Resumo
Digital-nomad attraction has been widely framed as a rural revitalisation strategy. This brief challenges that framing. Drawing on evidence from spatial economics, OECD and European Commission analysis, and the published literature on territorial capital and cohesion, it argues that remote work can support low-density territorial development, but only when it is embedded in a broader strategy that addresses housing, services, local economy, integration infrastructure and institutional capacity. Without those conditions, attraction produces short stays, limited local benefit and social risk rather than structural development. The brief distinguishes four genuine contributions that remote workers can make (local spending, housing activation, economic diversification and territorial visibility) from five structural challenges that they cannot solve (demographic decline, service absence, economic weakness, low institutional capacity and housing market fragility). It concludes with a set of conditions required to convert a flow of remote workers into a territorial development benefit, and a practical checklist for municipalities and regional agencies.
Referências
Braesemann, F., Stephany, F., Teutloff, O., Kässi, O., Graham, M., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2022). The global polarisation of remote work. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274630
Camagni, R. (2009). Territorial capital and regional development. In R. Capello & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Handbook of regional growth and development theories (pp. 118–132). Edward Elgar.
Cocola-Gant, A., & López-Gay, A. (2020). Transnational gentrification, tourism and the formation of ‘foreign only’ enclaves in Barcelona. Urban Studies, 57(15), 3025–3043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020916111
European Commission. (2021). A long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas — Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 (COM(2021) 345 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021DC0345
Hannonen, O., Aguiar-Quintana, T., & Lehto, X. Y. (2023). A supplier side view of digital nomadism: The case of destination Gran Canaria. Tourism Management, 97, 104744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104744
Kuźmar, S. (2026). From core to periphery? Assessing remote work’s potential to rebalance EU regional development [Preprint; R-MAP dataset]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08252
Marcelino, B. C. A. (2026). Territorial readiness for digital mobility: Why low-density regions need decision-support before attracting remote workers. NomadVillage Research Series, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.56365/93n05r98
Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial Development, (60), 1–30.
OECD. (2021). Implications of remote working adoption on place-based policies. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b12f6b85-en
OECD. (2023). The surge of teleworking: A new tool for local development? OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/09/the-surge-of-teleworking-a-new-tool-for-local-development_6b88f7da/5eb3b9f2-en.pdf

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Direitos autorais (c) 2026 Bruno César Alves Marcelino (Author)