1. Introduction

2. Research Methodology

3. Findings

3.1. Bibliometric Techniques and Tools

Five bibliometric techniques were applied to analyse the 108 downloaded articles. The first technique, publication trend analysis, assesses changes in the number of publications over time, revealing development trends in modern office design features for residential spaces. The second technique, keyword co-occurrence analysis, maps keywords based on their co-occurrences in documents, depicting the knowledge body in the field. The third technique, co-authorship analysis, uncovers collaboration patterns between authors and countries, discovering the collaboration network in the research community, bibliographic coupling analysis. Lastly, an assessment of challenges and limitations evaluates the difficulties in implementing modern office design features in residential spaces. Table 1 summarizes these techniques and their purposes. Two widely adopted tools were used to perform these analyses. VOSviewer constructs and visualizes networks of publications, journals, researchers, organisations, countries, and keywords (Zheng, Chen, and Lu 2019). ATLAS.ti 9 assists in qualitative data analysis, particularly for the assessment of challenges and limitations.

Table 1. Bibliometric techniques and Tools Adopted.

Table 1. Bibliometric techniques and Tools Adopted.

Technique	Tools	Purpose’s
Assesses changes in the number of publications over time	VOSviewer	To reveal development trends in modern office design features for residential spaces
Keyword co-occurrence analysis	VOSviewer	To maps keywords based on their co-occurrences in documents
Co-authorship analysis	VOSviewer	Uncovers collaboration patterns between authors and countries
Assessment of challenges and limitations	ATLAS.ti 9	To evaluates the difficulties in implementing modern office design features in residential spaces

3.1.1. Analysis of the Number of Publications

The literature search was conducted in August 2024, initially yielding 299 documents. After applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 108 publications were retained for in-depth analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the temporal distribution of these publications based on the specified keywords. The field’s nascent stage is evident from the earliest relevant publication dating back to 2009, with a modest four articles that year. There was sporadic activity, with singular publications in 2021 and 2022. The subject area gained traction gradually, reaching 24 publications in 2022. However, a slight dip occurred in 2023 with only 19 publications.

In 2024, research output has markedly increased. As of August 2024, 19 articles had already been published, suggesting sustained interest and growth in the research area. The observed trend indicates a growing scholarly focus on modern office design features in residential spaces. If this momentum continues, we can anticipate an increase in publications in the coming years, potentially establishing this as a significant niche within interior design and architecture research.

3.1.2. Co-Occurrence of Keywords

Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed “office building” as the most frequent term, appearing 29 times, followed by “Covid-19” (26 occurrences), “housing” (14), and “sustainable development” (12). Table 1 presents the top 10 keywords identified through this analysis. Figure 3 illustrates the network structure of keyword co-occurrence, unveiling four distinct clusters. This visualisation employs colour-coded nodes to represent different themes and topics, with interconnecting lines depicting relationships between concepts. The network visualisation illuminates the complex interplay between working from home, building sustainability, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Each of the four clusters was meticulously examined to uncover underlying themes: remote work adaptations, sustainable building practices, pandemic-driven changes, and residential space optimisation. These clusters highlight the multifaceted nature of the research field, showcasing how the pandemic has accelerated the integration of office features into residential spaces while emphasizing sustainability concerns. The visualisation also underscores the evolving relationship between work and living spaces, reflecting broader societal shifts towards flexible work arrangements and environmentally conscious design solutions. This analysis provides valuable insights into current research trends and potential future directions in the field of modern office design features in residential spaces.

Table 1. Co-Occurrence of Keywords.

Table 1. Co-Occurrence of Keywords.

Keywords	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
Office building	29	70
Covid-19	26	46
Housing	14	50
Sustainable development	12	34
Workplace	11	31
Home office	10	11
Working from home	8	8

Figure 3. Co-Occurrence of Keywords in Clusters.

Figure 3. Co-Occurrence of Keywords in Clusters.

• Cluster 1 (Red) in the visualisation centres around the COVID-19 pandemic and its profound impact on work practices and home environments. The prominent nodes for “covid-19” and “pandemic” serve as the focal points, interconnecting with concepts like “working from home” and “workplace”. This red cluster illustrates the seismic shift in work dynamics precipitated by the global health crisis. The pandemic has catalysed a rapid adoption of home offices, blurring the boundaries between professional and personal spaces. This transformation has brought to the forefront the need for modern office design features in residential settings, a trend that appears likely to persist beyond the immediate crisis.

Within the cluster, we observe connections to “policy making” and “decision making”, highlighting the organisational and governmental responses to the changing work landscape. The presence of “perception” and “human experiment” nodes suggests ongoing research into the psychological and social impacts of this abrupt transition to remote work. The cluster also touches on demographic considerations, with “middle-aged” and “personnel” nodes indicating a focus on how different workforce segments are adapting to these changes. The “organisation and management” node points to the challenges faced by businesses in navigating this new terrain.

The cluster reveals links to concepts of resilience and career adaptability, though these are not explicitly labelled in the visualisation. Lansmann et al. (2023) investigated factors influencing IT professionals’ intentions to work from home. Their findings suggest that characteristics of the worker, such as segmentation preference, have a stronger influence on work-from-home intentions than characteristics of the workspace or work context. They also found that perceived productivity during enforced working from home and gender significantly predict work-from-home intentions. These connections underscore the importance of developing personal and professional flexibility in an era of uncertainty. The ability to effectively adapt individual home environment for work purposes has become a crucial skill, influencing both job performance and overall life satisfaction.

Moreover, the visualisation hints at the role of social support systems in this transition. While not directly labelled, the interconnectedness of the nodes suggests that support from peers, family, and organisations plays a vital role in successfully implementing modern office design features in residential spaces and adapting to the new work-from-home paradigm. This red cluster effectively captures the multifaceted nature of the pandemic’s impact on work environments, highlighting the complex interplay between public health, workplace design, policy, and individual adaptation.

• Cluster 2 (Green) in the visualisation centres on buildings and construction, encompassing key terms like “office buildings”, “apartment houses”, “construction industry”, and “sustainable development”. This green cluster represents the physical infrastructure and development aspects of the urban environment, highlighting the growing importance of sustainable practices in modern construction and urban planning. As society evolves towards greater innovation, there’s an increasing emphasis on the interconnectedness of office buildings, residential spaces, sustainable development, and intelligent building systems. This shift reflects a broader trend towards integrating modern office design features into residential spaces, blurring the lines between work and home environments.

The cluster reveals a focus on “thermal comfort” and “energy efficiency”, underscoring the importance of creating environmentally conscious and comfortable living-working spaces. The presence of “urban planning” in this group suggests a holistic approach to city development that considers both residential and commercial needs. “Intelligent buildings” emerge as a key concept, pointing to the integration of smart technologies in both office and home settings. Aczel et al. (2021) surveyed 704 academics working from home during the pandemic. Their research revealed that while the lockdown decreased work efficiency for almost half of the researchers, around a quarter were more efficient during this time compared to before. Interestingly, 70% of the researchers believed they would be similar or more efficient than before if they could spend more of their work time at home in the future. This trend aligns with the growing demand for flexible, tech-enabled spaces that can adapt to changing work patterns and lifestyle needs. The connection to “decision making” within this cluster highlights the complex choices faced by developers, architects, and urban planners in creating sustainable, multi-functional spaces. It also reflects the increasing role of data-driven decision-making in the construction and real estate industries.

Moreover, the green cluster suggests a shift in thinking about residential buildings, viewing them not just as living spaces but as potential work environments. This perspective encourages innovative approaches to apartment and house design, incorporating features traditionally found in office settings. The emphasis on sustainable development within this cluster indicates a growing awareness of the environmental impact of buildings and the construction industry. It suggests a move towards more eco-friendly building practices, materials, and designs that can support both residential comfort and professional productivity. The green cluster captures the evolving nature of urban spaces, reflecting a trend towards sustainable, flexible, and intelligent building designs that can accommodate the changing dynamics of work and home life.

• Cluster 3 (Blue) in the visualisation centres around energy efficiency and building management concepts, highlighting the growing emphasis on sustainable practices in both residential and commercial spaces. This blue cluster is particularly relevant given the increasing prevalence of home offices and the blending of work and living environments. Key nodes in this cluster include “energy efficiency”, “energy utilization”, “residential building”, and “home office”. These interconnected concepts underscore the evolving nature of our living spaces, and the technical challenges associated with optimizing energy use in hybrid work-home environments. The prominence of “residential building” and “home office” nodes reflects the shifting paradigm in how we conceptualize and utilize our homes. As remote work becomes more commonplace, there’s an increasing need to integrate office functionalities into residential spaces without compromising energy efficiency or comfort. “Energy utilization” emerges as a critical concept, linking to both residential and commercial applications. Tekler, Low, and Blessing (2022) investigated user perceptions on the adoption of smart energy management systems in the workplace. Their findings highlight the importance of considering factors such as user appeal, control, reliability, ease of use, and data privacy when implementing these systems. They also propose several design implications and organisation-level policies to guide the design of future systems in the workplace. This suggests a growing focus on how energy is consumed across different types of buildings and how this consumption pattern changes when homes double as workspaces.

The blue cluster’s connection to “urban planning” indicates a broader perspective on energy efficiency, extending beyond individual buildings to encompass city-wide strategies for sustainable development. This holistic approach is crucial for creating energy-efficient communities that can support the evolving needs of a remote workforce. Attractively, the cluster also links to “decision making”, highlighting the complex choices faced by homeowners, builders, and policymakers in balancing energy efficiency with the functional requirements of home offices. This connection suggests an increasing need for informed decision-making tools and strategies in residential design and energy management. The relationship between energy utilization and home offices is likely to be a major area of study in the coming years. As more people work from home, understanding and optimizing residential energy consumption patterns will become increasingly important. This could lead to innovations in smart home technologies, energy-efficient office equipment designed for residential use, and new approaches to heating, cooling, and lighting that can adapt to flexible work-home scenarios.

• Cluster 4 (Yellow) in the visualisation highlights the intersection of environmental health and architectural design, with key nodes including “indoor air pollution” and “architectural design”. This yellow cluster emphasizes the critical importance of creating healthy indoor environments through thoughtful and innovative design practices, particularly as the lines between home and office spaces continue to blur. As remote work becomes more prevalent, the focus on indoor air quality in residential spaces is expected to intensify. Future research will likely explore the integration of modern office design features in homes, with a particular emphasis on mitigating indoor air pollution. Edalatnia and Das (2024) presented a novel approach for Landscape Health Activity Space Design, using Reliability Multi-Objective Optimisation to create sustainable and user-centric outdoor environments. Their model computes a balance between greenery density, pathway length, and accessibility while considering budget constraints, offering valuable insights for designing healthier and more sustainable outdoor spaces. This shift reflects a growing awareness of the impact of indoor environments on both physical health and cognitive performance.

The yellow cluster suggests an emerging trend towards holistic design approaches that consider not only aesthetics and functionality but also the long-term health implications of built environments. As homes increasingly double as workspaces, architects and designers will need to incorporate strategies to maintain optimal air quality, natural lighting, and ergonomic features traditionally associated with office spaces. Moreover, this cluster hints at the potential integration of positive psychology principles in architectural design. Future interventions may aim to cultivate and enhance workplace performance, well-being, and personal growth within residential settings. These approaches could draw on modern office design features that promote productivity and comfort while nurturing the psychological needs of individuals working from home. The connection to decision-making nodes in broader visualisation suggests that future architectural designs will increasingly be informed by interdisciplinary research, combining insights from environmental science, psychology, and workplace studies. This holistic approach aims to create living-working spaces that not only minimize health risks associated with indoor air pollution but also actively contribute to the occupants’ overall well-being and life satisfaction. As this field evolves, there is an expectation to see innovative design solutions that seamlessly blend health-promoting features with the functional requirements of home offices, ultimately fostering environments that support both professional productivity and personal flourishing.

3.1.3. Influential Countries

Figure 4 illustrates the intricate collaboration network among countries in scientific publications. The network’s nodes represent individual countries, with their size proportional to the number of publications co-authored with researchers from other nations. This visual representation offers insights into the global interconnectedness of scientific research and highlights key players in international collaboration. The thickness of edges connecting nodes indicates the strength of collaborative relationships between country pairs. Clusters within the network may reveal regional or thematic collaboration patterns. Colour coding can be employed to distinguish continents or research fields, providing additional layers of information. Table 2 complements the visual data by ranking the top nine countries according to two critical network metrics: hub score and betweenness centrality. These measures offer quantitative insights into each country’s influence and role as a connector in the global research ecosystem.

Based on Figure 4 and Table 2, several significant findings emerge regarding international collaboration in research on modern office design features in residential spaces: The bibliographic records reveal a collaboration network comprising 16 countries, organized into 5 distinct clusters. This substantial representation suggests that the development of modern office design features for residential spaces draws upon a diverse range of cross-context cases and comparative studies, enhancing the robustness and applicability of the research. Researchers from countries not included in this network should exercise caution when conducting studies in this field. They must pay particular attention to the relevance and generalizability of their findings, considering the potential limitations of their local context.

The United States emerges as the hub of international collaboration, forging the most diverse collaborative links. Partnerships include those with the United Kingdom, China, Canada, and Sweden. This extensive network positions the U.S. as a central node in the global research ecosystem for this topic. The United States also leads in publication quantity through collaborative research, indicating its dominant role in shaping the discourse on modern office design features in residential spaces. The centrality of U.S.-based authors in connecting research activities with scholars from other influential countries suggests their pivotal role in driving the field forward. This position likely allows them to synthesize diverse perspectives and methodologies, potentially leading to more comprehensive and globally applicable findings. The collaborative nature of this research field facilitates the cross-pollination of ideas and methodologies across different cultural and geographic contexts, potentially accelerating innovation and the development of best practices in residential office design. The observed collaboration patterns may inform future research strategies, encouraging increased international partnerships to address gaps in the current knowledge base and explore underrepresented contexts.

3.1.4. Bibliographic Coupling Analysis

Bibliographic coupling analysis was conducted using VOSviewer, with the minimum number of citations for a document set from 1 to 9, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 presents the representative of each cluster, which is the citing document with the most co-cited documents among all other citing documents in that cluster. The total link strength indicates the number of co-cited documents for a representative. According to the principle of bibliographic coupling (Zheng et al. 2019), the representative can be considered the publication that shares the most thematic similarity with other documents within a cluster. The similarity relations between documents in a cluster remain stable once the time boundaries of a bibliographic dataset are established. For each cluster, the total link strength value is relative to the number of documents, typically close to or higher than 1. This indicates strong relationships between documents within the same cluster (see Table 3).

The bibliographic coupling analysis reveals significant insights into the research landscape of modern office design features in residential spaces. Table 3 presents the top 10 documents based on their total link strength and citations. Among these, five publications stand out as particularly influential: Lansmann et al. (2023) leads with a total link strength of 30, followed by Urbaniec et al. (2022) at 23 total link strength, Dhanpat et al. (2022) at 19 total link strength, Shao et al. (2024) at 12 total link strength, and Alotaibi (2023) at 11 total link strength. These works appear to be central to the current discourse in the field, serving as key reference points for other researchers.

The network visualisation in Figure 5 offers a more nuanced view of the research landscape, depicting nine significant clusters that represent distinct thematic areas within the field. This visual representation allows for a deeper understanding of how different research topics relate to one another. Cluster 1, coloured red and cantered around Dhanpat et al. (2022), forms a separate and prominent group, suggesting a distinct research focus that stands apart from other themes. In contrast, clusters 2 (green, including Alotaibi (2023)) and 3 (orange, featuring Breideband et al. (2022)) show a closer relationship, indicating potential thematic overlap or complementary research areas.

Further examination of the network reveals additional interesting patterns. Clusters 4 (yellow, with Aczel et al. (2021)) and 5 (brown, featuring Urbaniec et al., (2022)) demonstrate some connection while maintaining their distinct identities, possibly representing related but separate research streams. Clusters 6 (purple, dominated by Lansmann et al. (2023)) and 7 (blue, including Kong et al. (2022)) are positioned near the red cluster, suggesting related but distinct research areas that may share some common ground with the themes in Cluster 1.

The visualisation also highlights several smaller clusters on the periphery, such as those represented by Pawluk et al., (2024) and Rossmannek et al. (2024). These may indicate emerging or niche research directions that are beginning to gain traction in the field. The central position of Lansmann et al. (2023) in the network is particularly noteworthy, as it suggests this publication plays a significant role in bridging multiple research themes, potentially serving as a cornerstone for integrating diverse aspects of modern office design in residential spaces.

4. Conclusion

References

1. Aczel, Balazs, Marton Kovacs, Tanja Van Der Lippe, and Barnabas Szaszi. 2021. “Researchers Working from Home: Benefits and Challenges.” PloS One 16(3):e0249127. [CrossRef]
2. Akgüç, Mehtap, Béla Galgóczi, and Pamela Meil. 2023. “Remote Work and the Green Transition.” The Future of Remote Work, ETUI 45–59.
3. Alhusban, Ahmad A., Safa A. Alhusban, and Mohammadward A. Alhusban. 2022. “How the COVID 19 Pandemic Would Change the Future of Architectural Design.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 20(1):339–57. [CrossRef]
4. Alotaibi, Turkiah Saad. 2023. “Flexibility and Saudi Employees’ Perceptions of Job Satisfaction: A Multisector Study.” Journal of East-West Business 29(3):199–225. [CrossRef]
5. Awada, Mohamad, Burcin Becerik-Gerber, Simi Hoque, Zheng O’Neill, Giulia Pedrielli, Jin Wen, and Teresa Wu. 2021. “Ten Questions Concerning Occupant Health in Buildings during Normal Operations and Extreme Events Including the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Building and Environment 188:107480. [CrossRef]
6. Babapour Chafi, Maral, Annemarie Hultberg, and Nina Bozic Yams. 2021. “Post-Pandemic Office Work: Perceived Challenges and Opportunities for a Sustainable Work Environment.” Sustainability 14(1):294. [CrossRef]
7. Bell, Sarah L., Ronan Foley, Frank Houghton, Avril Maddrell, and Allison M. Williams. 2018. “From Therapeutic Landscapes to Healthy Spaces, Places and Practices: A Scoping Review.” Social Science & Medicine 196:123–30. [CrossRef]
8. Biswakarma, Jagannath, Danielle Rushworth, Gitika Srivastava, Gagandeep Singh, Kyounglim Kang, Subhasish Das, Surendra Babu Anantharaman, Meret Aeppli, Andrea L. Popp, and Deep Jyoti Bhuyan. 2021. “Organizational Level Responses to the COVID-19 Outbreak: Challenges, Strategies and Framework for Academic Institutions.” Frontiers in Communication 6:573585.
9. Booth, Andrew, Martyn-St James, Mark Clowes, and Anthea Sutton. 2021. “Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review.”.
10. Breideband, Thomas, Poorna Talkad Sukumar, Gloria Mark, Megan Caruso, Sidney D’Mello, and Aaron D. Striegel. 2022. “Home-Life and Work Rhythm Diversity in Distributed Teamwork: A Study with Information Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW1):1–23. [CrossRef]
11. Cattani, Lucia, Anna Magrini, and Anna Chiari. 2024. “A Method and Metrics to Assess the Energy Efficiency of Smart Working.” Buildings 14(3):741. [CrossRef]
12. Chandan, Harish Chandra. 2024. Impact of Teleworking and Remote Work on Business: Productivity, Retention, Advancement, and Bottom Line: Productivity, Retention, Advancement, and Bottom Line. IGI Global.
13. Cuerdo-Vilches, Teresa, Miguel Ángel Navas-Martín, and Ignacio Oteiza. 2021. “Working from Home: Is Our Housing Ready?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(14):7329.
14. Dhanpat, Nelesh, Kamogelo Makgamatha, Reabetswe Monageng, and Khanyisa Sigawuki. 2022. “COVID-19: Employee Experience and Adjustment at a State Owned Company in South Africa.” SAGE Open 12(2):21582440221102436. [CrossRef]
15. Edalatnia, Shabnam, and Runa R. Das. 2024. “Building Benchmarking and Energy Performance: Analysis of Social and Affordable Housing in British Columbia, Canada.” Energy and Buildings 313:114259. [CrossRef]
16. Fahimnia, Behnam, Joseph Sarkis, and Hoda Davarzani. 2015. “Green Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 162:101–14.
17. Florida, R., A. Rodríguez-Pose, and M. Storper. 2021. “Cities in a Post-COVID World, Urban Studies, June.”.
18. Flynn, J. 2023. “The Future of Remote Work in New Zealand.” New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 48(1):42-57.
19. Gibson, Cristina B., Lucy L. Gilson, Terri L. Griffith, and Thomas A. O’Neill. 2023. “Should Employees Be Required to Return to the Office?” Organizational Dynamics 52(2):100981.
20. Hiyasat, Rund, Marco Sosa, and Lina Ahmad. 2023. “Use of Work-Space at Home under COVID-19 Conditions in the UAE.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 30(8):3142–59. [CrossRef]
21. Högberg, Karin, and Sara Willermark. 2023. “‘Am I Supposed to Call Them?’ Relearning Interactions in the Digital Workplace.” Journal of Workplace Learning 36(9):1–18.
22. Jiang, Bin, Rose Schmillen, and William C. Sullivan. 2019. “How to Waste a Break: Using Portable Electronic Devices Substantially Counteracts Attention Enhancement Effects of Green Spaces.” Environment and Behavior 51(9–10):1133–60. [CrossRef]
23. Khader, Sabrina. 2024. “Making Work-from-Home Work for You: Optimizing Work-from-Home Environments for Improved Overall Health and Well-Being.”.
24. Kniffin, Kevin M., Jayanth Narayanan, Frederik Anseel, John Antonakis, Susan P. Ashford, Arnold B. Bakker, Peter Bamberger, Hari Bapuji, Devasheesh P. Bhave, and Virginia K. Choi. 2021. “COVID-19 and the Workplace: Implications, Issues, and Insights for Future Research and Action.” American Psychologist 76(1):63. [CrossRef]
25. Kong, Xiaoqiang, Amy Zhang, Xiao Xiao, Subasish Das, and Yunlong Zhang. 2022. “Work from Home in the Post-COVID World.” Case Studies on Transport Policy 10(2):1118–31.
26. Lansmann, Simon, Jana Mattern, Simone Krebber, and Joschka Andreas Hüllmann. 2023. “The Future of Working from Home: A Mixed-Methods Study with IT Professionals to Learn from Enforced Working from Home.” Information Technology & People. [CrossRef]
27. Lucius, Zita K., Svenja Damberg, Martin Meinel, and Christian M. Ringle. 2023. “Internal Corporate Social Responsibility in Times of Uncertainty: Does Working from Home Harm the Creativity Link?” The Bottom Line 36(2):112–34.
28. Mäkelä, Albert. 2020. “Energy Efficiency Improvements for Existing Buildings with IoT.”.
29. Marikyan, Davit, Savvas Papagiannidis, Omer F. Rana, and Rajiv Ranjan. 2024. “Working in a Smart Home Environment: Examining the Impact on Productivity, Well-Being and Future Use Intention.” Internet Research 34(2):447–73.
30. Moshaver, Sam. 2021. “Designing Supplementary Space in Multi-Family Housing.”.
31. Moshood, Taofeeq D., Gusman Nawanir, and Fatimah Mahmud. 2021. “Sustainability of Biodegradable Plastics: A Review on Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors.” Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 1–21.
32. O’Brien, William, and Fereshteh Yazdani Aliabadi. 2020. “Does Telecommuting Save Energy? A Critical Review of Quantitative Studies and Their Research Methods.” Energy and Buildings 225:110298. [CrossRef]
33. Oakman, Jodi, Natasha Kinsman, Rwth Stuckey, Melissa Graham, and Victoria Weale. 2020. “A Rapid Review of Mental and Physical Health Effects of Working at Home: How Do We Optimise Health?” BMC Public Health 20:1–13.
34. Pang, Zhihong, Burçin Becerik-Gerber, Simi Hoque, Zheng O’Neill, Giulia Pedrielli, Jin Wen, and Teresa Wu. 2021. “How Work from Home Has Affected the Occupant’s Well-Being in the Residential Built Environment: An International Survey amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities 2(4):41003. [CrossRef]
35. Patel, N., & Nguyen, T. 2024. “Work-Life Balance in the Era of Remote Work: Strategies and Challenges.” Work, Employment and Society 38(2), 321-338.
36. Paul, Justin, Weng Marc Lim, Aron O’Cass, Andy Wei Hao, and Stefano Bresciani. 2021. “Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR).” International Journal of Consumer Studies 45(4):O1–16.
37. Pawluk De-Toledo, Katherine, Steve O’Hern, and Sjaan Koppel. 2024. “A Social-Ecological Model of Working from Home during COVID-19.” Transportation 51(4):1181–1208.
38. Ramantswana, Thabelo, Lebogang Bridget Mmamabolo, and Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek. 2024. “Open-Plan Office Employees’ Perceived Mental and Social Well-Being.” Journal of Corporate Real Estate 26(3):262–77. [CrossRef]
39. RNZ. 2023. “Remote Work in New Zealand: Current Trends and Future Outlook.” Radio New Zealand.
40. Robelski, Swantje, Helena Keller, Volker Harth, and Stefanie Mache. 2019. “Coworking Spaces: The Better Home Office? A Psychosocial and Health-Related Perspective on an Emerging Work Environment.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(13):2379. [CrossRef]
41. Rossmannek, Oliver, Natalie David, Carlos Sandoval, and Lluis Garay. 2024. “Bridging the Green Gap in Homesharing: How Platforms Can Increase Hosts’ Sustainability Intentions and Behavior.” Journal of Travel Research 00472875241249444. [CrossRef]
42. Shao, Sandra, Malte Martensen, Hannah Martensen, and Cornelia Reindl. 2024. “Is ‘Hybrid Work’the New High-Flying Policy? Insights from the Aviation Industry.” Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) 55(1):103–11.
43. Snyder, Hannah. 2019. “Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 104:333–39. [CrossRef]
44. Soratto, Jacks, Denise Elvira Pires de Pires, and Susanne Friese. 2020. “Thematic Content Analysis Using ATLAS.Ti Software: Potentialities for Researchs in Health .” Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem 73. [CrossRef]
45. Sreenivasan, Aswathy, M. Suresh, and Prema Nedungadi. 2023. “Mapping Analytical Hierarchy Process Research to Sustainable Development Goals: Bibliometric and Social Network Analysis.” Heliyon 9(8). [CrossRef]
46. Tekler, Zeynep Duygu, Raymond Low, and Lucienne Blessing. 2022. “User Perceptions on the Adoption of Smart Energy Management Systems in the Workplace: Design and Policy Implications.” Energy Research & Social Science 88:102505. [CrossRef]
47. Thompson, R., Williams, E., & Brown, C. 2023. “Cultivating Workplace Culture in Home Office Environments.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 174, 104–18.
48. Tu, Kangwei, and Andras Reith. 2023. “Changes in Urban Planning in Response to Pandemics: A Comparative Review from H1N1 to COVID-19 (2009–2022).” Sustainability 15(12):9770. [CrossRef]
49. Umishio, Wataru, Naoki Kagi, Ryo Asaoka, Motoya Hayashi, Takao Sawachi, and Takahiro Ueno. 2022. “Work Productivity in the Office and at Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Office Workers in Japan.” Indoor Air 32(1):e12913. [CrossRef]
50. Urbaniec, Maria, Agnieszka Małkowska, and Hanna Włodarkiewicz-Klimek. 2022. “The Impact of Technological Developments on Remote Working: Insights from the Polish Managers’ Perspective.” Sustainability 14(1):552. [CrossRef]
51. Verderber, Stephen, Umi Koyabashi, Catherine Dela Cruz, Aseel Sadat, and Diana C. Anderson. 2023. “Residential Environments for Older Persons: A Comprehensive Literature Review (2005–2022).” HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 16(3):291–337. [CrossRef]
52. Waltman, Ludo, Kevin W. Boyack, Giovanni Colavizza, and Nees Jan van Eck. 2020. “A Principled Methodology for Comparing Relatedness Measures for Clustering Publications.” Quantitative Science Studies 1(2):691–713. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, Bin, Yukun Liu, Jing Qian, and Sharon K. Parker. 2021. “Achieving Effective Remote Working during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective.” Applied Psychology 70(1):16–59. [CrossRef]
54. Wang, Richard, Zhongnan Ye, Miaojia Lu, and Shu-Chien Hsu. 2022. “Understanding Post-Pandemic Work-from-Home Behaviours and Community Level Energy Reduction via Agent-Based Modelling.” Applied Energy 322:119433. [CrossRef]
55. Xiao, Yu, and Maria Watson. 2019. “Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 39(1):93–112.
56. Yasser Shokry, Shokry, Mohamed Alaa Mandour, and Inas Abd Elsabour Ahmed. 2023. “A Methodological Framework for Enhancing the Modern Office Spaces and Solving Their Problems.” Engineering Research Journal 177:79–102.
57. Yorulmaz, Halil, Elif Baykal, and Serkan Eti. 2023. “Effects of Teleworking and Strategic Orientations on Resilience in the Post-Pandemic Period.” OPUS Journal of Society Research 20(51):30–42. [CrossRef]
58. Zhang, Li, Walton Wider, Muhammad Ashraf Fauzi, Leilei Jiang, Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan, and Lester Naces Udang. 2024. “Psychological Capital Research in HEIs: Bibliometric Analysis of Current and Future Trends.” Heliyon. [CrossRef]
59. Zheng, Linzi, Ke Chen, and Weisheng Lu. 2019. “Bibliometric Analysis of Construction Education Research from 1982 to 2017.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 145(3):4019005. [CrossRef]