic: narratives about relocation in a time of lockdowns and reduced mobility. Soc. Media + Society 8, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/20563051221084958
ETIAS (2023). Digital Nomad Visas in EU Countries. Available at: https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-news/digital-nomad-visas-eu-countries [Accessed February 6, 2023].
Ferreira, C. M., and Serpa, S. (2018). Society 5.0 and social development: contributions to a discussion. Manag. Organ. Stud. 5, 26–31. doi: 10.5430/mos.v5n4p26
Frick, N., and Marx, J. (2021). “Integrating digital nomads in corporate structures: managerial contemplations”, in Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii: HICSS), 2111–2120.
Gede, I. G. K., Marhaeni, K. E., Putrana, I. W., and Sanjiwani, I. G. A. M. (2021). “A model of community-based development in digital nomad tourism in Intaran Village Bali” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Social Science (ICAST-SS 2020) (Dordrecht: Atlantis Press), 382–386.
Hannonen, O. (2020). In search of a digital nomad: defining the phenomenon. Inf. Technol. Tour. 22, 335–353. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z
He, X., Su, L., and Swanson, S. R. (2020). The service quality to subjective well-being of Chinese tourists’ connection: a model with replications. Curr. Issue Tour. 23, 2076–2092. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1755240
Hemsley, J. J., Erickson, I., Jarrahi, M. H., and Karami, A. (2020). Digital nomads, coworking, and other expressions of mobile work on twitter. First Monday 25, 1–31. doi: 10.5210/fm.v25i3.10246
Hermann, I., and Paris, C. M. (2020). Digital nomadism: the nexus of remote working and travel mobility. Inf. Technol. Tour. 22, 329–334. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00188-w
Hosany, S., and Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. J. Travel Res. 49, 513–526. doi: 10.1177/0047287509349267
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Loryn, B. (2022). Not necessarily a place: how mobile transnational online workers (digital nomads) construct and experience “home”. Glob. Netw. 22, 103–118. doi: 10.1111/glob.12333
Mancinelli, F. (2020). Digital nomads: freedom, responsibility and the neoliberal order. Inf. Technol. Tour. 22, 417–437. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00174-2
Matsushita, K. (2022). How the Japanese workcation embraces digital nomadic work style employees. World Leis. J. 65, 218–235. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2022.2156594
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt: GESIS.
Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security (2022). “Livro Verde sobre o Futuro do Trabalho [green paper on the future of work]” in Lisboa: Office of Strategy and Planning of the Ministry of Labor, solidarity and social security. eds. T. C. Moreira, G. Dray, A. L. Neves, A. Fontes, M. J. Câmara, and S. Trindade, et al. Office of Strategy and Planning of the Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security.
Mourato, I., Dias, A., and Pereira, L. (2023). Estimating the impact of digital nomads’ sustainable responsibility on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Sociol. Sci. 12:97. doi: 10.3390/socsci12020097
Nash, C., Jarrahi, M. H., Sutherland, W., and Phillips, G. (2018). “Digital nomads beyond the buzzword: defining digital nomadic work and use of digital technologies”, in Transforming Digital Worlds. iConference 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, eds G. Chowdhury, G. J. Mcleod, V. Gillet, and P. Willett Cham: Springer, 207–217.
Nichols, A. (2022). Digital nomads: a savvy enterprise’s newest HR frontier. Strateg. HR Rev. 21, 185–190. doi: 10.1108/SHR-08-2022-0049
Orel, M. (2019). Coworking environments and digital nomadism: balancing work and leisure whilst on the move. World Leis. J. 61, 215–227. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2019.1639275
Orel, M. (2021). Life is better in flip flops. Digital nomads and their transformational travels to Thailand. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 15, 3–9. doi: 10.1108/ijcthr-12-2019-0229
Otoo, F. E., Kim, S. S., and Stylidis, D. (2021). Diaspora tourists’ emotional experience. Int. J. Tour. Res. 23, 1042–1058. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2461
Pacheco, C., and Azevedo, A. (2022). Mapping the journey of the coliving experience of digital nomads, using verbal and visual narratives. World Leis. J. 65, 192–217. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2022.2156593
Papanikolaou, V., Roussakis, Y., and Tzionas, P. (2023). Knowledge nomads: an educational cultural fusion of the local with the global to promote democratic cooperation. Glob. Soc. Educ. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2023.2166464
Parreño-Castellano, J., Domínguez-Mujica, J., and Moreno-Medina, C. (2022). Reflections on digital nomadism in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic – effect of policy and place. Sustain. For. 14:16253. doi: 10.3390/su142316253
Patwardhan, V, Ribeiro, M. A., Payini, V., Woosnam, K. M., Mallya, J., Gopalakrishnan, P., et al. (2020). Visitors’ place attachment and destination loyalty: examining the roles of emotional solidarity and perceived safety. J. Travel Res. 59, 3–21. doi: 10.1177/0047287518824157
Prester, J., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., and Schlagwein, D. (2019). “Becoming a digital nomad: identity emergence in the flow of practice” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019. eds. H. Krcmar, J. Fedorowicz, W. F. Boh, J. M. Leimeister, and S. Wattal (Munich, Germany: Association for Information Systems), 1–9.
Quivy, R., and Campenhaudt, L. V. (2005). Manual de Investigação em Ciências Sociais [handbook of research in social sciences]. Lisboa: Gradiva.
Reczuch, D. (2020). Can digital nomadism be considered a career management style and a lifestyle? Zarządzanie Mediami 8, 137–152. doi: 10.4467/23540214ZM.20.027.11806
Reichenberger, I. (2018). Digital nomads – a quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Ann. Leisure Res. 21, 364–380. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098
Richter, S., and Richter, A. (2020). Digital nomads. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62, 77–81. doi: 10.1007/s12599-019-00615-1
Rodríguez-Campo, L., Alén-González, E., Antonio Fraiz-Brea, J., and Louredo-Lourenzo, M. (2019). A holistic understanding of the emotional experience of festival attendees. J. Leisure Sci. 44, 421–439. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2019.1597790
Sá, M. J., Santos, A. I., Serpa, S., and Ferreira, C. M. (2021). Digital literacy in digital society 5.0: some challenges. Acad. J. Interdisc. Stud. 10, 1–9. doi: 10.36941/ajis-2021-0033
Sá, M. J., Santos, A. I., Serpa, S., and Miguel Ferreira, C. (2021). Digitainability – digital competences post-COVID-19 for a sustainable society. Sustain. For. 13, 1–23. doi: 10.3390/su13179564
Sá, M. J., and Serpa, S. (2018). Transversal competences: their importance and learning processes by higher education students. Educ. Sci. 8, 1–12. doi: 10.3390/educsci8030126
Sá, M. J., and Serpa, S. (2022). Social sciences and inequalities in the new post-COVID-19 “normal”. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 12, 1–7. doi: 10.36941/jesr-2022-0001
Sá, M. J., and Serpa, S. (2023). Metaverse as a learning environment: some considerations. Sustain. For. 15, 1–18. doi: 10.3390/su15032186
Samek Lodovici, M., Ferrari, E., Paladino, E., Pesce, F., Frecassetti, P., Aram, E., et al. (2021). The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society. Luxembourg: European Union.
Sánchez-Vergara, J. I., Orel, M., and Capdevila, I. (2023). “Home office is the here and now.” digital nomad visa systems and remote work-focused leisure policies. World Leis. J. 65, 236–255. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2023.2165142
SCILIT. Free and comprehensive content aggregator platform for scholarly publications. Available at: https://www.scilit.net/ (Accessed September 5, 2022).
Serpa, S. (2021). Digital society and digital sociology: one thing leads to the other. Sci. Insights 38, 314–316. doi: 10.15354/si.21.ps016
Serpa, S., and Ferreira, C. M. (2018). Goffman’s backstage revisited: conceptual relevance in contemporary social interactions. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 6, 74–80. doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v6i10.3659
Serpa, S., Ferreira, C. M., Sá, M. J., and Santos, A. I. (2021). COVID-19 and scientific literacy. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 11, 1–4. doi: 10.36941/jesr-2021-0024
Serpa, S., Ferreira, C. M., and Santos, A. I. (2017). Fostering interdisciplinarity: implications for social sciences. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 5, 44–49. doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v5i12.2775
Shawkat, S., Rozan, M. Z. A., Salim, N. B., and Shehzad, H. M. F. (2021). “Digital nomads: a systematic literature review.” 7th International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS).
Šímová, T. (2022). A research framework for digital nomadism: a bibliometric study. World Leis. J. 65, 175–191. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2022.2134200
Sutherland, W., and Jarrahi, M. H. (2017). “The gig economy and information infrastructure: the case of the digital nomad community” in Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 1, 1–24.
Tavares, F. O., and Brea, J. A. F. (2020). Confirmatory analysis of the preference for hostels in the city of Oporto, Portugal. Investigaciones Turísticas 19, 104–120. doi: 10.14198/INTURI2020.19.05
Thompson, B. Y. (2018). The digital nomad lifestyle: (remote) work/leisure balance, privilege, and constructed community. Int. J. Sociol. Leis. 2, 27–42. doi: 10.1007/s41978-018-00030-y
Von Zumbusch, J. S. H., and Lalicic, L. (2020). The role of co-living spaces in digital nomads’ well-being. Inf. Technol. Tour. 22, 439–453. doi: 10.1007/s40558-020-00182-2
Wang, B., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., and Cahalane, M. C. (2018). “Digital work and high-tech wanderers: three theoretical framings and a research agenda for digital nomadism”, in Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2018 (Sydney: UTS ePRESS), 1–12.
Zhang, J., Morrison, A. M., Tucker, H., and Wu, B. (2018). Am I a backpacker? Factors indicating the social identity of Chinese backpackers. J. Travel Res. 57, 525–539. doi: 10.1177/0047287517702744
Keywords: digital nomads, policy agenda, coworking, new forms of work, location independence, coliving, attraction policies
Citation: Serpa S, Sá MJ and Lalanda Gonçalves R (2024) Attraction policies for digital nomads: some emerging issues. Front. Hum. Dyn. 6:1435961. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2024.1435961
Edited by:
Alan Chamberlain, University of Nottingham, United KingdomReviewed by:
Yihong Wang, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, ChinaCopyright © 2024 Serpa, Sá and Lalanda Gonçalves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sandro Serpa, c2FuZHJvLm5mLnNlcnBhQHVhYy5wdA==