• No results found

Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Environmental

Innovation

and

Societal

Transitions

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e i s t

Sharing

for

people,

planet

or

profit?

Analysing

motivations

for

intended

sharing

economy

participation

Lars

Böcker

a,1

,

Toon

Meelen

b,∗,1

aDepartmentofSociologyandHumanGeography,UniversityofOslo,Norway bCopernicusInstituteofSustainableDevelopment,UtrechtUniversity,Netherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received12May2016

Receivedinrevisedform22July2016 Accepted11September2016 Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Sharingeconomy Sustainableinnovation Sustainableconsumption Motivations Environmentalbehaviour Collaborativeconsumption

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thesharingeconomyisafast-growingandheavilydebatedphenomenon.Thisstudy pro-videsanoverviewofmotivationsofpeoplewillingtoparticipateindifferentformsof thesharingeconomy.Asurveywasheldamongst1330respondentsfromAmsterdam, TheNetherlands.Usingstatedpreferencedata,weinvestigatetherelativeimportanceof (1)economic,(2)socialand(3)environmentalmotivationstoparticipateinpeer-to-peer sharing.Herebyweconsiderdifferencesbetween(a)sectorsofthesharingeconomy,(b) socio-demographicgroups,and(c)usersandproviders.Resultsaredescriptiveaswellas basedonorderedlogitmodels.Notabledifferencesareobservedinthemotivationsfor sharingbetweensectors.Toalesserextentthereisvarietyinsharingdriversbetween socio-demographicgroups.Finally,usersseemmoreeconomicallymotivatedthanprovidersof goods.

©2016TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Thisisanopenaccessarticleunderthe CCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Thesharingeconomyhasgrowninbothscaleandscopeoverthepastyears(Belk,2014b;Owyang,2013).Inavarietyof sectors,internet-facilitatedplatformshaveemergedthatenablepeopletosharetheirunderutilizedassets.Examplesinclude Airbnbforapartments,BlablacarforcarsandPeerbyfortools.Thesesharingplatformsincreasinglyformathreattoexisting businessesoperatingintherespectivesectors(Gansky,2010;Owyang,2013).Apartfromhavingeconomicconsequences,the sharingeconomyisclaimedtohavepositiveenvironmentalandsocialeffects(BotsmanandRogers,2011).Moreefficient useofgoodscansavescarceresourcesotherwiseneededforproduction.Theactofsharingcouldbringpeopletogether andstimulatesocialcohesioninneighbourhoods(Agyemanetal.,2013).However,thesharingeconomyhasalsocaused considerablecontroversy,forexamplerelatedtorisingrentsforlocalresidentsbecauseofaccommodationsharing(Martin, 2016;Frenkenetal.,2015).

Despitearecentsurgeinattentionforthesharingeconomy,littleisknownaboutthemotivationsforpeopletoparticipate (Tussyadiah,2015;Grassmuck,2012).Insightsinmotivationswouldbeinstrumentalindevelopingabetterunderstanding ofthesofarunderexploreddecision-makingprocessesofusers(Tussyadiah,2015;Piscicellietal.,2014)andcanalsofoster thegeneraldiscussionaroundthesharingeconomy(Martin,2016;Grassmuck,2012).Giventhatthesharingeconomyis

Correspondingauthorat:CopernicusInstituteforSustainableDevelopment,Heidelberglaan2,P.O.Box80115,TCUtrecht3508,Netherlands. E-mailaddress:A.A.H.Meelen@uu.nl(T.Meelen).

1 Bothauthorscontributedequallytothepaper.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004

2210-4224/©2016TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/).

(2)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing oftenregardedasaninnovationwithsustainabilitybenefits,studyingthevariousmotivationsforadoptionalsocontributes totheemergingdebatearoundtheend-userintheliteratureonsustainableinnovationsandsocietaltransitions(McMeekin andSoutherton,2012;KempandvanLente,2011).Thisdebatefocusesonconsumerpreferencesandpracticesneededto achieveatransitiontowardsamoresustainablesociety.Thesharingeconomyhereisaparticularlyinterestingcase,because incontrasttomanyothersustainableinnovations,certainsharingeconomysectorsarescalingupveryrapidly.

Afewearlysharingeconomyscholarshavesuggesteddriversforparticipation.BardhiandEckhardt(2012)claimthat economicmotivationsaredominantinthecaseofcarsharingplatformZipcar.ThisfindingisreplicatedbyBellottietal. (2015),whostudyusersfromarangeofpeer-to-peerplatforms.Otherauthors,however,arguethatenvironmental motiva-tionsunderliesharingeconomyparticipation(BotsmanandRogers,2011;Gansky,2010).BotsmanandRogers(2011)suggest socialmotivationsdrivesharingeconomyparticipationaswell.Peoplewouldforexampleengageinaccommodationsharing, becausetheywanttointeractwiththeirlocalhosts(Tussyadiah,2015).

Quantitativeresearchintosharingeconomymotivationsisstilllargelylacking.Mostexistingstudiesonlyconsiderone formofthesharingeconomy(Tussyadiah,2016,2015;Piscicellietal.,2014),oneofthefewexceptionsbeingMöhlmann’s (2015)studyofbothcarandaccommodationsharers.Otherstudiesassumetheexistenceofonesharingeconomyanddo notdistinguishbetweendifferentforms(Hamarietal.,2015).However,itislikelythatmotivationstoshareforinstancea powerdrillaredifferentfromthosetoshareanapartment.Moreover,Hellwigetal.(2015)showthatmotivationsforsharing economyparticipationcandifferforvarioussocio-demographicgroups.Finally,userscouldhaveothermotivationsthan providersofgoodsinthesharingeconomy,giventhattheactivitiesofprovidingandusingaresubstantiallydifferent(Van deGlind,2013).

Thisstudyaimstoprovideamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofthemotivationsforparticipationinthesharing economy.Synthesisingfromprevioussharingeconomystudies,andinlinewithasustainabilityapproach,economic, envi-ronmentalandsocialmotivationsareconsidered.Expandingcurrentresearch,therelativeimportanceofthesemotivations forsharingeconomyparticipationisinvestigatedfordifferenttypesofgoods,socio-demographicgroupsandrolesasuser orprovider.Fiveformsofsharingaretakenintoaccount:carsharing,ridesharing,accommodationsharing,toolsharing andmealsharing.Analysesdrawonastatedpreferencesurveyheldamong1330participantsinthecityofAmsterdam,The Netherlands.

Therestofthepaperisstructuredasfollows.Section2reviewstheliteratureonsharingeconomymotivations,and hypothesisestherelativeimportanceofthesemotivationsundervariouscircumstances.Section3discussesthedata col-lectionandanalyticalstrategy.Section4presentstheresults.Section5concludes,anddiscusseslimitationsofthestudyas wellasimplicationsforthesharingeconomyandsustainableinnovationfields.

2. Theory

Manytermsanddefinitionscirculatetodescribetheso-called“sharingturn”intheeconomy:thetrendthatmoreand moreproductsaresharedratherthanprivatelyowned(Nesta,2014;Botsman,2013;Grassmuck,2012).Thispaperfocuses onpeer-to-peerexchangesofgoodsbetweenconsumers.Weusetheterm“sharingeconomy”ratherthan“access-based consumption”(BardhiandEckhardt,2012)or“collaborativeconsumption”(Belk,2014b),becausethelattertwoalsoreferto large-scalebusinesstoconsumerservicessuchasSpotifyorZipcar.Wedefinethesharingeconomyas“consumersgranting eachothertemporaryaccesstotheirunder-utilizedphysicalassets(“idle capacity”),possiblyformoney”(Meelen and Frenken,2015).ExamplesofsharingventuresthatfitthisdefinitionareAirbnbandCouchsurfingforapartmentsharing, GetaroundandRelayridesforcarsharing,andBlablacarforridesharing.

Inthenascentliteratureonthesharingeconomy,thereisanincreasinginterestinthemotivationsdrivingparticipation. OfthemanymotivationtheoriesthatexistSelfDeterminationTheory(SDT)(DeciandRyan,2000;RyanandDeci,2000) isfrequentlydrawnuponinsharingeconomystudies(Tussyadiah,2016;Hamarietal.,2015;Bellottietal.,2015).Inthis perspectivebehaviourisdrivenbyintrinsicmotivations,whichemergefrominherentsatisfactionsoftheactivity,andby extrinsicmotivations,whichrelatetooutcomesthatareseparatefromthebehaviour.Hamarietal.(2015)andTussyadiah (2016)refertoLindenberg(2001)tofurtherdistinguishbetweenintrinsicmotivationscomingfromenjoymentoftheactivity andfromtheinternalizedvalueofconformingtothenorm.Fromthelattercategory,environmentalconcernhasbeenmost prominentlyrelatedtosharingeconomyparticipation(Tussyadiah,2016;Hamarietal.,2015;Bellottietal.,2015).People wouldinitiatesharingeconomyactivitiestoreducetheiruseofscarcenaturalresources.Asanextrinsicdriverofsharing economyparticipation,monetaryrewardshaveoftenbeenmentioned(Tussyadiah,2016,2015;BardhiandEckhardt,2012). Mindfulofthesecategorizationsofmotivations,inthisresearchweemployasustainabilityframeworkanddistinguish betweeneconomic,environmentalandsocialmotivations.Withsuchaframeworkweareabletocontributetothecurrent sharingeconomydebateandthewiderliteratureonenvironmentalinnovationandsocietaltransitions.Tussyadiah(2015) categorizesmotivationsmentionedintheexistingsharingeconomyliteratureaspartof“economicbenefits”,“sustainability” and“community”.Slightlyadaptingfromthis,andlargelyinlinewiththewell-knowntriple-p(people-planet-profit) frame-workofsustainability(Elkington,1997),inthispaperadistinctionismadebetweeneconomic,environmentalandsocial driversofsharingeconomybehaviour.Thisperspectiveallowsustosystematicallyassessclaimswithintheongoingsharing economydebate(Martin,2016),regardingwhethersharingeconomygrowthisdrivenbymoreintrinsicenvironmentaland social,orextrinsiceconomicmotivations.Italsocontributestothewiderliteratureonsustainableinnovationsandsocietal transitions.Inthisfield,recentlymoreattentionhasbeengiventotheimportanceofconsumerpreferencesforachieving

(3)

sustainabilitytransitions,particularlyasinnovationsscaleup(KempandvanLente,2011).Incurrenttransitionresearch adistinctionisoftenonlymadebetweenagroupofnicheusers,whichhaveaveryparticularsetofmotivations,andall other“mainstream”users.Authorshavethereforecalledtoacknowledgemoreheterogeneityinusergroups(McMeekinand Southerton,2012).Ourresearchcontributestobothoftheseissues,bymappingoutconsumermotivationsandexploring differencesinthesemotivationsbetweenvarioussocio-demographicgroups.

Letusfirstconsidereconomicdriversforsharingeconomyparticipation.Inthiscontext,althoughconcreteevidenceis lacking,theriseofthesharingeconomyandfinancialcrisisof2008areoftenlinked.Facedwithfinancialdifficulties,people wouldrethinktheirconsumptionpatternsandthevaluetheyattachtoownership(Gansky,2010).Theempiricalliterature tendstofindatleastsomesupportforeconomicmotivationsinsharingeconomybehaviour.Asurveyofmembersofthe onlinesharingplatformSharetribeshowsthateconomicbenefitsstimulateintendedsharingeconomyparticipation(Hamari etal.,2015).Ontheotherhand,inastudycomparingrentingtoownership,MoellerandWittkowski(2010)findnoevidence of“priceconsciousness”todrivethisdecision.Itshouldbenotedhoweverthatintheirstudyitmightnotalwayshavebeen clearwhichoptionwascheaper.Regardingspecificsharingeconomysectors,Tussyadiah(2015,2016)findsthateconomic motivationsareanimportantdriverforusingaccommodationsharingintwoUSsurveys.Möhlmann(2015)surveyscar andaccommodationsharingusers,andfindsthat“costsavings”increasesatisfaction,butdonotaffectintentiontousethe serviceagain.Finally,BardhiandEckhardt(2012),inaninterview-basedstudyintomotivationsofclientsofcarsharing platformZipcar,showthatutilitarianmotivationssuchassavingmoneyunderlieZipcarparticipation.

Inthesharingeconomydiscourse,itspresumedenvironmentaladvantagesareoftenstressed(Martin,2016;Schor,2014). Potentially,thesharingeconomycan,asanalternativeeconomicmodel,makeacontributiontoenvironmental sustainabil-ity(Heinrichs,2013).Animportantmechanismistheincreasedefficiencyintheuseofgoods,whichhelpstosparescarce resourcesthatwouldotherwisehavebeennecessaryfortheproductionofnewgoods.However,itisyetfarfromclearwhat theenvironmentaleffectsofthesharingeconomywillbe.Severalmotivationalstudiesfindaroleforenvironmentaldrivers ofsharingeconomyparticipation.Piscicellietal.(2014)findthat32%oftheirrespondentsindicate“tobegreen”asthemain reasontojoinsharingplatformEcomodo.AlsoHamarietal.(2015)showthatperceivedsustainabilityhasasmallindirect effectonintendedsharingbehaviour.InaUSsurveyLawson(2010)findsapositiveeffectofenvironmentalconsciousness onintentiontoengagein“fractionalownership”.Contrastingly,intheirinterview-basedstudyBardhiandEckhardt(2012) findenvironmentalconcernnottobeamongthemainmotivationsofZipcarcar-sharingusers.Insurveyson accommoda-tionsharing(Tussyadiah,2016)andonaccommodationaswellascarsharing(Möhlmann,2015)noinfluenceisfoundof environmentaldriversontheintentiontousetheseservicesagain.Similarly,MoellerandWittkowski(2010),inasurvey amongusersofanonlinepeer-to-peernetwork,findnoeffectofenvironmentalismonpreferringrentinginsteadofowning good.Insum,thereisnoconclusiveevidenceregardingthelinkbetweenenvironmentalmotivationsandparticipationin thesharingeconomy.

Socialaspectsofsharingcouldalsodrivesharingeconomyparticipation(Botsman,2013;OzanneandBallantine,2010). Interactionsbetweenusersandprovidersofgoodsareattheheartofmanysharingeconomyforms.Forexample,inthecase ofpeer-to-peercarsharingpeoplemeetuptoexchangethecarkeysanddiscusstheexactconditionsoftheexchange.With accommodationsharingpeoplemeettheirlocalhosts,whocanintroducethemintothelocalcommunity.Theabilitytoget toknownewpeopleandmakefriendsisclaimedtostimulatesharingeconomyparticipation(BotsmanandRogers,2011). OzanneandOzanne(2011)findthatbothforchildrenandtheirparents,socializingisadriverfortoylibraryparticipation.In theiraccommodationsharingstudy,Tussyadiah(2015)showthatmotivationsofgettingtoknowlocalpeopleandinteracting withthemareimportantparticipationdrivers.Inanotherstudythisresultisnotreplicated,anexplanationbeingthatsome accommodationsharingusersarespecificallylookingforplacestostaythatdonotinvolvesocialinteraction(Tussyadiah, 2016).

Intheremainderofthispaper,wequantitativelyassesstherelativeimportanceoftheaforementionedeconomic, envi-ronmentalandsocialmotivationsforparticipationintodifferentsectorsofthesharingeconomy.Asshownabove,current researchisnotunivocalabouttheroleofthesesharingmotivations,mostnotablytheenvironmentalone.Animportant reasonforthesediscrepanciesmightbethatdifferentmotivationsunderliedifferentformsofsharing,andthatmotivations differbetweenparticipants.Expandingcurrentsharingeconomyresearch,wethereforespecificallyinvestigatevariationin motivationsbetweensharedgoods,socio-demographicgroups,andtherolepeopletakeupaseitherauserorproviderof goods.

Manifoldgoodsareshared.Itisexpectedherethatarelationshipexistsbetweenthecharacteristicsofthesharedgood andtheimportanceofdifferentmotivations.Sharedgoodsdifferlargelyintermsoftheireconomicvalue,the(assumed) environmentalimpactsofsharingthem,aswellasthedegreeofsocialinteractioninvolvedintheprocessofsharing.First, consideringtheeconomicvalueofthegoodthatisshared,accommodationsharingstandsout.Becauseofthehighpriceof accommodation,peoplecanchargeasubstantialamountofmoneyforlettingothersstayintheirproperty,especiallyifit issituatedinapopularlocation.Comparedtothealternativeofthehotel,thisformofsharingalsoprovidesaconsiderable financialbenefittousersinabsoluteterms(Guttentag,2015).Hence,weexpectthateconomicmotivationsarerelatively importantforaccommodationsharing.Thecarisanotherexpensivegoodtoown,withconsiderablefinancialsavingstobe madebyadoptingcarsharing.Inlinewiththis,BardhiandEckhardt(2012)findthateconomicmotivationsaredominant inthechoicetousethecarsharingplatformZipcar.Withpeer-to-peer-sharing−thefocusofthisstudy−inaddition carownerscouldpotentiallyearnback(partof)thecarownershipcostsbyprovidingtheircartoothers(Fraibergerand Sundararajan,2015).Hence,itislikelythateconomicmotivationsplayalargeroleforusersandprovidersofthisformof

(4)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing thesharingeconomy.Second,thedifferentsharedgoodsalsodifferintheextenttowhichtheycontributetoenvironmental sustainability.Carsharingseemsthesharingeconomyformwiththemostapparentenvironmentalbenefits.Thenegative environmentalimpactsofcarproductionandcar-ownershiparewellknown.Ithasalsobeenrepeatedlyshownthatcar sharingcancontributetoalleviatingtheseproblems(Nijlandetal.,2015;FirnkornandMüller2011).Asanaddition,car sharinghistoricallyhasmanylinkstotheenvironmentalmovement(ShaheenandCohen,2013;MartinandShaheen,2011; Truffer,2003).Hence,itisexpectedthatenvironmentalmotivationsareimportantforcarsharing.Third,socialmotivations maybemoreprominentforsharingformsthatinvolveclearsocialinteraction.Ride-sharingisasharingeconomyform whichinvolvesprolongedsocialinteraction(whenpeoplearetogetherinacar).Additionally,mealsharingreferstopeople cookinganextraportionofamealfortheirneighbours.Itlikelyinvolvesadiscussionbetweenpeopleaboutthemealand howitwasprepared.Moreover,intheDutchcontextofthisstudy,mealsharinghasbeenassociatedinpopularmediawith takingcareforelderlyorsickpeopleintheneighbourhoodthatarenotabletoprepareamealthemselves.3Tosumup,itis

hypothesizedthatcharacteristicsofthegoodrelatetotheimportanceofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalmotivations forsharingeconomyparticipation.

Motivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomyarelikelynotuniformacrosspopulationcategories.Hellwigetal.(2015) proposeamarketsegmentationforthesharingeconomy,inwhichtheidentifiedtypesofsharers(amongotherfactors) dif-ferinsocio-demographiccompositionandmotivations.Consideringtherelationshipbetweenthese,first,aninfluenceof ageonmotivationisexpected.Olderpeoplehavemorefrequentneighbourhoodcontacts(Cornwelletal.,2008).Giventhe neighbourhoodcharacterofmanysharingeconomyinitiatives,itisthereforeexpectedthattheiruseforolderpeopleismore embeddedinlocalsocialactivity.Moreover,Cornwelletal.(2008)suggestthattomakeupforadecreaseininterpersonal net-workconnectedness,olderpeopleengageinassociationalnetworkstodevelopnewsocialties.Alsoinvolvementinasharing economyplatformcanbeseeninthislight.Hence,itisexpectedthatsocialmotivationsforjoiningthesharingeconomyare moredominantamongstolderascomparedtoyoungerpeople.Withregardtogender,environmentalpsychologystudies consistentlyfindthatwomenaremoreenvironmentallyawarethenmen(Diamantopoulosetal.,2003).Consequently,it isexpectedthatwomenshowhigherenvironmentalmotivationsforjoiningthesharingeconomy.Similarly,Hellwigetal. (2015)findanoverrepresentationofwomen(67%)intheclusterofsharingidealists,whoarehighlyintrinsicallymotivated toshare.

Environmentalconcernisalsomoreprevalentamonghigherincomeandhighlyeducatedgroups(ShenandSaijo,2008). ThisfindingisoftenexplainedbyMaslow’s(1970)hierarchicalneedstheory.Environmentalconcernisthenseenasa higherorderneed,whichisonlystrivedforwhenbasicmaterialneedsaremet.Giventheirhigherenvironmentalconcern, itisexpectedthatenvironmentalmotivationsaremoreimportantinthedecision-making processofpeoplewithhigh educationandincome.Furthermore,weexpectthatlowerincomegroupsaremoreeconomicallydriventojointhesharing economy.Thesharingeconomycanprovidethispopulationcategoryaccesstogoodstheypreviouslywerenotableto own.Additionally,sharingmayhelptoavoidhighownershipcostsorenablestoearnonproductsowned.Accordingly, FraibergerandSundararajan(2015)predictthatmostwelfaregainsofthesharingeconomywillbeobtainedbylowincome groups.Intermsofculturalbackground,giventhatnon-Westernculturesareoftenmorecollectivist(HofstedeandHofstede, 2001),peoplefromnon-Westernoriginsmightshowhighersocialmotivationsforsharingeconomyparticipation.Finally, householdtypeshaveshowndifferentpatternsofsocialcontact(Lietal.,2005).Henceitmightbethatcertainhouseholds, suchasthosecomposedofsingles,showhighersocialdriversofsharingeconomyparticipationthanothers.Insum,itis hypothesizedthatthereisarelationshipbetweensocio-demographicgroupandtheimportanceofeconomic,socialand environmentalmotivationsinthesharingeconomy.

Motivationsmayalsodifferbetweenusersandprovidersofthesamegood.Thisisexpectedtoconcernmainly eco-nomicmotivations.Asymmetriesmayexistintheeconomicbenefitsofusingandproviding.Specifically,theseasymmetries resultfromtherelativelylargeeconomicbenefitstheusercanhaveifsheoptsforrentingorborrowinginsteadof buy-ingthegood.Thismechanismseemsmostpronouncedinthecasewherethegoodisrelativelyexpensive,buttheuse ofthe good bythesharing economy useris very limited interms of time or total capacity of thegood.4 Tool

shar-ing is the mostrelevant example in ourstudy. If a userborrows or rents a drillfrom a neighboura largeamount ofmoney canbesavedcompared totheoption ofbuying a drill.However,ifa providerlendsorrents out adrillto someone,noneoronlyasmallamountofmoneyischarged.Accordingly,fortoolsharingitisexpectedthateconomic motivationsarehigherfortheuserthanfortheprovider.Inlinewiththisreasoning,Bellottietal.(2015)findthat peer-to-peerplatformusersmention(even)moreextrinsicmotivationsthanproviders.Incontrasttoeconomicmotivations, wedonotexpectdifferencesinsocial andenvironmentalmotivationsbetweenusersandproviders.Socialinteraction concernsper definitionboth theuserandtheprovider. Environmentalgainsresult fromtheactof sharing,towhich bothuserandproviderparticipate.Summarizing,itishypothesizedthatusersshowhighereconomicmotivationsthan providersinthesharingeconomy.Nodifferencesareexpectedinsocialandenvironmentalmotivationsbetweenusersand providers.

3 E.g.https://www.nudge.nl/blog/2014/01/16/kook-jij-mee-voor-ouderen-in-je-buurt/.

(5)

Table1

Samplecompositionandrepresentativeness.

Sample(N=1330) Amsterdampopulationa

Age 15–24 1.1% 13% 25–44 17.6% 35% 45–64 58.3% 25% 65+ 23.0% 12% Gender Male 47.0% 49% Female 53.0% 51% Ethnicity Non-Western 4.0% 35%

DutchorotherWestern 96.0% 65%

Education Lower 11.7% 27%

Middle 18.9% 34%

Higher(professional/academic) 32.0%/37.4% 39%(combined)

Netmonthlyhouseholdincome Lower(<D1750) 18.9% –

Middle(D1750–2999) 26.5% –

Higher(≥D3000) 29.0% –

Unknown 25.5% –

Average − D2600

Householdtype Single 39.5% 55%

Couple 33.1% 21%

Familywithchildren 25.3% 25%

Other 2.2% –

aDataforthemunicipalityofAmsterdamin2012.Basedon(CBS2015;VandeGlind,2013).

3. Researchdesign

3.1. Studyarea

Thisstudyexploresthemotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomybasedonanonlinestatedpreferencesurvey heldin2013amongst1330respondentsinAmsterdam,TheNetherlands.Apanelof2500respondentswasinvited by e-mail,soaresponserateof53.2%wasobtained.Amsterdamwasselectedasa pilotareaforexploringmotivationsto sharefortwomainreasons:First,Amsterdampositionsitselfasafront-runnerinthesharingeconomy.Itwastheworld’s firstmunicipalitytodevelopregulationsaroundAirbnb.Moreover,localpoliticiansandstakeholderspromoteinitiativesin thesharingeconomylocally,nationallyandinternationallyunderthelabelofAmsterdamSharingCity.Thisincreasesthe knowledgebaseregardingthesharingeconomyamongstthegeneralpopulation,whichisrequiredtostudytherelatively newphenomenon.Second,theareahasrichpopulationdiversityintermsofage,ethnicityandsocio-economicstatus.This allowsforexploringhowmotivationstosharedifferbetweendifferentpopulationcategories.

Table1describesthesamplecompositioninrelationtothegeneralAmsterdampopulationaccordingtoseveralkey demographics.Thesampleisdiverseandwellbalancedonseveralkeydemographics,suchasgender,householdincomeand householdtype.Youngpeopleareunder-represented.Althoughthesharingeconomyisoftenlinkedtoyoungergenerations, thissampleallowstheauthorstocomplementtheexistingknowledgewithspecificinsightsintomiddle-andolder-aged people’smotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomy.Aswithmostexistingstudiesalsolowereducatedand non-Westernethnicitiesareunderrepresented.Bothgroupsareneverthelessincludedintheanalysesbecauselittleisknown abouttheirmotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomy.

3.2. Dataandmodellingtechniques

Inthisstudyweinvestigatemotivationstoparticipateinfivesectorsofthesharingeconomy:car,ride,accommodation, toolandmealsharing.Thesefivesectorshavebeenselectedbecausetheyareinlinewithourdefinitionofthesharing economyasenablingtheutilizationofsomeformofidlecapacity.Moreover,thesewerethefivesharingeconomysectors mosteasilyaccessibletoAmsterdaminhabitantsatthetimeofsurvey.Withregardtotoolsharing,wewillinvestigateoneof themostpopularitemssharedinAmsterdamonstuffsharingplatform“Peerby”:thepowerdrill(Peerbystuffcloud,2013). Therationaleforutilizingastatedpreferenceresearchdesignisthreefold:First,statedpreferencesallowexploringthe sharingmotivationsamongstthegeneralpopulation.Thisisimportanttoinvestigatethesharingeconomy’sup-scaling potential.Incontrast,thealternativeofstudyingactualrevealedsharingpractices,would,atthistime,onlyhavebeen possibleamongstaspecificgroupofearlyadopters.Thisisexemplifiedbystatisticsonourrespondentsampleindicating that,accommodationsharingexcluded,onlybetween0.2%(ridesharing)and3.2%(mealsharing)oftherespondentsisa registeredsharingeconomyuser.Second,astatedpreferencetechniqueenablestheauthorstodifferentiatebetweenthe motivationstouseandtosupplysharedassets.Bothrolesareprerequisitesforpeer-to-peersharing,butespeciallythe latterisoftenoverlooked.Third,byusingstatedpreferencesitispossibletocross-comparerespondent’smotivationsto

(6)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing

Table2

Operationalizationofwillingnesstoparticipate.

Sector Respondentquestion(translatedfromDutch)

Howlikelyona0–4scalewouldyouusethefollowingsharedgoods/servicesinthe followingsituations,imaginingthatinsuranceissuesarealltakencareofandthe transactionis100%secure?

Car Imagineyoutemporarilyneedacarandthepossibilityexiststorentacarin theneighbourhood.

Ride Imagineyouneedtogosomewhereandsomeoneinyourneighbourhood offersyoualiftinhis/hercarforafee

Accom. Imagineyouaretravellingandlocalresidentsofferthepossibilitytorenttheir home.

Tool Imagineyouneedapowerdrillanditispossibletorentthisinthe neighbourhood.

Meal Imaginesomeoneintheneighbourhoodiscookingamealandyoucanbuya portion.

Howlikelyona0–4scalewouldyouprovidethefollowingsharedgoods/services inthefollowingsituations,imaginingthatyouownthegoodinquestion, insuranceissuesarealltakencareof,andthetransactionis100%secure?

Car Imaginesomeoneinyourneighbourhoodneedsacarandyouareabletorent outyours.

Ride Imaginesomeoneinyourneighbourhoodneedsarideandyouareabletolet thispersondrivewithyouforafee

Accom. Imaginerentingoutyourhomeinyourabsencetoatourist.

Tool Imaginesomeoneinyourneighbourhoodneedsapowerdrillandyouareable torentoutyours.

Meal Imagineitispossibletosellaportionofamealcookedbyyoutosomeonein yourneighbourhood.

participateindifferentsectorsofthesharingeconomy.Thisstudydistinguishesfivesectors,5allinvolvingthesharingof

overcapacityofunderutilizedassets:car,ride,accommodation,toolandmealsharing.Toavoidrespondentfatigue,each individualrespondentisonlyaskedtostatehisorhermotivationtoparticipateinfour6randomlyselectedsectors.Intotal,

allfivesectorsarehoweversufficientlycovered.

Beforeinquiringrespondentsabouttheirsharingmotivations,theywerefirstaskedtostatetheirintentiontouseorshare theassetinquestion.Table2liststhequestionsusedtooperationalizethisintention.Allquestionsmentionamonetary compensationforaccesstothegood.Weexcludedanswersbyrespondentsthatindicatewithascoreof0,1or2aneutrality, unlikelinessorhighlyunlikelinesstouseorprovideasharedasset.Answersbyrespondentsthatindicatewithascoreof3or 4alikelinessorhighlylikenesstouseorprovideanassetinquestionhavebeenincludedforfurtheranalyses.7Inasecond

stagetheserespondentsareaskedabouttheimportanceofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalmotivationsunderlyingtheir willingnesstoshare.Hereto,theyareaskedtorateona0–4scale(fromnegligibletoverymuch)howthefollowingthree considerationsaffecttheirdecision:financialbenefit,meetingpeople,andcontributingtoahealthynaturalenvironment.The answerstothesequestionsformthedependentvariablesinouranalyses.Itshouldbenotedthatthesethreeconsiderations werekeptshorttoavoidrespondentfatigue,butdonotcapturealldimensionsofeconomic,environmentalandespecially socialmotivationstopossiblyparticipateinthesharingeconomy.Thereareseveralobservationsperrespondent,asthey answerquestionsformultiplesharingeconomies.

Inthemultivariateanalysisweestimatetheeffectsof(1)socio-demographicvariables,(2)asetofdummiesfordifferent sharingeconomies,and(3)auser/providerdummy,onthefive-point(0–4)scoreforeachmotivationasthedependent variable.ThisapproachissimilartotheinteractionistapproachonmotivationsasemployedbyOregandNov(2008),in whichbothpersonal(inourcase socio-demographics)andcontext(inourcasesectorandrole)variablesarelinkedto motivations.Therelationshipsbetweensocio-demographicsandmotivationsarecausallyclear.However,thisstudycannot establishstrictcausalitybetweenmotivationsandtheroleofuser/providerorthesharingeconomysectors.Therelationships betweenthesefactorsandmotivationsshouldthereforebeinterpretedasassociations,ratherthanstrictcauseandeffect.

Asstatisticalmodellingtechnique,useismadeoforderedlogitmodels,eachwithanothermotivationalitemasthe

dependentvariable.Orderedlogitmodelsarepreferredovermultinomiallogitmodels,toavoidlosingvaluableinformation ontheorderofscores.OrderedlogitmodelsarepreferredoverordinaryOLSregression,becausethescores,althoughordered,

5 Originallysevensharingeconomysectorswereincluded.Skillsharingwasexcludedbecauseitdoesnotfitourdefinitionofsharingovercapacityofan underutilizedasset,butratherisaformofexchangeofservices.Gardensharingwasexcludedbecauseitsdatarecordturnedouttobeincompleteupon verification.

6 Intheoriginalseven-sectorquestionnaire,eachrespondentansweredquestionsregarding4outof7sectors.

7 Afterselectingonly(highly)likelytoshareanswers,oursampleforfurtheranalysisconstitutesofthefollowingnumberofcases:107answersfordrill user;103fordrillprovider;250forcaruser;160forcarprovider;168forrideuser;196forrideprovider,201formealuser;136formealprovider;458for accommodationuser;104foraccommodationprovider.Drilluserandproviderhavearelativelylownbecauseintheoriginalsurveyfewerrespondents hadbeenaskedthisparticularquestion.Thenforaccommodationproviderisrelativelylowbecausefewerrespondentsarewillingtoprovidethisasset forsharing(seeFig.1).

(7)

Fig.1.Shareofrespondents(highly)likelytouse(a)andprovidein(b)varioussharingeconomysectors.

Fig.2. Motivationstoparticipateindifferentsectorsofthesharingeconomy,persharingeconomysector.

arenocontinuousoutcomes,andneitheraretheynormallydistributed.Weuseaclusteredsamplingtechnique,viatheStata software’s“vce-cluster”command,toestimaterobuststandarderrorsforall(non-independent)answersthatbelongtoone respondent.Bycorrectingforintragroupcorrelationthistechniquerelaxestheusualrequirementthatallobservationsneed tobeindependent(Wooldridge,2002).Toverifythemodelspresentedinthispaperwehavealsoexploredwhetherand howtheeffectsofsocio-demographicsonmotivationsdifferfordifferentcombinationsofsectorsandroles.Wetestedfor interactioneffectsbetweensocio-demographicsandsharingeconomysectors,butthesewerelargelynon-significantand ledtononewinsights.Additionally,separatemodelswererunforthedifferentcombinationsofsharingeconomysectors androles,butthesewereultimatelyexcludedduetothelownumberofcasesandpoormodelfits.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptiveanalysis

Beforeexploringrespondents’motivationstoshare,wefirstbrieflyreportontheshareofrespondentswhostatethat theyareeitherlikelyorhighlylikelytouseorprovidedifferentgoodsforsharing(Fig.1).Considerabledifferencesinsharing potentialareidentifiedbetweendifferentsharingsectors,aswellasbetweenusersandproviders.Whilethemajorityof respondentsreportlikelinesstousesharedpowerdrills,ridesandaccommodation,fewerarelikelytousesharedcarsand meals.Asimilarpicturearisesregardingthereportedlikelinesstoprovidethesegoodsforsharing,withtheexceptionof accommodation,whichisleastlikelytobeoffered.

Wecontinuewithmotivationstoshareforthosereportinglikelinesstodoso.Fig.2mapsouttherelativeimportance ofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalmotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomiesasauser(a)orprovider(b),for differentsharinggoods.Thisrelativeimportanceisbasedontheratiobetweentheraw0–4scoresforeachofthemotivational items.Percentageaxesinthetriangleindicatetherelativeimportanceofenvironmental,economicandsocialmotivations. Forexample,iffor“accommodationsharing”theaverageenvironmentalscoreis1,socialscoreis2andeconomicscoreis3, thescoreratiois1/6,2/6and3/6,thus17%,33%and50%.Thesethreepercentagesdeterminethelocationof“accommodation sharing”onthediagonalsofthetriangle.Acentralpositionindicatesthatfortheindicatedgoodallthreemotivationsare equallybalanced.Locationsclosetoacornerindicateahigherrelativeimportanceofthatparticularmotivation.

Fig.2presentsanoverviewoftherelativeimportanceofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalfortheuse(a)andprovision (b)ofdifferenttypesofgoods.Overall,therearepronounceddifferencesbetweenthemotivationsforsharingthegoods. Ashypothesized,thesharingoftheexpensiveassetaccommodationispredominantlyeconomicallymotivated.Although secondarytoeconomicmotivations,socialmotivationsalsoseemtoplayaroleinaccommodationsharing.Environmental

(8)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing

Fig.3. Motivationstoparticipateindifferentsectorsofthesharingeconomy,persocio-demographicgroup.

motivationsarerelativelyimportantin thedecision tojoincarsharing.Finally,thetwoforms ofsharingwithalarge socialinteractioncomponent,ridesharingandmealsharing,areindeedrelativelystronglydrivenbysocialmotivations. Somedifferencescanbeobservedwhencomparingthemotivationsforusingandprovidinggoods.Ashypothesized,the differenceisparticularlylargefortool-sharing.Theprovisionoftoolsismostlyenvironmentallyandsociallymotivated. However,theuseofsharedtoolsismuchmorestronglyeconomicallymotivated.Asexplainedbefore,thisdiscrepancy couldberelatedtothelargerdirectfinancialbenefitsofsharingthisgoodforusersascomparedtoproviders.Asimilar patternofstrongereconomicmotivationsforusersisobservedforcarandridesharing,althoughthedifferencesaresmaller. Finally,foraccommodationsharingandmealsharing,thereishardlyadifferenceinmotivationbetweenusersandproviders. Fig.3presentsanoverviewoftherelativeimportanceofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalmotives,similartoFig.2,but thistimeamongdifferentsocialgroups.Whiletheabove-documenteddifferencesinmotivationstouseorprovidebetween sectorsarerelativelylarge,differencesbetweendifferentsocio-demographicgroupsaresmaller.Overall,foreachpopulation categorythethreemotivationalitemsarerelativelywellbalanced.Nevertheless,differencesbetweensocio-demographic groupscanbeidentified.Whenlookedattheuseofsharedassets(Fig.2a),itseemsthatmenandlowormiddleeducated groupsarelessenvironmentallymotivatedthanwomenorhighlyeducatedgroupsrespectively.Additionally,youngerage groups(under40yearsold)and,toalesserextent,low-incomegroupsseemmoreeconomicallymotivatedthanolderand middle-orhigh-incomegroupsrespectively.Whenlookedatmotivationstoprovideassetsforsharing(Fig.2b),asomewhat similarpicturearises,exceptforthatthewholeclusterofsubgroupsshiftsdownwardsontheeconomicaxis.Thisindicates that,overtheboard,economicmotivationsarelessimportantfortheprovisionthanfortheuseofsharedassets.

4.2. Multivariateanalysis

Table3providesanoverviewoftherelationshipsbetweensocio-demographicbackgrounds,sharingeconomysectorsand theroleofuserorproviderandmotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomy.Threeseparateorderedlogitmodelsare estimated:foreconomic,socialandenvironmentalmotivations.Theparameterestimate(B)indicatesthelogoddschange intherespectivemotivationalscoreforaone-unitincreaseofthepredictor(inthecaseofthecontinuousvariableage)or fortheindicateddummyvariablerelativetothereferencecategory(forallothercategoricalvariables),consideringthatall othervariablesremainconstant.Thez-statisticindicatestheratiobetweentheparameterestimateandtherobuststandard errorsclusteredperrespondent(seeparagraph3.2).

ThemultivariatemodelresultscomplementthedescriptiveresultspresentedinthetrianglesinFigs.2and3.Older peoplearesignificantlylesseconomicallymotivatedandsignificantlymoresociallymotivated,evenwhencontrolledfor aspectssuchasincomelevel.Consideringgender,environmentalmotivationsaresignificantlymoreimportantforwomen thanformen.Unexpectedly,highereducatedaresignificantlylesssociallydriventojointhesharingeconomy.Instead, itwasexpectedthathighereducatedwouldbemoreenvironmentallymotivatedtojointhesharingeconomy.However, nosignificantrelationshipcanbeidentifiedbetweeneducationlevelandtheimportanceofenvironmentalmotivations. Moreinlinewithourhypothesising,bothmiddleandhigher-incomegroupsaresignificantlylesseconomicallymotivated toparticipateinthesharingeconomythanlow-incomegroups.Inaddition,middleandhigh-incomegroupsarealsoless sociallymotivated.Ethnicityandhouseholdtypehavenosignificanteffectonmotivationstoparticipateinthesharing economy.Regardingethnicity,thismayhoweverberelatedtothelownumberofnon-Westernrespondents.

Althoughsomeofthesocio-demographicsshowimportantsignificanteffectsonmotivationstoshare,mostofthe statis-ticalvarianceinthemodelsappearstobeexplainedbydifferencesbetweenthesharingeconomysectors.Comparedtothe referencecategoryofaccommodationsharing,inallothersectorseconomicmotivationsarelessimportant.Thisisespecially thecaseforride,toolandmealsharing.Asexpected,mealsharingisthemostsociallymotivatedsector,followedbythe referencecategoryofaccommodationsharingandridesharing.Fortoolandcarsharing,socialmotivationsareoflesser

(9)

Table3

Modeloutputonmotivationstoparticipateinthesharingeconomy.

Orderedlogit:Motivationstouse/providesharedassets

Economic(N=1810) Social(N=1790) Environm.(N=1739)

B z B z B z

Age −0.025 −4.54*** 0.016 2.57** 0.011 1.73

Male(ref=female) 0.066 0.59 −0.118 −0.93 −0.502 −3.94***

Non-westernethnicity(ref=western) 0.002 0.00 0.016 0.05 0.355 1.07

Education(ref=lower)

Middle −0.392 −1.61 −0.117 −0.49 0.246 1.05

Higherprofessional −0.165 −0.73 −0.371 −1.78 0.310 1.45

Higheracademic −0.310 −1.33 −0.617 −2.84** 0.257 1.19

Householdincome(ref=lower)

Middle −0.703 −4.07*** 0.418 2.32* 0.304 1.69

Higher −1.027 −5.34*** 0.564 2.75** 0.399 1.91

Unknown −0.945 −4.92*** 0.094 0.48 0.236 1.15

Householdtype(ref=family)

Single −0.186 −1.17 −0.086 −0.54 −0.133 −0.84

Couple −0.184 −1.17 −0.271 −1.68 −0.318 −1.93

Other −0.169 −0.45 0.132 0.39 0.174 0.41

Sector(ref=accommodation)

Car −0.552 −4.85*** 1.190 9.85*** 1.652 12.29***

Tool −1.440 −8.60*** 0.963 6.15*** 0.891 5.47***

Ride −1.531 −10.95*** 0.572 4.07*** 1.460 11.26***

Meal −1.704 −12.23*** 0.303 2.16* 0.638 5.13***

User(ref=provider) 0.935 8.56*** 0.135 1.49 0.059 0.65

Modelfit:

Waldchi2(df.) 384.7(17)*** 210.0(17)*** 236.4(17)***

R2(McKelvey&Zavoina) 0.245 0.130 0.147

*=0.05. **=0.01. ***=0.001.

importance.Asnoticedinparagraph4.1,environmentalmotivationsareespeciallyimportantforcarandridesharingand leastimportantforaccommodationsharing.

Finally,thereisadifferenceineconomicmotivationbetweenusersandproviders.Overall,usersaremoredrivenby economicmotivationsthanproviders.Apossiblemechanismbehindthisdiscrepancywasoutlinedbefore:formanyobjects, userscansavearelativelylargeamountofmoneybyrentinginsteadofbuyingit.However,forproviderstheeconomicgains forrentingouttheirobjectsareoftensmallincomparisontothepurchasepriceoftheobject.Ashypothesized,nosignificant differencesinsocialandenvironmentalmotivationsbetweenusersandprovidersareobserved.Theenvironmentalbenefits resultfromtheactofsharing,towhichuserandprovidertogetherparticipate.Alsothesocialaspectofsharingconcernsper definitionbothusersandproviders.

5. Discussionandconclusion

Withtherecentgrowthinscaleandscopeofthesharingeconomy,scientific,societalandpoliticalinterestintothis phenomenonhasincreasedsharply.However,adeeperunderstandingofwhatmotivatespeopletoparticipateindifferent partsofthesharingeconomyhasbeenlargelylacking.Thispaperprovidesacomprehensivequantitativeinvestigationof therelativeimportanceof(1)economic,(2)socialand(3)environmentalmotivationstoparticipateinpeer-to-peersharing, withrespecttodifferencesbetween(a)sectorsofthesharingeconomy,(b)socio-demographicgroups,and(c)usersand providers.Analysesdrawonastatedpreferencesurveyamongst1330respondentsfromAmsterdam.

Our findings reveal that motivations to participate differ between socio-demographic groups, between users and providers,andespeciallybetweendifferenttypesofsharedgoodsexaminedinthisstudy:cars,rides,accommodation,tools andmeals.Althoughthisdifferenceinmotivationstoparticipateindifferentsectorsofthesharingeconomyisnotnecessarily surprising−i.e.thedifferenttypesofgoodscomparedinthisstudyarequitedifferentfromeachother−itunderscoresthe importancetonotconceivethesharingeconomyasonecoherentphenomenon.Thesharingoftheexpensivegoodof accom-modationishighlyeconomicallymotivated.Environmentalmotivationsareimportantparticularlyforcarandride-sharing. Formealsharing,asharingeconomyformwithahighpersonalinteractioncomponent,socialmotivationsplayalarge stim-ulatingrole.Incontrasttosectorialdifferencesanddifferencesbetweenusersandproviders,socio-demographicdifferences inmotivationsareoflowermagnitude.Nevertheless,somesignificanteffectsareidentified.Youngerandlow-incomegroups aremoreeconomicallymotivatedtouseandprovidesharedassets;younger,higher-incomeandhigher-educatedgroups

(10)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing arelesssociallymotivated;andwomenaremoreenvironmentallymotivated.Finally,usingdifferenttypesofsharedassets appearsmoreeconomicallymotivatedthanproviding.

Theemergingliteratureonthesharingeconomyhasapproachedthiscomplexphenomenonfromavarietyof theoret-icalperspectives.Letusfirstdiscussourresultsinthelightofpriorstudiesthatusesomeformofmotivationtheory.In currentstudiesmostsupportisfoundforextrinsicmotivesofsharingeconomybehaviour(Tussyadiah,2016;Hamarietal., 2015;BardhiandEckhart,2012).Withitscross-sectoralcomparisonofsharingeconomysectorsthisstudyprovidesamore nuancedpicture.Indeed,forthesharingeconomyformsofaccommodationsharingandcarsharing,extrinsic,economic motivationsaredominant.However,formeal,toolandridesharingmoreintrinsicsocialandenvironmentalmotivations playanimportantrole.Thecombinationofmotivationsbehindsharingeconomyparticipationthusishighlydependenton sharingeconomysector.Withregardtosocio-demographiccharacteristics,theresultthatwomenaremoreenvironmentally drivenresonateswithHellwigetal.(2015)whoobservewomenbeingoverrepresentedamongthegroupofintrinsically motivatedsharingidealists.Thefindingthatusersaremoreeconomicallymotivatedthanprovidersislargelyinlinewith theexplorativestudyofBellottietal.(2015).TheyemployacategorisationofneedssimilartoMaslow’shierarchy(1970) andfindthatuserstendtoparticipateinthesharingeconomypredominantlyforsatisfying“basicneeds”,whereasthe motivationofprovidersissomewhatmoremixed,andincludesalsoaltruisticandcommunity-orientedelements.

ThefindingsalsohaveimplicationsforthedefinitionofthesharingeconomyasvoicedbyBelk(2014a,b).Hedistinguishes between“sharing”and“pseudo-sharing”orcollaborativeconsumption.Truesharingisassociatedwithlendingdrivenby socialconcernsandpseudo-sharingwithrentingoutmainlyforeconomicgains.Inthelightofourresultsthisdichotomy seemstoosimplistic.Differentcombinationsofmotivationsdriveparticipationineachofthesectorsofthesharingeconomy. Evenifmonetaryexchangeisinvolvedintheprocessofsharing,environmentalandsocialmotivationscanstillbeimportant. Theconfigurationsofdifferentmotivationsforsharingeconomyparticipationofthisstudy,resonatewiththevarietyof logicsScaraboto(2015)observesonauser-initiatedsharingeconomyplatform.Sheseessharingplatformsasinstancesof hybrideconomies,witharangeoflogicsrangingfrommarket-basedexchangetoaltruisticgift-giving.Thereisaconstant strugglebetweentheselogics,whereasatthesametimevariousformsofhybridlogicsaredevelopedtoovercometensions. Contestationsbetweenlogicsaremorepronouncedwhentherearelargedifferencesinmotivationsbetweenparticipating groups,suchasbetweenusersandprovidersinthecaseoftool-sharinginthisstudy.Forplatformsfacilitatingsuchexchanges, continuous“boundarywork”toreconciledifferentmotivationsandlogicsseemsthusrequired.

Ourresultsalsoprovideinsightsfor thewiderliteratureonsustainableinnovationandsocietaltransitions. First,in contrasttomanytransitionstudies,wehavespecificallydistinguishedbetweenvarioususergroupsandtheirmotivations. Thisprovidedinsightsparticularlywithregardtoup-scalinganddiffusion,anincreasinglyimportanttopicinthisfield(Geels andJohnson,2015;Shoveetal.,2013).Theslowdiffusionofmanysustainableinnovations(Negroetal.,2012)contrasts sharplywiththefastspreadofsharingeconomyformssuchasaccommodationsharingandridesharing,whichhaveshown exponentialgrowthpatternsinthepastfewyears.Therapidgrowthofthesharingeconomyisgenerallyattributedtothe factthatitisbasedonexistingcapacitythatisunder-utilised,whichexplainswhyscalingcanoccursofast.However,the varietyinmotivationsdrivingsharingeconomyparticipationasidentifiedinthispaper,alsoseemanimportantexplanation fortherapidgrowthofsharingpractices.Sharingeconomyformslikepeer-to-peercarsharingprovidedirecteconomic aswellas,toacertainextent,socialbenefitstoadopters.Thesediversebenefitsmake“thatthereissomethinginitfor anybody”,leadingtoadoptionfarbeyondagroupofenvironmentallyawarecitizens.

Thisbringsustoasecond,andrelated,point:theinvestigationofusermotivationsisimportantforanalysingwhetherthe innovationcanreallyinduceatransitiontowardsamoresustainablesociety.KempandvanLente(2011)arguethat sustain-abilitytransitionsinvolveadualchallenge:thechangeofbothsystems(e.g.oftransportation,agriculture)andofconsumer criteria.Transitionsthatfailtochangeconsumercriteriawillnotleadtosustainabilitybecauseofreboundeffectsandother impacts.Thesharingeconomyseemsaveryinsightfulcaseonthispoint.Inourstudyitwasfoundthataccommodation sharingwasthesharingeconomyformmostlydrivenbyeconomicmotives.Notsurprisingly,accommodationsharinghas alsobeenlinkedmostprominentlywithnegativesustainabilityeffects,suchasreboundeffectscausedbyincreasedtravel frequency(e.g.TussyadiahandPesonen,2015).Motivationscanchangeovertime.Peoplethatstartsharingforutilitarian reasonsmightlatercometoappreciatesocialandenvironmentalaspectsofsharing,orviceversa.Aworthwhile transi-tionresearchprojectseemsthereforetostudytheco-evolutionofinnovationformsandmotivationsovertime,hereby distinguishingbetweenmotivationsfordifferentgroupsofparticipants.

Thisresearchprovidesacomprehensivequantitativecross-comparisonofmotivationstoparticipateindifferentsectorsof thesharingeconomy.However,thebroadscopeofthisresearchhassomelimitationstobeaddressedinfurtherresearch.First, inordertocross-comparemotivationstouseandprovidedifferentsharedassetsamongonesampleofrespondentswehave optedforastatedpreferencesurveytechnique.Thishasthedrawbackthateventhoughmanyrespondentsstateawillingness toshare,itisunclearwhethertheywillactuallystartsharinginthenearfutureandifso,whethertheirmotivationswillstill bethesame.Asthesharingeconomygraduallyup-scales,furthercross-sectionalresearchcouldcross-comparemotivations ofactualsharingeconomyparticipantsandperhapstriangulatethesewithstatedmotivationsforthoseinterestedamongst thegeneralpopulation.Second,alternativeresearchdesigns,possiblylongitudinal,maybeusedtomodelinmoredetailthe patternsofcausalitythatexistbetweenmotivationstoshare,sharingintentionsandactualsharingbehaviours.Additionally, large-scalequantitativestudiesmayexplicitlystudythepossibleinteractioneffectsbetweensocio-demographicfactors, sharingeconomysectorsandrolesasuserorproviderinexplainingmotivationstoshare.Third,followingearlierresearch (e.g.Tussyadiah,(2015))wesetouttoexploreeconomic,social,andenvironmentalmotivationstoshare.Thisisobviously

(11)

onlyalimitednumberofmotivations.Furtherresearchcouldexploreothermotivationaldimensionsofparticipation,as wellasbarriers,forexampledrawingonSocialExchangeTheory(Kimetal.,2015).

Acknowledgements

PietervandeGlindisthankedforhisworkonthequestionnaire.TheauthorsthankKoenFrenkenfor hisvaluable commentsonanearlierdraftofthispaper.Wefurtherthanktwoanonymousreviewers,aswellastheparticipantsof the2ndInternationalWorkshopontheSharingEconomy(28–29January2016,ESCPEurope,UtrechtParis)fortheiruseful comments.Allerrorsremainours.ThisworkwassupportedbyNetherlandsOrganizationforScientificResearch(NWO) OnderzoekstalentGrant406-14-043.

References

Agyeman,J.,McLaren,D.,&Schaefer-Borrego,A.2013.Sharingcities.Friendsoftheearth.

Bardhi,F.,Eckhardt,G.M.,2012.Access-basedconsumption:thecaseofcarsharing.J.Consum.Res.39(4),881–898. Belk,R.,2014a.Sharingversuspseudo-sharinginweb2.0.TheAnthropologist4(2).

Belk,R.,2014b.Youarewhatyoucanaccess:sharingandcollaborativeconsumptiononline.J.Bus.Res.67(8),1595–1600.

Bellotti,V.,Ambard,A.,Turner,D.,Gossmann,C.,Demkova,K.,Carroll,J.M.,2015.Amuddleofmodelsofmotivationforusingpeer-to-peereconomy systems.In:Proceedingsofthe33rdAnnualACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems,ACM,April,pp.1085–1094.

Botsman,R.,&Rogers,R.2011.What’smineisyours:HowcollaborativeconsumptionischangingthewayweliveCollins. BotsmanR.2013.Thesharingeconomylacksashareddefinition.Retrievedfrom

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition.

CBS,2015.NetherlandsCentralBureauforStatistics,2013,Retrievedfromhttp://statline.cbs.nl/statweb(accessed01.06.15).

Cornwell,B.,Laumann,E.O.,Schumm,L.P.,2008.Thesocialconnectednessofolderadults:anationalprofile.Am.Sociol.Rev.73(2),185–203. Deci,E.L.,Ryan,R.M.,2000.Thewhatandwhyofgoalpursuits:humanneedsandtheself-determinationofbehavior.Psychol.Inq.11(4),227–268. Diamantopoulos,A.,Schlegelmilch,B.B.,Sinkovics,R.R.,Bohlen,G.M.,2003.Cansocio-demographicsstillplayaroleinprofilinggreenconsumers?A

reviewoftheevidenceandanempiricalinvestigation.J.Bus.Res.56(6),465–480.

Elkington,J.,1997.Cannibalswithforks.In:TheTripleBottomLineof21stCentury.CapstonePublishingLtd.,Oxford,UK.

Firnkorn,J.,Müller,M.,2011.Whatwillbetheenvironmentaleffectsofnewfree-floatingcar-sharingsystems?Thecaseofcar2goinUlm.Ecol.Econ.70 (8),1519–1528.

Fraiberger,S.P.,Sundararajan,A.,2015.Peer-To-PeerRentalMarketsintheSharingEconomy.NYUSternSchoolofBusinessResearchPaper. Frenken,K.,Meelen,T.,Arets,M.,VandeGlind,P.,2015.Smarterregulationforthesharingeconomy.In:TheGuardian,Retreivedfrom

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/may/20/smarter-regulation-for-the-sharing-economy(accessed22.08.15),May20. Gansky,L.,2010.TheMesh:WhytheFutureofBusinessIsSharing.Penguin.

Geels,F.W.,Johnson,V.,2015.Adoption,upscaling,replication/circulation,andsocietalembedding:fourtheoreticalmodelsoftechnologydiffusion appliedtobiomassdistrictheatingsystemsinAustria(1979–2013).In:PaperPresentedattheInternationalSustainabilityTransitionsConference, Brighton,UnitedKingdom,August.

Grassmuck,V.R.2012,Thesharingturn:Whywearegenerallyniceandhaveagoodchancetocooperateourwayoutofthemesswehavegotten ourselvesinto.In:W.Sützl,F.,Stalder,R.,Maier,T.Hug(Eds.):CulturesandEthicsofSharing.

Guttentag,D.,2015.Airbnb:disruptiveinnovationandtheriseofaninformaltourismaccommodationsector.Curr.IssuesTourism18(12),1192–1217. Hamari,J.,Sjöklint,M.,Ukkonen,A.,2015.Thesharingeconomy:whypeopleparticipateincollaborativeconsumption.J.Assoc.Inform.Sci.Technol.67

(9),2047–2059.

Heinrichs,H.,2013.Sharingeconomy:apotentialnewpathwaytosustainability.GAIA-Ecol.Perspect.Sci.Soc.22(4),228–231.

Hellwig,K.,Morhart,F.,Girardin,F.,Hauser,M.,2015.Exploringdifferenttypesofsharing:aproposedsegmentationofthemarketforsharingbusinesses. Psychol.Mark.32(9),891–906.

Hofstede,G.H.,Hofstede,G.,2001.Culture’sConsequences:ComparingValues,Behaviors,InstitutionsandOrganizationsAcrossNations.Sage. Kemp,R.,vanLente,H.,2011.Thedualchallengeofsustainabilitytransitions.Environ.Innov.Soc.Trans.1(1),121–124.

Kim,J.,Yoon,Y.,Zo,H.,2015.Whypeopleparticipateinthesharingeconomy:asocialexchangeperspective.PACIS2015Proceedings(Paper76). Lawson,S.,2010.Transumers:motivationsofnon-ownershipconsumption.In:Campbell,MargaretC.,Inman,Jeff,Pieters,Rik(Eds.),NA–Advancesin

ConsumerResearch,vol.37.AssociationforConsumerResearch,Duluth,MN,pp.842–853.

Li,Y.,Pickles,A.,Savage,M.,2005.Socialcapitalandsocialtrustinbritain.Eur.Sociol.Rev.21(2),109–123. Lindenberg,S.,2001.Intrinsicmotivationinanewlight.Kyklos54(2–3),317–342.

Möhlmann,M.,2015.Collaborativeconsumption:determinantsofsatisfactionandthelikelihoodofusingasharingeconomyoptionagain.J.Consum. Behav.14(3),193–207.

Martin,E.W.,Shaheen,S.A.,2011.GreenhousegasemissionimpactsofcarsharinginNorthAmerica.Intelligenttransportationsystems.IEEETrans.12(4), 1074–1086.

Martin,C.J.,2016.Thesharingeconomy:apathwaytosustainabilityoranightmarishformofneoliberalcapitalism?Ecol.Econ.121,149–159. Maslow,A.H.,Frager,R.,Cox,R.,1970.In:Fadiman,J.,McReynolds,C.(Eds.),MotivationandPersonality.Harper&Row,NewYork.

McMeekin,A.,Southerton,D.,2012.Sustainabilitytransitionsandfinalconsumption:practicesandsocio-technicalsystems.Technol.Anal.Strateg. Manage.24(4),345–361.

Meelen,T.,Frenken,K.,2015.StopSayingUberIsPartoftheSharingEconomy,Retrievedon26August2015from: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040863/stop-saying-uber-is-part-of-the-sharing-economy.15January.

Moeller,S.,Wittkowski,K.,2010.Theburdensofownership:reasonsforpreferringrenting.Manag.Serv.Qual.20(2),176–191.

Negro,S.O.,Alkemade,F.,Hekkert,M.P.,2012.Whydoesrenewableenergydiffusesoslowly?Areviewofinnovationsystemproblems.Renew.Sustain. EnergyRev.16(6),3836–3846.

Nesta,2014.MakingSenseoftheUKSharingEconomy.Nesta,London.

Nijland,H.,VanMeerkerk,J.,Hoen,A.,2015.EffectenvanAutodelenOpMobiliteitEnCO2-uitstoot.PBL-notititie http://www.pbl.nl/publicaties/effecten-van-autodelen-op-mobiliteit-en-co2-uitstoot.

Oreg,S.,Nov,O.,2008.Exploringmotivationsforcontributingtoopensourceinitiatives:therolesofcontributioncontextandpersonalvalues.Comput. Hum.Behav.24(5),2055–2073.

Owyang,J.,2013.TheCollaborativeEconomy:Products,ServicesandMarketRelationshipsHaveChangedasSharingStartupsImpactBusinessModels.to AvoidDisruption,CompaniesMustAdopttheCollaborativeEconomyValueChain.Altimeter

http://www.slideshare.net/Altimeter/the-collaborative-economy.

Ozanne,L.K.,Ballantine,P.W.,2010.Sharingasaformofanti-consumption?Anexaminationoftoylibraryusers.J.Consum.Behav.9(6),485–498. Ozanne,L.K.,Ozanne,J.L.,2011.Achild’srighttoplay:thesocialconstructionofcivicvirtuesintoylibraries.J.PublicPolicyMark.30(2),264–278. Peerby(2013).Stuffcloud.InfographicofmostexchangeditemsonstuffsharingplatformPeerby.

(12)

Please cite this article in press as: Böcker, L., Meelen, T., Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing Piscicelli,L.,Cooper,T.,Fisher,T.,2014.Theroleofvaluesincollaborativeconsumption:insightsfromaproduct-servicesystemforlendingandborrowing

intheUK.J.Clean.Prod.

Ryan,R.M.,Deci,E.L.,2000.Self-determinationtheoryandthefacilitationofintrinsicmotivation,socialdevelopment,andwell-being.Am.Psychol.55(1), 68.

Scaraboto,D.,2015.Selling,sharing,andeverythinginbetween:thehybrideconomiesofcollaborativenetworks.J.Consum.Res.42(1),152–176. SchorJ.2014.Debatingthesharingeconomy.Greattransitioninitiative.http://www.tellus.org/pub/SchorDebatingtheSharingEconomy.pdf.

Shaheen,S.A.,Cohen,A.P.,2013.Carsharingandpersonalvehicleservices:worldwidemarketdevelopmentsandemergingtrends.Int.J.Sustain.Transp.7 (1),5–34.

Shen,J.,Saijo,T.,2008.Reexaminingtherelationsbetweensocio-demographiccharacteristicsandindividualenvironmentalconcern:evidencefrom Shanghaidata.J.Environ.Psychol.28(1),42–50.

Shove,E.,Walker,G.,Brown,S.,2013.Transnationaltransitions:thediffusionandintegrationofmechanicalcooling.UrbanStud.51(7),1506–1519, 0042098013500084.

Truffer,B.,2003.User-ledinnovationprocesses:thedevelopmentofprofessionalcarsharingbyenvironmentallyconcernedcitizens.Innovation16(2), 139–154.

Tussyadiah,I.P.,Pesonen,J.,2015.Impactsofpeer-to-peeraccommodationuseontravelpatterns.J.TravelRes., http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287515608505,0047287515608505.

Tussyadiah,I.P.,2015.Anexploratorystudyondriversanddeterrentsofcollaborativeconsumptionintravel.In:Tussyadiah,I.,Inversini,A.(Eds.), Information&CommunicationTechnologiesinTourism2015Switzerland.SpringerInternationalPublishing.

Tussyadiah,I.P.,2016.Factorsofsatisfactionandintentiontousepeer-to-peeraccommodation.Int.J.Hosp.Manage.55,70–80. VandeGlind,P.B.,2013.TheConsumerPotentialofCollaborativeConsumption.UtrechtUniversity,Utrecht.

References

Related documents

For lecture recording and distribution, virtUOS applies four open-source solutions, virtPresenter (www.virtpresenter.org) for automatic lecture recording, the

In the probe design for DSECT system, the effects of the probe design parameters including the number of GMR sensor, excitation coil thickness and probe diameter were investigated

The relationship between seismicity and fault structure in zones A and B on DW (Figure 9) is strikingly simi- lar to what is observed on the western end of the G3 segment of the

Data Domain Replicator software can be used with the encryption option, enabling encrypted data to be replicated using collection, directory, MTree, or application-specific managed

In addition to weed species listed in the ANNUAL WEEDS and BIENNIAL and PERENNIAL WEEDS Application Rate and Timing tables, these treatments may be used to control or suppress

I have also actively participated in scope of practice discussions since 2004, resulting in my voicing of strong support for the scope review process as developed by the

Age of the respondent and attending school significantly influenced menstrual hygiene management in Rupa Sub-County Moroto district; girls of 13-16 years were 0.3