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,∗,1aDepartmentofSociologyandHumanGeography,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/).
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
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
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/.
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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.
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.