The Mediating Role of Social Climate on the Pathway between Spatial Creativity and Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Co-Working Spaces

Authors

  • Veerisa Chotiyaputta International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Fei Lu International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Nusirin Limwirat International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Rosakorn Meechoovet International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Kittiporn Wongsanguan International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Xiaoyuan Liu International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Si Thu Phyo International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Pasd Putthapipat International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand
  • Kimmo Pekari International College, Panyapiwat Institute of Management, Thailand

Keywords:

Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation, Social Climate, Mediation Role, Space Creativity, Thailand

Abstract

This research examines the influence of space creativity on Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation (EORE) within co-working spaces in Thailand, with particular attention to the mediating role of social climate. Although co-working environments have been widely investigated in Western contexts, empirical evidence remains limited in Asian settings where cultural and institutional conditions differ significantly. Drawing on broaden-and-build theory, this study proposes a framework to test how spatial design creativity directly and indirectly affects entrepreneurial behaviors through social dynamics. The empirical analysis is based on survey data collected from 350 individuals with current or prior experience using co-working spaces in the Bangkok metropolitan area, a rapidly expanding hub for start-ups and digital entrepreneurs. Measurement constructs were adapted from validated scales of creativity, social climate, and opportunity recognition, with data analyzed using structural equation modeling and bootstrapping techniques. The results reveal that space creativity significantly enhances EORE (β = 0.221, p < .01), while social climate exerts a stronger direct effect on EORE (β = 0.502, p < .001). Moreover, social climate partially mediates the relationship between space creativity and EORE (β = 0.339, p < .001), indicating that supportive and collaborative climates amplify the benefits of creative spatial design. These findings advance theory by integrating physical and social dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems, demonstrating how spatial creativity contributes to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship in emerging economies under the Thai context. Practically, the study underscores the importance of designing workspaces and communities that cultivate collaboration and innovation to drive local economic growth. Practically, this research highlights that investments in creative spatial design and community-building strategies can serve as effective levers to stimulate opportunity-driven entrepreneurship and foster local economic development.

References

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4

Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328-340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193166

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a sense of virtual community measure. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 827-830. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9946

Blomberg, A. J., & Kallio, T. J. (2022). A review of the physical context of creativity: A three-dimensional framework for investigating the physical context of creativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(3), 433-451. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12286

Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Co-working-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y

Bouncken, R. B., Laudien, S. M., Fredrich, V., & Görmar, L. (2018). Coopetition in co-workingspaces: Value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 385-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0267-7

Bouncken, R., & Aslam, M. M. (2019). Understanding knowledge exchange processes among diverse users of coworking-spaces. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2067-2085. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0316

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Sage.

Brown, J. (2017). Curating the “third place”? Co-working and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum, 82, 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006

Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-working spaces and the localized dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 1540004. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2502813

Capdevila, I. (2019). Joining a collaborative space: Is it really a better place to work? Journal of Business Strategy, 40(2), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0140

Chumnangoon, P., Chiralaksanakul, A., & Chintakananda, A. (2023). How closeness matters: The role of geographical proximity in social capital development and knowledge sharing in SMEs. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 33(2), 280-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2021-0038

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.), John Wiley & Sons.

Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952

Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R. J., Mackay, M., Van Putten, E. I., Karcher, D. B., Dickey-Collas, M., & Ballesteros, M. (2021). Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 123, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.013

Deng, B., Cao, J., Huang, J., & Wu, J. (2022). The influence of innovation climate on creative role identity: The mediating role of flow. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 866464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866464

Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1254-1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12149

Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00225-8

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). 4 The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 181-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/078559809

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443-475. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.443

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Gandini, A., Bandinelli, C., & Cossu, A. (2017). Collaborating, competing, co-working, coalescing: Artists, freelancers and social entrepreneurs as the ‘new subjects’ of the creative economy. In A. Gandini, C. Bandinelli, & A. Cossu (Eds.), Collaborative production in the creative industries (pp. 15-32). University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/book4.b

Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. A. (2017). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in co-working spaces. Organization Studies, 38(6), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685354

Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.

Girija, S., Sharma, D. R., Yeediballi, T., & Sriramneni, C. (2024). Factors influencing the intention to use co-working spaces in emerging markets: An analytic hierarchy process approach. Property Management, 42(2), 235-255. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-03-2023-0026

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.

Haritwal, C. (2024). Thailand co-working space market report: Asia Pacific opportunity analysis & industry forecast 2024-2030. Next Move Strategy Consulting. https://www.nextmsc.com/report/thailand-co-working-space-market

Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., & Hanke, R. (2006). A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1031-1048. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802209181.00010

Krauss, G., & Tremblay, D. G. (2024). Third places, coworking, and coworking spaces as concepts responding to current social and economic trends. In D. G. Tremblay & G. Krauss (Eds.), The coworking (r) evolution (pp. 7-25). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802209181.00010

Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00297.x

Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. (2023). Relationships between physical environments and creativity: A scoping review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101276

Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00540.x

Maier, J. R., & Fadel, G. M. (2009). Affordance based design: A relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3

Mariotti, I., & Manzini Ceinar, I. (2021). Teleworking in post-pandemic times: May local coworking spaces be the future trend? Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 15(1), 52-76. https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1177617

Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic support for creativity. Facilities, 29(1/2), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771111101331

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. First published: January 1986. https://url.in.th/hBgQQ

McTeague, C., & Thoring, K. (2024). Mediators of the relationship between physical indoor spaces and individual creativity. In M. Štorga, S. Škec, T. Martinec, D. Marjanović, N. Pavković, & M. M. Škec (Eds.), The 18th International Design Conference (DESIGN 2024) (pp. 1025-1034). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.105

Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological methods, 17(3), 437455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085

Merkel, J. (2015). Coworking in the city. Ephemera, 15(2), 121-139.

Miura, Y. (2024). Entrepreneurial orientation and national culture in Thailand: A case of three generations of a Thai SME. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 5(4), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2024.2370419

Musenze, I. A., Mayende, T. S., Wanyana, M., & Kasango, J. (2024). Servant leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of innovation climate using evidence from the Ugandan local government sector. Journal of Management Development, 43(6), 896-919. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2023-0316

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138

Parrino, L. (2015). Co-working: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(3), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47

Pichayakul, P., & Tangtong, A. (2023). Customer preferences for coworking spaces in Chiang Mai. Community and Social Development Journal, 24(1), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.57260/rcmrj.2023.263045

Rese, A., Görmar, L., & Herbig, A. (2021). Social networks in co-working spaces and individual coworker’s creativity. Review of Managerial Science, 16(2), 391-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00445-0

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070

Srisuwon, S., & Anantsuksomsri, S. (2025). Impacts of COVID-19 on coworking spaces in Bangkok. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 13(2), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.13.2_111

Sukatendel, P. Y., Iskandarini, I., & Sembiring, M. T. (2025). Analysis of co-working space business strategy with SWOT method to increase visitors and market expansion: Case study of ICO Space Medan. Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(7), 3453-3472. https://doi.org/10.55927/fjmr.v4i7.345

Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2020). Spatial design factors associated with creative work: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 34(3),1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060420000232

Vogl, T., Sinitsyna, A., & Micek, G. (2024). Systematic literature review of location factors of coworking spaces in non-urban areas. In G. Micek & T. Vogl (Eds.), Evolution of new working spaces: Changing nature and geographies (pp. 83-94). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50868-4_8

Withagen, R., De Poel, H. J., Araújo, D., & Pepping, G. J. (2012). Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New ideas in psychology, 30(2), 250-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.003

Wu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Impact of workplace fun in a co-working space on office workers’ creativity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(1), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1112192

Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0138

Downloads

Published

2025-12-15

How to Cite

Chotiyaputta, V., Lu, F., Limwirat, N., Meechoovet, R., Wongsanguan, K., Liu, X., Phyo, S. T. ., Putthapipat, P. ., & Pekari, K. (2025). The Mediating Role of Social Climate on the Pathway between Spatial Creativity and Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Co-Working Spaces. Journal of ASEAN PLUS Studies, 6(2), 57–78. retrieved from https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/aseanplus/article/view/289015