PERSPECT IVE ART ICLE

Placing Localized Entrepreneurial Hubs in the Fieldof Community Well-Being

Craig A. Talmage1& Romi Kher2 & Chris Cooley3

Received: 30 January 2019 /Accepted: 7 October 2019 /Published online: 17 December 2019# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

AbstractEntrepreneurial hubs in communities havemoved beyond chambers of commerce to includecoworking communities, incubators, and accelerators. The place for these localized entre-preneurial hubs in communities in the field of community well-being is not readily apparent.This perspective article proposes a place for localized entrepreneurial hubs in communities,especially small to midsize urban communities (<100,000 persons), in the community well-being literature. A literature review is undertaken to showcase relevant community well-being themes. Furthermore, a community case is shared to help craft a new indicatorsframework for analyzing localized entrepreneurial hubs’ impact on community well-being.The article finishes by generating essential questions for use in future research on localizedentrepreneurial hubs in community well-being research, policy, and practice.

Keywords Entrepreneurship . Community economic development . Communitydevelopment . Incubators . Accelerators . Coworking

Background and Purpose

“A community’s economic infrastructure cannot fully explain its well-being”(Dewees et al. 2003, p. 192).

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00039-5

* Craig A. TalmageTalmage@hws.edu

Romi KherRomi.Kher@baruch.cuny.edu

Chris Cooleychris@thecoworkconsulting.com

1 Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 300 Pulteney Street, Stern Hall, Geneva, NY 14456, USA2 Baruch College, New York, NY, USA3 Cooley Creative, LLC, Rochester, NY, USA

“Economy doesn’t buy community wellbeing” (Lee and Kim 2018, p. 33).

Economic development in communities has often focused on how to launch andsustain small business startups (Dahlstrom and Talmage 2018). Many small to midsizecommunities have implemented myriad of policies and programs to encourage localentrepreneurship and subsequently improve local well-being (Foertsch 2011; Tolbertet al. 2002). Unfortunately, the research on local entrepreneurial action on communitywell-being outside of economic well-being is not well-understood (Dahlstrom andTalmage 2018). More so, a lack of research exists on the role of small and emergingenterprisers’ effects on local community well-being (Dahlstrom and Talmage 2018).Thankfully, researchers are beginning to explore how entrepreneurial hubs in communitiesare impacting community well-being (e.g., Fortunato and Alter 2015; Lyons et al. 2012;Markley et al. 2015; Schulman and Lyons 2013), but such pursuits will require under-standing the new waves of economic development and new emerging forms of work.

Many entrepreneurs and owners of small enterprises now work in localized shared,flexible spaces and participate in incubator and accelerator programs among other smallenterprisers. These work forms shift the normative economic and social fabrics ofcommunities. In this article, the term localized is used to distinguish between commu-nity elements that happen to be local, like a local WeWork space, from communityelements that are intentionally created to be local-only, like a city-supported coworkingspace. Also, incubators and accelerators can require enterprisers to temporarily relocateto gain resources to help move along their enterprises; these types of programs are notconsidered to be localized either. This approach is grounded in past research showingthat enterprising can be rooted in communities of place and local cultures, rather thanoccupying community spaces (Dana and Dana 2005; Malecki 1997).

Communities across the globe are evolving from the emergence of new entrepreneurialhubs. Despite the emergence and growth, these hubs as a community and economicdevelopment tools remain relatively unexamined in the community well-being literature.This article aims to locate a place for entrepreneurial hubs in community well-being theoryand practice by conducting a review of the literature and sharing a particular small urbancommunity case for discussion with references to other analogs in the U.S. and U.K.Themes that match up from the literature and the community case and analogs are matchedand compared to help locate a place for exploring the role of entrepreneurial hubs inincreasing community well-being. These themes are subsequently used to build an indica-tors framework for exploring localized entrepreneurial hubs’ impacts on community well-being. Specific attention is paid to social capital theory, community capital theory, psycho-logical social capital theory, diversity and inclusivity, and third places and hubs of engage-ment. This article concludes with essential questions to be considered in future research onentrepreneurial hubs in the community well-being literature.

Entrepreneurial hubs would benefit greatly from better community well-beingtheory as related to their practice; they are under-researched in well-being literature(exceptions, Fortunato and Alter 2015; Lyons 2015; Thornham and Parry 2014),despite community well-being themes pervading through their practice. The fewstudies of entrepreneurial hubs, such as those concerning coworking, have mainlyaddressed their benefits for large cities, but many small to midsize cities may alsobenefit from such hubs (Chuah 2016; Foertsch 2011; Gandini 2015; Spinuzzi 2012).Public awareness and solid research on the benefits of entrepreneurial hubs in

340 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

communities are lacking (Cashman 2012; Foertsch 2016). Thus, localized entrepre-neurial hubs deserve a place in community well-being theory and practice.

Conceptualizing and Defining Entrepreneurial Hubs as Phenomena

Entrepreneurial hubs take on many forms, many of which have increased in promi-nence in small to midsize cities. Table 1 identifies, localizes, and describes fourcommunity-based forms of localized entrepreneurial hubs found in small to midsizecities; they are: (1) chambers of commerce; (2) coworking communities; (3) incubatorprograms; and, (4) accelerator programs. The latter three have been mentioned in theeconomic development literature as new-wave policies and programs (e.g., Lobao et al.2012) or heterodox structures (e.g., Sutton 2010); however, such terminology has notpermeated much into the community development or well-being literature. Again, thisarticle only concerned localized entrepreneurial hubs, not real estate ventures byprivate, for-profit owners.

Chambers of Commerce

Merchant guilds have existed since antiquity (Hébert and Link 2009); however,chambers of commerce (also called commercial associations or boards of trade) intoday’s society likely draw their roots from associations that emerged in the late modernperiod (i.e., mid-eighteenth century) (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica 2011).These chambers have expressions that range in size from municipal to national andinternational levels, and they can serve as communities of interest or identity (e.g.,minority chambers of commerce). They are commonly found in Western societies,especially English-speaking nations.1

For many communities, chambers of commerce serve as hubs from communitycollaboration (Vogt et al. 2016). They are often charged to look beyond the localmembers from their area’s business community in order to address locally-orientedneeds and concerns (Wilkinson 1991). Many provide community leadership programsthat positively impact community well-being. In these programs, locals and localorganizations can come together to address local problems (Apaliyah and Martin2013; King and Hustedde 2001). Still, community well-being is not necessarily at theforefront of their localized missions.

Thomas and Cross (Thomas and Cross 2007) note that it is important that chambersof commerce to ask if “the firms they are attracting share their commitments to placewell-being and economic development”? (p. 55). For chambers of commerce, highlevels of quality of life and well-being can be powerful marketing tools (Epley andMenon 2008). Yet, many chambers may not fully realize their role in improvingcommunity well-being, which may be a result of the scant research literature on theirimpacts on community well-being aside of economic well-being.

1 Notably, chambers of commerce are very Western forms of business associations. Researchers should alsoexplore how alternative or other forms of business associations can impact community well-being (see Jianguo2005).

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 341

Chambers of commerce are well known to track economic development indicators(O’Brien 2012), but they are not the forerunners regarding tracking community well-being indicators. Swain and Hollar (2003) suggest that chambers of commerce shouldsponsor community indicators projects, and chambers of commerce may be quiteinterested in conducting well-being and quality of life investigations if they had theresources to do so (Bobbitt et al. 2005). More often, chambers of commerce serve as thegatekeepers of robust sample information (e.g., business emails, addresses, etc.) forcommunity well-being and quality of life inquiries by outside researchers or othercommunity groups (Phillips 2015b).

The role of chambers of commerce in improving community well-being has startedto be investigated. Recently, chambers of commerce were proposed to be importantpartners to help improve local public health, that is, beyond their traditional promotionof worker wellness initiatives. Strategic leadership, initiatives, and partnerships tied tochambers of commerce may also help improve consumer, community, and environ-mental health outcomes in addition to employee health (Corcoran et al. 2019). Despite,their long existence, chambers of commerce as entrepreneurial hubs have not beentapped to improve community well-being nor have their impacts on community well-being been rigorously investigated at the local-level.

ResearchProposition 1

Localized chambers of commerce require investigation regardingtheir impacts on community well-being.

Coworking Communities

The first coworking space opened in 2005, and more than 14,000 coworking spaces areestimated to exist across the globe (Bacevice et al. 2019). The scant research that doesexist on coworking has often considered coworking’s impacts on individual well-beingrather than community well-being (e.g., Bacevice et al. 2019). This scarcity is likelydue to coworking’s structural nature; coworking is not necessarily communal, but isundeniably social (Fuzi 2015). It can take two main forms: (1) real estate spaces filledwith coworkers created to generate revenue (e.g., WeWork) and (2) intentional,

Table 1 Localized entrepreneurial hubs explained

Forms Brief descriptions

Chambers ofCommerce

Boards consisting of local enterprisers that gather together to discuss and address localbusiness and community needs and assets. Chambers may have their own localbuildings or meeting areas.

CoworkingCommunities

Groups of enterprisers, who may vary in industry, but share aims to cultivate theirenterprises by also cultivating their coworking groups. Coworking communities canbe for-profit, non-profit, run by cities, and/or run by local colleges and universities.

Incubator Programs Local programs aimed at helping small enterprisers develop and launch theirentrepreneurial ideas. For-profit, non-profit, municipal, and/or higher educationinstitutions can host these programs.

AcceleratorPrograms

Local programs aimed at helping small enterprisers launch and scale their emergingenterprises. For-profit, non-profit, municipal, and/or higher education institutions canhost these programs.

342 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

grassroots coworking communities (i.e., the concern of this article). The real estatemodel places high focus on extrinsic incentives as opposed to intrinsic incentives tofacilitate collaboration and networking (Green 2014; Moriset 2014). In the real estatemodel, the property owner or a proxy manages the space to ensure costs are recoupedand, if possible, profit for the owner is maximized (Cabral and Van Winden 2016). Thereal estate model is not this article’s focus. While real estate coworking models arelocal, they are not localized. Fuzi (2015) writes, “The simple co-location of members isnot sufficient to facilitate interactions and cross-fertilization” (p. 463); thus, communityis not at the forefront of these real estate spaces that offer coworking (Bohas et al. 2016;Green 2014; Moriset 2014).

In coworking communities, both hard infrastructure (i.e., the space and its amenities)and soft infrastructure (e.g., social capital and leadership) are needed to promotecommunity well-being inside and outside of the coworking spaces. If run improperly,these spaces and their communities can become lonely spaces where individuals do notexperience belonging (Leddon 2012; Spreitzer et al. 2015). Effective locations anddesigns for innovative coworking spaces can help stimulate collaboration amongcoworking members (Assenza 2015; Green 2014; Parrino 2015; Talmage 2018);however, they are limited in their ability to create communities of high well-being.Furthermore, amenities and services (e.g., phones, Wi-Fi, desks, free printing, scan-ning, faxing, coffee, etc.) can satisfy coworkers’ needs and facilitate collaborationamongst coworkers (Green 2014; Moriset 2014; Spinuzzi 2012), but these extrinsicitems are limited in their capacities to generate the community aspects of well-being.

Inside coworking communities, the social aspects of community must be establishedand nurtured even as individuals join or leave the physical coworking space (Garrettet al. 2017; Uda 2013). Contrary to the aforementioned real estate model, coworkingcommunities intentionally place the community members as the primary stakeholdersversus revenue generators for outside stakeholders (Uda 2013). As emergent commu-nity phenomena, coworking communities have been overlooked in investigations ofcommunity well-being and require more research regarding their impacts on the localcommunities. They may be well-suited to increase community well-being given theircommunity-building approaches.

ResearchProposition 2

Localized coworking communities require investigation regardingtheir impacts on community well-being.

Incubator and Accelerator Programs

Business incubators originated in the later half of the twentieth century, and businessaccelerators have primarily emerged in the early twenty-first century. The growth ofboth incubators and accelerators has increased as interest in entrepreneurship hasincreased well into the twenty-first century (Hornsby et al. 2018; Rose 2016). Still,relatively little is known about the benefits of incubators and accelerators to localeconomies and communities (Hornsby et al. 2018).

Few estimates exist regarding the number of business incubators and acceleratorsfound in small to midsize communities. In 2003, Dewees, Lobao, and Swanson foundthat less than half of mostly rural communities in the Ohio River Valley Region had

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 343

business incubators. Winders (1997, 2000) claims small rural communities may benefitfrom incubator facilities and entrepreneurial skills training. She also claims that smallenterprises incubated in communities may tend to be more loyal to those localcommunities. Years later, Phillips (2015a) argues that small business incubators maybe strong keys to cultivating local business ownership, that is, businesses started bycommunity members already living in those local communities. Fittingly, incubatorsneed collective support from local small businesses to be viable (Sutton 2010).

To clarify, incubators provide space and programming for new ventures to get theirideas off the ground, pilot test, and launch. Incubators may also tend to be easier to join(and leave) and have larger cohorts of enterprises compared to accelerators. Incubatorprogramming also may be less structured or segmented compared to accelerators (Frieland Vukotich 2018). Florentina-Georgiana (2014) argues that incubators can providesupport for young or budding entrepreneurs who have high needs for mentorship, socialsupport and networks, and programs that will help new ventures and entrepreneurssucceed.

Also, incubators are often housed at universities and colleges (Gibson-Graham2010). In rural communities, local libraries can serve as small business incubators orentrepreneurial hubs (Hancks 2012). Community kitchens and farmers markets havebeen identified as incubators for food-based entrepreneurship (Conner et al. 2010;Phillips and Waring 2015). Additionally, arts-based incubators are beginning to emergein the U.S. and worldwide, even in rural communities (Balfour et al. 2018; Phillips2004; Sung 2016).

Accelerators generally consist of rigidly designed and fast-paced programs (around3 months) for a small number of enterprises that compete (via application) for spots inthe programs (Friel and Vukotich 2018). Accelerators may take boot camp approachesor target particular enterprise needs in their programs (Farritor 2017). Accelerators mayoffer financial support as well as other expertise or services to enterprises; such supportmay be exchanged for equity in those enterprises (Friel and Vukotich 2018). Acceler-ator programs or workshops may be offered at universities and colleges, but privateorganizations or networks of investors generally run accelerator programs that haveequity arrangements. Still, while Clifford (2016) reports that the number of acceleratorprograms in the U.S. have increased at least tenfold, less is known about their impactson local communities or even best practices.

ResearchProposition 3

Localized incubators and accelerators require investigationregarding their impacts on community well-being.

Informing Future Research on Entrepreneurial Hubs and Community Well-Being

The offered research propositions can benefit from grounding in community well-beingindicators approaches. For a community well-being indicators frame to investigate local-ized entrepreneurial hubs (see Fig. 1), this article proposes that community well-being isreflected across three thematic areas: (1) processes, (2) outcomes, and (3) mindsets/ideals(Phillips and Pittman 2009; Robinson and Green 2011; Talmage 2014a; Talmage andKnopf 2017). These themes are used to build a larger framework of indicators to explorethe impacts of localized entrepreneurial hubs on community well-being.

344 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

Grassroots Processes

Localized entrepreneurial hubs may utilize bottom-up approaches to drive economicand social change as opposed to top-down approaches (Salovaara 2015; Surman 2013);however, explorations of these grassroots approaches have not been grounded in thecommunity well-being literature, which emphasizes such approaches (Kelly andCaputo 2005; Matarrita-Cascante and Brennan 2012; Phillips and Pittman 2009).Community well-being investigations also can explore effective and impactful process-es for knowledge transfer and spillover from localized entrepreneurial hubs (e.g., Dellerand Conroy 2017; Zhang and Warner 2017). These hubs may also be sources for socialand community innovation to address local needs; one prime example is localizedentrepreneurial hubs that associate themselves with Impact Hub’s global network.2

Social Capital and Community Capital

Localized entrepreneurial hubs can leverage the social capital that is already present andavailable within local communities, and such leverage requires both strategy and action.Social capital theory themes (e.g., Coleman 1990; Phillips and Pittman 2009; Putnam 2000)of mutual respect, reciprocity, trust, accountability, knowledge sharing, openness, andtransparency are found in variation across localized entrepreneurial hubs (e.g., Bounckenand Reuschl 2018). Positive interaction builds mutual trust and cooperation betweenentrepreneurial hubs and other local businesses. In the community well-being literature,social capital has been strongly linked to quality of life in cities (e.g., Lee and Kim 2018).

Localized entrepreneurial hubs may benefit from social and community capitalframeworks that are abundant in the community well-being literature (e.g., Agnitschet al. 2006; Emery and Bregendahl 2014; Emery and Flora 2006; Lyons 2002). Also,researchers and practitioners can benefit from learning how small enterprisers buildcommunity capital whilst pursuing individual capital aims; these notions have roots inColeman’s (1990) social capital theory. Communities that support small enterprisershelp build up their self-reliance (Marais and Botes 2006), but relationship may possiblybe reciprocal benefiting the resilience of local communities. Furthermore, social capital

2 For more information about Impact Hub and its global network, visit https://impacthub.net.

Grassroots ProcessesSocial Capital and

Community Capital

Sense of Community and Psychological

Social Capital

Diversity and Inclusivity

Third Places and Hubs of Engagement

Leadership Capital

Fig. 1 Community development themes for entrepreneurial hubs

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 345

theory offers insights regarding how localized entrepreneurial hubs can work with eachother (e.g., chambers of commerce with incubators) to facilitate higher levels ofcommunity well-being.

Sense of Community and Psychological Social Capital

Localized entrepreneurial hubs may work to foster a sense of belonging or sense ofcommunity amongst enterprisers, such that individuals feel welcomed and supported(e.g., Garrett et al. 2017; Gerdenitsch et al. 2016). Sense of community is a well-researched form of psychological social capital found in abundance in the communitydevelopment, community psychology, and community well-being literature (e.g.,Perkins et al. 2002; Talmage et al. 2017). In community psychology, sense of commu-nity as a construct is operationalized as an informal and cognitive form of psycholog-ical social capital (Perkins et al. 2002). Sense of community can be a transformativeforce for improving in well-being (Talmage et al. 2018b).

Collective efficacy is also another form of psychological social capital where individ-uals together believe they can implement community change through informal neighbor-ing or formal participation behaviors (Perkins et al. 2002). Localized entrepreneurial hubsmay help communities build collective efficacy, but this claim needs exploration. Local-ized entrepreneurial hubs may cultivate other forms of psychological capital, but theseclaims need investigation as well; these forms include individuation, expression, opposi-tion, and protest (Talmage et al. 2017). Researchers, leaders, and policy-makers canbenefit from learning how psychological social capital and its various forms benefit smallenterprisers in localized entrepreneurial hubs, and how these hubs can also cultivatepsychological social capital in communities to improve community well-being.

Diversity and Inclusivity

Localized entrepreneurial hubs may strive to be diverse, inclusive, and supportive hubsof engagement in their communities (e.g., Surman 2013). Community well-being canrest upon the diversity of local individuals and the inclusivity of those individuals’talents and experiences in local community affairs (Pstross et al. 2014; Talmage et al.2015; Talmage et al. 2017; Talmage and Knopf 2017). Localized entrepreneurial hubscan hold the same aims as community well-being work such as looking to attractindividuals with diverse talents and backgrounds to their enterprises, their programs,and their local communities. Furthermore, inclusive environments must be constructedand maintained in order to welcome, honor, and sustain such diversity. Inclusion is anarduous community aim requiring much more research rooted in community well-being theory (Talmage and Knopf 2017). Both research and practice can benefit frombetter understandings regarding how to attract diversity across many dimensions tolocalized entrepreneurial hubs and how to create inclusive entrepreneurial communitiesfor small enterprisers and their respective local communities alike.

Third Places and Hubs of Engagement

Localized entrepreneurial hubs can act as additional third places (Oldenburg 1989) orhubs of engagement (Pstross et al. 2014) for residents and workers in communities

346 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

(e.g., Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). For example, public coworking spaces “enable theparticipation and involvement of third parties such as developers, artists, makers, anduniversities” (Cohen et al. 2016, p. 10). Third places and/or hubs of engagement requireopenness, accessibility, and welcoming atmospheres for individuals and groups in orderfor their benefits to community well-being to be realized (Pstross et al. 2014; Talmageet al. 2018a). Thus, localized entrepreneurial hubs can benefit from community well-being research regarding how to become hubs of community engagement. Researchersand practitioners alike can benefit from learning how localized entrepreneurial hubs canbecome such hubs of engagement as well.

Leadership Capital

Many passionate individuals in entrepreneurial hubs may emphasize community as amindset or ideal (e.g., Bacigulupo 2017). Local enterprisers may volunteer for leader-ship or service roles in their communities, which may also help build local social capitaland build up their own enterprises (Emery et al. 2004; Kilkenny et al. 1999). An initialgroup of champions or evangelists are needed to launch and sustain localized entre-preneurial hubs. These hub leaders must be networkers, trustworthy, and adaptable tochange. Hub leaders must be able to garner and maintain municipal support in varyingpolitical climates. Diversity in background and thought amongst leaders are also likelystrengths for hub leaders. Mindsets and ideals focused on community well-being arelikely present among leaders as they look at what they desire for what occurs insidetheir hubs, but such mindsets and ideals that are outward-focused (i.e., helping the localcommunity) should be investigated.

Mindset or ideal conceptualizations are reflected in Talmage’s (2014a) definition ofdevelopment and similar to definitions of community development (Phillips andPittman 2009; Robinson Jr and Green 2011). In order to promulgate a shared commu-nity well-being mindset or ideal, leadership is required to inspire and instill the mindsetin others (Ross and Ressia 2015; Salovaara 2015), and research on such leadership thatis focused on improving community well-being is needed. Furthermore, research isneeded on the leadership inside localized entrepreneurial hubs and whether suchleadership can improve local community well-being.

Community Perspectives

Localized community hubs would benefit from and can inform community well-beingtheory and practice. This perspective article presents the community case of Geneva,NY, which is a small metropolitan area (~20,000 persons) with a town and city by thesame name (U.S. Census 2013–2017). Community cases help researchers identifyimportant affairs, leaders, groups, and other components and forces found in commu-nities that impact well-being (Berg 2009; Talmage 2014b). Geneva, New York'slocalized entrepreneurial hubs consist of a: (1) local chamber of commerce; (2) city-supported coworking community; and, (3) local liberal arts college entrepreneurshipspace, which hosts incubator and accelerator programs. These three entrepreneurialhubs are located in the City of Geneva's downtown district. On the outskirts of thecity/town, community members have access to an additional college-sponsored

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 347

technology farm providing space for enterprisers. The college is headquartered inanother city outside of the city/town. The community also has a city-supportedcommunity kitchen incubator, which is fully occupied by one tenant. These latter hubsare not discussed hereafter, because they do not fit the definition of localized put forthearlier.

Chamber of Commerce

The Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1902, and it is a private501(c)6 not-for-profit organization. The Geneva Area Chamber of commerce works ona membership system and has an average membership base of 300 members. The costof membership starts at a base rate of $325 per year and increases based on organiza-tional size. The Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce's mission is to advocate, promote,and support the local business interests, local markets, and economic growth (GenevaArea Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). Promotion of local businesses and markets occuron the chamber of commerce's website. The chamber of commerce offers educationaland training resources as well as marketing and networking resources to members(Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce, n.d.). The Geneva Area Chamber of Commercesees itself as a business catalyst and “go-to organization” aimed at fostering economicprosperity in the community (Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce, n.d.).

Coworking Community

The City of Geneva, New York worked with coworking consultant, Chris Cooley, tobuild a coworking community as opposed to opening out a real estate space forcoworking. The city selected a renovated downtown former retail space for thecommunity’s space. Matt Horn, former city manager, believed that a successfulcoworking community can help a small business start and, upon traction, can help itgrow and become a larger player in the local area. According to Matt Horn, thecoworking community’s mission was to not only serve as an innovation hub for thecity but to also serve as a hub for rural residents who need a city-base for theirenterprises.

Port 100 opened in 2016, and now has around ten members (Buchiere 2019). Port100 offers 24 hour access to desk space, small break out spaces, high-speed internet,small kitchen, and a multifunction device for printing, scanning, copying, or faxing.Port 100 also hosts monthly open coworking days where individuals in the communitycan come in and work from free. Membership rates range from $50 to $200 per month.Port 100's financial support from the city has decreased over time, and now members ofPort 100 are looking to take over the lease of the building from the city (Buchiere2019). One member, Maureen Ballatori, is taking a leadership role in acquiring thespace to maintain the coworking community. In general, the members recognize thatpolitical support from the city is declining, and they will need to take over the spacefrom the city in near future (Buchiere 2019).

The story of Port 100 is not inherently unique as demonstrated by practitionerperspectives shared with this perspective article’s authors (see Table 2). Thesecoworking practitioners have shared struggles regarding on-going structural supportfrom their communities, like the Geneva community. Coworking communities require

348 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

spaces, utilities, amenities, and management, which all require enterprise models thatemphasize efficiency and effectiveness. Financial support and political buy-in are stillrequired as well. Overly focusing on these aspects may hinder community building andwell-being efforts, which should be considered in future research endeavors. Further,these perspectives highlight their lack of metrics to demonstrate community or eco-nomic efficiency, effectiveness, or impact. Thus, community well-being has much tooffer here in terms of metrics and research directions.

Incubator and Accelerator

Hobart & William Smith Colleges opened the Bozzuto Center for Entrepreneurship in2017 after $3 million gift from the chair of its board of trustees. Like the city’scoworking community, the center for entrepreneurship is located in a downtownbuilding. The renovations are ongoing with the first floor opening to students, faculty,and staff in 2017. After receiving a $250,000 grant from the State of New York, thesecond floor has been renovated, an elevator has been installed, and Hobart & WilliamSmith Colleges has purchased the building from the building owner. The first floorserves as flexible workspace for individuals with a small kitchen, while the second floorprimarily serves as a classroom or event space. The second floor also has a multifunc-tion device for printing, scanning, copying, and faxing. The third floor is set forrenovation in 2020, but it is envisioned to become a maker-space where individualscan build prototypes of their products and a flexible office space where individuals canlaunch and run their enterprises.

Table 2 Shared perspectives from other coworking analogs

Location Description

Bath, England,UK

Bath, England is home to a coworking community called The Guild. Tom Lewis, directorof The Guild, sees coworking as an effective value-add to the community that couldenergize the existing loose networks, utilize a vacant city-owned building, and trans-form Bath into a modern, entrepreneur-friendly city. Cherry Beath (former Mayor ofBath, U.K.) hopes coworking communities can get different disciplines together totake the “coffee shop culture” to a higher level and pitched it to her fellow councilmembers as such. She also notes that coworking communities may help localizedcommunity economic development become even more local.

Syracuse, NY,USA

In Syracuse, New York, one can find another coworking community called SyracuseCoWorks. Coworking leader, John Talarico notes that local politicians are often morefocused on specific projects that can demonstrate job creation versus supportingcommunity development and well-being efforts that may or may not lead to jobcreation. He finds that the coworking community model is really about creatingopportunities for individuals versus specific job creation opportunities.

San Marcos, TX,USA

Splash Coworking is an emerging coworking community in San Marcos, Texas. CarinaBoston Pinales who is spearheading the development of the coworking communityviews coworking as a collective community effort that revolves around innovation anddiverse collaboration. This growing and evolving group embraces the local culture andaims to forge a strong partnership between the city and citizens.

For more on coworking in the United Kingdom (UK), see Upham (2017)

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 349

Hobart & William Smith Colleges runs its academic programs focused on entrepre-neurship, community development, and community engagement out of the space. Thethe institution also hosts events, which are generally open to the public. For the nearfuture, the primary beneficiaries of the center will be college students, especially thoseinvolved in entrepreneurship programs. Hobart & William Smith Colleges' CentennialCenter currently runs leadership certificate programs, idea generator and incubatorprograms, and a summer sandbox (i.e., accelerator) program out of the space. Studentwork undertaken in these programs can be submitted to an annual pitch competitionwith a $10,000 prize. The Centennial Center and Entrepreneurial Studies Minor facultyand staff are exploring how to create programs focused on social innovation andentrepreneurship. Furthermore, Hobart & William Smith Colleges' academic leadersare looking at expanding the center’s reach to and engagement with the broadercommunity, but they are evaluating the most impactful and meaningful ways to do so.

A Community Well-Being Indicators Framework for Localized Entrepreneurial Hubs

The community well-being literature is beginning to burgeon with indicator frame-works and principles that can guide future research and practice (Cloutier et al. 2019;Lee and Kim 2018; Sirgy 2018; Sung and Phillips 2018; Talmage and Knopf 2017;Talmage et al. 2019; VanderWeele 2019). Many of these frameworks and principles areintentionally adaptable to a variety of contexts (e.g., VanderWeele 2019). This articledraws on these works in order to construct the various indicators found in Table 3 thatalso align with the discussed community well-being themes. While the list of potentialindicators is not all encompassing, it provides a start for further research along with thequestions presented next.

Essential Questions for the Future

In the pursuit of informing research and practice, Table 4 contains a list of questions toconsider based on the community well-being themes found in the literature, thecommunity case, and the practitioner perspectives. These questions can accompanynew work utilizing the proposed indicators framework. These questions are separatedout in Table 4 in hopes of helping inform and bridge research, practice, and policyregarding localized entrepreneurial hubs. For future research and practice, holism ratherthan reductionism is preferred, such that entrepreneurial hubs can be broadly anddeeply understood as whole phenomena, not as unipolar, targeted economic develop-ment tools.

Conclusion

Community well-being has much to offer research on localized entrepreneurial hubs asopposed to a pure economic development perspective. Community well-being de-emphasizes the management of these hubs as physical spaces. Community well-being also offers insights for leadership, and community-building that can inspirecommitment from entrepreneurial hub members, which in turn can help with sustaining

350 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

Table 3 Potential community well-being indicators for researching entrepreneurial hubs

Category Indicators

Grassroots Processes Perceptions of justice and fairnessPerceptions of representationInclusion of diverse stakeholdersSense of purposeLong-term engagement and buy-in of stakeholders

Social and Community Capital Sharing of community resources

Social cohesionSocial relationships and networksBridging, bonding, and linking capitalAssociations, associationalism, and volunteerism

Psychological Social Capital Sense of community and neighboringCollective efficacy and community participationIndividuation and self-expressionElite-challenging activitiesOpposition and protest

Diversity and Inclusivity DemographicsCultural variety and activity

Inter- and cross-cultural activity and collaborationInter- and cross-generational activity and collaborationTolerance, acceptance, welcoming, and inclusivenessSafe spaces

Third Places and Hubs ofEngagement

Access and pathwaysCommunity activitiesPhysical spaces, amenities, and quality of services

Leadership Capital Ideals, mindsets, and aimsActivities and actorsDecision-making structures and leadership practicesTrust in and relationships with leaders

Competence and proficiency of leadersTurnover, tenure, and transition

General CommunityWell-Being

Community attachment, happiness, and satisfactionResilience, flourishing, thriving, psychological well-being, andsubjective well-being

Community health and access to health careLife expectancy and longevityEnvironmental health

Literacy and educational levelsEconomic well-being and availability of jobsTrust in governmentCommunity tenure, turnover, and transitionCommunity altruismSafety and crimeStandard of living and housingSocioeconomic status and poverty

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 351

their communities. Additionally, community well-being can help with fostering collab-orations and developing proper metrics for success. Finally, community well-being canhelp bring positive change to research and practice in the fields of local enterprise andentrepreneurship by co-mingling/co-creating research and practice.

Localized entrepreneurial hubs should not be established to only achieve economicobjectives; they should be established to also cultivate higher levels of communitywell-being. Localized entrepreneurial hubs can preserve local city culture, build socialcapital (e.g., bridging and bonding), increase quality of life for citizens and workers,and build community and economic resilience. Importantly, these localized entrepre-neurial hubs can tailor themselves to the unique cultures and characteristics of the areasin which they are located. While not yet researched but purported, localized entrepre-neurial hubs may have large impacts in small to midsize cities and more rural areas.Finally, localized entrepreneurial hubs also require strong leadership from those insideand outside of their hubs.

This article aims to prompt an initial conversation between researchers, practitioners,and policy-makers around effective practices for facilitating and nurturing localizedentrepreneurial hubs. Community well-being work is not easy and is not quick (Phillipsand Pittman 2009; Pstross et al. 2014), and community well-being professionals shouldbe empowered to use all the tools in their toolkits (Talmage et al. 2016). Localizedentrepreneurial hubs are community development tools, which can place greateremphasis on local collaboration, engagement, and involvement; however, these

Table 4 Community well-being questions regarding localized entrepreneurial hubs

Research

1. Which strategies are most effective to facilitate the organic, grassroots development of entrepreneurial hubsin communities?

2. How can social capital theory in community development aid the nurturing and sustaining of entrepreneurialhubs in communities?

3. How can entrepreneurial hubs in communities build psychological social capital among their membershipand their local communities?

4. How can entrepreneurial hubs in communities be inclusive of diverse perspectives, talents, andbackgrounds?

5. How can entrepreneurial hubs in communities become third places and/or hubs of community engagement?

6. How can entrepreneurial hubs in communities inspire a community well-being mindset among theirmembership?

Practice

7. How might entrepreneurial hubs in communities be measured regarding their efficiency, effectiveness, andimpact utilizing community well-being approaches?

8. Which metrics effectively best assess the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of entrepreneurial hubs incommunities?

Policy

9. Which tools and strategies do cities need to cultivate entrepreneurial hubs in communities?

10. How can communities work together to start and support entrepreneurial hubs in their communities?

11. Where might entrepreneurial hubs fit regarding larger community development plans, such as creatinginnovation districts?

352 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

localized entrepreneurial hubs require more research from both the community devel-opment and well-being perspectives. This perspective article offers questions andindicators to spur future conversations and research to understand and increase localcommunity well-being.

References

Agnitsch, K., Flora, J., & Ryan, V. (2006). Bonding and bridging social capital: The interactive effects oncommunity action. Community Development, 37, 36–51.

Apaliyah, G., & Martin, K. E. (2013). An analysis of the effects of community leadership education programcontent on six outcome indices of community leadership. Community Development, 44(4), 456–468.

Assenza, P. (2015). If you build it will they come? The influence of spatial configuration on social andcognitive functioning and knowledge spillover in entrepreneurial co-working and hacker spaces. Journalof Management Policy and Practice, 16, 35–48.

Bacevice, P., Spreitzer, G., Hendricks, H., & Davis, D. (2019). How coworking spaces affect employees’professional identities. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://hbr.org/2019/04/how-coworking-spaces-affect-employees-professional-identities.

Bacigulupo, T. (2017). How to start a coworking space. Deskmag. Retrieved January 29, 2019, fromhttp://www.deskmag.com/en/how-to-start-a-coworking-space-manage-opening-launch-970.

Balfour, B., Fortunato, M. W., & Alter, T. R. (2018). The creative fire: An interactional framework for ruralarts-based development. Journal of Rural Studies, 63, 229–239.

Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Bobbitt, L., Green, S., Candura, L., &Morgan, G. A. (2005). The development of a county level index of well-

being. Social Indicators Research, 73(1), 19–42.Bohas, A., Camus, A., Capdevilla, I., Dandoy, A., Fabbri, J., Glaser, A., Haefliger, S., et al. (2016).

Coworkers, makers and hackers in the city: Reinventing policies, corporate strategies and citizenship?(PhD dissertation, Research Group on Collaborative Spaces). HAL, Retrieved January 29, 2019, fromhttps://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01426513/document.

Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economybuilds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1),317–334.

Buchiere, S. (2019). Port 100 looks for additional city help. Finger Lakes Times.Retrieved September 8, 2019,from https://www.fltimes.com/news/port-looks-for-additional-city-help/article_151c5f8c-4f45-5aec-af39-fc5beddb38e4.html.

Cabral, V., & Van Winden, W. (2016). Coworking: An analysis of coworking strategies for interaction andinnovation. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 7, 357–377.

Cashman, A. (2012). Survey: Patterns of coworking space closure. Deskmag. Retrieved January 29, 2019,from http://www.deskmag.com/en/survey-patterns-of-coworking-space-closure-560.

Chuah, V. (2016). Beyond the core: The role of co-working spaces in local economic development. Masterthesis. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:200240.

Clifford, C. (2016, February 18). Within 10 years, the number of accelerator programs in the U.S. hasincreased tenfold. Entrepreneur. Retrieved September 3, 2019, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/271000.

Cloutier, S., Ehlenze, M. M., & Afinowich, R. (2019). Cultivating community well-being: Guiding principlesfor research and practice. International Journal of Community Well-Being. OnlineFirst, RetrievedSeptember 8, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00036-8. Measures of Community Well-Being: a Template.

Cohen, B., Almirall, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2016). The city as a lab: Open innovation meets the collaborativeeconomy. California Management Review, 59, 5–13.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Conner, D., Colasanti, K., Ross, R. B., & Smalley, S. B. (2010). Locally grown foods and farmers markets:

Consumer attitudes and behaviors. Sustainability, 2(3), 742–756.Corcoran, E., Locke, R., & Miller, M. R. (2019). Tips for engaging local businesses as public health partners.

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 25(5), 518–521.

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 353

Dahlstrom, T. R., & Talmage, C. A. (2018). Entrepreneurial skills for sustainable small business: Anexploratory study of SCORE, with comparison. Community Development, 49(4), 450–468.

Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research.International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2, 79–88.

Deller, S. C., & Conroy, T. (2017). Business survival rates across the urban–rural divide. CommunityDevelopment, 48, 67–85.

Dewees, S., Lobao, L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Local economic development in an age of devolution: Thequestion of rural localities. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 182–206.

Emery, M. E., & Bregendahl, C. (2014). Relationship building: The art, craft, and context for mobilizing thesocial capital necessary for systems change. Community Development, 45, 279–292.

Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitalsframework. Community Development, 37, 19–35.

Emery, M., Wall, M., & Macke, D. (2004). From theory to action: Energizing entrepreneurship (E2), strategiesto aid distressed communities grow their own. Community Development, 35(1), 82–96.

Epley, D. R., & Menon, M. (2008). A method of assembling cross-sectional indicators into a communityquality of life. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 281–296.

Farritor, S. (2017). University-based makerspaces: A source of innovation. Technology & Innovation, 19(1),389–395.

Florentina-Georgiana, C. (2014). Young entrepreneurs-promoters of economic development. ManagementStrategies Journal, 26(4), 563–570.

Foertsch, C. (2011). Coworking in big cities vs. small towns. Deskmag. Retrieved January 29, 2019, fromhttp://www.deskmag.com/en/big-city-vs-small-town-coworking-182.

Foertsch, C. (2016). 2016 coworking forecast. Deskmag. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from http://www.deskmag.com/en/2016-forecast-global-coworking-survey-results.

Fortunato, M. W., & Alter, T. (2015). Community entrepreneurship development: An introduction.Community Development, 46, 444–455.

Friel, T., & Vukotich, G. (2018). The start-up PUSH: A guide for developers, directors and residentsincubators, accelerators, and science parks. IAP.

Fuzi, A. (2015). Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: The case of SouthWales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2, 462–469.

Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera, 15, 193–205.Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. A. (2017). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The

emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organization Studies, 38, 821–842.Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved 4 December 2019 from http://genevany.

com.Gerdenitsch, C., Scheel, T. E., Andorfer, J., & Korunka, C. (2016). Coworking spaces: A source of social

support for independent professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12.Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2010). Post-development possibilities for local and regional development. In

Handbook of Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.Green, R. (2014). Collaborate or compete: How do landlords respond to the rise in coworking? Cornell Real

Estate Review, 12, 52–58.Hancks, J. W. (2012). Rural public libraries’ role in community economic development. Public Library

Quarterly, 31(3), 220–236.Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.Hornsby, J. S., Messersmith, J., Rutherford, M., & Simmons, S. (2018). Entrepreneurship everywhere: Across

campus, across communities, and across borders. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 4–10.Jianguo, G. (2005). Building public assets in Chinese communities. Social Development Issues, 27(3), 85–93.Kelly, K., & Caputo, T. (2005). Case study of grassroots community development: Sustainable, flexible and

cost-effective responses to local needs. Community Development Journal, 41(2), 234–245.Kilkenny, M., Nalbarte, L., & Besser, T. (1999). Reciprocated community support and small town-small

business success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11, 231–246.King, B. S., & Hustedde, R. (2001). Strengthening civic engagement in community decision-making. In Rural

South: Preparing for the challenges of the 21st century. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455080.pdf.

Leddon, M. (2012). When coworking spaces fail. Deskmag. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from http://www.deskmag.com/en/when-coworking-spaces-fail-571.

Lee, S. J., & Kim, Y. (2018). Economy doesn’t buy community wellbeing: A study of factors shapingcommunity wellbeing in South Korea. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1(1), 33–44.

354 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

Lobao, L., Jeanty, P. W., Partridge, M., & Kraybill, D. (2012). Poverty and place across the United States: Docounty governments matter to the distribution of economic disparities? International Regional ScienceReview, 35(2), 158–187.

Lyons, T. S. (2002). Building social capital for rural enterprise development: Three case studies in the UnitedStates. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 193–217.

Lyons, T. S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and community development: What matters and why? CommunityDevelopment, 46(5), 456–460.

Lyons, T. S., Alter, T. R., Audretsch, D., & Augustine, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship and community: The nextfrontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 2(1), 1–26.

Malecki, E. J. (1997). Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: A review of recent research.Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3, 57–118.

Marais, L., & Botes, L. (2006). Income generation, local economic development and community develop-ment: Paying the price for lacking business skills? Community Development Journal, 42(3), 379–395.

Markley, D. M., Lyons, T. S., & Macke, D. W. (2015). Creating entrepreneurial communities: Buildingcommunity capacity for ecosystem development. Community Development, 46(5), 580–598.

Matarrita-Cascante, D., & Brennan, M. A. (2012). Conceptualizing community development in the twenty-first century. Community Development, 43, 293–305.

Moriset, B. (2014). Building new places of the creative economy: The rise of coworking spaces. HAL.Retrieved January 29, 2019 from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/914075/filename/Moriset_Coworking_Paper-Utrecht-Conference_Jan-2014.pdf.

O’Brien, D. T. (2012). Getting to know your neighbors: Incorporating evolutionary psychology into urbanresearch-policy collaborations. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 329–343.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. New York: Paragon House Publishers.Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge

Management Research and Practice, 13, 261–271.Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community psychology perspectives on social capital

theory and community development practice. Community Development, 33, 33–52.Phillips, R. (2004). Artful business: Using the arts for community economic development. Community

Development Journal, 39(2), 112–122.Phillips, R. (2015a). Building community well-being across sectors with “for benefit” community business. In

Community well-being and community development (pp. 25–37). Cham: Springer.Phillips, R. (2015b). Quality of life in the United States. In Global handbook of quality of life (pp. 573–581).

Dordrecht: Springer.Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. H. (2009). An introduction to community development. New York: Routledge.Phillips, R., & Waring, S. (2015). Food-based entrepreneurship. In Growing livelihoods (pp. 113–132).

Routledge.Pstross, M., Talmage, C. A., & Knopf, R. C. (2014). A story about storytelling: Enhancement of community

participation through catalytic storytelling. Community Development, 45, 525–538.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.Robinson Jr., J. W., & Green, G. P. (Eds.). (2011). Introduction to community development: Theory, practice,

and service-learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Rose, D. (2016, June 29). The state of the startup accelerator industry. Entrepreneur. Retrieved September 3,

2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2016/06/29/the-state-of-the-startup-accelerator-industry/#73fcca4c7b44.

Ross, P., & Ressia, S. (2015). Neither office nor home: Coworking as an emerging workplace choice.Employment Relations Record, 15, 42–57.

Salovaara, P. (2015). What can the coworking movement tell us about the future of workplaces? In A. Ropo, P.Salovaara, E. Sauer, D. De Paoli, & D. (Eds.), Leadership in spaces and places (pp. 27–48).Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc..

Schulman, S. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2013). New frontiers of the innovation economy and education.Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1), 137–146.

Sirgy, M. J. (2018). What types of indicators should be used to capture community well-being comprehen-sively? International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1(1), 3–9.

Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal ofBusiness and Technical Communication, 26, 399–441.

Spreitzer, G., Bacevice, P., & Garrett, L. (2015). Why people thrive in coworking spaces. Harvard BusinessReview, 93, 28–30.

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 355

Sung, H. (2016). The influence and role of arts on community well-being (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona StateUniversity). Retrieved September 3, 2019, from https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/170292/content/Sung_asu_0010E_15684.pdf.

Sung, H., & Phillips, R. G. (2018). Indicators and community well-being: Exploring a relational framework.International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1(1), 63–79.

Surman, T. (2013). Building social entrepreneurship through the power of coworking. Innovations, 8, 189–195.

Sutton, S. A. (2010). Rethinking commercial revitalization: A neighborhood small business perspective.Economic Development Quarterly, 24(4), 352–371.

Swain, D., & Hollar, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the quality of life.International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7), 789–814.

Talmage, C. A. (2014a). Development. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-beingresearch (pp. 1601–1604). Dordrecht: Springer.

Talmage, C. A. (2014b). The search for social capital transference in associations: The case of the Verradoassembly (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).

Talmage, C. A. (2018). Backgrounder on the state of open workspaces (Report to Evelo Agency). RetrievedJanuary 29, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12051.17441.

Talmage, C. A., & Knopf. (2017). Rethinking diversity, inclusion, and inclusiveness: The quest to betterunderstand indicators of community enrichment and well-being. In P. Kraeger, S. Cloutier, & C. A.Talmage (Eds.), New dimensions in community well-being (pp. 7–27). Cham: Springer InternationalPublishing.

Talmage, C. A., Dombrowski, R., Pstross, M., Peterson, C. B., & Knopf, R. C. (2015). Discovering diversitydowntown: Questioning Phoenix. Metropolitan Universities, 26, 113–146.

Talmage, C. A., Pstross, M., & Knopf, R. C. (2016). Are we using all the tools in our toolkits? Consideringvideo recordings for community development. Community Development Practice, 1(20), 5–13.

Talmage, C. A., Peterson, C. B., & Knopf, R. C. (2017). Punk rock wisdom: An emancipative psychologicalsocial capital approach to community well-being. In Handbook of community well-being research (pp.11–38). Dordrecht: Springer.

Talmage, C. A., Figueroa, H. L., &Wolfersteig, W. L. (2018a). Perceptions of expanded shared use of schools:A mixed method examination of pathways and barriers to community well-being. School CommunityJournal, 28(2), 297–320.

Talmage, C. A., Ross, A., Searle, M. S., & Knopf, R. C. (2018b). The social and cognitive transformation ofolder adult women: An analysis of community well-being for a university-based lifelong learningcommunity. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 1(1), 11–31.

Talmage, C. A., Pijawka, D., & Hagen, B. (2019). Re-examination of quality of life indicators in US-Mexicoborder cities: A critical review. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 2(2), 135–154.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. (2011, November 21). Chamber of commerce. EncyclopædiaBritannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/chamber-of-commerce.

Thomas, D. F., & Cross, J. E. (2007). Organizations as place builders. Journal of Behavioral and AppliedManagement, 9(1), 33–61.

Thornham, H., & Parry, K. (2014). Constructing communities: The community centre as contested site.Community Development Journal, 50, 24–39.

Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. R. (2002). Civic community in small-town America:How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic engagement. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 90–113.

U.S. Census. (2013–2017). 2013–2017 American community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved September 6,2019, from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

Uda, T. (2013). What is coworking? A theoretical study on the concept of coworking. Discussion Paper,Series A, 265, 1–15.

Upham, S. (2017). The evolution of UK coworking spaces outside of London. Deskmag. Retrieved January29, 2019, from http://www.deskmag.com/en/the-evolution-of-uk-coworking-spaces-outside-of-london-967.

VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Measures of community well-being: A template. International Journal ofCommunity Well-Being. OnlineFirst, Retrieved September 8, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00036-8.

Vogt, C., Jordan, E., Grewe, N., & Kruger, L. (2016). Collaborative tourism planning and subjective well-being in a small island destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 36–43.

356 International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357

Waters-Lynch, J. M., Potts, J., Butcher, T., Dodson, J. & Hurley, J. (2016). Coworking: A transdisciplinaryoverview, working paper. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712217.

Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America (No. 95). Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Winders, R. M. (1997). Small business creation and economic well-being of nonmetropolitan countries: The

case of Georgia. University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics. Technical Report.Retrieved September 9, 2019, from http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgriculturalEconomics/pubs/tvaWinders98-08.pdf.

Winders, R. (2000). Small business development and nonmetropolitan job growth in Georgia. Growth andChange, 31(1), 82–107.

Zhang, X., & Warner, M. E. (2017). Business retention and expansion and business clusters–a comprehensiveapproach to community development. Community Development, 48, 170–186.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.

International Journal of Community Well-Being (2019) 2:339–357 357