the definitions of sharing economy a systematic literature review

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

The Definitions of Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review

• Author & abstract
• 4 References
• Most related
• Related works & more

Corrections

(Kaposvár University, Hungary)

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher, references listed on ideas.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Theoretical dilemmas, conceptual review and perspectives disclosure of the sharing economy: a qualitative analysis

• Review Paper
• Published: 26 October 2020
• Volume 15 , pages 1849–1883, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Manuel Sánchez-Pérez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3709-3389 1 ,
• Nuria Rueda-López   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5719-7620 1 ,
• María Belén Marín-Carrillo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6784-0560 1 &
• Eduardo Terán-Yépez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1260-2477 1  

4657 Accesses

11 Citations

Explore all metrics

The sharing economy (SE) has become a prominent theme in a broad variety of research domains in the last decade. With conceptions from an increasing range of theoretical perspectives, SE literature is disperse and disconnected, with a great proliferation of definitions and related terms which hinder organized and harmonious research. This study carries out a systematic literature review from 1978 to September 2020, uncovering 50 definitions as units of analysis. The authors, through a qualitative–interpretative analysis, review definitions, identify perspectives, and critically assess their conceptual nature on an evolutionary basis. Findings show that despite the SE has been extending its routes and approaches, it is far from a stock of conceptual grounds. The paper makes three contributions. First, we portray SE within a common evolutionary framework by developing it as a life cycle model. Second, we clarify the definitional and terminological jungle. And third, we suggest a new definition that can enrich the discussion.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Sharing Economy in Europe: From Idea to Reality

The state and critical assessment of the sharing economy in europe.

Availability Cascades and the Sharing Economy: A Critique of Sharing Economy Narratives

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Sharing economy research faces an uncontrolled emergence of related terms and definitions, due to its rise to the forefront of entrepreneurship, innovation, technology and management (Bouncken et al. 2020 ; Bouncken and Reuschl 2018 ; Muñoz and Cohen 2017 ). This has triggered a proliferation of contributions, continuously expanding its nature and scope. This growth is not without controversy, in part because of the diversity of approaches and definitions (Filser et al. 2020 ; Hossain 2020 ; Paik et al. 2019 ), in part because of its profound economic, social, legal and political implications (Codagnone and Martens 2016 ), in addition to the limited empirical contributions (Laurenti et al. 2019 ), which have led to contradiction, confusion, and complexity surrounding its identity. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to determining the nature and scope of the SE through examining the conceptual evolution, by organizing definitions and terms, identifying perspectives, and providing an evolutionary framework to facilitate theory development and guide future research.

Beyond the interest to study the SE at an institutional level (European Commission 2017 , 2018 ; U.S. Department of the Treasury 2019), the economic and social relevance of the increasingly employed activities encompassed within the SE is unquestionable. To mention some examples, 26% of U.S. Internet users participated in SE services and these figures are predicted to rise to 41% in 2021 (eMarketer 2019 ). Further, the number of active “peer-to-peer” or sharing platforms in the Europe Union in 2017 was around 500, of which at least 4% were considered to be extremely significant, as they received more than 100,000 visits a day, generating revenues of more than $4,000 million and facilitating transactions of more than $25,000 million (European Commission 2017 ).

At the academic level, the growing relevance of the SE is undeniable, and this is reflected from various points of view. In the Web of Science (WoS) database alone, about 1,400 articles and reviews addressing SE-related topics can be found until 15 September 2020, of which more than 87% have been published since 2017. These articles have been published in more than 390 journals, which also shows the growing demand for journals that are open to publishing work in this area. Moreover, these publications relate to very diverse research domains, such as business, management, tourism and hospitality, environmental sciences, computer science, economics, and to a lesser extent to areas such as legal sciences, urban planning and development, and sociology.

But what has been happening with the SE? After the first and occasional contribution on the SE at the end of the 1970s (Felson and Spaeth 1978 ), there followed a period of lack of interest in this concept, which then rose to the very cutting edge of management in the late 2000s, 2010s and has continued rising until today, linked not only to the proliferation of companies and SE activities but also as a social phenomenon (Botsman and Rogers 2010 ). Thus, on the positive side, from 2010 onwards, there has been an explosion of research work, continuing to this day, which has increased the understanding of various consumer, business and government behaviors around the practices, production, and consumption derived from SE-businesses (Eckhardt et al. 2019 ; Hossain 2020 ). Despite this outburst, scholars have not fully agreed upon either a definition of the sharing economy or a framework to guide further research, and we continue to miss the ‘big’ picture. The problem seems to be that extant previous theoretical analyses of the SE have focused on analyzing transversal issues common to many SE activities, such as for example, examining the role of digital platforms (Sutherland and Jarrahi 2018 ), assessing the competitive effects (Zervas et al. 2017 ), or identifying the sustainability basis of the concept (Curtis and Lehner 2019 ). Thus, under the concept sharing economy, we find disconnected literature which prompts a floating state of the SE conceptual framework. Thus, although bibliometric (e.g. Filser et al. 2020 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ; Laurenti et al. 2019 ) and systematic (e.g. Curtis and Lehner 2019 ; Hossain 2020 ) review studies have been carried out in recent years that had helped to study the nature and scope of the SE, these works have focused mainly on studying this field from a quantitative exploration of published papers features, or on general analysis of extant literature in this field. As a step further, due to the fuzziness about the SE concept, present work aims to bring light on its conceptual underpinnings and evolution as scientific field based on a systematic literature review and qualitative analysis.

In this regard, this paper follows the call for context-specific research to understand what and how to study (Petigrew 2005 ), reviewing existing contributions and definitions (Sweeney et al. 2019 ). Thus, it is necessary to conduct a selected literature review that “summarizes the primary research, but each also goes further, providing readers with a strong organizational framework and careful analysis” (Cropanzano 2009 : p. 2009), providing a construct clarification to extant theory, and being a “unique opportunity for developing novel and engaging theoretical ideas and constructs, based on informed understandings of past research” (Post et al. 2020 : pp. 370–371).

Under this premise, several reasons support this study. Firstly, at an epistemological level we should consider whether we are facing the emergence of a new area of study. As Starbuck ( 2009 : p. 108) points out, “the social and behavioral sciences contain a myriad of conceptual and methodological fad sequences”. Beyond the constant search for novel topics, mass production of research, the search for generalizations, or disagreement on the validity of applicable theories and methods (Starbuck 2009 ), the diversity of approaches and disciplines applicable to a topic drives the approach to new questions and the incorporation of new methods and theories (Abrahamson 2009 ). The SE is not exempt from debates about its nature and functioning that may undermine it as an area of study or categorize it as just as a fad. Questions arise such as whether it is based on sharing versus exchange or giving (Belk 2010 ), whether a new consumer paradigm (Prothero et al. 2011 ), whether it generates competitive rivalry or not (Lamberton and Rose 2012 ), whether it is an opportunity for entrepreneurship (Bouncken et al. 2020 ; Cohen and Kietzmann 2014 ), whether it empowers innovation (Bouncken et al. 2020 ), whether it develops in bilateral or multilateral markets (Codagnone and Martens 2016 ), whether it is a new form of lobbying (Codagnone et al. 2016 ), or rather a manifestation of neoliberal capitalism (Martin 2016 ), whether it is prior to or a consequence of the Internet (Frenken and Schor 2017 ), whether it is an essentially technological concept (Puschmann and Alt 2016 ), whether it is a new business model (Kumar et al. 2018 ) and if yes, what exactly entails a sharing economy business model (Ritter and Schanz 2019 ), whether if SE businesses disrupt prevailing institutions (Zvolska et al. 2019 ), whether if customers are energetically looking for the social aspects of SE platforms as they go beyond the classic B2C offerings (Clauss et al. 2019 ), whether it allows to sell authentic experiences (Bucher et al. 2018 ), if it affects other existing activities (Zervas et al. 2017 ), if it requires legal changes (European Commission 2018 ; Smorto 2018 ), if trust is a requirement for implementation (Hawlitschek et al. 2018 ), if service providers are suppliers or employees (Hagiu and Wright 2019 ), or even if it should be considered as a path to sustainability (Curtis and Lehner 2019 ).

Secondly, it is a multidisciplinary area of study to which contributions have been made from many different areas, both academic (e.g., Laurenti et al. 2019 ) and professional (e.g., Deloitte 2016 ), institutional or legal (Smorto 2018 ), which has elicited a rich concept but, simultaneously, fragmented, diffuse, with terminological confusions (Curtis and Lehner 2019 ) and with an unanalyzed definitional dilemma (Hossain 2020 ). For the sake of theory development, the lacking of consensus requires a work of “tidying up” of definitions and concepts (Hirsch and Levin 1999 ).

Thirdly, from the theory development, the concept of SE traces a life-cycle in the process of consolidation with an intense variety and conceptual heterogeneity that is necessary to put in order (Hirsch and Levin 1999 ). Because of its relative novelty and broad scope, it can be considered an 'umbrella' concept (Belk 2014 ; Perren and Kozinets 2018 ), although future empirical evidence should provide specific validations.

Finally, the lack of consensus on the activities covered and the agents involved in the SE becomes an uphill climb to arrive at a shared definition. There are two reasons for this (Herbert and Collin-Lachaud 2017 ). First, the practices described within the SE “extremely varied, flourishing, constantly changing and subject to the fad effect” (p. 4). The second relates to the actors themselves: “Out of pragmatism, they do not impose specific criteria or boundaries on the transactions of the collaborative economy” (p. 4).

Therefore, our paper seeks to address these multiple disconnections by providing an integrated and novel conceptual framework that sheds light on potential theoretical development. With this aim, this study is carried out in three steps. First, a replicable process of identifying relevant SE definitions is conducted through a systematic literature review. Then, following the prior discussion of the terminology and definition proliferations, an interpretative analysis for disclosing underlying perspectives is carried out, contributing to the literature with an evolutionary framework of SE approaches. Finally, an SE definition is proposed, as well as a set of guidelines for future research avenues.

To find all the definitions that have been applied to the SE, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. This approach enables any relevant studies to be selected and evaluated, ensuring a structured, rigorous and replicable literature review, as well as obtaining a more objective overview of the search results and eliminating any bias (Cropanzano 2009 ; Post et al. 2020 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ). This is one of the main differences of this methodology with respect to a traditional narrative review. To conduct the SLR, we based on Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) stages (see Fig.  1 ).

Analytical process implemented

2.1 Planning the review

Once identified the need for a review of the term “sharing economy” due to the great contradiction, confusion, and complexity surrounding it in the academic literature and its identity (Curtis and Lehner 2019 ; Hossain 2020 ), we state the research problem and the objectives, define the scope and establish a review protocol for our study considering the guidelines that will ensure the quality of the review (Snyder 2019 ; Sweeney et al. 2019 ). Accordingly, as search boundaries, the Web of Science Core Collection was chosen as database for this research, since it is recognized as the most important and longest standing database of academic papers (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016 ; Vogel and Güttel 2012 ). The search period was limited to manuscripts published in English between 1978 and 15 September 2020, since it was in 1978 when the first article relating to SE appeared (cf. Felson and Spaeth 1978 ).

Following the review protocol, a keyword search template was developed to account for all possible SE-related terms. Thus, as suggested by previous articles (e.g., Curtis and Lehner 2019 ; Keathley-Herring et al. 2016 ), a scoping study was developed to select the search terms that would be used for the database search. Using the term “sharing economy” as a search query, the twenty most cited articles in the WoS database were analyzed to conduct our scoping. By examining these studies, the scoping study allowed us to detect seven related terms (sharing economy, collaborative consumption, collaborative economy, peer to peer economy, access-based consumption, commercial sharing systems, and lateral exchange markets), which were utilized to carry out the subsequent search.

Furthermore, as preliminary inclusion criteria, we filtered for articles and review papers published in academic journals due to their validated knowledge (Podsakoff et al. 2005 ), and therefore we excluded conference proceedings, books and book chapters due to the lack of clarity in the peer review processes and more restricted accessibility (Jones et al. 2011 ). However, considering the novelty and breadth of areas linked to the SE, those books that are thematic pillars of the field were checked along with this search (Dahlander and Gann 2010 ).

2.2 Conducting the review

The database search results returned 1420 articles (see Table 1 ).

From this point, the research followed 2 stages to ensure the purification of the database. In the first stage, title, abstract, and keywords were revised to determine their suitability for inclusion, taking into account the objectives and scope of this research. Articles that had the SE as their core topic and that fitted the objectives and scope met the criteria for inclusion for suitability, while articles that did not have the SE as a central theme or did not fit the objectives and scope, were excluded on grounds of unsuitability (Snyder 2019 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ). This stage ended with the exclusion of 1,104 articles, and the inclusion of 316 articles. Then, during the second phase, the full text of each of the articles considered relevant was examined to identify those articles that had a definition of the sharing economy, thus all articles that did not offer a definition or that used previously established definitions were excluded (scope inclusion/exclusion criteria). For this step, a predatory reading approach was taken, focusing on the main parts of each article where definitions in this area could be found (Curtis and Lehner 2019 ). As a result, a total of 44 articles that defined SE were obtained. Additionally, it was decided to include 6 definitions manually. These were found in thematic pillar books and were added as the definitions have been frequently cited in articles of great impact (Dahlander and Gann 2010 ). Therefore, our final sample included 50 documents that defined the SE.

2.3 Qualitative analysis

From this point, our unit of analysis comprised 50 definitions of the SE. Building on principles of thematic analysis, which is an interpretive synthesizing approach that enables a flexible and useful research approach to examine qualitative data (Braun and Clarke 2006 ) and that facilitates an improvement in the quality of literature reviews (Tranfield et al. 2003 ), we inductively identify, analyze and report patterns from the data, where our “data” are the definitions and the recognized patterns are the perspectives. Following the guidelines of Jones et al. ( 2011 ), the perspectives were not extracted from decontextualized information as is commonly done but rather we inducted and interpreted perspectives from our holistic understanding of each definition. The legitimacy for this approach is based on the entangled nature, relative youth, and rapid development of the vocabulary used in this scientific area. Furthermore, in thematic analysis patterns (in our case approaches) could be identified either at a semantic or at a latent level (Boyatzis 1998 ). At the semantic level, patterns are identified in the explicit and superficial meaning of the data, without looking beyond what is written, while in the latent approach the analyst goes beyond the semantic content of the data, and discovers the underlying ideas, presumptions, and concepts that are theorized to form the semantic content (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). In this way, we were able to identify both semantic and latent perspectives in the definitions of SE.

The thematic analysis was divided into 3 steps, namely open, axial, and selective coding (Gallicano 2013 ). During open coding, academics should read through the data several times and then begin to create tentative labels for pieces of data that summarize what they have seen (without the bias of existing theory and limiting their focus to the meaning that emerges from the data) (Corbin and Strauss 2015 ). Thus, we carefully examined all 50 definitions, decomposed them into the smallest conceptual components, and converted data into concepts. This first approximation resulted in a great number of finely grained concepts. Several sessions were needed to refine and group any similar concepts into the same category to reduce the number of units that should be further examined. Axial coding consists of identifying relationships from among the concepts of each category, i.e. to categorize findings and look for commonalities and differences. Thus, during this phase, we first ascertained the dominant concepts of each category and rearranged the data set to form an ontological organization of the domain (Jones et al. 2011 ). Redundant concepts were eliminated and the most representative concepts were selected. Then, as suggested by Corbin and Strauss ( 2015 ) we verified the internal cohesion, consistency, and differentiation of each dominant and dependent concept.

Finally, in the selective coding, researchers had to figure out the core concept that includes all of the data of each category and selectively code any data that relates to the key concept identified. Thus, in this step we examined all concepts of each category to determine the central explanatory concept; therefore, we refined categories by condensing or expanding their focus (Corbin and Strauss 2015 ). Iteration continued until we arrived at key categories with internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Key categories are understood as core components of a phenomenon (Kenny and Fourie 2015 ) and thus could be described as the perspectives under which a construct has been studied.

2.4 Organization of results

The systematic literature review ended with the identification of 50 SE definitions, and thematic analysis resulted in the discovery of 9 perspectives; these are economic efficiency , government of exchanges , technological , business model , consumer culture , environmental sustainability , social orientation , value creation, and production system . The collection of definitions has allowed us to examine the terminological blossoming, definitional dilemma, that is to say, to unmask the appearance of new similar terms and the development of these definitions. For its part, the identification of 9 perspectives allowed us to analyze how many of them are present in each of the definitions covered, to graph and examine the appearance of each perspective over time, and to establish a description of each one of them.

3 Conceptual contend: towards a life-cycle model of the SE

3.1 a terminological blossoming.

The SE concept has elicited a wide range of related terminology, energized by its use in diverse disciplines, and boosted by its rapid proliferation across industries. The SE concept was first coined and defined by Felson and Spaeth ( 1978 ) under the term ‘collaborative consumption’ which reflected the social origin of the concept and, in fact, this was the only recognized conception for 30 years. With renewed interest in this subject, and with a similar conception Benkler ( 2004 ) introduced and then Belk ( 2007 ) extended the term ‘sharing’. Subsequently, new approaches with an explicit extension of the scope of this field were introduced, generating, in turn, different terminologies. Therefore, ‘The mesh’ emerged as a term to account for a new logic of business (Gansky 2010 ), and other terms such as ‘access-based consumption’ (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012 ) and ‘commercial sharing systems’ (Lamberton and Rose 2012 ) flourished with a sales and marketing orientation. Moreover, although the term ‘sharing economy’ appears in the literature on solidarity and economic geography (Gold 2004 ), Heinrichs ( 2013 ) applies the term ‘sharing economy’ in the context of sustainable exchanges. Additionally, the term ‘collaborative economy’ is introduced by Botsman ( 2014 ), while Schor and Fitzmaurice ( 2015 ) and Tussyadiah and Pesonen ( 2016 ) focus their definitions on the term ‘peer economy’, also ‘P2P economy’, or ‘economy of equals’.

However, the proliferation of terminology does not end here but has manifested itself with other nearby terms that have declined in frequency, such as ‘on-demand services’ or ‘services on demand’ (Benkler 2004 ), ‘on-demand economy’ (Cockayne 2016 ; Sundararajan 2017 ), ‘gig economy’ (Martin 2016 ), ‘temporary economy’ (Sundararajan 2013 ), ‘platform economy’ (Kenney and Zysman 2016 ), ‘crowdfunding’ (Belleflamme et al. 2014 ) or ‘gift economy’ (Cheal 1988 ). Other focused terms used are ‘microtask’, ‘microwork’, ‘micro-tasking’, or ‘micro-working’ (Sutherland and Jarrahi 2018 ). Besides, recently, the set of activities involving the SE has become generalized in economic terms as ‘lateral exchange markets’ (Perren and Kozinets 2018 ).

All this terminological flowering is a reflection of the SE becoming an umbrella term (Acquier et al. 2017 ; Ryu et al. 2019 ), and being confirmed as the most widespread term (Table 1 ).

3.2 A definitional dilemma

The conceptual history of the SE concept took off after the publication of an American Behavioral Scientist article by Felson and Spaeth ( 1978 ). They define collaborative consumption as “those events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (Felson and Spaeth 1978 : p. 614). Thus, the concept has its main roots in the human ecological theory of community structure and therefore has a strong social perspective. It is not until almost three decades later that Benkler ( 2004 ) takes it up again and redefines this concept, although maintaining the social perspective of it. Hereon, several additional attempts to define, characterize, or describe SE have been made during the last fifteen years. Thus, our systematic literature review allowed us to identify up to a total of 50 unique definitions of SE (see summary in Appendix ). This great diversity of definitions comes from many different perspectives, which also indicates an absence of an agreed definition of what SE represents.

To assess how these definitions have been adopted by academics, the citation count is analyzed. For the case of definitions published in WoS journals, the most relevant definitions are those contained in the works of Belk ( 2014 ), Hamari et al. ( 2016 ), and Bardhi and Eckhardt ( 2012 ). Moreover, the work of Frenken and Schor ( 2017 ), despite being relatively recent, receives a not insignificant number of citations. On the other side, from definitions contained in books, the most cited according to Google Scholar are Botsman and Rogers ( 2010 ), and Lessig ( 2008 ). The dilemma arises because the various definitions are different in nature, so opting for one or other of them implies unbalancing the ‘umbrella’ nature of the SE concept. Then, the concept can become conceptually asymmetrical, and therefore has brought with it the consequent loss of scope. So much so that an outstanding feature of the literature is that many works use the concept of the SE without explicitly defining it. However, while choosing one or the other supposes narrowing the meaning, this could ultimately formulate more specific problems.

It is undeniable that the conceptualizations of social science phenomena must possess a balance between generality, simplicity, and precision (Weick 1979 ). Undoubtedly, certain definitions have been relevant for the theoretical development of the SE by incorporating new routes to its understanding. However, by focusing mainly on particular perspectives, but leaving aside others, these definitions have gained in simplicity but sacrificed precision. Thus, most tend to be unspecific and at the same time too general. What is clear is that the most modern definitions cover more and more views, which brings us closer to a more precise definition, but while these definitions are promising, the SE remains confused and disconnected.

3.3 Perspectives contend: a life-cycle model of the SE

The multifaceted nature of the SE leads us to apply an interpretative synthesis approach (Braun and Clarke 2006 ) to the above set of definitions. Thus, 9 perspectives of the SE are uncovered in an inductive manner (Jones et al. 2011 ). Interpretation is carried out at semantic and latent levels (Boyatzis 1998 ). These nine routes are represented as distinctive characteristics within the definitions (Kenny and Fourie 2015 ) (see Table 2 ).

The perspectives are described as follows.

Economic efficiency : use of underutilized goods and services in the most rational way possible to avoid idle capacities.

Exchange governance : way in which the good or service is accessed (e.g. peer-to-peer) and the transaction is regulated (such as enhancing consumer rights, reducing information asymmetries, reinforcing trust in the other party, and reducing transaction costs).

Technological: an activity that is carried out through the intermediation of a technological platform, such as web 3.0.

Business model : generation of income for the person who cedes the use of the good or service and, therefore, a for-profit modality, unlike other modalities that are free.

Consumer culture : motivation that explains the consumption of a good or service only when it is needed, without this implying access to the property.

Environmental sustainability : more sustainable consumption practices as opposed to purely market-based exchanges, taking advantage of idle capacities and/or facilitating access to the property.

Social orientation : systems of social exchange rather than allocation through markets where there are a non-pecuniary motivation and social purpose.

Value creation : generation of some physical or non-monetary utility for the individual who demands the good or service (such as meeting people, having fun, saving time, consuming on-demand or for convenience and comfort).

Production system : production generation or a different mode of production.

The disruption of new perspectives has generated inflection points along with the concept life. Using an evolutionary framework (Hirsch and Levin 1999 ), and focusing on a semantic level, we develop a particularly distinctive evolution of the SE’s life through four different stages (see Fig.  2 ).

An evolutionary framework of SE perspectives (number of definitions)

The Inception period (1978–2008). The SE appears on the scene from a sociological perspective as a justification for events where people consume goods or services together/in a group (Felson and Spaeth 1978 ). However, despite the inception of the SE as an area of study in the late 1970s, this phenomenon did not attract any attention until almost three decades later, when Benkler ( 2004 ) takes up this idea by reopening the door for this phenomenon. The concept began to evolve, when Belk ( 2007 ) and Lessig ( 2008 ) explicitly highlight the perspective of consumer culture, by enhancing the non-proprietary access to these joint events. Thus, in a first period, although extensive in time, but scarce in terms of the number of contributions, the SE showed a clear and narrow focus on social orientation and consumer culture.

The Transition period (2009–2012). In the late 2000s and amid the global economic crisis, however, the concept of SE began to be investigated more seriously and its transition began. The foundation of companies like Airbnb (August 2008), Uber (March 2009) or the transformation of companies such as Couchsurfing to a for-profit entity (May 2011) brings with it the expansion of the perspectives of the SE, which it extends its range of essential routes to economic efficiency, new business models and the governance of exchanges (Botsman and Rogers 2010 ; Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012 ). Thus, Botsman and Rogers ( 2010 ) highlight how the SE helps to address the underutilization of assets and, therefore, their idle capacity. Bardhi and Eckardt ( 2012 ), stress the non-transfer of ownership, while Lamberton and Rose ( 2012 ) add the rivalry of consumers for limited choice, and Bardhi and Eckhardt ( 2012 ) and Lamberton and Rose ( 2012 ) are the first to introduce aspects related to the transaction itself and the governance of exchanges. Thus, the approaches that appeared in this period represented a promising advance in research on the SE, by suggesting a broader theoretical framework.

The Acceptance Excitement period (2013–2018). After this transition, the SE begins a period of acceptance that results in excitement to investigate this phenomenon from various perspectives and this ultimately leads to this area receiving 21 definitions in just 6 years. This period involves the acceptance of the five perspectives already established in the two previous periods (cf. Aloni 2016 ; Frenken and Schor 2017 ; Perren and Kozinets 2018 ), but also continues to nurture the concept of SE with two new perspectives. To such an extent the multiple perspectives of the concept can be appreciated in the definition provided by Schor and Fitzmaurice ( 2015 ), which includes the most common ones up to that moment, such as consumer culture, governance of exchanges, social orientation, and economic efficiency, in addition to the business model perspective, which is somewhat less common. However, with the arrival of web 3.0. in the early 2010s, the emergence of smartphones, mobile applications, the Internet of things, and big data which it brought with it and the rapid adoption of these by SE businesses (for example, Uber launched its mobile app in late 2011 and Airbnb in late 2012), almost immediately brought the inclusion of technology (digital platforms) as an essential feature of the SE definitions (cf. Hamari et al. 2016 ; Heinrichs 2013 ). Likewise, Tussyadiah and Pesonen ( 2016 ) add for the first time production systems as a new perspective of the SE, which, however, still lacks development. While several perspectives were accentuated during this period, the addition of new ones and the great emergence of definitions resulted in a large but disconnected multifaceted area.

The Maturity Challenge period (2019 to date). Finally, starting in 2019 and once the period of acceptance excitement has ended, a period of maturity challenge begins, where new essential perspectives appear that reflect new analysis trends and that expand the range of the SE, as is the case of environmental sustainability and value creation. Thus, Curtis and Lehner ( 2019 ) introduce in their definition the shared practices that promote sustainable consumption in the face of growing concern about sustainability and environmental impact. On the other hand, Dellaert ( 2019 ) write from the value creation perspective to denote the non-monetary demands that consumers expect to receive when using SE goods or services (e.g., meeting people or having fun). Eckhardt et al. ( 2019 ), without adding any new perspectives, reflect the importance of previous perspectives such as consumer culture and the technological aspect surrounding the SE. The most significant changes in this period are consolidation of SE as business model, the concern for the sustainability, the relevance of the social orientation and the takeoff of the value creations and production system perspectives.

And finally, in this process of challenging the maturity of the concept, Akhmedova et al. ( 2020 ), Curtis and Mont ( 2020 ) and Zmyślony et al. ( 2020 ) propose the broadest and most ambitious definitions that this area has received, incorporating seven out 9 existing perspectives. Despite these theoretical efforts, the field still possesses great complexities, contradictions, and confusion, therefore it is undoubtedly time for a period of maturity challenge, where the SE is delineated, and the doors are opened to more organized research that starts from a strong theoretical framework.

The 9 approaches differ in the number of times they have been used to define the SE, varying from the most common perspectives such as technological, consumer culture, and government of exchanges, occurring in 37, 36, and 36 definitions respectively, to those that have a huge discontinuity, such as value creation, the production system, and environmental sustainability, occurring in 4, 8, and 10 definitions, respectively. The other three perspectives, which are less commonly used, are the business model (29 occurrences), economic efficiency (25 occurrences), and social orientation (21 occurrences). Not a single definition includes more than seven perspectives (cf. Akhmedova et al. 2020 ; Curtis and Mont 2020 or Zmyślony et al. 2020 ), which shows the existence of not complete definitions for the SE.

4 Discussion and conclusions

SE is an umbrella concept, of which 50 different definitions have been identified through a systematic literature review. These have been associated with various root terms (access-based consumption, collaborative economy, commercial sharing systems, sharing economy, collaborative consumption, peer to peer economy, and lateral exchange markets). Considering the fuzziness of the term, the terminology analysis reveals there is a dominant root term, namely, sharing economy , and three followers, specifically collaborative consumption , collaborative economy , and access-based consumption . Thus, it could be argued that there exists a denotative neologism with the term sharing economy , for its use as Jack of all trades. From a linguistic point of view, this use is justified, because it is the term mostly used in media, social networks, and even by the Internet platforms to refer to themselves (e.g., Airbnb calls itself a ‘home-sharing service’). This, in turn, has led to it being the most widely used term in academia (see Table 1 ) when referring to collaborative practices. Thus, one would have to ask whether the term SE is used more for popularity than for precision and consequently if there exist terms that are more accurate but less popular for each specific activity that involves collaborative practices. In this regard, we propose that a term such as collaborative economy is more appropriate when referring to the economic efficiency of the term, access-based consumption better captures the consumer’s perspective, collaborative consumption could be more accurate to refer to the social nature of the concept, lateral market exchanges gathers the technological framework of such exchanges, commercial sharing systems is more precise when referring to the governance of exchanges present in the sharing economy, and peer-to-peer focus more on the open nature of actors.

In a second step, a qualitative interpretative analysis of the definitions has shown the multifaceted nature of the SE, with fragmented insights from different fields. As a result of this analysis, and as a contribution to the literature, an evolutionary life framework of SE approaches through four different stages is proposed. The disclosed approaches are economic efficiency , government of exchanges , technological , business model , consumer culture , environmental sustainability , social orientation , value creation, and production system . The analysis has not been limited to identifying perspectives, but also semantic and latent layers have been stated. The proposed evolutionary life framework shows how these approaches have appeared throughout the academic and professional life of the SE. It explains how in the first incipient period (1978–2008) the SE was born from a sociological point of view, going through a period of transition (2009–2012) with the arrival of the world economic crisis and the emergence of new business models (e.g., Airbnb or Uber), extending its focus in a period of excitement of acceptance (2013–2018) with the arrival of the technological irruption and with the growing research on this phenomenon from various scientific areas, until reaching the current state (2019 to date) of challenge of maturity, a period in which it is necessary to focus on particular concerns of the SE.

The study also reveals the existence of a conceptual dilemma, in which specific positions can contribute to gaining depth in the area of study, but at the cost of sacrificing generality and precision. Therefore, findings evidence the need for a more balanced definition (Weick 1979 ). As a consequence, a new definition of SE is proposed by including a comprehensive view of its nature.

The SE is understood as business, production, and consumption sustainable practices as value creation systems, which are based on temporary use of underutilized assets, for free or for a fee, usually supported by digital platforms and peer communities .

Thus, in response to Acquier’s ( 2017 ) statement that academics will probably never agree on a definition of the SE since it is seen as an umbrella construct and is essentially controversial, this definition indeed encompasses its rich nature. In this way, we intend to contribute to the literature with a definition that can be used by academics regardless of their research position.

Several discussion matters, research gaps, and future research lines emanate from this work. From a conceptual point of view, the SE concept has been evolving over the years, since although it was born with an initial conception based mainly on social orientation, the most outstanding approaches have been as consumer culture, technological, and government of exchanges. Thus, this concept has been expanding its dimensionality, incorporating, in addition to the previous perspectives, an orientation towards the business model, sustainability, and economic efficiency. So much so, that the SE can be considered a vision of the organization of exchanges, alternative production system, and consumption articulated on various interpretations. This in turn suggests a paradigmatic configuration on a set of metaphors or perspectives, which leads to the consideration that the SE can be seen as a paradigm in the economy (Arndt 1985 ). In this sense, it would be desirable to investigate what is the trend of the SE in that square framework formed by the economic, social, sustainable, and technological aspects of the SE. Consequently, it would be relevant to examine towards which direction the SE is oriented, even more so given the crisis currently caused by the COVID-19. In this context, several SE-companies (e.g. Airbnb) have already suffered a strong economic impact (BBC News 2020 ) and the future of SE companies is, therefore, being questioned. In this sense, the debate on policy-making about whether this type of company should be supported and promoted at an institutional level due to its sustainability and social benefits takes on special relevance (Codagnone and Martens 2016 ).

Furthermore, as one of the main contributions of this study is the disclosure of approaches and the identification of the existence of these approaches in each definition both in a semantic and latent way, this research can be a gateway for SE operationalization. In this way, as the SE is a growing area of research, the theoretical contribution of this study opens the doors to academics from a wide range of research areas to new perspectives to guide their research on SE. It is important to build a conceptual framework that explains the development of SE-businesses from the components identified in the literature. Thus, further research derived from this work evidences the need to empirically corroborate and contrast in practice the perspectives proposed in this study, thereby empirically testing a neglected area. Above all, the research needs to focus on specific problems of the SE. e.g., the governance of SE companies, the image these companies have, and the problems and conflicts regarding legal issues. Likewise, since SE businesses are mainly linked to services (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012 ; Hossain 2020 ), it would be relevant to delve more deeply into its applicability and viability in the production of goods.

Finally, from a practical point of view, this article offers individual consumers, service providers, regulatory authorities, companies in traditional sectors and SE companies, a holistic introduction to the essential qualities of collaborative business.

This study is not exempt from some limitations. First, it only uses articles from academic journals indexed in the Web of Science database, leaving out other databases (e.g., Scopus) as well as grey literature. Secondly, as in any review work, the parameters for inclusion and exclusion of articles influence the results. Thirdly, for the identification of perspectives an interpretative qualitative approach was used, therefore as mentioned above it would be of interest to obtain empirical contributions that corroborate the proposals included in this research.

Abrahamson E (2009) Necessary conditions for the study of fads and fashions in science. Scand J Manag 25:235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2009.03.005

Article   Google Scholar  

Acquier A, Daudigeos T, Pinkse J (2017) Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: an organizing framework. Technol Forecast Soc Change 125:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006

Akhmedova A, Mas-Machuca M, Marimon F (2020) Value co-creation in the sharing economy: the role of quality of service provided by peer. J Clean Prod 266:121736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121736

Aloni E (2016) Pluralizing the sharing economy. Wash Law Rev 91:1397

Google Scholar  

Arndt J (1985) On making marketing science more scientific: role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. J Mark 49:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900302

Arvidsson A (2018) Value and virtue in the sharing economy. Sociol Rev 66:289–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758531

Bardhi F, Eckhardt GM (2012) Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J Consum Res 39:881–898. https://doi.org/10.1086/666376

Barnes SJ, Mattsson J (2016) Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: a four-stage Delphi study. Technol Forecast Soc Change 104:200–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.006

BBC News (2020) Air bnb cuts 25% of staff amid travel downturn. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52553001 . Accessed 27 May 2020

Belk R (2007) Why not share rather than own? Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 611:126–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206298483

Belk R (2010) Sharing. J Consum Res 36:715–734. https://doi.org/10.1086/612649

Belk R (2014) You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. J Bus Res 67:1595–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001

Belleflamme P, Lambert T, Schwienbacher A (2014) Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd. J Bus Ventur 29:585–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003

Benkler Y (2004) Sharing nicely: on shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. Yale Law J 114:273

Berg L, Slettemeås D, Kjørstad I, Rosenberg TG (2020) Trust and the don’t-want-to-complain bias in peer-to-peer platform markets. Int J Consum Stud 44:220–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12561

Botsman R (2014) Sharing’s not just for start-ups. Harv Bus Rev 92:23–25

Botsman R, Rogers R (2010) What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Collins, New York

Bouncken R, Ratzmann M, Barwinski R, Kraus S (2020) Coworking spaces: empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing economy. J Bus Res 114:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.033

Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 12:317–334

Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bucher E, Fieseler C, Fleck M, Lutz C (2018) Authenticity and the sharing economy. Acad Manag Discov 4:294–313. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2016.0161

Cheal D (1988) The gift economy. Routledge, London

Clauss T, Harengel P, Hock M (2019) The perception of value of platform-based business models in the sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty. Rev Manag Sci 13:605–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0313-0

Cockayne DG (2016) Sharing and neoliberal discourse: the economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy. Geoforum 77:73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.005

Codagnone C, Biagi F, Abadie F (2016) The passions and the interests: unpacking the ‘sharing economy. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101279/jrc101279.pdf

Codagnone C, Martens B (2016). Scoping the sharing economy: origins, definitions, impact and regulatory issues. Institute for prospective technological studies digital economy working paper

Cohen B, Kietzmann J (2014) Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ Environ 27(3):279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199

Corbin J, Strauss A (2015) Basics of qualitative research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Cropanzano R (2009) Writing nonempirical articles for journal of management: general thoughts and suggestions. J Manag 35:1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344118

Curtis SK, Lehner M (2019) Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability 11:567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030567

Curtis SK, Mont O (2020) Sharing economy business models for sustainability. J Clean Prod 266:121519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519

Dahlander L, Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Res Policy 39:699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013

Davlembayeva D, Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E (2019) Mapping the economics, social and technological attributes of the sharing economy. Inf Technol People 33:841–872. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0085

Dellaert BGC (2019) The consumer production journey: marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy. J Acad Mark Sci 47:238–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0607-4

Deloitte (2016) The rise of the sharing economy impact on the transportation space. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumer-business/us-cb-the-rise-the-sharing-economy.pdf . Accessed 22 March 2020

Eckhardt GM, Houston MB, Jiang B et al (2019) Marketing in the sharing economy. J Mark 83:5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919861929

eMarketer (2019) US sharing economy users, 2017–2022. Retrieved from eMarketer database. https://www.emarketer.com/chart/229768/us-sharing-economy-users-2017-2022-millions . Accessed 16 March 2020

European Commission (2016) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: a European agenda for the collaborative economy. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9911-2016-INIT/en/pdf . Accessed 25 March 2020

European Commission (2017) Exploratory study of consumer issues in peer-to-peer platform markets. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=45245 . Accessed 15 March 2020.

European Commission (2018) Study to monitor the business and regulatory environment affecting the collaborative economy in the EU. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/79bee7ad-6d22-11e8-9483-01aa75ed71a1 . Accessed 14 March 2020

Fahmy H (2020) Is the sharing economy causing a regime switch in consumption? J Appl Econ 23:281–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1750121

Felson M, Spaeth JL (1978) Community structure and collaborative consumption: a routine activity approach. Am Behav Sci 21:614–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427802100411

Fielbaum A, Tirachini A (2020) The sharing economy and the job market: the case of ride-hailing drivers in Chile. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10127-7

Filser M, Tiberius V, Kraus S, Spitzer J, Kailer N, Bouncken RB (2020) Sharing economy: A bibliometric analysis of the state of research. Int J Entreprenurial Ventur. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2020.10031491

Frenken K, Schor J (2017) Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ Innov Soc Transit 23:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003

Gallicano TD (2013) Relationship management with the Millennial generation of public relations agency employees. Public Relat Rev 39:222–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.03.001

Gansky L (2010) The mesh: why the future of business is sharing. Penguin, New York

Gao P, Li J (2020) Understanding sustainable business model: a framework and a case study of the bike-sharing industry. J Clean Prod 267:122229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122229

Gerwe O, Silva R (2020) Clarifying the sharing economy: conceptualization, typology, antecedents, and effects. Acad Manag Perspect 34:65–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0010

Gold L (2004) The sharing economy: solidarity networks transforming globalisation. Ashgate, Aldershot

Govindan K, Shankar KM, Kannan D (2020) Achieving sustainable development goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: a framework development. Int J Prod Econ 227:107575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107575

Guyader H, Piscicelli L (2019) Business model diversification in the sharing economy: the case of gomore. J Clean Prod 215:1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.114

Habibi MR, Davidson A, Laroche M (2017) What managers should know about the sharing economy. Bus Horiz 60:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.007

Hagiu A, Wright J (2019) The status of workers and platforms in the sharing economy. J Econ Manag Strat 28:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12299

Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A (2016) The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67:2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552

Hawlitschek F, Notheisen B, Teubner T (2018) The limits of trust-free systems: a literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electron Commer Res Appl 29:50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005

Hazée S, Zwienenberg TJ, Van Vaerenbergh Y, Faseur T, Vandenberghe A, Keutgens O (2020) Why customers and peer service providers do not participate in collaborative consumption. J Serv Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-11-2018-0357

Heinrichs H (2013) Sharing economy: a potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA 22:228–231

Herbert M, Collin-Lachaud I (2017) Collaborative practices and consumerist habitus: an analysis of the transformative mechanisms of collaborative consumption. Rech Appl Mark 32:40–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570716678736

Hirsch PM, Levin DZ (1999) Umbrella advocates versus validity police: a life-cycle model. Organ Sci 10:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199

Hossain M (2020) Sharing economy: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Hosp Manag 87:102470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102470

Huang SL, Kuo SY (2020) Understanding why people share in the sharing economy. Online Inf Rev 44:805–825. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2017-0073

Jones MV, Coviello N, Tang YK (2011) International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis. J Bus Ventur 26:632–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Kathan W, Matzler K, Veider V (2016) The sharing economy: your business model’s friend or foe? Bus Horiz 59:663–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.06.006

Keathley-Herring H, Van Aken E, Gonzalez-Aleu F et al (2016) Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics 109:927–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2096-x

Kenney M, Zysman J (2016) The rise of the platform economy. Issues Sci Technol 32:61–69

Kenny M, Fourie R (2015) Contrasting classic, straussian, and constructivist grounded theory: methodological and philosophical conflicts. Qual Report 20:1270–1289

Kim B, Kim D (2020) Attracted to or locked in? Explaining consumer loyalty toward Airbnb. Sustainability 12:2814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072814

Kraus S, Li H, Kang Q, Westhead P, Tiberius V (2020) The sharing economy: a bibliometric analysis of the state-of-the-art. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res (ahead-of-print)

Kumar V, Lahiri A, Dogan OB (2018) A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the sharing economy. Ind Mark Manag 69:147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021

Lamberton CP, Rose RL (2012) When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J Mark 76:109–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0368

Laurenti R, Singh J, Cotrim JM et al (2019) Characterizing the sharing economy state of the research: a systematic map. Sustainability 11:5729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205729

Lee SH (2020) New measuring stick on sharing accommodation: guest-perceived benefits and risks. Int J Hosp Manag 87:102471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102471

Lessig L (2008) Remix: making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Penguin Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin CJ (2016) The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol Econ 121:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027

Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106:213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Muñoz P, Cohen B (2017) Mapping out the sharing economy: a configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol Forecast Soc Change 125:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035

Paik Y, Kang S, Seamans R (2019) Entrepreneurship, innovation, and political competition: how the public sector helps the sharing economy create value. Strateg Manag J 40:503–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2937

Perren R, Kozinets RV (2018) Lateral exchange markets: how social platforms operate in a networked economy. J Mark 82:20–36. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0250

Pettigrew AM (2005) The character and significance of management research on the public services. Acad Manag J 48:973–977. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573101

Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Bachrach DG, Podsakoff NP (2005) The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strateg Manag J 26:473–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.454

Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manag Stud 57:351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

Prothero A, Dobscha S, Freund J, Kilbourne WE, Luchs MG, Ozanne LK, Thøgersen J (2011) Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J Public Policy Mark 30:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.30.1.31

Puschmann T, Alt R (2016) Sharing economy. Bus Inf Syst Eng 58:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0420-2

Ritter M, Schanz H (2019) The sharing economy: a comprehensive business model framework. J Clean Prod 213:320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.154

Ryu H, Basu M, Saito O (2019) What and how are we sharing? a systematic review of the sharing paradigm and practices. Sustain Sci 14:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0638-2

Sanasi S, Ghezzi A, Cavallo A, Rangone A (2020) Making sense of the sharing economy: a business model innovation perspective. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 32:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1719058

Schor J, Fitzmaurice C (2015) Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: Reisch L, Thogersen J (eds) Handbook of research on sustainable consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 410–425

Shaheen SA, Chan ND, Gaynor T (2016) Casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area: understanding user characteristics, behaviors, and motivations. Transp Policy 51:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.003

Smorto G (2018) Protecting the weaker parties in the platform economy. In: Davidson NM, Finck M, Infranca J (eds) The Cambridge handbook of the law of the sharing economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 431–446

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Starbuck WH (2009) Cognitive reactions to rare events: perceptions, uncertainty, and learning. Organ Sci 20:925–937. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0440

Stephany A (2015) The business of sharing: making it in the new sharing economy. Springer, Berlin

Sundararajan A (2013) From zipcar to the sharing economy. Harvard business review, 1. https://hbr.org/2013/01/from-zipcar-to-the-sharing-eco . Accessed 12 April 2020

Sundararajan A (2017) The sharing economy: the end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press, Cambridge

Sutherland W, Jarrahi MH (2018) The sharing economy and digital platforms: a review and research agenda. Int J Inf Manage 43:328–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004

Sweeney A, Clarke N, Higgs M (2019) Shared leadership in commercial organizations: a systematic review of definitions, theoretical frameworks and organizational outcomes. Int J Manag Rev 21:115–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12181

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management Knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tussyadiah IP, Pesonen J (2016) Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. J Travel Res 55:1022–1040. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515608505

U.S. department of the treasure (2019) The sharing economy and impact on the tax gap. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/prompt-payment/July-December2019FR.pdf . Accessed 15 March 2020

Vogel R, Güttel WH (2012) The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. Int J Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000

Wang X, Wang W, Chai Y, Wang Y, Zhang N (2019) E-book adoption behaviors through an online sharing platform: a multi-relational network perspective. Inf Technol People 33:1011–1035. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2018-0482

Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing. McGraw Hill, New York

Wu J, Si S, Yan H (2020) Reducing poverty through the shared economy: creating inclusive entrepreneurship around institutional voids in China. Asian Bus Manag. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00113-3

Yu C, Xu X, Yu S, Sang Z, Yang C, Jiang X (2020) Shared manufacturing in the sharing economy: concept, definition and service operations. Comput Ind Eng 146:106602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106602

Zervas G, Proserpio D, Byers JW (2017) The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of airbnb on the hotel industry. J Mark Res 54:687–705. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0204

Zmyślony P, Leszczyński G, Waligóra A, Alejziak W (2020) The sharing economy and sustainability of Urban destinations in the (over) tourism context: the social capital theory perspective. Sustainability 12:2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062310

Zvolska L, Voytenko-Palgan Y, Mont O (2019) How do sharing organisations create and disrupt institutions? Towards a framework for institutional work in the sharing economy. J Clean Prod 219:667–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.057

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Business, CIMEDES Research Center, University of Almeria, Carretera de Sacramento, s/n, 04120, Almeria, Spain

Manuel Sánchez-Pérez, Nuria Rueda-López, María Belén Marín-Carrillo & Eduardo Terán-Yépez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Sánchez-Pérez .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sánchez-Pérez, M., Rueda-López, N., Marín-Carrillo, M.B. et al. Theoretical dilemmas, conceptual review and perspectives disclosure of the sharing economy: a qualitative analysis. Rev Manag Sci 15 , 1849–1883 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00418-9

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2020

Accepted : 21 October 2020

Published : 26 October 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00418-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sharing economy
• Systematic literature review
• Qualitative interpretative analysis
• Theory development
• Umbrella concept

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(10); 2021 Oct

A decade of systematic literature review on Airbnb: the sharing economy from a multiple stakeholder perspective

Associated data.

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Airbnb, which launched its business in 2009, has experienced explosive growth by creating value through the sharing economy business model. The Airbnb business model helps property owners exploit underutilized assets. However, along with its rapid growth, controversies have arisen among many stakeholders, especially the traditional hotel industry, communities, and policymakers. This study reviews academic articles to pinpoint the factors involved in the relationships among Airbnb and its multiple stakeholders. The aim is to identify the benefits, drawbacks, and issues surrounding Airbnb. The analysis is based on the perspectives of six Airbnb stakeholders: guests, hosts, employees, communities, competitors, and policymakers. A variety of scholarly journals indexed in the Scopus database were reviewed, with 282 included in the final analysis. The analysis will be useful for academics, practitioners, and policymakers alike, as it summarizes the Airbnb relevant actors, identifies key factors that influence stakeholder behavior, and assesses the power and level of influence of each stakeholder. Ultimately, the study points to potential directions for future research on Airbnb.

Airbnb; literature review; stakeholder; guest; host; employee; community; competitor; policymaker.

1. Introduction

Within a few years of its inception in 2009, Airbnb had become one of the most successful sharing economy platforms. Roelofsen and Minca (2018) report that as of 2017, Airbnb had attracted 100 million hosts and guests worldwide, earning $100 million that year. The company has developed its business model based on a compelling value proposition. It integrates economic benefits for travelers and residents of tourist areas via a trusted marketplace that enables the platform to scale up and leverage its assets through network utilization ( Cheng and Foley, 2018 ; Leoni, 2020 ; Oskam and Boswijk, 2016 ).

Airbnb offers many benefits to its stakeholders. For customers, Airbnb accommodation is typically cheaper than traditional accommodation like a hotel ( Guttentag, 2015 ; Gyódi, 2019 ; Varma et al., 2016 ). In addition, Airbnb offers local authenticity ( Bucher et al., 2018 ), giving customers the opportunity to live like locals in a listed apartment, house, or private room ( Gurran and Phibbs, 2017 ; Lin et al., 2019 ; Paulauskaite et al., 2017 ). For property owners, Airbnb enables them to maximize the utilization of their underutilized assets ( Ferreri and Sanyal, 2018 ; Oskam and Boswijk, 2016 ). For other stakeholders, such as the community, Airbnb increases community economic and business opportunities ( Gurran and Phibbs, 2017 ; Petruzzi et al., 2020 ).

Despite the advantages that Airbnb offers, some have been on the receiving end of the negative externalities that Airbnb's growth has brought about. For example, one hotel in Texas experienced a revenue loss for every increase in Airbnb property listings ( Dogru et al., 2019 ; Varma et al., 2016 ; Zervas et al., 2017 ). Tourist sites have also been subjected to negative externalities based on the increased concentration of tourists in particular spots, which invites environmental problems such as water scarcity, waste management, and carbon emission issues ( Cheng et al., 2020a , Cheng et al., 2020 ; Martín et al., 2018 ). The problems created by Airbnb as a shared economy accommodation have also generated challenges for the government as a regulator because Airbnb's disruption of the accommodation industry has changed the tourism landscape, creating taxation problems and discrimination problems, among others ( Guttentag, 2015 ; Interian, 2016 ; Ključnikov et al., 2018 ). Many conceptual and empirical studies have discussed these issues from the stakeholders' perspective that include the guests ( Pinottti and Moretti, 2018 ; Sthapit and Björk, 2019 ), hosts ( Ert et al., 2016 ), competitors ( Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016 ; Ginindza and Tichaawa, 2019 ; Horodnic et al., 2016 ), communities ( Midgett et al., 2017 ; Roelofsen and Minca, 2018 ), and the government ( Ključnikov et al., 2018 ; Schäfer and Braun, 2016 ).

To date, there are several literature reviews that discuss peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation in general ( Belarmino and Koh, 2020 ; Dolnicar, 2019 , 2020 ; Prayag and Ozanne, 2018 ; Sainaghi, 2020 ) and four literature reviews that address Airbnb specifically ( Dann et al., 2019 ; Guttentag, 2019 ; Medina-Hernandez et al., 2020 ; Ozdemir and Turker, 2019 ).

Our study uses a literature review approach as well. However, unlike the study of Dann et al. (2019) —which discusses the motives of hosts and guests, the role of trust and reputation, price calculation, and legal aspects—our study is based on stakeholder theory. We structure our study around this theory as it brings an ethical aspect to management decision making ( Goodpaster, 1991 ). The ethical issue is relevant as ethics is a theme that remains underexplored in the research related to the sharing economy ( Andreu et al., 2020 ).

Based on stakeholder theory, as suggested by Reed et al. (2009) , our study is framed around three questions: (1) who are the stakeholders of Airbnb? (2) what are their interests/concerns? and (3) how much power and influence does each stakeholder have? We expect our results to generate knowledge about the relevant Airbnb actors and to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Airbnb phenomenon, identifying key factors that influence the behavior of its stakeholders, assessing the influence and level of impact of each stakeholder, and exploring the research based on the perspective of Airbnb. As a business entity, Airbnb can use the information to improve stakeholder decision making that incorporates ethical considerations. Further, the study can offer insights to government when considering the feasibility of future policy directions.

2. Literature review

2.1. the sharing economy of airbnb.

The sharing economy is sometimes called the “collaborative economy” ( Calo and Rosenblat, 2017 ). The term refers to online network-based activities that provide temporary access to a good to facilitate more efficient use of physical assets. It depends on trust and the capability of operating at a near-zero marginal cost ( Frenken et al., 2015 ; Hawlitschek et al., 2018 ; Ranjbari et al., 2018 ; Uzunca and Borlenghi, 2019 ). Gerwe and Silva (2020) generalize the definition of the sharing economy to be a socioeconomic system that allows peers to grant temporary access to underutilized physical and human assets via an online platform. This socioeconomic system definition captures that the sharing economy can cover both fee-based and non-fee-based transactions ( Gerwe and Silva, 2020 ). The sharing economy offers both advantages and disadvantages to its stakeholders. As a platform, it provides greater flexibility, fair compensation, match-making, an extended reach, trust building, and collectivity in the sharing and collaborative exchange among actors ( Hawlitschek et al., 2018 ; Sutherland and Jarrahi, 2018 ). Some scholars also see the sharing economy as a wealth redistribution method ( Rifkin, 2014 ) with some benefits for society. Despite being acknowledged as an innovation that decentralizes and disrupts the existing socio-technical and economic regimes, the sharing economy may be accused of being a "neoliberal system on steroids" as well ( Martin, 2016 ; Murillo et al., 2017 ).

In the hospitality industry, Servas International pioneered the concept of the sharing economy in 1994, followed by CouchSurfing in 2003, and Airbnb in August 2008 ( Gerwe and Silva, 2020 ; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017 ). Couchsurfing represents a non-fee-based transaction, while Airbnb represents a fee-based transaction in the sharing economy ( Gerwe and Silva, 2020 ). However, among these three shared accommodation platforms, Airbnb has been the most successful, as it offers a more distinctive service quality and a more local experience than traditional accommodations do ( Mody et al., 2017 ; Varma et al., 2016 ).

Since its inception more than a decade ago, Airbnb has experienced explosive growth. As of April 2019, Airbnb was available in more than 1,000 cities across the world and was expected to have served more than 500 million guests ( Airbnb, 2019a ). Airbnb has also gained public trust, reflected in the 250 million reviews it has received from both guests and hosts as of 2019 ( Airbnb, 2019a ). In 2018, Airbnb had a market valuation of nearly $31 billion, $2.6 billion in profit, and $93 million in revenue ( Bloomberg, 2019 ).

2.2. Stakeholder analysis

Donaldson and Preston (1995 , p. 67) define stakeholders as “persons or groups with legitimate interests in procedural and substantive aspects of corporate activity. Stakeholders are recognized by their interests in the corporation, whether the corporation has any related functional interest in them.” According to these authors, a group is qualified as a stakeholder if it has a legitimate interest in an aspect of the organization's activities. Such groups can consist of customers, employees, investors, suppliers, communities, governments, trade associations, and political groups. Thus, stakeholders are those who have the power to affect organizational performance and/or have a stake in the organization's performance ( Reed et al., 2009 ). Without the support of stakeholders, a company could not exist.

Stakeholder theory addresses business ethics, morals, and values when managing stakeholders involved with a project or organization ( Freeman et al., 2004 ). The theory is beneficial for any platform-based business in managing synergies and cooperation among its stakeholders to capture value and maintain business sustainability ( Laczko et al., 2019 ). However, it is worth noting that given the different stakeholder interests in a business, it is inescapable that conflicts will arise among them ( Harrison and Wicks, 2013 ). By analyzing how each stakeholder is positively and/or negatively impacted by the organization, the organization can gain alignment among all stakeholder goals and address conflicts early on to create better value for the range of its constituents ( Freeman et al., 2012 ).

2.3. Literature review on Airbnb

A literature review is a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of existing relevant academic and non-academic literature on the topic under review, conducted as objectively as possible ( Cronin et al., 2008 ; Linde and Willich, 2003 ; Rowley and Slack, 2004 ). Scholars conduct literature reviews to encapsulate the research, critically assess the contributions, and clarify any alternative views in the studies ( Rowe, 2014 ).

In the context of Airbnb, there are four review articles that discuss the platform specifically ( Dann et al., 2019 ; Guttentag, 2019 ; Medina-Hernandez et al., 2020 ; Ozdemir and Turker, 2019 ). The review by Dann et al. (2019) , discusses the motives of both hosts and guests, the role of trust and reputation, Airbnb price calculations, the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry and housing market, and legal and regulatory aspects surrounding Airbnb. The review by Ozdemir and Turker (2019) discusses Airbnb from the perspectives of academics and journalists. Their article discusses legal, social, and economic issues, as well as public relations and publicity, benefits, impacts on destinations, hotel competition, the nature of the sharing economy, technology, consumer behavior, sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), safety and security, growth, politics, and insurance. The intention of the review by Medina-Hernandez et al. (2020) on Airbnb is to illustrate the scarcity of research on P2P accommodation platforms other than Airbnb. Our literature review of Airbnb differs from the four previous reviews through our application of stakeholder theory to our analysis of the Airbnb phenomenon and its embedded ethical perspective. As discussed earlier, the sharing economy, including Airbnb, offers both benefits and drawbacks to its stakeholder since its been successfully reframed by regime actors as an economic opportunity ( Martin, 2016 ). Therefore, stakeholder theory, which introduces ethical issues into management decision making ( Goodpaster, 1991 ), is useful in evaluating whether ethically, Airbnb has been treating its stakeholders interests as equally important and deserving of joint “maximization.”

3. Research method

A systematic literature review identifies, evaluates, and interprets all the existing research relevant to a particular research question, topic area, or phenomenon of interest ( Kitchenham, 2004 ). It is important to note that systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews, which are usually conducted with no protocol, no search strategy, and no well-defined methods ( Knoll et al., 2018 ). Our study uses a systematic review with an a priori protocol and a well-defined search strategy and research method. The benefit of a systematic literature review is that it summarizes existing research, identifies the conceptual content, and contributes to theory development ( Zhu and Sarkis, 2016 ).

3.1. Initial search

We used the Scopus database to ensure comprehensive coverage of the social scientific journals. We chose Scopus as this database outperforms others, such as Web of Science, in terms of journal coverage and the number of documents retrieved, especially in the field of social science ( Aksnes and Sivertsen, 2019 ). The time window for the article search was from January 1, 2009 until July 8, 2020.

The keywords used for data collection were “Airbnb,” “customer,” “consumer,” “guest,” “host,” “employee,” “community,” “hotel,” “competitor,” “community,” “city,” “government,” “policy maker,” AND “regulator.” We used several combinations of these keywords, including (1) Airbnb AND stakeholder, (2) Airbnb AND customer, (3) Airbnb AND consumer, (4) Airbnb AND guest, (5) Airbnb AND host, (6) Airbnb AND employee, (7) Airbnb AND hotel, (8) Airbnb AND competitor, (9) Airbnb AND community, (10) Airbnb AND city, (11) Airbnb AND government, (12) Airbnb AND policy maker, and (13) Airbnb AND regulator. The initial search resulted in a total of 1418 papers (see Table 1 ).

Table 1

Initial search results.

3.2. Filtering

As many papers appeared in more than one category, eliminating these duplications left us with 944 documents. Among these, were journal articles (633), conference papers (203), book chapters (31), reviews (28), notes (11), letters (10), conference reviews (9), books (7), short surveys (6), editorials (2), errata (2), and undefined (2). All the non-article papers were excluded, resulted in 633 papers. We only included journal articles, since these have a greater credibility than other content due to the peer review process. The peer review process for journal articles submitted by scholars, means that they are evaluated by experts in the field before publication ( The Open University, 2020 ). We limited the papers to peer-reviewed journal articles only, leaving us with 630 papers. The results were then further limited to English language articles only, resulting in 610 documents. Finally, we screened for papers that specifically discussed Airbnb's stakeholders in depth, which generated 347 documents. The articles that did not discuss Airbnb relationships with stakeholders or discussed Airbnb in different contexts were eliminated; for example, the macroeconomic environment of Airbnb ( Heo and Blengini, 2019 ). To reduce the potential bias that comes from a single researcher doing all data collection, and to enhance the quality and credibility of the study, we applied analyst triangulation ( Patton, 1999 ), involving four researchers in every stage of the literature review process and analysis.

Each article identified in the literature search was given an initial classification according to the type of stakeholder mentioned in the text (e.g., host, guest, competitor). Later, each article was read in detail for further verification and a more specific classification of themes/categories within each stakeholder discourse. After we read through the abstracts and content of the articles, we had a final sample of 282 articles.

Our systematic literature review method is shown in Figure 1 .

Literature review process.

4. Analysis

4.1. general features of the literature.

Since Airbnb was established just over 10 years ago in 2009, a lag in peer-reviewed journal publications is understandable. It takes time for scholars to conduct research, analyze data, and write and submit articles. In addition, the publication process in a peer-reviewed journal can take 18 months in the fields of business and economics ( Björk and Solomon, 2013 ). Thus, it is reasonable that articles on topics related to Airbnb and its stakeholders published in Scopus have appeared only since 2015 (see Figure 1 ). Indeed, there has been consistent growth in publications related to Airbnb in peer-reviewed journals over the last four years (2017–2020). The highest number of articles on Airbnb was in 2019 (108 articles).

Based on the subject, two main fields dominated the content: the business, management, accounting subject area (37.7%) and the social sciences subject area (28%). The results indicate that the research on Airbnb—as represented by the Scopus database—focuses generally on the business and social aspects of Airbnb as part of the sharing economy accommodation (see Figure 3 ).

Number of academic publications on Airbnb by discipline.

4.2. Who are the Airbnb stakeholders?

Based on its official website, Airbnb considers hosts, guests, employees, and communities as its main stakeholders ( Airbnb, 2019a , Airbnb, 2019b ) (see Table 2 ). However, other sources also consider hotels, other platforms similar to Airbnb, and government or regulators as parties influenced by the existence of Airbnb ( Cheng and Foley, 2018 ). The search results confirm these results. Based. our review, most articles on Airbnb published in peer-reviewed journals discuss guests or customers of Airbnb (93 articles; 32%), followed by hosts (88 articles; 30%), communities (56 articles; 19%), competitors (32 articles; 11%), government (24 articles; 8%), and employees (0 articles; 0%). We reviewed a total of 288 articles, but 26 discuss more than one stakeholder; for example, Forgacs and Dimanche (2016) discuss three stakeholders: hosts, the government, and communities. We also found a common overlap between community and competitor stakeholder groups. Thus, according to the stakeholder category, we reviewed a total of 293 articles (see Figure 2 ).

Table 2

Number of articles published on Airbnb by stakeholders.

Number of academic articles on Airbnb by year.

The following section discusses Airbnb from the perspective of these stakeholders: (1) hosts, (2) guests, (3) employees, (4) communities, (5) competitors, such as traditional hotels and other platforms similar to Airbnb, and (6) government/regulators.

4.3. What are the Airbnb stakeholders’ interests/concerns?

4.3.1. hosts.

Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) suggest that hosts play an important role as the primary social contact starting from the familiarization pre-stay stage and, most importantly, to aid in value co-creation. We found that studies on Airbnb hosts cover a relatively broad sub-topic. Table 3 indicates the general categories of papers identified in the literature search. Out of 282 articles, 88 are related to hosts. We classified the host literature into 11 themes (see Table 3 ).

• a. Decision to take guests

Table 3

Variables related to Airbnb and host relationships.

The second theme relates to the host's decision to take guests. The study by Karlsson et al. (2017) carries out a choice experiment with 192 Airbnb hosts in Australia. They find that hosts prefer to grant permission to guests who provide profile pictures, have a positive self-reference, are older in age, female, are couples or who are portrayed alone in the picture. In addition to a guest profile, the host's preference is also affected by trip characteristics, such as length of booking (hosts prefer longer booking), the purpose of the trip (e.g., having a holiday is preferred to celebrating one's birthday).

• b. Host status and reviews

The third theme is about host status and reviews. Host status and reputation (e.g., superhost status, rating score, number of reviews, review sentiments, etc.) also affect many dependent variables such as revenue, price, likelihood to rent, and property owner's profit ( Benítez-Aurioles, 2018a ; Cai et al., 2019 ; Ert and Fleischer, 2019 ; Lawani et al., 2019 ; Wang and Nicolau, 2017 ).

Superhosts are hosts who have 10 completed visits from at least 80% of their guests, a response rate of at least 90% to booking inquiries, and a low cancellation rate in the last 12 months ( Gunter, 2018 ). Benítez-Aurioles (2018a) and Liang et al. (2019) find that a superhost badge has a positive relationship with rent prices listed in Airbnb, indicating that hosts with superhost status can command higher rents from their guests. Besides affecting price and revenue, host status also influences other variables, such as review volume, rating, and popularity (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Mauri et al., 2018 ). Host status depends on ratings. Notably, the tendency of guests to give positive ratings to Airbnb hosts is influenced by a culture of politeness, trust between host and guest, review and rating reciprocity, lack of anonymity, and the removal of reviews that violate Airbnb's guidelines ( Bridges and Vásquez, 2018 ).

Based on a data set of more than 40,000 Airbnb listings from San Francisco and the Bay Area aggregated for the period between September 2014 and August 2016, Gunter (2018) reports the ranking of four criteria needed to be a superhost: an excellent rating, reliable cancellation behavior, responsiveness, and sufficient Airbnb demand. This corroborates the findings of Leoni and Parker (2019) , who suggest that Airbnb uses ratings (in addition to reviews) as a measure of platform performance and platform owner profit, which, at the same time, serves as a control mechanism to align host and platform objectives. However, the impact of host status on listing price is not always consistent; while the average rating score and duration of membership significantly influence the listing price, the impact of superhost status and identification verification on price is not consistent ( Wang and Nicolau, 2017 ).

• c. How hosts market listings

The fourth theme revolves around how hosts market their listings. The literature offers insights about the way hosts market their listings on Airbnb using their profiles and listing descriptions ( Fierro and Aranburu, 2018 ; Han et al., 2019 ; Lutz and Newlands, 2018 ; Nieto García et al., 2019 ; Törnberg and Chiappini, 2020 ; Tussyadiah and Park, 2018 ; Zarifis et al., 2019 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). The literature reveals that hosts are encouraged to use social words in their listing descriptions to achieve higher revenue ( Han et al., 2019 ; Nieto García et al., 2019 ). Specifically, hosts are advised to adjust their language style to reflect the market segment they wish to target ( Lutz and Newlands, 2018 ). This approach is expected to have a positive effect on trust ( Zarifis et al., 2019 ) and the number of reviews ( Fierro and Aranburu, 2018 ). Similarly, the way in which hosts describe themselves in their profiles can affect guests’ reactions to their profiles ( Tussyadiah and Park, 2018 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). Hosts are reminded that Airbnb erases the boundaries between private and economic spheres, compelling disclosure of personal and sometimes intimate information about themselves ( Teubner and Flath, 2019 ).

• d. Host motivations

The fifth central theme in the literature is about the motivation to become an Airbnb host. This involves the following benefits: for example, economic, social, cultural, and technical advantages, complemented by some macro-level factors such as tourism demand, wages, and unemployment (e.g., Dolnicar and Talebi, 2020 ; Farmaki and Stergiou, 2019 ; Gerwe et al., 2020 ; Gupta et al., 2019 ; Malazizi et al., 2018 ; Semi and Tonetta, 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2019a ).

• e. Host–guest interactions

The dynamics of host–guest interactions that help co-create or co-destroy value is the sixth theme in the literature. For instance, an Airbnb host's local knowledge, tips, social experience, and interactions can add value for guests ( Belarmino et al., 2019 ; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017a ; Zervas et al., 2017 ). In addition, host behaviors and social interactions with guests (e.g., helpfulness, responsiveness, and communication friendliness and social interactions, efforts to accommodate guests' needs, leaving gifts, etc.) can contribute to value co-creation and promote trust ( Casais et al., 2020 ; Farmaki et al., 2020 ; Farmaki and Kaniadakis, 2020 ; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017 ; Scerri and Presbury, 2020 ; Sthapit and Jiménez-Barreto, 2018 ; Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017 ). However, it is important to note that for the customers, social interaction is only a secondary factor to basic functionality ( Chen and Xie, 2017 ). By contrast, undesirable behaviors, unresponsive communication, and discrimination practices, and differences in customs and expectations between hosts–guests of different cultures can contribute to value co-destruction, for example, tension creation ( Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017a ; Cheng and Zhang, 2019 ; Farmaki et al., 2020 ; Farmaki and Kladou, 2020 ; Huurne et al., 2020 ; Sthapit, 2019 ; Sthapit and Björk, 2019 ).

• f. Host–platform and host–community relationships

The seventh and eighth themes revolve around host relationships with the Airbnb platform and the relationship between fellow hosts in the Airbnb host community. One of the characteristics of the sharing economy platform is the use of the platform infrastructure and policies, such as algorithmic controls ( Cheng and Foley, 2019 ), which can affect hosts’ trust ( Wang et al., 2020 ) and organizational citizenship behavior toward Airbnb ( Lee et al., 2019a , Lee et al., 2019b ). To cope with the tight platform controls and the expectations of wanting to attain high status, positive reviews, and reputation, the hosts make use of the Airbnb online host community for risk mitigation ( Ravenelle, 2020 ). The host community can help them learn how to become a better host from other experienced hosts ( Cheng et al., 2020b ; Holikatti et al., 2019 ).

• g. Host perceptions

The variety of host perceptions related to Airbnb is the ninth theme. These studies discuss the perceptions of hosts toward guests with disabilities ( Randle and Dolnicar, 2019 ), the host's moral responsibilities ( Farmaki et al., 2019 ), perceptions of the Airbnb environmental certification program ( Fudurich and MacKay, 2020 ), and the perceived differences between Airbnb and Couchsurfing ( Klein et al., 2017 ).

• h. Host demographics

The tenth theme relates to host demographics, for example, gender. Fagerstrøm et al. (2018) find that a male host's smiling expression can be regarded as more favorable than a female host's smiling expression, while anger or a neutral facial expression displayed by a male host might invoke a stronger negative influence than the same by a female.

• i. Host's pricing and performance

The final theme identified in the literature is host pricing and the performance of listings. The literature suggests several variables affect the pricing and performance of an Airbnb listing, such as its physical characteristics and amenities, the host's characteristics, the host's reputation, its location and distance from points of interest, its ratings and the number of reviews, market demand, situation, price positioning, dynamic pricing, and the number of listings managed by the host ( Gibbs et al., 2018a , 2018b ; Kwok and Xie, 2019 ; Lawani et al., 2019 ; Lorde et al., 2019 ; Magno et al., 2018 ; Moreno-Izquierdo et al., 2019 ; Önder et al., 2019 ; Oskam et al., 2018 ; Proserpio et al., 2018 ; Ram and Hall, 2018 ; Tang et al., 2019 ; Voltes-Dorta and Inchausti-Sintes, 2020 ; Wang and Nicolau, 2017 ; Xie and Mao, 2019 ; Xie et al., 2020 ; Yao et al., 2019 ; Zekan et al., 2018 ; Zhang et al., 2017 ).

4.3.2. Guests

Based on the literature review, the factors that influence guests’ intention, repurchase intention, satisfaction, and loyalty are as follows.

• a. Purchase intention

Several researchers investigate the predictors of the intention to use Airbnb services. These studies find that customers' purchase intention for sharing accommodation services, such as Airbnb, is significantly influenced by trust ( Pung et al., 2019 ; Ye et al., 2019 ). Consumers consider Airbnb a service with a sense of human contact, personalness, sociability, human warmth, and human sensitivity through its P2P platform. This affects customers' perception of its usefulness, ease of use, and its ability to offer social connectedness to local residents, which, in the end, creates high trust in Airbnb ( Ye et al., 2019 ). From the negative perspective, distrust and insecurity influence a customer's intention to use Airbnb as well ( So et al., 2018 ).

Pappas (2017) conducts research that configures the relationships among several variables: trust, benefits, social risk, and economic aspects. His study shows that despite the riskiness of online transactions, consumers still feel that the benefits of Airbnb outweigh the risks. Therefore, they have sufficient purchase intention. By contrast, Amaro et al. (2018) find that perceived risk does not influence Millennials' intentions to book on Airbnb; instead, subjective norms, desires for unique accommodation, attitudes, and economic benefits significantly affect Millennials’ intentions ( Amaro et al., 2018 ). Similarly, in China and India, the antecedents of intention, as described in the Theory of Planned Behavior, all significantly influence customer intention to book on Airbnb ( Ma et al., 2020 ) ( Chatterjee et al., 2019 ).

In addition, Pappas (2017) finds a configuration between social and economic aspects. His study reports that the concept of monetary value is essential for tourists, especially during an economic recession. Airbnb, in this context, can provide affordable solutions for consumers. However, consumers are willing to pay a premium price for an Airbnb if they perceive that the interaction among customers and the host is highly functional, emotional, and offers social value ( Zhang et al., 2018 ).

Mody et al. (2017) find that the experience's memorability directly influences customers' behavioral intention to use Airbnb. The memorability of the experience is generated from an extraordinary outcome consisting of meaningfulness (e.g., a renewed sense of self) and well-being (e.g., enhanced quality of life). The memorability of the experience is the product of the experience economy, which consists of entertainment, escapism, education, aesthetics, serendipity, localness, community, and personalization ( Mody et al., 2017 ). It is important to note that poor accommodations and service or hosts' unpleasant behaviors create a negative memorable experience for the Airbnb guest ( Sthapit et al., 2020 ).

Another factor influencing customers to use Airbnb are its ratings. Although rating volume has an insignificant impact on perceived value, it significantly affects purchase intention ( Chen and Chang, 2018 ). In addition, information quality has a positive and significant impact on satisfaction, thereby affecting purchase intention ( Chen and Chang, 2018 ). Another study shows that hedonic motivation, price value, and habit have positive effects on behavioral intention ( Lin et al., 2017 ). One study supporting these results shows the significant impact of pricing sensitivity on perceived value and purchase ( Liang et al., 2018 ). Purchase intention is also influenced by perceived risk, perceived authenticity, and electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) ( Liang et al., 2018 ). The level of guest involvement ( Lee and Kim, 2018 ), Airbnb's reputation, guests' unique experience, and guests' attachment also influence intention to stay in an Airbnb ( Tiamiyu et al., 2020 ).

Other factors mentioned that may drive purchase intention are advertising appeal, the individual's sense of power, and self-brand connection ( Liu and Mattila, 2017 ). However, it is important to note that factors that motivate customers to use an Airbnb differ from those that demotivate them to use it. A study by Tran and Filimonau (2020) in Vietnam identifies economic value, functional attributes, and location as affecting purchase intentions, while the lack of safety and unfamiliarity are the demotivators of Airbnb purchase intention.

In the sharing economy, the service users and the service providers form a two-sided market around the platform. Sung et al. (2018) conclude that the consumer model and provider model should be structured separately to gain a better understanding of the business. For consumers, enjoyment and the network effect influence consumer attitude and intention to become Airbnb guests. For providers, economic benefit, sustainability, social relationships, and the network effect influence their attitudes and intention to become Airbnb hosts. The network effect is the only factor that shows significance in both the consumer and the provider models.

• b. Repurchase intention

Liang et al. (2018) state that repurchase intention is influenced by trust in the company (Airbnb), trust in the hosts, and transaction-based satisfaction. Another study concludes that for Airbnb consumers, intention to repurchase is influenced significantly by attitudes and subjective norms, whereas perceived behavioral control is not ( Mao and Lyu, 2017 ). Perceived value and risk have significant direct impacts on attitude and, in turn, indirectly affect repurchase intention. Furthermore, Mao and Lyu's (2017) research finds that unique experience expectations, familiarity, and e-WOM influence repurchase intention. A study conducted in the US shows that customer experience comprises four dimensions of home benefits, personalized services, authenticity, and social connection, are significant predictors for Airbnb users' behavioral intention ( Li et al., 2019 ). A study by Liang et al. (2020) reveals how guests' booking behavior is influenced by host-generated content associated with the amount of information and topics.

Wang and Jeong (2018) also conclude that attitudes and satisfaction are both significant predictors of Airbnb customers' intention to choose Airbnb again. Amenities and host-guest relationships are substantial predictors of guest satisfaction, while perceived usefulness and trust positively affect Airbnb's customer attitudes.

Customer satisfaction is the last predictor of customer's repurchase intention mentioned ( Birinci et al., 2018 ). Customer satisfaction itself is significantly influenced by perceived authenticity and safety/security risk factors. In other words, Airbnb customers feel satisfied if they experience ways to live and interact with the local community. In addition, customers feel satisfied with Airbnb based on their transactions and the personal information provided ( Birinci et al., 2018 ).

• c. Satisfaction

Concerning satisfaction, the two-factor theory can be applied to explain the Airbnb phenomenon. The facilities of Airbnb are considered a hygiene factor, while the home experience and host attitude are the other motivating factor for tourist satisfaction ( Xu et al., 2019a , Xu et al., 2019b ).

Several studies find that consumer satisfaction is also significantly influenced by Airbnb service ( Ju et al., 2019 ; Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017 ), facilities (e.g., indoor environmental quality) ( Villeneuve and O'Brien, 2020 ), location, feeling welcome ( Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017 ), user characteristics ( Moro et al., 2019 ), perceived value ( Jiang et al., 2019 ), and face-to-face interaction between guests and host ( Moon et al., 2019a ).

A study by Zhu et al. (2019) shows that host verification information, communication, renting policy, information about the environment, space offered, price, and experience influence guest satisfaction. Although the host and guest interaction may generate satisfaction, in some situations it may increase the likelihood of complaints as well ( Lu et al., 2020 ). Finally, ratings on experiences, location, and products/services significantly influence the customers' overall satisfaction ( Luo and Tang, 2019 ).

Loyalty, or the continuous consumption behavior of using a sharing accommodation, such as Airbnb, is influenced by several factors. According to Huarng and Yu (2019) , customer loyalty is directly influenced by customer satisfaction, while customer satisfaction is influenced by network platform service quality, lodging service quality, and experience. Their results are consistent with ( Priporas et al., 2017b ). Interestingly, a study by Huang et al. (2020) demonstrates that the host's service and the perceived value that could drive satisfaction can also cause discontinuance.

As for loyalty and service quality, customers who use P2P platforms like Airbnb feel that the emotional perception they gain from these platforms is the most substantial contributor to loyalty ( Clauss et al., 2019 ). This finding is supported by Yang et al. (2017) . According to their research, safety benefits, a new type of relational benefit, also significantly affect commitment in this contex. Commitment acts as a mediator among confidence, social and safety benefits, and customer loyalty ( Yang et al., 2017 ). As a dimension of relationship quality, commitment also affects loyalty. The two types of commitment, affective commitment and calculative commitment, play a significant role in enhancing loyalty to Airbnb ( Kim and Kim, 2020 ). Other studies related to loyalty show that attitude ( Yang and Ahn, 2016 ), service quality, and social authenticity significantly influence Airbnb loyalty ( Lalicic and Weismayer, 2018 ). Authenticity has also been examined with social interaction and both significantly influence post-failure loyalty. The three components of authenticity (brand authenticity, existential authenticity, and intrapersonal authenticity) can enhance loyalty through the mediation of brand love ( Mody and Hanks, 2020 ).

Regarding loyalty to Airbnb, one conceptual study offers the concept of a “home feeling,” divided into two areas, a home feature and a home meaning. The construct is found to affect three types of loyalty outcomes (cognitive, affective, and conative) ( Zhu et al., 2019a ). The study also finds that a more specific type of loyalty (e.g., brand loyalty) significantly influences the authenticity offered by Airbnb among the guest, the site, and others in the environment (see Table 4 ).

Table 4

Factors affecting Airbnb consumers.

Previous studies find that guests’ demographics, psychology, geography, and travel characteristic significantly influence their intention to use Airbnb services. The literature discusses the guest demographic characteristics of Airbnb as well. Airbnb users are mostly well educated, younger and married with children ( Mody et al., 2017 ). However, in terms of income, they may either have higher ( Mody et al., 2017 ), or lower income than non-users ( Lu and Tabari, 2019 ). Like Mody et al. (2017) , Tussadiyah and Pesonen (2018) support that Airbnb users tend to be well educated.

Apart from demographic characteristics, psychological characteristics, such as decision-making styles ( Chen et al., 2019a , Chen et al., 2019b ) national cultural values ( Gupta et al., 2019 ), personality ( Tsourgiannis and Valsamidis, 2019 ), and motivations ( Chiappa et al., 2020 ), are shown to be differentiating factors that influence Airbnb customer behavior.

Geographical characteristics of the guests, such as country of origin, also influence the likelihood of using Airbnb. Those who come from an internet-affinity (high-speed internet connection) countries, such as Singapore, tend to stay in Airbnb accommodations ( Volgger et al., 2019 ). A study by Guttentag et al. (2018) shows that customers in the US and Canada are motivated to stay in Airbnb accommodation based on their interactions, the home benefit, the novelty, the sharing economy ethos, and local authenticity offerings. Similarly, a study by Latif et al. (2019) in Malaysia shows the effect of authenticity, along with price value, social interaction, and home benefit on Airbnb customer decision-making.

Customers' travel style, purpose, and length of the trip also are factors that influence consumer preferences to choose between P2P accommodations and hotels. Group and family travelers tend to choose Airbnb accommodations compared with solo travelers because of the price (value for money), quality of accommodation, unique experience, and location ( Lin, 2018 ; Volgger et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2019 ). For leisure, consumers prefer to stay in P2P accommodations because of the price, location, party size, dwelling size, and trip length ( Tussyadiah and Park, 2018 ; Volgger et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2019 ; Young et al., 2017 ). While for business travel, consumers prefer to stay at a hotel due to location, safety, security, price, and assurance of the delivery of expected services ( Tussyadiah and Park, 2018 ; Volgger et al., 2019 ; Yang et al., 2019 ; Young et al., 2017 ). In terms of trip length, a hotel is preferred for trips within seven days, while for longer trips, Airbnb is preferred ( Yang et al., 2019 ).

In addition to the demographic, psychological, geographical, and travel characteristics, studies have compared the perceptions and motivations of Airbnb users and non-users ( Huang et al., 2019 ). Airbnb users tend to prioritize price while non-users emphasize service ( Poon and Huang, 2017 ). Moreover, Volgger et al. (2019) find that user versus non-user differences in terms of overall spending behavior should also be considered.

The empirical study by Varma et al. (2016) finds that non-users of Airbnb are unaware of its existence as an alternative. Interestingly, among both Airbnb users and non-users, there is not much concern about the safety and security of Airbnb lodgings ( Varma et al., 2016 ). Guttentag and Smith (2017) find that customers perceive Airbnb service attributes as significantly outperforming budget hotels but significantly underperforming upscale hotels. In terms of experience and satisfaction, customers give Airbnb higher ratings than they give to hotels ( Huarng and Yu, 2019 ).

• e. Other variables

In addition to the research related to purchase intention, repurchase intention, satisfaction, and loyalty, scholars have examined other factors related to guest behavior surrounding Airbnb use. For example, Wu and Shen (2018) specifically examine types of trust in the Airbnb context. They conclude that institutional trust positively affects product trust and interpersonal trust, while product trust positively affects interpersonal trust. Another study finds that persuasive cues, such as credibility, emotional bonding, and accommodation characteristics, have a significant effect in establishing trust ( Yang et al., 2018 ). Other research has shown that customer's trust in Airbnb is also influenced by host attributes and location ( Cheng et al., 2019 ), references ( Costa et al., 2017 ), the number of reviews ( Zhang et al., 2018 ), and the ranking of the accommodation ( Costa et al., 2020 ). Yang et al. (2018) examine cognitive and affective features contributing to creating users' trust in Airbnb. Their results show that three cognitive features (security and privacy, information technology quality, Airbnb traits) and affective features (reputation, interaction, familiarity) also contribute significantly to trust development.

Another topic discussed in the academic journals relates to the online review of the customer experience ( Bae et al., 2017 ). Compared with the traditional economy, reviews in the sharing economy are more favorable ( Santos et al., 2020 ). The Airbnb sharing economy platform generates three types of social contacts that can enhance the guest experience: guest–host, guest–guest, and guest–community ( Lin et al., 2019 ). The involvement of these parties on the online platform can resolve complaints ( Moon et al., 2019b ).

Although negative reviews are submitted along with positive reviews ( Bridges and Vásquez, 2018 ), negative reviews on Airbnb are more credible ( Zhang, 2019 ). It is important to note that a review of an Airbnb site is not one sided; the guest can review the host, and the host can also review the guest ( Liang et al., 2019 ). This mechanism drives guests toward socially desirable behaviors when they share information about their transactions ( Newlands et al., 2019 ). Although some customers may have poor experiences, they do not necessarily share these poor experiences through online reviews ( Meijerink and Schoenmakers, 2020 ), as these guests may feel that negative reviews may be harmful to their profiles ( Bulchand-Gidumal and Melián-González, 2020 ).

In terms of negative reviews, one study finds that less social distance and greater empathy from a guest may reduce negative reviews ( Pera et al., 2019 ). Face-to-face interaction between the host and guest can also reduce negative comments by guests ( Baute-Díaz et al., 2019 ). Online negative reviews about poor customer service and the hosts' unpleasant behavior are two factors that lead to distrust ( Sthapit and Björk, 2019 ). However, customers do not share negative experiences when there is a good guest–host relationship ( Osman et al., 2019 ). Additionally, there are differences in how users express their experiences in online reviews ( Hernández-López, 2019 ). When they feel disappointed, they write more formal and objective online reviews. By contrast, when they feel satisfied, they post very friendly online reviews.

In terms of topics, Sutherland and Kiatkawsin (2020) identify some issues in online reviews in New York. Their topics revolve around the accommodation experience (e.g., WOM, complaints), location (e.g., navigation information), accommodation unit (e.g., security, cleanliness), and management (e.g., friendliness, empathy). The reviews also affect the hosting price and other neighboring hosts, as reviews are considered quality indicators ( Lawani et al., 2019 ). It is worth noting that the Airbnb guests’ mindset regarding what is considered good quality accommodations changes over five years and during different seasons ( Lee et al., 2019a , Lee et al., 2019b ).

Another topic discussed in the literature relates to disabled customers ( Randle and Dolnicar, 2019 ). According to Randle and Dolnicar (2019) , Airbnb properties now offer more accommodation for the disabled, specifically removing physical barriers versus just information barriers related to accessibility.

Concern about cross-cultural issues are also observed in the literature. Cross-cultural studies have examined whether there is a convergence or divergence of dimensions of Airbnb. as seen by Indians, Portuguese, and Americans. The results show a convergence in how those three cultures perceive Airbnb ( Brochado et al., 2017 ). Another cross-cultural study examines how the West perceives Chinese guests; the results show that cultural differences exist and may result in guest–host challenges and disputes ( Zhu et al., 2019b ). When traveling with a companion to China, American consumers prefer to stay at an outgroup host, while Chinese consumers prefer an ingroup host regardless of whether they are traveling alone or with a companion ( Wang et al., 2019 ).

Finally, the literature discusses other guest behavior. One factor that can encourage guest cleaning behavior is social presence ( Ranson and Guttentag, 2019 ). Camilleri and Neuhofer (2017) propose a theoretical framework that portrays the host–guest social interaction in co-creation. Using a theoretical framework of co-creation, Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) explain how guests actively engage in value co-creation in terms of operant resources, value co-creation practice, and co-creation outcomes. Research from the customer perspective also examines the importance of convenience and assurance factors in service quality perceptions of Airbnb ( Priporas et al., 2017a ). Flexibility, ease of access to specific tourist sites, and efficient problem resolution are all considered necessary by customers.

4.3.3. Communities/neighbors

Before we discuss the impact of Airbnb on communities, the characteristics of the cities where Airbnb is present are also important to discuss (see Table 5 ). The characteristics of cities can be assessed through three dimensions: geographic, social, and economic. Geographically, the Airbnb supply is significantly and negatively influenced by distance to the city center ( Benítez-Aurioles, 2018b ; Gibbs et al., 2018a ; Gutiérrez et al., 2017 ; Ioannides et al., 2018 ; Jiao and Bai, 2020a ; Quattrone et al., 2018 ; Rubino et al., 2020 ; Sarkar et al., 2013 ; Schäfer and Braun, 2016 ; Xu et al., 2019a ), and positively influenced by city size ( Adamiak, 2018 ), proximity to points of interest (POI) ( Contu et al., 2019b ; Dudás et al., 2017b ; Quattrone et al., 2018 ; Sarkar et al., 2013 ; Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017 ), and infrastructure and transportation availability ( Quattrone et al., 2018 ). While some scholars find a concentration of Airbnb listings in areas where hotel supply is significant ( Domènech et al., 2019 ), others find that the availability of hotels has no impact on the presence of Airbnb listings ( Quattrone et al., 2018 ). Based on POI or geographic features that might be useful or interesting ( Quattrone et al., 2018 ), Airbnb locations are concentrated mostly in locations near: eating and drinking, attractions, retail, sports and entertainment, pubs, town halls, post-offices, and beaches ( Dudás et al., 2017b ; Quattrone et al., 2018 ; Sarkar et al., 2013 ). The number of POI also influences the price of Airbnb listings ( Jiang and Yin, 2020 ).

Table 5

Airbnb city characteristics.

Based on social indicators, the Airbnb supply in specific locations is influenced by population size, number of tourist visits, family income, education level, dwelling size, number of young people, and the talented and creative class in the area ( Alizadeh et al., 2018 ; Dudás et al., 2017b ; Eugenio-Martin et al., 2019 ; Lagonigro et al., 2020 ; Quattrone et al., 2018 ; Sarkar et al., 2013 ); (see Table 5 ).

Based on economic indicators, the level of Airbnb supply in certain areas is influenced by the number of housing units, employment rate, poverty, mortgage values, household values, and income influence ( Dudás et al., 2017b ; Quattrone et al., 2018 ; Sarkar et al., 2013 ).

What about society's perception of Airbnb's impact on the community? Some research shows that residents have positive rather than negative perceptions of Airbnb ( Dogru et al., 2019 ; Jordan and Moore, 2018 ; Yeager et al., 2020 ). Resident perceptions are that Airbnb enables them to interact with tourists, reduces loneliness, promotes solidarity, preserves the natural environment, and offers more business and job opportunities ( Balampanidis et al., 2019 ; Contu et al., 2019b ; Farmaki and Stergiou, 2019 ; Grimmer and Vorobjovas-Pinta, 2019 ; Jordan and Moore, 2018 ; Petruzzi et al., 2020 ; Suess et al., 2020 ; von der Heidt et al., 2019 ). In addition, Airbnb also promotes the physical rehabilitation of private buildings and city “beautification” projects ( Chamusca et al., 2019 ), advocating for the emergence of hospitality micro-entrepreneurs ( Wyman et al., 2020 ).

By contrast, other research argues that collaborative accommodation has an uneven effect on society; it introduces aggravating effects instead of leveling out demographic, economic, and social inequalities ( Dredge and Gyimóthy, 2015 ). In terms of externalities, among the problems associated with Airbnb are digital discrimination, gentrification, increasing residential rental prices, domination of housing ownership, zoning/neighborhood quality, employment, trash, noise, water scarcity, waste management issues, open-air parties, annoyances, disputes, hostility, tourism phobia, prostitution, and drug issues ( Amore et al., 2020 ; Balampanidis et al., 2019 ; Brauckmann, 2017 ; Chamusca et al., 2019 , 2019 ; Chica-Olmo et al., 2020 ; Edelman et al., 2017 ; Gant, 2016 ; Garcia-Ayllon, 2018 ; Gil and Sequera, 2020 ; González-Pérez, 2020 ; Gurran and Phibbs, 2017 ; Horn and Merante, 2017 ; Jiao and Bai, 2020b ; Jordan and Moore, 2018 ; Lima, 2019 ; Manning et al., 2018 ; Martin-Fuentes et al., 2018 ; Nieuwland and van Melik, 2018 ; Robertson et al., 2020 ; Rodríguez-Pérez de Arenaza et al., 2019 ; Roelofsen, 2018 ; Schäfer and Braun, 2016 ; Smith et al., 2018 ; Spangler, 2020 ; Stabrowski, 2017 ; Stergiou and Farmaki, 2019 ; von der Heidt et al., 2019 ; Wachsmuth and Weisler, 2018 ; Wyman et al., 2020 ; Xu et al., 2019b ; Yrigoy, 2019 ). The most severe threats posed by the presence of Airbnb are changes in local culture including the threat of losing local authenticity and traditions ( Petruzzi et al., 2020 ). Few journal articles investigate the prostitution and drug issues raised by Manning et al. (2018) . However, posts on a popular website confirm that some Airbnb properties have been rented and turned into pop-up brothels ( Bbc.com, 2017 ; Woods, 2017 ). The summary of the impacts of Airbnb are presented in Table 6 .

Table 6

Impacts of Airbnb on communities.

4.3.4. Competitors

Airbnb has had a disruptive impact on the tourism industry in general and traditional hotels in particular. Its distinctive business model has changed the nature of competition by serving a niche market neglected or unserved by traditional accommodation services ( Dolnicar, 2019 ; Gunter and Önder, 2018 ; Koh and King, 2017 ; O’ Regan and Choe, 2017 ; Stabrowski, 2017 ). Scholars and hoteliers have offered mixed opinions regarding the impact of Airbnb on the traditional hotel industry. Some argue that Airbnb's listings do not affect hotel revenue ( Aznar et al., 2017 ; Blal et al., 2018 ; Hong Choi et al., 2015 ; Mhlanga, 2019 ; Varma et al., 2016 ). In other words, Airbnb is not a competitor of a hotel, as it targets a different segment of tourists ( Ginindza and Tichaawa, 2019 ; Heo et al., 2019 ; Sainaghi and Baggio, 2020 ; Yang and Mao, 2020 ). While hotels target business segments, Airbnb accommodates a leisure segment ( Sainaghi and Baggio, 2020 ). In fact, some find that the presence of Airbnb has a positive impact on the entire tourism industry, as visitors who stay in Airbnb accommodations tend to spend more time in tourist destinations ( Strømmen-Bakhtiar and Vinogradov, 2019 ).

By contrast, other scholars find that Airbnb partially and negatively influences demand, occupancy, the average daily rate (ADR) of lodging and revenue per available room in traditional hotels (RevPAR) ( Benítez-Aurioles, 2019 ; Boros et al., 2018 ; Dogru et al., 2019 , 2020a , 2020b ; Kwok and Xie, 2019 ; Li and Srinivasan, 2018 ; Manning et al., 2018 ; Oskam and Boswijk, 2016 ; Xie and Kwok, 2017 ; Zervas et al., 2017 ). Notably, low-end hotels and other lodgings such as homestays and inns, are the enterprises most affected by Airbnb's presence ( Varma et al., 2016 ).

Various factors explain why Airbnb can successfully compete with the traditional lodging industry. First, Airbnb bypasses brand equity, which has long been regarded as a critical success factor in the accommodation sector by creating brand loyalty and trust from customers ( Salvioni, 2016 ). By contrast, the Airbnb platform has introduced the rating and ranking concept and direct price comparability while fostering a critical judgement culture ( Gössling et al., 2019 ). Second, Airbnb sites are predominantly around the central tourist spot in contrast to many hotels ( Gutiérrez et al., 2017 ). Third, as an enterprise, Airbnb has few assets in comparison with traditional hotels, as the assets are owned by its hosts. Although, traditional hotels can outperform Airbnb in terms of speed of market expansion, as Airbnb has had difficulty in attracting new investments in new locations ( Manning et al., 2018 ). Fourth, Airbnb has the benefit of only operating based on consumer ratings. By contrast, traditional lodging operates under government regulation as well as consumer ratings ( Manning et al., 2018 ). Fifth, Airbnb allows customers who are more adventurous to experience the local culture by living like a local ( Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016 ). Sixth, Airbnb offers a more user-friendly website compared with most traditional hotels ( Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016 ). Seventh, Airbnb generally provides more flexibility to travelers, such as the ability to travel with pets ( Zhang et al., 2019a , Zhang et al., 2019b ). Eighth, Airbnb options are perceived as more affordable than hotels for accommodating more guests ( Gunter and Önder, 2018 ; Önder et al., 2019 ). Finally, Airbnb offers so-called network relationality through temporary belongingness, a priori empathy, technology as a bridge to face-to-face interactions, and relational spaces ( Marques and Gondim Matos, 2019 ).

Airbnb is generally expected to successfully compete with budget hotels/motels while losing ground to upscale hotels ( Guttentag and Smith, 2017 ). Scholars indicate that to compete effectively with Airbnb, traditional hotels need not lower their prices, as it is not the relative price that drives customers to choose an Airbnb over a traditional hotel, but rather the overall trip value ( Yang et al., 2019 ). Instead, Forgacs and Dimanche (2016) suggest that traditional hotels should learn from Airbnb's success by providing friendlier websites and promising authentic local experiences. They should also adapt their strategy based on the hotel's location, the average value of long-term rental contracts, and the sharing accommodation density ( Aznar et al., 2019 ). Various negative impacts of Airbnb can also help traditional hotels highlight their benefits over Airbnb, such as higher safety, security, asset protection, and service professionalism ( Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016 ). Ultimately, the hotel industry can lobby the government for a regulatory response, as a strategic response to Airbnb competition ( Alrawadieh et al., 2020 ).

4.3.5. Employees

The key activities carried out by Airbnb center on platform management, which consists of selling and generic administrative activities and operational cyclical activities. Thus, to deliver value, Airbnb has employees as its stakeholders. Munkøe (2017) questioned whether the Airbnb landlord should be considered an employee. If Airbnb landlords are considered Airbnb employees, they should receive remuneration, paid leave, and certain working conditions ( Munkøe, 2017 ). As they do not receive any of these benefits, Airbnb landlords can only be considered independent contractors, not employees ( Munkøe, 2017 ). In short, based on the review, no study discussed Airbnb employees as stakeholders. The limited number of articles on Airbnb employees is due to the fact that Airbnb falls under the sharing economy category. By contrast, many academic articles have been published on employees in the context of the Gig economy. Although the sharing economy has many similarities with the Gig economy, it is understandable that the latter focuses more on its economy, which is characterized by flexible and temporary jobs ( Duggan et al., 2020 ; Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2019 ).

4.3.6. Government/regulators

The government stakeholder relationship is crucial as the government drives the public policy process. Government is the only entity that has the legitimacy to speak on behalf of society as a whole. It can change the way sharing economy accommodations are governed, keep the market functioning, and infuse moral vision into the market ( Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2004 ). Despite its importance, only 27 studies discuss the government's role in the context of Airbnb. In our review, the literature on Airbnb can be categorized into two groups: articles discussing community issues related to Airbnb and articles discussing suggested regulatory framework.

The first issue subject to regulation relates to discrimination. For example, the government of California signed an agreement with Airbnb that allows the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to check whether Airbnb hosts in the region engage in discrimination ( Piracha et al., 2018 ). Apart from discrimination based on race, there is also discrimination against disabled guests. Although Airbnb may provide an accessible room for disabled guests, government intervention is needed to ensure that facilities are available in large quantities for disabled guests ( Boxall et al., 2018 ).

Safety is also an issue that the government is concerned with. Airbnb properties need to meet basic standards for the health and safety of the guests and need general liability insurance to cover guest health and safety ( Chen et al., 2020 ). Short-term and subletting issues are also a concern in Airbnb rentals. At times, tenants sublet and rent a room through Airbnb ( Schäfer and Braun, 2016 ). This facilitates the redistribution of wealth from the landlord to the tenant but encroaches on public preferences for the legal protection of property used personally or intimately ( Stern, 2019 ). To address this, the Airbnb contractual relationship specifies that Airbnb pays the rent to the host only after the guests report that the accommodation meets their expectations; this makes it safer for Airbnb guests to use Airbnb services ( Munkøe, 2017 ).

Another issue involving online sharing accommodation practices relates to land use planning. The sharing accommodation platform has blurred residential and tourist areas due to difficulties in monitoring these online operations. As part of the gentrification/tourist process, the switching of properties in the long-term rental market to the touristic (Airbnb) market reduces the supply of long-term properties, which drives up prices ( Garcia-Ayllon, 2018 ; Guttentag, 2019 ). This process also affects the commercial life of the city, where traditional commerce moves out and convenience and souvenirs shops move in. These problems may result in neighborhood complaints, speculation in home prices, and price bubbles ( Chen et al., 2020 ; Gurran and Phibbs, 2017 ; Zou, 2020 ). Therefore, scholars recommend that the government reviews local planning regulations ( Zou, 2020 ).

The government should also pay attention to the kind of tourism it has (city, nature-based vs. sun and beach destinations) when developing policies, as each type has a different demand and supply characteristic ( Eugenio-Martin et al., 2019 ). In a city and nature-based destination, the supply of Airbnb listings tends to meet tourist spatial distribution better than that of the established traditional accommodations. By contrast, for sun and beach destinations, the demand is better matched by the established hotel supply.

It is worth noting that Airbnb regulation can only be addressed after the government clearly defines whether Airbnb hosts and landlords are considered businesses or private individuals ( Belotti, 2019 ; Munkøe, 2017 ). If Airbnb hosts are considered as a business, then numerous administrative and regulatory requirements need to be met. Many scholars have proposed different regulatory frameworks ( Avdimiotis and Poulaki, 2019 ; Biber et al., 2017 ; Chen et al., 2020 ; Frenken et al., 2019 ; Llop, 2017 ; Strømmen-Bakhtiar and Vinogradov, 2019 ; Tham, 2016 ) (see Table 7 ).

Table 7

Proposed regulatory framework.

Tham (2016) classifies the regulatory framework into two types: (1) integrated and (2) fragmented. Singapore applies the integrated law to regulate Airbnb to enhance its smart-house status ( Tham, 2016 ). By contrast, Australia applies fragmented regulation, namely, each territory in Australia has a different regulatory framework for Airbnb ( Tham, 2016 ).

Other scholars, such as Biber et al. (2017) , have proposed four frameworks to guide regulators in managing policy disruption. The first is the block, where existing regulation is preserved, and new business forms are blocked ( Biber et al., 2017 ). The second is the free pass, which allows innovation without updating regulations ( Biber et al., 2017 ). The third is old reg, which applies the existing regulatory structure imperfectly ( Biber et al., 2017 ). The last is new reg, where the government creates a new code following the latest business structure ( Biber et al., 2017 ).

Chen et al. (2020) propose a regulatory framework consisting of (1) a license, which refers to the registration or permit for the property to be used as a short-term rental; (2) record-keeping, that forces the host to report the guest name, contact information, dates of stay, among other elements; (3) standard requirements, which require the hosts to provide basic standards for the health and safety of their guests; (4) host stay, which requires the hosts to stay at the property for at least a minimum number of months/years at the time of hosting sharing accommodation; (5) restriction of eviction, prohibiting units that have recently been subject to eviction from being registered as sharing accommodations; (6) restriction of conversion, which limits rentals of single-family structures constructed less than five years before the date of application for a sharing accommodation; (7) caps, which set a cap on the number of rental nights per year; (8) neighborhood protection, which requires the sharing accommodation contract to include a copy of the local sound/trash/parking ordinance and provide a hotline to allow neighbors and other citizens to report non-emergency issues; and (9) taxation, which requires the sharing accommodation to pay hotel taxes.

Regarding taxation, William and Horodnic (2017) suggest classifying two policy approaches for regulating an informal sharing economy like Airbnb. The first is a direct approach, which is divided into (a) deterrents: by improving detection or sanctions such as raising penalties for not declaring income from informal sharing economy activities ( Leshinsky and Schatz, 2018 ); and (b) an incentive approach such as providing a tax-free limit. The second approach is considered indirect as it involves, for example, conducting host and guest education. The government is also advised to provide practical guidelines regarding tax issues; for example, the Australian Taxation Office gives practical guidelines on how to record income and expense receipts ( Tham, 2016 ).

However, the way the government regulates Airbnb does not have to involve rigid choices between particular regulatory frameworks (e.g., integrated vs. fragmented). Different jurisdictions may apply different regulations to control the sharing of accommodation ( McKee, 2017 ). In this context, the government needs a more dynamic regulatory approach that can adapt to a changing environment ( Grimmer et al., 2019 ).

Although some scholars find that regulation may have a negative impact on the development of short-term rentals ( Furukawa and Onuki, 2019 ), it has not been proven that this will restrain the growth of the sharing economy in the long run ( Chen et al., 2020 ). In particular, one study finds that the stricter the regulation is, the higher the supply in the sharing economy accommodation ( Hong and Lee, 2018 ; Uzunca and Borlenghi, 2019 ). Ultimately, regulation of sharing accommodations should have a positive impact on the lower-scale hotels ( Yeon et al., 2020 ).

4.4. How much power and influence does the stakeholder have?

On the sharing economy platform, scholars expect that Airbnb will create empowerment that promotes equity among stakeholders ( Farmaki and Kaniadakis, 2020 ). However, in terms of influences, the studies find that the six stakeholders (hosts, guests, communities, competitors, employees, and government) have unequal degrees of power and influence. A power/influence matrix is used to analyze the nature of these relationships and how much power and influence the Airbnb stakeholders hold over each other (see Figure 4 ). Power is defined as the level of authority one stakeholder has in the organization, while influence is the level of involvement the party has ( Spitzeck and Hansen, 2010 ).

Power/influence matrix of Airbnb.

The research reviewed shows that guests are considered the most important and influential stakeholder to both Airbnb and the hosts. Without the guests, there would be no revenues for Airbnb or the hosts. These guests receive many advantages by using Airbnb, such as the benefits of staying in someone's home, cost-effective pricing, value, and the enjoyment of living like a local ( Amaro et al., 2018 ; Guttentag et al., 2018 ; Mao and Lyu, 2017 ; So et al., 2018 ). However, some consumers comment that Airbnb services lack value and are low in quality ( Tran and Filimonau, 2020 ). Although the hosts and guests can review each other, the guest reviews have a much stronger influence on the hosts, as these customer reviews determine the host's status ( Gunter, 2018 ).

Like the guests, the hosts can be considered a powerful and influential stakeholder for Airbnb, as without them, Airbnb cannot provide its services. Reciprocally, Airbnb has a strong influence on its hosts. Airbnb acts as an important platform for the hosts as it enables them not only to receive additional income but also to learn about the guest's country of origin without leaving their home through social interaction with their guests ( Farmaki and Kaniadakis, 2020 ). In other words, Airbnb places the hosts both on the supply and demand side of the tourism sector ( Dolnicar and Talebi, 2020 ). Although Airbnb empowers the hosts in selecting their guests, a customer-oriented Airbnb has reduced this power. To gain superhost status on the platform, hosts are required never to reject or cancel any booking ( Farmaki and Kaniadakis, 2020 ). Airbnb also limits the host's power to select guests to avoid discrimination issues ( Farmaki and Kladou, 2020 ).

Based on the above, these studies confirm that both the guests and hosts are the key stakeholders in Airbnb. As Airbnb's most powerful and influential stakeholders, they lie in quadrant one. The type of relationship between Airbnb and both stakeholders is cooperative. Therefore, it makes sense that Airbnb should fully engage these stakeholders and try hard to satisfy them.

To date, the sharing economy is a highly unregulated business ( Sundararajan, 2016 ). As explained, government in different areas applies different regulations ( McKee, 2017 ). However, the government's power is strong, as it has the ability to change where Airbnb can and cannot operate, as happened in Australia ( Grimmer et al., 2019 ). Therefore, Airbnb needs to pay attention to governmental concerns to ensure its satisfaction.

Despite job and business opportunities or other positive impacts from Airbnb, the community as stakeholder suffers the most as it needs to deal with any negative externalities such as gentrification and noise ( Dudás et al., 2017b ; Farmaki and Kladou, 2020 ; Gurran and Phibbs, 2017 ). Unfortunately, no study discusses the Airbnb policy to overcome these negative or ethical issues. Our conclusion is that the nature of the relationship of Airbnb with society is one of conflict rather than cooperation. Therefore, the community can be positioned in quadrant three as high in influence but low in power. However, the community may influence the government by taking collective action or lobbying policymakers to change policy/laws ( Cheng and Foley, 2018 ). Therefore, the community becomes a stakeholder that should be kept informed and satisfied by Airbnb to ensure that no major issues arise.

Like the community, the competition also lies in the third quadrant as high in influence but low in power. Since the study found that Airbnb has a partially negative influence on demand, occupancy, the ADR of lodging, and RevPar room in traditional hotels ( Benítez-Aurioles, 2019 ; Boros et al., 2018 ; Dogru et al., 2019 , 2020a , 2020b ; Kwok and Xie, 2019 ; Li and Srinivasan, 2018 ; Manning et al., 2018 ; Oskam and Boswijk, 2016 ; Xie and Kwok, 2017 ; Zervas et al., 2017 ), competitors tend to become opponents of Airbnb. Thus, competitors are stakeholders that should be kept informed and satisfied by Airbnb. However, it is important to note that currently, as of 2018, Airbnb has been welcoming boutique hotels and bed and breakfasts to list on its platform, making it possible for competitors to move from the competition to the host position ( Airbnb, 2019b ).

As explained, virtually no study in the review discussed Airbnb employees. Due to COVID-19 and plunging revenue, the company had to lay off 1900 workers and contract employee ( Torres, 2020 ). Despite giving uniquely generous compensation to those laid off ( Kelly, 2020 ), Airbnb's compensation to its contract workers was considered unsatisfactory, creating a backlash among its contract employees ( Furman, 2020 ). We conclude that employees are the stakeholders low in power and influence over Airbnb, and Airbnb puts forth a minimum effort to satisfy them.

5. Discussion, conclusions, limitations, and future research directions

This paper answered the following questions: 1) who are the stakeholders of Airbnb? (2) what are their interests/concerns? and (3) how much power and influence do these stakeholders have? This review proved useful for analyzing ethical aspects and cooperation and conflict that can arise among stakeholders, as explained by Harrison and Wicks (2013) .

Based on the literature review, we found that the ethical issues related to the relationships between Airbnb and its stakeholders are still being investigated. The ethical issue in the relationship between Airbnb and its hosts lies in the reduction of the power of the Airbnb host to select guests, since Airbnb creates the Superhost status, which forces the hosts to accept all guests ( Farmaki and Kaniadakis, 2020 ). Airbnb seems to be proactive in overcoming ethical issues related to guests. For example, it signed the agreement with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to avoid racial discrimination against the guests ( Piracha et al., 2018 ). Airbnb has also tried to provide more facilities for disabled guests ( Boxall et al., 2018 ).

However, despite the positive impact of Airbnb's presence in the communities (e.g., dispersed spending in neighborhoods), it has also generated negative externalities ( Balampanidis et al., 2019 ; Contu et al., 2019b ) such as gentrification ( Dudás et al., 2017b ) and noise ( Petruzzi et al., 2020 ). Unfortunately, negative or ethical issues created by Airbnb's presence in the neighborhoods need to be overcome via government intervention, as Airbnb seems to be less proactive in finding its own solutions to such negative externalities. Therefore, we conclude that the relationship between Airbnb and the community seems to be in greater conflict than that with the other stakeholders.

Regarding employees, few studies examined Airbnb from the employee's perspective even though the mass media has covered the potential ethical violation of Airbnb in the layoff of its contract workers ( Furman, 2020 ). It appears that the ethical issue related to the industrial relations in the sharing economy has been overlooked by scholars, as no study in our review discusses Airbnb's employees.

The above discussion leads to the following future research directions. First, as there is a dearth of research on Airbnb employees, future researchers are encouraged to conduct research on the ethical issues in the relationship between Airbnb and its employees.

Second, the review indicates that the research related to hosts and customers has been conducted mostly from a positive perspective. Future researchers should examine host problems related to guests, such as dealing with bad guests, prostitution, drug problems, and violence. The review also suggests the need for more cross-cultural research on Airbnb adoption.

Third, we found mixed results regarding the impact of Airbnb not only economically and socially on the community but also on environment sustainability. Thus, comparative and comprehensive research is needed to examine both positive and negative impacts simultaneously.

Fourth, as Airbnb is still unevenly distributed or concentrated in certain areas ( Benítez-Aurioles, 2018b ), future research should analyze the distribution of the benefits of the platform socially (social eviction) and economically (real estate speculation). Specifically, researchers could investigate the impact of Airbnb's presence on the daily lives of residents and the conflicts that could arise between locals and tourists who stay in Airbnb sites.

Fifth, despite its disruptive impact on the hotel industry, Airbnb has started to pursue boutique hotel inventory. Therefore, future research could examine the contentious and co-dependent relationship between Airbnb and hoteliers. It is also crucial for future researchers to explore the strategies that hotel brands should take to battle back.

Sixth, from the policymaker perspective, it is important to describe whether Airbnb, as a type of collaborative economy, is in the public interest and, in this context, understand how the government defines public interest. More comparative research is also needed, including comparing the short-term rental impact in some regions or countries with a low-income population compared with that in a high-income population. A study comparing the effectiveness of different types of regulatory frameworks and their implications for stakeholder welfare would also be useful.

Seventh, only limited research on Airbnb has been longitudinal. Thus, more studies using a longitudinal approach are needed to provide an empirical basis from which policymakers can shape opinions, create policies, and implement societal changes. Future research should examine simultaneously all the actors in the co-creation process related to the service provided by Airbnb and its impact on human and non-human actors.

Eighth, the current study does not discuss the literature in terms of research methods. A future literature review could compare the different results of big data and small data samples with our results on Airbnb. Future studies could also utilize a triangulation approach, which compares qualitative versus quantitative methods to add validity to the Airbnb study conducted by So et al. (2018) .

Ninth, our analysis excludes other collaborative economy accommodations, such as CouchSurfing ( Geiger et al., 2018 ; Kim et al., 2018 ). Future studies could compare other collaborative economy accommodations with Airbnb.

Finally, this study was finalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation has raised the question: how will the pandemic change the home-sharing landscape? Future researchers are expected to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stakeholder interests.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Universitas Indonesia under the Q1Q2 Research Grant ​contract number NKB-0188/UN2/R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019.

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

• Airbnb . Airbnb Press Room; 2019. Airbnb 2019 Business Update. https://press.airbnb.com/airbnb-2019-business-update/ URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Airbnb More hotels are using Airbnb. Airbnb Newsroom. 2019. https://news.airbnb.com/more-hotels-are-using-airbnb/ URL.
• Aksnes D.W., Sivertsen G. A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of science. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2019; 4 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amaro S., Andreu L., Huang S. Millenials’ intentions to book on Airbnb. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2018:1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andreu L., Bigne E., Amaro S., Palomo J. Airbnb research: an analysis in tourism and hospitality journals. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2020; 14 :2–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bbc.com . [WWW Document]; 2017. My Airbnb Flat Was Turned into a Pop-Up Brothel. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39528479 URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belarmino A., Koh Y. A critical review of research regarding peer-to-peer accommodations. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 84 :102315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benítez-Aurioles B. Is Airbnb bad for hotels? Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Björk B.-C., Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J. Informetr. 2013; 7 (4):914–923. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloomberg . 2019. Airbnb Says it Made a Profit Again in 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boros L., Dudás G., Kovalcsik T., Papp S. Airbnb in budapes: analysing spatial patterns and room rates of hotels and peer-to-peer accomodations. Geoj. Tour. Geosites. 2018; 21 :13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boxall K., Nyanjom J., Slaven J. Disability, hospitality and the new sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 30 :539–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucher E., Fieseler C., Fleck M., Lutz C. Authenticity and the sharing economy. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2018; 4 :294–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calo R., Rosenblat A. The taking economy: uber, information, and power. Colum. Rev. 2017; 1623 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Foley C. The sharing economy and digital discrimination: the case of Airbnb. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 70 :95–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Chen G., Wiedmann T., Hadjikakou M., Xu L., Wang Y. The sharing economy and sustainability – assessing Airbnb’s direct, indirect and induced carbon footprint in Sydney. J. Sustain. Tourism. 2020; 28 :1083–1099. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br. J. Nurs. 2008; 17 :38–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dann D., Teubner T., Weinhardt C. Poster child and Guinea pig – insights from a structured literature review on Airbnb. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 31 :427–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dogru T., Mody M., Suess C. Adding evidence to the debate: quantifying Airbnb’s disruptive impact on ten key hotel markets. Tourism Manag. 2019; 72 :27–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dogru T., Hanks L., Mody M., Suess C., Sirakaya-Turk E. The effects of Airbnb on hotel performance: evidence from cities beyond the United States. Tourism Manag. 2020; 79 :104090. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dogru T., Mody M., Line N., Suess C., Hanks L., Bonn M. Investigating the whole picture: comparing the effects of Airbnb supply and hotel supply on hotel performance across the United States. Tourism Manag. 2020; 79 :104094. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolnicar S., Talebi H. Does hosting on Airbnb offer hosts vacation-like benefits? Proposing a reconceptualization of peer-to-peer accommodation. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2020; 43 :111–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :248–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolnicar S. Sharing economy and peer-to-peer accommodation – a perspective paper. Tour. Rev. 2020 ahead-of-print. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson T., Preston L.E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995; 20 (1):65–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duggan J., Sherman U., Carbery R., McDonnell A. Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: a research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2020; 30 :114–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ert E., Fleischer A., Magen N. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: the role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Manag. 2016; 55 :62–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Kaniadakis A. Power dynamics in peer-to-peer accommodation: insights from Airbnb hosts. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 89 :102571. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Kladou S. Why do Airbnb hosts discriminate? Examining the sources and manifestations of discrimination in host practice. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2020; 42 :181–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreri M., Sanyal R. Urban Stud; 2018. Platform Economies and Urban Planning: Airbnb and Regulated Deregulation in London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forgacs G., Dimanche F. Revenue challenges for hotels in the sharing economy: facing the Airbnb menace. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2016; 15 :509–515. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman R.E., Wicks A.C., Parmar B. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited. Organ. Sci. 2004; 15 :364–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman R.E., Rusconi G., Signori S., Strudler A. Stakeholder theory(ies): ethical ideas and managerial action. J. Bus. Ethics. 2012; 109 :1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frenken K., Meelen T., Arets M., van de Glind P. The Guardian; 2015. Smarter Regulation for the Sharing Economy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furman A. I’m One of Them; Wired: 2020. Airbnb Quietly Fired Contract Workers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geiger A., Horbel C., Germelmann C.C. “Give and take”: how notions of sharing and context determine free peer-to-peer accommodation decisions. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :5–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerwe O., Silva R. Clarifying the sharing economy: conceptualization, typology, antecedents and effects. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2020; 34 :65–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ginindza S., Tichaawa T.M. The impact of sharing accommodation on the hotel occupancy rate in the kingdom of Swaziland. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019; 22 :1975–1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodpaster K.E. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Bus. Ethics Q. 1991; 1 :53–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimmer L., Vorobjovas-Pinta O., Massey M. Regulating, then deregulating Airbnb: the unique case of Tasmania (Australia) Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :304–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunter U. What makes an Airbnb host a superhost? Empirical evidence from san Francisco and the Bay area. Tourism Manag. 2018; 66 :26–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurran N., Phibbs P. When tourists move in: how should urban planners respond to Airbnb? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2017; 83 :80–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttentag D., Smith S., Potwarka L., Havitz Mark. Why tourists choose Airbnb: a motivation-based segmentation study. J. Trav. Res. 2018; 57 :342–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttentag D. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2015; 18 :1192–1217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttentag D. Progress on Airbnb: a literature review. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2019; 10 :814–844. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gyódi K. Airbnb in European cities: business as usual or true sharing economy? J. Clean. Prod. 2019; 221 :536–551. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison J.S., Wicks A.C. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus. Ethics Q. 2013; 23 :97–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawlitschek F., Notheisen B., Teubner T. The limits of trust-free systems: a literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2018; 29 :50–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heo C.Y., Blengini I. A macroeconomic perspective on Airbnb’s global presence. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 78 :47–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horodnic I.A., Williams C.C., Horodnic A.V. 2016. Are Practices of Competitors in the Informal Sector a Major Threat for Hotels and Restaurants? pp. 49–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howcroft D., Bergvall-Kåreborn B. A typology of crowdwork platforms. Work. Employ. Soc. 2019; 33 :21–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Interian J. Up in the air: harmonizing the sharing economy through Airbnb regulations. Boston Coll. Int. Comp. Law Rev. 2016; 39 :129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson A.G., Neuhofer B. Airbnb – an exploration of value co-creation experiences in Jamaica. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2361–2376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly J. [WWW Document]. Forbes; 2020. Airbnb Lays off 25% of its Employees: CEO Brian Chesky Gives A Master Class in Empathy and Compassion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/05/06/airbnb-lays-off-25-of-its-employees-ceo-brian-chesky-gives-a-master-class-in-empathy-and-compassion/ URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S., Lee K.Y., Koo C., Yang S.-B. Examining the influencing factors of intention to share accommodations in online hospitality exchange networks. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :16–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchenham B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele Univ. Tech. Rep. 2004; 33 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ključnikov A., Krajčík V., Vincúrová Z. 2018. International Sharing Economy: The Case of Airbnb in the Czech Republic 11, 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knoll T., Omar M.I., Maclennan S., Hernández V., Canfield S., Yuan Y., Bruins M., Marconi L., Van Poppel H., N’Dow J., Sylvester R. Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the European association of urology. Eur. Urol. 2018; 73 :290–300. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwok L., Xie K.L. Pricing strategies on Airbnb: are multi-unit hosts revenue pros? Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 82 :252–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laczko P., Hullova D., Needham A., Rossiter A.-M., Battisti M. The role of a central actor in increasing platform stickiness and stakeholder profitability: bridging the gap between value creation and value capture in the sharing economy. Ind. Market. Manag. 2019; 76 :214–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leoni V. Stars vs lemons. Survival analysis of peer-to peer marketplaces: the case of Airbnb. Tourism Manag. 2020; 79 :104091. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li H., Srinivasan K. Competitive dynamics in the sharing economy: an analysis in the context of Airbnb and hotels. SSRN Electron. J. 2018 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin P.M.C., Fan D.X.F., Zhang H.Q., Lau C. Spend less and experience more: understanding tourists’ social contact in the Airbnb context. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 83 :65–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linde K., Willich S.N. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003; 96 :17–22. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manning C., Jan D., O’Neill J.W., Bloom B.A.N., Agarwal A., Roulac S. Hotel/lodging real estate industry trends and innovation. J. R. Estate Lit. 2018; 26 :13–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao Z., Lyu J. Why travelers use Airbnb again?: an integrative approach to understanding travelers’ repurchase intention. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2464–2482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martín J.M.M.A.R., Martín J.M.M.A.R., Mejía K.A.Z., Fernández J.A.S. Effects of vacation rental websites on the concentration of tourists—potential environmental impacts. An application to the Balearic Islands in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2018; 15 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 ]
• McKee D. The platform economy: natural, neutral, consensual and efficient? Transnatl. Leg. Theory. 2017; 8 :455–495. [ Google Scholar ]
• Medina-Hernandez V.C., Marine-Roig E., Ferrer-Rosell B. Accommodation sharing: a look beyond Airbnb’s literature. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2020; 14 :21–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Midgett C., Bendickson J.S., Muldoon J., Solomon S.J. The sharing economy and sustainability: a case for Airbnb. Small Bus. Inst. J. 2017; 13 :51–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mody M.A., Suess C., Lehto X. The accommodation experiencescape: a comparative assessment of hotels and Airbnb. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2377–2404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murillo D., Buckland H., Val E. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: unravelling the controversies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 2017; 125 :66–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oskam J., Boswijk A. Airbnb: the future of networked hospitality businesses. J. Tour. Futur. 2016; 2 :22–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozdemir G., Turker D. Institutionalization of the sharing in the context of Airbnb: a systematic literature review and content analysis. Anatolia. 2019; 30 :601–613. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton M.Q. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv. Res. 1999; 34 :1189–1208. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulauskaite D., Powell R., Coca-Stefaniak J.A., Morrison A.M. Living like a local: authentic tourism experiences and the sharing economy. Int. J. Tourism Res. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Petruzzi M.A., Marques G.S., do Carmo M., Correia A. Airbnb and neighbourhoods: an exploratory study. Int. J. Tour. Cities. 2020; 6 :72–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinottti R.D.C., do A. Moretti S.L. Hospitalidade e Intenção de Recompra na Economia Compartilhada: um estudo com equações estruturais em meios de hospedagem alternativos. Rev. Tur. Em Análise. 2018; 29 :1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piracha A., Sharples R., Forrest J., Dunn K. Racism in the sharing economy: regulatory challenges in a neo-liberal cyber world. Geoforum. 2018; 98 :144–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prayag G., Ozanne L.K. A systematic review of peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation sharing research from 2010 to 2016: progress and prospects from the multi-level perspective. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 2018; 27 :649–678. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ranjbari M., Morales-Alonso G., Carrasco-Gallego R. Conceptualizing the sharing economy through presenting a comprehensive framework. Sustainability. 2018; 10 [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed M.S., Graves A., Dandy N., Posthumus H., Hubacek K., Morris J., Prell C., Quinn C.H., Stringer b L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009; 90 :1933–1949. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rifkin J. Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roelofsen M., Minca C. The Superhost. Biopolitics, home and community in the Airbnb dream-world of global hospitality. Geoforum. 2018; 91 :170–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2014; 23 :241–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowley J., Slack F. Conducting a literature review. Manag. Res. News. 2004; 27 :31–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainaghi R. The current state of academic research into peer-to-peer accommodation platforms. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 89 [ Google Scholar ]
• Schäfer P., Braun N. Misuse through short-term rentals on the Berlin housing market. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2016; 9 :287–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• So K.K.F., Oh H., Min S. Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tourism Manag. 2018; 67 :224–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzeck H., Hansen E. Corp. Gov.; 2010. Stakeholder Governance: How Stakeholders Influence Corporate Decision Making; p. 10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sthapit E., Björk P. Sources of distrust: Airbnb guests’ perspectives. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019; 31 :245–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sundararajan A. [WWW Document]. Fortune; 2016. What Governments Can Learn from Airbnb and the Sharing Economy. https://fortune.com/2016/07/12/airbnb-discrimination/ URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland W., Jarrahi M.H. The sharing economy and digital platforms: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018; 43 [ Google Scholar ]
• The Open University . [WWW Document]; 2020. Postgraduate Study Skills: Comparing Academic Sources. https://help.open.ac.uk/comparing-academic-sources URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres A. [WWW Document]. Bus. Insid.; 2020. Airbnb Employees Reportedly Say They Feel Betrayed as 1,900 Layoffs Rip Apart a Company Culture They Say Was Based on Trust and Loyalty. https://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-under-scrutiny-for-laying-off-1900-employees-2020-7 URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tran T.H., Filimonau V. The (de)motivation factors in choosing Airbnb amongst Vietnamese consumers. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2020; 42 :130–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uzunca B., Borlenghi A. Regulation strictness and supply in the platform economy: the case of Airbnb and Couchsurfing. Ind. Innovat. 2019; 26 :920–942. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varma A., Jukic N., Pestek A., Shultz C.J., Nestorov S. Airbnb: exciting innovation or passing fad? Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016; 20 :228–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods A. [WWW Document]; 2017. Prostitutes Are Using Airbnb for ‘pop-Up Brothels’ https://nypost.com/2017/07/03/prostitutes-are-using-airbnb-for-pop-up-brothels/ URL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie K.L., Kwok L. The effects of Airbnb’s price positioning on hotel performance. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 67 :174–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zervas G., Proserpio D., Byers J.W. The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J. Mark. Res. 2017; 54 :687–705. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu Q., Sarkis J. Green marketing and consumerism as social change in China: analyzing the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016; 181 :289–302. [ Google Scholar ]

Articles reviewed

• Abrate G., Viglia G. Personal or product reputation? Optimizing revenues in the sharing economy. J. Trav. Res. 2019; 58 :136–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamiak C. Mapping Airbnb supply in European cities. Ann. Tourism Res. 2018; 71 :67–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alizadeh T., Farid R., Sarkar S. Towards understanding the socio-economic patterns of sharing economy in Australia: an investigation of Airbnb listings in Sydney and Melbourne Metropolitan regions. Urban Pol. Res. 2018; 36 :445–463. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alrawadieh Z., Guttentag D., Aydogan Cifci M., Cetin G. Budget and midrange hotel managers’ perceptions of and responses to Airbnb: evidence from Istanbul. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 32 :588–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amore A., de Bernardi C., Arvanitis P. The impacts of Airbnb in Athens, Lisbon and Milan: a rent gap theory perspective. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2020:1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avdimiotis S., Poulaki I. Airbnb impact and regulation issues through destination life cycle concept. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :458–472. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aznar J., Sayeras J.M., Rocafort A., Galiana J. The irruption of AirBNB and its effects on hotels’ profitability: an analysis of Barcelona’s hotel sector. Intang. Cap. 2017; 13 :147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aznar J.P., Sayeras Maspera J.M., Quer X. A game theory approach to Airbnb and hotels competition. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2019; 21 :119–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae S.J., Lee H., Suh E.-K., Suh K.-S. Shared experience in pretrip and experience sharing in posttrip: a survey of Airbnb users. Inf. Manag. 2017; 54 :714–727. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balampanidis D., Maloutas T., Papatzani E., Pettas D. Informal urban regeneration as a way out of the crisis? Airbnb in Athens and its effects on space and society. Urban Res. Pract. 2019:1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baute-Díaz N., Gutiérrez-Taño D., Díaz-Armas R. Interaction and reputation in Airbnb: an exploratory analysis. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :370–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belarmino A., Whalen E., Koh Y., Bowen J.T. Comparing guests’ key attributes of peer-to-peer accommodations and hotels: mixed-methods approach. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019; 22 :1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belotti S. “Sharing” tourism as an opportunity for territorial regeneration: the case of Iseo Lake. Italy. Hung. Geogr. Bull. 2019; 68 :79–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benítez-Aurioles B. Why are flexible booking policies priced negatively? Tourism Manag. 2018; 67 :312–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benítez-Aurioles B. The role of distance in the peer-to-peer market for tourist accommodation. Tourism Econ. 2018; 24 :237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biber E., Light S.E., Ruhl J.B., Salzman J.E. Regulating business innovation as policy disruption: from the model T to Airbnb. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2017; 70 :66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Birinci H., Berezina K., Cobanoglu C. Comparing customer perceptions of hotel and peer-to-peer accommodation advantages and disadvantages. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 30 :1190–1210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blal I., Singal M., Templin J. Airbnb’s effect on hotel sales growth. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 73 :85–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brauckmann S. City tourism and the sharing economy – potential effects of online peer-to-peer marketplaces on urban property markets. J. Tour. Futur. 2017; 3 :114–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bridges J., Vásquez C. If nearly all Airbnb reviews are positive, does that make them meaningless? Curr. Issues Tourism. 2018; 21 :2065–2083. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brochado A., Troilo M., Shah A. Airbnb customer experience: evidence of convergence across three countries. Ann. Tourism Res. 2017; 63 :210–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchholz R.A., Rosenthal S.B. Stakeholder theory and public policy: how governments matter. J. Bus. Ethics. 2004; 51 :143–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bulchand-Gidumal J., Melián-González S. Why are ratings so high in the sharing economy? Evidence based on guest perspectives. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2020; 23 :1248–1260. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai Y., Zhou Y., MA J., Scott N. Price determinants of Airbnb listings: evidence from Hong Kong. Tourism Anal. 2019; 24 :227–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Camilleri J., Neuhofer B. Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2322–2340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Casais B., Fernandes J., Sarmento M. Tourism innovation through relationship marketing and value co-creation: a study on peer-to-peer online platforms for sharing accommodation. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 2020; 42 :51–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamusca P., Fernandes J.R., Carvalho L., Mendes T. The role of Airbnb creating a “new”-old city centre: facts, problems and controversies in Porto | Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles. Bol. Asoc. Ción Geógra Fos Esp. 2019; 83 :1–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatterjee D., Dandona B., Mitra A., Giri M. Airbnb in India: comparison with hotels, and factors affecting purchase intentions. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C.C., Chang Y.C. What drives purchase intention on Airbnb? Perspectives of consumer reviews, information quality, and media richness. Telematics Inf. 2018 [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y., Xie K. Consumer valuation of Airbnb listings: a hedonic pricing approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2405–2424. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen P., Tussyadiah I., Liu A. Will guests use peer-to-peer accommodation again after a service failure? E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y., Liu S., Tussyadiah I., Abidin H.Z., Zarezadeh Z. Inferences and decision heuristics in peer-to-peer accommodation booking. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2019; 16 :53–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y., Huang Y., Tan C.H. Short-term rental and its regulations on the home-sharing platform. Inf. Manag. 2020; 103322 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Foley C. Algorithmic management: the case of Airbnb. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 83 :33–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Zhang G. When Western hosts meet Eastern guests: Airbnb hosts’ experience with Chinese outbound tourists. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :288–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng X., Fu S., Sun J., Bilgihan A., Okumus F. An investigation on online reviews in sharing economy driven hospitality platforms: a viewpoint of trust. Tourism Manag. 2019; 71 :366–377. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng M., Zhang G., Wong I.A. Spanning across the boundary of Airbnb host community: a network perspective. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 89 :102541. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiappa G., Sini L., Atzeni M. A motivation-based segmentation of Italian Airbnb users: an exploratory mixed method approach. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2020; 25 :2505. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chica-Olmo J., González-Morales J.G., Zafra-Gómez J.L. Effects of location on Airbnb apartment pricing in Málaga. Tourism Manag. 2020; 77 :103981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clauss T., Harengel P., Hock M. The perception of value of platform-based business models in the sharing economy: determining the drivers of user loyalty. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019; 13 :605–634. [ Google Scholar ]
• Contu G., Conversano C., Frigau L., Mola F. Identifying factors affecting the status of superhost: evidence from Sardinia and Sicily. Qual. Quantity. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Contu G., Conversano C., Frigau L., Mola F. The impact of Airbnb on hidden and sustainable tourism: the case of Italy. Int. J. Tourism. Pol. 2019; 9 :99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa R.B., Fernandes V.M., Gonçalves Fernando do Nascimento. The construction of trust in hospitality experiences mediated by the Internet: the cases of Couchsurfing and Airbnb. Cumunicacao Midia E Cusumo. 2017; 14 :22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa R., Faria P., Vitória A. Trust in the sharing economy: exploring the perceptions of Airbnb consumers. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2020; 24 :413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dogru T., Zhang Y., Suess C., Mody M., Bulut U., Sirakaya-Turk E. What caused the rise of Airbnb? An examination of key macroeconomic factors. Tourism Manag. 2020; 81 :104134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Domènech A., Larpin B., Schegg R., Scaglione M. Disentangling the geographical logic of Airbnb in Switzerland. Erdkunde. 2019:245–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 ]
• Dudás G., Boros L., Kovalcsik T., Kovalcsik B. The visualization of the spatiality of Airbnb in Budapest using 3-band raster representation. Geogr. Tech. 2017; 12 :23–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dudás G., Vida G., Kovalcsik T., Boros L. Reg. Stat.; 2017. A Socio-Economic Analysis of Airbnb in New York City. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman B.G., Luca M., Svirsky D. Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2017; 9 :1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ert E., Fleischer A. The evolution of trust in Airbnb: a case of home rental. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :279–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eugenio-Martin J.L., Cazorla-Artiles J.M., González-Martel C. On the determinants of Airbnb location and its spatial distribution. Tourism Econ. 2019 135481661882541. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fagerstrøm A., Pawar S., Sigurdsson V., Foxall G.R., Yani-de-Soriano M. That personal profile image might jeopardize your rental opportunity! on the relative impact of the seller’s facial expressions upon buying behavior on Airbnb TM . Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017; 72 :123–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fagerstrøm A., Pawar S., Arar M., Sigurðsson V. On the relative impact of male and female sellers’ profile image and its facial expressions upon peer users’ behavior on AirbnbTM. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018; 138 :454–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Christou P.A. Examining’Space’in peer-to-peer accommodation settings. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Stergiou D.P. Escaping loneliness through Airbnb host-guest interactions. Tourism Manag. 2019; 74 :331–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Stergiou D., Kaniadakis A. Self-perceptions of Airbnb hosts’ responsibility: a moral identity perspective. J. Sustain. Tourism. 2019:1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmaki A., Christou P., Saveriades A. A Lefebvrian analysis of Airbnb space. Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 80 :102806. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fierro A., Aranburu I. Airbnb branding: heritage as a branding element in the sharing economy. Sustainability. 2018; 11 :74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frenken K., van Waes A., Pelzer P., Smink M., van Est R. Policy Internet; 2019. Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freytag T., Bauder M. Bottom-up touristification and urban transformations in Paris. Tourism Geogr. 2018; 20 :443–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fudurich G., MacKay K. Greening the guest bedroom: exploring hosts’ perspectives on environmental certification for Airbnb. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2020 146735842091198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furukawa N., Onuki M. The design and effects of short-term rental regulation. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gant A.C. Holiday rentals: the new gentrification battlefront. Socio. Res. Online. 2016; 21 :112–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia-Ayllon S. Urban transformations as an indicator of unsustainability in the P2P mass tourism phenomenon: the Airbnb case in Spain through three case studies. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :2933. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerwe O., Silva R., Castro J. de. Entry of providers onto a sharing economy platform: macro-level factors and social interaction. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 2020 104225872090340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs C., Guttentag D., Gretzel U., Morton J., Goodwill A. Pricing in the sharing economy: a hedonic pricing model applied to Airbnb listings. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :46–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs C., Guttentag D., Gretzel U., Yao L., Morton J. Use of dynamic pricing strategies by Airbnb hosts. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 30 :2–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gil J., Sequera J. The professionalization of Airbnb in Madrid: far from a collaborative economy. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2020:1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Pérez J.M. The dispute over tourist cities. Tourism gentrification in the historic Centre of Palma (Majorca, Spain) Tourism Geogr. 2020; 22 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gössling S., Zeiss H., Hall C.M., Martin-Rios C., Ram Y., Grøtte I.-P. A cross-country comparison of accommodation manager perspectives on online review manipulation. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019; 22 :1744–1763. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimmer L., Vorobjovas-Pinta O. From the sharing economy to the visitor economy: the impact on small retailers. Int. J. Tour. Cities. 2019; 6 :90–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunter U., Önder I. Determinants of Airbnb demand in Vienna and their implications for the traditional accommodation industry. Tourism Econ. 2018; 24 :270–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta M., Esmaeilzadeh P., Uz I., Tennant V.M. The effects of national cultural values on individuals’ intention to participate in peer-to-peer sharing economy. J. Bus. Res. 2019; 97 :20–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutiérrez J., García-Palomares J.C., Romanillos G., Salas-Olmedo M.H. The eruption of Airbnb in tourist cities: comparing spatial patterns of hotels and peer-to-peer accommodation in Barcelona. Tourism Manag. 2017; 62 :278–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttentag D.A., Smith S.L.J. Assessing Airbnb as a disruptive innovation relative to hotels: substitution and comparative performance expectations. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 64 :1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han H., Shin S., Chung N., Koo C. Which appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are the most important for Airbnb users to booking? Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 31 :1205–1223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heo C.Y., Blal I., Choi M. What is happening in Paris? Airbnb, hotels, and the Parisian market: a case study. Tourism Manag. 2019; 70 :78–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández-López M.D. la O. Relational work in Airbnb reviews. Russ. J. Linguist. 2019; 23 :1088–1108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holikatti M., Jhaver S., Kumar N. Learning to Airbnb by engaging in online communities of practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2019; 3 :1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong S., Lee S. Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Govern. Inf. Q. 2018; 35 :283–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong Choi K., Hyun Jung J., Yeol Ryu S., Do Kim S., Min Yoon S. The relationship between Airbnb and the hotel revenue: in the case of Korea. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2015; 8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Horn K., Merante M. Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston. J. Hous. Econ. 2017; 38 :14–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang D., Liu X., Lai D., Li Z. Users and non-users of P2P accommodation: differences in perceived risks and behavioral intentions. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2019; 10 :369–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang D., Coghlan A., Jin X. Understanding the drivers of Airbnb discontinuance. Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 80 :102798. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huarng K.-H., Yu M.-F. Customer satisfaction and repurchase intention theory for the online sharing economy. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019; 13 :635–647. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huurne M.T., Ronteltap A., Buskens V. Sense of community and trust in the sharing economy. Tourism Anal. 2020; 25 :43–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannides D., Röslmaier M., van der Zee E. Airbnb as an instigator of ‘tourism bubble’ expansion in Utrecht’s Lombok neighbourhood. Tourism Geogr. 2018; 1–19 [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaeger B., Sleegers W.W.A., Evans A.M., Stel M., van Beest I. The effects of facial attractiveness and trustworthiness in online peer-to-peer markets. J. Econ. Psychol. 2018:1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang H.-Y., Yin Q.-F. What effect the demand for homestays: evidence from Airbnb in China. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2020:1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang Y., Balaji M.S., Jha S. Together we tango: value facilitation and customer participation in Airbnb. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 82 :169–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiao J., Bai S. Cities reshaped by Airbnb: a case study in New York city, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 2020; 52 :10–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiao J., Bai S. An empirical analysis of Airbnb listings in forty American cities. Cities. 2020; 99 :102618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan E.J., Moore J. An in-depth exploration of residents’ perceived impacts of transient vacation rentals. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :90–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ju Y., Back K.-J., Choi Y., Lee J.-S. Exploring Airbnb service quality attributes and their asymmetric effects on customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 77 :342–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kakar V., Voelz J., Wu J., Franco J. The visible host: does race guide Airbnb rental rates in san Francisco? J. Hous. Econ. 2018; 40 :25–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karlsson L., Kemperman A., Dolnicar S. May I sleep in your bed? Getting permission to book. Ann. Tourism Res. 2017; 62 :1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ke Q. Service providers of the sharing economy: who Joins and who benefits? Proc. ACM Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2017; 1 :1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B., Kim D. Attracted to or locked in? Explaining consumer loyalty toward Airbnb. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :2814. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein M., Zhao J., Ni J., Johnson I., Hill B.M., Zhu H. Quality standards, service orientation, and power in Airbnb and couchsurfing. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2017; 1 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh E., King B. Accommodating the sharing revolution: a qualitative evaluation of the impact of Airbnb on Singapore’s budget hotels. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2017; 42 :409–421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh Y., Belarmino A., Kim M.G. Good fences make good revenue: an examination of revenue management practices at peer-to-peer accommodations. Tourism Econ. 2019 135481661986757. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lagonigro R., Martori J.C., Apparicio P. Understanding Airbnb spatial distribution in a southern European city: the case of Barcelona. Appl. Geogr. 2020; 115 :102136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lalicic L., Weismayer C. A model of tourists’ loyalty: the case of Airbnb. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2018; 9 :80–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latif R.A., Subramaniam S., Rahim R.M.A., Nesamany S.S. An empirical study on AirBnB accommodation services and customer decision making. Int. J. Innov. 2019; 6 :28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawani A., Reed M.R., Mark T., Zheng Y. Reviews and price on online platforms: evidence from sentiment analysis of Airbnb reviews in Boston. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2019; 75 :22–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S., Kim D.-Y. Brand personality of Airbnb: application of user involvement and gender differences. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :32–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C.K.H., Tse Y.K., Zhang M., Ma J. Analysing online reviews to investigate customer behaviour in the sharing economy: the case of Airbnb. Inf. Technol. People. 2019; 33 :945–961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H., Yang S.-B., Koo C. Exploring the effect of Airbnb hosts’ attachment and psychological ownership in the sharing economy. Tourism Manag. 2019; 70 :284–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S.H. New measuring stick on sharing accommodation: guest-perceived benefits and risks. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 87 :102471. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leoni G., Parker L.D. Governance and control of sharing economy platforms: hosting on Airbnb. Br. Account. Rev. 2019; 51 :100814. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leshinsky R., Schatz L. “I don’t think my landlord will find out:” Airbnb and the challenges of enforcement. Urban Pol. Res. 2018; 36 :417–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li J., Hudson S., So K.K.F. Exploring the customer experience with Airbnb. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :410–429. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang S., Schuckert M., Law R., Chen C.-C. Be a “Superhost”: the importance of badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations. Tourism Manag. 2017; 60 :454–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang L.J., Choi H.C., Joppe M. Understanding repurchase intention of Airbnb consumers: perceived authenticity, electronic word-of-mouth, and price sensitivity. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :73–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang S., Li H., Liu X., Schuckert M. Motivators behind information disclosure: evidence from Airbnb hosts. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 76 :305–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang S., Schuckert M., Law R., Chen C.-C. The importance of marketer-generated content to peer-to-peer property rental platforms: evidence from Airbnb. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 84 :102329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima V. Towards an understanding of the regional impact of Airbnb in Ireland. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2019; 6 :78–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin H.-Y., Wang M.-H., Wu M.-J. A study of Airbnb use behavior in the sharing economy. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2017; 10 :38–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin P.M.C. Is Airbnb a good choice for family travel? J. China Tourism Res. 2018; 16 :140–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu S.Q., Mattila A.S. Airbnb: online targeted advertising, sense of power, and consumer decisions. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 60 :33–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Llop N.L. A policy approach to the impact of tourist dwellings in condominiums and neighbourhoods in Barcelona. Urban Res. Pract. 2017; 10 :120–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorde T., Jacob J., Weekes Q. Price-setting behavior in a tourism sharing economy accommodation market: a hedonic price analysis of AirBnB hosts in the caribbean. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019; 30 :251–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu L., Tabari S. Impact of Airbnb on customers’ behavior in the UK hotel industry. Tourism Anal. 2019; 24 :13–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu L., Mody M., Andajigarmaroudi S. Exploring guest response towards service failure in home-sharing: service presence and consumption motivation. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2020; 87 :102498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo Y., Tang R. Understanding hidden dimensions in textual reviews on Airbnb: an application of modified latent aspect rating analysis (LARA) Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 80 :144–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lutz C., Newlands G. Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: the case of Airbnb. J. Bus. Res. 2018; 88 :187–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Z., Berezina K., Cobanoglu C. Predicting Chinese travelers’ intentions to use Airbnb. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2020; 17 :610–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magno F., Cassia F., Ugolini M.M. Accommodation prices on Airbnb: effects of host experience and market demand. TQM J. 2018; 30 :608–620. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malazizi N., Alipour H., Olya H. Risk perceptions of Airbnb hosts: evidence from a Mediterranean Island. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :1349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchenko A. The impact of host race and gender on prices on Airbnb. J. Hous. Econ. 2019; 46 :101635. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marques L., Gondim Matos B. Network relationality in the tourism experience: staging sociality in homestays. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin-Fuentes E., Fernandez C., Mateu C., Marine-Roig E. Modelling a grading scheme for peer-to-peer accommodation: stars for Airbnb. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 69 :75–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauri A.G., Minazzi R., Nieto-García M., Viglia G. Humanize your business. The role of personal reputation in the sharing economy. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2018; 73 :36–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meijerink J., Schoenmakers E. Why are online reviews in the sharing economy skewed toward positive ratings? Linking customer perceptions of service quality to leaving a review of an Airbnb stay. J. Tour. Futur. 2020 ahead-of-print. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mhlanga O. Peer-to-peer-travel: is Airbnb a friend or foe to hotels? Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :443–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mody M., Hanks L. Consumption authenticity in the accommodations industry: the keys to brand love and brand loyalty for hotels and Airbnb. J. Trav. Res. 2020; 59 :173–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moon H., Miao L., Hanks L., Line N.D. Peer-to-peer interactions: perspectives of Airbnb guests and hosts. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 77 :405–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moon H., Wei W., Miao L. Complaints and resolutions in a peer-to-peer business model. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 81 :239–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreno-Izquierdo L., Ramón-Rodríguez A.B., Such-Devesa M.J., Perles-Ribes J.F. Tourist environment and online reputation as a generator of added value in the sharing economy: the case of Airbnb in urban and sun- and-beach holiday destinations. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019; 11 :53–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moro S., Rita P., Esmerado J., Oliveira C. Unfolding the drivers for sentiments generated by Airbnb Experiences. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :430–442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Munkøe M.M. Regulating the European sharing economy: state of play and challenges. Intereconomics. 2017; 52 :38–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nathan R.J., Victor V., Tan M., Fekete-Farkas M. Tourists’ use of Airbnb app for visiting a historical city. Inf. Technol. Tourism. 2020; 22 :217–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newlands G.E.M., Lutz C., Fieseler C. The conditioning function of rating mechanisms for consumers in the sharing economy. 2019; 19 [ Google Scholar ]
• Nieto García M., Muñoz-Gallego P.A., Viglia G., González-Benito Ó. Be social! The impact of self-presentation on peer-to-peer accommodation revenue. J. Trav. Res. 2019 004728751987852. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nieuwland S., van Melik R. Regulating Airbnb: how cities deal with perceived negative externalities of short-term rentals. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2018:1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’ Regan M., Choe J. Airbnb and cultural capitalism: enclosure and control within the sharing economy. Anatolia. 2017; 28 :163–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Önder I., Weismayer C., Gunter U. Spatial price dependencies between the traditional accommodation sector and the sharing economy. Tourism Econ. 2019; 25 :1150–1166. 135481661880586. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oskam J., van der Rest J.-P., Telkamp B. What’s mine is yours—but at what price? Dynamic pricing behavior as an indicator of Airbnb host professionalization. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2018; 17 :311–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osman H., D’Acunto D., Johns N. Home and away: why do consumers shy away from reporting negative experiences in the peer-to-peer realms? Psychol. Market. 2019; 36 :1162–1175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pera R., Viglia G., Grazzini L., Dalli D. When empathy prevents negative reviewing behavior. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :265–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poon K.Y., Huang W.-J. Past experience, traveler personality and tripographics on intention to use Airbnb. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2425–2443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Priporas C.-V., Stylos N., Rahimi R., Vedanthachari L.N. Unraveling the diverse nature of service quality in a sharing economy: a social exchange theory perspective of Airbnb accommodation. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2279–2301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Priporas C.-V., Stylos N., Vedanthachari L.N., Santiwatana P. Service quality, satisfaction, and customer loyalty in Airbnb accommodation in Thailand. Int. J. Tourism Res. 2017; 19 :693–704. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proserpio D., Xu W., Zervas G. You get what you give: theory and evidence of reciprocity in the sharing economy. Quant. Market. Econ. 2018; 16 :371–407. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pung J.M., Chiappa G.D., Sini L. Booking experiences on sharing economy platforms: an exploration of tourists’ motivations and constraints. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quattrone G., Greatorex A., Quercia D., Capra L., Musolesi M. Analyzing and predicting the spatial penetration of Airbnb in U.S. cities. EPJ Data Sci. 2018; 7 :31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ram Y., Hall C.M. Walk Score and tourist accommodation. Int. J. Tour. Cities. 2018; 4 :369–375. [ Google Scholar ]
• Randle M., Dolnicar S. Enabling people with impairments to use Airbnb. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 76 :278–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ranson P., Guttentag D. “Please tidy up before leaving”: nudging Airbnb guests toward altruistic behavior. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :524–530. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravenelle A.J. Digitalization and the hybridization of markets and circuits in Airbnb. Consum. Mark. Cult. 2020; 23 :154–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robertson D., Oliver C., Nost E. Short-term rentals as digitally-mediated tourism gentrification: impacts on housing in New Orleans. Tourism Geogr. 2020:1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez-Pérez de Arenaza D., Hierro L.Á., Patiño D. Airbnb, sun-and-beach tourism and residential rental prices. The case of the coast of Andalusia (Spain) Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roelofsen M. Exploring the socio-spatial inequalities of Airbnb in sofia, Bulgaria. Erdkunde. 2018; 72 :313–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubino I., Coscia C., Curto R. Identifying spatial relationships between built heritage resources and short-term rentals before the Covid-19 pandemic: exploratory perspectives on sustainability issues. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :4533. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainaghi R., Baggio R. Substitution threat between Airbnb and hotels: myth or reality? Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 83 :102959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salvioni D.M. Symphonya Emerg. Issues Manag.; 2016. Hotel Chains and the Sharing Economy in Global Tourism. [ Google Scholar ]
• Santos G., Mota V.F.S., Benevenuto F., Silva T.H. Neutrality may matter: sentiment analysis in reviews of Airbnb, Booking, and Couchsurfing in Brazil and USA. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2020; 10 :45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarkar A., Koohikamali M., Pick J.B. Spatiotemporal patterns and socioeconomic dimensions of shared accommodations: the case of Airbnb in Los Angeles, California. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Rem. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013; 4 :107–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scerri M.A., Presbury R. Airbnb Superhosts’ talk in commercial homes. Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 80 :102827. [ Google Scholar ]
• Semi G., Tonetta M. Marginal hosts: short-term rental suppliers in Turin, Italy. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 2020 0308518X2091243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith M.K., Egedy T., Csizmady A., Jancsik A., Olt G., Michalkó G. Non-planning and tourism consumption in Budapest’s inner city. Tourism Geogr. 2018; 20 :524–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spangler I. Hidden value in the platform’s platform: Airbnb, displacement, and the un-homing spatialities of emotional labour. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2020; 45 :575–588. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stabrowski F. ‘People as businesses’: Airbnb and urban micro-entrepreneurialism in New York City. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2017; 10 :327–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stergiou D.P., Farmaki A. Resident perceptions of the impacts of P2P accommodation: implications for neighbourhoods. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 102411 [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern S.M. Rent control sharing. Law Ethics Hum. Right. 2019; 13 :141–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sthapit E., Jiménez-Barreto J. Exploring tourists’ memorable hospitality experiences: an Airbnb perspective. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018; 28 :83–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sthapit E., Del Chiappa G., Coudounaris D.N., Bjork P. Determinants of the continuance intention of Airbnb users: consumption values, co-creation, information overload and satisfaction. Tour. Rev. 2019; 75 :511–531. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sthapit E., Björk P., Jiménez Barreto J. Negative memorable experience: North American and British Airbnb guests’ perspectives. Tour. Rev. 2020 ahead-of-print. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sthapit E. My bad for wanting to try something unique: sources of value co-destruction in the Airbnb context. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019; 22 :2462–2465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strømmen-Bakhtiar A., Vinogradov E. The effects of Airbnb on hotels in Norway. Soc. Econ. 2019; 41 :87–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. Tourism Manag. 2020; 77 :103952. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun N., Liu D., Zhu A., Chen Y., Yuan Y. Do Airbnb’s “Superhosts” deserve the badge? An empirical study from China. Asia Pac. J. Tourism Res. 2019; 24 :296–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sung E., Kim H., Lee D. Why do people consume and provide sharing economy accommodation?—a sustainability perspective. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :2072. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland I., Kiatkawsin K. Determinants of guest experience in Airbnb: a topic modeling approach using LDA. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :3402. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang L., Rebecca), Kim J., Wang X. Estimating spatial effects on peer-to-peer accommodation prices: towards an innovative hedonic model approach. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 81 :43–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teubner T., Flath C. Privacy in the sharing economy. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. Online. 2019; 20 [ Google Scholar ]
• Tham A. When Harry met Sally: different approaches towards Uber and AirBnB—an Australian and Singapore perspective. Inf. Technol. Tourism. 2016; 16 :393–412. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiamiyu T., Quoquab F., Mohammad J. Antecedents and consequences of tourists’ attachment in driving guests’ booking intention: a case of Airbnb, Malaysia. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. ahead-of-print. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
• Törnberg P., Chiappini L. Selling black places on Airbnb: colonial discourse and the marketing of black communities in New York City. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 2020; 52 :553–572. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsourgiannis L., Valsamidis S. Digital marketing in tourism: why Greek tourists use digital marketing applications like Airbnb. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2019; 13 :473–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tussyadiah I.P., Park S. When guests trust hosts for their words: host description and trust in sharing economy. Tourism Manag. 2018; 67 :261–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tussyadiah I.P., Pesonen J. Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation stay – an exploratory study with American and Finnish travellers. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2018; 21 :703–720. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tussyadiah I.P., Zach F. Identifying salient attributes of peer-to-peer accommodation experience. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2017; 34 :636–652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Villeneuve H., O’Brien W. Listen to the guests: text-mining Airbnb reviews to explore indoor environmental quality. Build. Environ. 2020; 169 :106555. [ Google Scholar ]
• Volgger M., Taplin R., Pforr C. The evolution of ‘Airbnb-tourism’: demand-side dynamics around international use of peer-to-peer accommodation in Australia. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :322–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Voltes-Dorta A., Inchausti-Sintes F. The spatial and quality dimensions of Airbnb markets. Tourism Econ. 2020 135481661989807. [ Google Scholar ]
• von der Heidt T., Muschter S., Caldicott R., Che D. Airbnb in the byron shire, Australia – bane or blessing? Int. J. Tour. Cities. 2019; 6 :53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wachsmuth D., Weisler A. Airbnb and the rent gap: gentrification through the sharing economy. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 2018 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang D., Nicolau J.L. Price determinants of sharing economy based accommodation rental: a study of listings from 33 cities on Airbnb.com. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 62 :120–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y., Wu L., Xie K., Li X. Staying with the ingroup or outgroup? A cross-country examination of international travelers’ home-sharing preferences. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 77 :425–437. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y., Asaad Y., Filieri R. What makes hosts trust Airbnb? Antecedents of hosts’ trust toward Airbnb and its impact on continuance intention. J. Trav. Res. 2020; 59 :686–703. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu X., Shen J. A study on Airbnb’s trust mechanism and the effects of cultural values—based on a survey of Chinese consumers. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :3041. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wyman D., Mothorpe C., McLeod B. Airbnb and VRBO: the impact of short-term tourist rentals on residential property pricing. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2020:1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie K., Mao Z. The impacts of quality and quantity attributes of Airbnb hosts on listing performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2017; 29 :2240–2260. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie K., Mao Z. Locational strategy of professional hosts: effect on perceived quality and revenue performance of Airbnb listings. J. Hospit. Tourism Res. 2019; 43 :919–929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie K.L., Kwok L., Heo C.Y. Are neighbors friends or foes? Assessing Airbnb listings’ agglomeration effect in New York city. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2020; 61 :128–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu F., Hu M., La L., Wang J., Huang C. The influence of neighbourhood environment on Airbnb: a geographically weighed regression analysis. Tourism Geogr. 2019; 22 :1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu Y.-H., Pennington-Gray L., Kim J. The sharing economy: a geographically weighted regression approach to examine crime and the shared lodging sector. J. Trav. Res. 2019; 58 :1193–1208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang S., Ahn S. Presented at the Mechanical Engineering 2016. 2016. Impact of motivation in the sharing economy and perceived security in attitude and loyalty toward Airbnb; pp. 180–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y., Mao Z. Location advantages of lodging properties: a comparison between hotels and Airbnb units in an urban environment. Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 81 :102861. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang S., Song Y., Chen S., Xia X. Why are customers loyal in sharing-economy services? A relational benefits perspective. J. Serv. Market. 2017; 31 :48–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang S.-B., Lee H., Lee K., Koo C. The application of Aristotle’s rhetorical theory to the sharing economy: an empirical study of Airbnb. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2018; 35 :938–957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y., Tan K.P.-S., Li X. Antecedents and consequences of home-sharing stays: evidence from a nationwide household tourism survey. Tourism Manag. 2019; 70 :15–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yao B., Qiu R.T.R., Fan D.X.F., Liu A., Buhalis D. Standing out from the crowd – an exploration of signal attributes of Airbnb listings. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 31 :4520–4542. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye S., Ying T., Zhou L., Wang Tianyi. Enhancing customer trust in peer-to-peer accommodation: a “soft” strategy via social presence. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 79 :1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager E.P., Boley B.B., Woosnam K.M., Green G.T. Modeling residents’ attitudes toward short-term vacation rentals. J. Trav. Res. 2020; 59 :955–974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeon J., Song H.J., Lee S. Impact of short-term rental regulation on hotel industry: a difference-in-differences approach. Ann. Tourism Res. 2020; 83 :102939. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yi J., Yuan G., Yoo C. The effect of the perceived risk on the adoption of the sharing economy in the tourism industry: the case of Airbnb. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020; 57 :102108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young C.A., Corsun D.L., Xie K.L. Travelers’ preferences for peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodations and hotels. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hospit. Res. 2017; 11 :465–482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yrigoy I. Rent gap reloaded: Airbnb and the shift from residential to touristic rental housing in the Palma Old Quarter in Mallorca. Spain. 2019; 56 :2709–2726. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarifis A., Ingham R., Kroenung J. Exploring the language of the sharing economy: building trust and reducing privacy concern on Airbnb in German and English. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2019; 6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zekan B., Önder I., Gunter U. Benchmarking of Airbnb listings: how competitive is the sharing economy sector of European cities? Tourism Econ. 2018 135481661881434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Z., Chen R., Han L., Yang L. Key factors affecting the price of Airbnb listings: a geographically weighted approach. Sustainability. 2017; 9 :1635. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Le, Yan Q., Zhang Leihan. A computational framework for understanding antecedents of guests’ perceived trust towards hosts on Airbnb. Decis. Support Syst. 2018; 115 :105–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang G., Cui R., Cheng M., Zhang Q., Li Z. A comparison of key attributes between peer-to-peer accommodations and hotels using online reviews. Curr. Issues Tourism. 2019:1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang T., Bufquin D., Lu C. A qualitative investigation of microentrepreneurship in the sharing economy. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 79 :148–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Le, Yan Q., Zhang Leihan. A text analytics framework for understanding the relationships among host self-description, trust perception and purchase behavior on Airbnb. Decis. Support Syst. 2020; 133 :113288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J. What’s yours is mine: exploring customer voice on Airbnb using text-mining approaches. J. Consum. Market. 2019; 36 :655–665. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu L., Cheng M., Wong I.A. Determinants of peer-to-peer rental rating scores: the case of Airbnb. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2019; 31 :3702–3721. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu Y., Cheng M., Wang J., Ma L., Jiang R. The construction of home feeling by Airbnb guests in the sharing economy: a semantics perspective. Ann. Tourism Res. 2019; 75 :308–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu Y., Ma L., Jiang R. A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese online platform reviews: a genre-based view. Discourse Commun. 2019; 13 :342–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zou Z. Examining the impact of short-term rentals on housing prices in Washington, DC: implications for housing policy and equity. Hous. Policy Debate. 2020; 30 :269–290. [ Google Scholar ]