**5. The Sharing Economy and the Sustainability of Local Communities in the Overtourism Context: the Literature Overview**

Focusing on the global tourism industry, Gössling and Hall [20] analyze the sustainable impacts of the SE. Focusing on economic sustainability, the authors emphasize that the platforms facilitate opportunities for individuals and firms to contribute to the economy, and thus they empower small firms and micro-entrepreneurs, who run start-ups with limited marketing resources. They also create innovations and new jobs and thus foster value chains. However, market concentration, rating and ranking dependencies increasing economic inequality between competitors and revenue concentration by platforms are all evidence of the negative impact on sustainability in the context of global tourism.

The sustainability of the SE at the destination/community level is discussed with reference to social, economic and environment domains of sustainability [93]. This is reflected in our literature overview presented in Table 2. (the issues are listed according to the descending number of indications and importance). The social and economic focus dominates, which results from the dominance of the studies focused on residents' perception and attitude measurements. In fact, pursuant to the sustainable development assumption that the development should proceed in line with the needs of the current generations while maintaining the present conditions and opportunities also for the future generations, local residents must be recognized as one of the main stakeholders of the process of tourism development, and their well-being and quality of life as the crucial indicator of this development [34,35,94,95]. Thus, the resident negative perceptions of and attitudes towards the SE are interpreted as a manifestation of unsustainability, and the positive opinions and reactions to the SE as a manifestation of its sustainability.


**Table 2.** The impact of the SE on the sustainability of local communities in the tourism context.

Notes: [I] Perceived by individual residents; [C] Perceived on the community level; [I/C] Perceived on both levels. Source: own elaboration based on review of papers listed in Appendix A.

The studies focusing on the resident perceptions recognize the SE as the main subject scope [2,38,39] or as a dimension of excessive tourism development [3,42]. Although the general residents' attitudes towards the SE could vary in specific destinations—for example, the predominance of positive attitudes in Majorka, Spain [2] and the USA [38] vs. the predominance of negative attitudes in Barcelona, Spain [31] and Byron Bay, Australia [31] was identified—the juxtaposing of all the reviewed studies

indicates the dominance of unsustainable impacts of the SE (Table 2.). The most frequently raised issue refers to the interference of exponential and ungoverned growth of informal peer-to-peer accommodation on local residents' lives and the costs thereof. In particular, its disruptive role is perceived mainly by individuals who are not directly engaged in gaining from the SE. Nevertheless, many of the problems have become common issues, with repercussions affecting communities in general. As Stergiou and Farmaki [28] note, in residential areas, tourism-associated impacts are particularly concerning because the micro-level of neighborhoods represents the basis of societal structures and processes. For example, housing issues in terms of a shortage of long-term rentals, raising rents and replacements, as well as the lowering of the quality of living are perceived by individual residents; however, their increasing frequency affects neighborhoods and communities. Also, the long-term and commonly shared loss of community sense, identity and local culture has been recognized. Among the economic impacts, high residential rents and real-estate prices, the increasing of gray market and tax evasion as well as unfair competition has been identified.

The sustainability of the SE has also been identified, especially in terms of enlivening and enhancing the aesthetics of neighborhoods, cultural impacts, extra incomes of home owners as well as fostering entrepreneurship and innovation among residents. The environmental issues have also been recognized and their impacts are controversial.

Three issues must be raised while referring to Table 2. First, impacts evidencing both sustainability or unsustainability of the SE are interconnected. They are not perceived seperately; instead these issues usually form a bundle of impacts propelling each other, forming a dynamic of interactions among the SE, local communities as destinations, and the tourism growth, which may fuel overtourism. For example, there are causality links amongst more income for home owners, improvement in neighborhoods, increase of residential rental rates, displacement of tenants, commodification of private and public assets and local resistance. Thus, Table 2 is composed from many 'sustainability pictures' of the SE rather than just one. Second, some impacts could be contradictory or mutually debilitating. This could be an issue involving the authenticity of resident-visitor relationships while raising the sense of powerlessness of the latter, or increasing the number of jobs which are precarious and casual. However, Table 2 is a composition of findings of the theoretical and research studies which are fragmentary, contextual or based on the case studies. Third, the general picture of (un)sustainability of the SE impacts on local communities in tourism context lacks dynamic overview. The majority of the studies—for objective reasons—diagnose the status of the impacts of the SE using selected aspects of the process. In other words, they mostly deliver static pictures of the process based on opinions of residents and key stakeholders or geostatistical data.

Given above the above arguments together, we must mention two studies which try to explore the mechanism of the process framed by using clearly defined theoretical frameworks which go beyond the tourism-specific concepts.

Stabrowski [33] recognizes sophisticated impacts of the SE on urban communities, which are incorporated in mechanism resulting from business models of sharing platforms. Basing on the Lefèbvre's production of space concept and performativity in economics, the author points out the disruptive role of the reputation system of Airbnb and other accommodation rental platforms, consisting of mutual verification and rating of guests and hosts. However, this rating/reputation is also the only basis for building trust between peers and assessing the quality of their performance on the sharing market, becoming a form of currency in the global sharing system. Notably, it only permits the opinions of peers, restricting local stakeholders like tenants, neighbors or landlords. As the result, as Stabrowski [33] state: "hosts and guests are interpellated as fully autonomous individuals—unburdened by the collective nature of the lived spaces of urban housing—negotiating the rental price of an accommodation that itself is constituted as a bounded spatial entity whose use rights are defined in absolute terms. Socio-spatial relations outside of the binary host-guest relation—such as those between or residents within multi-family buildings, between neighbors within an urban locality (neighborhood), or even among the wider urban housing market—are thus 'bracketed

out' in this process, with profound implications for public urban space" (p. 336). Surrounding spaces are not free from this impact. The new geographies have been created within cities which colonize the lived spaces of urban housing and public space, imposing global market rules and unbalancing local communities.

Stergiou and Farmaki [28] examine perceptions of residents of Athen's Koukaki residential area regarding the impact of Airbnb accommodation growth on their neighborhood in relation to the exchange relationship with guests. Based on the SET analytical framework, the authors conducted analysis of the full process of resident-guest interactions, dividing it into three steps: initiation of exchange, exchange formation, and overall post-exchange; which lets us look inside the dynamics of the process. In general, the authors state that imposed costs outweighed any positive outcomes brought about by Airbnb and their interactions with guests in their neighborhood and residential environment. However, more positive views came from those participants indirectly engaged in hosting Airbnb guests. According to the detailed results, the residents were imposed to the disruptive face of the sharing accommodation model before the first guests appeared. The disturbance was caused by renovations and refurbishments of apartments, unexpected evictions and losing neighbors, increasing rents and the lack of consultation on the changes. During the exchange formation stage, the negative issues ranged from the presence and rotation of unfamiliar people, intrusion of tourists and commercial activity in the private life and spaces of residents, noise and litter, lessening of community bonds, to problematic issues such as rude and indecent behavior from tourists, damage in communal areas, disputes and occasional open hostility from guests. During the post-exchange evaluation, the residents reported annoyance, irritation, a sense of powerlessness or even fear and health-related and psychological problems affecting their well-being and inducing reactions such as confronting tourists, involvement in formal actions against short-term rentals, resigned acceptance or an interest in moving out of the area. Only residents indirectly involved in Airbnb activities enhanced their efforts to capitalize on opportunities from this activity. Summing up, the mentioned studies focus on a variety of aspects involving the sustainability of the SE on tourism, leading to a fragmented and vague picture with prevailing evaluative aspects. However, there is a need for studies which will provide a complex, theoretical explanation of the relations between the SE and local communities in the tourism context. As existing findings show, different aspects of socio-economic relations should be considered together. We tend to consider: individual relations (between neighborhood and tourists), business relations (between hosts and tourists), inter-institutional relations (between economic and social needs of local and external actors) and macro-process relations (between SE platforms that play the role of moderating the economic and social world and both local communities and authorities that represent them). Supposing that those issues should be framed by a clearly defined theory which goes beyond tourism-specific concepts, we employ the Social Capital Theory because it refers to key social and economic aspects of relationships.
