Next Article in Journal
Robust Gas-Path Fault Diagnosis with Sliding Mode Applied in Aero-Engine Distributed Control System
Next Article in Special Issue
Determinants of the Purchase of Secondhand Products: An Approach by the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Previous Article in Journal
Bringing Project-Based Learning into Renewable and Sustainable Energy Education: A Case Study on the Development of the Electric Vehicle EOLO
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainability in Project Management and Project Success with Virtual Teams: A Quantitative Analysis Considering Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310276
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Motivations for Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Exploring Sustainable Choices in Collaborative Consumption

by
Ana Catarina Delgado
1,
Raquel Reis Soares
2,3,* and
João F. Proença
1,4
1
Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, 4200-464 Porto, Portugal
2
Instituto Português de Administração de Marketing—IPAM Porto, Rua Manuel Pinto de Azevedo, 748, 4100-320 Porto, Portugal
3
CinTurs—Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-Being, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
4
ADVANCE/CSG—Advanced Research in Management (Research Center in Management Integrated at the CSG—Research Center in Social Sciences and Management), ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon, 1200-078 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10276; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310276
Submission received: 25 May 2023 / Revised: 20 June 2023 / Accepted: 25 June 2023 / Published: 29 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Challenges across Industries, Services and Markets)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge of Collaborative Consumption (CC) by exploring the motivations that influence the use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) accommodation platforms from the demand side. There has been a significant increase in interest in sustainable choices regarding P2P accommodation in recent years. To address this gap and contribute to the collaborative consumption and P2P accommodation theory, a quantitative study was conducted through a survey yielding 235 responses from both users and non-users of P2P platforms. The findings of this study suggest that P2P accommodation platform usage is influenced by multiple factors, including sustainability, belonging, economic benefits, and convenience. Interestingly, the study also found that individuals with higher levels of academic qualifications are more likely to adopt this mode of consumption. Moreover, the study is the first of its kind to quantitatively address this topic. By understanding the motivations of P2P platform users, policymakers and practitioners can develop targeted strategies to promote sustainable choices in this sector. Overall, this study provides a useful framework for future research on collaborative consumption and sustainable P2P accommodation.

1. Introduction

The increasing popularity of digital platforms for peer-to-peer exchanges has led to a surge in interest in models such as the Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption [1]. This growth can be attributed to various factors, including technological advancements, evolving consumer mindsets, and the rise of online communities and activities [2]. Thus, it is crucial to understand the factors that contribute to the adoption of these models in the market. While several studies have investigated the decision-making process of consumers, they tend to analyze these models collectively, without distinguishing between them [3,4,5,6]. The Sharing Economy is an economic model characterized by individuals providing temporary access to underutilized goods to other individuals without monetary compensation, while Collaborative Consumption involves peer-to-peer exchanges facilitated by online services and communities, with compensation involved [7,8]. These exchanges, however, are coordinated and based on online services and communities in Collaborative Consumption, and there is compensation involved. Thus, the compensation associated with the transaction is the feature that distinguishes the two models. Both models are prevalent in the tourism and hospitality sectors as P2P accommodation services [9]. The role of consumers in Collaborative Consumption its critical to its development [10], underscoring the importance of investigating the factors that influence their consumption choices. In particular, the profile and motivations of those who engage in CC have received little attention. As a result, the purpose of this study is to explore the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in consumer use of P2P platforms, with a focus on tourism, specifically on accommodation.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. The Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption

The growth of the internet and Web 2.0 [11] has facilitated the balance of supply and demand, opening up new avenues for economic and social interaction [12]. These new media quickly piqued users’ interest, spawning the Sharing Economy (SE) and Collaborative Consumption (CC), and despite their similarities, these concepts represent different economic models, with the main difference being the definition of “sharing”. Three fundamental principles of SE are presented in the literature [7]: (i) the existence of peer-to-peer exchanges and interactions; (ii) sharing is temporary and the owner never loses ownership; and (iii) it ensures that more benefit is derived from underutilized assets, because the owner can cede their use to someone else even if they are not being used at the time. As the name implies, there is “sharing” of assets, and because sharing is an altruistic act, the actors in this market are not compensated for it [13]. On the other hand, CC involves the transfer and use of assets between peers, and typically requires payment for the transfer. Consumers who choose CC are not solely motivated by economic concerns, but also by a desire to try new brands, support environmentally sustainable practices, and foster a sense of community. Both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations drive the adoption of CC practices [14]. One area where CC has been applied is lodging where digital platforms provide access to unused or underutilized lodging [15]. This aspect of CC is seeing rapid growth in the tourism sector with activities such as transportation sharing, dining, culture, and traditions [16]. Transaction volume and revenues associated with lodging-based CC are increasing rapidly [17,18].
Sustainability in the tourism and hospitality sector entails balancing economic value creation, environmental conservation, and meeting the needs of tourists, businesses, host communities, and the environment, while considering future generations’ well-being and resource access [19,20]. As a result, the SE stands for a model of sustainable development which emphasizes economic, environmental, and social aspects [21]. However, the emergence of peer-to-peer accommodation, which relocates tourism activities from city centers to residential areas, introduces potential challenges to the sustainability of host communities [22]. While this accommodation option allows tourists to stay in residential areas, the interactions between involved parties may inadvertently affect local residents and the broader stakeholder network [23]. Negative consequences can arise, including the displacement of local residents due to their properties being converted into short-term rentals [24]. This can lead to increased housing costs, limited long-term rental options, and disruptions to the social fabric of communities [25]. Furthermore, the growing demand for peer-to-peer accommodation can strain local resources and infrastructure, resulting in environmental impacts such as heightened waste generation, energy consumption, and water usage [8,26]. It is essential to consider these sustainability concerns when evaluating the implications of peer-to-peer accommodation on host communities and environmental well-being.

2.2. Motivations for Collaborative Consumption

Previous research on the motivations for using P2P hosting platforms found that there are a number of factors that can influence residents’ willingness to enter and maintain an exchange relationship. Muler et al. [27], for example, indicated that tourism dependence, gender, and education can all play a role in that willingness, which is not synonymous with a willingness to accept more tourists. So, the motivations for participating and collaborating on online platforms, including CC platforms, are influenced by various factors [8], such as socioeconomic and ideological concerns as well as a preference for more sustainable consumption [28]. Given the increased interest in sustainable choices related to P2P accommodation, it is essential to explore the role of sustainability as a motivation for P2P platform usage. Therefore, the following first hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
The perception that using P2P accommodation platforms is a more sustainable choice of consumption positively influences the motivation to use them.
The tourism industry has experienced a rise in the adoption of CC as a response to four identified market failures [29]. First, the traditional tourism system has an excess of underutilized assets, causing dead capital, idle assets, and latent expertise. CC offers these unused assets, which bring diversity to products and services and economic benefits to local actors. Second, the traditional tourism sector has established processes that lack flexibility and negatively impact traveler satisfaction. CC solutions, such as peer-to-peer feedback, enable trust building and adaptability, which enhance the relationship between travelers and hosts. Third, regulatory inequalities have hampered innovation in the traditional sector, while collaboration on digital platforms provides greater market access with low entry barriers [30]. Fourth, technological innovation has also shifted the tastes of tourists, and the new generation seeks to distance themselves from traditional tourism and intermediaries, instead seeking tailored suggestions from peers [31]. CC allows for a more diverse range of offerings because residents can also be suppliers, eliminating the need for new investments and increasing market interaction. Platforms such as Airbnb, Vrbo, and Couchsurfing have facilitated the renting out of homes or rooms to travelers seeking alternatives to traditional lodging [32]. However, concerns about the replacement of residents with visitors and its effects on rental housing and destination locations exist [33]. Landlords may find it more cost-effective to host multiple travelers during the summer months than a single occupant, as they can charge more and supplement their stay with extra services. Martín-Martín et al. [34], in particular, have presented the expectations and impacts of such platforms upon the well-being of residents in Barcelona (Spain), highlighting the importance of ensuring social cohesion and the long-term presence of a fixed resident population in tourist neighborhoods.
The literature also emphasizes the importance of a sense of belonging in the adoption of CC practices [6,11]. The spread of this model is inextricably linked to technological advancement and how it enabled greater human connection. As a result, the sense of belonging to a digital community with shared ideals emerges as a CC driver. In light of the literature, the second hypothesis posits that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
The perception that P2P accommodation platforms are a type of consumption that provides a sense of belonging positively influences the motivation to use them.
Consumption strongly linked to access rather than possession did not emerge with SE and CC; such practices were already common in the market—for example, the ability to request books for free from public libraries [35]. The novelty of these models is that these transactions are made between peers. This transformation was made possible by innovation in information and communication technologies, as well as the development of Web 2.0. According to Boros et al. [36] these advancements not only enabled collaborative consumption, but also provided tools for it to be done between peers. As a result, the dynamics between consumers and suppliers have shifted, allowing for new consumption opportunities that can take better advantage of existing resources, enabling collaborative consumption as well as tools for it to be done between peers. Thus, the dynamics between consumers and suppliers have shifted, allowing for new consumption opportunities that can make better use of existing resources and that have impacted a variety of industries. Transactions in these markets are conducted through an online platform owned by a third party rather than the supplier or the consumer [37].
Technologies that enabled the creation of P2P platforms not only enabled the creation of new markets, but also had an impact on existing ones through their modernization [38]. This innovation and modernization have resulted in the addition of new features, increased supply diversity, and new tools that improve demand convenience. P2P lodging is an example of the creation of a new market; previously, tourists could only stay in places where there were hotels or other lodging solutions; however, when the opportunity for all individuals to rent space they have available in their residence is created, the list of possibilities for tourists to stay increases and diversifies exponentially.
P2P platforms have two main strands, one related to asset transactions and the other to access—whether it is access to goods or professional knowledge [39]. The most well-known examples of the first generation of platforms are eBay and Craigslist, which facilitate the sale of goods between peers. These platforms enabled confidence to be built in this channel, allowing consumption through it to become normalized. The second generation of platforms is characterized by Airbnb and Uber, where the emphasis is on the provision of services, whether in a peer-to-peer or more traditional context [37,40]. The value of this type of platform increases as the number of users involved grows. As a result, the success of P2P platforms is dependent on community members’ participation, willingness, and availability to share their assets with others [41].
Given the current number of participants in CC [37] and the positive growth trend for the coming years [42], there has been an increase in interest in understanding the motivations that influence consumers to choose this form of consumption over other alternatives [43,44,45]. Participation in CC may be influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, which is the topic of this section [43]. Intrinsic behaviors are natural and spontaneous motivations that exist in individuals and serve the primary purpose of achieving pleasant and positive feelings, while extrinsic behaviors are those that are performed under duress, are not representative of oneself, and serve an external purpose, such as a reward [46].
CC, in addition to being understood as an environmentally friendly behavior, can have its origins in more individualistic motivations, such as gaining economic benefits [8]. Moreover, there are two major benefits associated with this dimension [47]: (i) The user is not required to bear the costs of ownership; (ii) CC allows access to resources at a lower cost than traditional alternatives. Accordingly, the literature grounds the third hypothesis of the model:
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
The perception that P2P accommodation platforms are a form of consumption with economic benefits positively influences the motivation to use them.
Marketers report an increase in market demand for convenience, whether related to transactions, access, or other factors [48]. Although convenience is not a sufficient motivator for customer loyalty, studies show that it is a necessary condition for attracting and retaining customers [49]. Building on the existing literature, the model’s fourth hypothesis assumes that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
The perception that using P2P accommodation platforms is a more convenient form of consumption positively influences the motivation to use them.

3. Materials and Methods

The study used survey-based research to investigate the demand-side motivations that influence the use of P2P accommodation platforms in order to better explain the phenomenon of Collaborative Consumption, as it aimed to explore the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, namely, sustainability, sense of community, economic benefits, and convenience as motivations to use P2P accommodation platforms in consumer use of P2P platforms.
The research methodology involved multiple stages, which can be summarized as follows: (1) conducted a literature review to establish a conceptual model, to formulate hypotheses, and to select the constructs; (2) proposed a hypothetical model based on identified variables and relationships; (3) administered a survey using selected constructs and respective measures to collect data; and (4) analyzed data and test hypotheses.

3.1. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

The study collected data on constructs related to the motivations of Portuguese participants to use P2P accommodation platforms identified in order to validate the proposed research model and hypotheses. Portugal has experienced improvements in its digital infrastructure and e-government initiatives have been implemented regarding P2P accommodation platforms which are widely used by citizens. A survey with a seven-point Likert scale was distributed through PCs and smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2022. Demographic data was also gathered.

3.2. Measurement

Before selecting variables for this study, we observed and analyzed previous studies. To ensure the content validity of the variable measurement items, items validated in previous studies were selected. The CC’s definition adopted in this study and presented in Section 1 was presented in the beginning of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was pretested by ten academics and graduate students, and it was revised to reflect the pretest results as well as the comments of the respondents. Table 1 includes a list of the variables and measurement items used in this study.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive analysis of the sample (participants of the survey) revealed that most individuals of user group, 95 (70.4%), were women, 65 (48.1%) from Generation Z, 101 (74.8%) single, and 115 (85.1%) with a higher education. Non-users were mostly women 64 (64%), from generation Z 65 (65.0%), single 81 (81%), and have a high school education 40 (40%). The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

4.2. Verification of Reliability and Validity of Measurement Variables

The reliability and validity of the questionnaire scale were examined before examining the research hypotheses to ensure the rationality of the acquired data. The scale used in this study was based on previous studies that had passed expert review and thus had high content validity. The reliability coefficients for each variable’s measurement items were calculated using the IBM SPSS Statistics 28 software. The overall Cronbach’s (α = 0.852) indicates that the scale has a high internal consistency. Using the same software, an exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the construct validity of the questionnaire scale. The results of the exploratory factor analysis, as shown in Table 4, revealed that the overall sample’s Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was 0.785, which was higher than the standard value of 0.7. The significance of Bartlett’s sphericity test was infinitely approximately zero, indicating that the original hypotheses were rejected and the questionnaire was validated.

4.3. Regression Analysis

To test the research hypotheses, the use of P2P accommodation platforms was chosen as the dependent variable, and sustainability, sense of community, economic benefits, and convenience as the independent variables. To investigate the relationship between the dependent and independent variables, a multiple linear regression model was employed.
According to the regression analysis in Table 5, sustainability has a significant effect on motivating the use of P2P accommodation platforms (p < 0.01), confirming Hypothesis H1. It suggests that sustainability is a significant determinant of consumer behavior, which is consistent with previous research findings. Furthermore, the sense of community is also an important factor for consumers who use P2P accommodation platforms, which validates H2 as well. Economic benefits and convenience also have a significant impact on motivation to use P2P accommodation platforms, thereby validating hypotheses H3 and H4, respectively. As a result, the variation in Motivation to use P2P accommodation platforms is fully explained by the independent variables.
Moreover, the analysis of the standard regression coefficients shows that Sustainability (β = 0.579) has the most influence on the dependent variable, followed by Convenience (β = 0.421). However, all the variables influence consumer attitude and intention to use

4.4. Discussion

Based on the analysis results, of the motivations, sustainability (β = 0.579) and convenience (β = 0.421) are those that most influence consumer attitude and intention to use. These impact directions reinforce what the existing literature presents [8], implying that the use of online platforms may be motivated by environmental concerns and a desire for more sustainable consumption. Convenience is the second motivation that most contributes to the use of the platforms under analysis. In other words, after the sustainability construct, it is the fact that consumers perceive that this form of consumption reduces the time and effort required to meet a need, which makes them opt for it [48]. The third motivation that most influences the use of these P2P platforms is a sense of belonging. Although social change has created a greater need for interaction, both online and offline, this is not of high value in the use of these platforms, which can be justified by the fact that interactions within them are optional. That is, when using P2P Lodging Platforms, the user can choose a side in which the residence is not shared with other guests or hosts, and in these cases, there is no interaction, and thus the Feeling of Belonging is not associated with this type of consumption. Economic benefit is the motivation that has the least impact on the use of P2P accommodation platforms. Contrary to what Hamari et al. [8] argue, the choice for forms of collaborative consumption is not influenced by rational reasons related to financial gains in this sample. This conclusion is unexpected, allowing us to realize that, while this mode of consumption may be more cost-effective than traditional alternatives, this is not what conditions its use. As Dredge [29] mentioned, the current tourist is interested in having a unique and personalized experience, making the economic dimension less valued than in previous studies.
In terms of demographic characteristics, the research findings revealed that gender, marital status, and generational group are unrelated to the demographic characteristics (profile) of the user versus non-user. That is, there is no relationship between these characteristics and belonging to one of the two groups (users or non-users). When it comes to academic qualifications, the two groups are no longer independent of one another. According to the results presented above, individuals with higher academic qualifications appear to adhere to the platforms under investigation more, which can be explained by the fact that they have an easier time adapting to new technologies [50]. Higher levels of education, according to Zeithmil & Gilly [51], are a factor that promotes the adoption of more innovative and disruptive behaviors, arguing that these people have a better understanding of what is presented to them and can recognize the benefits of adopting this behavior more quickly.

5. Conclusions and Implications

P2P markets and the CC have recently risen in popularity. The spread of CC-related business models incorporating successful organizations such as Uber or Airbnb has piqued the academic community’s interest. Little is known about the factors that influence the use of P2P accommodation platforms due to a lack of available literature. As a result, the scientific community is still debating the concepts of SE and CC [12,37]. Thus, the goal of this research is to contribute to this debate over the definitions of the two concepts by examining the motivations of CC model consumers who use P2P accommodation platforms from the demand side.
From a theoretical perspective, this research contributes to fully explaining the concepts of SE and CC, distinguishing them, and adding, for example, the sustainability characteristic as an essential sharing aspect due to the challenges that sustainability represents for host communities.
From a managerial perspective, acknowledging that sustainability and convenience have the greatest relative weight in the overall motivation to join CC demonstrates that the decision to use it is influenced by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. As a result, managers will be able to implement strategies that improve their services, such as creating content and experiences that meet their customers’ expectations. Simultaneously, understanding the motivations of the target audience will allow for the development of targeted marketing strategies capable of increasing the number of customers while strengthening loyalty among existing ones. Understanding the profile and motivations of those who participate in CC could also be very beneficial for traditional businesses that face their business models under threat, as it will allow them to adapt their offer to new market trends and needs. To summarize, managers involved in CC must ensure the following factors in order to foster and maintain successful operations: (1) ensuring social and environmental responsibility, encouraging and promoting sustainable practices within the platforms, such as supporting eco-friendly options, encouraging responsible consumption, and addressing issues such as waste reduction or carbon footprint; and (2) allowing a smooth and user-friendly experience on the platforms; this may involve, for example, facilitating effective communication channels between the parties and optimizing the booking to be quick and hassle-free, resulting in a seamless booking process.
Despite the contribution of this research to the CC literature, the present study has several limitations that suggest the need for future research. The first limitation is the use of a convenience sample, which could restrict the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, although the motivations chosen for the study are supported by the literature, other motivations such as trust [11], experience [8,37,47], and quality [11] could also be examined. Another limitation is that the study only considered user motivations from the demand side, which could limit a complete understanding of how motivations influence both sides of the market. Future research could address these limitations by incorporating multiple sources of data, including qualitative and quantitative methods, such as interviews with the demand and supply sides, examining the impact of the aforementioned motivations on the supply side, and conducting a comparative study to explore whether there are differences in motivation between consumers who use P2P platforms where the acquisition and distribution of a given resource occurs in exchange for payment (e.g., Airbnb) and those where the exchange occurs without any compensation (e.g., Couchsurfing). Additionally, comparing the outcomes of the accommodation sector with another sector and between different cultures could provide valuable insights into the effects of demographic characteristics and motivations on use and consumption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.D., R.R.S. and J.F.P.; methodology, A.C.D. and R.R.S.; software, A.C.D.; validation, A.C.D., R.R.S. and J.F.P.; formal analysis, A.C.D. and R.R.S.; investigation, A.C.D. and R.R.S.; resources, A.C.D.; data curation, A.C.D. and R.R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.D. and R.R.S.; writing—review and editing, R.R.S.; visualization, R.R.S.; supervision, R.R.S. and J.F.P.; project administration, R.R.S.; funding acquisition, R.R.S. and J.F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper gratefully acknowledges the financial support from FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant UIDB/04521/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

João F. Proença gratefully acknowledges the financial support from FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant UIDB/04521/2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The data collection, the analysis of the data, the conception of the ideas, and the writing of the article were entirely the responsibility of the authors who are part of this study. We further declare that the founding sponsors, the ADVANCE/CSG, had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lee, J.E.; Erdogan, A.N.; Hong, I.B. Participation in the Sharing Economy Revisited: The Role of Culture and Social Influence on Airbnb. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sung, E.; Kim, H.; Lee, D. Why Do People Consume and Provide Sharing Economy Accommodation?—A Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Agina, M.F.; Aliane, N.; Sawy, O.E.; Khairy, H.A.; Fayyad, S. Risks in Relation to Adopting Airbnb Accommodation: The Role of Fear of COVID-19. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ek Styvén, M.; Mariani, M.M. Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 724–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, E.; Yoon, S. Social capital, user motivation, and collaborative consumption of online platform services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 62, 102651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lamberton, C.P.; Rose, R.L. When is Ours Better than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Frenken, K. Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2017, 375, 20160367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lyu, J.; Fang, S. Exploring Customers’ Experiences with P2P Accommodations: Measurement Scale Development and Validation in the Chinese Market. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zou, J.; Shao, Y. A Study on Factors Affecting the Value Co-Creation Behavior of Customers in Sharing Economy: Take Airbnb Malaysia as an Example. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Benkler, Y. Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. Yale Law J. 2004, 114, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bellotti, V.; Ambard, A.; Turner, D.; Gossmann, C.; Demkova, K.; Carroll, J.M. A Muddle of Models of Motivation for Using Peer-to-Peer Economy Systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vaughan, R.; Daverio, R. Assessing the Size and Presence of the Collaborative Economy in Europe; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2acb7619-b544-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  16. Cheng, M. Sharing Economy: A review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pizam, A. Peer-to-peer travel: Blessing or blight? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 38, 118–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ypma, P.; Chaves, M.; Kazmierska, K.; Gaitán, M.; McNally, P. Study on the Assessment of the Regulatory Aspects Affecting the Collaborative Economy in the Tourism Accommodation Sector in the 28 Member States; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Developing a community support model for tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 964–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. UNWTO. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations 2004. A Guidebook; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Molz, J.G. Discourses of scale in network hospitality: From the Airbnb home to the global imaginary of ‘belong anywhere’. Hosp. Soc. 2018, 8, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suess, C.; Woosnam, K.M.; Erul, E. Stranger-danger? Understanding the moderating effects of children in the household on non-hosting residents’ emotional solidarity with Airbnb visitors, feeling safe, and support for Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 103952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dredge, D. Responsibility and care in the collaborative economy. In Collaborative Economy and Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  25. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dolnicar, S. A review of research into paid online peer-to-peer accommodation: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on peer-to-peer accommodation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 75, 248–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Muler, V.; Coromina, L.; Galí, N. Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity—Case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 277–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Henning, V.; Sattler, H. Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures. J. Mark. 2007, 71, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dredge, D.; Gyimóthy, S. The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives, questionable claims and silenced voices. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2015, 40, 286–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Koopman, R.; Wang, Z.; Wei, S.J. Tracing Value-Added and Double Counting in Gross Exports. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 459–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. IPK International. ITB World Travel Trends RSEort 2014/2015; Messe Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Available online: https://jingdaily.com/itb-world-travel-trends-rSEort-20142015/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  32. Tussyadiah, I.P.; Zach, F. Identifying salient attributes of peer-to-peer accommodation experience. J. Travel. Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gössling, S.; Michael Hall, C. Sharing versus collaborative economy: How to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Martín Martín, J.; Fernández, J.; Martín, J.; Rey, M. Analysis of Tourism Seasonality as a factor limiting the Sustainable development of rural areas. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 44, 45–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ozanne, L.K.; Ballantine, P.W. Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users. J. Consum. Behav. 2010, 9, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boros, L.; Dudás, G.; Kovalcsik, T.; Papp, S.; Vida, G. Airbnb in budapest: Analysing spatial patterns and room rates of hotels and peer-to-peer accommodations (No. 20102–267). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2018, 10, 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  37. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine is Yours; Collins: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 0007395914. [Google Scholar]
  38. Blal, I.; Singal, M.; Templin, J. Airbnb’s effect on hotel sales growth. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 73, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sundararajan, A. Peer-to-Peer Businesses and the Sharing (Collaborative) Economy: Overview, Economic Effects and Regulatory Issues. NYU Stern School of Business. 2014. Available online: https://rSEublicans-smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1-15-2014_revised_sundararajan_testimony.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  40. Ert, E.; Fleischer, A.; Magen, N. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Parker, G.; van Alstyne, M.W.; Jiang, X. Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. SSRN Electron. J. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. PwC. The Sharing Economy—Consumer Intelligence Series: The Sharing Economy; PwC: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/platform-economy/records/the-sharing-economy-consumer-intelligence-series (accessed on 9 June 2022).
  43. Benoit, S.; Baker, T.L.; Bolton, R.N.; Gruber, T.; Kandampully, J. A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 79, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Milanova, V.; Maas, P. Sharing intangibles: Uncovering individual motives for engagement in a sharing service setting. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tussyadiah, I.P. An Exploratory Study on Drivers and Deterrents of Collaborative Consumption in Travel. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano, Switzerland, 3–6 February 2015; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 817–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Böcker, L.; Meelen, T. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Moeller, S.; Wittkowski, K. The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring renting. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2010, 20, 176–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seiders, K.; Voss, G.B.; Godfrey, A.L.; Grewal, D. SERVCON: Development and validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 35, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Keaveney, S.M. Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weijters, B.; Rangarajan, D.; Falk, T.; Schillewaert, N. Determinants and Outcomes of Customers’ Use of Self-Service Technology in a Retail Setting. J. Serv. Res. 2007, 10, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zeithaml, V.; Gilly, M. Characteristics Affecting the Acceptance of Retailing Technologies: A Comparison of Elderly and Nonelderly Consumers. J. Retail. 1987, 63, 49–68. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Survey instruments.
Table 1. Survey instruments.
ConstructSourceItemQuestion
Sustainability
(S)		Hamari et al., 2016 [8]S1P2P accommodation platforms help to save natural resources.
S2P2P accommodation platforms are a sustainable mode of consumption.
S3P2P accommodation platforms are ecological.
S4P2P accommodation platforms are efficient in terms of using energy.
S5P2P accommodation platforms are environmentally friendly.
Sense of Community
(SC)		Lamberton and Rose, 2012 [6]SC1P2P accommodation platforms allow me to be part of a group of liked-minded people.
SC2P2P accommodation platforms allow me to belong to a group of people with similar interests.
Economic BenefitsHamari et al., 2016 [8]E1P2P accommodation platforms benefit me financially.
E2P2P accommodation platforms can improve my economic situation.
Convenience (C)Seiders et al., 2007 [48]C1I can easily determine priori to shopping whether P2P accommodation platforms will offer what I need.
C2I am able to get to P2P accommodation platforms quickly and easily.
C3The merchandise I want at P2P accommodation platforms can be located quickly.
C4I am able to complete my purchase quickly at P2P accommodation platforms.
Table
Table 2. Users’ demographic information (n = 135).
Table 2. Users’ demographic information (n = 135).
ItemDetailsFrequencyImportance (%)
GenderMale4029.6
Female9570.4
Generational GroupGeneration Z (1997–2012)6548.1
Millennials (1981–1996)3626.7
Generation X (1965–1980)2417.8
Baby Boomers (1946–1964)107.4
Marital StatusSingle10174.8
Married2518.5
Divorced or Widower96.7
Highest EducationNon-higher education2014.8
Graduation4936.3
Master degree4533.3
Postgraduate64.4
Doctorate1511.1
ResidencePorto10173.0
Aveiro1813.0
Braga86.0
Lisboa32.0
Table
Table 3. Non-users’ demographic information (n = 100).
Table 3. Non-users’ demographic information (n = 100).
ItemDetailsFrequencyImportance (%)
GenderMale3636.0
Female6464.0
Generational GroupGeneration Z (1997–2012)6565.0
Millennials (1981–1996)1818.0
Generation X (1965–1980)1010.0
Baby Boomers (1946–1964)77.0
Marital StatusSingle8181.0
Married2516.0
Divorced or Widower93.0
Highest EducationNon-higher education4040.0
Graduation2828.0
Master degree1818.0
Postgraduate33.0
Doctorate1111.0
ResidencePorto7171.0
Aveiro1212.0
Braga44.0
Lisboa00.0
Table
Table 4. Validity test.
Table 4. Validity test.
KMOCoeff.
Approximate chi-square1217.252
Degree of freedom78
Significance0.001
Table
Table 5. Description of statistical analysis.
Table 5. Description of statistical analysis.
Independent VariableRegression CoefficientStandard DeviationStandard Regression Coefficientp-ValueVIF
(Constant)−2.9410.004 0.000
Sustainability0.2340.0010.5790.0001.520
Sense of Community0.0830.0010.2430.0001.531
Economic Benefits0.0930.0010.2250.0001.197
Convenience0.03640.0010.4210.0001.209
Dependent Variable: use of P2P accommodation platforms.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Delgado, A.C.; Soares, R.R.; Proença, J.F. Motivations for Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Exploring Sustainable Choices in Collaborative Consumption. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310276

AMA Style

Delgado AC, Soares RR, Proença JF. Motivations for Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Exploring Sustainable Choices in Collaborative Consumption. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310276

Chicago/Turabian Style

Delgado, Ana Catarina, Raquel Reis Soares, and João F. Proença. 2023. "Motivations for Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Exploring Sustainable Choices in Collaborative Consumption" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310276

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop