Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Tatjana Tambovceva
 + 1622 word(s) 1622 2021-12-17 04:59:31 |
2 Format Change
Jessie Wu
Meta information modification 1622 2022-01-10 03:03:36 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Tambovceva, T. Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17929 (accessed on 11 May 2024).
Tambovceva T. Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17929. Accessed May 11, 2024.
Tambovceva, Tatjana. "Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17929 (accessed May 11, 2024).
Tambovceva, T. (2022, January 09). Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17929
Tambovceva, Tatjana. "Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 January, 2022.
Consumer Perception of Sharing Economy
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su132413911

The idea of sharing economy is based “on the philosophy of access-based consumption where, instead of buying and owning things, consumers want access to goods and prefer to pay for the experience of temporarily accessing them".

sharing economy perception circular economy

1. Background

Sharing economy, or collaborative economy, is on the agenda of the European Commission due to its rapid dissemination across Europe. It is considered that sharing economy can make an “important contribution to jobs and growth in the European Union” [1]. 

2. Definition of the Sharing Economy, Related Concepts, and Methodological Approaches

2.1. Concept of Sharing Economy

Sharing economy is based on the idea of sharing underused assets in order to improve efficiency and sustainability. This idea overlaps significantly with concepts such as solidarity economy, social economy, access economy, platform economy, and community economy [2][3][4][5][6]. At the same time, the term itself and the scope of its application are not the subject of scientific consensus and cover a wide variety of disciplines, such as business modelling, psychology, economics, innovation, law, management, marketing, sociology, and sustainable development [2][7].
The authors have found that the sharing economy is compared to the peer-to-peer economy (P2P) in scientific publications [2][8][9][10][11]. This can be explained by the service provider’s analysis, which is more often characterized by a horizontal network of participants’ economic self-organizations, ensuring the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of tangible and intangible goods without a hierarchical management regime [7][12]. Inspired by a study by Daniel Schlagwein et al. in 2019, the authors agree with their definition of a sharing economy [13].
The concept of a peer-to-peer economy, which emerged from the framework of a purely technical association (peer-to-peer network), is currently considered as a social model with such characteristics as voluntary cooperation between equal economic actors, the distributed nature of decision-making and management, self-organization, the creation of public goods, and a decrease in the importance of monetary compensation as the main incentive to participate in peer-to-peer economic production [14]. In addition to peer-to-peer communication, Chase [15] identified two other key drivers of the sharing economy: information platforms and underutilized resources. Despite some common points and the exponential growth of research on sharing economics [16][17], definitions and conceptual approaches are diverse, complex, and somewhat controversial [2][18][19][20][21][22].
It seems that this difficulty in conceptualizing the concept is associated with a wide variety of practices in the sharing economy [23], as well as the lack of generally accepted criteria for its definition. In a broad sense, the sharing economy includes shared consumption (sharing apartments, cars), shared lifestyles (coworking, cohabitation, shared housing), co-financing (crowdfunding, peer-to-peer exchange and cash lending, alternative currencies), and related production (digital manufacturing, 3D printers, etc.) [24]. The most clear and comprehensive definitions, on our opinion, are those proposed by Munoz and Cohen [25] and Wang and Ho [26], defining the sharing economy as (1) “a socio-economic system that provides an intermediary set of exchanges of goods and services between individuals and organizations, which are aimed at increasing efficiency and optimizing the resources used in society” and as (2) “…an emerging social and technological phenomenon based on developments in information and communications technology (ICT) that implies the collaborative consumption of physical, virtual, and intellectual goods”.
Among the methodological concepts, within the framework of which the sharing economy develops, the following can be distinguished. Cost minimization and the formation of new transaction methods are in line with the theory of transaction costs [27]. Analyzing the sharing economy, Gibbs et al. [28] used the theory of hedonic prices, since the prices of goods and services in the sharing economy depend not only on the product itself, but also on its characteristics. The logic of the service economy, according to Heo [7], is the most relevant for explaining the phenomenon of the sharing economy. In the work of Cheng [29], sharing economics is considered from the standpoint of the theory of social presence and the methodology of multilevel analysis. A social presence that builds trust between people is a fundamental element in ensuring the proper functioning of the sharing economy. For disclosing the relationship between service providers (agents) and authorities (principals), agent management theory is important [30]. The networking concept underpins research on the sharing economy through social networks [31]. Pricing in the sharing economy can also be viewed from the perspective of dynamic pricing [32]. Institutional theory is extremely relevant for the study of sharing economics, due to the presence of different types of stakeholders, low levels of trust, the presence of ethical dilemmas, and undeveloped institutional structures [33][34].
Kim and co-authors [35] used social capital theory to study the impact on other stakeholders, particularly in the tourism industry. Since the conclusions about the role of the sharing economy in sustainable development are ambiguous, the theory of the transition to sustainable development is of great importance for the study of the sharing economy [36].
The practices of joint consumption are far from new; however, in combination with digitalization, its tools, and the consequences of the formation of a networked information society, they give rise to completely new forms of ownership, models of labor organization, and exchange, which, according to some experts, will “cost” USD 335 billion by 2025 (it was USD 15 billion in 2015) [37].

2.2. Perception of the Sharing Economy GAP and Research Framework

A significant number of scientific works are devoted to the study of the factors influencing the perception of the sharing economy in the minds of consumers, while there is no unambiguous understanding of which factors are key in this process in various socio-economic conditions. Most researchers rightly believe that user perception in general is related to their motivation. Perception determines the change in motives, as well as their weakening or strengthening among users and producers in the sharing economy. Hamari et al. [38] and Hellwig et al. [39] highlight ideological and economic factors. Davidson et al. [40] emphasize the diversity of motives (convenience, flexibility, interaction, local authenticity, economic benefit) and perceptions of the participants. Pisano et al. [41] show that participation in the sharing economy practices, on the one hand, is based on trust, but, on the other hand, can change the perception and thinking of users towards increased transparency, openness, collaboration, and sharing. Acquier et al. [2] and Möhlmann [42] consider extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. At the same time, Chung and Lee [43] emphasize the importance and prevalence of extrinsic motivation, since utilitarian and hedonistic motivation, as well as perceived trust, have a positive effect on consumer propensity [44]. Barnes and Mattsson [45] highlight economic, environmental, political, social, and technological factors that influence consumer perception. Rebiazina with co-authors [46] explain the attitudes and expectations of participants in the sharing economy by socio-technological, economic-political, and personal groups of factors, emphasizing that perception largely depends on the socio-demographic and psychological characteristics of the participants, as well as the sphere of the sharing economy.
The perception of participants can be quite rational from an economic point of view, on the basis of the possibility of obtaining benefits from lower prices and reducing transaction costs, as well as the realization that it is meaningless to invest in expensive goods for limited use. At the same time, attitudes are not always based on financial incentives. Changing cultural and social norms towards sustainable consumption fosters a positive perception. At the same time, a significant proportion of consumers attribute environmental benefits to the sharing economy and believe that such practices contribute to strengthening social ties [47]. It is probably the case that millennials are readier for a positive perception of new ways of consumption; moreover, this is due not only to the evolution of consumption patterns from generation to generation, but is also an additional consequence of the more intensive dissemination of digital practices among them, creating reputation and rating online mechanisms and reducing risks in consumer perception.
Investigating the factors that determine the context of sensitivity of consumers to sharing services based on empirical evidence is extremely important from several points of view. Firstly, such an analysis makes it possible to understand the prospects for the development of the sharing economy in various socio-economic conditions, and secondly, the identification of key factors allows us to customize the marketing strategy of the sharing services. Finally, “working” with each factor that determines the consumer attitude to the sharing economy, individuals are able to strengthen the existing drivers and level the existing barriers.
There is a quite limited number of studies focused on difference in perception of the sharing economy depending on personal characteristics of respondents. Interesting research was conducted by the group of researchers within EU H2020 project, i.e., “Millennials and the Sharing Economy: European Perspectives” [48]. The authors of the report state that Millennials show “divergent consumption patterns when compared to older generations”. They also refer to other researchers as Xu et al. [49] or Klein and Smart [50], who have concluded that Millennials are less likely to be homeowners and are more likely to choose public or shared transportation over owning their own car. There are also other studies confirming that Millennials are most likely engaged in the sharing economy activities than older generations. For instance, a survey in North America based on the answers of 1000 adults revealed that “Millennials were almost three times as likely to use a space to stay, like Airbnb, or use professional services, like tax preparation, than people ages 35 and older” [51]. Thus, we can assume that the age is one of the dominant factors determining the intention for engagement in the sharing economy.
The results of the research conducted by Buda [52] revealed that “openness” to the sharing economy services is influences by socio-economic characteristics such as “economic status” (openness is overrepresented among active workers and students), “generation” (representatives of Y and Z generations are much more open to using sharing economy services; the Baby Boomers refuse sharing economy services), and education. In this study, gender was not a determining factor. However, other researchers state that women are more motivated to participate in the sharing economy [39][53][54].

References

  1. European Commission. A European Agenda for the Collaborative Economy. 2016. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0356 (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  2. Acquier, A.; Daudigeos, T.; Pinkse, J. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 1–10.
  3. Loh, P.; Agyeman, J. Urban food sharing and the emerging Boston food solidarity economy. Geoforum 2019, 99, 213–222.
  4. Miller, E. Solidarity Economy: Key Concepts and Issues. In Solidarity Economy I: Building Alternatives for People and Planet; Center for Popular Economics: Amherst, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 25–41.
  5. Kawano, E. Solidarity economy: Building an economy for people and planet. In The New Systems Reader; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; pp. 285–302.
  6. Reinhold, S.; Dolnicar, S. The sharing economy. In Peer to Peer Accommodation Networks: Pushing the boundaries; Goodfellow Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2018; p. 15.
  7. Heo, C.Y. Sharing economy and prospects in tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 58, 166–170.
  8. Bellotti, V.; Ambard, A.; Turner, D.; Gossmann, C.; Demkova, K.; Carroll, J.M. A muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; pp. 1085–1094.
  9. Shepherd, S.; Matherly, T. Racialization of peer-to-peer transactions: Inequality and barriers to legitimacy. J. Consum. Aff. 2020, 55, 417–444.
  10. Cohen, M.; Sundararajan, A. Self-regulation and innovation in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. U. Chi. L. Rev. Dialogue 2015, 82, 116.
  11. Lampinen, A.; Bellotti, V.; Monroy-Hernández, A.; Cheshire, C.; Samuel, A. Studying the” Sharing Economy” Perspectives to Peer-to-Peer Exchange. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February 2015; pp. 117–121.
  12. Selloni, D. New forms of economies: Sharing economy, collaborative consumption, peer-to-peer economy. In Codesign for Public-Interest Services; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 15–26.
  13. Schlagwein, D.; Schoder, D.; Spindeldreher, K. Consolidated, systemic conceptualization, and definition of the “sharing economy”. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 71, 817–838.
  14. Strahilevitz, L.J.; Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale Law J. 2007, 116, 1472.
  15. Chase, R. Peers Inc: How People and Platforms Are Inventing the Collaborative Economy and Reinventing Capitalism. 2015. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Peers-Inc-Collaborative-Reinventing-Capitalism-ebook/dp/B00TT1VTA6 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  16. Gutiérrez, J.; García-Palomares, J.C.; Romanillos, G.; Salas-Olmedo, M.H. The eruption of Airbnb in tourist cities: Comparing spatial patterns of hotels and peer-to-peer accommodation in Barcelona. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 278–291.
  17. Hossain, M. Sharing Economy: A Comprehensive Literature Review. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 87, 102470.
  18. Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600.
  19. Breidbach, C.F.; Brodie, R.J. Engagement platforms in the sharing economy. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2017, 27, 761–777.
  20. Bucher, E.; Fieseler, C.; Lutz, C. What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee)—Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated sharing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 316–326.
  21. Görög, G. The Definitions of Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Management 2018, 175–189.
  22. Roy, M. Sharing economy and sustainability. Sustain. Dev. Strateg. 2021, 167–188.
  23. Herbert, M.; Collin-Lachaud, I. Collaborative practices and consumerist habitus: An analysis of the transformative mechanisms of collaborative consumption. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2017, 32, 40–60.
  24. Schor, J. Debating the sharing economy. J. Self-Gov. Manag. Econ. 2016, 4, 7–22.
  25. Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 21–37.
  26. Wang, Y.-B.; Ho, C.-W. No Money? No Problem! The Value of Sustainability: Social Capital Drives the Relationship among Customer Identification and Citizenship Behavior in Sharing Economy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1400.
  27. Akbar, Y.H.; Tracogna, A. The sharing economy and the future of the hotel industry: Transaction cost theory and platform economics. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 91–101.
  28. Gibbs, C.; Guttentag, D.; Gretzel, U.; Morton, J.; Goodwill, A. Pricing in the sharing economy: A hedonic pricing model applied to Airbnb listings. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 46–56.
  29. Cheng, M. Current sharing economy media discourse in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 60, 111–114.
  30. Cohen, B.; Muñoz, P. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production: Towards an integrated framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 87–97.
  31. Geiger, A.; Horbel, C.; Germelmann, C.C. “Give and take”: How notions of sharing and context determine free peer-to-peer accommodation decisions. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 5–15.
  32. Gibbs, C.; Guttentag, D.; Gretzel, U.; Yao, L.; Morton, J. Use of dynamic pricing strategies by Airbnb hosts. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 2–20.
  33. Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. Ethics in the Sharing Economy: Creating a Legitimate Marketing Channel. J. Mark. Channels 2017, 24, 84–96.
  34. Mair, J.; Reischauer, G. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 11–20.
  35. Kim, S.; Lee, K.Y.; Koo, C.; Yang, S.-B. Examining the influencing factors of intention to share accommodations in online hospitality exchange networks. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 16–31.
  36. Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159.
  37. Cheng, M. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70.
  38. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059.
  39. Hellwig, K.; Morhart, F.; Girardin, F.; Hauser, M. Exploring Different Types of Sharing: A Proposed Segmentation of the Market for “Sharing” Businesses. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 891–906.
  40. Davidson, A.; Habibi, M.R.; Laroche, M. Materialism and the sharing economy: A cross-cultural study of American and Indian consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 364–372.
  41. Pisano, P.; Pironti, M.; Rieple, A. Identify Innovative Business Models: Can Innovative Business Models Enable Players to React to Ongoing or Unpredictable Trends? Entrep. Res. J. 2015, 5.
  42. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207.
  43. Chung, N.; Lee, H. Sharing economy in geotag: What are the travelers’ goals sharing their locations by using geotags in social network sites during the tour? Int. J. Tour. Cities 2016, 2, 125–136.
  44. Amirkiaee, S.Y.; Evangelopoulos, N. Why do people rideshare? An experimental study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 55, 9–24.
  45. Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, J. Understanding collaborative consumption: Test of a theoretical model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 118, 281–292.
  46. Rebiazina, A.V.; Berezka, S.M.; Antonova, N.G. Consumer’s attitude to the sharing economy in Russia. Russ. Manag. J. 2020, 18, 255–278.
  47. ING International. ING International Special Report on the Sharing Economy. 2015. Available online: https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/European-sharing-economy-to-grow-by-a-third-in-the-next-12-months.htm (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  48. Ranzini, G.; Newlands, G.; Anselmi, G.; Andreotti, A.; Eichhorn, T.; Etter, M.; Hoffmann, C.P.; Jurss, S.; Lutz, C. Millennials and the Sharing Economy: European Perspectives. SSRN Electron. J. 2017.
  49. Xu, Y.; Johnson, C.; Bartholomae, S.; O’Neill, B.; Gutter, M.S. Homeownership among Millennials: The Deferred American Dream? Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2015, 44, 201–212.
  50. Klein, N.J.; Smart, M.J. Millennials and car ownership: Less money, fewer cars. Transp. Policy 2017, 53, 20–29.
  51. Kats, R. No One Is More Into the Sharing Economy than Millennials. 2017. Available online: https://www.emarketer.com/Article/No-One-More-Sharing-Economy-than-Millennials/1015886 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
  52. Buda, G.; Pethes, B.; Lehota, J. Dominant Consumer Attitudes in the Sharing Economy—A Representative Study in Hungary. Resources 2019, 9, 1.
  53. Böcker, L.; Meelen, T. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 28–39.
  54. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Tatjana Tambovceva
View Times: 1.2K
Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Jan 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback