Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Workplace dependence in urban economies

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Workplace dependence in Budapest concentrates at the urban core in female-majority, income-diverse locations, a pattern the authors read as a spatially contingent 'service trap'.

desk verdict A nicely packaged descriptive finding about who kept commuting in Budapest's 2020 curfew, but the 'workplace dependence' label overreaches what a two-window pandemic difference can identify. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07588 v1 pith:IAKRC2ZF submitted 2026-08-05 econ.GN physics.soc-phq-fin.EC

Zsófia Zádor , Balázs Lengyel , Riccardo Di Clemente This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNphysics.soc-phq-fin.EC
keywords workplacedependenceremoteworkspatialinequalityurbanstructureindustrydifferencessocio-economicmobilephonedataadministrativefirm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks where 'workplace dependence'—the residual physical presence that remains when remote work is widely feasible—is concentrated in a city, using fine-grained mobile-phone data for 1.4 million devices and administrative company records in Budapest during the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment. It argues that dependence is not simply an industry story: sector and firm productivity set the baseline, but the socio-economic pattern is spatially contingent. Near the city centre, locations with female-majority and income-diverse daytime populations showed the highest on-site attendance during a strict curfew, while farther from the centre this signal weakened and industrial land use became the dominant driver. The authors interpret this as a 'service trap' at the core: face-to-face service workers remain tied to central neighbourhoods to serve a workforce that has itself gone remote. If this is right, remote-work inequality is inscribed in urban geography, narrowing the cross-class mixing that central density once provided.

What carries the argument

The central object is the location-level workplace dependence measure, $WPD_i = N_i^{curfew} - N_i^{open}$, the difference in the number of workers present during working hours at 10AM on a workday between the curfew period and the opening period. This is modelled with an ordinary least squares regression on a fine-grained hexagonal grid covering the city, with industry fixed effects by NACE sector (the European industry classification, with wholesale and retail trade as the reference category), and two separate interaction models that multiply female ratio and income entropy by distance from the centre. The identifying mechanism is the quasi-natural experiment created by a strict 8PM curfew introduced on 11 November 2020: comparing attendance before and after the curfew isolates structural workplace dependence by removing elective commuting. A K-means clustering of each location's 48-hour weekday/weekend workplace activity sequence assigns it to Day, Mixed, or Weekend shift types, which enter the model as spatial controls, and a spatial error model confirms the main coefficients hold after accounting for residual spatial autocorrelation. The distance interactions are what carry the paper's specific claim, showing that socio-economic composition conditions physical presence only near the core.

What would settle it

Re-estimate WPD using a true pre-pandemic baseline (the same weeks in 2019) instead of September–October 2020; if the central female-majority, income-diverse excess in WPD disappears or reverses once early remote-work adoption is accounted for, the 'service trap' claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that workplace dependence—measured as the change in the number of people at work at 10AM on a workday between an unrestricted opening period (September–October 2020) and a curfew period (November–December 2020)—concentrates where structural conditions make remote work impossible, and that the influence of socio-economic composition is strongest at the core. Industry composition and firm productivity are strong predictors: locations with more productive firms and with information/communication, administrative, health, and arts sectors saw steeper declines. Beyond those structural factors, a higher female share and higher income entropy are associated with higher WPD, but the marginal effects are positive near the city centre and decline with distance: female ratio $\beta = 0.135$ ($p<0.01$) with distance interaction $-0.104$ ($p<0.01$), and income entropy $\beta = 0.053$ ($p<0.05$) with distance interaction $-0.092$ ($p<0.01$). This is consistent with a residual, place-bound service workforce in the urban core that remains physically present to serve remote-capable professionals; the paper calls the resulting narrowing of central social composition a spatially contingent 'service trap'.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the difference between the September–October opening period and the November–December curfew period isolates structural workplace dependence, rather than pandemic-era job losses, business closures, or remote-work uptake that had already occurred before the opening period; because the data begin in June 2020, there is no pre-pandemic baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Central business districts will keep a residual on-site workforce made up disproportionately of female and mixed-income face-to-face service workers, even as remote-capable professionals work from home.
  • The socio-economic composition of the urban core narrows as remote-capable workers withdraw, reducing the cross-class encounters that central density previously supported.
  • Peripheral industrial and commerce locations retain physical presence and local demand, so investment in amenities and transit there could support emerging mixed-use sub-centres.
  • Policies that treat remote work as a uniform option will miss the places and people who remain place-bound; both sector and distance from the centre condition who can stay home.
  • Because the measure is a residual after a mobility restriction, high WPD near the centre signals essential service roles rather than revealed preference for on-site work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test whether the same core-concentrated 'service trap' appears in polycentric metros; a natural extension would rebase distance to the nearest sub-centre and check whether the female-ratio and income-entropy interactions hold there.
  • If hybrid work proves durable, the 'service trap' is likely to persist as a structural feature of central labour markets rather than a pandemic episode, since the residual service workforce exists to serve whatever share of professionals returns.
  • A testable consequence: repeated waves of mobility restrictions should show a stable distance-moderated female-ratio effect in monocentric cities, while cities with stronger remote-work infrastructure should show a weaker one.
  • The binary sex classification in the underlying subscriber data likely undercounts women; correcting for the mismatch between line owner and phone user would probably strengthen, not weaken, the female-ratio effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a location-level measure of workplace dependence (WPD) in Budapest as the difference between workplace attendance during the November–December 2020 curfew and the September–October 2020 opening period, using hourly mobile-phone population data linked to administrative firm records. It then regresses WPD on company characteristics, socio-economic composition of the daytime population, spatial variables, and distance interactions, and reports that female ratio and income entropy are positively associated with WPD near the centre and negatively interacted with distance. The authors interpret this as a spatially contingent 'service trap' in which central female-majority, income-diverse locations retain a place-bound face-to-face service workforce.

Significance. If the measurement assumptions hold, the paper offers a rare location-level, firm-linked view of who remained physically present during the pandemic, and the distance-interaction results are a useful descriptive contribution to the remote-work and urban-inequality literature. The outcome is directly measured from mobility data rather than imputed, the main coefficients are robust to a spatial error model, and the authors provide code for reproducibility. However, the central interpretation is currently overstated relative to the data: the outcome is a difference between two pandemic-period windows, no location in the sample is female-majority, and the mechanism is inferred rather than observed.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.3, Table S4, Eq. (1)] The sign of the distance coefficient is misinterpreted. WPD is defined as N_curfew − N_open, and the text states that negative values indicate a decline in on-site presence. Table S4 reports a coefficient on Distance to centre of −0.1094, so conditional on the other regressors, locations farther from the centre have more negative WPD, i.e., larger declines. The sentence 'locations farther from the centre experienced smaller declines, or even gains, in WPD' therefore states the opposite of what the model estimates. The bivariate correlation is positive (+0.22 in Fig. S6), so the negative conditional coefficient is likely an artifact of controlling for baseline work activity and cluster dummies; the authors should clarify whether the claim is about the marginal or conditional gradient and correct the text or the specification.
  2. [§2.2 and Discussion limitations] The baseline-contamination threat is real and is acknowledged by the authors: because data begin in June 2020, the opening period is itself a pandemic period, and the limitation paragraph notes that sectors such as ICT 'may already reflect substantial remote work adoption'. If the opening baseline already contains differential remote uptake by sector, location, and socio-economic mix, then WPD = N_curfew − N_open does not isolate structural workplace dependence; it measures the change between two pandemic windows. The central distance-interaction result could then reflect the timing of remote-work adoption rather than a stable place-bound service workforce. The authors should supplement the analysis with an alternative baseline (e.g., pre-pandemic mobility or an occupation-based remote-work potential index) or substantially weaken the structural language in the abstract and discussion.
  3. [Table S1 and Abstract/§2.3] The data do not contain female-majority locations. Table S1 reports that the ratio of women has a mean of 0.300 and a maximum of 0.490, so no hexagon in the estimation sample has a female majority. The abstract and results repeatedly describe 'female-majority locations' as showing the highest WPD; the positive coefficient on female ratio supports 'higher female share', not 'female-majority'. The wording should be corrected throughout, and the 'service trap' characterization should be adjusted so that it does not depend on a majority threshold that is absent from the data.
  4. [§2.1, §4.4, Eq. (1)] There is a mechanical overlap between the outcome and key regressors. The cluster dummies are derived from K-means clustering of opening-period 48-hour workplace activity, and baseline work activity W_open is included as a control in a model whose outcome is WPD = N_curfew − N_open. The large negative coefficient on W_open (−0.61 in Table S4) and the cluster coefficients may partly reflect regression to the mean or the built-in relation between a change score and its baseline, rather than a substantive effect. The authors should report specifications without W_open and with clusters derived from an independent period, or justify why the conditional estimand is the one that supports the substantive claims.
  5. [§3 Discussion] The 'service trap' mechanism is not directly measured. The paper has no occupation data, no worker-level panel, and no information on whom the residual workers serve; the claim that central female-ratio and income-diverse locations are staffed by face-to-face service workers serving remote-capable workers is one of several possible explanations for the location-level correlations (others include sectoral composition, commuting constraints, or pandemic-related business closures). This interpretation should be framed as a hypothesis, and the conclusion should be scaled back unless additional data on occupations or service flows are introduced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.6, Eq. (1)] The text describing the model groups says 'spatial characteristics (S_i + β3 G_i)', which appears to be a typo for 'G_i', and the sentence 'We measure all variables at 10AM on the average weekday, on 1' contains a stray 'on 1'.
  2. [§4.2–4.3] The choice of pseudocount, Gaussian smoothing σ, and the 48-hour aggregation are reasonable but arbitrary; please report sensitivity to these choices, as they affect the cluster definitions and the WPD measure.
  3. [Fig. 4a] The row labels 'Location/Gender/Income' and the column grouping 'Primary Secondary Tertiary' are not defined in the caption; please clarify how the strata in panel (a) are constructed.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data will be made available 'upon request', which is inconsistent with the reproducibility goals stated for the code; please deposit the aggregated data in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: WPD is a measured difference, predictors are opening-period covariates, and the acknowledged baseline caveat is an identification concern rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, WPD_i = N_curfew_i − N_open_i, is a measured difference between two observed periods and is not fitted from, nor defined in terms of, the predictors. The main socio-economic predictors (female ratio, income entropy, high-income ratio) and company/spatial controls are measured during the opening period and are not functions of WPD; the distance interactions in Eqs. 6–7 are ordinary moderated regressions whose outcome remains the same measured difference. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the outcome and then presented as a prediction on a closely related subset, no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work as a load-bearing premise, and the self-citations (e.g., Refs. 4, 23, 30, 37, 45) are contextual rather than central to the estimation. The acknowledged absence of a pre-pandemic baseline, and the fact that opening-period activity is one component of WPD and is also used to construct cluster controls, are measurement and identification threats, not circularity: controlling for baseline opening work activity changes the estimand but does not reduce the female-ratio or income-entropy coefficients to the outcome by construction. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citation chain, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on observational mobile-phone data and administrative firm records. The main free parameters are methodological choices (cluster count, smoothing, measurement hour, exclusions); the main axioms are domain assumptions about what mobile presence and firm records measure. No physical entity is invented; the 'service trap' is an interpretive label without independent evidence.

free parameters (7)
  • K-means cluster count = 3
    Chosen via elbow method (Appendix S3.1); cluster labels used as predictors of WPD.
  • Gaussian smoothing sigma = 1
    Applied to 48-hour sequences in Appendix S1.2; not varied in sensitivity analysis.
  • Pseudocount before log transform = 1
    Added to avoid zero values ahead of log transform (Appendix S1.2), affecting low-activity hexagons.
  • Minimum company size threshold = 3 employees
    Restricts sample to 29,409 of 178,374 companies (Methods 4.5); robustness checks include single-company hexagons.
  • Measurement hour = 10:00
    All variables measured at 10AM on an average weekday (Methods 4.6); WPD could differ at other hours.
  • 48-hour aggregation = 48h
    Weekday and weekend blocks chosen to capture hybrid work (Methods 4.3); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Excluded anomalous days = 23 Oct and 12 Dec
    Days excluded as anomalous (Appendix S1.1); exclusion criteria are post hoc.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math OLS with HC3 robust standard errors gives valid inference for the regression of WPD on location, company, and socio-economic characteristics.
    Methods 4.6; relies on linearity, no omitted variable bias conditional on controls, and correct standard errors.
  • standard math Shannon entropy and K-means clustering provide meaningful summaries of industry and income diversity and temporal work patterns.
    Methods 4.5 and 4.4; these are standard tools, not the source of the central claim.
  • domain assumption Mobile device presence at a location during working hours represents people at their workplace.
    Methods 4.1; Telekom identifies work and home locations from frequent visitation, which may misclassify some trips.
  • domain assumption Telekom subscriber segmentation provides reliable gender and income categories for the daytime population.
    Methods 4.1 and Discussion limitations; gender is derived from subscription information and under-represents women; income categories are coarse.
  • domain assumption The September-October 2020 opening period is a valid baseline for pre-curfew workplace behaviour despite being pandemic-era.
    Methods 4.1 and Discussion limitations; data start June 2020, so no true pre-pandemic baseline exists.
  • domain assumption The November 2020 curfew is an exogenous shock that affects workplace attendance mainly through remote-work feasibility, not through other channels.
    Methods 4.1 and Results 2.2; legal closures and fear of infection also change attendance, which could confound WPD.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'service trap' interpretation assumes central female-majority, income-diverse locations with high WPD are staffed by face-to-face service workers serving remote-capable workers.
    Discussion; no direct occupation-level data is used to verify the mechanism.
invented entities (1)
  • service trap
    purpose: Conceptual label for the finding that workplace dependence concentrates near the centre among female-majority and income-diverse daytime populations.
    No out-of-sample prediction or independent measurement is provided; it summarizes the regression interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Workplace dependence in urban economies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAKRC2ZF

@misc{pith2026260807588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Workplace dependence in urban economies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAKRC2ZF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07588}
}
read the original abstract

Remote work has fundamentally reshaped urban economic life, and the spatial organisation of activity across cities. However, access to flexible work is distributed unevenly across industries, income groups, and genders, creating disparities in health risks, social mixing, and economic opportunity. Understanding where workplace dependence (WPD) is concentrated is therefore important, yet its distribution across urban areas remains poorly understood. Here we pair fine-grained hourly population data with detailed company records in a large European city to examine how location, industry composition, and socio-economic characteristics shape physical workplace attendance. By comparing workplace activity during periods of low versus high COVID-19 restrictions, we identify the determinants of WPD. We find that while industry and firm productivity are key drivers, the relationship between WPD, income, and gender is highly contingent on distance from the city center. Near the centre, female-majority and income-diverse locations show the highest WPD, consistent with a residual, place-bound service workforce. These findings reveal a spatially contingent 'service trap' at the urban core, extending remote-work inequalities beyond individuals to the urban ecosystem as a whole.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of Economic Perspectives37(4), 23–49 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.4 .23

    Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J.: The Evolution of Work from Home. Journal of Economic Perspectives37(4), 23–49 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.4 .23

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.37.4 2023

  2. [2]

    American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics15(4), 1–39 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210061

    Bick, A., Blandin, A., Mertens, K.: Work from Home before and after the COVID- 19 Outbreak. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics15(4), 1–39 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210061

    work page doi:10.1257/mac.20210061 2023

  3. [3]

    Tech- nical Report w28731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (April 2021)

    Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.: Why Working from Home Will Stick. Tech- nical Report w28731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (April 2021). https://doi.org/10.3386/w28731 . http://www.nber.org/papers/w2 8731.pdf

    work page doi:10.3386/w28731 2021

  4. [4]

    Nature Human Behaviour7(10), 1729–1739 (2023) 15

    Santana, C., Botta, F., Barbosa, H., Privitera, F., Menezes, R., Di Clemente, R.: Covid-19 is linked to changes in the time–space dimension of human mobility. Nature Human Behaviour7(10), 1729–1739 (2023) 15

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dingel, J.I., Neiman, B.: How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public Economics189, 104235 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Plos one15(9), 0239113 (2020)

    Koren, M., Pet˝ o, R.: Business disruptions from social distancing. Plos one15(9), 0239113 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Labour Economics74, 102083 (2022)

    Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M., Rauh, C.: Work that can be done from home: Evidence on variation within and across occupations and industries. Labour Economics74, 102083 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    PLoS One17(6), 0266393 (2022)

    Minkus, L., Groepler, N., Drobniˇ c, S.: The significance of occupations, family responsibilities, and gender for working from home: Lessons from covid-19. PLoS One17(6), 0266393 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Annals of the American Association of Geographers112(1), 286–305 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.19 04819

    Huang, X., Lu, J., Gao, S., Wang, S., Liu, Z., Wei, H.: Staying at Home Is a Privilege: Evidence from Fine-Grained Mobile Phone Location Data in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Annals of the American Association of Geographers112(1), 286–305 (2022) https://doi....

    2022

  2. [10]

    BMC public health22(1), 47 (2022)

    Lunde, L.-K., Fløvik, L., Christensen, J.O., Johannessen, H.A., Finne, L.B., Jørgensen, I.L., Mohr, B., Vleeshouwers, J.: The relationship between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review. BMC public health22(1), 47 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Nature Communications12(1), 2429 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22601-6

    Gozzi, N., Tizzoni, M., Chinazzi, M., Ferres, L., Vespignani, A., Perra, N.: Esti- mating the effect of social inequalities on the mitigation of COVID-19 across communities in Santiago de Chile. Nature Communications12(1), 2429 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22601-6

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2022(2), 281–360 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2022.a901274

    Aksoy, C.G., Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J., Dolls, M., Zarate, P.: Working from Home Around the World. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2022(2), 281–360 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2022.a901274

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Regional Science and Urban Economics93, 103770 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.regsciurbeco.2022.103770

    Althoff, L., Eckert, F., Ganapati, S., Walsh, C.: The Geography of Remote Work. Regional Science and Urban Economics93, 103770 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.regsciurbeco.2022.103770

    2022

  6. [14]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(45), 2408930121 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2408930121

    Ramani, A., Alcedo, J., Bloom, N.: How working from home reshapes cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(45), 2408930121 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2408930121

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    American Economic Review116(2), 674–709 (2026)

    Gupta, A., Mittal, V., Van Nieuwerburgh, S.: Work from home and the office real estate apocalypse. American Economic Review116(2), 674–709 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Nature Human Behaviour (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024 -02072-7

    Yabe, T., Garc ´ ıa Bulle Bueno, B., Frank, M.R., Pentland, A., Moro, E.: Behaviour-based dependency networks between places shape urban economic 16 resilience. Nature Human Behaviour (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024 -02072-7 . Publisher: Springer Science and Business...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Nature Communications14(1) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-379 13-y

    Yabe, T., Bueno, B.G.B., Dong, X., Pentland, A., Moro, E.: Behavioral changes during the COVID-19 pandemic decreased income diversity of urban encounters. Nature Communications14(1) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-379 13-y . Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Cambridge MA: MIT Press (1964)

    Alonso, W.: Location theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press (1964)

    1964

  11. [19]

    Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston (2012)

    Moretti, E.: The New Geography of Jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Journal of labor economics19(2), 316–342 (2001)

    Glaeser, E.L., Mar´ e, D.C.: Cities and skills. Journal of labor economics19(2), 316–342 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Urban Studies54(2), 437–455 (2017)

    Zhong, C., Schl¨ apfer, M., M¨ uller Arisona, S., Batty, M., Ratti, C., Schmitt, G.: Revealing centrality in the spatial structure of cities from human activity patterns. Urban Studies54(2), 437–455 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Nature Communications 12(1) (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24899-8

    Moro, E., Calacci, D., Dong, X., Pentland, A.: Mobility patterns are associated with experienced income segregation in large US cities. Nature Communications 12(1) (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24899-8 . Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    EPJ Data Science12(1), 34 (2023)

    Juh´ asz, S., Pint´ er, G., Kov´ acs,´A.J., Borza, E., M´ onus, G., L˝ orincz, L., Lengyel, B.: Amenity complexity and urban locations of socio-economic mixing. EPJ Data Science12(1), 34 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Pelican books

    Jacobs, J.: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Pelican books. Penguin, Harmondsworth (1972)

    1972

  17. [25]

    European economic review43(1), 91–107 (1999)

    Brueckner, J.K., Thisse, J.-F., Zenou, Y.: Why is central paris rich and downtown detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory. European economic review43(1), 91–107 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Urban Studies57(10), 2015–2030 (2020)

    Zhang, M.L., Pryce, G.: The dynamics of poverty, employment and access to amenities in polycentric cities: Measuring the decentralisation of poverty and its impacts in england and wales. Urban Studies57(10), 2015–2030 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    The American economic review76(2), 368–372 (1986)

    White, M.J.: Sex differences in urban commuting patterns. The American economic review76(2), 368–372 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    Urban geography9(2), 180–202 (1988)

    Hanson, S., Pratt, G.: Spatial dimensions of the gender division of labor in a local labor market. Urban geography9(2), 180–202 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    17 PLOS ONE17(3), 0260874 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.02608 74

    Macedo, M., Lotero, L., Cardillo, A., Menezes, R., Barbosa, H.: Differences in the spatial landscape of urban mobility: Gender and socioeconomic perspectives. 17 PLOS ONE17(3), 0260874 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.02608 74

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science51(7), 1430–1446 (2024)

    Collins, T., Di Clemente, R., Guti´ errez-Roig, M., Botta, F.: Spatiotemporal gen- der differences in urban vibrancy. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science51(7), 1430–1446 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Yasenov, V.: Who Can Work from Home? SSRN Electronic Journal (2020) https: //doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3590895

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Nature Cities1(9), 547–554 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s4 4284-024-00103-y

    Caros, N.S., Zhao, J.: The need for an interdisciplinary approach to remote work and urban policy. Nature Cities1(9), 547–554 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s4 4284-024-00103-y

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Delventhal, M.J., Kwon, E., Parkhomenko, A.: JUE Insight: How do cities change when we work from home? Journal of Urban Economics127, 103331 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103331

    2022

  26. [34]

    Technical Report w31494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (July 2023)

    Monte, F., Porcher, C., Rossi-Hansberg, E.: Remote Work and City Structure. Technical Report w31494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (July 2023). https://doi.org/10.3386/w31494

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    The Geographical Journal190(2) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12555

    Gibbs, H., Ballantyne, P., Cheshire, J., Singleton, A.: Harnessing mobility data to capture changing work from home behaviours between censuses. The Geographical Journal190(2) (2023) https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12555

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Technical Report w31007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (March 2023)

    Hansen, S., Lambert, P.J., Bloom, N., Davis, S., Sadun, R., Taska, B.: Remote Work across Jobs, Companies, and Space. Technical Report w31007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (March 2023). https://doi.org/ 10.3386/w31007 . http://www.nber.org/papers/w31007.pdf

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Nature communications12(1), 1143 (2021)

    T´ oth, G., Wachs, J., Di Clemente, R., Jakobi,´A., S´ agv´ ari, B., Kert´ esz, J., Lengyel, B.: Inequality is rising where social network segregation interacts with urban topology. Nature communications12(1), 1143 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Technical Report w34795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (February 2026)

    Aksoy, C.G., Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Cranney, K., Davis, S., Dolls, M., Zarate, P.: Younger Firms and CEOs Allow More Work from Home. Technical Report w34795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (February 2026). https://doi.org/10.3386/w34795

    2026 doi

  31. [39]

    Cullen, Z., Pakzad-Hurson, B., Perez-Truglia, R.: Home Sweet Home: How Much Do Employees Value Remote Work? AEA Papers and Proceedings115, 276–281 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20251029

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Nature Human Behaviour6(1), 43–54 (2021) https: 18 //doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

    Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N., Sherman, K., Hecht, B., Teevan, J.: The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour6(1), 43–54 (2021) https: 18 //doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Nature605(7908), 108–112 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y

    Brucks, M.S., Levav, J.: Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature605(7908), 108–112 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(35), 8734–8739 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802407115

    Bernstein, E., Shore, J., Lazer, D.: How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(35), 8734–8739 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802407115

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Nature630(8018), 920–925 (2024) https://doi

    Bloom, N., Han, R., Liang, J.: Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature630(8018), 920–925 (2024) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Tech- nical Report w34883, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (February 2026)

    Baker, S., Bloom, N., Johnson, S., Obradovi´ c, J.: Shopping From Home. Tech- nical Report w34883, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (February 2026). https://doi.org/10.3386/w34883

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    Rossi Mori, L., Loreto, V., Di Clemente, R.: Time-space dynamics of income segregation in the city of milan. Pnas Nexus4(9), 283 (2025) 19 Appendix S1 Spatial and temporal smoothing S1.1 Spatial smoothing Raw mobile phone location counts (workplace presence, home presence, and...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.