Digital nomadism from the perspective of places and mobilities: a literature review

Abstract

Digital nomadism (DN), an emerging lifestyle based on remote working, digital technology, and leisure travels, has grown from a marginal phenomenon concerning isolated individuals in the early 2000s to a flourishing movement in less than two decades. In the post COVID-19 context of mainstream remote work, the number of digital nomads has risen sharply. Digital nomads are professionals who live, travel, and work online from multiple destinations with a reliable internet connection. In response to this rapid growth, both public and private actors have launched new initiatives targeting digital nomads (e.g. dedicated visa schemes and coliving spaces). Despite the proliferation of these initiatives, there is a lot to discover on digital nomads, including their demographics, travel patterns, and impacts. Based on a systematic literature review covering the last decade, this article explores DN from the perspective of places and mobilities. Findings show that places and mobilities largely shape definitions of DN, how nomads perceive their identity, and how they select travel destinations. Moreover, DN has many impacts on mobilities and places by creating demand for specific infrastructures and contributing to gentrification. In the post-pandemic context, research on DN is needed to address the challenges raised by new mobile lifestyles and remote work practices.

1 Introduction

The term digital nomadism (DN) was coined in the late 1990s to describe what at the time was seen as a future trend, enabled by digital technologies and founded on the combination of frequent leisure travels and remote working [48]. In the following years, a set of trends contributed to its emergence [62, 77]. These trends are related to technology (e.g. cloud services, social networks), work (e.g. home working) and travel (e.g. Airbnb). Moreover, the bestseller book by Timothy Ferriss [23], The 4-h workweek, has greatly contributed to popularise this lifestyle [9, 56, 77]. DN became a mainstream movement around the mid 2010s, notably when the first online communities of digital nomads emerged [77]. Meanwhile, initiatives targeting digital nomads rose not only in number, but also in terms of diversity of offers, actors and territories, eventually leading to the emergence of a new industry that further contributed to the expansion of DN (e.g.[27, 37, 76]). In the absence of official statistics, various elements have been used to scale the phenomenon and show its rapid growth, such as the rise of coliving spaces [32, 34], the number of members in dedicated groups in social networks [65], various surveys [24, 25, 53, 54] and data from Google Trends [37]. For instance, in 2021, more than 15 million workers in the USA described themselves as digital nomads [54], a figure in steep increase compared to 2019. Moreover, DN is expected to further expand in the post-pandemic context [13, 90]. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to normalise various forms of remote working, including DN.

DN is a relatively new but rapidly growing research category (e.g. [34, 62]). Academia has explored this phenomenon from different disciplines, focusing in particular on the lifestyle, needs and work practices of digital nomads (e.g. [36]). A handful of literature reviews on DN have already been published in the attempt to shed light on this phenomenon [13, 36, 79, 91]. However, available knowledge on DN is extremely fragmented across disciplines and, despite several attempts, its definition is not well-established [34]. In the context of this article, DN is defined as a tech-enabled lifestyle that transcends geographical constraints tied to traditional workspaces and that seamlessly blend remote work and travel. More precisely, digital nomads are professionals who leverage digital technology to work remotely from various locations with a reliable internet access.

This literature review aims at analysing the complex interactions between DN, places and mobilities. In order to do that, we developed an original framework grounded in the new mobilities paradigm. After presenting the methodology and the analytical framework, we discuss the four themes of the framework in detail. First, we frame digital nomadism as a mobile lifestyle, and show the centrality of place and mobility in how digital nomads perceive their identity and lifestyle. Second, we examine the spatial mobilities of DN and highlights motivations and burdens underlying different travels patterns of nomads. Third, we focus on the need for specific infrastructures and services provided both by private or public actors. Fourth, we report initial reflections on the positive and negative impacts of digital nomad mobilities at the local scale, such as risk of gentrification, and beyond. We conclude with key learnings, emphasizing policy implications and new avenues for research.

2 Methodology and analytical framework

This literature review is based on a systematic approach to select and analyse relevant literature on the investigation object [92]. Relevant articles were identified by searching the keyword “digital nomad” (and its variations “digital nomadism” and “digital nomads”) in three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar).¹ Only articles in English and published after 2015 were included. This year was selected because it is crucial in DN history: around the mid-2010s DN has already become a mainstream movement [77] and thus it began to attract the attention of scholars [59]. Today, DN is a relatively new but rapidly growing research category (e.g. [36]). In addition to peer-reviewed journal publications, edited books and book chapters, we included also highly cited conference papers. Other document types available in Google Scholar, like thesis, press articles, non-formally published academic papers and unknown sources, were excluded. Duplicates and articles without an available full-text were also removed. After an in-depth review, other articles were removed due to their lack of relevance to our topics of interest: places and spatial mobilities in relationship to DN. Based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, 78 sources were carefully selected out of the over 300 items initially identified with a keyword search. Subsequently, four non-academic but often cited documents [24, 25, 53, 54] were added by snowballing to partially fill some gaps in the scientific literature.² As showed in Fig. 1, the final corpus is composed of 82 sources.³

Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the selection process of all included and excluded sources

The review of the selected corpus is grounded in the new mobilities paradigm (NMP). This paradigm emerged in the early 2000s as a reaction to sedentarist and nomadic conceptualizations of place and mobility [80]. According to the NMP, mobilities include a broad range of movements (e.g. physical and imaginative travels) as well as the infrastructures that facilitate these movements (e.g. roads and petrol stations). Instead of fixed entities, places are dynamic, interconnected and constantly shaped by movements (e.g. [74, 81]). The mobility turn has opened a new field of research that encourages a comprehensive exploration of the various forms and implications of mobilities, encompassing the movement of people, goods, information, and ideas (e.g. [33]). The NMP integrates perspectives from various social sciences, expanding their scopes and research topics. As shown in Table 1, we developed an original framework to analyse and discuss the corpus on DN. This framework is based on three key concepts grounded in the NMP: lifestyle mobilities, moorings and mobility systems.

Table 1 Analytical framework

First, the concept of lifestyle mobilities explores emerging ways of life “on the move” by integrating mobilities and lifestyle studies [14, 43]. According to this concept, boundaries between work/leisure and between home/away are increasingly blurred for lifestyle travellers, and mobility becomes an essential aspect of their lives. We mobilised this concept to construct the themes of our analytical framework related to identity construction and spatial mobilities of digital nomads. Second, the concept of moorings can be used in mobilities research to explore how mobilities reshape places. According to the NMP, places co-construct mobilities by providing moorings (also called immobile platforms, infrastructures or fixities) and, at the same time, mobilities re-shape places through the constitution of these moorings [80]. Thus, moorings reconfigure places and enable mobilities. This study uses the concept of moorings to review existing knowledge on specific services, infrastructures and initiatives that enable the mobile lifestyle of digital nomads, such as coworking and coliving spaces, targeted marketing campaigns and hotels with long-stay programmes for remote workers. Third, the concept of mobility systems allows to explore complex consequences of mobilities in various socio-cultural and economic contexts (e.g. [33]). For instance, the automobility system encompasses not only the use of cars, but also the entire network of roads, petrol stations, maintenance services and socio-cultural practices surrounding car use. Thus, the automobility system has profound effects on urban planning, economic development, social interactions, and environmental sustainability. We used this concept to discuss how current literature has started exploring some consequences of DN while ignoring others, such as power dynamics and inequalities in mobility access.

3 Digital nomadism as a mobile lifestyle

This section frames DN as a mobile lifestyle, exploring its defining characteristics, main drivers and identities. From this analysis, places and mobilities emerge as crucial components of DN.

3.1 Defining characteristics

The term digital nomadism is still being defined [15]. In practice, as research on DN increases, so are the definitions of the phenomenon. According to Hannonen [34], the lack of a common understanding is a major challenge to advance in this research field. As the term is still debated, DN is more easily defined by what it is not [15]. For instance, digital nomads are not conventional tourists because, even if they might visit attractions at tourist destinations, they also work at these locations; compared to traditional nomads, digital nomads are mobile not only spatially but also in additional ways [50, 78]. They are not nomadic workers because nomads generally stay at destination for longer periods, they prefer not to have a home base and they travel while working (i.e. they don’t travel for work as nomadic workers) [62]. Contrary to nomads, location independent workers do not necessarily travel, such is the case for those working from their primary residence or at nearby coworking spaces; however, location independent workers who work while travelling can be digital nomads. Similarly, not all freelancers are digital nomads but only those who work and travel at the same time. Compared to other new nomads [72], digital nomads tend to be older and have more economic resources than backpackers, they generally travel more than expats (that “simply” live in another country) and, contrary to global nomads, work is an important element of their lifestyle. DN partly overlaps also with the Vanlife and coworkation movements, yet there are distinctive differences. Vanlifers, for instance, live and travel to different locations in vans but they don’t necessarily engage in online work [20]. On the other hand, individuals doing coworkation often work remotely from tourist destinations, but they might lack the freedom to travel for extensive periods of time [52]. For example, an individual working remotely from the Canary Islands for a month and then returning to his or her home in Paris would not fall under the digital nomad category, which typically involves extensive travel and remote work from multiple locations.

DN is generally described as a mobile lifestyle based on the combination of remote working, frequent travels and location independence [12, 13]. While these elements can be found also in other lifestyles, the components of work, travel and leisure uniquely blend together in DN and digital technologies play a major role in this. Notably, conventional boundaries between work and leisure as well as binary understanding of home and away from home (see also Home(s) section) are dissolving for digital nomads.

3.2 Motivations and adoption process

Overall, individuals are particularly attracted by the freedom that DN entails [32]. Moreover, for some, prohibitively expensive cost of livings in the global North is a major problem and DN represents an opportunity to enhance their quality of life [95]. In addition to unsatisfactory personal and professional situations, critical life events (e.g. evictions, firings and break-ups) might bring individuals to adopt this lifestyle [82]. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic represented for many workers the opportunity to try this lifestyle [16]. Largely enabled by digital technologies, nomads use the newly acquired freedom to escape from the nine-to-five conventional office-based jobs and work from different locations, when they want and on projects more meaningful to them [32, 72, 95]. However, this freedom often comes with unforeseen challenges for nomads, such as more precarious working conditions and new responsibilities [22, 39, 84, 86, 87]. For individuals who adopted this lifestyle, DN represents the opportunity to travel, experience different cultures and focus on personal grow, but also to meet like-minded people and to rise their quality of life through the concept of geoarbitrage [76]. Initially popularised by the digital nomad guru Ferriss [23], geoarbitrage (from geographic arbitrage) consists in taking advantage of an income generated in higher-cost countries by relocating daily expenses to locations with lower costs of living [50]. Beside impacting digital nomads at a personal level, this strategy might also have positive repercussions at a professional level, for instance by providing the necessary time to develop their own business [36, 76].

Digital nomads’ discourses tend to suggest that everybody can or even should become a digital nomad (e.g. [23]). This rhetoric promoting DN as an aspirational lifestyle is often promoted by those who have a financial interests in the remote work industry itself, such as nomads that sell their products and services to aspiring nomads [65]. In real-life, structural inequalities facilitate or hinder the ability to choose and sustain a DN lifestyle [5]. For example, nationality represents a major entry barrier as, without a “strong” passport (i.e. issued by Western countries) obtaining travel visas can be a long, expensive and sometimes in vain process.⁴ Other factors that might hamper individuals from becoming digital nomads are (lack of) access to savings, representativeness of minorities in the DN community and professional experiences in the digital world (e.g. [84]). Overall, while individuals might become nomads following different paths, those with high-demanded skills in technical fields, such as software engineers and web designers, generally have the easiest transition to DN and often keep working in the same industry but as external consultants or freelancers [84]. For many others without specific skills in these sectors, the transition is generally more difficult and gradual as they tend to work in the gig economy at substance level. Notably, Stumpf and colleagues [82] found that many digital nomad entrepreneurs initially lacked the necessary entrepreneurial education and experiences to launch a digital business and thus had to learn new skills to sustain their nomadic lifestyle. For them, developing a successful digital business took roughly three years “of struggle and financial uncertainty” ([82], p. 5207). In addition to geoarbitrage, digital nomads might adopt various strategies to cope with precarious working conditions. Notably, the scalability principle allows them to stretch expenses in order to adapt to fluctuant salaries [38]. For instance, digital nomads in Bali can adapt their standard of living by choosing to lodge in the more expensive coastal areas or in the cheaper inland, to dine in the touristic ‘hi-vibe’ restaurants or local street food stands, etc. [38].

3.3 Identity

In the context of liquid modernity [7], traditional conceptions of identity as something fixed are anachronistic. Nomads stretch their identities to fit in different places, relationships and interests [1]. Remarkably, they often have multiple virtual identities, a strategy that “enable them to live life on the move, shifting from assignment to assignment, city to city” ([1], p. 13). Similarly, Prester and colleagues [67] noted that digital nomads’ work identity is fluid and shaped by material (e.g. Skype), spatial (e.g. coworking), and temporal (e.g. time zone) forces. Building on this, everyday actions and interactions with technology play a crucial for the legitimation of DN [68]. As summarized by Cohen and Stanik, “mobility defines what the work of digital nomads looks like, how digital nomads source and perform their work, when they work, what work they do, how they establish work-life balance, where they live and work, and even who their clients are” ([13], pp. 99–100). Mobility is pivotal also for the construction of digital nomads’ identity and scholars often refer to travel patterns to characterize this lifestyle.

Places are extremely important in the process of identity construction of hypermobile individuals [14]. In her investigation of nomad travel bloggers, Willment [93] suggests that DN identity is strongly tied to specific locations as travel bloggers need to constantly produce and share diverse content from across the world while being on the move. The DN identity is forged also at various highly-attended events in the DN scene, such as the Nomad Cruise and the annual DNX conference [5]. These events are set in highly attractive spots for nomads and they all respond to the basic needs, like connectivity and accessibility. Moreover, digital spaces, like online platforms and social networks, serve as privileged places for the definition and development of the DN identity. In these virtual spaces, digital nomads discuss various topics, such as how to find gigs and to balance work and personal life, and thus contribute to delineate certain shared practices and images [5]. However, digital nomads’ identity is not fixed but it gradually co-evolves with the digital technologies and platforms designed for and used by digital nomads [83]. For example, Hemsley and colleagues [35] showed how self-identified nomads use social networks like X (formerly called Twitter) to build a DN identity based on frequent travels and coliving stays.

It is interesting to compare the fluid identities of digital nomads with the initial data on their demographic profile. Existing literature tends to depict a relatively uniform demographic profile of digital nomads⁵: they are young professionals or millennials, predominantly male, white, single and well-educated individuals. They hold “strong” passports, mainly work as self-employed with an average income or in the gig economy [71, 84, 85]. Recent works highlighted a more diverse group of individuals, which includes people of different ages and with various professional situations, such as mature-aged gig workers and employees [5, 20, 32], but also couples, families, single parents with children, women and LGBT people of different racial identities [12, 49, 87]. Moreover, recent reports by MBO [53, 54] suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major changes in the compositions of digital nomads in the United States, with a steep increase of corporate nomads (i.e. digital nomads working as employees for a company).

4 Spatial mobilities

Scholars have just begun to explore digital nomads’ mobilities and further research is required (e.g. [13, 71]). Notably, Schlagwein and Jarrahi [78] identified four distinct and interrelated mobilities of DN, notably spatial, temporal, administrative and content mobilities. Despite the importance of examining all dimensions of DN mobilities, our literature review highlights that academic knowledge remains scarce and focused on spatial mobilities of nomads, exploring issues like motivations to travel, length and frequency of travels, daily mobility, preferred modes of transport and criteria to select their travel destinations.

4.1 Motivations to travel and burdens

The motivation to travel might differ considerably between one individual to another. For some nomads, such as nomad families interviewed by Mancinelli [49, 50], travel is the result of a free choice and the foundation of a new mobile practice. For others, such as those working in the gig economy, travel is less an empowering choice and more a coping strategy to adapt to precarious working conditions [8, 84]. Overall, it can be challenging for digital nomads to sustain frequent or continuous travels. For instance: many solo-travellers share a feeling of isolation (e.g. [36]); travel costs, both direct (e.g. airline ticket) and indirect (e.g. visa, health insurance), can be prohibitive (e.g. [87]); nomads travelling internationally have to deal with cumbersome bureaucratic and legal processes to obtain visa (e.g. [32]),digital nomads generally need an adaptation period of a few days to find satisfactory places to sleep, eat, buy food, and work in a new destination [15, 73]; continuous travel might also undermine job security of nomads (especially freelancers), as they might have problems of connectivity while travelling to new places and finding new workspaces [15, 73].

4.2 Travel patterns

While digital nomads are generally described as engaged in continuous and global travel (e.g. [40]), not all nomads are highly mobile nor they necessarily travel far from home. Notably, the mobility hierarchy developed by Reichenberger [71] shows that digital nomads might adopt different travel patterns (i.e. limited, frequent and continuous levels of mobility) and that these patterns are strictly linked to their relationship with the concept of home (see Home(s) section). Based on digital nomads online discussions, Aroles and colleagues [5] distinguish two travel patterns: fast travelling, which entails several journeys per year; and slow travelling, which involves less travels and the possibility of a home base. In a longitudinal ethnographic research involving sixteen digital nomads over four years, Cook noted that “an increasing sense of isolation […] prompted several informants to alter their travel patterns, stay longer in locations and sometimes stop the practice of travelling and working entirely” ([15], p. 386). In an empirical study involving twelve nomad families [49], study participants described themselves as slow travellers. They intensively travelled by plane, alternating long-haul displacements with shorter trips. The length of their stay was largely determined by their visa regimes, but generally they moved seasonally every two to four months, thus visiting between three and five destinations each year. Study participants also described how they create multiple homes along the way. Overall, slow travel was spreading even before the pandemic and is likely to increase afterward [87].

While adopting ambiguous definitions of DN [34], quantitative surveys provide some early (but not entirely reliable) data on travel patterns. Based on a survey conducted in 2012 [72], digital nomads (here called flashpackers) travel internationally about once per year. According to Fiverr [24], more than 50% of self-identified digital nomads⁶ typically visit one or two countries per year, about 30% move across three to five countries and less than 20% visit more than five countries per year. In the newest version of this survey involving 1400 respondents, 55% of the respondent digital nomads⁷ travel every three months and about 33% travel every month to every three months [25]. Respondents based in USA (about one third) largely preferred to travel domestically and more specifically in coastal states like California and Florida. The reports by MBO [53, 54] confirmed this trend: since the COVID-19 outbreak, USA-based digital nomads prefer to travel less frequently and closer to home. In fact, respondents seem to highly value the advantages of longer stays (e.g. in-depth exploration and increased productivity) and of spatial and temporal proximity to coworkers (e.g. better collaboration with colleagues and clients). This is in line with the findings by Cook, that, even before the pandemic, observed how some digital nomads were adapting their mobility strategies and were “drawn to affordable rural locations that are nearer to their home bases” ([15], p. 385).

According to the influential guide book by Ferriss [23] on embracing the digital nomad lifestyle, commuting is an unpleasant and time-wasting experience. For Ferriss, eliminating the daily commute can unlock valuable time, potentially boosting productivity. Despite digital nomads discourses, comprehensive research into the daily travel behaviours of digital nomads is scarce, with only limited empirical data offering insights into their mobility patterns. For instance, according to Green [31] digital nomads in Chiang Mai can easily walk or move between venues and accommodations. In fact, they tend to live in Nimman, an area with several coffee shops and coworking spaces in close proximity that has become a sort of self-sufficient enclave for digital nomads. Whether digital nomads adapt their daily mobility practices based on local transport network and available mode of transport or import their mobility practices from their home countries is an open question. Existing studies tend to agree that, in line with minimalistic way of living, digital nomads don’t generally own any vehicles. However, issues like car licence and use of rental / shared vehicles are largely unknown among digital nomads. Only two empirical studies partially covered these issues: digital nomads in Chiang Mai prefer to travel by motorcycles as the road network system is convenient and two-wheels vehicles are relatively cheap to rent [46]; and digital nomads in Cluj (Romania) use car sharing services, in particular for airport-city centre trips [56].

4.3 Selecting destinations

Some factors appear particularly relevant when digital nomads select a destination. First, stable high-speed internet is an essential requirement [38, 44, 45, 47] which enables digital nomads to both conduct their technology-enabled work [61] and to stay in touch with family members and friends [17]. Second, low cost of living, strictly connected to the concept of geoarbitrage (see Motivations and adoption process section), generally allows digital nomads to rise their standard of living [58, 87, 94] and or to develop a business idea [18, 76]. Third, digital nomads often seek a “pre-built” community of liked-minded individuals to alleviate a feeling of solitude, but also to expand their professional network and job opportunities [32, 44, 45, 47]. Fourth, nomads increasingly select destinations based on the presence and vivacity of community-based spaces (henceforth cospaces) (see Cospaces section) [44,45,46, 94]). Fifth, smooth access to transport infrastructures is key [18, 58] and, even when nomads decide to visit destinations in remote territories, they most often are accessible in a few hours from the nearest airport (see Travel patterns section) [30]. Sixth, digital nomads often choose destinations based on leisure, sports, self-development, tourism-related and other entertainment activities such as surfing and yoga [9, 18, 28, 94]. Last but not least, digital nomads highly value scenic landscapes, heritage sites and warm climates [44,45,46,47]). Other factors, like local culture and community, English language, time-zone, visa, personal connections and safety, might influence the choice of destinations [38, 44, 45, 94]. Moreover, as noted by Hensellek and Puchala [36], digital nomads might have different priorities when seeking travel destinations based on their demographics (e.g. adventurous experiences for Millennials, educational facilities for older nomads with children) and personal preferences.

Over the past decade, certain destinations have successfully accommodated the growing infrastructural needs of this nomad population. Well-established destinations for digital nomads – often called digital nomad hubs or hotspots – include Ubud (Indonesia), Chiang Mai (Thailand), Medellín (Colombia) and Porto (Portugal), but new ones are emerging across the globe. Notably, DN hotspots often overlap with tourist destinations but, as it is particularly challenging for some nomads to find a work-life balance where everybody is in holiday, new and surprising DN destinations might rise [15, 18]. For example, some locations in remote areas that have launched cospaces are increasingly popular among digital nomads [29]. The growing network of cospaces offers a glimpse of the geography of DN [30] and Instagram, especially through its geotagging tool, plays a major role in materializing it [10]. Overall, as more and more destinations strive to attract digital nomads, popular websites like NomadList and HoodMaps provide various rankings to help nomads finding the best destinations based on their specific interests and requirements [10]. Face-to-face discussions with other nomads and cospaces managers might also influence destination choices and lead to the establishment of invisible "world routes" connecting obligated stops along nomadic travels⁸ [30].

5 Infrastructures and services

All mobilities entail specific (immobile) infrastructures [80]. Contrary to the anywhere rhetoric, literature shows that digital nomads rely on the availability of spaces, services, and infrastructures, such as flexible workplaces (e.g. coworking, coffee shops, third places), adapted accommodations (e.g. coliving, hotel rooms, rental studios), leisure services (e.g. yoga class and surfing facilities) and finally local, national and international transport infrastructures (e.g. [65]). Reflecting the main topics discussed in the corpus, this section focuses on how digital nomads understand the concept of home, and it reviews private, public and private–public initiatives targeting digital nomads. While private stakeholders tend to develop physical services (e.g. flexible workspaces, lodging and some leisure activities), public authorities mainly elaborated new digital nomad visa and marketing campaigns to attract digital nomads to their destinations.

5.1 Home(s)

In this investigation of how digital nomads perceive and move across places, it is important to investigate what is home for them. Discussions on DN forums are particularly heated on this topic [5]. On the one hand, some say that, in line with digital nomads’ minimalist way of living, selling the house is a mandatory step to become a digital nomad. On the other hand, some note that having a home base might support individuals in cutting down costs linked to frequent travels: engaging in slow traveling would help to sustain on the long term this otherwise expensive lifestyle (see Travel patterns Section). In concrete, digital nomads’ home base is often an apartment that nomads rent for several months and which therefore could change over the years. In alternative, it could be a seasonal home that nomad families (consider to) acquire [49] or a propriety bought with friends [17]. In line with the lifestyle mobilities framework [14], digital nomads could (desire to) have multiple temporary moorings.

Also scholars have conflicting views on the concept of home in DN [5]. Based on an early literature review, the decision of not having a home base is one of the main trait that distinguishes digital nomads from other “categories” of hypermobile professionals [62]. While Sutherland and Jarrahi [83] noted that digital nomads often don’t have a permanent residence, some [8, 86] suggested that residential mobility might be a coping strategy to deal with precarious working conditions that de facto limit access to traditional housing markets. In this context, coliving spaces are marketed as an ideal home for digital nomads: a mobile infrastructure facilitating travels, a flexible workspace and a social network connecting link-minded individuals [8]. Similarly, the company Airbnb helps nomads to recreate home everywhere [55]. In the Vanlife movement, a growing trend that in part overlaps with DN, the vehicle that nomads use to travel is also their home [20]. Based on a retrospective autoethnographical study, Hall and colleagues [32] observed that: while some digital nomads travel almost perpetually, other establish a permanent or semipermanent home base; and digital nomads often visit to their family at their home coutry. The above complex and diverse picture on how nomads relate to home is confirmed by an empirical study involving nineteen digital nomads and three coworking employees [17]. For nomadic participants of this study, home could be the feeling of being at home anywhere in the world, the place where the family lives, a rest stop in a nomadic life or a combination of the above. Home for nomads is not necessarily a geographical place but it is mainly about having access to like-minded people and potential friends [17, 49]. Despite this, some, those who can, buy a property and use it as a ‘safety net’ [49]. For some nomads the family home plays a similar role of safe shelter in case of need, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic [21], while for others it represents “a place of regression into a former life” ([17], p. 113) in periods of economic precariousness.

5.2 Cospaces

Despite the diversity of both private and public initiatives targeting digital nomads, the revised corpus largely focuses on cospaces, which essentially refer to coworking and coliving spaces, launched and managed by private actors, including expats, (current and former) digital nomads and locals (e.g. [47, 63, 64, 69, 89]). The concepts of coworking and coliving are not new nor exclusively linked to DN; however nomads contributed to expand their users and to influence the range of services offered [44, 45]. Cospaces enable DN mobility by providing flexible workspaces, shared accommodations, social and leisure activities at different locations. In recent years, coworking and coliving businesses have opened in Budapest (Hungary), Berlin (Germany), Medellín (Colómbia), Ubud (Indonesia), Chiang Mai (Thailand) and many more destinations around the world (see Selecting destinations section). For some, this growing network of cospaces might create new destinations for nomads and thus reveal the geography of DN [10, 30, 35].

Digital nomads visit cospaces because they provide them access to a community of like-minded people and support them to find a balance between work and leisure [11, 15, 44, 45]. Moreover, coliving and coworking spaces can play a key role of mediator with the territory at various scales and with different actors [30]. While cospaces are substantially different from traditional tourist accommodations, local governments scarcely recognise their unique role for digital nomads [30].

5.3 Tourist accommodations

As cospaces often fail to provide an environment conducive to social interactions, many nomads prefer to rely on other lodging options [44, 45]. Hotels, hostels, bed and breakfast and Airbnb apartments are generally more affordable and flexible than cospaces [12]. Moreover, since the outbreak of the pandemic, the tourism sector is adapting its offers to the needs of travelling remote workers. For instance, the Marriott hotel group developed a family workation package with semi-private workspaces and supervised activities for children, the Radisson hotel chain provides rooms fully equipped for remote working and the Yotel hotel in New York is created exclusively for digital nomads and travelling business workers [26]. A recent study explored how existing hospitality sector in Croatia adapts to DN by surveying owners and managers of small and medium-sized hotels, agritourism and holiday rentals [26]. Based on answers from 46 facilities, a vast majority declared to know the concepts of DN but largely ignored digital nomads specific needs; while almost all accommodations (80%) offer only basic technological equipment (i.e. Wi-Fi), most (65%) are willing to improve and expand their technological equipment to attract digital nomads and remote workers [26].

Digital nomads often rely on the availability of short, medium and long term apartments and Airbnb perfectly respond to their needs [44, 45]. While several works linked DN to Airbnb (e.g. [61]), no studies explore in detail how digital nomads live and work in Airbnb apartments and only partially how the increasing demand of Airbnb apartments by nomads could impact territories and communities (see Local economy and communities section). However, the latest Airbnb report provides some interesting insights about changing travel trends and the rising profiles of people working from anywhere and living nomadically [2]. In particular, since the pandemic, people tend to prefer flexible travel options, longer stays and a mix of work and leisure. Moreover, almost 75% of surveyed Airbnb costumers are interested in working remotely (and not in the same location where their employee is based) after the pandemic is over,about 10% of long-term stay bookers have reported to conduct a nomadic lifestyle, and 5% planned to leave their primary residences in favour of travelling [2].

5.4 Dedicated visa and other public initiatives

Governments at various administrative levels increasingly market their territories as ideal destinations for digital nomads. Overall, they see DN as an mean to advance their economic agenda [32] and sometimes also to develop their technological sector [46, 91]. For instance, even before the COVID-19 crisis, countries like Estonia, Indonesia and Thailand developed flexible taxation, visa-free stays, e-residency programmes for digital nomads [32, 34, 66]. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, DN was largely presented as an opportunity to revive tourism (e.g. [11, 57]) and consequently several dozens of countries across the globe launched new visa schemes (often called digital nomad visa) with the specific aim to attract digital nomads and remote workers [37, 88]. While these visa schemes seem to considerably vary across countries, they offer several advantages for remote workers, like easier procedures, fast track treatment of the application and longer validity of the visa. For example, DN visa in Greece provides 12-month residency permit to digital nomads, as well as to their families, and can be extended up to two years [60]. Also Romania is developing a similar visa scheme but has to clarify sensible issues on taxation and social security contributions [57]. Despite the above-mentioned benefits, digital nomads in online discussions complained that emerging visas often require disproportionate earnings and high application fees, and that they often clash with DN values and priorities [21].

At the regional and local levels, some destinations have been pioneers in promoting DN. Once again, the pandemic seems to have pushed to action. In particular, public actors increasingly see remote work and DN as an opportunity to revive peripherical territories [3, 30]. For instance, the regional government of Madeira (Portugal) has set up free coworking spaces and tailor-made events for nomads [3]. In Bali (Indonesia), several local regulations resulted in the rise of digital nomad activities [70]. However, local actors and decision-makers often do not know or fully recognize the specificities of coworking and coliving spaces for digital nomads [30]. From the point of view of local stakeholders, the integration of cospaces to their traditional territorial offers and their economic and tourist strategy is a major challenge [30].

6 Impacts

While DN is a relatively new trend, it is expected to significantly rise in upcoming months and years, and so are its impacts [13]. Destinations who market this cohort should be better informed of potential drawbacks of DN and more research is needed [32]. This section provides an initial overview on how digital nomads’ mobility practices and spatial infrastructures influence places.

6.1 Local economy and communities

DN is generally presented as an opportunity for the local economy of the destinations where nomads temporarily live and work. To support this statement, some noted that digital nomads pay rents, hire local inhabitants and can also become “ambassadors” of specific destinations, prompting other nomads to visit those locations [32]. Moreover, DN might boost the development of new local businesses catering the specific needs of nomads, such as cospaces but also restaurants and coffee shops. In the aftermath of of COVID-19, DN is described as opportunity to relaunch the tourism sector [26].

Emerging research tend to nuance the above one-sided perspective. As any over-touristic destinations, emerging DN hotpots might go through transformations that entails saturation of Airbnb rentals, environmental degradation and gentrification [87]. For instance, gentrification processes linked to DN are ongoing in the former industrial neighbourhood of Marasti, in the Romanian city of Cluj [56] as well as in the entire village of Ubud, in the island of Bali [47]. Contrary to the argument that digital nomads boost local economies, some noted that they utilize and rely on various public infrastructures at destinations, such as internet and airports, without contributing to their maintenance (i.e. without paying taxes in host countries). In fact, nomads generally enter countries with tourist visa and thus are not required to pay taxes [87, 88, 90]. The problem of double taxation and other tax-related issues, both in the home and host country, are controversial and poorly researched. Notably, as tax schemes are generally related to the primary residence, there are debates over the fiscal responsibilities of individuals, like digital nomads, without a permanent home [88]. However, it is important to note that some digital nomads prefer to have a primary residence, thereby aligning with tax obligations in a specific jurisdiction, for administrative purposes and for maintaining certain privileges, such as access to better public health services and other safety nets of their home countries. This might explain why, before COVID-19 and even more after, many national-states have introduced income tax exemptions and incentives in the attempt to attract these mobile professionals (e.g. [34]). Critics say that new businesses serving the needs of digital nomads often come at the expense of investments that could have served the needs of local population [65]. Moreover, they are often owned, managed and frequented by foreigners [47]. Often too expensive for locals, cospaces contribute to create a bubble effect that hamper cultural exchange. As foreseen in the DN manifesto [48], residents often represent a source of cheap domestic labour for digital nomads [47]. Even when nomads need help to conduct their work, they are more likely to pay an assistant working remotely (most often from Southeast Asia where labour costs are relatively low) rather than locals [31].

6.2 Wider environmental and societal contexts

The environmental impacts of DN are largely ignored and hard to measure in the absence of data, but are not without negative aspects due to their (long-distance) mobility practices and infrastructural needs. Overall, while nomads seem to be scarcely concerned with environmental issues, their carbon footprint is estimated relatively high due to their frequent air travels [87]. This might change after the pandemic, as the concept of slow travel (i.e. travel every few months) is likely to gain in popularity [87]. Also digital nomads’ work practices have an high carbon footprint due to their frequent use digital devices and services, such as computers and transfer of online data [36]. Moreover, the spatial needs of digital nomads, particularly in DN hotspots, might lead to the destruction of natural environments for building cospaces and other dedicated infrastructures. For instance, ricefields in Ubud have been gradually converted into villas with swimming pools for tourists, expatriates and digital nomads [47].

Various scholars discussed about consumption patterns of digital nomads. An early study linked DN to downshifting, due to the (alleged) minimalism lifestyle and slow travel patterns of nomads [72]. However, others suggest that digital nomads are not in any way less consumers but just consumers of different goods, such as of flight travels, coliving spaces and online services [87]. For digital nomads, access to goods and experiences is more important than ownership [6]. This shift from ownership to access does not indicate an escape from materialism but rather new materialistic ways to signal a social status (e.g. through travels). This is also in line with Polson [65], who noted how travel and social media yield status for digital nomads.

Some literature discusses the role of companies in the expansion DN phenomenon. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the number of corporate nomads increased remarkably (e.g. [53, 54]) but it is uncertain whether this trend is to stay. By interviewing ten managers and executives of German companies, Frick and Marx [27] looked at motivations and barriers for corporations to recruit and retain digital nomads as part of their workforce. As noted also by Kong and colleagues [42], the main barrier seem to be a cultural one linked to a fear of executives of loosing control and lack of trust. From organizational standpoint, legal (e.g. work safety) and ethical (e.g. equal opportunities) discussions are also challenging issues. However, in order to keep up with the individual preferences of highly skilled professionals, companies might need to create new working models that allow the integration of digital nomads [4, 27]. Overall, digitalisation of work might lead to increased inequalities between countries leading digital reform and those countries lagging behind in their digital transformation [19].

7 Discussion and conclusion

This literature review explores and highlights the variety of the complex interconnections between DN, places and mobilities. Notably, the revised corpus shows that, contrary to the anywhere rhetoric promoted by digital nomads, digital nomads are not completely free when selecting their travel destinations [61]. Beautiful landscapes and pleasant weather alone are not sufficient to make a destination attractive for digital nomads. Destinations need to respond to essential requirements like transport accessibility, internet connectivity, flexible lodging and affordableow cost of living. Besides physical environments, also virtual ones are crucial for nomads: social media, forums, websites and other digital spaces not only cater digital nomads’ professional and social needs (e.g. of working remotely, belonging to a community, connecting with geographically far loved-ones) but are also privileged spaces for the construction of their identity. Moreover, DN’s virtual and physical spaces interact in various and complex ways, such as websites informing destination choices.

Furthermore, the mobility of digital nomads is multiple, motivated by personal and professional reasons, empowering strategy for some and coping mechanism for others. Some travel frequently and fast all across the world, others gradually adapt their mobility practices to sustain their nomadic lifestyle on the long term, for instance by travelling slowly, sometimes domestically, and by having a home base. This has led some to question whether DN is merely a transitional phase or an enduring transformation that might challenge several fundamental aspects of Western societies, such as traditional forms of home and family life [5, 9]. Our work also indicates negative aspects of DN, such as gentrification and elevated carbon footprint, that have been scarcely investigated by current literature.

Building on the new mobilities paradigm, we developed an analytical framework with four themes and various sub-themes to present and analyse studies on DN. This critical analysis pinpoints that previous studies largely focused the lifestyles of digital nomads while little attention has been given to other key stakeholders, such as businesses and governments targeting nomads, and to the implications of this fast-growing phenomenon. Throughout the review, we have highlighted possible implications of DN in various spheres, including transportation. Building on this framework, Table 2 proposes a summary of key policy implications and avenues for future research.

Table 2 Analytical framework: policy implications and research gaps

In the era of mainstream remote work, some territories, including those in remote areas, are increasingly adapting to new ways of working, living, socialising and travelling of digital nomads. New infrastructures and services, such as coliving spaces and coworking cafes, are visible signs of ongoing adaptations. While these transformations are often driven by the private sector, public authorities have an important role to play. We advise policymakers to take into consideration the rise of digital nomads, whether they are already in their territories or not. As DN might represent both an opportunity and a threat for local communities, authorities must craft specific strategies to foster and regulate its development, paying a particular attention to prevent or mitigate possible side-effects, such as socio-economic segregation. Public authorities, such as those in tourism, migration and regional development, should consider the specific needs and socio-economic profiles of digital nomads when developing attraction policies for nomads, such as extended visa options, soft-landing services and adapted spaces for working remotely. Moreover, they are advised to collaborate with local businesses and communities to ensure the economic success and social acceptability of these strategies.

DN is not only a new and rising trend, but also a precursor of emerging changes in work, leisure and mobility [9, 27, 35, 83], especially in the post-pandemic context which allows the development of new practices of remote working [13]. As DN expands, our review reveals a compelling need for further research, especially to understand the impacts of this lifestyle at both established and emerging DN hotspots, including in Western countries. Several open questions remain to be explored, such as regarding the evolving travel preferences (both in terms of travel patterns and choice of destinations), demographic profiles of nomads, DN initiatives and their promotors. The long-term effects of DN on local communities and economies, and its environmental impacts are also largely unknown and urgently needed. This research is crucial for policymakers to develop strategies that balance the benefits of DN with potential challenges such as gentrification and socio-economic segregation. Between the writing and publication of this article, new relevant articles on DN were published, such as some work on digital nomad visas [51, 75] and an analysis of how local communities perceive this phenomenon in a well-known digital nomad destination [41]. Although literature reviews age rapidly, this work provides an original framework to explore interactions between DN, places and mobilities that can also be applied in other contexts. Moreover, this article contributes to ongoing discussions on DN by proving initial advice to policymakers and by identifying new avenues for future research.